Loading...
CC Minutes 2001 02 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Kroskin STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Andrea Poehler, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, and Teresa Burgess Public Present: Name Address Fred Prinz Deb Lloyd Deb King Chuck Gabrielson Josh Ishierka Janet & Jerry Paulsen Carolyn & A1 Krueger Bonnie Labatt Linda Landsman Susan Engh Sherry Ayotte Carmen McMeen Steven Berquist Beth Lehman Keith & Lisa Kupcho Mike Ryan Vernelle Clayton Phil Larsen Jules Smith Mike Zumwinkle Karen Weathers Leah Hawke Rod Franks 408 Santa Fe 7302 Laredo 2351 Lukewood 2600 Arboretum Boulevard 569 Summerfield Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 1600 Lake Lucy Road 3981 Stratford Ridge 7329 Frontier Trail Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church, Excelsior Cascade Pass 9391 Foxford Road 7207 Frontier Trail 7194 Frontier Trail 7723 Frontier Trail 2595 Southern Court 422 Santa Fe Circle 6493 Nez Perce Drive Metropolitan Council 7250 Hillsdale Court 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 7444 Moccasin Trail 8694 Mary Jane Circle Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Welcome. Before we get started this evening, as you can see we have a rather large crowd here this evening so if we could just establish a few rules of procedure if we could during the meeting. We have a lot of people here I'm sure that are rather passionate about their issues. We want to encourage people to be able to comment and hopefully in the course of the meeting we can hold any, be it applause or hissing if you would, or comments on any of the speakers, it would certainly be appreciated that we keep things hospitable in the course of the meeting so with that said, appreciate everyone being here this evening. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: Moving on to public announcements. I have a statement that I'd like to read. In light of today's notoriety that we received in the metropolitan paper. An attempt was made today in the Star Tribune to typecast Chanhassen as elitist. The editorial was in fact inaccurate and misleading. It's important to note that Chanhassen has been meeting our housing goals with the Metropolitan Council and is presently working with them on an unrelated project. This unfortunate and untimely attempt, I'm sorry, untimely attack on our community could unjustifiably jeopardize our relationship with the Met Council and put future negotiations at risk. Since this council has only been in office for 43 days, we have not had an opportunity to discuss the strategies we will pursue to provide life cycle housing in Chanhassen. All members are aware of this issue and stand ready to serve the best interest of this community. We are responsible for following the comprehensive plan, city ordinances and listening to our residents. The 1997 community survey will be updated during the second quarter of this year to poll our residents for their opinions on community issues. Housing issues will be included in that survey. We are also acting to organize a community housing forum so our residents can be informed and educated about our housing needs and review and comment on Chanhassen's current housing goals. There were numerous inaccuracies in the Star Tribune article. A couple of them include, and I won't address all of them. In fact I'll start with the Pulte Homes rezoning and land use plan amendment that was initially denied in concept review was due to the fact that it did not meet specific criteria in city ordinances as was stated by members of the previous City Council directed that rental homes needed to be removed. In fact the City has no authority to control whether homes are rental or ownership. The Star Tribune also suggested that voters ousted the previous mayor because she pushed for a wider variety of housing in Chanhassen. In fact townhomes and apartments weren't an issue of great discussion. What Chanhassen residents were very concerned and very vocal about was the leadership of this community being responsible to them and not to the Met Council. Relationships with the Met Council and participation on the Mayors Affordable Housing Task Force were perceived to be hidden from the public. Those were issues during the election, not whether or not we were going to provide life cycle housing. Every member of this council has voiced a commitment to serve this community's best interest. We have to balance Chanhassen's goals rather than making them mutually exclusive. Personal, self serving agendas cannot be allowed to divide our community. Whoever is responsible for this divisive and misleading assault on this community does not have Chanhassen's best interest at heart. Chanhassen residents should not tolerate this divisive behavior. The campaign season is over. As community leaders we're charged with deciding what is in the best interest of this entire community, participating with our residents to make that determination. That does not mean that one goal must be sacrificed at the expense of another. As your mayor I encourage all of our residents to unite and work together for the common good. We're in this for Chanhassen. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #2001-07: Resolution Changing City Council meeting start time from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. c. Approval of Lake Ann Beach Contract for Lifeguard Services. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Resolution #2001-08: Receive Feasibility Report for Century Boulevard Project No. 97-1C; Call for a Public Hearing. e. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 16, 2000 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 27, 2000 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 11, 2000 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 29, 2001 -City Council Minutes dated January 11,2001 -City Council Minutes dated January 22, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2001 Request to Rezone property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential for property located at 1916 Crestview Circle, Tory Walton. Appointment to Chanhassen Library Building Committee. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. APPOINTMENT OF MARK KROSKIN TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Mayor Jansen: Can I have a motion please on l(g)? Councilman Ayotte: I so move to appoint Mr. Mark Kroskin to the City Council. Mayor Jansen: A second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to appoint Mark Kroskin to the City Council. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARK & TRAIL DEDICATION FEES. Councilman Peterson: The only question I've got was, what increase was that over from the previous year? What's the previous amount? I couldn't figure out an increase. Todd Hoffman: The dollar amount? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Todd Hoffman: On the chart on the second page it says recommended Chanhassen and then the current Chanhassen. $400 park increase and a trail increase. Councilman Peterson: Has that amount been budgeted or not? Is this kind of new revenue for us if we do the increase? Todd Hoffman: New revenue. Councilman Peterson: Okay. That's it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, comfortable? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay, can I have a motion for approval of item l(b)? Councilman Labatt: Move approval. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Resolution #2001-09: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve a Resolution Establishing Park and Trail Dedication Fees as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. OATH OF OFFICE: Andrea Poehler performed the Oath of Office to Mark Kroskin as a council member for the City of Chanhassen. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: Under visitor presentations I would like to recognize, and I did not see him when I came in, Nick Olson. Is Nick with us this evening? If you might stand up so we could recognize you. I received a letter from Nick, and I'm going to read your letter if you don't mind. I am in the Chanhassen Boy Scout Troop 330 and my current rank is First Class. I am working towards the Citizenship in the Community merit badge to advance to Star in rank. One of the requirements is to write a letter to the mayor about a suggestion I have to help the community. We live in a development called the Oaks, which is just north of the Stone Creek development. Our street is called Lukewood Drive. There is a path going through the woods to the Oaks to Stone Creek. After ~ of the trail there is a steep steps that leads down to a bridge and then back up a hill. I think before the steps there should be sign put to say, Caution, Steep Steps. The signs would protect people who are jogging or biking from falling down the stairs. I know of at least one person who was not aware of the steep steps and did fall. I respectfully present this concern to the City of Chanhassen. Thank you for your consideration. And we've passed your letter along to our Parks and Rec Department to address that issue and we appreciate your bringing this to our attention Nick and good luck on your badge. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Scott Botcher: Keep in mind that as you're looking for an Eagle Scout project, that would be a good one. For what it's worth. I'm an Eagle Scout just for what it's worth. I'm watching you. No, congratulations. I appreciate it. Mayor Jansen: If there's anyone in the audience then that would like to address the council under visitor presentations, you're certainly welcome to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail. I just want to understand the procedure tonight. The Puke project is under new business. It's not under public hearings and I want to know what you're going to allow for speakers insofar as in previous council meetings you had intimated that you may be trying to minimize public input and rely on Planning Commission minutes. Mayor Jansen: I certainly appreciate your bringing that up and I did mean to bring that up as I address the procedures for the evening. As Mr. Berquist did state, we are using the minutes from the Planning Commission for the general comments on projects that were held in public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. Realizing that this is an issue that's of concern to the public, we will at the time that we get to the Puke project, open it up for about 30 minutes of public comment and request that everyone keep their comments, out of respect for everyone else, to 3 to 5 minutes. And that's how we're planning on handling the Puke section of the agenda. If that answers your question Mr. Berquist. Steve Berquist: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: You're welcome. Anyone else liking to address the council? Okay, seeing no one we will move onto our, oh. Susan Engh: Susan Engh, pastor at Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church in Excelsior. Just another question about procedure. When we get to the part about Livable Communities Act, will there also be an opportunity for public input or will that be just to the council? Mayor Jansen: We can certainly provide a few moments for conversation on that since you do bring that up. Susan Engh: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Why don't we, anybody else before I jump too quick. Okay. Why don't we move onto unfinished business. DISCUSSION OF ROUNDHOUSE RESTORATION PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Jansen and members of the City Council. The last City Council meeting the council asked for additional information regarding the renovation project at the round house at Roundhouse Park. If you've read the staff report I really have nothing further to add. I think we're at a point where council needs to discuss how they'd like to move forward and direct staff in that regard. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. We'll bring this back to council. As Todd stated, they've gotten back to us with the information that we requested in the last meeting. The main considerations for the council this evening are directing staff as to how we would like this project handled going forward. We had discussed during the last meeting, turning it back to the Parks and Rec Commission if in fact we want to turn it back City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 over for more public comment and review. But direction should certainly be given as to the budget that we would be looking to. Have the city potentially address on this project. So with that, if council has comments. Scott Botcher: And maybe I'll just refresh, maybe and I don't know Mark if you're aware of this or not but I'll give you the cliff note version real fast. Originally there was $40,000 in the budget, capital budget for this project. It was subsequently increased to $80,000. Todd has bid the project twice, and I'm sure you all have probably received copies of the same e-mails I got today before the virus hit. There was one of the letter writers I think that I got from you Linda, you forwarded it that questioned whether or not we had gone to bid on this and we've actually done it twice. And the bids have come in substantially higher than even the $80,000 number. And so I guess in a nutshell Mark that's where we are financially. Councilman Kroskin: I had a question. Was there $40,000 that was raised during the '97 park and trail referendum? Is that part of the money? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Councilman Kroskin: Okay. And then the other $40,000 was CIP for the year 2000? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Kroskin: Okay. And so that's where the full 80 is coming from. Alright. Mayor Jansen: And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned in one of our last meetings the park and trail referendum budget ran over the amount of the referendum, correct? That was overspent. Todd Hoffman: Yes. Mayor Jansen: So virtually that fund is unavailable as far as the $40,000 there as a funding source. We'd be looking to the CIP currently. Todd Hoffman: Park and trail dedication fees. Scott Botcher: Todd had recommended somewhere in the report a transfer. I think it said in this report. That is meant to offset that deficient position whereby then you can move ahead if you wanted to with the $80,000 that's contemplated. That still leaves the question above the 80 but that gets you to 80. Mayor Jansen: And then also in addition in the last meeting I think we spoke to the fact that $20,000 has already been spent on this project. Scott Botcher: About, approximately. Mayor Jansen: For the engineering fees I believe it was. Okay, so $20,000 has already been spent. Councilman Ayotte: May I? Mayor Jansen: Certainly. If you want to pull your microphone closer so people can hear please. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry. If the numbers are going in the right direction, and I've received a number of e-mails, however. Based on our financial situation, the only thing that I'm interested in doing at this point is stopping the degradation and then charging parks and rec to figure out a better way of skinning the cat. I'm prepared to go no more than $15,000 to arrest the degradation. To stop the water from coming in and to carten off the area to deal with the concern, the environmental concern. Beyond that I'm not interested in moving much beyond that point. I'm very concerned over the fact that we have a $20,000 design effort that quoted, or referenced I think it was about a $280 per square foot cost, and in this environment I don't think that's acceptable so I think we ought to do everything we can to save it. I think we should move forward to stop the degradation and to carten off the area so that we don't have any concern for the lead chips and ask Park and Rec to come up with a better way of skinning the cat. Mayor Jansen: And just so I clearly understand, you would put a cap on any additional spending of $15,0007 Councilman Ayotte: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Councilman Ayotte. Anyone else with comments? Councilman Labatt: I'll share mine. Somewhat along the same lines as Bob, although I'd like to even look at it further back to the Park and Rec Commission to do, and I wish I would have brought the e-mail from the lady that I can give her credit for the idea. But similar to what the folks in Excelsior did with the steamship Minnehaha when they pulled that up from the bottom of Lake Minnetonka and they used private funds and fundraising and it sat dormant for a while but they utilized a great resource there to keep a historic piece and I'm not, once you tear it down it's gone and I'm not one to do that yet. I'd like to see what the Park and Recreation Commission can come up with. Fundraising and maybe neighborhood input and work that out over there. So, but I'm okay with Bob's stopping the degradation. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Do you have a dollar amount for the city's funding in mind? Councilman Labatt: Well I guess we've got $40,000 in the CIP that we've already allocated to it. I'm okay with leaving $40,000 in there. Mayor Jansen: We've spent 20. Councilman Labatt: Well, I'm okay with leaving 20 in. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So capping it at an additional 20 so that the total is 40? Councilman Labatt: The 20 we've spent, is that already out of the 40 from the CIP or is that out of some other fund? Mayor Jansen: Well that would be a determination that we would in fact make but $20,000 in funds have been spent towards the project. Todd Hoffman: It's actually slightly less than that. The architectural contract was $11,000. $7,000 for lead base paint and asbestos $780 so, and some other miscellaneous costs. Scott Botcher: But those are not general fund monies. Those are the referendum park and trail so. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Right. So now you're correcting the 20 to more like 15, is what you're saying? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So actually you could put a total cap, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're comfortable with the 40 total with what's been spent and getting up to 40. Councilman Labatt: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Anyone else? Councilman Kroskin: I guess I see of the 80 there's approximately $25,000 left. I'm willing to allow that to be spent on it and I'd like to see, you know I agree with Councilman Labatt and Councilman Ayotte. I'd like to see where the rubber meets the road with the community as far as raising the necessary funds to get this restored, if that in fact is what the community wants. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson: Well Madam Mayor, I'm I guess not that dissimilar. I'd like to have the building remain. I don't think that I want to spend $140,000 to do that. I don't see the utility value being that substantial. I mean it's going to be a warming house. I can't see it being used in the summer extensively just because of the structure. You just don't get a lot of people that want to go inside in an enclosed building then. And as far as utility value for a warming house, we've got a 2 story building that we're going to be heating which based upon the monthly cost that all of us are experiencing right now, and if that number doesn't go down for the cost of fuel, it's going to be a substantial cost just to warm it. So I don't know if it's, I'm not ready to say an additional 15 or an additional number because we didn't really ask that question as to what it would cost to stop the degradation. Give the community an opportunity to raise money so I'm not really ready to say that $15,000 will do it. If maybe up to $15,000 which is logical money wise. If it takes 5, let's not spend 15. Councilman Ayotte: So a not to exceed. Mayor Jansen: Did you have a comment Scott? Scott Botcher: Well Steve likes my picture here. My only question is this, and you can send it back to Park and Rec but I would hope that, part of me says that if we do 15, to pick a number we've spent $35,000 and we still don't know what to do with it. And maybe I'm just being an old Norwegian but it's, and I think the idea of throwing it out to the community and saying if you want to save this, put up or shut up, is sort of what you're all saying. I think it's a good idea. But I think you need to consider that if we get to a date certain where nothing happens we've got to be honest with ourselves and say you know, this building, which is not, to me it's not a historic building. It's an old building they moved there and cut windows into and cut doors into and everything else. It doesn't have much utility, maybe we shouldn't spend city money on it. So I'm not opposed to that but just understand that I'd hate to just avoid putting off a decision because we sort of have warm fuzzies for this old thing without a date certain saying okay, this is the date. For what it's worth. I think Park and Rec's job is difficult to try to figure out how to skin the cat so to speak. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Well and what I am hearing is if these additional funds are going to be spent, they need to be spent physically on the building and not on additional planning so if we're rolling up to actually doing plans with community input, I'm hearing that this needs to be a functioning warming house that the $15,000 or up to 40 total, depending on where we end up, needs to be applied to the building to have it become a warming house with additional funding and volunteer work coming from the community. Am I summarizing that appropriately? Councilman Ayotte: No more studies. Scott Botcher: And I understood Bob's comment is, let's just create some stability with the building. Let's just not lose the building. That's what Bob, if I'm reading you right, is suggesting that we buy with the 15 grand. And that's great. But then I think what we need to say okay at some point, because you know Bob. He runs buildings. That 15 grand will stop it from degradating only for so long. And then you're going to have the same problem again and you would have spent 15 grand plus the 20 grand, you'll be back in the same position and I don't think that's a wise use of the money. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Hoffman. Todd Hoffman: The only thing we'll do if we want to take this back to the Park and Recreation Commission is put that fence up around the building. We're not going to be able to do that until we can drive a fence pole into the ground. So by the time we get done with the public hearings, or neighborhood input meetings at the park commission, we will not have spent a penny and we can report back to the park commission. Mayor Jansen: In approximately 60 days? Todd Hoffman: Sure. Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Is that enough time? Todd Hoffman: And then when the ground thaws enough to put a fence up around it so we can alleviate the concerns over the lead paint on the exterior, then we'll do that and then that building will either be renovated through a neighborhood/city effort or razed. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to make one additional comment because I don't want to be tainted as being warm and fuzzy. Scott Botcher: I would never suggest that. Councilman Ayotte: But regardless of to go forward because there is the abatement requirement, lead based paint and so on, so if we were to take it down, we'd still have to address those issues. That's why I feel that it makes sense to keep the structure up, arrest the degradation, protect the public and that's my thought process. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I think that takes care of it and we'll hear back in 60 days. Do we need any sort of a motion or did you just need direction at this point? Scott Botcher: Direction works for me. City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY, AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL; PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES, AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE; LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41; ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Madam Mayor and council members. What I'd like to do first is kind of frame up my portion of the discussion what I'd like to go through. Included in your packet is an executive summary. That's the format that you've requested that the staff look at. This is a very complicated issue. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: The second attachment is the update that went to the Planning Commission. And the third attachment is the original staff report. Unfortunately the changes that were made to the staff report was not the one that you received in your packet. I did hand out those changes and I'll go through those briefly tonight. So the developer is here, available for questions. I've asked him to just be prepared to answer questions. They will not be making a presentation so I'm going to keep my format just to the executive summary. The salient points. If you have specific questions I'd be happy to answer them. IfI need assistance then I would call upon the developer. Councilman Ayotte: Can everybody hear her? Audience: Not real well. Kate Aanenson: Project area. Arboretum Village, the developer Pulte Homes. Approximately 120 acres gross. The developer is asking for 379 units consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes and village homes on a net density of less than, on the 120, approximately 89.5 and also commercial on 2.94 acres of property. This project has 6 different requests before you. A comprehensive plan and preliminary planned unit development, a subdivision, a site plan review, wetland alteration permit, environmental assessment worksheet and a conditional use permit. This process began with the city in the summer of 1999. As you are aware this area was brought into the city's MUSA area, urban services in the year 2000. Development is being driven by the frontage road alignment and the provision of municipal services being brought to the site. The developer has been hard working with the city in trying to meet some of the goals. Again the most westerly portion of this area in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the acquisition of the right-of-way for West 78th Street was not included in the original project so everything west of Century Boulevard is being dedicated by the developer. I'll go through more specifics on the density and that allocation in a minute. As this project evolved, and when it originally came in, what you have also seen in your packet, we worked hard to get product diversity which is a goal of the city under the housing goals is 10 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 try to get different product. We worked hard to get 4 different styles in 4 different price ranges. While 41% of the project is the affordable, a purchase price of under $134,250, there's no mechanism in place to guarantee that these homes have a minimum price value. Again this is market driven. There's no screening of applicants for those price points. Again the goal is to provide that opportunity. Early in the process, over a year ago we met with Westwood Church when we learned that they were buying the property. School District 112 and the developer to try to work that out. The original vision for this property was either medium density, I'm talking at the comer of Highway 41 and Highway 5, for institutional use, industrial use or medium density. So when we learned that the school district was looking for another elementary site and that Westwood was looking at the 67 acres a site, we tried hard to collaborate some shared opportunities for the school, maybe working with Westwood, moving people around. We spent several hours negotiating, looking at positives. As it turned out, it seemed unlikely that the objectives of the different parties could be met. So Puke retained ownership of their property. Westwood maintained ownership of their property, which is the property just west of this site on 41. The recently adopted Bluff Creek Overlay District, when we pointed this out with the primary zone, allows for density transfer. The only way to transfer the density is to up zone the property. Is consistent with the comprehensive plan as stated as far as number of units. But in the current zoning there's only 3 zoning options and those are the 15,000 square foot minimum, the twin homes or the PUD with 11,000 square foot. Our goal has always been as stated to the developer that we want to preserve that area, 11 acres in the primary zone. Again the tool wasn't in place. That's what forced the request by the staff to up zone the property. We had to go to the medium density to allow for cluster zoning. The PUD ordinance specifically states in Section 20-508 that single family attached cluster, zero lot lines and similar dwellings can only be allowed on property zoned medium or high density. Therefore precipitated the request to re-guide the property. The Park and Recreation Commission made a recommendation to accept full park and trail fees. Again this is an estimate based on the number of units would be approximately half a million dollars. And that would be at a 2000, year 2000 rate. In lieu of fees certainly there's other options. You can require land dedication. Again there's looking at the formulas it may be approximately 8 to 11 units to an acre. One of the things that the Planning Commission looked at too is the possibility of in that area where there's tree that we're trying to preserve adjacent to Highway 5, is using some of the park and trail fees to possibly buy some of those trees. In looking at that again the developer has provided the open space as requested by the Park Commission so this would be in lieu of taking park and trail fees is buying additional trees. The density transfer as far as the right-of-way for West 78th Street, as indicated west of Century Boulevard, is being developed, dedicated by the developer. The only thing the developer's responsible for is a local street at 60 foot right-of-way so density could be given to the developer, which we've done in other circumstances, in excess of that. The nexus is only require, the benefit to that road goes beyond this development. The PUD ordinance allows for private streets and that street, this street is shown as a private street. The way our ordinance reads is that if it's a private street you can use it for density. If it's a public street, you don't get to use it for density. The developer did put in a public street. He could certainly take that out. I showed different zoning. The narrowest interpretation, or the broadest interpretation that you may want to give that which would affect density and that is on page 7 of the staff report. Of that last staff report. Mayor Jansen: Of the new one? Kate Aanenson: Of the new one, correct. Again going through there's the executive summary. The second packet is the Planning Commission updates. The information they were studying. Kind of their salient points. And that third attachment, page 7 goes through the scenarios under the density transfer for road right-of-way. But again the city has used this in the PUD ordinance in the past. So this project is also being assessed for Bluff Creek project. Bluff Creek, the 7 and 8 project as proposed. The assessments will be about a half million dollars. Again the assessments, the project is a fixed number so depending on how 11 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 many units that gets it fixed. And if there's additional park space that would affect some of the adjustments. I just want to make sure everybody's clear on that. Some of the assessment numbers. Councilman Ayotte: Actually that's $464,000. Kate Aanenson: Approximately, yes. 100. Then also the Planning Commission spent numerous meetings going through, pushing up the architecture. They actually asked for additional changes. Included in your packet were also the changes they want specifically identified in the design standards which are included with the adoption of this project which include design standards. Specifically they wanted additional architectural detail and percentage of brick called out so there wouldn't be any changes based on representation of pictures. Those are all called out in the attachments and become part of the design summary. This project holds in abeyance that commercial piece. That 2.9 acres. That would come back at a later date. We put the design standards in here. It's left in an outlot. That would come back at a later date for design review. But the design standards that are in place in this document is what this developer will be held to. So the Planning Commission spent a lot of time resolving that. They also recommended 6 to 0 six motions that are in the staff report. Again just a final follow-up as far as the density and the park and trail fees. There's one option to accomplish that. We're looking at the Bluff Creek, trying to resolve maybe transferring some of the density back or taking some of the park and trail fees and buying some of the additional which the Planning Commission had also discussed too. Additional park land or some of the treed areas. With that the project does need some minor modifications which we outlined in the staff report. Some tweaking on some of the wetland setbacks, especially up in the northeast comer .... we believe those can all be accomplished with minor modifications and this would come back before this council for final plat approval to show you that they've met those conditions. So you would see that again with the preliminary approval. With that I've included in your packet the motions. All six motions and again if you have any specific questions I'd be happy to answer those. