Loading...
1q. City Council & EDA July 28, 1997CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING JULY 28,1997 Vice Chairman Bohn convened a special meeting of the Economic Development Authority at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Jim Bohn, Nancy Mancino, Mark Engel, Mark Senn and Mike Mason. Members Absent: Steve Berquist and Gary Bohn Mancino moved, Engel seconded to approve a Subordinate Agreement with National Lodging as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The special meeting of the EDA was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 28,1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Engel, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Don Ashworth, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Bob Generous and Anita Benson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #97 -54: Approve Quotes for Test Drilling Contract for Well No. 8, Project 974. e. Resolution #97 -55: Accept Street and Utility Improvements in Dempsey Addition, Project 96 -1. g. Approval of Bills. j. City Council Minutes dated July 7, 1997 City Council Minutes dated July 14, 1997 City Council Minutes dated July 21, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 18, 1997 k. Accept $1,000 Donation from TCF Bank for Senior Congregate Dining. City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 All voted in favor and the motion carried. I(A). ARB ORETUM BUSINESS PARK, STEINE DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Mancino: Because we have an applicant in the audience on this, Steiner Developer, can we please look at 1(a)(1) and (2). I would like to add some revisions to the staff report to this final plat. On page 2, under Development Design standards. Under the Intent Statement. Under A, I would like to add after sentence three a new sentence that says, sentence number four. Photo composite images of proposed development adjacent to Highway 5 and 41 shall be submitted as part of the review process. Also under b, permitted uses. I would like to delete the bold sentence that says permitted uses may be allowed upon any lot within the development. Councilman Senn: Nancy? I had a question on that one. Mayor Mancino: Then I'm going to go specifically, into which lot and what uses according to what we have here. Councilman Senn: Okay. Okay. Mayor Mancino: I think the overall general statement I'd like to put in there, instead of that would be permitted industrial office uses shall be allowed on the individual blocks for which they have been specifically designated. Then I would like to go through havep cificalBlock designate would like to different bl And if you can follow me on the graphic that higher density. I would like to keep office research, institutional, major corporate headquarters /production, and add conference /convention center. On Lots 1 through 3, Lots 3 through 5, moving south. I would like to include industrial/warehouse. I would like to add office, health services and utility services on any of those lots. On Lots 1 and 2, on 82 " Street, the ones that are there are fine with me. Gas, convenience, fast food, bank, daycare, office, and Bob what is that last one? Bob Generous: Clinic. Mayor Mancino: Clinic, okay. Thank you. On Lot 1, Block 2, I would like to include industrial office and up in the upper northeast corner Lots 1 and 4, hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, clinics and healthcare. Councilman Senn: Hit that last one again. Mayor Mancino: Lots 1 and 4 in the northeast corner, I think that's Block 3, am I correct Bob? Councilman Engel: Yes. Bob Generous: Block 4 and Block 3. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Block 4 and Block 3. Hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, office, clinic, health club. Councilman Engel: Not heath care, health club? Okay. 2 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Then on page 3 of the staff report daycare I would like to add daycare to under commercial uses. I would like to have daycare be a number 4 under commercial uses. You could put a daycare in the commercial use area, which would be Lot 1 and 2 or 3,4. I would also like to add daycare to ancillary uses, and that would be line item 6. So if someone did do a major corporate headquarters, conference, convention center, that they could have a daycare as an ancillary use with that. Then turning to page 7 of final plat approval. Under Site Landscaping and Screening. Item number 4. I would like to add some words saying loading areas shall be 100% year round screened from public right -of -ways. On page 8 under Signage. Second sentence, we have a discrepancy between the sign shall not exceed 80 and then 64 is in parens. In parens should be 80. 80 is correct. And those are my changes to the final plat approval. Are there any others? Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Let's see here. A couple questions on things you brought up. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I thought of something. Councilman Senn: Go ahead. Mayor Mancino: The Wrase property, I'm assuming is industrial office. Those would be the uses on that property. Bob Generous: Or the utility service. Mayor Mancino: Or utility service, thank you. So if you could put down those three Bob, I'd appreciate that. Councilman Senn: And that ties into my question basically in Block 1, Lots 3, 4 and 5 as well as the Wrase property then you said to include utility service. I guess I'm not totally comfortable with that. Utility service to me is a pretty broad definition. Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming that the definition is what Bob has said, water towers and reservoir and that's it. Councilman Senn: And that governs, or I mean our ordinance will govern that then? Bob Generous: This becomes standards for... Councilman Senn: Okay. So I mean we don't get into an issue over normal definitions under our ordinance of utility service or anything. Okay. Alright. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Concerns? Okay. Thank you. Then we'll go ahead and we'll move onto the 1(b) and we'll vote on both of these together. 1(b), just want to make sure that there are three additions to this development contract. On GC -9, under construction hours. Construction hours are required improvements under this contract for home and building construction in the plat. And M which has the noise amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, blow horns, intercoms and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings and improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph. The other new stipulation in this contract agreement, development agreement is GC -11, about development signs. The developer shall post a 6 foot by 8 foot development sign at each entrance to the project. The sign shall be in place before construction of the required 3 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 improvement commences and shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on streets. The sign shall contain the following information, project name, name of developer, developer's telephone number and designated contact person and allowed construction hours. May I please have a motion to approve. Councilman Senn: Yeah, go ahead Bob. Bob Generous: Jamendmentamendments in the the design would also be part of the development development contract... so the tract. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn: One other thing that's concerning me. On the face I guess maybe it doesn't but you have to kind of consider, the action is not before us tonight. What you're suggesting in your delineation of uses allows a substantial chunk of this project to potentially be developed on a tax exempt basis. Yet we're talking about using a fairly significant TIF district to do it. I don't see how we can do both. I have a problem with that. Mayor Mancino: So where is your concern for tax exempt? Councilman Senn: Well you've expanded and said basically, for example that you want to include health uses on Lots 3, 4, 5, of Block 1, which most health uses are tax exempt. Mayor Mancino: Right there. They're non - profit. Councilman Senn: And you've also taken the Lot 5, Block 4 and have institutional in there which is typically tax exempt. You know I mean potentially you've just taken over half the project and filling it with tax exempt uses. Mayor Mancino: Well the fact of the matter is, there's only going to be one health services in the development. Councilman Senn: Well who knows. I mean it could be a whole health campus for all we know Nancy. Mayor Mancino: Come here and ... I understand. Councilman Senn: Well again I'm just saying, independently on a land use basis I don't have a problem with that and I'm not raising an issue over land use purposes. But in conjunction with what we are doing and expecting out of this project economically as it relates to the TIF and the public improvements and everything else, the two are not in sync. Now how do we. Mayor Mancino: Because we can say health services can be on one lot and we can limit it to one health services. And whether that is, whichever lot they want to go on. Councilman Senn: Well, I think that's a significant issue because if you take Lot 5 at 23 acres and Lot 3 at 10, you're at 33 acres which, I mean I could do real quick math here but again still seems to me like it's over about half the project. So what I'm saying is. Mayor Mancino: So what do you think would be the best way to limit it Mark? 4 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well I don't know if I have the golden answer. I just have the concern. Don, you got any ideas on how we can protect against that? Don Ashworth: Are you talking about. Councilman Senn: You were out of the room part of the time. My problem was on the land use basis. I don't have a problem with what Nancy is suggesting but she's taken quite a big chunk of this and said that it's either developable in institutional use or health care use or nursing home use is another, which are typically all tax exempt types of uses and technically here we now have over half of a project can be tax exempt when we're turning around and expecting fairly significant tax revenues on a TIF basis to fund all the public improvements and everything else that we're bring out there so I just think we need to reconcile that somehow rather than just kind of assume it's not going to happen, and stuff because like I say, you could end up with a nursing home on Lot 1, Block 3. You could end up with an institution on Lot 5, Block 4 and health care use on any one of another number of lots under hers and that's starts getting into pretty significant acreage. Don Ashworth: I don't know the answer to your question either. I think Roger, there's no way that you can say it has to be a taxable firm? Taxable. Roger Knutson: The short answer is probably not. The reason being lots of things can be tax exempt and the only difference between what is who the owner is. Not what the use is. Augsburg Publishing Company I believe is tax exempt but I don't know if 99% of people who manufacturing books, publishing books are taxable. There's no bright line. Councilman Engel: Can we put a clause in that says 25% is the maximum allowed tax exempt coverage? That would effectively knock that chunk out. Councilman Senn: I don't think we can. That's why I'm having trouble coming to a solution other than to simply not allow the uses. . Roger Knutson: The problem is