Loading...
CC Minutes 2002 03 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson. Councilman Labatt arrived during visitor presentations. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Teresa Burgess, and Todd Hofknan PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Robert Generous 3906 Aldrich Avenue No. Aaron Watkins 3906 Aldrich Avenue No. Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Amendment to Chapter 19 of City Code Concerning Water Meters and Establishing Penalties for Non-Compliance. c. Resolution #2002-27: Approval of Engineering Fee Adjustment - PW030A. d. Approval of Public Gathering Permit, INT Waterski Tournament, June 1-2, Lake Susan Park. e. Approval of Bills. f. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 25, 2002 -City Council Minutes dated February 25, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2002 g. Request for Variance Extension, 220 West 78th Street, Jack & Paula Atkins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Good evening. I'm not really prepared for this. I just wanted to mention at a Planning Commission meeting, probably 2 meetings ago. You weren't there Kate. The issue came up about private streets and there was a resident who voiced her opinion that the city does City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 not go out and monitor compliance with building of private streets, and this really like alarmed me. Because we have many specifications relative to private streets. What ton grade they must be built to, but we don't have anyone enforcing that. And I'm wondering if the city is going to be looking at enforcement of regulations such as private streets. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thanks for bringing that up. I typically wouldn't put staff on the spot to have them answer the question this evening. I don't know if you would be prepared to this evening Teresa. Teresa Burgess: Certainly. It's an issue that unfortunately we've had to deal with quite a bit. Private drives are treated like driveways in a lot of ways, except for they do have some additional requirements to meet the 7 ton and width requirements. To ensure that without having to do an undue burden on staff time, what we do is we require that they submit design to the city for review and approval. Those plans are actually approved through the City Council process when they come through for planning but again they're reviewed at the construction time by the engineering department to make sure that they meet those standards that are laid out, both in the development contract and city ordinance. Then at the end of construction the developer is required to submit as-built plans. As-built plans are documents of what was actually constructed. They take the actual bid documents and make notes on them as they construct. Just as the original plans are required to be certified by a licensed engineer, the as-built drawings are required to be certified by an engineer. That is standard practice for all of our private drives. It is also the practice that we use on a number of our public improvement projects where we have an engineer will certify the as- built drawings and a city employee does not stand out and watch the entire construction. It is that consultant engineer's responsibility. When they sign those plans they are putting their license on there saying that to the best of their knowledge this is what was constructed and they are liable for that decision and for that statement. In this case the developer feels that he did construct, I believe you're talking about Mrs. Hegeman's driveway. In this case the developer contends that he did construct a 7 ton driveway and that he did submit as-builts. The as-builts are, do show meeting a 7 ton driveway. The property owner contends that it is not a 7 ton driveway and based on legal counsel we have brought it to the attention of the developer and at this point it is now a civil matter between the developer and the property owner. The city does try to stay out of those issues and allow the property owners to deal with them in a much less complicated manner and bureaucratic manner. Mayor Jansen: Okay so, without getting specific to that instance, you do find that the review process that we have currently through the engineer doing the, evaluating the as-built plans, that that's proper enforcement on that part of a project? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Teresa Burgess: That is standard practice and it's what we do on our own projects. The engineer is responsible for what they put down there and they are falsifying documents if they put down something that is not correct and that is something that is punishable by removal of your license, which is removal of your livelihood. So most engineers do take that very seriously. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Does that answer your question Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: It does and it doesn't. I guess I thought the city would monitor that like they do with other housing construction. Like when I had a metal railing replaced in my house, they made sure that the wood railing was x number of inches apart, and I would think, I would have thought that we would be looking at road construction diligently as we do a railing in a home, so that surprised me when I heard it. City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: What I'm hearing is two different types of inspection. One, with a certified engineer that's actually putting their license on the line. And one with an actual housing inspector, but if you have more questions that you would like to pose to Teresa to get a better feel for that, certainly do. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Is there anyone else with anything that you'd like to discuss with the council this evening that's not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we'll close visitor presentations and go onto the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 2002 RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 01-10. Public Present: Name Address Roger Johnson Tom Steinkamp Joe Schimmel John Riley Duane Anderson Daniel Sissel Bob Gunderson Jim & Amber Bullington Steve Lillehaug Peter & Connie Ackman Richard Saffrin Bob Florek Tom Furlong Steve Slyce Janet & Mark Prchal 1841 Wood Duck Lane 1771 Pheasant Circle 1751 Pheasant Circle 1750 Pheasant Circle 1750 Ringneck Drive 1710 Teal Circle 1690 Wood Duck Lane 6430 White Dove Drive 1441 Heron Drive 6431 White Dove Drive 1661 Wood Duck Lane 1641 Wood Duck Lane 1841 Ringneck Drive 6511 White Dove Circle 6410 White Dove Drive Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. This evening is the time that has been set for the public hearing for the 2002 Residential Street Improvement Project, City Project 01-10. This project considered several neighborhoods. However Pheasant Hills is the one that is recommended for improvement. 15 streets in the Pheasant Hills neighborhood are proposed for improvement. Teal Circle, Wood Duck Lane, Ringneck Drive, Pheasant Drive, White Dove Drive, Lake Lucy Lane, Melody Hill Road, Steller Circle, Pintail Circle, Wood Duck Circle, Pheasant Circle, Partridge Circle, White Dove Circle, White Tail Ridge Court and Moline Circle. All are proposed for rehabilitation work. Four other neighborhoods were considered as part of this feasibility study. The feasibility study recommends continued maintenance on those streets instead of rehabilitation at this time, mainly due to budgetary constraints. One of the questions a lot of people ask is why, how are these streets selected for this project. This graph shows a typical road deterioration. The curve is based on actual experience within the city of Chanhassen. This is actually our MSA street curve. Our residential street curve is, because of the variation and ages on our streets and the conditions under which they were constructed, we don't get a clear cut curve. This is more of a classical deterioration curve for a roadway. PCI is the Pavement Condition Index. This number is assigned by the computer based on a pavement survey by a field inspector. The city had all of the roads City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 inspected in 2001 by a consultant so the information would be consistent throughout the city. The PCI's used to rank and prioritize the road projects. The computer then recommends roads for improvements based on the available data. A PCI of 75 is the typical point for recommending a rehabilitation project. A typical rehabilitation project would include mill and overlay and minor sub-grade and/or curb and gutter improvements in spot locations, storm drain improvements, manhole improvements. The rehabilitated road would return to a PCI of 100 or brand new condition. A PCI of 55 is a typical point for recommending a reconstruction project. However, a reconstruction project is usually not instigated at 55, seeing as the cost for rehabilitation is the same regardless of whether that project is a 55 PCI or 35 PCI. So for that reason most rehabilitation projects are allowed to go a little bit longer and squeeze every ounce of life we can out of that project. Instead prioritization is given to 75 PCI's and above, keeping those roads in new or like new condition since it is substantially less expensive. So why are we talking about it right now on these streets? As streets age the cost to maintain them increases. The city's costs increase as well as the taxpayers cost. At a certain point it becomes more cost effective to rehabilitate a reconstruct than to continue to maintain the street. Rehabilitation is less expensive than reconstruction and less destructive to the neighborhood. Since many of Chanhassen's streets are in relatively good condition and especially these streets do fit the, almost stereotypical type of condition that you would be looking for. The city can do rehabilitation projects and avoid reconstruction, except in the cases where the road does not meet city standards. All of these roads do meet city standards except for the case where some of the roads do not have curb and gutter. But that is within city standard. The sub-grade problems, similar to the ones that we saw on Audubon Road when we considered the MSA improvements. A road that is left too long and sub- grade deterioration begins, or utility work and cuts cause sub-grade damage. This project is proposed to be funded through a combination of city funds and property owner funds. 