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Kate. I actually have a couple in regards to some changes that have occurred since we saw this in the concept review. You touched upon one of them in regards to that stand of trees that is along Highway 5. In the original concept review it stayed 100% intact and the proposal that we have before us this evening in fact takes out about 50% of that stand of trees. You mentioned that the Planning Commission of course, and we saw that within the minutes, had some conversation around using the park dedication fees in order to protect that stand and actually purchase that property. Has there been conversation with the developer as to the ability to do that? Kate Aanenson: Yes there has. I think part of the compression back into the trees was a result of trying to provide this larger open space in this area. That pushed some of those units back. The original concept plan also had that L design and what we were concerned about was the view from Highway 5. We wanted to narrow that so it didn't add to the bulk so we wanted the narrowness of the building to give a good view. Also provided nicer space between the units because these units all look into a green space as opposed to the L so we felt that was superior but by elongating them it pushed them back into the trees. So the Planning Commission discussed you know the importance of that and that's why they came back and said maybe it'd be better to lose some of those units in the treed areas in some power through the compensation and eliminate some of the units so that was one of their options. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because that is a concern and that was an issue that of course all 5 council people a year ago really focused on was the preservation of that part of this project, just because that is such a major stand. The other focus piece that we discussed at length a year ago was the comer interest and the fact that the Highway 5 corridor study does designate this comer as the gateway into the community, and of 12 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 course we carried on at length about how to protect that view shed as you come into Chanhassen. The concept review plan had a much larger pond with a fountain and a boulder retaining wall that at least gave it some interest and the Highway 5 corridor study actually suggests the preservation and restoration possibility of the wetland on that comer, which of course was delineated as part of the EAW. Has there been any further discussion? I mean obviously this has gone away from that concept and has there been discussion about being able to add that interest on that comer? Kate Aanenson: I'm confident the developer would be willing to put trees in. That's kind of what we went back to the Planning Commission was some concern about a fountain at that location. I did meet with Peter Olin at the Arboretum. The Arboretum is contemplating a fountain on the other side. Sometimes those can be a problem on that busy of an intersection. Maintenance. Attractive nuisance sort of issue. The direction we steered the developer is going back to the study that Bill Morrish at the University of Minnesota looked at and that would be more natural type landscaping. Grove of trees. We do have a plan that was never officially adopted that called out different species of trees at the intersection. I'm confident that was a condition the developer would be happy to come back with some specific plans for your approval on. Mayor Jansen: And actually enhance that comer further? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because it does look like you'd have the potential again of losing some units as you were to expand that out so I didn't know if that was something that had been taken into consideration. Kate Aanenson: I don't know if you'd have to, it's dropping down quite quickly. That was some of the issue too about the viability of some of that. It drops in grade right there too so, but we can look at that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The other point that we had brought up as part of the review was we were looking at doing this transition of density. Since we are rezoning that northern property from single family, which would at this point allow for single family detached or twin homes. The current proposal as it's come back has the twin homes along the northern border, but we had also specifically requested that the eastern boundary also transition with a single family like product as we stepped them up into the density which becomes you know the townhomes as part of the whole rezoning issue. Have you looked at that with the developer at this point? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I believe those, I think the product type itself, if you look at the depth within there to that wetland, I think the product type may be able to be split into two units. They're probably the same type of a dwelling unit. If you end up with the same, it'd just be split. But that's a possibility too. Mayor Jansen: Of putting the twin homes along that eastern border. Kate Aanenson: I'm saying twin homes but not necessarily this twin home. I think those products would be split into twin homes but it might not be the same club home type. Do you follow me on that? Mayor Jansen: Sure. So you're talking about yet another type of housing. Kate Aanenson: Well I think from my understanding it would be the product that's there would just be split instead of a 3 or a... 13 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: What you do is you split so you end up with 2. It'd be the same product and again that's. Mayor Jansen: Yeah I follow you. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's working with the topography and the natural features down to that wetland that I'm not sure that the depth of that club home would fit on that same site. You could make it twin homes by splitting them, or we can look at. Mayor Jansen: So they'd be smaller twin homes? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's my point. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I got you. Those were the 3 questions that I had from the concept review. My other question for you came from the current staff report on the Miss Rosie's Farm. Within there we have a letter from Ms. McAllister where she's withdrawing her agreement to waiving that 300 foot setback, and I'm wondering if you've had that conversation with her because it does appear to still be within the conditions as part of the motion that she would be waiving that 300 feet, and of course she's identified the fact, I know as we went through the whole review of her farm the big issue was trying to avoid her becoming or that farm becoming a nuisance as we're building up around it. So that 300 foot was really to avoid anyone being so close that she then subsequently becomes a nuisance when she's the existing property at this point. Kate Aanenson: The way the Planning Commission addressed that, we knew this project was coming down the pipe as we reviewed the other and we pointed that out to the Planning Commission and we specifically said any single family type. We looked at this project. I did get an opinion from the City Attorney's office based on our definition of what we put in that interim use. 300 feet from any single family. We didn't intend it to be this type of product. Because this is not a single family type product. We also put a condition in there that the developer apprise all property owners of the farm in the area and also that they apprise of the ground home in the area, so that's how the Planning Commission addressed it. And the City Attorney concurred that that was our original interpretation so we knew this project was coming in and if it was something else, then we'd want a greater setback. Mayor Jansen: I guess I'm curious about that interpretation because what we're doing is we're putting more people in closer proximity to it so even if you're living in a single family home or a multi family home, you're going to smell and hear the same issues with the farm. And I just looked at the feedlot regulations that were put in our packet from the county as an example, and of course they're saying 500 feet from residential and they're not getting real specific about single and multi family. Kate Aanenson: There's not concurrence on whether or not there's a feedlot ordinance requirement or not. So there's a difference of opinion on that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright. Council, any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman Ayotte: In the packet, page 8, point 38 where they're talking about the applicant will be responsible for escrow a portion of the cost of the future traffic light. 14 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Was there any discussion with respect to what that breakout would be and what the balance of that amount would be? Who would pay what? Kate Aanenson: Teresa, do you want to answer that? Teresa Burgess: That was a recommendation, that condition was added by the Planning Commission. That was not added by the engineering staff. We concur that there's not a problem with doing that but at this time we do not know what the cost of that traffic light will be because we do not know what year one would become necessary. And as you and I discussed earlier, my recommendation is if the council does want to tie that down, we could tie it down by percentage or the other option would be to say that the properties will be assessed at the time of a traffic signal being placed based on their impact to be determined in a feasibility study at this time. That would allow us to come back and assess those properties based on what they're actually contributing to the cost instead of based on something that we arbitrarily set tonight. Councilman Ayotte: I wasn't asking for arbitrarily setting tonight but to make it a matter of public record so that it is addressed at a future point. Teresa Burgess: And we could certainly address that before the final plat is approved, which is when the developer's agreement would be signed at the same time. And at that time get comfortable giving you a percentage that we could attribute to this development. Kate Aanenson: We have used that same process on other projects we've required environmental or a traffic study on. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Teresa. Any other questions for staff at this point? Otherwise I'm going to open this up for public comment. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, and now we've had quite a few more people join us so just let me repeat myself. Because we have so many individuals here and we certainly recognize that there's some passion around this issue, if we could please try to be as respectful as possible for the speakers because we don't want to inhibit anyone's ability to stand up at the microphone. Heaven knows we're not all public speakers and everyone should have a right to be able to voice their opinions without be it applause or hissing or any comments. If we could just refrain from expressing any opinions and let our speakers speak their minds tonight. We'll hold this to approximately 30 minutes. If everyone could maybe be conscious of everyone else's time to speak and hold their comments to 3 to 5 minutes we would appreciate it. So with that I'll open it up for public comment. If when you approach the podium you could state your name and address for the record please. Steve Berquist: You an old Norsk Scott? Scott Botcher: Am I a? Steve Berquist: You intimated that you were an old Norske. Not as old as I am. Scott Botcher: Yeah, I've got that lefse and lutefisk at home. 15 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail and once again I brought water so I don't go dry which I have a tendency to do. And once again I've written out my comments because I speak better from written comments rather than extemporaneously. I'll keep it brief. The proposed project for the northwest quadrant of Highway 5 and 41 will prove to be a good first test for this, whether this current council will be leaders for the good of the entire community or people who's primary purpose lies in paying off political debt incurred to win an election. To me who has watched this whole thing transpire, this is truly what it boils down to. Those of you sitting out there who were actually elected to serve this community all stated your desires to bring affordable life cycle housing to the city of Chanhassen. I've seen you nod your heads approvingly when talk tums to providing housing opportunities to people who work here and in the surrounding area. You've nodded approvingly when empty nesters, school teachers, factory workers, retail employees and retired folks have been mentioned as examples of those needing affordable housing. So here we are. This is a project before you that has gone through the process. It has gone through the park and rec department and the Park and Rec Commission, which is made up of 7 volunteers from the community. It's gone through the planning department and the Planning Commission which has 7 volunteers from the community. It has been revised and reworked, polished and honed. There's still a little bit to do. It's been hammered and formed. It has finally received seals of approval from all the necessary entities and now it comes to you. The project is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Bluff Creek Watershed ordinance was worked on by 20 to 25 volunteers from the community. This is part of the process. The methods by which this community resource should be protected were defined by these volunteers and then incorporated into an ordinance form for implementation. Those of you with any experience at the city level, any level within the city know the importance of being proactive in a developing community. The Bluff Creek ordinance is a very proactive document that will serve this community well for many years. And again now it comes to you. There are still meetings going on in the Longacres development where this project is being labeled as subsidized housing. Why? After all the communications, all the meetings, why is this untruth continuing to be told? Is it because of a fear of crime? The Carver County Sheriff's Department and the Chanhassen Crime Prevention Specialist have both publicly stated that criminal activity in these types of owner occupied units are no higher than in neighborhoods like Sunrise Hills or Minnewashta Heights or Longacres. Is it because of concern over property values? The Maxfield Study has quantified that there is no discemable difference in property values when mixed use, mixed density projects adjoin single family neighborhoods. Is it because of school district impacts? Given the student average per housing type, minimizing the unit per acre density may provide more students for District 112 to educate than the higher density units proposed. Is it because of fear over those people who would live there? List of professions that make up the folks that live in Walnut Grove makes for real interesting reading. There are account executives, accountants, financial planners, teachers, auto mechanics, bank loan officers, airline pilots, forklift drivers, food service workers, company owners, insurance executives and bus drivers. The opposition to this housing project is insulting to those people who live in Walnut Grove and Mission Hills. It's insulting to everyone looking for an opportunity to own a home they can afford. And so now it comes to you. The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce has publicly passed a resolution in support of affordable housing in Chanhassen. The church leaders and lay groups in town continue to advocate for affordable housing in Chanhassen. Members of the school boards and district staff believe it to be an important issue. So now it comes to you. Attempting to cloud the issue with talk of ignorance to Chanhassen's long stated goal of a 30% overall affordable housing mix versus 30% development is an obvious attempt to undermine the project and it only serves the purpose of duplicitous elected officials, not elected leaders. Leaders are concerned with the entire community and make decisions with the long view in mind. Whether or not people will support them in the next election. Leadership is about addressing needs and to finding solutions without political ramifications clouding the consideration process. Leadership is believing with your head what your heart tells you is right. You all 16 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 must get past this point. You'll upset some people who have done their work to upset this project, but you'll have enhanced your position as leaders of this community. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council. Susan McAllister: I know we're all playing a game of chicken. I decided to be next. I do have some handouts that I wish to present the City Council with very quickly. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard and I am officially Puke's only neighbor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Susan McAllister: Do you wish me to do the Bluff Creek ordinance presentation like I did before? Mayor Jansen: I think we're all familiar with the ordinance Sue. Susan McAllister: Okay. May I just put the board up with the photographs so the council can... Mayor Jansen: Certainly, if you'd like. Susan McAllister: I'm just going to say the different areas and then I'm just not going to touch on this part anymore. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Susan McAllister: Okay. Here we've got Highway 41 looking south. The north wooded area on the left and 11 acres on the right. So the 11 acres is on this side and the north wood acre that abuts my property is half these trees are... Here's the 11 acre preserved area west of Highway 41, looking west so actually I was in my driveway right here looking to the west at the 11 acres. The new wetland area west of Highway 41 is the same as this area up here, but this is where the proposed new wetland is going to be. And this is it in the summer time. I'm looking east from Highway 5 so I'm standing, you know west looking east, from the north to the south tree line. This happens to be my farm over here. This is the fence row of trees. In here is that treed area to the south that's just on the north side of 5. That 50% or so is going to be removed I guess is what they say. I'm not sure. Here I'm in the wetland from Bud Olson's property and I'm looking to the south. And this is the entire you know north side of that wetland area. And Longacres is actually down this way about 1,000 feet or something. Here I am on the trail in Longacres and I'm looking at a 2 ½ to 3 acre piece that's also supposed to be preserved, so I'm actually on a trail right here, Longacres trail and I'm looking towards Bud Olson's house. And here I am on Highway 5 going east, traveling east. Well actually traveling west so this is another view of the treed area to the south. It's a gorgeous, you know a wonderful, wonderful trees and it definitely is very important to me because I was one of the volunteers that was on the Bluff Creek ordinance. The corridor study actually and I just want everybody to know how important it is. It's hardly anything from what it was when this was first settled in, I can't remember when it was. Over 100 years ago but there's hardly anything left and when you think about it, it used to be the Big Woods. There's hardly any of it so I really wish to protect every possible tree we can. Okay, I'm going into the, I'm going to address my petting farm ordinance now .... page 34. It happens to be a 17 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, June 6th. I'm just going to read a couple of things. It seems to be reeked with concerns that I should be protected by this 300 feet. Could some, I'm asking, could somebody explain what is this 300 feet because I did not know what was going on at that point. Kirchoff: That is for noise purposes and also for smell. Kirchoffgoes on to say, no I'm just talking about noise in general. Noise in general. We receive numerous, numerous complaints about noise. I'll turn to the next page which is again, here I am again wondering about this 300 foot thing and I talk about 300 feet. What exactly is that going to mean to me then? When you say the 300 feet, I keep referring to that because that makes me a little nervous. That's me speaking. Kirchoff: That's measured from the barn to the dwelling. Not the property line. It's not to the property line. Just to keep that 300 foot separation between the two uses. Susan again. Between what? Between the barn and the property line of what? Kirchoff: Dwellings. Deb Kind. Commissioner Kind. Between the barn and the house. The physical house. There's not 300 feet between the barn and the house I say because there wasn't, and they said the new house. Not your house but a new house. Okay, then I started to get it. Planning Commission meeting April 19th. Commissioner Blackowiak states, if indeed the proposed development goes through, which they're probably talking about Puke, we're going to have all kinds of neighbors that are going to be right up next door and there will be complaints and that's just a given. That's going to happen regardless of the fact that she was there first, there are going to be people that are not going to be happy about it. Page 39. From the Planning Commission meeting June 6th. Commissioner Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll start with the question I was going to ask Sue and maybe you guys can help me. The 300 foot between dwellings, is that an issue with this plan? Will she be at least 300 feet from a dwelling? Aanenson: Puke Homes, I believe so. Kind: Yeah, so that's not even an issue for this particular plan. We need to put it in there for the standards. Page 26 of the January 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Ladd Conrad states, if somebody makes a motion I think you've got to know what's there and I'm asking that, making that number up, I don't know how we can make some motions tonight without talking about the McAllister property. Because once you put the plat in effect or the site plan you are saying you can put a house here. Aanenson: Well I think what you could say is, unless that gets removed you can't put a house there. It's going to go forward to the City Council and by the time they do final plat you're 2 months out. But what my recommendation would be is that, unless the conditions on the interim use were modified, that those two units would not be able to be placed there. Unless the conditions are modified. Blackowiak: Are you talking about 23 and 24? Correct. Okay. Okay, the two units in 24, or I'm sorry. I just need to clarify. Are there 2 units in 24, 1 and 2? Then there's Building 23, 1 and 2? Aanenson: Those are going to be within the 300 feet of the barn. Just so you know that the ordinance states 300 feet from all structures and storage areas, not just the common barn. I have 5 barns on my property and that is shown in your packet. Blackowiak: So which two units are we talking about? 24. So it's Lots 1 and 2 in 24, okay. I didn't know if you said 2 buildings. I'm sorry, 2 units. Okay. If I may add, I believe it also affects actually that manor home on the south side. That's only minimal impact but it's really that. Aanenson: From the barn? Yeah, I'm not sure. Can anybody find that? 200 feet. Yeah, it should be the first 2 units. The first 2 units should be Lots 4 and 5 in that block and would it not touch on 23 on the north? Aanenson: Those would be eliminated unless the other plan is modified. That would resolve the issue. Meaning I should, you know like I at one point was going to say that I was not going to go, you know that the 300 foot to me, I was making a terrible mistake. I'm just telling you. I made a terrible mistake. I was not looking out for myself and I need to. I've included in here an ordinance from the model ordinance from the, dam it. Minnesota League of Cities. Model ordinance. I'm sorry. It talks about how different you know cities do not want wild animals and so on and so forth in their cities. I'm just going to make this brief. They talk about farm animals and it's a model ordinance and it's been tested in court and so on. Been able to be stood up. Farm animals shall only be kept in agricultural district of a city or residential lot of at least 10 acres. Well unfortunately I don't have that. In size provided that no animal shelter shall be within 300 feet of an adjoining piece of property. Then we go into, I talk about my background. About how I initially you know was going to go, I was 18 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 trying to be a very workable person but like I said it just isn't going to work out for me because I'm really cutting my own throat and this is the letter dated January 23rd that I do not want that condition added. I want it removed. I go into the Carver County feedlot management ordinance and by the way I will become a permitted feedlot because I just spoke to Rachel from the Carver County Environmental Services today and she said there is no problem. I am a feedlot and that's the way it is and according to this ordinance, even though Carver County does not regulate incorporated cities, okay. They still go 500 feet for a residence in the unincorporated parts of Carver County. Now I want to ask you a couple of questions. Do you think manure smells sweeter in Chanhassen than it does in an unincorporated part of Carver County? I don't think so. Does a donkey bray louder in an unincorporated part of Carver County than Chanhassen? No. What about a goose? What about chickens that crow? No. I'm sorry, it's the same thing. So therefore I'm just going to leave that as that is right there and I'm going to go on to say that because I'm trying to be a fair person, and I believe in fairness, I've lived on that comer for quite a long period of time. That comer has been a virgin comer for as far back as I can tell, 146 years. I really believe that now is the time that we need to, that I need to also let it go because I really was protecting it from everything that I could possibly protect it from and I love to see green fields and I don't want anything to change on that comer, but the only thing I can protect is my farm. And I am, you know I only own where I live and therefore ifI want Miss Rosie's Farm to be something from the early 1900's, that's going to be up to me. And I can only do that and I hope that the people will enjoy you know what I can do. And I don't know if this project is a vision for you, the City Council members but I want to tell you tonight, make it very clear that I do wish Puke to be in this city and that the developer, Dennis Griswold has worked very hard to be where he is tonight. I have actually been helping him for a year and a half. I'm going to tie it up real quick. To get through the city and to try to make it as easy as possible and I really feel that this is something that the city needs so, thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Sue. Councilman Labatt: I've got a question. Susan, on this map here of your place. Susan McAllister: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Okay, what's number 5? Susan McAllister: Which packet is that in please? Is that the purple? Councilman Labatt: I can show you the map. Mayor Jansen: It was the one that you did I believe for the County feedlot diagram. Susan McAllister: I don't have it. Kate, do you have it? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Susan McAllister: It wasn't attached so I'm sorry, I don't have it. Just a second. Mayor Jansen: Do you want to just come up and look at Steve's? Susan McAllister: Okay. 19 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: I want to know what buildings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are... Susan McAllister: Building number 1 is the standard barn. Building number 2 is the horse, a 20 x 20 foot horse barn. Building number 3 is a goat barn. Building number 4 is a potbelly pig, well actually it's, the new chicken coop is going to go there. Number 4. And number 5 is going to be where I'm going to be composting, you know dead animals and that you can do that. Don't get upset but that's how you do it. Well it is. Mayor Jansen: I'm really glad you asked Steve. Councilman Labatt: And I'm glad everybody knows now. Susan McAllister: ... be in that building... Councilman Labatt: Proposed for what? Susan McAllister: Possibly adding another building at some point but I'm not sure... Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Sue. If anyone else would like to address the council at this time, please step forward. Kim McReavy: Hi. My name is Kim McReavy and I live at 2751 Piper Ridge Lane which is in Minnewashta Manor so it's not real close to this but it's close enough. It's an area I drive by quite frequently. Just to address some, I don't have anything prepared. I just came tonight because I'm concerned about this property and I'm concerned about the image of Chanhassen and I'm certainly not worried about the crime that was alluded to before. I'm not worried about the types of jobs the people have that may live there. What I am worried about is the increased traffic that is going to come from this level of density of development. 