this is not a land use issue. Councilman Senn: It's inherent in the land use. Roger Knutson: Yeah, but it's in the background. Land use deals with the use of the property, not the owner of the property. Mayor Mancino: I understand that. Roger Knutson: You could have a situation for example, a health care facility gets built and it's for profit and they turn around and sell it. Mayor Mancino: To a non - profit. To Blue Cross, Blue Shield, yeah. Roger Knutson: To a non - profit. Which there is no way you could, absolutely no way you could actually prevent that. You wouldn't even know. 5 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: The only way I, I mean I'm not sure it's a good solution. I mean the only way I've been able to think to come up with is basically strike effectively institutional use, nursing home and health care and simply then to say that we will certainly allow an amendment to the PUD, you know if we want to later on. I mean I can't imagine that you know if a decent proposal came in for a part of it or a piece of it, that we wouldn't do that as a city, but I'm just saying at least it doesn't simply open the flood gates up front and allow something to happen which could effectively turn around and be disastrous to it. Mayor Mancino: That sounds reasonable. I mean I would certainly, one of the things that we do want to have is some assisted living clinic for our people here. For residents so I wouldn't want to disallow that. But we certainly have the latitude to allow that to come in as a PUD, correct Bob? Councilman Senn: As an amendment to the PUD. Mayor Mancino: As an amendment to the PUD at any time. Is the applicant, Fred here? Would you like to respond to that at all? Fred Richter: I think, I mean we. Mayor Mancino: You certainly know where we're coming from. Fred Richter: Yes. We've been through this before... Mayor Mancino: So what we would do though is give you a little less flexibility but you're knowing that you could certainly come in and amend the PUD. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Mark, do you want to state that again so that Bob has that. The changes. Councilman Senn: Well what I would like to do is amend your changes then and delete institutional off of Lot 5, Block 4. Delete nursing home off of Lot 4, Block 4 and Lot 3, Block, or I'm sorry. Lot 1, Block 3. And then I'd also delete health from Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1. Mayor Mancino: And you also said Lots 1, 2 and 3 on that too. Block 1. Councilman Senn: Block, oops. Block, where am I? Trying to stay with this, sorry. Block 1. Oh, okay. I'm sorry, that's the one I was talking about. Block 1, Lots 3, 4, 5. Mayor Mancino: And Lots 1, 2 and 3. Councilman Senn: No. Of Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 are simply gas, convenience, bank, daycare, office or clinic. I don't see that as being probably a problem there. Mayor Mancino: But you've got it in Block 4. Okay, never mind. I was reading my Blocks wrong. May I have a motion please on these two items. Councilman Senn: Move approval. 0 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following items for the Arboretum Business Park, Steiner Development: 1) Final Plat Approval, as amended, (Preliminary Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway Addition); City Code Amendment Rezoning the Property from A2 to PUD, Second Reading. 2) Approve Development Contract, as amended, and Plans & Specifications for Utility Improvements in Phase I. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 97 -11. Public Present: Name Address Mary Bernier Mr. & Mrs. Al Sinnen Linda Anderson Mary Larsen 8155 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road 8151 Grandview Road Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. I think we'll start off with just a brief background on the current status of the project. The Grandview Road neighborhood consists basically of five properties approximately one acre in size. They're accessed by Grandview Road which is currently a gravel rural section. Two of the properties, one located at 8151, the other one at 8201 Grandview Road have previously obtained utility services. 8151 obtained both sewer and water service to the existing property back in '88 while 8201 Grandview Road previously obtained a sewer connection to the existing home back in 1988. Both from the Hidden Valley subdivision to the east. Utility improvements recently constructed with the Villages on the Ponds development on the west border of the neighborhood has provided sewer and water stubs at the common property line shared by 8210 and 8150. From a lot size standpoint, all five parcels have the potential for future subdivision if public sewer and water is made available, and if Grandview Road is upgraded as required by city code. I should also mention that Villages on the Ponds development also provided an individual residential stub to the property at 8210, at their southwest common property down there. Based on a recent petition received by staff back in May, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss initiating a feasibility study for both the road and the utility improvement project for Grandview Road neighborhood. During the public discussion the issue came up as to whether or not the residents themselves could construct the improvements under a private contract at their own cost, and at a cost more affordable than what the City could do it. And accordingly the City Council tabled action to allow the neighborhood to investigate this opportunity. Staff has again recently been contacted by some of the residents and it doesn't appear that there's been much progress 7 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 made on that avenue of constructing the improvements under a private contract. Also staff became aware back at the end of June that one of the property owners, Ms. Bernier at 8155 Grandview Road had her water well fail and as such is currently receiving a temporary water supply via overland from one of the neighbors. But Ms. Bernier needs to make a decision in the very near future whether or not to sink a new well for her property or whether or not it's feasible for the neighborhood if the City extends public sewer and water on a project basis. Staff believes it would be a shame if Ms. Bernier did have to drill a new well because it's likely that sometime in the next few years, it could be up to 5 years, utilities will likely be extended into the neighborhood and therefore you'd have that additional cost and probably wouldn't generate the long term life benefit out of establishing a new well. At any rate, based on that additional emergency situation that came up, staff went to the City Council back on July 7 and asked for authorization to basically conduct a feasibility study. This time just to address the utility issues with the project and leave the road and storm sewer aspects of the project out of the project. And as such we've contracted with the firm of Engelhardt and Associates. They prepared by the feasibility study which is in your packets tonight and a copy of which has been sent to all of the five property owners on Grandview Road and with that I'll turn it over to Bill Engelhard to give you a presentation on the primary elements of the project. Bill Engelhardt: Good evening. As Charles said, my name is Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt and Associates out of Chaska. This is Jeff Wyandt with my office. He's been working on the project. We'll do a real quick presentation of the project and then address questions afterwards. As Charles mentioned the project location is Grandview Road. It's right off of the Hidden Valley subdivision. It consists of five properties, the Larsen, Sinnen, Bernier, Kokesh and Anderson. The Village on the Ponds to the west, starting at the ... Highway 5. All these parcels are a little over an acre. Fairly large pieces of property. The first thing we did is look at existing services. Some of the properties already had service. The Larsen property is served from the Hidden Valley project in this location, just to the south portion of the property. The northerly portion is not readily accessible to these individual services. Bernier and Sinnen do not have service. The Kokesh property has service hook -up from Dakota Lane and the Anderson property, in other words the service left by Villages of the Ponds for sanitary sewer only. The first option we looked at was simply connecting into the existing stubs at Villages of the Ponds extending to the east about 150 -200 feet to the north, recognizing that this would serve the Sinnen property if it was divided both halves. The same with Bernier. We would drop another additional water service off of the Kokesh in this location. In the future the Kokesh would bring another service up from the south or and another water service up from the south for the bottom lot. This piece of property drops off significantly to the south in about this location. Both the Anderson's and Kokesh properties... The Anderson property would receive an additional sewer service in this location and a water service and another water service to be extended to the southerly piece of the property. A very simple, about ... or Option No. 2 in the feasibility study. The sanitary sewer would remain the same. The only difference would be that we would loop the watermain all the way up to the northern end of Villages on the Ponds where there is an existing 8 inch stub that would come in and we would drop the water service for the northerly Larsen property off of that loop. As we discussed in the feasibility study, there's disadvantages and advantages for looping. The disadvantage is obviously number one is cost. The advantage would have to do with... If you have a watermain break, we have two feeds. One to the south and one to the north. You get better circulation. You can give better water quality and it's an overall better system. I think as your staff report indicated, you could probably live with either option. This option does give you better water service and better fire protection. Cost for Option No. 1 for sanitary sewer and watermain restoration is $45,127.87. Again with the looping of the watermain, the cost increases to $69,971.00. What does this mean for the various property owners? Individual property owners are listed by PID number, property name and the amount of their total assessment. In the case of the Sinnen property it'd be $15,144.98. Anderson, $11,205.19. Bernier, $15,144.98. Kokesh, $3,632.72. The Larsen property, which is already City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 served under Option No. 1 would be zero. Option No. 2, the costs go up. The Sinnen's would be $21,013.00. Anderson's $16,295.00. Bernier $21,000.00. Kokesh, $5,789.00 and the Larsen property would be assessed for water service which would be $5,789.37. Those costs were arrived at by looking at equivalent residential units. In the case of Option No. 1, the Sinnen property would be two lateral sewer, two lateral water with the cost per unit, or the cost for lateral sewer and the cost for lateral watermain and then we divided up the restoration among the property owners based on their percentage of the utility cost and ... how we arrived at the various costs per the individual property. Again, the Larsen property in Option No. 1 was zero. Kokesh was one water unit. Bernier, two units based on future subdivision. Anderson was one sewer, two water. The Sinnen two water and two sewer. Option No. 2, basically the same types of units. Two for the Sinnen's sewer and water. Anderson one sewer, two water. Bernier two sewer and water. Kokesh one water and Larsen one water. Again, the increase in cost between Option No. 1 and Option No. 2 is the looping of the watermain... In addition to these costs there would be the standard trunk sewer and water cost for the properties when they hooked up and... In the case of trunk sanitary sewer ... per equivalent residential units. In the case of the watermain was 1550 and those unit trunk charges are due upon application... Mayor Mancino: So I'm assuming that if nobody there subdivides, they just keep their current home, they have to hook up. Once this is in place they have to hook up to water and sewer? Charles Folch: By ordinance, once sewer's available they have one year to connect to that by ordinance. For water, there's not the one year restriction. It's when the well fails then they are not allowed to drill a new well. They are required to connect. Mayor Mancino: And that connection is $2,700.00. $2740 per home. Charles Folch: Per home. For sewer and water. Trunk hook -up. Mayor Mancino: So that's over and above the 15. Charles Folch: That's above the lateral cost. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Charles Folch: The rates that Bill spoke of for the trunk hook -up were '97 rates and as you know those get adjusted each year based on construction cost. Mayor Mancino: Do they go cheaper? Charles Folch: The trend hasn't been that direction but, so if a property owner makes a connection 4 years down the road, it would be at the rate 4 years down the road. Mayor Mancino: The prevailing rate. Charles Folch: The prevailing rate, right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bill, I just have one question. I want to make sure I understand this. The Anderson's is, their lateral utility assessment is cheaper because they're only hooking up to one in the northern part? 6 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: So they'll have an additional charge if they subdivide for the southern part of their land? Charles Folch: The existing home that has the sewer service stubbed to it from the south, when they actually come in to make, pull a permit to make the connection to the sanitary sewer service, they will pay the standard trunk hook -up fee which we just talked about. They will also pay the standard lateral charge which the City has established for properties who haven't been previously assessed for laterals so they will pay a comparable lateral charge that won't be assessed through the project. It will be directly with the billing permit. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And Don, could you tell us a little bit about the financial part of the bonding for this? Don Ashworth: Sure. Typically most of the assessments the past several years have gone into a shorter time frame. 6 years, 8. I do recall a 10. 1 think that that's really what Charles had anticipated, but in light of the fact that this probably will be a very financially strapping project for the property owners involved, doing it as an even principal, 8 year basis, you could be for an average $12,000.00- $14,000. assessment, and I know they go all over the place, but you could be up into almost a $3,000.00 assessment. Mayor Mancino: Per year. Don Ashworth: Per year. That actually would be decreasing. If you used the standard practice, which again is an even principal amount, but I think again recognizing financial situations, we could look to taking that same $12,000.00 to $14,000.00 assessment. Running it over 12 to 14 years which would put a principal payment at roughly $1,000.00 per month and then the change, year. I'm sorry. The $1,000.00 per year, and it would change the, if instead of using an even principal, you used an even payment, you could probably get the cost, interest costs maybe closer to $500.00 so you'd have roughly $1,500.00 assessment versus $3,000.00. So those are some alternatives that are open to the people, and again given the relative size of this project, you know it doesn't really overly affect our bonding. I mean typically MacGillvrary will stand in front of you and say, you should be trying to reduce your debt as much as possible but you know again with a very small project like this, we're not affecting our debt position at all if we go to 12, 14, 15. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilmembers? Councilman Senn: Not right now. Mayor Mancino: This lease let us know your thoughts are. if you Council, have any questions, please ask. forward now and p We will try and answer them. Mary Bernier: Mary Bernier. I'm the one with the failed well. Mayor Mancino: Mary, could you give us your address. 10 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Bernier: 8155 Grandview Road... however, this seems to be astronomical. It's a lot of money. I'm really not in a position to do that. I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. I really don't know what to say. Is there any other alternative that would help? Mayor Mancino: Well the other alternative obviously is for you to put in a new well and not do this at all, and probably within the next few years, I don't know if it's going to be short term, in 1 to 5 years this may come up again because someone may want to subdivide and then we would be looking at this little higher cost. Charles, is there any other scenario that this can work? From Sinnen Circle, can we draw water or sewer? Charles Folch: No. Coming from Sinnen Circle, what would certainly make my job a lot easier with this thing but unfortunately the two pairs of homes that you have to navigate through with the water service itself just to serve the Bernier property, the one pair you just couldn't physically get the equipment between the houses and be able to dig a trench to put a water service in. The other one you could marginally. We would still need easements from these residents to be able to construct it. I still would be very concerned because you'd be constructing you know 7 % foot depth trench between two homes that are probably less than 5 feet from the width of the trench and then you'd be coming back in there with compaction equipment and vibrating the ground and I'd be worried about the risk that we would put on foundations and footings and things like that of these two homes. I really think it's an impossibility to go between those homes now at this point in time from Sinnen Circle. I think it would really be a challenge. The time, when it was done back in '88 with the two other previous extensions, it was done during the time that construction was occurring so you didn't have to deal with the structures already there so right now it's after the fact. It's pretty much impossible without doing severe damage. Mayor Mancino: Some damage to their basement walls. No other place to get water from? Charles Folch: They don't have their again. Mayor Mancino: You can't, well it would cost just as much to go from Larsen's, they're the only other close neighbors that have, or the, Larsen's aren't there anymore but that have water, correct? Charles Folch: Yeah. Yeah, the Larsen's are there and their existing home currently has sewer and water service. Sewer and water service, but the stubs that have been left by Village on the Ponds to the north, again it'd probably be about the same distance of run with lateral lines to try to get to the Bernier property. They're just right in the middle of everything. Equal distance from where the stubs are so it's unfortunately from that standpoint so. Mayor Mancino: So we're saying we haven't come up with an option, another option yet. Councilman Engel: What does a well cost? Mary Bernier: About $6,000.00... They don't know until they start digging. Mayor Mancino: And where they find water depending on how deep they have to go. Mary Bernier: A shallow one ... road up to my place. So sitting here you can see it. It's a lot of money for them to pay for me to get water. I live on a fixed income. My house is the only asset I really have... 11 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Don Ashworth: Minnesota Statutes do recognize, and I don't know your age, but do allow for a deferment as a hardship for senior citizens. There would be a requirement for Ms. Bernier to share her financial resources with the City Council and the City Council would then make that decision but law also ensures that that would be held confidential to solely the City Council. Mary Bernier: That still leaves my neighbors... when they can hook up just on a short little area. Mayor Mancino: Well no because we would still have, we would still run this route and they would still be assessed. Just regardless as they are here in the report. I mean they would still pay their unit cost according to, no matter how close they are, correct? Charles Folch: You're correct in your, in fact in comparing these numbers, and I understand they're probably a shock to people outside of the normal working trade with these types of costs but we compared these lateral assessments to two criteria. One is what we hear as the public improvement cost for let's say a private developer to come in and build homes. These numbers are probably slightly under for lateral sewer and water assessment. Under what a Lundgren or a Rottlund or something would figure on spending per home to service with sewer and water. Also we, the City has established lateral sewer and water connection charges for the few properties that we run into from time to time that have never been assessed for a previous lateral assessment for whatever reason, and these assessments are probably $800.00 - $900.00. Based on our assessments, we anticipate them to come in under what our standard charges are so even though they are a tremendous number for you folks, I'm sure, it's probably a lot larger than you thought it was going to be but compared to the market and what it's costing for a typical lot in Chanhassen to have sewer and water, it's probably just slightly under what the normal average is. Mayor Mancino: So any time if they were to, your neighbors get the sewer and water, they would be paying this amount of money anyway. Okay. Okay, and if you want to come back up. I, being of gray hair and probably around Mary's age, what is the senior citizen Don? What age is a senior citizen now? Don Ashworth: 65 under statute. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council. Thank you. Al Sinnen: Hi. I'm Al Sinnen, 8150 Grandview. Right now we have the sewer and water stubbed in at my southwest corner of the lot and fire hydrant there. This plan you've got it coming to the other corner and then up. You've got two more fire hydrants and it's about 100 feet closer to my septic tank than it is now and it's going to cost me $15,000.00. I don't know how that can be justified. Charles Folch: I think I can just respond to that. Mayor Mancino: Please. Charles Folch: As I mentioned earlier, let's say for example the Sinnen property would just take a service directly from the stub there and no other pipe. No other, even a public project involved. Let's say he just wanted to make a direct connection to that stub there. He would still have, when he makes a he could connection, when he lat in for connection on charge, for the lateral water connection pay $3,500.00 for the charge, lateral and then the $2,600.00 plus or minus for the sewer and water trunk hook -up charges. Mayor Mancino: Per building site. 12 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: Per building site. So you're actually probably right at or slightly higher than what the numbers are showing here. Even if you can make a direct connection, but because by ordinance you're required to pay the lateral connection charge and the trunk hook -up charge if you haven't been assessed for either in the past. Mayor Mancino: So there's a flat rate for each one of those that the City assesses. Regardless of whether you're 50 feet away or 300 feet away. Al Sinnen: Well then a question on this restoration. I don't know, like you're going from Plan 1 to Plan B, you went up $1,000.00 worth of sod and the whole thing is on a road. Bill Engelhardt: If you're on the road you can... Al Sinnen: Not on this stretch Bill Engelhardt: Well, there's a certain amount of restoration and when the project is undertaken the, you will only pay for what is put down. We have to come up with a number to estimate what the cost... It doesn't do you any good for me to estimate that we'll put 5 yards of sod and then really need 50. If we use 5 yards, then that's what you're assessed for. Al Sinnen: Okay. Charles Folch: In fact what Bill is saying is very true. I mean in terms of the road width itself, probably the trench will stay somewhat within the gravel width of the roadway, keeping the sewer and water 10 feet apart as required by the Health Department. But when you start piling the dirt, when you're digging a trench, you start piling dirt on existing sod and then when you pull that back off, a lot of times you've disturbed the sod and you need to replace it. Mayor Mancino: And what about fire hydrants? Is that something that the State makes us, I mean? Charles Folch: Well what we'll do is send, we'll review the plans with the Fire Marshal and make sure that they're comfortable with the spacing and locations so that they can access each of the properties from what they feel is the best standpoint. So certainly the insurance companies are going to want to make sure that we've got fire hydrants in the area so that's a benefit to them. Al Sinnen: Okay, you're putting one hydrant on the first place there within I don't know how many feet of the Larsen house, and there's no charge. Is it going to benefit him as much as us? Charles Folch: Certainly that's a possibility that that northerly hydrant would be a benefit to the Larsen property but again understand that if and when, I believe well I believe there's actually another hydrant just to the north too that was stubbed with Villages on the Pond so they're probably equal distance, either one. But understand that if and when the Larsen property ever subdivides that potential area to the north, they're going to be paying their fair share of charges. It's just that the way we're trying to lay this out is the least cost overall to the project. But even though they're not associated, if the neighborhood and the Council go with Option 1 and decide to do a project, then the Larsen's wouldn't be involved from an assessment standpoint but at some point in time they're going to pay their fair share if they subdivide and make connection to the north. Northwest from Villages on the Ponds. So they're going to have their lateral connection charges and trunk hook -up charges accordingly so. 13 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: And Kokesh will too when they get water. Charles Folch: Absolutely. They're going to pay their fair share. It's just whether they pay it now or pay it at some future time. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mary Bernier asked a question that was not picked up by the microphone. Don Ashworth: I'm guessing you're probably around 6 %2% to 7 %. Now if I would have thought about it in advance of the meeting I could have checked what the current rates are and I think you'll be looking at again right at 6 V2 %. Pretty good. Mary Bernier: Alright, thank you. Linda Anderson: I'm Linda Anderson, 8210 Grandview Road. We're directly adjacent to the school, St. Hubert's school. I have a couple of questions for you. We keep hearing about subdividing the lots. What my question is, are we allowed to subdivide our properties with our road as it is right now? We've heard something that we're grandfathered in and we do not need to make road improvements in order to subdivide. Is that true, first of all? Are we able to subdivide the lots as our road is right now or do we have to do an $80,000.00 road improvement project before we could ever do that? Mayor Mancino: Well right now you're at the, for a private drive you're at the limit without a variance on what the, what do I want to say, standard road would be and yes. When you start subdividing in here you will need to do a new road. Curb, gutter, storm sewer, etc. Linda Anderson: Which is real pricey. We think this is pricey, that's really pricey. Mayor Mancino: Well, how pricey, I mean I hate to ask you off the top of your head, and if you'd rather not, that'd be fine but. Charles Folch: My guess is that the neighborhood's probably going to want a road section narrower than our standard width and that's probably something that the Council's going to seriously consider so not knowing whether it's a 24 or 26, 28, it'd be hard to guess but. Councilman Engel: Give us the cheapest way out. Charles Folch: Probably let's say. Mayor Mancino: It will come back to haunt us. Councilman Senn: Just give a range. Charles Folch: I would say you probably could expect each property, again assuming two potential residential units per property, you're looking at probably the neighborhood of $5,000.00 to $7,500.00 I would guess per residential lot. Councilman Engel: So if you own two, after you subdivide, $10,000.00 to $15,000-00... 14 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: Yeah, so if you've got five lots, you're probably looking at somewhere around a $50,000.00 to $65,000.00 project, depending on how wide you make it. Councilman Senn: And that's not road only. That's also sewer. Storm sewer, right? Linda Anderson: So that's in addition to what we're looking at here. Councilman Engel: In addition to sanitary sewer and water. Linda Anderson: So I guess I would say that you know we're all basing this on we're all subdividing our lots and I don't any of us are going to subdivide our lots with that kind of, I know the Kokesh's for instance have absolutely no intention of subdividing so the supposition that we, that they will pay in the end is not true because as long as they live there, they have no intention of subdividing the lot. They have no access. There would have to be, you know the potential road improvement that would have to end up I would assume taking out a large portion of the woods that now exist in order to create a cul -de- sac between our property and their property. I would assume that would be the only way to serve it but you know the reality is that it's not going to happen. People are not, we're not interested in subdividing. They're not interested in subdividing so in terms of the costs coming out fair in the end, they really aren't going to. So that's just a little comment about that but the other question. Mayor Mancino: Well, and not that we want you to subdivide or put in a new road, I mean. Linda Anderson: Oh yeah. It's been lovely the way it is you know, and it's all changing but it's been very nice and it's still nice to have the nice big lots even though I'm the one who mows. Councilman Senn: Well Linda, from a standpoint, and Charles correct me if I'm wrong but the subdivision factor at least as it relates to the sewer and water is basically kind of a no effect type of deal, right? Because I mean the overall cost of the project isn't going to change one way or another and if you're just going to be dividing it by less lots, it's really immaterial. So I mean ultimately it's not boosting the cost effectively of what is being suggested that be provided to you now under sewer and water, okay. Understand? Linda Anderson: Okay, my other question is, in terms of, if the scenario happened that Mary Bernier digs a well and we only run water on the edge of the property, the eastern edge of Villages on the Pond, that would serve the Sinnen's and our property. Were you talking about the lateral assessment that basically is the same, I was under the impression, I think we were all under the impression that Villages on the Pond was providing that line as part of the concession of building the church and school so close to our properties. That it was, that was our little bone you know that well yes, this is going to be very close to your properties but they are providing this line. But now I'm hearing that they're providing it but we're paying for it. I thought that the line was there and it's nice because it's close and we can use it and we of course would have to pay our hook -up charges and we would also have to pay our contractors to actually connect to our houses but I don't understand why the lateral charge is being assessed because the line is there. The line is there serving the school, and that was something that they were paying for and that was our little benefit for having the school in our front yard. Mayor Mancino: And who told you this? 15 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Linda Anderson: Lotus Realty basically. Brad Johnson pretty much said that yeah, this is going to be, this is all going to be developed but the benefit to you is that we provide this water and sewer utilities to you at our cost. You know basically. Councilman Engel: Have you got that in writing anywhere? Linda Anderson: No. Of course not. Wouldn't that have been nice. But that was always kind of the understanding. I think that was the understanding for the rest of the neighborhood too. Charles Folch: ...and so there can be those situations where things may not seem fair so I think the ordinance's intent is to make sure, is to create or at least to provide an opportunity to introduce uniformity in terms of cost for someone wanting to be on city sewer and water. And that's the intent. Mayor Mancino: And it would be a private agreement I'm assuming between Villages on the Pond and the homeowners. If Villages on the Pond were to step up and pay for those. Charles Folch: If they wanted to hook -up and pay for those, the lateral connection costs, I guess that's certainly between you and them to negotiate if you want. I don't know that we'd have a problem with that as long as we're meeting the ordinance as long as they're paid per lot that connects. Councilman Engel: Do we need to offer a variance or anything like that to something...? Charles Folch: I don't believe so because we're still getting the revenue. It's just not a matter of who's paying it as long as we're getting it for that permit that's being. Mayor Mancino: That would be between private homeowners. Or private owners. Councilman Engel: Can we reduce that amount for a special circumstance? As a City. What we would require say Brad Johnson to pay. No? If we asked him to do... Charles Folch: Again I think we're, I mean certainly. Councilman Engel: I'm trying to create something because I don't see an option here. Charles Folch: I think the biggest challenge is going to be the question of uniformity. Treating everybody the same. Whether you just happen to be lucky to be close or you're at a disadvantage like the Bernier property because you're a ways from where the stub, the line's been stubbed. I mean you have to have some uniformity there. I mean why should one property have to burden a lot more because they end up being a little farther in the neighborhood from where the stub was. Linda Anderson: But what I was saying was, the scenario I was saying was that if Mary Bernier thinks that the $25,000.00 or whatever it, well what it ends up being with connection charges, if it's too much for her to pay and she ends up digging a new well and then if it becomes just us, the Sinnens and our property on that particular side just tapping into the line that's already there. I guess I don't understand why we would have to pay the entire lateral charge. I would have thought that some of that would have been paid already by the havVillages o have uniform rm standands but thbs whole issue, It's our little circumstance I e neighborhood is know. I understand you not, we're kind of a unique circumstance in general. 