60 percent of the funds are coming from the general fund, 40 percent of the costs are coming from the abutting property owners, which is why this project was limited in size. We originally considered the 5 neighborhoods which was in excess of a couple million dollars and we do not have the funds to cover our share of the project. Alternatives that were considered. The city did consider waiting on these projects further. Delaying the improvements would only lead to a delay in the project and also may lead to increased costs both through increased inflation and also through the increased cost because it would be a more intensive project and cause more disruption to the neighborhood. The other alternative that was considered was to continue the city's current and past practice of increased maintenance which leads to increased costs directly impacting the general fund levy and eventually will become cost prohibitive. The assessments that are proposed on this project are $1,939.17 per parcel. That is an estimate at this time, but that is based on cost estimates done by our consultant engineer of the project costs. Spreading that out over 8 years at 6.5% interest, which is the recommendation of staff to council as they consider this assessment roll. This chart shows what that payment would be per year for those properties. You can see that it starts out at $368.44 tapering down to $258.12 in the eighth year when it is fully paid off. Property owners do have the option of paying the entire assessment at once, or coming in at any time and paying the remaining principle at any time during the project. With that I do have a couple of pictures because I know it's a hard time of year to go out and look at the streets and I'm not sure how well these will come across on the screen. Here's the neighborhood. Pheasant Hills Park. And you can see, now I can reach. Okay. Picture number 3 which is the first one I'll show you is at this point in the area facing to the north. And it comes out pretty good. And you can see that there is some radial cracking. You can also see a little bit of settlement in those areas. There's some seams there that are, that have been cracked sealed. As you can see this neighborhood in this section does not have curb and gutter. The next picture is at this point right here facing to the east. And again you can see the cracking in the roadway. As it goes around this area it does have the roll over curb. The next picture is right here facing to the north. Again they have curb and gutter. It's a roll over type curb and you can see that there's been, there's pooling happening right here. You can see that this catch basin needs a little bit of clean-up around it. And then we also have this lip of asphalt. That would all be milled out City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 along this edge so we don't end up with a big lip right at the curb line. Next picture is facing south from this point and we're looking again at this little cul-de-sac. And here you can see that it has been sealcoated recently, and that sealcoat is covering up a lot of that cracking that's underneath here and the patching that's been done by the city crews. This is Teal Circle. That's the next one. And you can see some of that around the edge of the cul-de-sac you see the cracking up in here. And then you can also see we're having pooling right here where the water is standing long enough to drop out the dirt and the sand. Pintail Circle. And again you can see cracking. Wood Duck Circle. And I know this gets a little tedious if it's not in front of your house but I just want to show that we do have cracking out there. We do have patching. You can see it coming through the sealcoat and again up in here. Right here at the intersection of Pheasant, and you can see the sealcoat has run in. Here's, it looks like it's probably...but you can see that there's been some problem areas in this area and that valley gutter is starting to break up. Keep in mind this is just representative. This is not all of the pictures. We didn't just take the bad spots. This spot right here, and again you can see the cracking. So it is fairly consistent throughout the neighborhood. It's not just one spot or trying to look at only the bad spots. This picture right here and again you can see the cracking right here. Some random cracking happening throughout. And final picture. I'm sorry, I've got two left. This one's White Tail Ridge. White Tail Ridge does not have curb and gutter again. It has a manhole here that has settled slightly. You can see cracking back in here. This is actually shadows that are falling that are causing that but you can see some potholes that have happened in the back. And the final one, right here on the curve, and you can see the patching showing through the sealcoat areas. So with that I'll answer any questions before it opens up to the public hearing. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Teresa. Any questions council for staff? Councilman Peterson: A couple Teresa. You talked about the PCI ratings. Do you rate an area like Pheasant Hill Park or do you rate each road within that development? Teresa Burgess: The roads are actually rated in segments so they're much shorter. Approximately one block segments are rated so the width of the road and one block long. The city then takes those ratings. The computer spits out at us a program. We group them together into projects and we wait until a neighborhood has enough of those that fall into that rating that it's worth doing that neighborhood, so we do have sections of street in town that are worst, but to have a contractor pop around town and do those little pieces is cost prohibitive. They would charge us for every time they moved to a new site. And it is one block segments. Councilman Peterson: So does that mean that we have a PCI rating, just as kind of a gate? You know what Pheasant Hill has for a rating and what Utica Lane has for a rating. Teresa Burgess: We would be able to calculate that information, but it would be in one block segments and so we would have to go through and pick that out. But the computer did spit out this neighborhood as to be considered. That's just the first step. At that point then we initiate a feasibility study to decide if the computer's right or not because the computer doesn't take into account some of the common sense things. It only does what it's told. And the feasibility study is the one that actually came up with this neighborhood being cost effective and appropriate. Councilman Peterson: So, am I putting words in your mouth by saying that Area 1 is definitely get a lower PCI rating than Area 2 or Area 4? City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Teresa Burgess: No. No, it's not. Pheasant Hills comes in as being cost effective, and some of the other areas do have worst PCI's. Specific one that comes to mind first is the Koehnen's area. That area is a full depth reconstruct though, and as I talked about, you know you can squeeze a couple extra years of life out of it and because of budgetary constraints we are opting to do that and recommending that to the council. We could not afford to do Koehnen's this year based on the budget we have available. Councilman Peterson: So it's below 50 is what you're saying? That area. Teresa Burgess: That area is very bad, and it has watermain problems. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Councilman Ayotte: To play it back to you then. The feasibility study would validate the population we've identified for repaired? Teresa Burgess: Correct. The feasibility study goes through and determines if it's technically and economically a good idea. The computer just gives us a place to start. Councilman Ayotte: I understand. And so what we would be voting on this evening would simply be to conduct the study to validate the population. Teresa Burgess: The study is completed. This evening you are hearing the public hearing. We've received it and following the public hearing you adopt the feasibility study. Councilman Ayotte: So does the feasibility study validate all of these? Teresa Burgess: Correct, it does. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And is the 8 years that you programmed on that chart. I didn't see that chart in here but. Teresa Burgess: It's not in there. That would be a staff recommendation for how we would spread out the assessment. Councilman Ayotte: Would you see any forgiveness on the 8 years to go to 9 or 7 or are there any pro's and con's to affecting the period of performance? Teresa Burgess: The period of performance is actually set by council. Staff recommendation is 8 years based on the amount of time that we actually bond out these projects, and the 6.5% interest is to cover the cost that the city incurs. We actually have to borrow the money in the time. Councilman Ayotte: So we would be at risk on a ninth year? Teresa Burgess: That is something that Bruce DeJong would have to answer. That's a financial issue that he handles that and he would make the recommendation if we were to go with a longer or shorter period, but 8 years if our pretty standard recommendation. And if you look at the dollar, and I realize you City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 don't have it in front of you. The dollar amounts are very reasonable and so to go with a ninth year is going to make a negligible difference in the payments that the property owners see. Councilman Ayotte: And there probably would be risk. Teresa Burgess: And there's definitely risk. 8 years causes risk but it seems like a reasonable risk. The one thing that we can do, that we've done in the past is consider individual property owners situations. If there is somebody that cannot afford the $200 and whatever a month, or year. I'm sorry, not month. We would work with them to see what we can do, but we do have to stay within the guidelines of the state statute regarding all of the assessment policies. Councilman Ayotte: I'll use the term band-aid. That's the wrong word but I can't think of another one but the sealcoating that we've done to extend life, could you react to that? I mean to me that probably was more expensive than it needed to be in terms of, because part of that will probably be wasted because of the fact that the roads are going further down or do you think. Teresa Burgess: No. Sealcoat is a good analogy is paint on your house. Forget the paint and you can bet the siding will go a lot faster. It won't protect your siding forever but sealcoat protects the pavement from oxidation from the weather, from the sun. It's a protectant. It's like wearing sunscreen or putting paint on your house. It's not going to protect it completely. It's not going to stop decay of the roadway surface but it slows it down, and that's why we continue to do sealcoats. They are an effective manner. They only go so far. They provide no structural stability to the roadway and we've reached that point we need to do that. Councilman Ayotte: Another sealcoating wouldn't do us any good, correct? Teresa Burgess: Another sealcoat is just going to cover up the problem areas. We're kidding ourselves if we sealcoat it. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks a lot. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am. Councilman Boyle: Teresa, just one. Would the property owner have the option of paying the assessment up front rather than the 8 year? Teresa Burgess: Yes. The property owner can pay the 100 percent up front. We usually allow a 30 to 60 days. In this case they will have longer because we're proposing to do the assessment hearing very early in the year and they need to come in prior to it being certified to the tax roll in the fall, but they can pay it off without interest. They can also come in at any time during the time it is on their income tax. Not their income, their property taxes, and pay off the remaining principal so if 2-3 years from now they find that they want to pay it off, they can do that. Councilman Boyle: Thank you. No more. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Okay. With that I will open this up for the public hearing, and if we could maybe follow a little bit of a structure. We do have a list of the different streets that are involved in this City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 project and as you heard there's about 15 of them, so I will call off the name of the street and if you're here to speak to that particular project, if you could come up at that time so that we can at least organize everyone's comments together, we would appreciate it. And if you can hold your comments to 5 minutes a piece as a maximum, we would appreciate it. Though definitely get your statements made. So with that if we could start with Teal Circle. If there's anyone here who would like to speak to the Teal Circle project, please come forward. And if you'll state your name and address for the record please. Dan Sissel: My name is Dan Sissel, 1710 Teal Circle. I guess I have some questions first of all. Do you actually have what the rating was at this point? Teresa Burgess: I don't have it with me. We would be able to produce that from our computer system. At this point we're, we've done the feasibility study and so the rating. Dan Sissel: Goes out the window? Teresa Burgess: Yeah. Dan Sissel: Okay. From that standpoint, what is the age based upon what you showed on the graph, it should be out 20 years, correct? For normal. Teresa Burgess: What you expect is 15 to 20 years. The average life, the average age of these roads is 16 years. We have some that are 15, some that are 17. We are starting to experience cracking. We are starting to experience potholes, and so they are a little bit earlier than we'd like to see them but it's not unusual to see roads in this age. Dan Sissel: Okay so, and then the assessment overall, it fits the budget plan is what we're really saying. This was one of the few projects that fit the budget plan. The others were maybe more severe but this one, they were more expensive as well and that didn't fit the budget, is that correct? Teresa Burgess: This one, we had a certain amount available for our 60 percent, but in addition to that we were looking to share 60/40. That was direction from council. Some of the other ones have much higher assessments on them as well, as the city share being higher. And they didn't come out as being quite as feasible when you looked at people paying $7,000 versus 2. Dan Sissel: Okay. As far as the one, I just wanted some understanding from that perspective but the one comment that I'd like to make, I'm a bike rider. I ride a lot of this area. Those roads are comparably very good, compared to a lot of other areas. So I'm just kind of trying to get a feel for age. The deterioration from that perspective. I don't find those roads, you know from a vehicle perspective you really can't tell but from a bike and running and that, you can tell a lot. I'd just really like to question why that particular area that when you compare it to others doesn't seem that bad in comparison. The pictures that you showed, Teal Circle is one that you pointed out. Not a real issue I would say. The standing water that is there is very minor compared to what you see in a lot of other areas so just trying to get a clarification for that. Teresa Burgess: Sure. If you catch roads when they're in the state that this neighborhood is in right now, you can do what is termed a rehabilitation. A mill and overlay type project. We come in. We don't need to take the road down full depth. We only take it down an inch or so. We do some repair work and we dig out those problem areas and by doing that it's substantially cheaper. To do a full depth reconstruction City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 where you go down about 2 or 3 feet and build back up from that point, it costs 2 to 3 times more. If you have to do watermain, you're looking at substantially more than that. And by catching the roads now, you only get about 30 years out of a reconstruct and that 30 years assumes that you're going to do every 20 years you're going to do this mill and overlay type project. You get a 20 year out of the mill and overlay project. 15 to 20. So it's more cost effective over the life of the road to do these projects periodically. If you wait until the road looks bad, it's too late. Very similar to what they'll tell you. You know doctors tell you that about thirst. If you wait til you're thirsty, it's too late. If you wait til the road looks bad, it's too late to do a rehabilitation. You're really into reconstruction and you let it go for a while. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Teresa Burgess: ...to the point where we will let them go until they are reconstruction. The other ones we will try to catch and bring back through rehabilitation. We have a lot of roads that are in that classification of rehabilitation. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the Teal Circle project? Seeing no one, I'll move on to the Wood Duck Lane. Bob Gunderson: Good evening. My name is Bob Gunderson. I live at 1690 Wood Duck Lane and quite frankly I think the roads that we are traveling on in fairly good repair. As my neighbor has expressed in terms of bike riding, it's actually very smooth and very accommodating for the bike ride. In fact my driveway is more of a disrepair and I'm not going to restructure my driveway because of that, but I would also contend that there are roads that are in the neighboring area, on the intersection of Yosemite and 63rd Avenue is in really dire repair for a road, massive road construction and that's, I would, in my estimation is a lot more severe than what we're seeing on the Pheasant Hill area. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else on the Wood Duck Lane project? Rick Saffrin: My name is Rick Saffrin, 1661 Wood Duck Lane. Few comments. One, the, I have a relative who's a civil engineer with the State of Wisconsin was visiting a few weeks ago when there was nothing on, there wasn't any snow or ice, and was fairly shocked when I showed him the numbers and expectation. Which he brought up the question of the amount of money and whether or not it made sense considering the whole city and the various projects which got me thinking and I called a couple of people. Long term residents of both Bloomington and Burnsville and one is 25 years, one is 27 years. Neither one of them had ever had assessments. Total assessments of over $200. Wondering how in Chanhassen it could be you know, 10 times that figure. $2,000 assessment. One of the areas, one of the neighborhoods that has fairly small amount of seemingly construction work as compared to other areas. The 60/40 split, I'm wondering how the council came up with that split. If I could ask that question. Mayor Jansen: We were actually presented a survey of, how many communities did you actually pull together? Teresa Burgess: We actually presented 25 to the council. We've received a couple more since that and we went with 60/40 based on a typical assessment. We took a couple of the projects that we were looking at this year and looked at what the impact to property owners would be at a 60/40 split. We then had prepared our proposed 60/40 to what other communities were doing. We are, there really isn't a good standard across the community but looking at it, we fell about in the middle. We looked at assessments of 10, 15, 20, 25, all the way up to 70 percent and looking at that we came to a 60/40 split being the one that City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 fit well with Chanhassen's desire to do the roads, share in the cost, take our fair share, but at the same time try to keep our property taxes low. And this was the balancing point. Rick Saffrin: It seems as though, as this has been described to us, that the 60 percent fits the amount of budget that was available and this project fit the 60 percent that was available as compared to all the projects. Pretty hard to understand the logic of spending this money on a neighborhood that has some slight problems as compared to many neighborhoods within Chanhassen that have severe problems. Why aren't we spending the money on those areas that have the severe problems? It would seem that that would make more sense. Teresa Burgess: As I stated earlier, those roads that are already in disrepair, that have reached that point. Audubon is a perfect example south of Lake. That section of road has gotten bad enough. 63rd I think was brought up. That one was considered in this project. It's gotten bad enough that it has to be fully reconstructed. It will cost us the same to fully reconstruct that project this year as it will in 5 years. Now we'll try to hold it together as long as possible and we'll full depth reconstruct it, but if we allow this street to go for 5 or 10 years instead of that street, this street will require full depth reconstruction in 5 to 10 years. By doing this project we avoid that situation and when you look at it from a financial standpoint, there's more bang for the buck in doing this project than there is in doing the other one because it is something that has gone too far. Rick Saffrin: Again, it's very difficult to follow that logic considering the projects that are obviously where you've got streets that are falling apart. That we wouldn't spend the money there to do the full reconstruction. Mayor Jansen: And actually if I might interrupt for just a minute, and I'll also address that. I realize that this is an emotional issue for everyone but it's also a meeting and I'm going to ask that in order for everyone to feel comfortable stepping forward and being able to speak this evening, that if we can keep the audience rumblings to minimal, if not non-existent, we would very much appreciate it. We want this to be a comfortable environment for everyone to be able to get up and speak and certainly address us with your questions. That's what we're here for is to try to explain. Now I think you're potentially misinterpreting when staff is saying that it fits the budget. We do have a certain amount that was budgeted towards streets and budgeted towards these types of projects. Your's wasn't selected specifically because, and the 60/40 split was not driven by that budget amount. There are projects here that we're not looking at because there isn't the money to go forward with them. Staff in going forward with your project has said to all of us here this evening that if we delay your's another 5 years, you're looking at 2 to 3 times the expense to do a full reconstruction. So I'm hearing a little bit of pain now saves more pain if it's extended out and you do it later. So we're walking a fine line trying to determine at what point we in fact do these projects. We're not trying to do them prematurely because we obviously have a stake in it also as to the investment that we're making, and we have a significant number of streets in the community that have to be addressed. It's computerized at this point to try to help with the priorities on the streets to be sure that we are designating the projects that it will be the most cost effective to do each year and that is where this particular project has risen to the top. It was not driven by a budget amount. It was not the assessment amount was not driven by a budget amount. It was a proposal that came from studying 30 communities and trying to come up with what would be a good standard for us to try to work with. One way or another it does end up impacting all of us as to what we do end up paying for our streets. Rick Saffrin: Well it impacts Pheasant Hills residents $2,000 a piece. It doesn't impact the council members or other residents within Chanhassen. 10 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: It will in fact though impact all of us living on a residential street. Everyone will have that same level of participation as we move forward on our projects. Your's is this year and other projects are going to follow and if you took a look in the packet, there's neighborhoods where it's even more of a burden on those residents and we looked at projects a couple of weeks ago where we're doing total reconstruction. It's a burden so I mean we certainly understand and we're all looking at it from that perspective. It's each and every one of our residents that are having to participate in the reconstruction and maintenance of the roadways. Rick Saffrin: Again my final point, and I do thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak here. But as a number of residents as they read the feasibility study just struggled with finding enough logic to have this make sense. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to the Wood Duck Lane project? Seeing no one, we'll move onto the Ringneck Drive. Tom Furlong: Good evening. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Tom Furlong: I'm Tom Furlong. I live at 1841 Ringneck Drive. I'm here to speak against the proposed pavement reclamation and repavement. As a few of my neighbors have mentioned earlier, this work just simply does not need to be done and in my opinion should not be a priority that it's been made. You heard from a biker earlier this evening. There are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, which you saw from the pictures so the streets serve for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. There's significant number of families and children that walk and ride on the streets going to and from Pheasant Hills Park and it simply is not a dangerous situation because of cracks or potholes. Speed of the cars, we can talk about that another night but with regard to the quality of the road itself, there just simply isn't the visual problem. One of the things that impressed me as I looked through the feasibility study was the descriptions of the problems in the 4 neighborhoods listed. It just didn't seem to measure up from a comparability standard. The Pheasant Hills neighborhood was the only neighborhood listed in the feasibility study that actually had it's roads in compliance with city standards with regard to width and strength. That wasn't the case for the Koehnen Circle, West 63rd, or the Utica Lane group. Also the Koehnen Circle requires a watermain and sanitary utility improvements that just simply isn't here. It also mentioned, which I thought was interesting, that there was random cracking which we saw in some of those pictures that were put up here as well. What was interesting is Pheasant Hills was described as random cracking. Koehnen Circle was described as extensive cracking. Random cracking. And there was significant random cracking with Utica Lane. I don't know what's the difference between extensive and significant but no adjective was used for Pheasant Hills and so that tells me a little bit that this area probably doesn't have the need. It also talked about curb and gutter replacement, and we saw a couple pictures there in this representative, and it mentioned that there was 5 percent likely that would be replaced. To me when I think about problems I don't think 5 percent as being a problem level with something that needs to be addressed. It just doesn't reach the level in my opinion of a problem. The case for urgency, the necessity of repairs, we've heard a little bit more tonight than what was in the feasibility study which is helpful. I noticed that the feasibility plan did speak to project areas as we heard tonight as opposed to problem areas, so I think as we think about how our tax dollars are going to be spent, whether we happen to be residents in the specific neighborhood that's being addressed or just plain city residents, where do we want our tax money spent? Do we want it addressing problems or do we want it addressing projects? And I personally believe that problems should be there. It 11 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 mentioned that the stated goal was to have the pavement last for 20 years with normal maintenance and improvements to improve the appearance of the neighborhood and to reduce special maintenance costs. With regard to the statement of the remaining life, we heard tonight for the first time the average age was in the 15 to 17 year range. As I glanced at the chart that was put up earlier, it looks like a 10 to 20 years is the time period that roads generally fall within that 75 percent level which tells me that there's a few years left to go before that this might be necessary. And become to the point that at that point before it starts falling off, then go through with the reclamation because then you've gained the most value out of the use of that road prior to it falling off and you get the best use of your tax dollars invested back into city streets. With regard to improving the appearance of the neighborhood, I'll speak personally. It sounds like from some of my neighbors that they would agree. I don't believe that this improvement or this project would improve the look of the neighborhood materially. It just wouldn't. 5 percent of the curbs would look better, but I don't think overall it would make sense to do it from an appearance standpoint. I have not heard and did not see in the feasibility study any requirements for special maintenance costs. It didn't sound like ceiling and crack repair, even though we can discuss when that makes sense to do, when it doesn't, that to me seems to be more of a normal maintenance process as opposed to a major project such as being proposed here. So I didn't hear or see in the plan how this project will eliminate or save on some special maintenance costs associated with Pheasant Hills. And I guess in regard to the plan too, it seemed like Pheasant Hills was selected not because it was in the worst condition, but because, and I'll quote, it has line in costs with the available budget, end quote. And that was interesting to me. We talk about the level of assessment there. $2,000 is a lot of money, even when you spread it out in manageable payments over 8 years. That is a lot of money. What is interesting, and I think it was mentioned a little bit earlier tonight, that part of the quote feasibility in terms of selecting Pheasant Hills as opposed to Koehnen Circle, with West 63rd or Utica, was the level of assessments that would be involved in those neighborhoods. And so that leads me to wonder if feasibility is also what sort of dollar amounts can we place on our neighbors. How is Pheasant Hills this year if it's approved absorb a 40 percent cost if there might not be the intentional fortitude to apply that 40 percent when it's 2 or 3 times that much with a reclamation project in another neighborhood. It talks about the feasibility plan allocation of cost and again with regard to the assessment, it's looking to extend the life of the road for 20 years. 20 years to me is a long time and with regard to trying to fund an improvement that will last for 20 years out of an operating budget, seems to me to be a little mismanagement in terms of matching the cost of the investment and the source of those funds with the use of those funds. To me budgeting normal maintenance, that makes sense. Maintenance is something that has to happen and it may happen throughout the city in any given year, but for something that's going to last for 20 years, a bonding or some long term financing would be a more appropriate way in my opinion to fund that. Again, when we look at any assessment level it would seem to me that the value of the property should increase by the amount that is being assessed and I guess I sit back and I look at our neighborhood and the neighborhoods, many neighbors nearby but specifically with our neighborhood, I can't see somebody willing to pay more for my house if I were to choose to sell simply because the roads have been improved. Yet because of the luck of the time or the bad luck of the time that I happen to be living in the property I pay the burden for that. I think there were some questions answered here tonight that I had coming in and I appreciate that. I guess we talk a little bit about problem areas and if these 4 neighborhoods were brought out by the computer as being the ones that these are the ones to look at, and Pheasant Hills was recommended as the one to improve, I would say are these the 4 worst neighborhoods that we have in terms of their streets? If Pheasant Hills is the case, we really don't have a problem with our streets in this city. If it's not, then I would ask why are we spending our money here? Why shouldn't we as taxpayers spend the money where the problem areas are? I'm curious if the Pheasant Hills neighborhood has been maintained consistent with the rest of the city. And if it has, again, I don't think we have problems with our streets. If it hasn't, then I would ask what has that done to accelerate maybe some of the deterioration in the larger scope of the project and then is that 40 percent fair? The 12 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 question was asked of Councilman Ayotte with regard to whether or not sealcoating would make sense or not and whether that would buy us some time. I think that's something I'd like to hear a little bit more about. Again, if we're along that age curve of about, average age of 15 to 17 years, it sounds like we have a few more years to go before we start falling off and at that time we can do that. Would sealcoating now make some sense or should we just wait for 3 or 4 years until we get to that point where the neighborhood requires it and where it's the last possible moment to spend that money before it falls off the proverbial cliff. I guess finally from a recommendation standpoint, I think that it would make sense to continue to maintain this neighborhood streets on a normal basis and not proceed with this project as proposed. With regard to the funds, and obviously budget constraints are an issue, my recommendation would be to reserve those funds for one of these other projects that needs it. Let's spend our money and even if we can't do something this year, let's reserve those funds and apply it towards some budgeted money next year. Double up the money and get some of these projects done that are really problem areas. Reduce the debt. Fund other general expenses but let's spend our money wisely. I don't think that proceeding with the Pheasant Hills area, even though it is quote, in line with the available budget, makes prudent and fiscal sense for the city. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Sure. Teresa, on the other two projects that you've moved out and noted in our report as a year's worth of preparation, Koehnen Circle and Utica Lane. It's not as though we're not going to do those projects, correct? Could you speak to that a little bit. Teresa Burgess: No. They've been moved out to give us more time to work with that neighborhood. Koehnen Circle is a perfect example. That neighborhood does not meet standards so it will require some significant work with the neighborhood. We're going to need to widen the street to bring it up to standard. When we do the reconstruct we'll definitely bring it up to strength standard. It also requires watermain and sanitary sewer. This type of project is very disruptive to the neighborhood. It's going to mean that we will be ripping out the street. In this neighborhood we'll be actually going down approximately 7 feet down which means that people have difficulty getting in and out of their homes. It's going to require that the road gets widen which is going to mean it's going to be coming closer to their homes. With that type of impact we really need to work with that neighborhood and get them prepared for that and also to start to talk about why are we doing this project so that they're understanding and prepared for it. The projects that we're proposing tonight are projects that are not going to have that type of impact to the neighborhood. People will still be able to get in and out of their homes during the entire project. The project will last in front of their individual homes. The entire project will take longer but in front of their homes, we'll be in front of their homes maybe a week to 2 weeks. And that will be stretched out but that's the time that they'll see disruption. There will be pavement in front of their homes during the construction versus the Koehnen Circle. They will have periods where they'll be on a gravel road and that is something that we need to prepare them for and get them ready for that idea. Utica Circle again does not meet standards. We're going to have to rebuild that from 2 or 3 feet down. Bring it up. Widen it out. Move the curbs out so we're