5 and 41 is okay now but it's pushing the limits at rush hour and I just can't imagine what an additional almost 400 units, so probably 800 to 1,000 people is going to do to that area and I know you're trying to alleviate that with the 78th construction. I'm also concerned with the gateway appearance of Chanhassen. I think the plan that was shown tonight was, the mayor, Linda Jansen mentioned the gateway area where the fountain and things would be in the concept plan and the concept plan sounds great and I wonder what happened to that. My husband and I have only lived here for a year and I haven't been following this real closely until the last couple months but boy, I'm concerned with the gateway appearance and then also the removal of trees which was another issue that you had said in the concept plan that was going to be saved and I'm a little disappointed that those two issues which seem like a really big part of this development have both been pushed to the back burner to allow for more units and different siting of the units and I think that's unfortunate because I think those are issues that not only concern me but concern a lot of other residents in Chanhassen. I know that this property has to be developed. I'm not unrealistic enough to think that we can save the property as it is, although that would be nice but I realize that can't happen. What I would like is, my main concerns are again, I'd like those trees saved and I would really like a nice gateway into Chanhassen so when you come in it's not looking like a Brooklyn Center or Brooklyn Park where these super dense, multi family units. You know and I have no problem with multi family. That's fine. I know we need affordable housing. I just want the first glimpse that people get of Chanhassen, for them to think wow, what a great natural city because the city has done a really good job of preserving the integrity of what Chanhassen has always been. We're not 20 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 jumping on the band wagon of Eden Prairie or of Brooklyn Center or anything else where we're smashing all of our multi family right as you come in the city so those are my concerns. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for your comments. Tom Green: Respected members of the council. My name is Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. Mayor Jansen: If you might raise the microphone a little close. Tom Green: Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm, Mills Properties. I personally acquired that property for our company in the early 80's and we acquired it after being encouraged by the then city manager and the then mayor to come to this community. And after we started working on it, we did.., the history. Minnetonka Inc wanted to put an office complex on that comer. Chanhassen didn't want it. We wanted to put a Fleet Farm store there and Chanhassen didn't want that either. And now you've been presented with a project, in my opinion would be an asset to your community, and it appears you don't want that either. So we're at a loss as to what to do with our land. We're in support of this project. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Just so everyone's aware, we will be wrapping up the public comment at about 10 til so we have time for another speaker or two. Rob Moschet: Madam Mayor, honorable council members. My name is Rob Moschet. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I reside at 7006 Cheyenne Trail and I appear before you tonight in support of the Puke proposal. Several months ago as a member of Mt. Calvary Church in Excelsior I became involved in a group at the church that has been studying the issue of affordable housing and trying to educate myself and educate our church membership about the problems of affordable housing and I've learned that there is a real problem out there. And it's a big problem and it's a growing problem. It's not going to go away and I've learned that one of the better ways to address the problem is through the concept of inclusionary housing. The type of concept that I believe the Puke proposal addresses quite well. I don't have to stand up here and educate you about why it's necessary. Why it's important that people who live in this community, excuse me, people who work in this community also be afforded the chance to live in this community. I'll quote the mayor from the Chanhassen Villager article of a couple of months ago. After attending the University of Minnesota Extension Service forum when the mayor was quoted as saying, when resident hear about why it's important for people who work here also to live here and how this will affect our economic success, we won't be able to expand our tax base if businesses aren't willing to locate here because their work force isn't able to locate nearby. So you understand the importance. There are many different ways to address the problem. I know there are regional plans. There are statewide plans. What concerns me is that if we do not give effect to a quality proposal like the Puke proposal is, if as a gentleman who preceded me says we are against every item of development on that property, something is going to be forced upon us. The problem of affordable housing is a large one. It's not going away. I read somewhere the other day that 40% of Minnesotans, and this is astounding to me. 40% of Minnesotans cannot afford the average 2 bedroom rental apartment unit. Now in view of the magnitude of that type of problem, if we do not act locally when good, well thought out projects like this come along, I believe there is a real danger that other solutions are going to be imposed on us from outside. Solutions that are going to be much less palatable than the project that you have before you tonight. As a resident of the city I'm impressed with two things. I'm impressed with the diligence that this council has shown in reviewing this project. I'm impressed by the diligence of staff. I've read the staff reports. They've done their homework. These are the professionals. It's time that we listen to them. Yes, there might be some tweaking that needs 21 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 to be done but this is a quality proposal and we need to pass it. Because, and this is my second observation. And I mean no disrespect to the mayor's comments at the beginning of the meeting when she read her statement in opposition to the Minneapolis Tribune article today. Frankly I don't know what is fact and what was exaggeration. The fact is that that's the perception. That's the perception that's out there and if this council is going to mm down this proposal that has been in the works for a long time, that has gone through staff approval. It's gone through the city Planning Commission approval. Then I'm afraid that those people that are out there that are calling us elitist might be right and that concerns me. I urge that the council approve the project. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Jillian Berquist: Madam Mayor and council members and staff. I'm sorry I'm a mess. I just came from aerobics so I apologize. I clean up real nice so I look kind of like a kid right now but my name is Jillian Berquist and I just graduated from the University of Wisconsin Madison and moved home and I love Chanhassen. And I read a letter to the editor in last summer's Star Tribune where someone was arguing against another editorial someone had written about oh, community in the United States these days is just gone. Nobody cares about community. Oh you know, just belly aching about those facts. And this letter to the editor said you know what? As Americans we have no right to belly ache about the lack of community right now because the only reason people move anymore is because of an economic opportunity or romantic interest. And I polled a bunch of my friends and we all kind of, you know that's right. That's why I would move or this is why I would go places and all my friends just graduated and that's where they went. Seeking those two things. And this writer challenged me by saying, if community's really important to you, why do we just move for those reasons? If you find a community that you've grown up in or a community that means a lot to you. You have a lot of friends there, why not try and maintain that community. Be a part of that community instead of this idea well I just graduated from college, I should go live in Uptown for a few years and then maybe I'll be able to afford to move out to the suburbs. I'm a teacher. I'll never be able to afford to live here unless programs like this, unless proposals like this get passed. I love this community. I've grown up in this community. You know someone was just talking about what Chanhassen has always been. I think about Chanhassen and what it's been and I think of the bait store and Pauly's on West 78th Street, but I don't know how many of you remember that. But that is, Chanhassen is this inclusive community where I can move back to. But right now there's no place in this town that I could afford, and praise be to God that my parents are not going to charge me rent for a while because substitute teaching is not, you know not paying that much. But I just would really encourage you, if community is important to us, to continue to pass this proposal and look at future proposals that are also going to allow people that this is important to live here instead of waiting for 50 years and assume well maybe I'll be able to move back when I have a big bank account, because I never will. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. We have time for one more speaker. I don't want to inhibit anyone from getting up and speaking is anyone has a real desire but if we can hold to one more that'd be great. Dave Hurrell: My name's Dave Hurrell. I live at 7460 Bent Bow Trail. And I work for a non profit corporation. I think that there's one thing that really needs to be clarified because I have been a Chanhassen resident for several years and what really bothers me is the perception that's being played by people who have written speeches as if they were delivered to them that actually suggests that the people of Chanhassen are against affordable housing. You know it couldn't be farther from the truth and I think that's why I'm here tonight is to clarify that we're not against affordable housing. We're against density. And I think that it should be said that Puke is a profitable company that's here to make as much money off the community of Chanhassen as they can and if we allow them to build 6 story high apartments of any 22 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 quality, if it gave them more profit, in my perception they'd do it. And if they could destroy more environment, they'd do it to build what they perceive as the best in their interest. We're here to support the community of Chanhassen. We'll always be here to support the community of Chanhassen and all we're asking is that we re-look at the appropriate density. That's really the issue that I perceive is density. And we're the people of Chanhassen, a proposal from the council should support the people of Chanhassen and not the corporate interest of those who are not a part of our community. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to speak, otherwise I am going to bring our public comments to a close. I appreciate everyone remaining respectful as you did and I'm feeling inclined to actually respond to a couple of the things that were stated. Just so everyone has a clear idea of the proposal before us. Affordable means different things to different people and there is a perception, when we have not educated our community, that affordable means something that's suggesting subsidized or projects and it does raise a concern in residents when it's not properly explained. That is why this council is pursuing pulling together a housing forum. You heard tonight that I had gone to an affordable housing workshop. There are experts out there that do a wonderful job of explaining what it is that communities are trying to accomplish by bringing in starter homes. All we're talking about within this Puke project, on the comer, not the entire project. We're talking about just south of the frontage road, because it is zoned medium density, you can build affordably priced homes, meaning starter homes. Your community, meaning your city, is not putting any sort of subsidy into this to hold those prices at affordable levels. You've heard me say over and over again that my issue with how we handle affordable is that it doesn't stay affordable. We build these townhomes. They go out at market rate. They sell once at an affordable rate. The Met Council identifies this as a problem because you mm around and as soon as that townhome is marketed again, it's up above the affordable levels and we're not helping our substitute teachers. We're not helping the workers in our community. My concern is how do we put a mechanism in place so that all of you who are here and passionate about affordable. You know I'm passionate too about wanting to have homes that people can afford. Now we need to do something and have it be effective. And right now that's not being addressed. When I'm looking at this project I'm looking at a comer that does contain units that are priced such that I could go in and buy one. There's no income qualifying for these units. There is no guarantee that the people who need them are going to be able to purchase them. So we're rallying passionately around a market rate project that isn't necessarily going to meet our housing goals. So I'm hoping you're hearing that I am not being ingenuous about this because it is identified as an issue by the Met Council, by the people who are trying to encourage affordable projects in the communities because they're not remaining affordable. So though I'm hearing what everyone is concerned about here tonight, we don't have a mechanism in place. I have already spoken with staff earlier today asking what is there that we could put into place as a mechanism to try to keep some of these units at those affordable rates? How can we qualify buyers so we know the right people are actually getting to live in these units? So I'm going to acknowledge your passion but as we move forward with this project we also have ordinances in place, and if we're going to step down from those ordinances and those standards, I want to know that there's a guarantee that we're actually getting something that's going to be maintained because we can't go back and recoup what we gave up as this moves out of those affordable ranges. And as far as political debt, I'm going to go back to the concept review and all of the issues that I brought up. My position has not changed. The campaign has nothing to do with this project. This project could have come through the system before the election was ever over. This is nothing about politics and to say that it is, I think you may have noticed a void in comment from the Longacres residents here tonight. We had one gentleman get up and speak from that area that I've never met. I have worked diligently with these residents to explain what affordable means and it has to be a message that we repeat that everyone has to hear because they're not against starter homes. When you start talking about the fact that these are starter townhomes, it's very disarming. There's no problem in that. That's all we're talking about in the project 23 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 and I've worked very hard to get that message across and when that editorial ran today, I found it very disturbing that this was again being made such a divisive issue. It doesn't need to be. We have to work to make it so it isn't and by throwing it out there and trying to aggravate people and alarm people, we're not going to get this accomplished. We need to bring everyone together and I mean that sincerely. I had two of our senior gentlemen that I was speaking to last week. We had a young man approach our table. He was absolutely horrified at the fact that we were talking about affordable housing near him. All I had to explain was it's not subsidized. We're talking about starter homes. End of issue. And that is all it's about when you get to understanding what the issue is and I'm sorry to carry on at length, but I am disturbed and concerned that we can't have this issue divide our community. And as we start looking at this project and it comes back to council and we start making comments, realize that the only affordable opening priced homes are on the southern side of this project and we do have ordinances in place that we instructed back during concept review, needed to be applied and we gave specific direction a year ago.., be speaking to it. But 2 of us made very specific comment and you will hear us say probably the same things again. But I appreciate everyone's comments. If anyone remains with questions when we bring this to conclusion, please call. Please e-mail. I would be more than happy to sit down and cover what exactly it is we mean and what we intend to do going forward. And I hope we have the same turnout that we do tonight at our housing forum because this would be great. I'm afraid we're going to hold it and we're not going to have anyone there so I hope we have this same sort of a turnout and I'd encourage everyone to participate in that as we go forward. So council, I'm sorry. I probably took more time than I intended to but I do think there were things that needed to be addressed and maybe clarified. I would like to open it up for comments from council and I already specifically mentioned from the concept review the issues that I for one was concerned with when it came through on concept and any discussion around those issues further would be appreciated. Mr. Kroskin. Councilman Kroskin: Yes, I'd like to go first for reason to be fair to my fellow councilors so they know this up front. Even though I feel that in my study of the Puke project and following it through various Park and Rec, Planning Commission meetings as well as council meetings last fall and winter and the extensive study I've done on this, I will be abstaining my vote today on this issue, but I do have some comments. Number one is I did my homework for putting my application in to filling the vacant council seat. I studied the comprehensive plan and also the 1997 survey. A couple of things that strike me as I went through that, I looked at the survey and in the survey 61% of our residents support a tax increase for the preservation of our open space before it's lost to urban sprawl. The reasons for people living in Chanhassen. 27%, small town ambience. 18%, the rural nature. 13%, the parks and open space. 19%, convenient location. I look at our park use. 70% of our community uses it's local neighborhood parks. 64% then also use community parks. And as I'm looking into the comprehensive plan, you know one of the things in the natural resources and land use, we're looking at tree cover. Residential areas we're striving for 50% canopy coverage. I also read the minutes from the concept review from the council. Studied them, re-read them and you know looked at some of the initial phases or, or the initial concepts of the Puke plan. As a resident, the things that I'm concerned about are this. A. I know that the council is the body that sets policy. Sets the policy for the staff. It sets policy for our commissions. The commissions don't make policy. If I were to be voting on this, I want that park space for the neighborhood park. For this development. I took a drive this weekend through Walnut Grove and went through there and I saw that there isn't a lot of open space. There isn't a dedicated park space for that development. The residents in that development have to travel across Galpin to go to a park. They're traveling across a busy highway. As long as I sit on this council I am not going to do that to any neighborhood. I feel that people should have and enjoy the open spaces. That's what this is all about. I want the tree cover that initially was supposed to be saved. I want that intact. I don't want to see any of those trees lost in this development. Another thing that concerns me is it is a gateway to our community. I would like to see, I don't know if we need a fountain on that comer but I 24 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 would like to see that natural wetland enhanced. So those are some of my initial concerns on that side of it. From protecting our natural resources that our community, as I'm reading the survey, feel are some of the most important aspects of Chanhassen. On the affordable housing side of it, I have my younger sister. She's got a doctorate in psychology. She lives in Madison, Wisconsin. They come here for holidays. They love coming to my residence here in Chanhassen. They'd like to move back to the Twin Cities. Basically they've, she's married. She has a son, my nephew. They live in a $40,000 house. As they've looked around the Twin Cities, as they want to come back because she wants to further her career. Her husband wants to further his career, I would love for them to live in Chanhassen so I can see my nephew all the time. They can't afford to live in Chanhassen. So that hits home to me personally and I realize the need for the ability of people to come into a starter home and be able to live in Chanhassen. I admire the young lady that just graduated from college. I know how that feels. I think a lot of us do. Wanting to come back to her community and live. I couldn't go back to Plymouth when I got out of college initially and buy a home and so I know what that feels like. However, I am concerned about the fact that we don't have sustainable affordable housing. The day that Puke's open I can walk in and you know, like Mayor Jansen said, I can purchase one of those homes. I want to see affordable housing going to the people in our community that genuinely need it. I want to see some type of screening to make sure that people that aren't qualifying because they make too much income are taking advantage and getting those homes. That's a major issue to me. I would like to see some guarantees from the developer and some concepts from the developer, you know how are you going to help us maintain this affordability? I think the city and the county have some discussion that's got to go forward on this. I want to see affordability, affordable housing, life cycle housing be able to come into this community. And I'll close on this. I feel, from sitting back and watching this, this has been a divisive issue. I'm not happy about some of the information that I've received on this. You know maybe if Puke wants to help out Chanhassen, if this is all about affordable as they and their individuals, even their realtor Dan Cook's been in our community talking to various community leaders. Religious leaders. You know pounding the ground on affordable housing. Well maybe Mr. Cook's realty firm will do this deal and take 10% of the original commission that they were looking to take. Possibly maybe Puke will do this deal for 5% over hard finish cost and donate the rest to help us subsidize the affordable units. I'd like to see 30% in this development. See it maintain affordable. I think there's a lot of issues here that have to be looked at again. That's pretty much it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Ayotte: I just love being called freshman councilman. And I can't remember when I graduated from college. Politically incorrect I am, I have a lot of friends in Longacres. Good people. This gentleman who comment about, from the church. I think what I want to bring out is that, because of the due diligence of a number of people in this room, because of the due diligence of people outside of this room, we have a better product with Puke. It's a better product. As I've been following this thing, traffic ability wasn't as much addressed as it was earlier. Now it is. In one of the motions traffic is being addressed when it gets to a level D. Delta. I think that's a good thing. The infrastructure's beginning to be addressed. That's a good thing. The issue associated with the number of students coming out of the 379 residents is not an issue as it was originally. That's a good thing. Now we're discovering things. I think a little bit more issue on the traffic ability is a must. I like Mr. Kroskin's comments about maybe Puke giving some of it's margins over because I'm sure when they were beating the street they were looking in that direction, which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. In terms of margin. I am concerned about green space. I am concerned about green space and the product's getting better. Let's address green space within the constraints of ordinance. That's my only hard point. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. 25 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: Craig, you or I? Councilman Peterson: I'd be happy to go. You know I've spent as much, if not more time probably on this project over the years on the commission as anybody has so I've got some sense of ownership to it and I think that, I truly believe it fulfills a vision for what we set forth for the 5 and 41 area years ago and I think that was probably the driving force in developing my thoughts for this project and the affordability issue is really secondary to the fact that it's a good PUD. And you look at the ones that we've had over the last 5 years, whether it be Walnut Grove or Autumn Ridge or Mission Bay or North Bay or this one, this is a darn good product. And staff has worked diligently. The park and rec's have voted for this. The Planning Commission voted unanimously for it. And Puke has worked with all of them to get a better product and I think that is certainly commendable. And I'd be proud to have this development in the community. Right now some of my fellow councilmen have spoken about green space. You know I clearly would like more green space but right now the project has got 44 acres of open space. That is, in compared to 6 acres in Walnut Grove. 5 acres in Autumn Ridge. 2 acres in Mission Hills and 6 acres in North Bay. It's a big... and for us to go back and ask more, I would say is to some degree unreasonable. Linda, I guess I'm intrigued by the east side split that Kate talked about and I think that, as the project is presented tonight, that'd be the only question that I'd really have and I guess if it didn't raise the price substantially, I'd probably support that. To break up the building. I'd be concerned the price would raise when you start splitting them and this project is at 41%, it offers the least affordable percentage of any of those projects I mentioned too so. So as you can probably tell by my comments, I think we need to move this ahead now. I think although the comments from my fellow councilmen are interesting, I think it will unduly delay the project, if not end it by trying to get answers to some of these difficult questions. I think let's move ahead and work on those in the next project. Let's move this one forward. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Steve, anything to add? Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Mayor Jansen: Tonight. Councilman Labatt: I've got to go to work tonight so yeah, I am in a hurry. Councilman Peterson: This is part of his 3 minutes, right? Councilman Labatt: Okay. I've got several pages of talking points here I want to please be covered and quickly respond to the political payback debt I think is a gross exaggeration and I think it doesn't need to be spoke anymore. Thanks for responding to that Mayor. Some of our speakers tonight talked about the Highway 5 corridor plan and the Bluff Creek ordinance and how they're sound guiding documents they are. And I thank them for that. If we apply those principles in those documents to this project, they don't quite meet up yet and I'm going to point those out. The Highway 5 corridor district represents the heart of Chanhassen as well as the dominant image of those passing through the community. I'm going to take, these are all quotes out of the documents themselves. Development must be designed with a greater sensitivity to the environment and high quality. Okay. Section 20-1450. The purpose of the district is to protect significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design. Okay. And then Puke's 3 designs, the one from 9-1-99 which shows the significant stands as there. And then the revised edition of 9- 28-99 it's been cut a little bit here and saved a little bit there. And then we see today's version on the cover here where there's, as Linda you said, 50% has been chopped out. I think it's a bit more than that when I 26 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 went into...blueprint and actually, let me find the. I'll get there. Bear with me. Okay, well I went through the time of highlighting the thing to show what's really going to be gone on this project and.., significant. And I think that this latest rendition here is with one less spot. It's considerable. Mayor Jansen: Can we put the originals up on the screen, just so the audience can see what it is? Councilman Labatt: It's a small version. Mayor Jansen: Can I grab those guys? Councilman Labatt: What do you want, these? Mayor Jansen: The originals. Just so the audience can see. Kate, would you mind putting those up on the table. Councilman Labatt: The highlighted yellow area here indicates all the trees that are going to be lost with the big cluster of trees on Highway 5. The field row of trees and the row up on the edge of the primary zone. Kate Aanenson: Not to be disrespectful but I just want to point out, the product also changed too and that's what we pointed out, and the open space. That's... indicated that was pushing it into the. Councilman Labatt: Right, I realize that. Kate Aanenson: This was your first one. Councilman Labatt: Because they're dated on the bottom right comer. Is when, that's when we received them. Kate Aanenson: ...the park space, yeah. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Just demonstrating the changes to date. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So the intent of the district, Section 20-1451. Consistency with all the provisions of the comprehensive plan. Preservation of the natural conditions found on each site to the greatest extent to minimize removal of trees. Okay. Does this project meet that? That's for each one of us individually to answer that. Section 20-1454. Architectural design standards. Monotony of design both within projects and between it surrounding is prohibited. Okay, we've seen the different projects and the designs of them. Now I'm going to cover the Bluff Creek Overlay District, which one of the neighbors was very involved in. Section 20-1551. The purpose of this is the development within the corridor must be designed with the utmost sensitivity to the environment. Utmost sensitivity to the environment. Protect the Bluff Creek corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the careful site design. I feel that Pulte does not meet that standard right now with the amount of tree loss. Encourage a development pattern that allows people and nature to mix, spanning multiple ecosystems. Development in the corridor should be ecologically designed and built around features such as trees, wetlands, significant natural features, should impact development rather the development impact significant stands of natural features. And that's in Section 20-1460(c). The natural qualities should be preserved. Does Pulte meet the standard? I don't think so. The comp plan. Both the 1998 revision and 1999. Comp plan is a guide to 27 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 the city and it's residents. It's a covenant and guide for decision making. The Puke concept is in conflict with our comp plan... People of Longacres have been criticized for their dissatisfaction or questions about this proposal. Well remember back to the Marsh Glen development, those residents bought their homes over there with the understanding that the open space around there was guided for low density housing. People at Longacres, including myself, and I made that clear to Puke on the first meeting that I live in this neighborhood and they're well aware of it. That we looked at this property and the property south of the swamp, and what is it zoned for? What's the guiding on it and the guiding to the north of West 78th in this area is low density housing. Single family. Twin homes. So we made a commitment to the Marsh Glen folks okay, it's zoned that way. You bought you homes that way. You made your point. I just want to remind the council of that. As far as the parks and open space. The Park and Recreation Commission voted to accept the cash payment of $513,000 in lieu of the land dedication. In the early, early minutes, meeting back on September 1st of '99, one of the residents also brought it up and said there are parks. I don't see much in the green space here. I'm looking at where all these kids are going to go on their bikes now. We're not providing them with a neighborhood park. We have a park system that's going to need to be thought out better in this location with a few more residents. And the berming is a question that I have a concern with and the fact that, in looking at the height of this berm, Kate can you help me. In trying to review the grading plan, are they going to raise the elevation approximately 12 to 15 feet towards 5 ? If I read that right, it was like 980. And they're going to raise it. Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's correct. Yes, I looked at the developer. That's correct... Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay. And then the plan is to put a 4 foot berm? Kate Aanenson: Correct. With trees. Landscaping, correct. In the EAW it also stated noise attenuation and that was an issue for the Planning Commission. I just wanted to expand on that. Air conditioning units will be in each, required for each unit and they are supplying those. That was the standard and that was for noise attenuation. Councilman Labatt: Okay. I also have great concerns about the traffic. Having lived in Longacres now for several years I know what it's like to try to get out onto 41 at rush hour, or what it's like to turn into Longacres on 41 in rush hour when you're going southbound. And frankly I'm surprised that no... have been hurt or killed there. At the turn off. And I think by putting in 379 more units, which how many homes are in Longacres, 1907 Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well if you add the two together in Walnut Grove, it's close to like 300. Councilman Labatt: Well I'm just talking Longacres. I'm just trying to get the 41 exit at Longacres Drive. Kate Aanenson: Approximately. Councilman Labatt: Approximately 1907 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Labatt: So we're almost doubling that and it's terrible getting out there in rush hour and getting home. Getting back in there and I can't imagine what it's going to be like at West 78th. So I have a great concern about that. And contrary to what some of our planning commission members feel, and it's stated in the Highway 5 corridor, this is the gateway of the western part of the city. It's not a quarter mile 28 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 west at the Arboretum where there's a swamp and a sign that says Welcome to Chanhassen. This is the gateway. Let's make it a gateway and take our time with it. You know Craig you made the comment, unduly delaying it until we get the difficult answers to question could hurt the project. I would beg to differ with that. I think we owe it to every resident that we get every answer, every question answered. And get everything cleared up so, I'll leave it at that. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. In trying to maybe bring everyone's comments together. One point that Councilman Peterson brought up as far as the parkland and the comparison to the different projects. One of the things that I had gone and taken a look at was because we have the mirror reflection of this project on the south side as far as an application of ordinances, being both the Bluff Creek Watershed and the Highway 5. That project in fact has 48 acres of parkland and open space dedication in it. And I guess the part that struck me as the most significant in that statement is that the city was dedicated the 12 acres of high ground within that development to do again preservation. There isn't an active park. The city also applied $200,000 worth of funding to purchase an additional 11 acres so I'm looking at the aggressive stand that the city took towards preservation and open space because of the Bluff Creek Watershed ordinance and I don't know that everyone truly understands the vision of that plan. And the only way that I know how to describe it is to say, is a reflection of what Minneapolis park system has done in their corridor. Their green space corridor for their residents going from Lake of the Isles down to Harriet, Calhoun. Down Minnewashta Parkway and it goes all the way down to the river valley so you have a recreational corridor that's a community asset that is being preserved in it's natural setting in the middle of all of those homes and traffic. So that residents within walking distance as well as driving distance. I don't know if everyone else enjoys that area as much as I do. I like to drive in there just because you can walk around the lakes. You can go clear down the parkway to the river. It's a wonderful amenity that they have that Chanhassen has adopted this watershed plan to have the equivalent in our community. It would be astronomically expensive, as it's been identified, if the city were to go in and try and purchase this corridor. So the plan has been to take through dedication as much of that corridor as we proceed down through the community. So this is the top of that project. This is the start of that vision and as I expressed during the concept review, this project on the north side of the frontage road doesn't reflect what I anticipated to see in that vision and that's that there is more of a community open space along that corridor. Along that trail where the community is going to be traversing along this wetland. There's a proposal within that plan that addresses actually doing a restoration of that wetland and by the time the community addresses and hopefully it's through our watershed district's cooperation with us, the restoration of that wetland and the big woods, you're looking at the potential of several hundred thousand dollars going into just that particular project. $200,000 for the wetland and an additional $150 was reflected as land acquisition. So as we're looking at these developments as they occur up against that corridor, we're charged with looking back to that plan and are we getting all of the pieces as we go along? If we miss one, we've missed an important part of the total. Of the loop. And yes, there's a trail there now. There's the homeowners association actually keeping the easement up to the trail, and what I envision is something of a conflict between public coming through people's back yard areas. The community as we had Kate Aanenson come in and do a Bluff Creek watershed presentation to the council, being that we have numerous new members, we all need to get up to speed on these visions so that we're not missing on a major project like this. And what was shared with us is that on one of the projects that came in prior to there being a Bluff Creek ordinance, staff had tried to... have homes inbetween the public view and the creek side. One of the most creative PUD's that was drafted in this community was gosh, back in 1987. The whole Lake Susan Hills area. If you're familiar with the Lake Susan Hills west side of that lake, there's an open strip of open property. That was dedicated as part of the PUD to remain as community open space. It's one of the most fabulous community assets that that council stepped up and made sure that they protected on behalf of the community. So again there's the view shed. It's a community asset. As I'm looking at the parkland, I'm 29 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 going to come back to the comments that the council has been making and that we made back in the concept review. I would like to see the city go and work with the developer to have that parkland dedication, and I realize that there are some potential concerns from our park department that they'd like to build our fees in order to be able to address maybe other community projects, and I can appreciate that. They worked hard on this. They're trying to come up with a balance. But in trying to accomplish that vision of that plan, and be consistent with what we did on the south side of the road, I feel very strongly about making sure that we're protecting what we can through land dedication of open space property on the northern side of this project. And there's 8 to 10 acres that in fact we could be working from to do that. There is a density transfer that's allowable within the Bluff Creek Watershed Ordinance. So that density transfer, I feel very strongly about protecting the 11 acres that are on the west side of the road. So that needs to remain in place. I don't see that as something that we compromise because that is in the primary corridor and it is part of a conservation easement. Even adding the 10 acres to the current open space, and I'm not sure where the total number came from Craig that you shared. I had a different number from the numbers that we had been given as far as open space and it wasn't even close as far as the percentage to the total of what's on the south side. So because of what was on the south side, I saw as consistent. One requirement to the next, north to south. So if what we're going to do here tonight, and what I'm hearing other council people say. Are we leaning towards giving direction to staff to go back and work with the developer on some of the points that everyone brought up? Should we be coming up with our consistent set of points to direct the project back? Any comments? Councilman Ayotte: The one additional point that Councilman Kroskin made about helping us determine how we make sure we keep those houses as affordable is a point that I think has to be worked with the developer. Mayor Jansen: We can make that one of our points to staff to work with the developer on the affordable percent, or in fact go back and see what we might be able to do through the county as far as qualifying buyers or if that's what you're leading to. So let me see ifI can come up with what our common points were, and certainly anybody jump in if I miss one. I'm hearing that we would like staff to go back and work on the park land dedication with the developer to get the full compliment of land versus fees. We're not taking land. We are in fact just not accepting the fees so it's not as if it's a burden on the developer. It's not capturing the fees. Councilman Ayotte: Is that a 10 acre target? Mayor Jansen: They would have to work that out because it is a calculation of population within the area and of course as you take land you end up diminishing potentially some of the units and that would be a calculation, correct? Okay. So we've got the parkland issue. I heard everyone address the stand of trees on the south side along Highway 5. Maintaining those. Working with the affordability to see if in fact that can be a qualified buyer and what we might be able to do to also maintain the affordability for whatever period of time. If you can work that out. That requirement of course only applies to the south side of the frontage road because those are the only units right now that are even within that affordability price range. So that's where that would be worked out. Councilman Labatt: How about the gateway issue? Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And then we've got the gateway accent on the comer. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to, we don't want to limit it with the comment about a fountain. 30 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: No. We're working out a reasonable gateway accent, yeah. If the fountain in fact is a complicator, within the Highway 5 corridor study it actually talks about a wetland restoration and orchard and we can let them work out those details. Councilman Labatt: I think the point maybe wasn't, maybe I need to get clear with my rendition of everything. I'm not out to kill the project. I just want a project that comes in and meets the ordinance. Councilman Kroskin: I agree with that. Mayor Jansen: Agreed. Councilman Labatt: And I think this can be an asset to our community. Just bring it in under the colors of the Bluff Creek Overlay District, Highway 5 Corridor and the Comp Plan and the ordinances. Mayor Jansen: And I think we all recognize that, and again I don't mean to discredit Puke at all. In fact I probably should have said this sooner and I do apologize that I didn't. I want to thank you for the work that you have put into the project. You know certainly you have worked diligently with staff. You've heard the comments from the Planning Commission. Hopefully you're hearing us really just repeating some of the things that we emphasized a year ago during the concept review so there aren't any surprises amongst the comments. If anything I'm hearing a good deal of consensus around the same issues that we did bring up the last time. And I appreciate your taking the time and the effort to bring in a quality project that in fact is compatible with Chanhassen and our residents. I'm sure you've identified the level of community pride. We will continue to work hard to make sure that we're communicating the issue as far as this being starter townhomes. We will do our diligence to try to make sure that we keep this down to an amicable exchange on your project. Again I think you two recognize that we've worked hard with the Longacres residents and let me thank all of you for as hard an effort as you've put in to giving us comments on the project. And trying to understand what it is that the community is trying to accomplish and if anything I have appreciated the openness and willingness on everyone's part to listen and really work with us on this. I spent the last couple of weeks meeting with concerned residents and constituents here in Chanhassen that have called me up all concerned over this project and I think we are all concerned about the same issues. I agree with what Councilman Labatt said. We're not trying to kill this project. We're trying to give the guidelines that we held as our goals a year ago that we meet the Bluff Creek ordinance because there is a vision on this property and this is a key component of that. That we want to see put into place and that will set the precedence and hold to the precedent as we move down the corridor because there will be many more developments because we're not purchasing the corridor. We're having to rely on development as it occurs in order to make that vision happen. And to all of you that have rallied around the affordable issue, stay with us on it. You know we need your voices. We need you to be involved in our housing forum as we're working this out and trying to figure out how we put the mechanisms in place to make projects like this non-controversial. And they don't have to be. And it's not as if we won't make that tough judgment call. Actually this is an easy one. It's zoned medium density. It's zoned for townhomes and it's just simply going to happen according to ordinance and zoning code so it really doesn't need to be contentious and I think we're all committed to doing what we need to do to make it happen. So with that, have we given clear enough direction? 31 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: Can I just get a point of clarification for myself? We have preserved all the land that was designated in the primary zone. What I'm hearing you say is you want to embellish that or look at the tree option so what I'm hearing you say is come back with a couple different scenarios. Scott Botcher: Well we've got a couple things first. One is that absent an extension of time. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Scott Botcher: From the applicant which they are not required to give. The council will be put in a position tonight to make a decision it. Or have a decision forced upon them so that's understood. Then at some point you'll need to broach that with the developers before you take a vote. Mayor Jansen: Why don't we go ahead and maybe address that issue now, if we could. We are at the end of the 120 days? Kate Aanenson: It's more than that. Scott Botcher: We've had previous extensions. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And we're looking for an extension Kate of how long? Do you need to work on the issues that we've just discussed. Kate Aanenson: I think we can get it back on in 2 weeks. I guess I'd ask... Scott Botcher: I think you're looking more than 2 weeks Kate. Mayor Jansen: We may not have a quorum. In fact we're still working on how many members are going to be here because you need 4, correct? 4/5? It's spring break. Scott Botcher: I'd go til the March 12th council, is it 12th? Council meeting. I'm guessing on the date but whatever that meeting date is. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Well when's your spring break for Minnetonka schools? Kate Aanenson: April. Scott Botcher: We don't have spring break Steve. Mayor Jansen: Staff doesn't get a spring break. Scott Botcher: It's during the Final Four tournament. No meetings during the NCAA tournament. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Griswold, it sounds like we're looking at probably March 12th then on the issues that we've discussed tonight and I don't know if you'd care to step forward and acknowledge whether you would be willing and able to come back and work with staff until that time and grant an extension. 32 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Dennis Griswold: Thank you for your comments tonight, Mayor and council. Is that, I'd like to get a clarification. Is that the second council meeting that we would be, or the third? Scott Botcher: That'd be the first regular council meeting of March. Kate Aanenson: Right, it'd be 2 meetings from tonight. Scott Botcher: Correct. Dennis Griswold: Okay. I think that's a reasonable extension. Scott Botcher: Okay, thank you. Kate will follow up with a request to have that in writing in the morning. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Well I think we can put it together right now. Scott Botcher: Or you can do it right now. Or she'll beat me up ifI don't ask. The other thing I just want to make sure is clear, and I don't have a problem with the stuff in there but I guess I just want to make a comment to Steve primarily, and to Linda. We absolutely are trying to follow the guidelines in the overlay and the Highway 5 corridor district but understand that most the stuff that Steve read, and I didn't mental ticker, almost every one of those standards was subjective. And so understand that as we go to apply those standards to this development, or any other development, heck the 5 of you are going to disagree on the application of those so just so everyone is clear about that. We have attempted from the get go on this to apply those standards and like's been said, we can, shoot on developments that come through our office Kate and I arm wrestle over them in the office and that's just part of the massaging process so everyone's clear about that. I don't want to come back in 2 meetings and have you say, what in the heck were you doing because they are subjective to some extent. Mayor Jansen: And that is a good point to make because that does have a great deal to do with the difference in maybe the acceptance as it came up through the system and what our. Scott Botcher: Yeah, I mean even your advisory committees wrestled amongst themselves and came out with opinions and comments and that's part of the public process. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Kate Aanenson: I just want to go back, thank you for those comments. Scott Botcher: You're welcome. Kate Aanenson: I just want to go back to, so what I'm looking at is a couple different scenarios. I also want to make sure we have preserved what's in the primary zone but what I'm hearing you say is you want some additional, to continue that corridor. I also want to point out that our sewer project is running along the edge of those trees so we're going to come back and show you some of that tree loss that's through our project to provide municipal services, just so you know... Councilman Labatt: No, no I know. On the sheet behind the one I highlighted it shows which trees are lost to MnDot, to Puke. Which ones are saved and all that so. 33 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: Okay. Great, okay. So we'll show that and then we'll show a couple different scenarios, I mean assuming that's what your expectation is and you know what, some different options of how the plat, where the park should be and get some input from the City Forester and that and preserving some of that. I also think, if it's alright, that we'd probably add the Markert issue. That seems to be an issue that was still kind of hanging out there. The implication of that feedlot just to make sure we've identified that. There seems to be some question on the interpretation of that, so we'll add that to the list. If that makes sense. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Botcher: I think it's fair to give that whole, the whole issues the cursory review if nothing else. Mayor Jansen: Okay because, and I guess I just want to be clear, having sat on the discussion of the farm, I would be very uncomfortable encroaching into that setback because I do think we're just setting ourselves up for conflict with future residents. Whether they're in a townhome or a single family, and I guess I had taken that into consideration when we were reviewing that part of the conditions and realized that we were providing a nice buffer for any homes that would go in anywhere near. Be they townhomes or single family. Councilman Labatt: Is it possible on any of these maps to get that 300 foot setback. Kate Aanenson: Sure, we can show that. Councilman Labatt: Delineated on some map from the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that she has on her map so we can see how big that is. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Especially the dead animal one, number 5. Councilman Kroskin: I have a question. One of the comments that Councilman Peterson made that I agree with is unnecessary delay. Is there a way for us to be able to view the, I don't know the procedure of this, the instruction to staff so we as council people can read that and make sure nothing's missed. Things that are important to us that we've brought out as individuals. Mayor Jansen: As to how this is proceeding between staff and the developer in the process? Councilman Kroskin: Well just, if we're going to give new direction to staff here, is there a way for us to kind of look at the summary of what possibly is going to be proposed here to make sure when it goes to staff, we've got all of our concerns, we want to make sure that all of our concerns are listed so we don't come back here on the 12th and something's been missed. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Scott Botcher: I try to make bullet point items here and I guess what I'll do is I'll put those to an e-mail and then...and then I'll just ship it out because there's not, I've got what, 5 down here. That's the easiest way to do it. 34 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Kroskin: Yeah, without the Anna Kornakova virus please. Mayor Jansen: Good suggestion, thank you. Okay so we'll be seeing this back on March 12th. You don't need any motion or anything? Kate Aanenson: We need a motion to table. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I need a motion to table please. Scott Botcher: I would just reference the, just for CYA, reference the extension granted. Given the extension granted by Pulte, I so move to table until March 12th. Something like that. What they used to do in Delafield is what he said. That was the official motion. What he said. See I'm saying that, just to help you out here. Councilman Labatt: So moved, right? Scott Botcher: Works for me. Councilman Labatt: Move to, given the Pulte extension until March 12th I move that we table this until that date. Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that given the extension granted by Pulte Homes, the issue regarding Arboretum Village will be tabled until March 12, 2001. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed and Councilman Kroskin who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3-1-1. Mayor Jansen: Okay, the motion carries with a 3-1-1. Thank you very much for coming this evening. We appreciate everyone's comments and thank you for the extension Mr. Griswold. We appreciate all your efforts in working with staff on this. Why don't we take a 5 minute break so everyone can go ahead and depart. LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT DISCUSSION. Mayor Jansen: Okay, why don't we get started again. Thank you everybody for giving us that brief break. We're onto point 4 which is our discussion of the Livable Community Act. We had gotten an update on all of the history and background of the Livable Communities Act agreement and why it's in existence and how it came to be and how if affects us as a community during our work session. Actually Kate Aanenson is doing numerous presentations with us as we're getting all of council up to date on the background of these numerous big discussions. Whether they are planning documents and of course this case, the Livable Communities agreement has a great deal of background and history on it so thank you Kate for the presentation that you did. The reason that we have it on the agenda this evening is that there was some previous discussion when we were first approving the agreement with the Met Council this year. There was some confusion between what exactly we were establishing with the 30%. And I guess as I'm framing this up I want to maybe explain my viewpoint, if you would, and I can't speak for the rest of council but 35 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 this agreement is an agreement between ourselves and the Met Council and at this point there is conversation that's occurring. The legislation apparently hasn't been presented as of yet. There is discussion around the Met Council desiring to make our goals mandatory. Whereas at this point the goals are strictly voluntary. There really aren't any teeth in communities needing to meet those goals. The conversation that is occurring and the mayor's affordable task force recommendation to the Met Council and now to the legislature is that they feel that because communities are not stepping up and actively pursuing their goals, that they should be making them mandatory goals and putting some, as they're saying it, teeth in the Act so they can in fact penalize communities if they're not meeting their goals. And the one thing that Chanhassen has been fortunate in is that we have made steady progress towards meeting our goals and we in fact are currently working with the Met Council on, what I don't want to be too premature mentioning but a project I know I'm excited about and because the other council people have talked about the significance and heard about the significance of senior housing in the community, I think we're all anxious to see the Met Council step up and work with us on that project so we are working with them in moving forward with some of these affordable issues. So they know that we're at the table. And that we're working with them on it so it's not out of a walking away from the goals that this is being mentioned as a discussion. My concern, and one that I'd like to maybe have us all speak to, is that with the Met Council now considering making these mandatory and potential penalties around not reaching them, if we focus just on the agreement. It's a document that has the potential of having teeth in it. If we look at that document as being a minimum so that it's something that is achievable. That we're not setting ourselves up to miss. Part of the discussion that we had during the work session and what Kate reviewed with us is that right now we are, we're well short of the rental affordable. We're making the goal of having that be one of the housing needs that are being met. It's one of the issues that we've been able to bring apartments into the community but because of the dollars and cents of it, none of them are coming in at the affordable rates. And it was seeing those two projects come forward with 400 apartments in them and our not getting a single affordable unit because of the prices, that I became concerned about our Livable Communities Act goals. If they're going to be made mandatory and we did our due diligence to try to get affordable units into those apartment complexes and couldn't, if we're not going back and reviewing those goals and bringing them down to achievable levels, we're setting ourselves up to be penalized by Met Council, though right now they know we tried. They know we tried. They helped us on one of them in trying to get the affordable units in there. They in fact had to release us from part of an agreement, and we did some shifting and negotiating, in order to have the apartment building be able to go forward. So they have shown some flexibility. They have mentioned that they will show flexibility on this incoming project that we're working on currently, but we all know that those people turn over. And as change occurs and people are looking at these goals, if in fact they go back and they look at them and they decide they need to hold us to them, if we can't achieve them, we're now looking at penalties. And I don't want to be unrealistic about it, and I'm not trying to sound a warning alarm. I'm trying to be as conservative as possible on a paper document that we're in with the understanding that it's just a goal. We need to re-evaluate that goal under the premise that they might be putting teeth in it and we might be ending up with penalties. What I had requested staff do and Kate, we didn't address it in the work session, was that if in fact we only achieve 30% of medium and high density