16 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: But even if a new well is sunk tomorrow, someday that well will fail and then someday when they try to test bore for another, maybe we'll run out of well sites and someday that property will need to be serviced by city sewer and water, whether it's because they're on, whether the well points, there's no other good location. Whether there's a ground water contamination problem at that particular level of the well point and then you need to be on a city sewer or city water where we have deeper well points, what have you, but someday we have to think long term and not be short sighted that someday that lot will have to be on city water and we don't want to leave it as an island for the future. Mayor Mancino: Don. Don Ashworth: I think there's a bit of confusion. Villages on the Pond brought their service up to the building. We as a city demanded that they bring it over to the property line so that it could provide service. If they had not done that, the cost of this project would be much, much more because you would have had to include going back to where the true service is at the church. So I mean. Mayor Mancino: They are paying for the cost to put it to the property line. Villages on the Pond. Don Ashworth: Villages on the Pond and if they would not have done that, that would have been a cost that would have been included. Councilman Engel: They'd have to ... that trunk. Don Ashworth: And these folks would have been even more disturbed at the total costs. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda Anderson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Mary Larsen: Hi, I'm Mary Larsen. We're at 8151 Grandview Road and we had two questions. First, it doesn't seem like they're going to go with Plan B, I mean with the cost and stuff. But if they did and they were going to stub water to our northern portion of our property, would they also at that same time stub sewer? Since it's already dug up anyway. Charles Folch: At this time we would propose to do the water. If you wanted us to extend the sewer stub, that's something that we could incorporate into the plan if you wanted. Mary Larsen: Okay, since you're already. And second of all, if for some reason, not that we do want to subdivide, because obviously it sounds like the road would have to be redone to subdivide, but our northerly corner of our property does not, it just barely touches the gravel where the new cul -de -sac is going in. Would we be able to subdivide that northern end without the road improvement, since we won't really be using the access of the road for that property? Charles Folch: I believe the way the new access has been set up from Villages, your property, or the potential lot, the lot split to the north would have direct access from the new location that's been stubbed for the Villages. I know the original alignment, it's actually kind of away from the property but with what's been stubbed now and the new entrance in, it gives direct access, yeah. 17 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Larsen: And so then if we did decide to do that, it wouldn't affect the other residents on the road as far as upgrading the road. Mayor Mancino: No, but let us do a double check on that. To make sure. Charles Folch: I mean you've got public access to it but in terms of improving the road, that's another issue. Mary Larsen: Right, because we won't need to use that improvement part. Charles Folch: I think either way you're going to be tripping that ordinance requirement of upgrading the road. Mary Larsen: Even if the property ... used by that road. Mayor Mancino: But not if...by Grandview. Mary Larsen: We'd have direct access to the cul -de -sac. Charles Folch: I don't have a drawing showing me the latest. Mary Mancino: Mary, let's do this. Bob, can you check that in the morning and check with our ordinances and get back to you and let you know. If that would trip it. Mary Larsen: Because then a concern of ours would be before they buried the water and sewer at that cul -de -sac end of it, we would maybe consider stubbing it over to that property. Is the cost greater once they're done with the project on Villages on the Pond to redig it up and move city water and sewer over to that property? Charles Folch: As I understand it, the lines have been stubbed to where the end of their paving work is going to be so that we wouldn't have to tear up pavement. Mary Larsen: Tear it up again. Charles Folch: We'll verify that for you but that's. Mary Larsen: Okay. That's some of the things we wanted to know. Charles Folch: Typical criteria, we don't want to have them put some pavement down that we've got to tear up in the future. Mary Larsen: Okay, that's what we were. Mayor Mancino: What's your phone number? Mary Larsen: 937 -9149. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. 18 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Larsen: Okay, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any further comments from neighbors? How do we make it cheaper? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well, from what I'm hearing there's no way to make it cheaper other than to spread it out through the financing. So if we spread it out through the financing, the annual payments are cut in about half. It'd be about $1,500.00 a month, or a month. There I did it. I'm talking attorney language, right? $1,500.00 a year versus the $3,000.00 a year. It doesn't seem like there's any better way to do it. You know to me the real issue I guess becomes very simple at this point, and that is you know what happens. Do you want to put in the new well or do we bring in water and sewer? And I don't see anyway to gloss that over I guess. Because there's no middle ground. If you put in a well and nobody's going to subdivide, you know who knows how many years you can keep going the same way you are out there right now. But again with one failed well there could be more failed wells shortly to follow or whatever. I mean you don't know. I mean you're taking kind of a crap shoot anyway you look at it. You know eventually I think you have to get to a point to not only protect your property values but to increase your property values just to add the water and sewer. I guess the question becomes at what point in time do you want to do that. I think before when we've been talking about this it's kind of been more an issue of timing but that issue's changed now and the reason it's changed now is becomes some lady doesn't have water, you know who living in a residence there so I mean to me that kind of changes the whole different, you know puts a whole new light on it. So does that property owner want to put in a well and avoid all this? Or do we go ahead and bring in sewer and water? I don't know how you all feel about that but I guess I'd like to know. Audience: How long do you have...? Mayor Mancino: You don't have to hook up to water. Councilman Senn: The water's indefinite. You don't have to. Charles Folch: By ordinance, until your existing well system fails. Then you're required to. Councilman Engel: But the sewer. Charles Folch: Sewer, within one year. Mayor Mancino: And you can still, you can hook up to water and still keep your well. So you can have both things working too. You can hook up to the water, use it in your home and still keep your well for. Charles Folch: Lawn sprinkling. Mayor Mancino: Lawn sprinkling or anything else that you want. Audience: How long? Councilman Senn: Until it fails. Once your well fails, then you're required under State law to cap it off and take care of it basically. A question was asked from the audience that was not picked up by the microphone. 19 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Charles. Charles Folch: I don't know that we have any ordinance restricting selling a property with septic system as long as it, I know they have to have an inspection. There's a routine inspection system that's been implemented now that I'd have to talk to the Building Official. I think it's every couple years they have to, every two years they have to turn in and show proof that the septic system has been inspected and it's operating correctly. I'm sure as long as those conditions are met, I don't think there's any other criteria we have. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think actually you have some people who contend septic systems are actually still more environmentally sound than treatment of sewage, right? Councilman Mason: Some people think the Earth is flat too so. Councilman Senn: I don't know, what do you think? The ball's in your guy's court. Well, no you don't have to. I mean we can say go away for a week and come back and tell us but you know if you think that's actually an easier or better way to do it. A comment was made from the audience that was not picked up by the microphones. Councilman Senn: Well we don't meet again until. Mayor Mancino: Can we do it next Monday? Work session. In a week. Councilman Senn: We could do it in a week. Mayor Mancino: In a week. If you want to have some time and process and add some more questions. Charles Folch: The next step would be to prepare the plans and I'm guessing that would probably take you 15 to 30 days probably. Bill Engelhardt: Probably... probably would be 2 weeks for plan preparation... Mayor Mancino: But we need to decide Mary, you know in the next couple weeks so that we could get a supplier to do it and get, okay. Councilman Senn: I mean is that your preference that we put this off for a week. You guys make that decision and come back and let us know what you think. Mayor Mancino: Come to a meeting next Monday night? Okay. Don Ashworth: Typically we start work sessions at 5:30. Would that be an inconvenience for any of you? We could do our work session and then break it in the middle but it'd be a little better if we could do it right off the bat. Mayor Mancino: And in- between time if you do have questions, you can certainly call Charles Folch at 937 -1900 Ext. 114. Okay? Thank you. Then let's have a, any other questions from Council members? 20 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Do we need to just table it then for a week? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, I move to table this item for a week until our work session where we will I assume have a mini - special meeting I guess to act on this. Mayor Mancino: Then may I have a second to that motion please. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table action on the Feasibility Report for Grandview Road Utility Improvements for one week until the City Council's work session. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: The motion carries to table it until next week. We will have a work session. We'll put it on as the first item at 5:30. We'll have it upstairs in the conference courtyard. Okay. And again, if you have any questions during the week, contact Charles or any Council member. ...Okay, thank you. Thanks for your comments. UPDATE ON POSTAL SERVICE ANNEX. Don Ashworth: We're still obtaining bids for the landscaping. Ending date on that is July 30` so I anticipate by our next regular meeting to have a report to the City Council as to landscaping bids and also Todd Hoffman is going to be getting, see if one of our existing contracts can be extended for the trail and I'm hoping to have a quote on the fence as well. Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 7 FT. WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, 2051 BOULDER ROAD, TOM GOULETTE. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting a 7 foot variance to the 60 foot wetland setback to construct a deck in the rear property. This item went before the Board of Adjustments on July 22 n and the board voted 2 to 1 to recommend in favor of granting a variance. However, a unanimous decision is required from the Board and therefore comes automatically to City Council for a decision. In essence it's a recommendation. The applicant's request, all the material we have, one of the issues that the Board of Adjustments... was whether or not the wetland was in fact a wetland. Part of the original subdivision of this property the City had noticed that there was a wetland located in this site and that ... but recommended that no lot be approved here. However, through compromise with the developer and through redesign of the plat they were able to get a lot at this site. At that time the City hired a wetland delineator to come in and verify if in fact it was a wetland. A wetland was also shown on the National Wetland ... so from the City standpoint they don't believe there is really an issue or a question that this is in fact a wetland. Councilman Senn: Bob, just one clarification. This wetland was shown in our wetland. Bob Generous: It was done by ... the National. 21 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Oh the one we did the big publication or book on here a couple years back that had mapped all those out and identified them and all that. Bob Generous: I believe... The ones that were the National Wetland, we didn't duplicate them. We ... As also as part of the subdivision this property was granted a variance to move the structure to within 20 feet of the street right -of -way. The standard setback is 30 feet. The applicant in building their house, the builder put the house 25 feet ... that the City had built into the subdivision which would have permitted them to put at least a 10 foot deck on the... So staff believes that the property does have a reasonable use. That there is no ... are recommending that the variance not be granted. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Bob, did the applicant get the new information sheets that we received prior to the meeting? Bob Generous: Yes, I handed them to him. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure that they've had time to review that too. Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time from Council members? Would the, is the applicant here and would you like to address the Council please. Jon Turner: I'm Jon Turner and this is Karen Kennedy. We're the owners of the property. I just want to address a couple things. I know a lot of you have come out to look at the property and have seen it, and I wish you had come out to see it 3 weeks ago, before we got downpoured on. I have pictures that I'd like to pass around. I passed around at the meeting we had before just to show you what it looks like when it is dry and. I just want to address a couple things too. We were not aware of the variance that the builder had requested to, that he needed to push our house back. What we tried to do and you can tell by some of those pictures, was our house was so far up front, it was way out of line with all the other homes on the street so we requested that it be pushed back 5 feet so we could be more in line. As it stands now we're still sticking out like a sore thumb from the rest of the homes so. That's the reason why we requested to do that. In regards to the wetlands, it's never wet back there. It's wet now but at all the times it's not wet, I know I see in the notes here that they request that we remove a hammock and a bench that we've got back there and some brush which we are willing to do if it will help. But I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for the applicant from Councilmembers? At this time. Councilman Engel: Yeah, where I see the grass line now, is that under water? Where the grass meets your mulch. Jon Turner: No, it's not under water now. It was but. Mayor Mancino: It's soggy but it's not under water. Jon Turner: Yeah, I think you were back there. Mayor Mancino: I have mosquito bites to prove it. 22 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Jon Turner: But this deck is very, very important to us. Everyone else in our neighborhood has a deck. I know there have been a couple other variances granted for some of the other homes that are near wetlands there and denial would really bum us out so. I don't think the approval will affect, I mean by going out 7 feet, I don't see how we will affect that wetland area as you had mentioned in the beginning, and it's not our intent to do anything to that wetlands. We want to clean it up and keep it as natural as possible. Councilman Mason: Did you say, you've seen this sheet about if variance is approved, staff recommends the following conditions of approval? Jon Turner: Yes, I have seen it. Councilman Mason: Those six. Are you willing to do all six of those? Jon Turner: Absolutely. Mayor Mancino: Please come forward and state your name. This is for us to get in the Minutes so that it's official. Karen Kennedy: I'm Karen Kennedy. I live there also. What is allow the City to install a wetland monumentation? What does that mean? Councilman Engel: A 40 foot statue. Mayor Mancino: You know the golden arches, you can have one in your back yard too. No. It's a small monument. Councilman Senn: Kind of like Mount Rushmore with City Council's faces on it. Mayor Mancino: It's a small monument sign so that people do know. Now we actually have the signs put up. Where the wetland starts. Councilman Senn: Have you seen our fire hydrant signs? It's like a metal post. Karen Kennedy: Or something that just states that this is a wetland. Councilman Senn: Well it's like a, I mean it's the same thing I thought we used as the fire hydrants... Karen Kennedy: I thought it was some kind of a permit or another buffer, I didn't know. Councilman Senn: No, no. Karen Kennedy: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Just so everyone's aware and again so that. Karen Kennedy: And as far as the underbrush and things like that, I just wanted to let everybody know. Our lot was the very last lot built on in that development and all the underbrush that you see, that big huge pile back there was people, other people cutting down and putting it on our lot. 23 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Engel: Oh, they don't do that. Karen Kennedy: All of them shoved it into a big, huge pile. We have everybody else's garbage on that lot also. It looks like we've chopped down half the forest but. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Karen Kennedy: That's what I wanted to know. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason: Considering I'm the one that is almost always opposed to variances and I still am. However, I did read the report here where our Water Resource Coordinator did say that this variance will do less damage than what's already there and if they're willing to change these, if they're willing to agree to these six terms, I see that as a trade -off where the City's happy and you folks are happy. That's where I'm coming from with that. Jon Turner: By the way Steve was one of the yes voters and he's not here so. Councilman Mason: Well I know he was. I take him to task I'll have you know. Councilman Senn: I want you to understand this is a momentous type of thing happening here ... This doesn't happen very often so. Mayor Mancino: I would like to actually add to it and hope that you also could kind of help educate your neighbors about the wetland back there too because it is, it does, it's the number one, the wetlands are the number one product that purify our water and our water table for the City and so we want to keep that and retain it and etc. so I would hope that you get some passion about the neighbors and the neighborhood too. Jon Turner: We actually had two of our neighbors on either side of us at the first meeting that we were at, but I will tell you that that land is not wet normally. It's been wet for three weeks but last summer it was bone dry so. Councilman Mason: But wetlands aren't always wet. And you get caught in that and I understand that but that's one of the reasons we have them is for times like this so the water can go there instead of someplace else but. Mayor Mancino: Because your neighbors to the west get a lot of the runoff from, the homes to the west drain down into their lower area. Karen Kennedy: ...natural wetlands because it has those drainage systems. Mayor Mancino: But natural wetlands are temporary too. I mean that's the purpose they serve. Councilman Senn: And whether the houses are there or not, the drainage was still there anyway so. 24 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Mason: So I will move approval of variance 97 -8 based on conditions of approval as stated in the memorandum from Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I, July 28, 1997 with the six conditions at the bottom. Councilman Engel: Second. I want to be on this one. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a 7 foot variance from the 60 foot wetland setback for the construction of a deck subject to the plans dated June 26, 1997 and the following conditions: 1. All temporary structures such as hammock, torches and bench be removed. 2. All permanent structures removed within wetland and buffer strip (i.e. fire pit). 3. Remove large pile of dead trees and underbrush. 4. Remove any additional piles of chopped lumber. 5. Allow City to install wetland monumentation. 