projects going forward. If they only have the 30%, did you share with us. Oh, maybe you did. Did you share with us what percent that ends up within the community overall? Kate Aanenson: Yes, I did. We would be short 1,300 some units to meeting our goal, correct. If we only went with medium and high density. Mayor Jansen: So we ended up at 18% do I remember? Kate Aanenson: Yes. 36 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Bob Generous: 17.6%. Mayor Jansen: And the minimum that Met Council is really discussing at all is 20% in any of the documents that I've seen that where they're trying to set a minimum in communities to say you've got to at least do this. Kate Aanenson: If I could just reiterate on that point too. I did get a voice mail from Guy Peterson who I hadn't talked to him but he saw this on the agenda. Jules Smith, our representative is also here tonight. We are way under the benchmarks and we explained to you in that work session, we went through a lot of exercise explaining why our densities, why these numbers work for Chanhassen and we've always tried to keep it very parochial. But we are significantly already under the benchmark requirements but we stand by those numbers and we can defend them and what we've done every year in our report is shown to the Met Council what we tried to do and they understand that when we go through this process, so by even going further down, I mean we're underneath. Guy also mentioned that next year the Met Council's position, based on the new census data that they'll be getting, that they will probably go back and look to the communities to re-evaluate their goals and see where they're at. Maybe looking at the standards. So I just wanted to share that. Mayor Jansen: So in fact, and I guess I'm not clear on how the census data would help with that as far as what we're seeing. Kate Aanenson: We have the demographics for your seniors. What your needs may be. Mayor Jansen: So actually looking at it in comparison to need. Scott Botcher: Well if there's a shift in the demographics of your community then they can apply the standards and the benchmarks that they wish to to achieve the diversity of housing and some of the life cycle housing that they wish to achieve based upon the demographic cut that they make within the different segments. That's generally how people use the census data to do that. Mayor Jansen: So the benchmark could go up? Scott Botcher: Or down. Kate Aanenson: Or down, right. So somewhere between, but the point he was making is that we are significantly below the benchmark. I mean at 30 we're not much above the 20 which is, if you're looking at the ownership, was between 60 and 90, which we demonstrated clearly we can't meet that. Mayor Jansen: Right. Kate Aanenson: And the affordable isn't the problem, and in my opinion they understand the complexity of the rentals. It's not just Chanhassen. It's metro wide the complexity. Mayor Jansen: So there wouldn't be any surprise on their part if now that we've got two major rental projects in and potentially we only have one more apartment complex that. 37 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: Again, when we get a project in, you know we make the calls to the different agencies. We call Carver County because we said, we want to disclose that upfront that there's an opportunity. We call the Met Council if it's a rental project. We look at those. We look at those opportunities to present those very early in the process and so we always let the Met Council know what we're doing and I think clearly as in Lake Susan Apartments, they understand why those numbers didn't work and it's a problem bigger than Chanhassen. So I think again, going back, my relationship, the City's relationship is in good faith that we're doing our best to try to accomplish it and sometimes it's just bigger than this city. Mayor Jansen: And I absolutely agree with what you're saying, and I know that you have an excellent relationship with the Met Council and it certainly has been to the benefit of the community. My concern is those relationships change with the people who are in place and not meaning to reflect that I'm afraid that someone is going to renig on any sort of an agreement, but the agreement as it stands right now is more this good faith effort and were it to become more of a mandated, I don't know how warm and fuzzy those lines then remain. The rental number that we reviewed tonight, and I had not seen that number yet. That was the first that we saw of it, certainly.., that 35 % just doesn't seem at all achievable at this point based upon the high percentage of our rental base that we have in in comparison to what we still have to come on line. Kate Aanenson: Well we have a project that nobody cares to talk about maybe right now but the Lakeview Hills project. I mean there is ways to accomplish it. It's depending on what our will and maybe that's a discussion for the housing forum where we want to put our priorities but there are some opportunities to achieve it. Scott Botcher: I think one of the things that a housing forum, as well as the census review that Met Council, or Guy Peterson referenced on behalf of the Met Council on the voice mail tonight, is simply the opportunity again to establish a new baseline as to where you are. What has been built since we negotiated these? What are the opportunities for meeting certain things that we agree upon? And what are the opportunity costs that we've spent by making the choices we've made. That's just what this is and you know frankly in terms of the LCA, it's an agreement like anything else. It's a voluntary agreement but it takes two parties to make an agreement. And I don't know what Met Council's position is and frankly sometimes, and we do have a good relationship with Met Council staff and Jules, your staff has been very, very receptive you know to sitting down and talking to us and as we just talk about the realities of economics. But when you start to getting to discussions about Livable Communities Act and things like that, it moves a step beyond frankly staff. I mean it goes on a relationship between the Met Council. The council itself and the City Council, you folks. Yourself, and it's not Kate and I anymore. And I know, and I've shared this with Linda. I guess I just want to say this for the record, I've had discussions with senior staff at Met Council about their legislative priorities and I guess if I'm incorrect Jules can stand up and throw something at me but their inclination to me is that there is no legislation in the pipeline at all for this legislative session contemplated by Met Council to even ask anybody to submit. Am I close on that? I mean I don't mean to make you. Jules Smith: That's absolutely correct. Scott Botcher: That's my understanding. Jules Smith: We are not proposing. That's not part of our legislative agenda by any means. Mayor Jansen: And Mr. Smith I would have certainly acknowledged you if I had realized that you were sitting in the back there. 38 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Scott Botcher: He's in the dark. Mayor Jansen: You probably haven't met half of us. Jules Smith is our representative on the Met Council. Jules Smith: Actually I was hoping that sometime when you don't have too big a work schedule to come in for a formal discussion with the council so I'll get that on the agenda. Scott Botcher: Give me a call. We'll figure that out. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Scott Botcher: And I didn't mean to put you on the spot and I didn't mean to overstep my bounds but I just want that to be clear in terms of, and I've been straight with Linda on this. To me, whether or not you have your goal at 20% or 30% isn't, to me it's not a huge deal. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and that's why I'd like to bring it to council to just see where everyone in fact stands on it and I appreciate your opinion. However, when you attend the workshops or you discuss, I don't know if it's just with you that you're not hearing adding teeth or going for legislation. Maybe they're just trying to spread that around at these workshops to put a little fear. Scott Botcher: Oh sure they are. Mayor Jansen: In fact one of the things that I noticed at the workshop where there were 200 people from around the metropolitan area there, there were only 3 elected officials and I was 1 of them. So if they are going to try to get this message across to elected officials, there is a pretty effective way of doing that and that's you start rattling and talking about mandating things that they're not going to fund. That we then end up having to foot the bill for and I do get concerned about that as a community issue. Scott Botcher: And frankly Met Council comes under assault by all sorts of people. Should they be elected? Should they not be elected? Should they be appointed by somebody besides the governor? Should they not? I mean, and that's sort of beyond us but I just think, it's a very complicated issue and we all need to be... Now whether or not you all, what you think is LCA is sort of separate and apart from that, but like I said that is a relationship that you all have with the council itself via the written document. Mayor Jansen: Sure. So I don't know if after the presentation with Ms. Aanenson that we're prepared to discuss this tonight and reach a conclusion or if council would in fact like to review the documents and information further. I'll leave that up to. Councilman Labatt: Can we get copies of your power point presentation? Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. Councilman Labatt: I'd like to get that and read that more and. Mayor Jansen: There was some good updated information in your presentation. That was great. 39 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: Some of the questions that were posed about you know large tract landowners and they don't want to develop. That needs to be addressed when we lose 150 acres to one person. Scott Botcher: I think what I hear Linda saying, I think your gut is probably right in terms of where those numbers are going to go because of the land that's been used already. I think you're probably right on that. But again if we're going to try and quantify that, which I know Bob will ask about, how do we quantify this stuff because he is a freshman, warm and fuzzy guy, I mean that's what that census data will do that. In conjunction with Met Council and we can make determination are the goals acceptable or not? Do we want to agree with these? And if we don't, we walk away and if we do, we do the deal. Councilman Ayotte: One of the other things I'd like for the record, but to find out, maybe do a little bit more fact finding to see why with the construction of the apartment complexes we've missed the mark. Mayor Jansen: We can get that quantified for you. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Because if we can go back to that point it might influence how we go forward. Okay? Mayor Jansen: Very good. Anyone else care to comment? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think it's a very, very complex issue and I think number one, I would personally like to have the right number there. If 30's not it, then let's be sure what the number is versus saying let's just go down to 20 for the sake of going to 20. Because I think that could have a negative impact too. Seeing a council change their goals unilaterally without going through the proper due diligence I think is disrespectful of the process itself. So I'd vote certainly to, or share my thoughts that we should get more information and try to get more questions answered. Mayor Jansen: Okay, any other comments? Councilman Kroskin: I agree with Councilman Peterson. I'd like the opportunity to read through Kate's presentation from the work session so I can sort of get my arms around it and understand all the detail. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Let's do that then. Kate, if you can provide us copies of your power point presentation, that would be wonderful. We also then of course do have the housing forum that we're moving forward with as far as trying to get that planned. Councilman Labatt: Any possible month that might happen in? March? April? Scott Botcher: We have some serious scheduling to do Linda. We have to pick a date. We've got a bunch of stuff. We've got the budget. We'll just... Mayor Jansen: I think tentatively as we were kicking it around, we were looking at April or May. Yeah, as far as timing because we're also trying to time it around the community survey that will be done. Scott Botcher: You have a busy calendar coming up. Councilman Labatt: I'm going to Canada fishing in May so. 40 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Tell us your vacation dates. Scott Botcher: Do you want us to confirm with Guy or other Met Council staff as to what their plans are? Like confirming the census thing. Do you want us to do any of that? I don't care. Mayor Jansen: Let's do get something of a statement as to maybe where they're going and what they're looking at and their intention so that we do have something to direct us because there are numerous representatives from the Met Council that are talking around this putting teeth in it point of view, so I'd rather hear it from maybe Guy Peterson. Scott Botcher: I just you know, they may offer us opportunities or present threats. We don't know. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Botcher: You know, and I'm the first one to say that you get into the last weekend of the session, there's a budget bill, they could throw something like that in. It's a garbage bill. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Are we clear on our direction? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Are we set? Okay. We don't need a motion. That was just open for discussion. I did not open it up for public comment. We were going to try to go ahead and move on though. I don't want to cut anyone off if we have 1 or 2 people that would like to take 5 minutes to say something. Kate Aanenson: I would just make available, anybody else that's interested in that report is welcome to get a copy of that. Mayor Jansen: Oh thanks for mentioning that. I don't know if you could hear Ms. Aanenson over the speakers. She had done a wonderful power point presentation for us, giving us all the background and detail and numbers and she just offered to be able to make a copy of that for anyone else who would be interested in getting a copy. Okay, thank you. Then we will move on to point 5 on our agenda. APPEAL DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOTS 998-1000, CARVER BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON. Public Present: Name Address Bob Nelson Kermit Austad Keith Peterson 970 Carver Beach Road 980 Carver Beach Road 921 Hiawatha Drive Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is an appeal of a denial of a variance request. The applicant has a lot that is 9,000 square feet less than the 15,000 square foot 41 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 minimum lot size. It's 30 feet less than the 90 foot lot width and even granting those two variances to comply with ordinance we need to provide another variance approval. Either from impervious surface coverage, requirement for a 2 car garage, requirement for an improved driveway, or the requirement for a minimum house size. The applicant has submitted a plan that fits within the setbacks established under the zoning district. It does require a variance to permit 36% impervious surface coverage. The standard is 25%. Staff has analyzed our ordinance to see what a minimum requirement is for a two story home. 30% impervious surface coverage does seem appropriate. Were the city to require that it be a ramble design to meet the ordinance requirements we would have to provide a variance to permit 36% impervious surface coverage. Staff believes that the applicant's original request is a reasonable alternative and we're recommending approval. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: When you're saying original request, the one that's before us tonight, correct? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff? Councilman Ayotte: I've got a couple. First off we did get legal counsel and the description and I forget the section, 20-58, Benson does in fact meet the definition of undue hardship, correct? Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Number two. A number of the residents have stated in correspondence I've read that there was requests made of various people to see whether or not the lot was buildable. A number of residents said that in fact they were told it was not buildable and I understand that we do not have anything in our records to demonstrate documentation to that effect, is that true? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: Do any residents have documentation to that effect? Bob Generous: None that they've provided. Councilman Ayotte: Nothing that's been provided. Alright. In that particular area the percent of variances requested compared to the other variances on an average basis, is there anything extreme? I understand that that area has had a lot of variances. Is that true or false? Bob Generous: Carver Beach was platted in 1927 so we do have a lot of substandard properties that are developed in there. Not in this immediate block, but throughout the entire Carver Beach area. Councilman Ayotte: I don't know if I'd use the term substandard but in terms of variance, there's been a bunch of them but not in that immediate area? Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And the recommendation on the part of the commission was primarily because of the height of the structure? 42 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Bob Generous: I believe that was one of their primary concerns. That the size of the structure would not fit in with the rambler and split entries that were predominant on that block. Councilman Ayotte: And the commission hasn't seen why Benson has proposed at this point? Bob Generous: Yes they had a copy of that. That 3 story. Councilman Ayotte: But is there another, is there another structure that's being proposed? Mayor Jansen: Hasn't it been modified since the Planning Commission saw it because didn't the setbacks in fact, it now comes within the setbacks? Bob Generous: That was an original, a separate proposal done back in December. It was working with Habitat for Humanity for a 2 level home. Councilman Ayotte: But I thought there was another one since then. Bob Generous: No. Councilman Ayotte: No. I'm confused. Bob Generous: We had the Habitat proposal and then this one. Kate Aanenson: Habitat was denied. They withdrew. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, and so there's another one? Kate Aanenson: ...went forward. Councilman Ayotte: And the commission had seen the other one? Bob Generous: Yes. That's the one that's in this packet. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Is that the one that's been denied? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Bob Generous: They denied both of them. But the applicant didn't appeal the first decision. This has an alternative because they, the first one had setback variances that were also requested. This one has eliminated the setback variance request. Kate Aanenson: Habitat for Humanity was the first applicant. They chose not to appeal or pursue it. Councilman Ayotte: Got it. Okay. Kate Aanenson: This one was appealed. 43 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Got it. Councilman Labatt: So the only, they're requesting a variance to lot size. To put the house on a 9,000 square foot lot, right? Bob Generous: On a 6,000. Councilman Labatt: Or 6,000. 6,000. And the lot width and lot coverage requirements but as far as any of the setbacks. Bob Generous: They comply with the setbacks. Councilman Labatt: They comply with the setbacks. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: And the decision then that really is before us is that, because this has been designated a buildable lot, is this an acceptable structure meeting the few variances that now staff has tried to apply to this structure because as I understand it from reading the city attorney's memo, unless we plan on purchasing this property by making it a taking, there is going to be a building on this property. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, no matter what. The buy back, what would the city eat on a buy back? Mayor Jansen: I don't know that we want to be speculating you know where we end up there. I mean this is a buildable lot and the applicant has, I mean where the city attorney is going is that they have a right to build a structure. Councilman Ayotte: But at this point it's either that Benson builds or we could face a buy back at this point, or down the road another buildable. Kate Aanenson: Well there are a couple other scenarios. You could decide to give a variance to a different type of project too. I mean you could say we'd rather have a rambler and we'd acquiesce and give variances here if, there's all kinds of things. This is the proposal that they have in front of you. You have discretion to say. Bob Generous: 30% hard coverage for instance or limit it to a 2 story structure. Mayor Jansen: And if we were to go to a rambler at this point, can it make the setback requirements? What you'd say, it's a 960 square foot minimum. Bob Generous: That would be the assumption, it would have to be a L shape structure around the garage. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if we were to designate that it could be a rambler, we're not now stepping it closer to the neighbors. My concern is I would want it within setbacks so we're not expending then towards the neighbors as we go to say a single level. Bob Generous: Well the ordinance says you get, minimum rambler size is 1,050 square foot. There's about 1,600 square feet in the buildable envelope. So with a 576 square foot garage and the 1,050 you're just slightly over but. 44 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for addressing that. Appreciate it. I don't see the applicant here tonight, unless I'm missing her. Okay, alright so no applicant comments. This is not a public hearing because the public hearings were held back at the Planning Commission. We do have everyone's comments that were included in the Planning Commission minutes. We have all of the memos that were in fact addressed to us. If in fact anyone has anything new to add, if you would like to add something new, I'm going to keep it limited to 5-10 minutes do we can get this accomplished and again, same ground rules as earlier. If we can keep this focused on just the issue and keep everything amicable, that would be wonderful. So if you'd like to step forward and state your name and address for the record. Keith Peterson: My name is Keith Peterson. I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive and we have a sheet here of people in the neighborhood that are opposing this... I heard you talking about buy back. I don't know if you have our letters. We have offered to buy this lot for a profit. I don't know, do you have that letter? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I read it. Keith Peterson: Okay. So and it is more than she paid for it so. Our problem is that we see it as, if this gets approved it's for profit. She's not going to live in this house and it states right in the code ifa variance cannot be permitted if it is for a profit so that's where we have a real hard problem with it. When the city tells us that it's not buildable, you know we should have had it tape recorded or something, but you know how do you document that. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else caring to address the council? I'm going to bring this back to council. If anyone would care to start with comments. Councilman Ayotte: In light of the new information that I just heard from Kate and Bob, I want to push it back to the Planning Commission. The reason why I want to push it back to the Planning Commission is ultimately I think the Planning Commission should deal with these sorts of issues, one. Two, I'd like to see the research, more research on what would be proposed with respect to a rambler. Three, with these 48 signatures, I don't know if it's fully understood that if this council disapproves, that something's still going to get built on it so I thin it's got to be worked out with the Planning Commission because I don't think it's clearly understood the implications of the situation. So that's where I'm going to go to push it back there so that all the alternatives are discussed and understood and then dealt with. And I don't think it is. Mayor Jansen: Okay, because traditionally the way that we have handled these in the past is because the Planning Commission has seen this project, we would be directing staff as far as the conditions that we would now be applying to this. If we're saying that you know we would accept a rambler versus a two story and if it meets the setbacks and the variances versus sending it back to the Planning Commission to work it through. Councilman Ayotte: That might be the case but given the fact that I don't think that the residents are educated to all of the points and given the fact that there are other alternatives that haven't been researched completely, I still feel that the Planning Commission should. Mayor Jansen: I'm not sure what alternatives you're referring to because they're all presented within the staff report as to the buildable area of the lot. Councilman Ayotte: I missed the issue with the rambler until just now. 45 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: It's in the staff report actually, respectfully Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I missed it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Other comments? Councilman Labatt: Kate, just to piggy back on Bob here quick. The review deadline date is 2-157 Kate Aanenson: I just got asked that. We can take an additional 60 days. What we would do is mm around and send a letter to the applicant that said additional information is requested. We are going to ask for the additional 60 days. Councilman Labatt: And then if she doesn't grant that, then where does that put us? Kate Aanenson: We have the right to ask for 60 days if we have legitimate reasons. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Well I guess you know we've got a document from our attorney that says this is a buildable lot and we have choice A or B. Now what's going to have the least impact on the neighbors? And whether that may be looking at B with having the 2 story or rambler on there instead, maybe we can look at that lot but she's entitled to build on it and we have to respect that. We also need to respect the neighbors position and that's where it gets down to minimize the impact on them. Councilman Kroskin: Well I agree with Councilman Labatt. I actually looked at the lot myself and the ordinance and the variance for profit, I think if you apply some common sense to that, it's pretty much aimed at existing structures. You know you can park anything on this lot and you're going to increase the value of it. And again it is a buildable lot. Something's going to go on there. I guess I would be interested in hearing from the residents. With that being the case, what type of structure they would prefer, you know taking their concerns into consideration. That's it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Peterson: I would concur with Mr. Kroskin's statements. I don't really want to pick. I don't think that's what we're here to do. We've got a buildable lot and I think we can seek some more feedback from the residents that are out there and move ahead with that recommendation. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Right now you've got a recommendation from the Planning Commission for denying a 2 story, or 3 story structure on this property so I'm of the assumption that we're not going higher. So if what we're doing is coming down to a rambler, if that's the direction, you know. Councilman Peterson: I think the problem though is that a rambler will be closer because you're going to spread it out, closer to the neighbors and I think if they were posed with that question, they may not say rambler. Mayor Jansen: What I'm hearing staff say is that it will be within the same setbacks that this structure is meeting, correct? Councilman Labatt: L shaped rambler rather than some flat, rectangle box. It will be an L. 46 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Because I'm always in favor of as much input from the neighbors as a project can receive but I guess what I'm seeing is that the first option was not a consideration as far as the Planning Commission was concerned and looking at and having spoken with at least one neighbor on one side, and I'm sure I'm assuming he's probably reflective of the opinions of the homes immediately impacted by this home, and correct me if I'm wrong. Do we have the neighbor from the other side here? I'm seeing Wally here this evening. If we could, and is council okay with this? We have 2 homes that are immediately impacted by this project and you've seen the Planning Commission now has declined the 2 story structure. Is that the direction that you two would like to proceed in as far as if there's going to be a structure on this property, and we're being told by the city attorney that there will be, is a rambler a better option? Is that the direction you would like to give council as far as the structure? Or are you comfortable speaking? Bob Nelson: ... no structure is the third option. I think ordinances are a little ambiguous. Kermit Austad: It will be an eyesore and it's going to reduce the value of our property. Mayor Jansen: Okay, well. Bob Nelson: You're looking at 12,000 to 20 some thousand square foot lots. Mayor Jansen: If you wouldn't mind maybe speaking at the podium for us so that we do have your comments on the record, I would certainly appreciate it and state your name and address for us for the record. Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road which is directly to the west. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Bob Nelson: I also own the property which is a mirror size right behind that as part of the property that I have. So I've got 26,000 square feet and my property, Wally and Keith both have 12,000 in their's and now you're going to put a 6,000 because it's a buildable lot, which we were unaware of. You're going to put a 6,000 square foot lot in there and house. You're not going to be able to, a rambler, you know you were talking about an L shaped rambler. There's still a garage going to be built on that. So it's going to be a box. It's going to be a square. That's what it's going to be, and it's got to be a double garage. Mayor Jansen: And again, I guess the point that we're faced with is that because it is a buildable lot, legally a structure can be built on the property and that is what we have been advised by the city attorney's office so our options are limited to giving direction on what is in fact the acceptable structure and I certainly sympathize with all of you. When you've grown accustomed to an open area next to your homes and certainly this is an established neighborhood so it does make it even more difficult to accept when you've all been on your properties as long as you have been. So I certainly feel the discomfort of having this occur and we're trying to decrease the amount of impact if you would. Bob Nelson: Maybe a nice triple garage would work. Just a garage. We've already made an offer to Ms. Benson regarding that. You have a copy of that letter with what our intentions were to do. If you limit her to a rambler, I cannot see a 2 story building being put in there. It does not fit into that neighborhood at all. All the other homes are ramblers. If you limit it to a rambler, it's going to be a small one. Very small. I guess that would be my suggestion. 