6. Restoration of buffer zone in accordance to 1997 City standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: And you have your variance of 7 feet and the conditions. Jon Turner: Thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: And so will you invite us all over when you clean up the wetland. Councilman Mason: And thanks for getting the stuff cleaned up. CONSENT AGENDA: (F) APPROVE AMENDED GRANDING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II, LAND USE REVIEW FILE NO. 96 -27, Councilman Senn: 1(f). I asked 1(f) be pulled because ever since we've approved this project ...Construction or something on it which has been thousands of feet away from even the closest construction. I've called them several times, not even able to get a phone call returned. I know Sharmin's done some following up on it and stuff but. Councilman Engel: You mean the temporary ...? Councilman Senn: Well it's kind of like, you know we have a Highway 5 ordinance and all this sort of stuff and I mean if I saw it serving some functional purpose, I mean I probably wouldn't care. You know that's why business was easy for me to see if it's a functional purpose. But I mean clearly you have basically trailers parked out there purely for advertising purpose, being used for nothing. If there is a 25 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 functional use for them and they can be thousands of feet away from the construction, then let's put them thousands of feet to the south rather than right up next to the highway right -of -way and that's why I pulled this item is because I have no intention of approving this, at least myself unless that is a condition of or is removed first basically. Councilman Mason: Why don't you say that in a motion? Councilman Senn: Just make it, okay. Well I'll move approval of this conditioned upon. Mayor Mancino: It must be done first. Councilman Senn: Yes. It must be done first and then we will approve this. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the amended grading, drainage and erosion control plan for Chanhassen East Business Center, Phase II, Land Use Review File No. 96 -27 conditioned on the applicant removing the construction trailer from the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATION SECTION DISCUSSION. Mayor Mancino: Thank you, thank you very much for News Alley. Very helpful, which is really not in the Admin Section. Councilman Senn: Can we talk about cable television please. Councilman Mason: Thank you. Councilman Senn: Okay, right here. Mayor Mancino: There are some of us that still don't have it in the City. Councilman Mason: Yeah, and some of us do still believe the earth is flat. Councilman Senn: Mayor, my only recommendation is get a dish. It's a lot more reliable than our cable system. How's that? I don't know. I just, I've been getting tons of complaints on this. Maybe it's because the area I live in but I'll tell you what, I got my cable bill the other day and I happen to share the sentiment. I was kind of waiting to get the, I was kind of waiting to get the cable bill to kind of see well, you know maybe there'd be some kind of a note you know. Mayor Mancino: Adjustment. Councilman Senn: Well adjustment or massed fitted or something for it and there was absolutely zero. And we :have been without cable more over the past month than we have been with cable. And that's regardless of whether you are paying for basic service, premiums and everything else. Mayor Mancino: It's all hard wired. How does that happen? 26 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well it's somehow a daily, in fact hourly somewhat minutely occurrence. You just kind of go turn it on and it's kind of like pure chance as to whether you're going to be able to get channels above channel 22 or below or none at all or whatever. And I have had a number of phone calls on this. I mean this letter's great because this letter says the same things that the phone calls are saying. But people are extremely irritated and they're asking, don't we run our cable system and I'm not quite sure what to tell them, we do or we don't run our cable system. We're supposed to run our cable system and I really would like to get at the issue of either demanding that. Mayor Mancino: That it's run right. Councilman Senn: That it's run right and that we have service or let's get rid of the franchise. Boot them out and let's get another company in who has. Now since I was getting so many calls I also went to the trouble to check, let's say with some neighboring areas who are served by another cable system. In fact served by Paragon Cable System and I just kind of asked them, you know with all the storms this summer and all the water and all that sort of thing, have you experienced any problems or delays or troubles with your system? No. I couldn't find one person who told me that they had been having a cable problem. And so I mean that quickly kind of dismissed you know at least in my mind somebody coming back and saying well, you know we've had the same weather. I mean you know everybody's had the same weather. Chanhassen's not unique. So I guess what I'd like to do is ask the Council at this point to, you know I guess get some answers to some hard questions from the cable company in very short order, okay. Also demand that the cable company at least, you know let people know through some sort of acknowledgment what the problem is and also what they're going to do about it and what adjustments they're going to issue as a result of it. And lastly, if they're not willing to do all that, make it very clear to them that it's our intention to revoke their franchise and in fact you know do something about getting another operator in. I don't know. I guess I'll just be quiet. Councilman Mason: You know, I agree with everything that Mark's saying. Their customer service leaves something to be desired. Our bill two months ago, because of some federal law they had to reduce their bill by $1.49. The next paragraph stated, due to blah, blah, blah increase, our bill will be going up $1.52. But you know it was merely a coincidence that this happened of course. I think there are some issues with Triax that we need to get to the bottom of with them. Mayor Mancino: My question is, are these new issues or are these reoccurring? Councilman Mason: They seem to be getting worse. Councilman Senn: These are escalating issues that have been going, have been getting worse and worse over the last couple of years. In fact Nancy just so you know, I've tried in the last two weeks over a dozen times to call their customer service department and the only time I can ever even get through to it is after hours where I get an answering service who's typical answer is, well their only answer is to say, well you have to call the office during the day because all we are is an answering service and we'll certainly turn in your complaint. Councilman Mason: That's not an exaggeration. Councilman Senn: And I'm sorry, you know I've just had it. I've had it with this. I'm not, I mean I hope everybody else does it but I'm not paying my cable bill. I'm going to send it back with a letter and say I'm refusing to pay it and that's all I can tell people who are calling me to do the same thing but as a City 27 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Council it's our responsibility to manage the cable system. It's a franchise that we award and I think we've got to do something about it. Mayor Mancino: Have we written and talked with them and told them about the bad customer service? Don Ashworth: Todd handles most of the complaints. I received one a few days ago, or Friday. A lot of it is, the service levels are different within the community for example Western Hills that has seen very little construction going on up there, and I'm not laying it all on the feet of construction. But my home has, I maybe have been out once in the last year. But I do know that the lady who had called lives down very close to Councilman Engel. She was irate claiming that they've been out just continuously. Councilman Engel: It's bad. Don Ashworth: She was quite upset. Mayor Mancino: You weren't having construction around your area? Councilman Senn: No, I mean where I live is a fully developed area. Councilman Mason: Carver Beach has been very bad. Councilman Senn: And we've been out almost every day. Councilman Mason: I mean now we haven't had it as bad as Mark's area but it's been noticeable. Mayor Mancino: I think it would be worth it to get the representatives in and. Don Ashworth: Just so the Council is aware, approximately one year ago they had come in and they had stated that they wanted to introduce this $50 million in new equity and they wanted to take and improve the system and they wanted to whatever. They wanted to know if we would be willing to accelerate the franchise process. We said sure but we want to make sure that we're getting something out of this thing. That we're going to get... As time went on, the next thing I knew we had, we received a letter from Jane Bremmer basically saying that they, that Bob Langley who was Chanhassen's Account Representative, was no longer working for the firm. Another 6 months went along. We really didn't hear anything from them and now just in the last two weeks they have stated yes, they do want to go forward. And yes they do want to improve the service and all the rest of that good stuff so this is probably a good time to get them in and tell them all this good stuff. Mayor Mancino: This would be a good time. Councilman Senn: Well I'm sure we're not going to be telling them something they don't know. I mean out of all fairness, but I think it's important that we get them in and tell them that we are now going to hold them accountable for it and if not, then we're going to do something about it. Don Ashworth: What I find very frustrating that, well actually more so Todd. When you call in, during the daytime hours, they will tell you that you need to call the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Senn: That's real interesting. Well I don't know, maybe this was before you walked back in but I've been calling a lot during the day Don and I can't even get through. I get, you know I get you 28 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 go through this, you've got a push button phone and if you want to speak to a customer service rep, I do that and I've sat on the phone for 15 minutes to a half hour each time waiting for someone to answer and I've got no one to even answer. And if I continue to call and call later, I can't remember what the break point is but there's a break point in time where I go to the answering service and then I do get an answer but the answer says I can't tell you anything, we're just an answering service. We'll record your call, at which point I say forget it. Don Ashworth: Well I don't know what's going on out there. I don't know if it's not as lucrative as it once was but anybody could be walking in the door right now, Time Warner or whomever, and we would have to issue them a franchise to provide service within the community. That's just simply not happening. Councilman Mason: Well I think cable's going to be pass6 in 5 years. Councilman Senn: But at the same time it may behoove us to maybe, how would I say, send out some invitations to people to maybe consider doing that. Mayor Mancino: I agree with that but I think we give them 60 days or something. We give them a period of time. Give them a time period and if nothing happens, the service continues as bad, then we say we're opening it up to bids. Councilman Engel: Let's at least give them a letter saying ... we're not too happy. The citizens have said SO. Mayor Mancino: We took care of that. Anything else in the Admin Section? Councilman Senn: Well I had some questions on schedule of investments. I don't know if you want to deal with that tonight or at the work session or whatever but I just. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Councilman Senn: In our Administrative packet there's our schedule of investments. I had a number of questions on that. I guess, I don't know how we want to deal with those things normally. Mayor Mancino: You know what would be helpful. Councilman Senn: It makes more sense to talk about it at the work session if we can give it 10 minutes or something but I would like to do that if we could. Mayor Mancino: Let's do that then at the next work session. Why don't you, if you can, before that work session maybe by the middle of the week questions that you have, fax them to Don. Councilman Senn: I know. I try. Mayor Mancino: So that he can be prepared. So he doesn't have to leave and say I can't answer it. Councilman Senn: I know, I still owe Todd comments from two weeks ago but it's getting hard time wise, sorry. 29 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Don Ashworth: I think Pam would be ready to answer any type of question just right off the top. I don't, I'm not fearful that we might have a stump the band. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I just want to understand some of the things I'm seeing more than anything. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Now remember at 5:30 though the neighborhood will be in on the 4"'. Councilman Senn: Now the next one, let's see. NSP. Oh shoot, Charles left. Don, I don't know. I assume you've reviewed this with Charles. Does this mean that, I was having a hard time kind of figuring out what this meant. Does this mean they're furnishing all the stuff to provide the conversion and the lights and we're just simply providing the manpower to do it. Or does this mean that we are paying for all the conversion of all the lights plus to find the manpower to do it? Don Ashworth: I am confident that this is exactly like the renovation program here at City Hall. They have demonstrated that by putting in these additional lights, which they would end up then doing. Now, let's see I should take that back. NSP, they would, there's a third party firm that would be employed to actually put the lights in. The agreement then back between us. Councilman Senn: That's what's unusual. It says here the entire hardware conversion is proposed to be conducted by Chanhassen City maintenance personnel. But the whole thing is it leaves the whole open ended question up above of who's paying for the rest. Don Ashworth: Well see that's where this. Councilman Senn: We didn't have this budgeted so that's what I'm just asking. Don Ashworth: Right, right. So they will guarantee that the energy savings produced by putting these in will equal the amount of money necessary to actually get the job done. And I guess what I'm not sure is, is what the years are over which... Really NSP is guaranteeing the payment. They're guaranteeing that our energy costs, our savings will be enough to pay for the relamping. Now again typically they just by third, I'm not quite sure how our crew got in. I'll find the answer to that question. Councilman Senn: Could you? Appreciate it. The letter to Tim Menning. Could you tell us, what's going on there? I mean I thought that we were supposed to have payment, progress payments or payments along the way. This seems to kind of imply we've had no payments and the interest is piling up like crazy. Is that what's happening? Don Ashworth: The original agreement called for the partnership to pay 25% of any distribution monies put out to the partners as a payment to the City. Well, I guess one of the things we should have been asking the attorneys back at that time, and this is not Roger's firm. It's Holmes and Graven who negotiated that. Is well then what happens if they don't make a distribution to the partnership in which case then they have to pay 10% interest but since they were not in a position to actually make a payment, it's just added to the amount that was previously owed. So basically, roughly $100,000.00 has been added. $90,000.00's been added each year for the last 5 years. Councilman Senn: But I mean, what I'm trying to get at is I mean Market Square's been up and running for quite a number of years. It's been fully occupied. Why aren't we getting some principle repayment? 30 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Don Ashworth: Well I think that we originally were sure that we did but one of the reasons that, we wanted to put this 25% kicker in there as a means to take and force them into refinancing the entire project and to return the principle to us so that it didn't sit out there running kind of forever, which is exactly what's happened. They got everything leased. They're at the right time as far as their development is concerned to refinance the whole project. That's what they've done and in accordance with the agreement, they had to pay us off. Councilman Senn: And we have no date? Mayor Mancino: Which they did. Which they did. They just did, didn't they? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. But I mean they have not paid off the interest and everything too? Okay. So that was all part, and that's what I was telling Roger. That was all part of the payment that was referenced two weeks ago? Don Ashworth: Right. Correct. The original amount, my recollection was $725,000.00 that we put into the project as a gap financier. They've been adding $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 per year and we're up to the point of refinancing. They brought us in a check for $1,224,000.00. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's the number that ties back to this then with the interest add on then? Okay. I understand. City Council work session agenda. It's been over a month now since we last discussed it and can we please get something going on this one way or the other but you know here we are. We're a month later on TH 101 and absolutely, I mean it shouldn't be taking us a month to schedule a meeting. I mean we've already, excuse me lied to people umpteen times out there. We told them that we would be out there doing plans this summer and that we'd be doing acquisitions this summer and construction would start next summer and well we haven't even had the meeting to consider starting the projects and it's almost August. You know we've got to start accelerating this thing, one way or the other. Don Ashworth: I totally agree. I did take and get a hold of Jim Grube, I'd say that was at least two weeks ago. It was right after the City Council had seen my memorandum that was a letter, memorandum, whatever. It was going to Grube that said basically we would support this thing but the Council hadn't seen anything. Council says, no. Modify that so as to show that he's supposed to meet with us before he meets with the neighborhood so I called him. Modified the letter. Called him and he said, no problem. That sounded good. That he would take and get back to Charles, Roger Gustafson and Gene Dietz and between the four engineers they would select a date for this joint meeting that would be between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen's City Council only. And the engineers. And then we would also try to pick out a date for neighborhood meetings and how that would happen. He hasn't gotten back to me. I haven't heard anything more. I will, if you'd remind me, I'll try to update you Monday night. Or I'll put that in this. Mayor Mancino: Let's try to do it in August. Just make sure we get it done... Councilman Senn: But I mean times gets away from us but you know, this was the front page of the Villager on June 26` saying it was going to happen, you know basically. And here we are again, like you say in August and there's absolutely nothing that's happened again. People are getting real frustrated and stuff so I'd like to. 31 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: No, I think that's a good one. Councilman Senn: And news alligator sounded great except the part where it says staff continues to work with Brian Grogan, Cable TV attorney regarding Triax customer service violations. I kind of chuckled about that one. Mayor Mancino: Mark, from Southwest Metro. You went to a meeting. Councilman Senn: No, I didn't go to a meeting because we had. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I thought you went for a little bit. Councilman Senn: No. No, I had called and they said it was close to wrapping so I didn't go. We have that problem fixed so I think, in fact I think next month our meeting's actually going to be at a different time because we have to have a special meeting for some reason. I can't remember but it's going to be earlier in the month so I should have something earlier next month. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And let us also get together with Carver County Sheriff Wallin to talk about the emergency wake on the city's lakes. Councilman Mason: Particularly Lotus, if that's where it needs to be. If there are others... Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to find tomorrow if there's other lakes and I t 'd like to see the tomorrow, I'd like to seriously find ou meeting occur with Wallin on Wednesday so we can get this thing under control. It's getting terrible. Councilman Engel: Everybody's having a little problem with all this rain. Mayor Mancino: So let's look at that. The lakes. Councilman Senn: Well I mean the problem is there's no way to repair the damage. Councilman Mason: Once it's gone, it's gone. Yeah. Councilman Senn: Well Don, what was in the alligator, it said through 5 project update. MnDot. The schedule has slipped a year. Contract letting is now November '99. Construction to start in spring of 2000. So they've moved it off another year on us? Councilman Engel: For which portion? Councilman Senn: Well it's just saying through Highway 5 project. I mean I don't know. Mayor Mancino: From 117 to, past TH 41. Don Ashworth: But to tell you the truth, I heard different dates all the way through. Sometimes I've heard, well I honestly think the most recent ones have been the '99, preparation of plans and specification and 2000 on the award. But I do agree, at one point in time I was led to believe `98 -99. 32 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: But now if it's `99 -2000, how does that affect us in relationship to what we've been looking to do on Steiner's? Mayor Mancino: Well they're not going to get, I mean they're certainly not going to get the signals or any of it. Councilman Senn: Until that point. Mayor Mancino: You really can't develop the pieces on TH 5. Councilman Mason: It's not as attractive, that's definite. Councilman Senn: Well they could develop them but they'd all be serviced. Mayor Mancino: Well they'd be right in /right out. They wouldn't have turn lanes. Councilman Senn: Right. Councilman Engel: You just have to ... by the time you get the beef of that project in, the road will... Councilman Senn: Well I mean it's just like the deal when we sat down in Chaska and listened to Chaska cry about their 5,000 jobs and no roadway system to carry their workers, you know which was great of them to create facilities for 5,000 jobs and not worry about the infrastructure but I mean I don't want to see us getting caught in the same thing and stuff. So that concerns me a little bit out there is that corner, you know where you already have problems and it's just kind of going to add to it. I don't know. It seems like everything on highway construction lately, the new word every year is another year. Councilman Engel: Wait til next year. Mayor Mancino: Except for private funding, which... Okay, I think that's it for tonight. See you next Monday night. The City Council meeting was adjourned by Mayor Mancino at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 33