47 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. To keep it consistent with the neighborhood. Okay. Bob Nelson: If she wants to build a small rambler, then let her build a small rambler. Mayor Jansen: And I'm sure you all realize that the smaller the home, the smaller the value possibly as far as it impacting your own property values. Bob Nelson: That's why we're here now. Mayor Jansen: The more value that ends up on that property probably the better for your own property values, versus it being you know a smaller home. But I certainly understand what it is you're trying to accomplish. I just, as far as property values it's just something to take into consideration. Not that you want a huge structure next to you. That's not where I'm going. Bob Nelson: I understand. I know what you're saying. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Bob Nelson: But I think to be consistent with what's in the neighborhood, one the lot's not in the first place so I guess if you have to build on it, you folks are the ones that are making that decision. We told you what we want. You're telling us we can't have what we want so we'll let you guys make the decisions and then we'll let things go from. You know if you want to go back to the Planning Commission... because of setbacks, it's a 6,000 square foot lot amongst 18 and 20 or 10 to 20,000 square foot. It just does not fit. Mayor Jansen: And I certainly identify with what you're perceiving coming out of the Planning Commission. They will reach a point too, if a rambler comes in where they will not be able to deny, because it does become a taking. We're now taking away the property owners rights if we deny anything to be built on it. Bob Nelson: So what we're saying, you know what we want. You know what you can do. That's why you're all elected to your positions. That's why the commission is where they're at. You make the decision. We're asking you. And we have to live with what you decide. Mayor Jansen: Well and I appreciate your feedback on this. Excuse me, Councilman Ayotte has a question for you Mr. Nelson. Councilman Ayotte: Mr. Nelson, I've got a question for you. Do you believe Benson would enter discussions with you to possibly purchase portions of someone's property to increase the setback? And would you entertain that and would the option for a larger home be an option? If the. Bob Nelson: Yes, no, no. She already has talked to me about it. I've been on the phone with her a number of times. Mayor Jansen: And I don't know that we want to do those negotiations. Bob Nelson: No, the back piece is not for sale period. So that's why you guys get elected. Make those decisions. 48 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And paid the big bucks. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. So I guess I'm hearing that council would like to have more public input to the issues still. Craig's shaking his head. Councilman Peterson: I think you just got it personally so. Councilman Kroskin: Yeah I do too. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: We'll entertain a motion, Craig go ahead. Mayor Jansen: Just a minute, we've got legal counsel wanting to. Andrea Poehler: If I could interject here. Maybe if you could since you can take the additional time, if you could table this to the next meeting and at that time you could have findings available. Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable with that. Motion to table. Mayor Jansen: And that's if we're going to be placing a rambler on the property we need to table for the findings. Andrea Poehler: Right. You'll be denying the impervious surface coverage variance request. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I'm not sure that they need to do that. They would just put an additional condition that it would have to be limited to a rambler Kate Aanenson: Bob Generous: design. Kate Aanenson: I guess my question is can we make the recommendation, could this council make the recommendation subject to approval of the Findings of Fact at the next meeting? Andrea Poehler: That'd be fine, yep. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Then we'd put that on consent. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Jansen: What she said, right? Councilman Ayotte: Do the residents understand it? I mean that's not. Mayor Jansen: Okay, the council is putting a limitation on the applicant that this could only be a rambler style home that goes onto the property, is the condition that's being added. And now it would be going back to have the findings added. 49 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: Right. So it will meet the setback requirements and the impervious surface requirements. That's going to be the definition and we'll come back for findings. Bob Generous: Kate Aanenson: Mayor Jansen: Scott Botcher: No, they need the impervious. 36%. 36%, right. 36%. So it will meet the setbacks and it will meet a 36% impervious surface. So it will be going back to Planning Commission? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Everyone clear? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I think we had a motion. motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Jansen: Okay, I have a second. We need a second. Do I have a second to the Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves Variance #2000-14 for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an existing 6,000 square foot lot and an 11% variance from the 25% site coverage to permit site coverage up to 36% for the construction of a single family, rambler style home based upon the staff report and the following conditions: A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. Sanitary sewer lateral connection charges, watermain lateral connection charges, truck sanitary sewer hook-up and trunk watermain hook-up charges shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. The trees along the northern property line are to be saved. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. Three trees shall be replanted on the property, at least two of which shall be located in the front yard. 5. Approval of Findings of Fact prepared by the City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 50 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And neighbors, I appreciate your patience with the system. We certainly identify with the fact that the change is difficult and I appreciate your comments to help us guide the application so that it at least is a little bit more palatable for everybody. But thanks for being here tonight. I have a question in regards to everything else that's on the agenda. Councilman Labatt has suggested that he might be deserting us at 10:00. Councilman Labatt: No, I can stick around a little longer. I got it worked out but I've got to desert about 11:00. Mayor Jansen: Oh okay. We'll move along. Okay. DISCUSSION OF THE CHRISTMAS DISPLAY ON LAKE LUCY ROAD. Teresa Burgess: This is additional information that came in after the deadline. I was not able to get it out. The first one in that larger packet is the e-mail that I sent to councilmembers. The remainder is other comments from the property owner. And then I also have a typed up... information from the deputy. And I won't go through the comments from the property owners. They're very similar to the ones that we've received previously. We have received comments both in support and in opposition to the Christmas display. We are not here to discuss those this evening, but we did request comments just for council information. What we're here to discuss this evening is the 5 violations that have been listed out in the staff report and I'll run through those very quickly for those people that haven't seen them. The first one is that parking is prohibited on both sides of Lake Lucy Road. The display is designed. Mayor Jansen: Excuse me. Could you pull the microphone just a little closer for us, I'd appreciate it. Teresa Burgess: The display is designed to encourage drivers to actually stop and get out of the vehicle and the property owners actually provide treats on certain evenings encouraging people to get out, come visit Santa Claus, have some hot cocoa and in doing that we do have people parking on Lake Lucy Road. Loud speakers are used to play music and when I say loud speakers I don't want to imply that this something like a car lot. It's not. It is much smaller than that but they are loud speakers. They do fall under the requirement of our ordinance. They do not have a permit for those. Portions of the display are on city right-of-way and I do have the pictures. You also received them in your packet. We'll go through those real quick just so you can see exactly the concern area. The signage that was put up this year was put up by the property owner. It does meet the MMUTCD, and I apologize for using the jargon in the report. That is the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It didn't catch it when I wrote the report. Nobody called and asked me what it was. The display is in violation of the city's light ordinance. There are several locations in the city code that do address light ordinance. And then also the display is in violation of the setback variance to the front yard setback. And I hope all the planners didn't leave because if you have questions on that, I do have to defer to them a little bit. Just to go through real quickly. The pictures that I have, and can you put those up on the screen? It's okay because I brought hard copies just in case. There you go. This is coming from the west side as you approach the property. And you can see right in here, it's difficult to see I know on this screen but this is the start of the display. This yellow sign right here is actually a sign that shows, it says hidden driveway. And we only put these up when there's a severe visibility problem. It just goes to show that there is a problem out in this area. This is approaching from the west, and this is the area where the right-of-way concern, is a severe concern for it. These two posts right here were installed by the property owner to light this section of the display. This section of the display is actually on the right-of-way. The biggest concern are these two posts. They are sunk into the ground and the property owner told us he could not remove them because they are so 51 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 securely installed at this point and with the frozen ground, he cannot get them out unless he cuts them off at the ground. This is a concern for traffic. If we were to have a vehicle go errant and hit one of these, I'm sure Councilman Labatt has seen an unfortunate number of these in his profession. The city would be liable for placing, for allowing the placement of a structure in the right-of-way that was struck by a vehicle. It also causes problems for snow removal and the city is responsible for snow removal although the property owner has done a lot of snow removal in this area to maintain access to his display. This is just a close up of some of the additional parts of the display and you can see how it does encourage people to get out of their vehicle and come up and look at it. The other thing I'd like the council to note is how close, this is the curb line right here and I've actually been out there a number of times and seen people standing about right here to be able to see this display. They cannot get off the road and see the display. They're standing in the street as they look at the display and you can't see it from a moving vehicle. You can see the detail in this display. And so it is a severe safety concern to have, in the evening I was there the child that was standing here was probably about 7. And that child was still standing there when I came back the other direction so they had been standing there, if you've been by this, it takes about 20 minutes to go by and come back. And that child was there when I came through the first time and there when I came back. This is just some more detail on the display. Again you can see the amount of detail that's encouraging people to come in. You can see the amount of detail in the back that you can't even see from your vehicle. If you want to see this, you do have to get out of your car. And this is coming up on the end of the display. This is the tail end of the property. And just a close-up of exactly what that is. That is in a nutshell the display. We tried to take night pictures just so people could see what the traffic looked like and unfortunately those pictures did not turn out. With all of the headlights and the lights from the display, what we ended up with was just a white glare across the entire thing. And we could not get good pictures of that. However we did ask the deputies for feedback. We also asked our CSO to spend some time out on this site and to give us some feedback. And real quickly, we didn't receive a lot of complaints this year. We did receive a number of calls for the noise. We received a lot of calls for parking problems, where people were parking in private driveways. Those are not listed here. The complaints that are listed here on specific evenings regarding specific items. At one time the deputies made a comment that they had seen 30 to 35 vehicles parked in the area. A mix of pedestrians and motorists passing by slowly. Parked vehicles, etc. We've also heard from the deputies that there are children in the road. Parents with strollers, etc and then you'll also see a couple of comments from property owners in there. What we're asking the council this evening, and the reason we're bringing it back to council is we were given, and when I say we, I mean city staff because I obviously was not here. We were given direction at one point verbally to look the other way on some of these violations. Now at the time this was a much smaller display and the violations were not nearly as severe. At that time the real concern was the parking on Lake Lucy Road. Last year when this issue came up, Scott Botcher, the former Mayor Nancy Mancino and myself met with the property owners. We discussed the parking issue and the pedestrians on the road and felt that it was important that we at least issue a parking permit allowing people to park because they do park. At that time the council did authorize a parking permit for this property during the Christmas season. Since that time these other issues have come up from other departments that they started to approach me and say there are these other violations that we have not pursued. None of the sitting council members were part of that council that directed us verbally to look the other way. We're asking for your direction on how should we approach these? Should we ask the property owners to go through the process and to get approvals on these items? Should we be looking at these, we'd like to do it now so we can approach the property owners and make sure that they are having plenty of time to address this because this is a display that is looked forward to every year by a large population. People come from miles around to come and see this and we want to make sure that we are not stopping something that is a good thing. We just want to be able to make it fit into our community and meet our current ordinances. With that I will turn it back to the council and answer any questions. 52 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Thank you. I appreciate that. Why don't we go ahead, if the Kendall's would like to make a statement at this point. This is not a public hearing and we have certainly appreciated the large amount of response that we did get out of the neighborhood as far as providing us with written comments and we certainly would like to encourage that again this stays as to the point and to the issues as possible. We realize that it's turned into again, a rather emotional and passionate issue for the neighbors and we certainly can appreciate that and identify with it but with that, if you'd like to go ahead and share your comments with us, you're welcome to at this time. If you'd state your name and address for the record please. Bob Kendall: I'm Bob Kendall, 1645 Lake Lucy Road. I'm responsible for the Christmas display. Mayor Jansen: And we appreciate it. Bob Kendall: Well thank you. I wish I wasn't here tonight but. Mayor Jansen: Ah, ah, please. I didn't mean to cause my own uproar, but thank you. Bob Kendall: It's unfortunate. It has been sensitive but it does bring a lot of glory to people. I don't know if all of you have been there. If you get to spend time there. If you're there momentarily for a few minutes or you're there for 3 or 4. Some people can spend an hour and a half there. I don't know ifI should tell you that or not but we're going to. Some of the issues that come up on the road with the city ordinances I'm aware of. After we have discussed them. One was the poles. Next year I'm going to move the poles back. If it's an issue with safety. One other direction I have with the council is that ifI have poles there and I don't have any problem moving the poles back, but what do we do with mailboxes? What do we do with other obstructions that are on roadside that we're concerned about getting hit? Those are, you know, other buildings the bear house. Those have been all set back. I think they're very, very close to the setback line and those issues. I do plow the road. I keep the road clean. I keep it curb to curb. I go from Yosemite almost to the top of the hill, especially when we got a lot of snow. Went all the way to the top of the hill, all the way up to Whitetail Dove and all the way around the comer. And I've also cleared that comer out well so you can park on the road and try to have decent safety there. I think a lot of people saw the new signs that were put up this year with the cones. We did a lot of verbiage on the west side coming around the curve. There was 6 signs on that side. Then we went to barricades. If the city's worried about pertinent of safety there, I agree we shouldn't have any parking there. I don't think we should have parking in front of the display. I don't think we should have parking across Craig and Deanna's yard and to the neighbor's other concern about the blocking of the driveway. I don't think the neighbors should have people turning around in their driveway. That's something else I'd like to address. I can verbiage that. I can verbiage it so that if someone wants to turn around in the driveway, you can get a ticket. I don't know how and where all these people are going with that though but. Regarding trying to get the posts out. Jeff contacted me after the city talked to them. He said you need to move the posts. I said okay. I said if you told me this a couple weeks earlier before we got all the snow and the frost in the ground with people trampling the frost into the ground, I probably would have been able to remove them but there was a hard chance that they were ever going to come out of the ground at that time. Not to say that the stakes were going to come and go put up on top of the hill. And to say to further motion, I mean to put that into more. I talked to Teresa on the phone about the accessory setbacks. I mean I had the display up, I don't know what exactly date it was, but the display was already up. I already had snow pack. I had everything going as it was. Steve, or Jeff at your CSO mentioned it to me once. Keith Walgrave was there once and he said not to worry about it. He's one of your deputies at Carver County. I also would possess that the safety of the road with the traffic being on it's calmest, and also with the Deputy Keith Walgrave that has spent 53 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 hours there with his dog over seeing this display this year, to find out and comment to him where he thinks these people are standing in the middle of the road. Where they're dashing out of their cars, because it does not happen. And I've spent many hours on the road. There is a concern, but I think some of the neighbors that drive by see certain things at particular times and you know if they are slowed down, that traffic is almost to a halt. I've talked to Mark a little bit about it previously. If you want to put the no parking zone on the street and not give me, you know the happiness to put out a Christmas display, I think you've going to have even worst problems with traffic. I mean I talked to Inver Grove Heights. They have a big Christmas display. It's many houses. There's not ever house participates, but do you want traffic backed up from 17 to 1177 Even this year the traffic moved and I was up there on weekends on the heavy nights to make sure the traffic kept on going. To make sure the traffic wasn't in the driveways for the people too so. I'm totally not prepared but I appreciate, you know the issues I'm always willing to deal with. There's a lighting ordinance. I don't know if we even got into that. I never even knew about that ordinance. Nancy Mancino, the previous mayor said that I was supposed to get an invitation to give my voice on it. Evidently 2 neighbors got their opinions on it. I did not. Commenting on violations that they've been there for, I mean the display's gotten larger and larger. I think we added 2 buildings, Keebler House, Choir House, and Santa Claus House, and there were some detail in the display but that's what makes this whole thing go. I could keep going. Mayor Jansen: Okay, tell you what. Can I ask you some questions and we'll also have council maybe pose a couple to you. Bob Kendall: Yes. Mayor Jansen: I certainly, I guess I want to start out by saying I'm sure that on behalf of the community we all appreciate the effort that you put into your property and the significance of the display and you know the contribution that you make to Christmas. With the efforts that you put in. I hope that in whatever we do accomplish here this evening that it's not perceived by yourself as our wanting to necessarily put a burden on you. I think you've spoken with a couple of us now and you've acknowledged our concerns that at this point there seems to need to be some more amicable agreement reached with the people who are the most impacted on a nightly basis. So that people who do journey into the community to witness your display once, twice, three times in a season, that they can continue to do that and enjoy it and that it's not burdensome on everyone but, you know please don't take whatever we end up accomplishing here with you this evening to be a slam on the wonderful job that you're doing with that display. Now, one of the things that you addressed as far as removing the poles. I'm hearing you say you're fine with doing that and I'm sure come next year it's not something then that you would need to be repeating. I'm hearing you committing to pulling them out this year and respecting the right-of-way and the setbacks then for next year. That sounds like that's amicable to you. Bob Kendall: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The other point that the lighting ordinance that you mentioned here at the end of the discussion. That was a general residential lighting ordinance that was put into place. It is community wide and we in fact have a community wide industrial/commercial ordinance. In fact our environmental commission has been very active in addressing light pollution and they've been printing articles in the Villager and trying to raise all of our awareness of the night sky and not to say that you're the major impact on that, but what we discovered then was that we don't really have anything even within our residential areas to be able to do any sort of a control on the lighting there. In fact your issue with your neighbors as we've been reading through all of the comments, is that our 11:00 within our ordinance is still too late for 54 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 them because of the impact of the lights on their homes. I know you've had some discussion with them on the potential of being able to shut them off by 10:00. Is that something for next year that, I mean our ordinance isn't going to control you on that and a lot of these people are seeming to be disrupted more by the hour than by the existence of the lights. Bob Kendall: Okay, just let's go back to the neighbors now since this has all came about I've made more effort to talk to my neighbors. Deanna across the street, as you will see, the reflection of letters that you received and the comments within it. Mayor Jansen: If we could maybe not be overly specific because we do have a, you know I was logging how many and each one of the categories and there's a breath, and it was more the hour of the operation. Bob Kendall: We agree, yeah. I have talked to Craig and Deanna. 10:00 is fine. They were fine with 11:00 on the weekends. I also talked to Sandy and we were going to try to shut the display down on the 7th. Regarding the sound, which I don't think we really talked too much about. I wasn't aware, they're just computer speakers with a headset driving them. One night they were a little loud but I guarantee you that I will keep those down to a full minimum and I will go with the sound ordinance to keep those off when need be. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I guess that's where I'm going with my questions and I'll open it up to the rest of council. I'm getting the sense off of you that though we have ordinances, that we do need to direct staff because of the liability issue with the city, we will need to direct them to do the enforcement. But it doesn't seem as though within the guidelines of what you need for your display that we're necessarily inhibiting what you want to do. Probably the biggest issue that we're going to need to deal with council at some point, and staff, will be this whole parking versus traffic issue. And I guess we end up putting that back with yourselves and the deputies as to enforcement and how you would handle that. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, ifI could. I wish that one of the planners could have stayed for this part but the, my notes according to the zoning code violation, the setback variance, that is 30 foot front yard setback from the property line. Not from the curb line. That is a significant setback. You're talking almost 40 feet from the curb. I'm not sure that. Bob Kendall: From the curb or from the center line? Teresa Burgess: From the curb. You're talking 30 feet from the property line and we own approximately in the right-of-way approximately 10 feet from the curb so you're talking almost 40 feet from the curb line that you're going to be set back. So I'd just like to point that out so that the property owner is aware. That is why we're bringing it to you now so that if we are directed to enforce these ordinances, the property owner has sufficient time to prepare an application and go through the Planning Commission process to get that variance is they desire to do so. Councilman Labatt: That's for an accessory structure? Teresa Burgess: An accessory structure which with my notes, it says whether temporary or permanent in character and so that would be, those structures that they do have out there for the Christmas display would qualify as an accessory structure according to my discussions with the planning department and also with Roger Knutson who is out of town and Andrea is here this evening. 55 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for mentioning that. So that would need to be worked out then between the applicant and planning department. Teresa Burgess: And that is someplace where the council will have, or the Planning Commission will have as this comes through as a variance, if the property owner chooses to apply for one, that is a place that conditions can be applied for the hours. Our ordinance does say 11:00 p.m. but this is an area where if they choose to do that, this is a place where they council could address some of those issues and place some limitations requesting and formalizing that negotiation with the property owners instead of leaving it to, as was done this year, the property owners were requested to make some changes by their neighbors but it was never formally stated by the city that it was a requirement. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Andrea. Andrea Poehler: Mayor Jansen if I could interject here as well. I don't know if you're hearing me or not. Teresa had raised one point with me earlier Thursday or Friday of last week that I've looked into as well and that is a concern about the display being located in the public right-of-way and the fact that we may have some issues there regarding the establishment of religion clause. Councilman Ayotte: Establishment of what? Andrea Poehler: Religion clause and that we could have a concern about violating that. Where you're allowing, or in essence you may be perceived as supporting a religious display in the public right-of-way, yet if somebody else came to put something in the same right-of-way you would possibly be excluding them. So there are some issues. Mayor Jansen: Interesting facet, okay. Alright, thank you for mentioning that. Council, does anyone have any additional questions for Mr. Kendall while we have him at the podium? Councilman Labatt: ... I do appreciate it and my kids do and my wife does so. How many years have you been doing this? Bob Kendall: At my present home? Councilman Labatt: At your present home. I know you moved there from. Bob Kendall: 4 years. Well this will be 5 years. Councilman Labatt: Your fifth year. Bob Kendall: 6 year resident. Councilman Labatt: So 1996 approximately? Bob Kendall: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And have you ever observed a traffic accident in front of your place? Bob Kendall: No. 56 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: Okay. Have you ever observed a pedestrian get hit? Bob Kendall: No. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Teresa, as far as our light ordinance. When was this last revision was 7-25 of 2000? Teresa Burgess: I believe so. I was not involved in the actual light ordinance adoption, but the last copy I have is... Councilman Labatt: Last summer. And I recall in discussions of that that we have, as a city, Lake Ann and Bluff Creek Rec Center, they're also in violation. Teresa Burgess: Correct. And in this case we are simply asking for direction. Mayor Jansen: Those aren't of this. Scott Botcher: I don't know if that's true or not. Teresa Burgess: That's a different situation though. This is residential. It's an interim use. Councilman Labatt: It's a different zone but it's, well okay. It's a different zone but. Teresa Burgess: And to be honest, the lighting is only one of many issues in this case. If it was the only issue we would simply be discussing with the Kendall's you're in violation and you need to work with us. Because it is so many issues, we're bringing it to the council for direction. Past verbal direction has been to ignore the violations. We're asking council do you want us to continue to do that? Do you want us to work with the property owners to get them to go through the process? The only item on this list, I take that back, there are 2. The lighting ordinance, there is not a permit for light ordinance. The only other item on this list that there is not a permit or a process for is the items in the right-of-way, which from what I have been able to gather, there is no way for us to give that permission. So other than those two items there are processes in place for these items to be addressed and we are asking do you want us to direct the property owner that if he wishes to continue he go through that. There are also, in conjunction with that there are with these violations repercussions to the property owner and enforcement issues and we need to have direction from the council if we should be working with the property owner to avoid an enforcement issue. Councilman Ayotte: Would it be inappropriate to ask for involvement from the neighbors in conjunction with the Kendall's? And would you welcome that so that we would have from the get go interaction with everyone involved? Is that inappropriate? Mayor Jansen: There have been, from what I understand, numerous neighborhood meetings. Is that an accurate? Bob Kendall: Well we had one this year before Christmas. This fall. 57 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Oh I'm not talking about a neighborhood meeting. I'm talking about with the effort to acquire a variance, that there would be input sought by not only the Kendall's but also the neighbors so that the buy in is there on a consistent basis. Is that inappropriate or not? Teresa Burgess: A variance request would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and so that would be a public hearing. It would be noticed to the property owners. In fact our meeting this evening was noticed to the same property owners that would have received a public hearing notice. We chose to send those notices out to 500 feet from the property owners. However, you also received a copy of that letter. It says very clearly in there that we were not looking for spoken comments this evening except from the Kendall's. They were the only ones that an invitation was extended to to speak this evening. We asked for written.., but they would have a chance to speak at a public hearing. Quite often when we have an issue that is a little bit contentious, we do recommend to the property owners that they maybe have a public meeting before hand so that they can be prepared to address the public hearing issues. Try to work them out in advance so that they, so that the public hearing can be a more pleasant experience for all involved and that, in most cases can address a lot of the issues. If the Kendall's are aware of what the issues are, they can then come to the city Planning Commission and say, these are the things we're willing to do that we're hearing from the property owners. And then the public knows that the property owners and adjacent know that they've already been heard and they don't feel a need to step up to the public hearing forum. Mayor Jansen: Okay. While Mr. Kendall's at the podium, were there any direct questions for Mr. Kendall or can we go ahead and have him sit down? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Alright, thank you. Appreciate it. Bob Kendall: Alright. Mayor Jansen: So as we're bringing this back to council, as staff has indicated, they're mainly seeking our direction as to whether or not we would like them to work with the applicant to go through the processes that would be required to legitimize the display basically within city ordinances and city code. And there is the opportunity for them to request the variances and come through the process and permitting processes. Have I summarized that okay? Teresa Burgess: And at this point they are not an applicant. They have not applied for a variance. They have never been required to at this point. Mayor Jansen: And at this point we would be directing you to in fact proceed in that direction as far as making sure that the city's needs are also met as far as making sure that we're not putting ourselves out there for any liabilities at this point. You mentioned several liability issues on the city's part. Teresa Burgess: That is what we're looking for is council direction. Should we be asking them to go through the process or continue with past practice of working with the Kendall's informally but not asking them to go through the formal process. 58 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. So we're not determining tonight whether or not we're granting variances. That would go back to the Planning Commission if they choose to come in with an application. Just so we're all clear as to what staff's requesting from us. Councilman Labatt: Let's assume Teresa, the Kendall's apply for a variance to the Planning Commission. It gets approved through them and approved through us. How long is that variance good forever then or is there a cap on it or they have to come back and apply every year again? Teresa Burgess: I've discussed that with the planning department and there is the option of it being something that is attached to the Kendall's ownership of the property. That it could be something that does not require a full variance application every year. Or it could be a yearly application. It either is an acceptable option, it's just which direction the council directs, feels is better or which direction the Planning Commission, if you leave it to them, feels is more appropriate. If we did go with a continuous every year, we would probably be bringing it back without the public hearing just to make sure that any conditions get added or subtracted as they seem appropriate. Scott Botcher: You need to do it annually given the perpetual change in the display. You're going to want to do it annually. Councilman Peterson: Couldn't you get a conditional use permit and do it, set the annual target. Scott Botcher: You can do something like that but I think you need to at least have some sort of annual review of the display and the impact the display has had upon the community. Councilman Ayotte: As things change. Scott Botcher: Absolutely. Mayor Jansen: And that can be determined as it comes up through the process then as you said, determining the variances. Scott Botcher: The bottom line is, and I told Linda this today. We just need to know do you want us to enforce the rules or not. Mayor Jansen: Yep. Scott Botcher: And we get, contrary to respectfully Mr. Kendall, I personally have seen more people jut out, blow out in the traffic than I care to count. It's a collector street. It's not a residential street like in Inver Grove Heights. There's some significant differences and I just want everyone to know that if we secure these variances, and we have some basic rules that we may have to apply, it very well may significantly impact the display. And keep in mind, this is a residential neighborhood. Mayor Jansen: Understood. Scott Botcher: And we spend a lot of time up here arguing over 6,000 square foot lot, 2 feet here, 2 feet there but we've got this display that's a pretty impactful display that, you know let's remember when we do this, if we apply some of these rules and the variances, that it may reach a point where they may not be 59 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 willing to alter the display to the standards that the city may feel is necessary so, I don't want to make it sound like it's get a variance and we're done because I don't think... Mayor Jansen: No, I think we understand the implication. Let's bring it back to council. If we want to come up with a consensus of what the direction is to staff please. Councilman Kroskin: I have one question. What are the variances with respect to the parking, or the no parking on either side of Lake Lucy? Teresa Burgess: The city has a policy that is in place for lifting, a temporary lifting of no parking zones. Lake Lucy Road is designated no parking and as a requirement, both because of it's collector status and also because of it's funding through the Minnesota State, the Department of Transportation. We have that policy that states that you make an application to the city for temporary lifting of no parking. Our policy states 48 hours. However in this case we brought it to the council and said could you lift it for a little bit longer than that and the council formally did lift it for the duration of the Christmas season from approximately Thanksgiving through January, the New Year's weekend. We'd like to point out the display does go up usually about October and it's up right now. So that gives you an idea of the timeframe that we are looking at. The no parking on Lake Lucy is something that is necessary during general time periods. We do have some ability to limit how much of that area can be used for parking in the parking policy when we lift those restrictions. We can designate only a limited area for parking area. Mayor Jansen: And that would be something that we would be reviewing next year as a permit would be coming through the system. Teresa Burgess: We would review that as the permit comes through the system. Mayor Jansen: Okay. It's not something that we would be determining at this point? Teresa Burgess: And again that's an enforcement issue. This year we did lift parking, the no parking restriction on a large portion of the street because we knew people would park t here and the deputies have not traditionally enforced no parking. It seemed more appropriate to lift the no parking than to leave the no parking in place and not enforce the issue. It puts the deputies in a very poor position to ask them to mm and look the other way and it we felt it was more appropriate to lift the no parking zone than to leave it in place and ask the deputies to do nothing. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Do we have a general consensus on the council to direct staff to work with the applicant to go through the processes on the points in code and ordinance that is affecting this display? Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Mayor Jansen: You're making that a motion? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. He's motioning what she said. Councilman Labatt: I guess the alternative is we tell him to shut it down if we don't. 60 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Well I'm not willing to do that at all. Councilman Peterson: Or we have them look the other way which I'm not really motivated to do either so. Councilman Labatt: No. No. Mayor Jansen: Can I have a second, since we have a motion on the table. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Jansen: Okay, so we have a second. Open for discussion, sorry. I didn't mean to cut anybody off. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to direct staff to work with the applicant to go through the processes on the points in code and ordinance that is affecting this display. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Jansen: Staff are you clear on direction? Teresa Burgess: I am clear. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And thank you to everyone for coming. Appreciate it. Willard Johnson: Mayor, may I make one comment? Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Willard Johnson: If you look back in the city records at the Lake Lucy Road...they wanted to re-widen it again when it reaches to Lake Lucy Road... people that live along there call the city hall and get a permit to park and that was, if you check back in the city records... Mayor Jansen: Okay, appreciate your comments. No, this wasn't a public hearing. We had everyone's comments within the record that were submitted in writing. Thank you. DISCUSSION OF THE 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ASSESSMENTS - PROJECT NO. 01-01. Teresa Burgess: Well it has to be really brief because I can't stand very long and I have to put this up on the board so I can explain what I'm talking about. Councilman Ayotte: Do you want to sit down Teresa or do it from the seat? Teresa Burgess: I'll be fine. In 30 seconds or less I'll give a quick lesson on pavement management. We'll go over this in a little bit more detail with the council members when they come through council orientation but. 61 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Excuse me, if you wouldn't mind maybe stepping out. We're just going to finish up. Thank you. Not meaning to scoot you out but. Teresa Burgess: In 2000 the City did a study of the entire city's street system and we put together a street pavement system management plan and that's what this book is. And just to run through it real quick. What the intention is, when you have a street. These are actually points. Each of these scattered points is the, an actual street that was inspected by someone physically going out there and looking at it and they gave it a ranking and that ranking is based on the number of cracks in the street. The number of cuts for utilities. The number of patches. How good the street looks, and then also some information that we have from our public works department from looking at what they know from how many times they've covered up some problems out there for us and that's what all of these scattered pieces are. Now then the computer went through and it created a model. This is the top line. This is the bottom line. The one in the middle is approximately what the city of Chanhassen's streets do. And this is based on actual impurical data that the city has collected. The intention, when you're doing proper pavement management and what the computer is trying to tell us to do is to catch the streets in this end right here. If you catch the streets right about here you can do what's called a mill and overlay. Every time you do that you bump the street condition back up to 100. Theoretically you can do that for eternity. The discussion that I've had when people have asked me to explain that in normal household terms, a mill and overlay is putting new shingles on your roof. It's something that every time you put new shingles on, if you sell your house they ask when was your new roof put in and you say the year you put in the new shingles. Once the pavement gets down into here it's not very cost effective to mill and overlay. You might as well wait until it starts to fall off down into here. Now once you get down into here you're talking about a full reconstruct. A full reconstruct, to put that into household terms is when you take, and instead of just putting on new shingles, you put on new sheathing, new tar paper and new shingles. So we're talking about a significant change in the cost of the project from here to here. The only thing that that doesn't work on is when you're up in here and you have a street that you've done this with and you've done this recycle and continuous mill and overlay and then you have a watermain problem. And we do have one project in our area that we're proposing for this year that has a severe watermain problem. It automatically bumps down here because you cannot do watermain repair, sanitary sewer repair, significant repairs where you've got to dig up the street up in this area. You have to dig it up. You have to dig trenches and so the only hope is to come down here and in those cases a lot of times we'll let a road deteriorate for cost savings benefit. Now when you look at this from a cost benefit analysis, there's another thing to keep in mind. As you're up in here, your maintenance of this pavement to keep it driveable is what would be considered reasonable. Once you get out to here, we can keep this pavement driveable out here at this end. This plateau out here. We can make it so you can get into your house, no problem. It's what it costs us. And we are seeing at this point in the city of Chanhassen mill and overlay projects, we're seeing overlay projects every 2 years. Not the mill and overlay but the overlap projects every 2 years. We should be seeing those every 15. So you can see that we have a significant cost increase in our maintenance program. The city currently funds that maintenance program 100% out of general fund budget so if we continue down this road we have a lot of streets that are in great shape right now and we'd love to keep those streets in good shape. Longacres is an excellent example. They're relatively new. They get taken care of now. We could be for the next 30 years enjoying the benefits of a well built street. If we don't do those things though, we will eventually have every street in this city needing those 2 year overlays and the maintenance costs will be astronomical. We can't afford to do that. And so looking at that, one of the things I did is I drew up an assessment roll looking at the potential assessments to be able to do a project this year. And I did burn these on the computer so we can talk numbers and the council may need to think about this for a while but looking at our 100% assessment roll, with our 30% indirect cost, and that's that first spreadsheet. This is what our current policy says we're supposed to do. We're looking at assessments ranging from $20,849 per parcel to $1,201 per parcel. 62 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 That $1,201...is one of those mill and overlay projects. You get a lot of bang for the buck. At $20,800, when we saw that number in our department there's no way that we could send that out to a neighborhood and ask them to foot that cost without council consent that that is a reasonable request. We all kind of gagged and we're used to dealing, you know we've been dealing with Highway 5 and we're talking millions and I looked at that and thought, I'd have to mortgage my house. We then did some number crunching and you'll see in there several versions of my number crunching as I tried to come up with something reasonable and the problem we run into is the shortfall. The city shortfall in this whole thing. We start talking about. Councilman Labatt: Is that your Attachment D? Or E? Teresa Burgess: That would be Attachment E. We're looking at anywhere between, and keep in mind the shortfall does not include the city assessments. We assess ourselves. We're looking at anywhere between $300 and $37,000 and $1.4 million in shortfall. Now we can certainly defer some projects. We have some fancy footwork we can do on the financing to bring that number down, but it really is pretty significant what we're talking about. Looking at that first one under there, this is probably the most cost effective from the city standpoint if we don't consider the property owners because we would be using funds out of our sewer and water utility fund to offset some of the costs that people have already paid for once. The only downfall of doing that is that then our water rates need to be adjusted to account for that additional use that we are currently not burdening that fund with. That fund is paid for through water hook-ups and through utility rates. If that is something that the council is interested in pursuing, we would have to do a rate study to see what that impact is to the water rates and the sewer rates to give you an idea. At this time we don't know how much that dollar amount would be and what the impact would be to resident bills. Looking at some of the other options as we get into, the other one that I drew out here with the 40% assessment of the street. You look at those numbers, we're talking about general levy dollars when we start looking at those offsetting costs. The majority of that money does come out of the general levy and so that's a significant impact for the council and I know that this council has discussed, the majority of this council has discussed the issue of budget and trying to cut back and now I'm standing here saying can I have $1.4 million. So with that in a nutshell, trying to tell you why it's important we do it, I would like some council direction on what I should do with these projects. The only one that I am extremely concerned about, the others I'm willing to defer a year ifI need to, is this one. Those of you that have talked to me about this project, this is the area where we've had in excess of 20 watermain breaks in a 2 block area. The property owners are aware of the issues. We are looking at a significant problem. If we experience another watermain break in this area, we probably will not try to patch it. Instead what we will do is hire a contractor under emergency situation to replace the watermain. We've reached the point where there's not enough there to hold it together with a saddle. We'll have to have them come in, remove the pipe and put in new pipe. The entire neighborhood is not in that situation but there is an area in there that if we experience a watermain break in that specific area, we can't fix it. Councilman Labatt: How old is the watermain in that area? Teresa Burgess: The watermain is as old as the neighborhood. Councilman Labatt: Late 60's? Teresa Burgess: We would estimate the late 60's. It is common for watermains to have problems after 30 years. The city of Chanhassen has hot soils. What that means is they're very acidic. They dissolve things that are placed in them. We've had problems with pipes of different ages, depending on the 63 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 materials that were used. We also had a batch of what looks like faulty bolts that came through the city at one point where we had bought a batch of bolts and as we dig up those valves we find a lot of those bolts have, they're not there. There's nothing there. The dirt is what's holding it together. So we do have some watermain that vary in age. Some as young as 10 years old that is some significant problems. In this case it's just a function of the neighborhood. The soil conditions. We've had some shifting. Some settling and then you know watermain breaks happen and unfortunately we have a lot of them in this area. So the other projects I am fairly confident deferring for future but this one is something that it is time for us to address this neighborhood and take a serious look at it. Mayor Jansen: And meaning this year on this one, when you're saying potentially not the others. It's not shifting it long term but potentially next year. Teresa Burgess: Right. The other ones we could shift a year or two. This one needs to be done, if not this year next spring at the very latest. We need to have plans on the books very soon so that we, if we did hit that emergency situation, we would have plans prepared. Otherwise we would probably be out there by the seat of our pants designing in the trenches. Mayor Jansen: So now I'm really looking at that project, and because of the computer virus I'm not sure what your answer would have been back to me but on this storm water, the storm sewer amount. I think one of my questions was, is that amount also one that could be funded out of the sewer and water utility fund? It wasn't one that you had grouped with the no assessment for watermain or sanitary. Teresa Burgess: It is not eligible out of the sewer and water utility fund. It would be eligible potentially out of the SWMP fund. Scott Botcher: Let me ask the question. I guess I think. Teresa Burgess: Here's those numbers that I couldn't e-mail to anybody and I don't know if you can zoom in. If you can zoom in on the last line. That's the most important one. Let's look at this one down here, this 18%. That leaves the city with the legal costs of the project. The only thing that the 18% covers is design and construction engineering. We're not covering administration of the project. We're not covering legal costs. We're not covering any of our printing or anything like that. We're basically eating that as a city and saying you know that's what we're here for anyway. But the 18% is something that you know, we'll have to hire a consultant to do this project. We don't have staff on hand to do it. We don't have the computer software to do it and it's a legitimate cost the city bears. If you look at this one without the sanitary sewer, the watermain or the storm sewer, you can see we're getting down to about $11,000. The shortfall that you see there is the sanitary, the storm and the water. And looking at just that top line, that's that neighborhood that has the significant watermain break. Now our water utility superintendent has told me he's comfortable as long as we get authorization to do this project in the next year so we're talking by 2002 we have a project out there for bid. Scott Botcher: For District 1. Teresa Burgess: For District 1. The rest of them could be pushed off slightly longer, but that one we need to have bids out next spring and we should be bidding by this time of year next year, at the very latest. I would like to get this project done this year if possible, but I understand that what I'm asking you is some pretty significant questions and we may not be able to do that this year. 64 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: But the base line question, because I'm not interested in being the first councilman assassinated, is to get rid of the 100% assessment. Teresa Burgess: And there are lots of options for doing that. There's everything from setting a cap. Still going with 100% assessment and setting a cap to setting some other form of assessment roll. We did do, I have enough paper up here to keep... We did do an informal telephone survey of the surrounding communities and we asked them what they do for assessments and you'll see that as Attachment D. I apologize how bad this thing got but I couldn't think of a better way to do it. Shakopee currently assesses 25% of a reconstruction project. 25% of an overlay. They do not assess for Sealcoat, watermain, sanitary sewer or storm sewer. They build those into their fees. Chaska assesses 25% of reconstruction. Their overlay, they are debating what they should do right now and so they've left that as a not applicable because they don't know what they do. They currently assess 100% of water, sanitary and 25% of storm. We were confused from our conversation with them. If they assessed 100%... sanitary sewer. We were not able to get that clarified. When we talked to them we still left a little bit confused on that. Eden Prairie has a cap. They assess 100% up for a cap, and quite frankly I'm glad I don't have a reconstruction in Eden Prairie this year because that cap is much higher than I think is reasonable. And then they assess versus, they have a funny assessment process where they go through a cap but they adjust the cap for inflation. Minnetonka does not assess for anything. They pay for it out of general fund and out of their water utility rates. 100%. Councilman Ayotte: The road out of their water utility rate? Teresa Burgess: They pay for the road out of their general fund. And they pay for the water and sanitary out of their utility. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Teresa Burgess: They set that up in 1996. They had to do some pretty painful things at the beginning but they are now in a position where they do not have to assess at this point. Wayzata did. Mayor Jansen: So ifI might ask, do they then have as one of their levy items an amount for the road projects? That's just an ongoing annual amount as part of the levy. Teresa Burgess: They have a budget item. Scott Botcher: Capital replacement fund. Teresa Burgess: They have a capital improvement program that includes that as a line item in their general fund. Mayor Jansen: So it's really taking the assessment and spreading it throughout the community and everyone bearing the same burden, if you would for the road construction? Teresa Burgess: It's very similar to what the city of Chanhassen has done only instead of doing reconstructs, we are doing maintenance and we are spreading it across our entire population because we pay for our maintenance out of our general fund. And we are starting to struggle to be able to meet the maintenance needs in our current budget. 65 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Understood. So it's similar, their general fund levy amount other than the fact that we would be adding reconstruction to our levy. Teresa Burgess: Right. Where we show sealcoat, they show reconstruct. Scott Botcher: I guess, you know what I'd like to do is, again I can assume, try to wrap this up because you've got to go Steve, right? I assume then no one wants to be assassinated so we won't, we can go on the assumption that the assessment process is not looked upon in favor. Because I guess then if that's the case, a second question is I'd like, and I think we can probably do this Teresa and come back in 2 weeks. I'd like to have 2 weeks to talk to Mary Ipple. Councilman Ayotte: Say again? Scott Botcher: 2 weeks to talk to Mary Ipple. There's some processes and procedures that. Mayor Jansen: Financial advisors. Scott Botcher: Yep. Mayor Jansen: For those who aren't familiar with. Scott Botcher: Our bond attorney. I'm sorry, our bond attorney. I apologize. And just I guess take Teresa's request and I'll just assume that you're saying at this point assume that we do District number 1. And assume that we will not assess for it. And if those are the scenarios that you're communicating to me now, I can go work and talk to Mary Ipple. Is that what you're saying? Mayor Jansen: I think we probably need to talk about it, and maybe bring this back so we can address District 1 because if in fact what you're saying is you know no assessment, and I don't know that I'm willing to go there. Scott Botcher: I assumed incorrectly then. Mayor Jansen: Okay. You're talking about wow, yeah. $610,000. Okay. Well, if you want us addressing specifically District 1 tonight, then we can bring it back and have that discussion and then I'm anticipating that council may need a little bit more information on the different funding vehicles for whichever one of these percentages we were to decide we were comfortable going with. Teresa Burgess: And to be honest, the intention of bringing it tonight, I was hoping for an answer but I was not counting on one. And not expecting one. I know the size of this issue and I'm trying to bring it to the council so that you can think about it and give me some direction at some point. One of the things to keep in mind is, if we are going to assess, we have to be able to defend these assessments and I do not feel I can defend the $20,000. And I don't, I'm not comfortable with those numbers without the council endorsing them. The number that I was shooting for, to be honest, is $5,000 for a reconstruct. $2,500 for a mill and overlay and those numbers just come from discussions in our staff. Discussions with other city engineers and gut reaction in saying you get some value back. Councilman Ayotte: Are defendable numbers the 5K and the $2,500? Do you have the ability. 66 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Teresa Burgess: There's nothing out there to base our numbers on. They're really just a gut reaction saying, we think we can do it. The way you have to do these assessment defenses is if somebody can test an assessment, you have to show that they received at a minimum the benefit equal to the assessment. So we would, if somebody contested it, we would either have to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they had received that benefit through comparisons of similar projects and similar properties. Or we would have to do an appraisal before and after. Councilman Ayotte: To go back on, I really am against 100% assessment across the board. I'd like to see an infrastructure general fund. You know I've talked to you about that and I'd like to see where there would be updated the fee structure for future development activities to feed that infrastructure general fund and I'd like to see an across the board levy to everyone to beef that up because what the picture that you paint right now is a need to deal with reconstruct for a long time. Teresa Burgess: It's an eternity. We will be dealing with it as long as the city of Chanhassen is here and one thing to keep in mind, and I would caution the council, whatever we decide to do with District 1 will direct us on the rest of it. We will at a minimum have a precedent to deal with and we can certainly do that and like I said, the water utility superintendent tells me he can hold it together for another year, but we've got to address that district. At a minimum I've got to have plans out there on the books for bid letting next spring. Councilman Ayotte: That's why I like Scott's idea to get more information with respect to it. Now I'd like to also tie in, you know what we talked about before with water. You know we also got the water conservation issue and the metering that has to be addressed. Why not roll that all up together because that can help pay for the mains, right? Mayor Jansen: That's part of the direction that council needs to discuss as far as coming up with a consensus as to how we're going to direct staff. Councilman Ayotte: Well now you've got my opinion so. Mayor Jansen: To pursue that so I appreciate your comments. One of the things that I think those of you who were not intimately involved in the budget and may not realize the implications of this street number. This is a huge number that would be going against our general fund. So as far as our needing to determine what percent we assess, we're going to need to take a real hard look at what that's going to mean to that general fund levy because as Teresa threw out that $5,000 for a reconstruct, I go down to the schedule that's for a 40% assessment and that's half. Her $5,000 is half of what is being reflected here in this assessment so now we're talking we're going down to a 20% assessment, and the rest of it's then going against the general fund and it's a huge amount. Going against the levy. Teresa Burgess: Well if you see those numbers, it's the last one on the last page at the very bottom. That's where I get to my $5,000. I'm at $5,500. That's as close as I could get. Councilman Labatt: That's 18%. Teresa Burgess: That's 18%. The city is eating the legal costs. The city is eating the administrative costs. We're only paying a consultant to do design and inspection. Councilman Kroskin: And you get a shortfall of about $1.5 mil. 67 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Teresa Burgess: Right. By the time you add in the city, the 30% indirect costs, we're about $1.5 mil. And keep in mind that 30% is an average. One project will run 33. One project will run 22. You know it really is an average across the board. 30% is what we charge when a developer comes through and asks us to do a project for them. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Is council open to having some discussion and comment about direction that you're comfortable with? Ayotte has already voiced part of his opinion. Whoever would like to. Scott Botcher: And please don't misunderstand. I think you need to have the discussion. I'd just hate to have you.., without all the information. Mayor Jansen: I think in general, exactly. No, more so looking for comments as far as what everyone wants to be looking for. If it's more information, let's direct staff as to additional charts and numbers that they need to come back with but I'm hearing we at least need to have some initial maybe feel from council. Teresa Burgess: We need enough from council, because previous direction was 100% assessment. We need enough from council to say go find something better. And we can certainly go work with the financial advisors and come up with a better proposal. Scott Botcher: Play with spreadsheets. Mayor Jansen: And show us what it's going to end up doing for the levy. Teresa Burgess: But the purpose of tonight was, we've already been given direction and we do not feel comfortable with that direction and so we're coming back for clarification. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Is anyone here comfortable with 100% assessment? No. Comments from council. Councilman Kroskin: Well I think starting from a little bit higher overview. Just as I'm sitting here I'm, one of the things I'm not happy about is the fact that District 1, we're finding out in February that District 1 's got to be done this year. I think that. Teresa Burgess: And I'd like to answer that real quickly. We need to do the plans this year. We've got to have that set of plans out for bid next spring at the very latest. We'd like to do it this year. Councilman Kroskin: I understand that. What my point is, is that I think that you've got potentially if you're going to get this done, it's going against the tax levy. Or it's going against this year's budget and the levy for this year is set in December. I guess it's unfortunate that at this point with, this wasn't know back then. I guess this is one of those expenses that was bantered about that could rear it's ugly head during the course of 2001 in those discussions. And it's just an unfortunate scenario. I think that I would like to see a little bit more heads up. For us to find out about this in February and it's got to be done this year, that's not enough notice on any project. On any kind of expenditure like this. The council, the city should know. 68 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And just a little to staff's defense. It is being rolled up off of the pavement management plan as far as, as coming forward with this proposal and I'm sure timing in the future would be different on these proposals to know farther in advance. Councilman Kroskin: Okay. Mayor Jansen: So appreciate your point taken. Councilman Kroskin: I guess I'm not interested in incurring any debt to pay for this. For the city. I think some of this is going to have to be assessed. I don't have a magic number for the percentage. I guess I'd like to look at, you know I think you've got a pretty good spread right here. I just don't see it being feasible getting it down to where the city on District, what's the hit on District 1 if we do a 5K on the reconstruct? Roughly. Mayor Jansen: Is that last chart correct? Councilman Labatt: 4.37. Mayor Jansen: Just that one district. The shortfall is almost 700. 670. Councilman Kroskin: That's a big hit and we're setting a precedent. I don't know if we can do that. I think there's got to be some, it's going to have to be higher than that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Talking about the precedent question. Is it truly a precedent? I mean why can't we do something different in area 1 and something different in area 2? Because the degradation of the road in area number 1 is substantially more. Teresa Burgess: One thing the council needs to be aware of is that, as a property owner in area 2 receives their notice, they will be aware, from past experience, property owners come and they investigate and they find out and they will ask what has been done in the past. There's nothing that says we can't do that. We could make the statement that we are going to pay for this with this set assessment and that we will then make an evaluation, but the property owners will be aware of that and we will have to address those issues when they come back later. And so the council just needs to be aware that even if it's not intended as a precedent, we will have the political side of it to take care and quite frankly I'm not elected so that's something that, that's why I'm asking you. Mayor Jansen: We got that. Councilman Labatt: But the scope of the project could be different for area 1 to 2. Teresa Burgess: Correct. Councilman Labatt: So the precedence could therefore be different from 1 to 2. Teresa Burgess: Correct. 69 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Scott Botcher: If you can get the citizens to buy into that. Mayor Jansen: The percent that they're picking up though is the precedent. Not the road condition. Councilman Labatt: But when you go and you look at the scope of the work and you dig down below the top layer of the papers, for me it'd be easily defendable but saying well folks in district 2, you know or district 1, whatever it is. If you got assessed 50% in area 1 and all of a sudden something else comes up differently and you know another district gets shot up with 60% assessment, well if the scope is different, then I'd be justified in saying your assessment was different. Scott Botcher: I think what Linda is saying that it will be different because of the cost of the project, right? Mayor Jansen: Yes. The percentage will be the same but the cost of the project is going to vary for the more serious one, they're going to get hit for more. Councilman Labatt: Oh right. Right. Mayor Jansen: But the percentage needs to be consistent or you're not being fair. Councilman Labatt: If you have area 1 and area 2 that both need complete watermains and reconstruction, everything's the same but the size of the project is bigger. Mayor Jansen: If you look at the difference just within the two, the two top ones are reconstructs and there is a variance between the amounts that each are receiving. Councilman Labatt: Right, and is it the size of the project that's dictating that? Teresa Burgess: That's a part of it. The number of parcels that we're able to spread it out across. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, 33 to 50. Teresa Burgess: The other difference is that the one street is closer to city standard and we have in our estimates we have assumed that we will bring these streets as close to city standard as possible. We have not expanded the widths of the existing streets to bring them up to width standard but they do not currently have concrete curb and gutter. There streets are receiving concrete curb and gutter to bring them up to that standard. That's something that a developer would be required to build. We are building into our standard for a 7-10 roadway. Mayor Jansen: Would it be reasonable if this evening we were to, Mr. Botcher I guess I'm directing this to you. If we were to identify of two of the options to say take these two. Go back. Tell us if you can in fact justify the assessment amounts within each of the different proposals and also show us then what the funding options are and what the impact is on the levy. Would that be appropriate for direction tonight? Scott Botcher: Sure. You can come up with any percentage you want. I guess in my, I think the biggest question here is how you're going to finance it. How you're going to pull it together. The numbers, you can pick 30 or 40 or 50 or whatever and then obviously the numbers will change. What I think is more critical is the methodology that you're going to employ in getting this done. Because without seeing that the numbers, the size of the numbers are certainly going to drive some of your choices, but I think that 70 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 there's just fundamentally some financing structure that you can look at. We talked about setting up a capital fund for improvements. Frankly until we get out past 2004/5 and... TIF, we don't have the wherewithal to do it but we need to do it. You two I know have heard that from staff. Bruce and I in particular, but sure. If you want to pick two, we can run spreadsheets until we're blue in the face and break out all different levels and that's not a hard thing to do with Excel. And then just tie my conversations with Mary Ippel into what we can do to those specific numbers the best we can. Mayor Jansen: And when we're talking about the different funding options, we're also going to the possibility of doing the rate restructuring so that that's also part of that whole discussion. Not that you can give us that number, from what I heard you say earlier. Scott Botcher: Yep. One of the things that we talked about at budget time when we talked about the rate issue, if you guys remember, was if something happens that, but we didn't really before Teresa came on board, our engineering department was not as interested maybe or proficient at using the pavement management study. And she's got some good experience with it and has taken it, as you can see, and use it the way you're supposed to. And what Mark said is right, we should be getting these things several years in advance and lay this thing out against the CIP and say here's what we're got and here's how we budget. But Teresa hasn't been here that long and she comes to me and says goll we've got 20 breaks and it's held together with baling wire. So this is one we sort of need to do. The rest of them we can all throw into the budget process for next year and really just make it go as best we can. Mayor Jansen: And you'd be able to give us something of a 5 year projection based upon the pavement plan as to what we're looking at. Teresa Burgess: The pavement management plan, actually what it does is if you plug in a number and say this is my budget, it will go through and say this is the most cost effective way for you to apply that money... Councilman Ayotte: When you say rate, you talk about rate structure. Or rate. Scott Botcher: Well we're talking about the utility rate. Councilman Ayotte: Utility rate structure, yeah. Scott Botcher: Correct. And we had sort of said we're going to put it off because the audit kept coming back saying rate structures that support current demand and I always said that's true unless a surprise comes up. Well, I think maybe now is the time to maybe get more serious about that rate. Councilman Ayotte: As an incentive rather than just a revenue generator, right? So for example, if you use less water. Scott Botcher: Or our loss ratio is just a whole other discussion. Councilman Ayotte: Well that's meters... Scott Botcher: Yep, yep, absolutely. Mayor Jansen: That's a different ordinance. 71 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Scott Botcher: That's a different topic, different day. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Botcher: So do you have two numbers that you want us to play with? Mayor Jansen: Is council at all comfortable or do we need to bring this back in 2 weeks after we've look at this and give direction at that point as to the different numbers? I'm seeing Craig looking for the 2 weeks. Councilman Peterson: I would like time to. Councilman Kroskin: I would too. Scott Botcher: You could think about it and. Councilman Labatt: And see what Mary Ippel. Scott Botcher: Maybe she has some ideas. Councilman Labatt: See if they have a recommendation. I mean I don't.., numbers until you're blue in the face. Scott Botcher: Maybe we can structure a spreadsheets all linked together and we'll just change the number. Mayor Jansen: There you go. But I think you've got your direction that your 100% assessment call was appropriate so, thank you. Teresa Burgess: I was looking for tonight just direction that I could get away from the 100%. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. I think you got that. So you don't need any motions? We're set? You've got the direction? Okay. Let's go on to number 8. DISCUSSION OF WATER RESTRICTION FOR PHASE II OF THE LAKE LUCY WATER RESERVOIR RENOVATION PROJECT NO. 00-02. Mayor Jansen: Are we prepared to lose Councilman Labatt as far as any. Councilman Labatt: It's all just direction from now on, isn't it? Teresa Burgess: This one is a resolution. How many votes do we need on the resolution for the watering restrictions? Scott Botcher: Majority. Teresa Burgess: So we can do it without Councilman Labatt. 72 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Councilman Kroskin: Are you going to be here on the 26th? Councilman Labatt: I'm going to be here but it's going to be a very short meeting. Scott Botcher: Okay. And then call me sometime so we can talk about Fairview Hospital. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I got a phone call from them. I haven't called them back because I don't know anything about it. Scott Botcher: Call me first. Okay, that's it. (Councilman Labatt left the meeting at this point.) Mayor Jansen: You're just with us all night aren't you? Scott Botcher: We only have her for a couple more months. Mayor Jansen: We hardly see you at all and. Teresa Burgess: Trying to get the last few months out of me I guess. What we're looking for tonight is council to approve the resolution for Phase II of the watering restrictions for the Lake Lucy water tower. Phase I was done last year and everyone I'm sure remembers those watering restrictions. We have restructured the restrictions based on what we learned last year and also because Phase II of the water tower is significantly different than Phase I. Phase I was the interior of the tower. Phase II is the exterior. It's a much shorter project. We are more weather dependent but it should be done more quickly. We have explored some options to be able to not do watering restrictions and what we discovered was, you can actually paint the tower while it's full. So what we discovered is that in doing that, first of all we can't get a warranty. And the second thing is we would have to cancel our contract which would require us to pay TMI, our current contractor, and then rebid the project and pay for it again. And based on that cost, a 5 week watering restriction didn't seem too bad. We have restriction this year to be a 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. We tried to make it as simple as possible. People are still restricted to the odd/even restriction. That is a city ordinance that goes into place May 1st through September 30th every year. We are not adding to or subtracting. We are just add to that odd/even. We are just adding the 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. restriction for lawn irrigation and garden irrigation only. If the council has any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Mayor Jansen: And our biggest difficulty with last year's restrictions were the hours that they were allowed to actually water their lawns because it was an obnoxious hour of the early morning. Council was accused of setting the hours because we all had timers I think was what the accusation was, but I think these hours won't in fact have people marching on us over that. And then the other thing, and not to go through it tonight. The other issue was our public education campaign. At some point, not this evening, you could prepare. Teresa Burgess: Which is why we're asking for it now. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The outline of what you're proposing for us to get a feel for that. 73 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Teresa Burgess: If it's okay with council I'll just send you an e-mail real quick later in the week that details what we're going to be doing. The intention of asking for it now is that, so we can get it out in the newspapers. We can get it out in publications. We'll be doing a direct mail. All of that, we need time to be able to do that and so we're asking for you to authorize the resolution now. We can start preparing our presentation in the neighborhoods. Start getting the information out and hopefully have a much more successful restriction this year than we did last year. Mayor Jansen: We learned a lot coming through last year, to say the least. And this is a reflection of that. Council, any questions for staff'? Scott Botcher: Got a lot of snow. Good snow melt. Mayor Jansen: If I could call for a motion please. To approve the resolution. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve the resolution as presented. Councilman Kroskin: Second. Resolution #2001-10: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to approve the resolution entitled, Resolution Prohibiting Use of City Water Supply System for Specified Purposes, Waiving Required Landscape Escrows, and Postponing Required Planting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0. APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER TO TH 212 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Teresa Burgess: I'm assuming this will be an easy appointment since he's gone. MnDot has, is setting up an advisory committee for the Trunk Highway 212 Management Corridor Group and as part of that they are requesting an elected official to sit on their public advisory committee. They refer to it as a PAC, and a technical person to sit on their TAC. Technical Advisory Committee. Engineering and planning will supply the TAC person. However we are looking for one of the council members to be named as the PAC representative. Looking at past projects that have been similar done by MnDot, we're probably looking at the very beginning with a once a month. Eventually probably going to once a quarter. It is unknown how long this will take. If it will be a one year or if it could go, become an ongoing thing that just meets periodically to discuss the corridor itself. It does not relate to, and I just want to stress so everybody is aware of it, it does not relate to the aesthetics of the roadway as far as design goes or the alignment of the roadway for design purposes. It is just the management of the corridor. And with that, if there's any questions. Mayor Jansen: Any questions from Council? Councilman Peterson: Do you know when they meet? During the day or evening, any idea? Teresa Burgess: I have not received the correspondence yet. I would expect them to meet during the day. However, because this is elected officials, usually these groups are governed by the committee members themselves. They will meet the first time will be set by MnDot but at that first meeting the members will state their preference for both frequency of meeting and time of meeting. And it will be set that way. The one thing we have asked at this point is that all correspondence be sent to our office since we did not know 74 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 who the individual would be on the group. We would like to keep copies so that if that person changes, that we have copies and we have a continuous file in the engineering department. Both for information for the rest of the council and also in case that gets changed, they don't have to worry about who to mail stuff to. Mayor Jansen: Sure, that sounds reasonable. Do we have any volunteers? Anyone interested? Councilman Ayotte: Obviously you haven't been in the military. You never volunteer. Mayor Jansen: I am about to nominate Ayotte. This seems right up your alley. All those in favor of Councilman Ayotte serving as the representative say aye. Mayor Jansen nominated Councilman Ayotte to serve as the elected official from Chanhassen on the TH 212 Corridor Management Public Advisory Committee. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Teresa Burgess: Just for clarification, would the remainder of the council like to have copies of all correspondence or would you like just for us to send it to Councilman Ayotte and as he has, as he deems it appropriate to make an update at that time? Mayor Jansen: Depending on the size of the amount of information. I think it's probably appropriate to have him reporting to us. As long as he can keep it shorter than the packet. Sorry. Teresa Burgess: We will keep a file in engineering if there's any questions or somebody wants to check. Mayor Jansen: It's getting late, can you tell? Sorry about that. Didn't mean to pick on you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO PURSUE LOCATING A YMCA IN CHANHASSEN. Scott Botcher: I'll follow the technical request of Mr. Hoffman and that is I forwarded the commission's recommendation to the City Council. I don't know if any of you have some inclination of what you would like to do with the recommendation. My personal opinion is that I think there are some questions that need to be discussed and addressed and I think that if you have any interest at all in entertaining this, that we schedule this for a discussion at a time when we're all coherent. There's some basic questions that I have with Todd is that if we have a rec center, why do we want to encourage a YMCA for competition? Why don't we just sell them our rec center. All these different types of questions, and answers frankly that I don't have. I don't know. Councilman Peterson: Or there's multiple, or there's pending multiple for profit businesses that are still taxable that want to come in. Scott Botcher: Absolutely. Councilman Ayotte: It's too important not to talk about. Rod Franks: Point of information Mayor. I am the designated Park and Recreation representative to be available to the council and the Mayor to answer any types of questions that may be available. 75 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Thank you Mr. Franks. Appreciate it. Scott Botcher: So that's sort of my report. It's up to you all. I've done Todd's job and. Mayor Jansen: I guess when I went through this, one of the things that popped to me is that the YMCA does have a feasibility study that they put into place, or they execute to, as it states, to evaluate the program and facility needs and desires of the community. I maybe see that as an excellent vehicle for them to be able to get more specific about what the need and feasibility is in the community. So they could actually determine that on their own seeing that they have an interest in coming into Chanhassen. My thought as far as what the commission has requested as far as the community survey is that we may potentially want to leave those questions more general in nature and related to the different issues, recreationally I guess an example I'd throw out is the community more in favor of a golf course versus a community center? Where it's going to rank amongst the needs and recreational issues in general. And that the YMCA would be able to go more after the detail of what that facility should be all about. From their feasibility study. But those were the two things that popped out as I went through the report. Councilman Ayotte: Well the other part of it is I'd like to see the community survey validate the YMCA study. So it'd be a complimentary type of thing. Mayor Jansen: Well I don't know that the community survey would get as specific. If there was one general question as to interest in a YMCA, that might be more appropriate with the general questions again going to what are the facilities. What are the recreational needs in general, because the survey's meant to be more general and not at all specific to type of. Scott Botcher: Understood. We can certainly touch on the issue in the survey. Councilman Ayotte: I'm too tired to beat it up tonight. Scott Botcher: No, I don't' think we're in any condition to do it but, because I think the discussion will be rather lengthy in itself. And I think you can talk to Park and Rec officials and Todd and whoever but I've just started from a fundamental position as to, do we partner with a for profit organization like they've done in other cities? Encourage them to come in and generate tax revenue. Do we set, you know work to set the YMCA up and if we do, are we setting up somebody to compete directly with our own rec center that we've worked very, very hard to get close to the break even point? All those types of very basic organizational questions that I think you ought to chew on a little bit. Mayor Jansen: So are you suggesting that you need to prepare a more detailed staff report or are you wanting this to be part of our discussion with the commission in a joint meeting? Scott Botcher: We can prepare a more detailed staff report you know directing the staff report towards sort of the issues that maybe Todd and I and you all can forward to us if you want us to address. I guess if you have no interest in talking about, you can tell me that. If you have an interest in doing that, we can formulate a staff report and put it on the agenda for a future date. Councilman Ayotte: I'd rather just sit down and talk with the commission to tell you the truth. Scott Botcher: And you can do that as well. But it's entirely up to you all how you want to approach it. 76 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Let's have it on our agenda as part of the general discussion with the commission and if we need a second joint meeting, we can certainly do that. But those joint meetings are set up for like March 5th' Scott Botcher: Then I'll hold off on a staff report til you guys talk. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Scott Botcher: Sounds good. March 5th. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So then you must have been assigned to point 10 as well. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: Yep. Just the memo's in there. We can compete for the CDBG grants, unless you all say no. Kate is going to submit an application on behalf of what's been called Powers Ridge Senior Housing, which is that one unit that will just be for seniors. Or, she's going to apply for both, Presbyterian Homes which we haven't really talked about at length but at this level but we have had some discussions about, with Presbyterian Homes people to go into Villages on the Ponds for some senior housing and one unit possibly being the dementia unit, which will be for all of us. But, not really. So unless you guys have a problem, we're at least going to throw out hat in the ring and see if we can get some free money. Mayor Jansen: If everyone okay with pursuing the two senior housing projects? Councilman Ayotte: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Jansen: So be it. Councilman Peterson: That's like 50 grand on average? Scott Botcher: Yeah. I just have to work with, Presbyterian Homes. Just mention that. I won't go into any detail. 2-26. The rest of you folks, Craig you're going to be gone? The 26th? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Scott Botcher: Okay, so Craig's gone. Anyone else? Mayor Jansen: Steve just said keep it short. Scott Botcher: Okay, I'll do my best. Mayor Jansen: He is planning on going out of town? Scott Botcher: He wants to blow out of town. And then on Fairview Hospital, similarly to what I communicated to Steve. I know you all have all been contacted by Fairview. Craig called me with the question today on the agenda so we sort of had our Fairview discussion today. But I guess I'd recommend that if you have a chance to talk to either myself or Todd Gerhardt, give us a call in the next couple days 77 City Council Meeting - February 12, 2001 and we can talk about Fairview. Linda knows so she doesn't have to but you and Mark might want to talk to us about Fairview. Mayor Jansen: And they're scheduled to come in. Scott Botcher: March 12th. Mayor Jansen: March 12th. Councilman Ayotte: I didn't get back to that person. Mayor Jansen: Talk to them first. And otherwise they are scheduled for March 12th for a council discussion. Scott Botcher: So that's all I have so thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any correspondence discussion? Motion to adjourn? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 78