getting closer to people's homes again and we need to work with that neighborhood so that they have some time to understand. It also is much more design intensive. The project that is proposed tonight is relatively simple. We're not changing the alignment of the road. We're not changing the width. It's pretty easy to draw up plans. The ones in Koehnen Circle and in Utica are going to require a lot more detail in the plans because once the road is gone there's nothing for the contractor to come back in and just put, and know where to put it. We're going to have to tell him exactly where that road was and where to put it back at on paper and that's not easy to do. That has to be surveyed out. It's going to take a lot of time to do that and then show enough information on a piece of paper so somebody could go back and say where it was once the road is gone. 13 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Okay. You've mentioned to us a couple of times how the maintenance costs in fact escalate on us as we delay doing these projects. Could you speak to that a little bit for us. Teresa Burgess: The City of Chanhassen does crack sealing and pot-holing on an as-needed basis. The more crack sealing and pot-holing we do, the more materials we buy. It also translates into more staff time because we are getting to a point where the snowball has not started to roll down the hill but it's getting close. We have a lot of streets that are in this age group. We have a lot of streets that are a little bit older, but a lot in this condition that really are on that 2 or 3 years time window when we can really catch these and start to get them done. If we allow these streets to go, we are going to get to a point where we have more projects than we as a city can afford. And I understand where people are talking about where you're going to bond for these costs so it's not like it's just out of the budget, but at the same time you have to remember we're going to pay back those bonds using general levy funds and we are tied to how much we can bond by how much we can pay back, and how fast we can pay it back. It also has impacts on what else can we do with our money and what other options do we have. People have to keep in mind we just bonded for a 6 million dollar library. That's a huge, a huge thing to come up and to top on that, we could very easily do a 10 million dollar project this year on roads. We have, when the computer spit out it's program, that's what it did to us. It spit out, I don't remember the exact amount but multi million dollar project. We have since had to trim back to say no, we can't do that. First of all we don't have the staff. And second of all we don't have the budget for our share of the project. We can't pay back those bonds for all one year because next year the computer will again spit out a multi million dollar project. We need to spread those projects out so that we're not seeing a spike in our levy to the property owners to pay for the city share of the project, and also because we don't have staff to cover all the projects. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And when you're referring to the levy of course that's the amount that all of the taxpayers. It's not really the city, it's all of the taxpayers and their dollars that are going to support that other 60 percent that we're having to bond for. Teresa Burgess: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. What was I on? Were we on Ringneck Drive? Anyone else on Ringneck Drive? Okay. Seeing no one, Pheasant Drive. Anyone who'd like to speak to the Pheasant Drive project. Seeing no one, I'll move onto the White Dove Drive. White Dove Drive? Jim Bullington: Hi, my name is Jim Bullington. I live at 6430 White Dove Drive and I'm sure a bunch of you have talked to me already. I went around and handed out pamphlets because the information was not presented very well in the web site. It was hidden. One of the things about it is that, one of the things we were talking about is we're talking about more taxes. Assessment is basically another tax on us and right now we are one of the most taxed cities in the state and I'm wondering why we aren't spending the money, or why is our taxes, why do not have enough money to go for paying for roads from our taxes as they stand now. The other thing is that structurally, again these roads are up to structural strength. The rest of the areas aren't up to structural strength and we should look at how we take care of those neighbors. How can we make it so that we can bring those up to code. So our neighborhood, we don't need these improvements to improve our property values, because right now these streets are very nice. I've walked every one of these streets in this project. Talking to people. Looking at the streets. And honestly there's not many problems with the streets. There are some that, I think everybody in the neighborhood understands that as you're coming up Pheasant Drive there's a manhole cover that's an inch down and needs to be fixed. Now that's obviously some work that needs to be done. One of the things you showed me was Lake Lucy Lane. That comer. I agree with that. There is a spot where there's a sink hole in there, but it's a matter of those 14 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 are two areas that I can see how the entire amount. Random cracking does not contribute as far as I know to degradation of the roads. Potholes I understand do contribute to it. Let's see. There's recently our neighbors in Blue Jay Circle just had a busted watermain that flooded one of our neighbor's houses. I think we should look at how we can maintain those streets and bring those streets and fix them up instead of working on streets that really are in decent condition. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else? Peter Ackman: My name is Peter Ackman. I live at 6431 White Dove Drive. I guess my only comment is that if I lived on a street that was in bad disrepair, I'd be pretty upset if I came to this neighborhood and looked at the good condition of the roads and streets in this neighborhood and the council decided to fix this neighborhood rather than fix my road which was in bad disrepair. I think the roads are in very good condition. They meet code. Are structurally sound. We do not have heavy construction traffic or any other heavy equipment traffic on those roads and I see no reason why they can't last us a few more years. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else on White Dove Drive? How about Lake Lucy Lane? Pat Johnson: Good evening. My name is Pat Johnson and I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. I was here about 3 weeks ago on the other, on the Lake Lucy Road project, if you may recall. And some of my arguments are the same and what my neighbors have said are pretty much the same. I have, by the way, I have the privilege of living on Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. My address is Lake Lucy Lane, but I understand from Ms. Burgess that I'm going to be assessed on Lake Lucy Road as well on that project, which of course my neighbors on Lake Lucy Road didn't think that project needed to be done either. Let me read to you from a case called EHW Properties vs. The City of Eagan. And Mr. Knutson may be familiar with this case. Minnesota Court of Appeals case. A municipality can levy a special assessment when the following conditions are satisfied. First the land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed. Second, the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property. Third, the assessment may not exceed the special benefit. And a special benefit is measured, according to our Court of Appeals, by the increase in market value of the land resulting from the improvement. The increase in market value of the land resulting in the improvement. And that increase in the market value is the difference between what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before the improvement and then after the municipality completes the improvement. The problem with the City's theory here that we're going to fix roads that don't need to be fixed at this time, because it's cheaper than fixing roads that need to be fixed because they're more expensive runs contrary to our citizens fiscal management. Certainly mine and those of my neighbors, but you have a second problem. The second problem is, it doesn't confer a benefit on the homeowner. It doesn't increase the market value. And so I ask you to look at that from a legal standpoint. Can you legally go ahead and are we all going to be faced with the situation where we have to hire an appraiser to contest these individual assessments because of the city's theory that we're going to pay for repairs that don't need to be made now, and assess each property which confers no benefit. Does not increase our market value. As Mr. Furlong stated, those, anyone coming out and looking at this area, looking at Lake Lucy Road would say well the roads look fine. So repairing them, even if the map makes sense, doesn't confer any market benefit to the property owners. So from a legal standpoint, it's my opinion, for whatever it's worth, my opinion that this project does not meet the requirements of Article X, Section I, I believe of our Constitution. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. I'm going to ask you to please refrain from clapping. We appreciate your enthusiasm but we are in a business meeting. And as far as the statement about fixing roads that don't 15 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 need fix because it's cheaper than waiting until they need to be fixed is again not quite what we said. It's fix doing a less expensive fix now versus a complete reconstruction if it were to be let go, and that was the 2 to 3 times as expensive. Mr. Knutson, I don't mean to put you on the spot but as far as the legality of what it is we are looking at at this point, I don't know if that's something that you can speak to in general terms for us this evening. Roger Knutson: There's nothing new in what the last gentleman just said about what the Constitution said. It hasn't been amended in a heck of a long time so those rules for as long as I've been practicing law. The question is, is there benefit conferred. Does the market value of the home go up because of the project, and generally it does and if there's an argument then you have to hire appraisers. But generally people will pay more realizing, either I pay now or I pay later. I pay a little bit now or a whole lot more later and that gets factored into home values and home sales. But again I'm not an appraiser. Maybe the last gentleman was, but I'm not and on any individual case you would need an appraisal if there's an issue about it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Pat Johnson: May I address that? Mayor Jansen: Actually if you do have questions and you'd like to pose those to the City Attorney at another time, that would be appreciated. Pat Johnson: It's not a question of the City Attorney. It's just a comment. Mayor Jansen: Certainly, come forward. Pat Johnson: My point was that when the city's action in taking these and going ahead with these improvements, the point I was making is that what it does is it's going to force each of us to hire an appraiser if we want to individually contest these assessments. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Pat Johnson: And who's going to do that over $2,0007 I mean it's unlikely that's going to happen, but the fact of the matter is, is that the city's action in increasing, really forcing the homeowners because there's a lot of dissent on this project and on the Lake Lucy Road project. It's made a lot of controversy in that area and a lot of... that each homeowner is going to have to go through to enforce what they consider to be their rights with respect to this. Mayor Jansen: Understood. Pat Johnson: And that was my point. Mayor Jansen: Certainly, thank you. Anyone else on the Lake Lucy Lane project? Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if I could clarify one item on the previous property owner. Mayor Jansen: Sure. 16 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Teresa Burgess: I would like to make it clear that that property owner does own 2 parcels. It is not the same parcel being assessed for both streets. He's only being assessed for each parcel is being assessed for a separate project. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. The Melody Hill Road project is the next one on the list. If there's anyone here for the Melody Hill Road. Steller Circle. Pintail Circle. Wood Duck Circle. Pheasant Circle. Tom Steinkamp: Hi, I'm Tom Steinkamp. I live at 1771 Pheasant Circle. I've lived at that address all 17 years of the streets in our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I was real close to having to delay the closing of my home because the city streets weren't done when my house was built. So I know first hand about the streets in Pheasant Hills, at least I've driven on them for 17 years. I have a question relative to the graph that you showed, in terms of the 75 percent threshold. What types of roads are those? Is that graph derived from? Teresa Burgess: That graph is, most roads do deteriorate in that type of a curve. Each road has it's own curve. Those are based on the Municipal State Aid Streets in the city of Chanhassen, which are built to a 9 ton design. Our residential streets are built to a 7 ton design so they do deteriorate a little bit faster than the graph that I showed, but it is generally about the same shape. The residential street one, I didn't bring that one because it's a very messy graph. Because we have a lot of streets that were built that were not built to the same standards and so they've deteriorated at a very odd type of curve. We have a number of streets around the lake areas that were not constructed up to standard. They were built originally as private drives and eventually taken over by the city. Tom Steinkamp: I'm assuming that that graph comes from roads that were constructed under the codes that were maybe in place at the time that our streets are built. Teresa Burgess: They're a heavier ton design. They're a 9 ton design strength which means that per axle a 9 ton vehicle. Tom Steinkamp: And our's are 7 ton. Teresa Burgess: Your's are 7 ton so they do deteriorate a little bit faster because they're not as heavy of construction design. Tom Steinkamp: Is there any consideration there in terms of the amount of traffic that are on those streets? Teresa Burgess: That's the difference in the strengths. Why the more, the heavier streets. You heard the gentleman talk about Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy is a 9 ton road because of the amount of traffic it carries versus the Pheasant Hills neighborhood which carries mainly residential and occasional moving van or a UPS truck and doesn't need that level of design. Tom Steinkamp: I wonder if the council understands that over 50 percent of the roads in our neighborhood are dead end, or 50 percent of the homes in our neighborhood are on dead end streets. Our streets are not thoroughfare type streets. They are dead end streets. I drove through, I didn't count on Steller Circle and I didn't count on Melody Hill because I consider our neighborhood Pheasant Hill from Galpin Lake Road to West 63rd to Lake Lucy Lane and I drove through the neighborhood the other day and there are 95 homes, properties there and 45 of those are on dead end streets. The point I'd like to make there is that our roads get very, very little traffic. They are not thoroughfares by any means. In fact I would challenge maybe the 17 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 council to look at how we could reduce the wear and tear on our streets. I believe the wear and tear on our streets are primarily incurred by garbage trucks driving every single day down our roads and maybe if we had a uniform garbage collection service that reduce the amount of wear and tear on our streets, I'm here to tell you that my car and everybody else's cars in here are not doing our streets any damage. So I would like to see you look at that as maybe an alternative, or maybe a long term fix for the wear and tear on the streets. I will tell you that our street, in my opinion our streets have been well maintained. I read in the feasibility study that it says that it appears that some maintenance work including crack sealing and sealcoating is done. There has been potholes in our streets and they have been fixed on a very timely fashion as far as I'm concerned. And certainly over the next year or two or three at the worst, they even look nice because they get sealcoated on a regular basis and you don't even have the discoloration from a new blacktop on an old street. They get sealcoated regularly in our neighborhood. In regards to the pictures that you showed. The one area that I saw at Lake Lucy Lane and the beginning of Wood Duck, that was in my view a poor construction when those roads were built. It was the very end of our neighborhood. Lake Lucy Lane, if anybody recalls at that time was a dirt road that was brought up to a, it was being reconstructed as Lake Lucy Road took the curve south. And when Lake Lucy Lane was redone, it's my belief that that intersection was never done quite well, and in fact for many years it was dirt in that catch basin down there and it wasn't until probably 5 years ago that the city came out and added blacktop to raise that catch basin there and that area today is much better than it was, but it probably was never done right. You showed a picture of the intersection of Wood Duck and Pheasant Circle, the road that I live, that intersection that I live on, and there was some sealcoating over the concrete there. I'm here to tell you there's nothing wrong with the road there. I live on that intersection. They forgot to turn off the sealcoat material when they went over the concrete and that's the problem in that area so I have issue with some of the pictures even that I saw presented to the council. That's what I have, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. We are in fact a cul-de-sac community though aren't we. I think the majority of our residential streets end in cul-de-sacs. Anyone else on Pheasant Circle? Partridge Circle. White Dove Circle. White Tail Ridge Court. Julie Thorndycraft: I just have a question as to what.., are going to be done on White Tail. Mayor Jansen: If you'll please step forward and state your name and address for the record, I would appreciate it. Then we can catch your comments on the Minutes. Thank you. Julie Thomdycraft: Julie Thomdycraft, 1940 White Tail Ridge Court and our street is different than the rest of Pheasant Hill. We are not part of Pheasant Hill. Our street does not have curbs and basically has drain ditches on each side of the street and I have not heard anything that would say what improvements are going to be done to our street and if they are simply going to re-surface it, I believe that was done 2 years ago. And I would question why it needs to be done, if in fact we are not going to benefit from an improved appearance. Teresa Burgess: What's proposed for White Tail, and I have had a conversations with a couple of people out there. That they're interested in curb and gutter. Our experience with those type of streets in the past has been they didn't want it. It didn't come forward in our open house but we'd certainly be still willing to consider that, but at this time what we're proposing is some spot repairs of the pavement. Specifically the intersection and a couple other places, and then milling and overlay. We were not anticipating putting in curb and gutter and storm sewer at this time, keeping it very similar in nature to what it is right now and also with the surrounding community is in that area. It's very similar to what Crestview was recently reconstructed to. As far as when it was last overlayed, I don't know that but I do know that it was 18 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 physically inspected during last summer and that's where it came up to the top for consideration and it was reviewed, again walked this summer and then again this fall as we started to look at these projects. Julie Thorndycraft: If that be the case then I would say our street doesn't necessarily qualify, at least from a visual. It appears to be fine and that's all I have to say. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else on White Tail Ridge Court? Gordon Stamp: I'm Gordon Stamp. I live at 1960 White Tail Ridge Court and as Julie was saying, the street is in really nice condition at the present time and she mentioned, it was repaved 2 years ago when, and it's hard to imagine that you'd want to go in and do all this work when as you told me this morning it's going to take years for it to deteriorate to the point where there would be any actual physical erosion in the street, and that's what you said to me this morning. There's 7 houses on this dead end and basically if we get 50 cars a day on it, that's a lot and at 5 miles per hour, there just isn't the traffic to warrant this kind of cost and inconvenience to the neighborhood. I've spoken with just about everybody on the block and nobody's in favor of this because the street looks very nice and I think anybody, any resident in any community in the Twin Cities would be happy to have a street like this in front of their home. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else on White Tail Ridge Court? Moline Circle. Okay. Seeing no one, that was the last of the projects and streets. Is there anyone who missed their's as it went by that would still like to speak before I close the public hearing? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Council, any questions for staff or anything that you heard this evening that you'd like further clarification on. Councilman Peterson: Teresa I've just got one, and I think Mr. Furlong was the one that kind of alluded to it. What, on the Pheasant Hills Park project, I mean are we at the threshold for if we wait longer it will go into total reconstruction or are we at the point where we, could we push this off 1 to 3 years without going past the, because obviously we want to get the maximum out. We want to catch it right in this spot. Are we catching this one at this spot or is it, can we move it I guess is the ultimate question? Teresa Burgess: It's always a little bit of a gamble. When you look at these roads, you're taking a guess. Does it have another year? Does it have another 5? And it all depends on what does the winter do? We had a relatively light winter this year. What is next summer going to be like? Is it going to be hot and dry? That has an impact on how quickly those roads deteriorate. We can only go based on what we see right now and it comes to the top, it rises to the top as a project that's appropriate to do. We did cut some projects that quite frankly we would have liked to have done. We would have included them if we had enough budget to do them. This one came in as number one priority out of the 5 based on cost effectiveness. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you push this off we start to get a whole bunch of them grouped together that we can't do the projects then because we have too much all at once. We're going to see a big bubble of them. Pushing them off, we've done that for years where we've pushed them off a couple years at a time, and we've kind of hit that point now where, could we do it one more year? Maybe. It's hard to tell what will happen next year. It depends how the winter goes. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. Councilman Ayotte: I think one of the points that perked up my one good ear is the point about they being dead end streets and possibly the life being a little bit more optimistic view of a dead end street than one that's not dead end. With respect to the project schedule, where the bids would open 1 May, if we were to 19 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 stipulate in the terms of the bid that the period of performance for the construction would occur rather than June, 2002, June, 2003, I know labor rates would not hold. There would have to be leeway for that, but is that doable? Where actual period of performance for the construction would go out. We would begin to collect the bond aspect of it early on. Can we do that or is there something? Teresa Burgess: So let the contract in 2002 and construct in 2003, is that what you're asking me? Councilman Ayotte: Correct. And how would that, you know with labor rates, how would that be affected? Teresa Burgess: Well it's not only labor rates but it's materials as well. Asphalt is directly related to the oil market, and as anybody that's bought gas lately knows how that goes up and down. Contractor's lock in their prices at the beginning of the year when they start to sign their contracts with asphalt producers. If we were to see a change, they would be coming to us for a change order. The other thing is it's, by delaying it a year, you'd want to wait for design for a year to see what additional damage comes up so that could be taken into account into design. So if you're going to delay the project to 2003, you'd delay the bidding to 2003 as well. Councilman Ayotte: Just a couple other comments. Can I make a comment now or wait? Mayor Jansen: Well, if we could get all the questions addressed first, that'd be great. Thanks. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff? Councilman Boyle: I don't have a question. I have some comments. Mayor Jansen: Okay, Steve any questions? Councilman Labatt: No questions, no. Mayor Jansen: Teresa, maybe one that you might be able to speak to. We're all looking for visual signs of the road needing to be fixed, and of course being that we're just not road people, what does it mean when we start to be able to actually see and think that the road needs to be, once we've got all the potholes and it's ripping up. Are we now beyond this stage as being able to repair? Teresa Burgess: What you're seeing out there is disguised in part by the sealcoat. Sealcoat is an important thing to put down to protect the road but at the same time it masks how many potholes there are. How much crack sealant is on that roadway, because like one of the gentlemen stood up and said, it's all one nice uniform color and it kind of covers it up. There are potholes there that have been repaired. At a certain point you start to get enough of those. You start to get the break-up going so you don't have good seal across the entire surface. What the asphalt is providing is structural but it's also protectant. It's sealing that up so that the under part does not get wet. Doesn't get broken down. When you sealcoat it you're covering up all that crack sealant, the potholes, and it sometimes is deceptive. You can look at that road and it looks pretty decent, and in reality there's a lot going on underneath there that's not visible unless you get out and walk it looking for cracks and looking for potholes. You can see that evidence but you have to look for it. I know that people said that they walked it off and they rode their bikes on it. But 20 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 we hired someone that that's all they do is they look at pavement and rate it and he did go out there and look for the cracks and the sinking and all those things. As you start to have random cracks, the more random cracks you have the closer they get, the smaller the piece of asphalt between them and they start to pop out. You start to get those type of things. Alligator cracking would be what we would consider severe distress. That's something where we're going to dig that out a couple of feet and build it back up. The random cracking is something that can be sealed up, milled over and overlay. And we're at that point right now. The street is really a prime candidate for a mill and overlay type rehabilitation. How long will it be til it's a recon? 5 to 10 years. But at that point there will be no turning back once we hit that point where it crosses over that line, that's where it goes. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Boyle. Councilman Boyle: Teresa, as a layman, if I was to look at the street I wouldn't see what you just described, is that what you're telling me? Teresa Burgess: You'd have to go out looking for it and you'd have to know what you were looking at. As an example, the first home my husband and I purchased. Beautiful house. We looked at it. It looked great. Had brand new coat of paint on it. Sealcoat. About 6 months after we moved in, the siding started to fall off the house. The siding wasn't any good, but the people who had sold us the house had painted it. It looked fine. We had the house inspected. It looked fine. Same thing. There's a lot of potholes. There's a lot of cracks out there. It's covered over with the sealcoat and unless you get down and start looking for those cracks, you walk it looking at your feet looking for those cracks, you're not going to see it. The other thing is just like deterioration anyplace else, if you see it every day, sometimes you don't realize that it's catching up with you. The deterioration in the street. Our street crews do a great job and in some cases that does come back to bite us. The sealcoat, the potholing, it's hard to sell a project like this because everybody looks at it and says, what's the big deal? The bid deal is it's getting more expensive to maintain it. We're spending a lot more time and a lot more materials to keep that road driveable. We can look at this and we can do these projects, or we can hire a couple more street workers and we can buy more materials and then in a couple years we'll hire a couple more street workers and buy more materials. So it's a trade-off. You have to make a decision which way you want to go. Councilman Boyle: Just out of curiosity, if the computer kicked this one out as number one project, what was the second option? Teresa Burgess: The computer kicked out, actually we looked at two projects. If you remember we looked at just about 3 weeks ago, 01-08. We asked the computer to separate out the municipal state aid streets because they are a different classification and we have different funding sources for that. Some of those streets ranked higher. Koehnen Circle is number one. It falls off because we don't have the funding to be able to pay for our share, which is if the council remembers we had that discussion with the 2 year budget. We're starting to kick that budget up so that we can come up with our share of the project. As I discussed earlier, the cost to reconstruct does not get higher. When you do a rehabilitation, if you don't do the rehabilitation and you wait til it's reconstruct, it's 2 to 3 times as expensive as if you had rehabilitated. So to do those projects is cost effective. Koehnen Circle will cost us the same plus inflation in a year as it did this year and so squeezing another year of life out of it seems like the logical thing to do, rather than do no project. Mayor Jansen: And on that one you're looking at assessment rates of $5,700 a property, correct? 21 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Teresa Burgess: Correct. Councilman Boyle: That's currently though. Mayor Jansen: Right. Teresa Burgess: Right. And that does include sanitary sewer, water and also the widening of the street and curb and gutter. Mayor Jansen: Major project. Any other questions for staff? Then why don't we go ahead with comments. Whoever would like to start. Councilman Ayotte: 5 years ago, first of all thank you everyone for coming out. And I hope that you'll show up for other things. Remember what today is, 9-11. And the reason why I mention that is because 5 years ago I made the fatal mistake of coming here to a council meeting to address the issue on a surface water and then the budget, and then I opened my big mouth and I ended up on this side of the table. But irrespective of where this ends up this evening, I'm hoping that a few folks, like Mr. Furlong and others remember to come back and deal with the issues long and hard. One of the things that I talked towards when I was knocking on doors is infrastructure. Now whether you believe it or not, our infrastructure is terrible. Our roads are terrible. And I was one of the people that pushed for what she's doing with the index program. That ticks up your roads and a few others. We studied long and hard on what would be fair, and although I'm not in love with the feasibility study that was presented, I don't think it's worded very well. I don't like some of the nuances and subtleties that come out of it, the fact still remains that the roads need repair and it's pay a little now versus a lot later on. You can either believe it or not. You can believe it more if you would participate in some of the council activities that we have walked through in the last number of months associated with this and other projects. This is a triage. This is exactly what the city engineer has gone through and she's done an excellent job. So the infrastructure is going, and the 55K that we spent I think has come up with the right solution, but some of the comments that you made I'm going to run down on because I think there are some traffic issues that we can go after. So right now my mind has not changed in how this is structured, and I want you to know that but I want to have the chance of telling you that some of the things that you've said I've written down and I will follow up on. So whether you love me or hate me, I really don't care. The point is, you educated me a little bit more and I'm going to work towards some of that resolution, especially with the traffic issues. But if you want to find out more, don't come just when your assessment comes up. Participate a few months before the fact and after the fact and you'll see that some of the things that the staff are doing is absolutely wonderful, and that we are doing our best. Maybe not the best for you individually, but we are working towards we hope is the best solution. We did assess what the other cities were doing. We did work long, hard hours in coming up with the right algorithm so that's my two cents. Thank you mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilman Boyle: That was more like about 5 cents I think. The assessments are always very unpopular. Nobody likes them. I wish there was a way that we could levy a small amount, build a fund, and never have to pose any type of assessment. Nobody would feel it. It would be very popular and would make Teresa's job a lot easier, right? Right. And we would shorten some of these meetings also. It's difficult when you sit here and hear this many people object to what's happening and then say well, what do I do? Do I go this route or do I listen to the people, the experts supposedly that we hire and ask to give us the best possible information they can come up with. Again, as with Bob I'm not real happy with the 22 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 feasibility report but we've got to base our decisions on something so, as unpopular as it might be, it's all the information we have at this time. Linda. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. It clearly is an issue that, I think all 5 of us will struggle with this tonight, but yet at the end of the process we've got to make a decision that isn't necessarily popular, but appropriate. And that's the fine line as I quizzed Teresa earlier. What can we do to push this off? What impact is it going to be, because that's really what I heard tonight. It seems like a good road. It is a good road. But we're saying we're going to make it better for a longer period of time with less financial pain over the next 10 to 15 years. Make that pain now, and then not deal with it for another 15 years, approximately, give or take a few I guess. So I see that we really don't have an alternative that's in the best interest of the whole community than the one presented tonight. And I think that's really the key is that it's in the best interest of everybody. Not just this neighborhood but the city is spending 60 percent of it. That's everybody and this will continue throughout the whole rest of the city so it's a tough decision but I think one that based upon what's been presented tonight and in previous nights, appropriate. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: As tough of a pill as it is to swallow, the more painful one is 3 to 5 years from now. And I think Bob had comments that I would echo. I think that as we started the assessment rates and quite frankly when we came up with the 60/40 1 was leaning much higher, more like Robbinsdale or Golden Valley where it was 80 percent assessed to the homeowner, but then all you guys swayed me. So I you know, frankly I look at this thing for $1,936 1 can get a new road and broken out over 8 years at a very reasonable rate, that I can pay it off when I want to, I think it's a good deal. So that's mine. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I would like to echo Councilman Ayotte's mention to all of you that we do very much appreciate your coming here this evening and taking the time to share with us your perspectives and your input on these projects. We know that it's a significant amount of time that you've spent to come down here to do that and it's certainly probably out of a lot of your comfort zones to have walked up and spoken at the podium, but thank you. This is an issue that we have gone back and forth with staff on numerous times this year trying to figure out what the right thing is to do. And we are looking community wide because of the impact that this will have on all of us. It's not that it's just your neighborhoods. Unfortunately you're feeling it at this time because it is your neighborhood's turn if you would. And putting it off we're delaying getting this project accomplished. We're compounding the issues as we move forward so though again it's difficult after some of the numbers that we have looked at, though it feels unreasonable and uncomfortable for you, we've been looking at other numbers that we fortunately are not having to share with you this evening. We're trying to make sure that we're all looking at this from the perspective of not wanting to over burden our residents. One way or the other it's taxes. One of your mentioned that Chanhassen is the highest, one of the highest taxed communities and we're sensitive to that. We are trying to be as conservative as we can be, without raising everyone's property taxes dramatically. 60 percent of this does end up as you heard on our levy. That does distribute it throughout the community so yes, one way or the other it is a tax. Hopefully we are providing a benefit and giving you less of a burden by addressing it now versus when it becomes that 2 to 3 times the cost of this level of project. So I am going to echo what the other councilmen are feeling at this point, that though it's a difficult and not popular decision to make, and assessments are not enjoyable to have to address, I have to say that staff has worked very hard with us to try to come up with what's reasonable and what we can move forward with responsibly to keep our infrastructure up to the standards that our community should expect without 23 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 escalating the prices and costs of all of those projects. So with that, council if I could have a motion please. Councilman Ayotte: Mayor, I so move to accept the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for City Project #01-10 as recommended in the feasibility study. Mayor Jansen: And could you move the second part of that motion. Councilman Ayotte: I also so move to approve the consultant work order for the preparation of plans and specs, constructing engineering in the amount of $55,000. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to accept the feasibility study and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for City Project #01-10 as recommended in the feasibility study, and to approve the Consultant Work Order for the preparation of plans and specifications and construction engineering in the amount of $55,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: I'll give everyone just a couple of minutes to get up and I'm sure you're going to be leaving the room, and so we'll just pause for a second before we move onto the next agenda item. Thank you for coming this evening. We do appreciate it. HEARING ON INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION, MGM LIQUOR WAREHOUSE, 7856 MARKET BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Bob Pfaffinger Brad H. Michael Maglich 2235 Zanzibar Lane, Plymouth 55447 7856 Market Boulevard 7856 Market Boulevard Todd Gerhardt: ...conditions are, payment of a civil sanction of $1,000 by May 11, 2002 in lieu ofa 3 day suspension. No further violations of State law or Chanhassen ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. Payment of all real estate taxes. If a new violation occurs, the 3 day suspension will not be imposed until MGM has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. If there are no violations of these conditions, the 3 day suspension will be discharged on March 11, 2005. Staff recommends approval of this stipulation agreement and also on determining the Findings of Fact. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And I'm assuming we have someone from the applicant here this evening. If you would like to address the council, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. 24 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mike Maglich: My name is Mike Maglich. I'm one of the owners of the Chanhassen store. Good evening Mayor, council members. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Mike Maglich: I'm here this evening because on the evening of May 31,2001 a cashier employed at the MGM in Chanhassen failed a compliance check and sold to an undercover compliance decoy. Failing a compliance check is unacceptable to me as an owner, and to us as a company. I want to take this opportunity to describe the changes that we have made at the Chanhassen store. But before I do that I'd like to first sincerely apologize to this council, to the citizens of Chanhassen, to our valued customers. On behalf of our company and our employees, I want to assure this council and the citizens of Chanhassen that we are committed to the elimination of underage access in Chanhassen. As I said before, this was an unacceptable and unfortunate incident. MGM has been a responsible corporate citizen of Chanhassen since 1983. And this is the first time an employee has failed a compliance check. How did this happen? The circumstances are bizarre. The employee had decided to quit her job that very evening. When she came to work she just didn't care. She made a mistake. Big mistake. This was a case of human error. She violated our company policy, which at the time was that all customers must be asked for an ID. The timing of the events were unusual. An employee's last shift on the job, a compliance check taking place at that time, and an employee that violated our company policy. What has taken place since that evening? First, the employee in question left the store right after the infraction. Never returned and is no longer employed by MGM. Second. The manager of the store has been reprimanded, financially penalized, demoted, retrained in several areas of responsibility, and transferred to a location that has a more sophisticated ID checking program. Third, the sophisticated ID checking program I mentioned has been installed in the Chanhassen store. This program which is based on new technology, that didn't exist 3 years ago, is a very expensive proposition for us. It requires all customers to present an ID that must be scanned before a transaction can continue. MGM has been the leader in the beverage alcohol industry in implementing this program. We've lost considerable business due to the implementation, but we are committed to having it installed in all of our stores by the end of the year. We would hope that eventually all communities would see the value of the ID scanning program and make it actually a mandatory program. Fourth, a new manager and a new assistant manager are now in charge of the Chanhassen store. Fifth, all employees are now 21 years of age or older, and have been made aware of the severe penalties that can be imposed on the store and on them as individuals. And they have all been required to go through a re-training of our TAM program. I believe I've given you all copies of our training manuals and our training programs and our ID checking policy. Let me speak for a moment about the TAM program and MGM's history of commitment to elimination of youth access to beverage alcohol. We've been working on this for 32 years. MGM was the first company to establish a formal education and training program for checking ID's. Many of our programs have received recognition and awards of excellence from city and state agencies. As a matter of fact I'll be in front of another city council in 2 weeks to accept an award for our participation as a leader in their best practices program. That will be a little bit more happier occasion than this. MGM recently received an award from the University of Minnesota as the number one company with the best training and the most effective ID policy regarding youth access. We're very proud of that. I've supplied you all with the training materials we use with our employees. The employee that failed this compliance check completed this training program and signed a pledge of commitment to eliminating youth access. She violated our company policy, her training, and her pledge. The human error factor. Finally, I want to assure this council and the citizens of Chanhassen of MGM's continuing commitment of time, talent, training and technology in the ongoing effort to eliminate youth access. I want the citizens of Chanhassen to know that any person under the age of 21 has access to beverage alcohol, they didn't get it at MGM. I ask this council to consider the circumstances of this infraction and penalize us accordingly. Thank you for 25 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 the opportunity to address this important issue and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Maglich? Councilman Ayotte: First off I'd like to thank him for his continued carding my wife when she comes in. That's scored a lot of points in our. On a serious note, one of the concerns I have 4 children, 3 sons, a daughter and unfortunately I know some of the pain you've gone through. What the kids do, if you have a situation where you're really tight in the way you manage things, and they know that there's a weak link down the road, they'll go to the weak link. And in Chanhassen I'm hoping that we eliminate all the weak links so as you strengthen your situation and do all the things that you're doing, I'm just kind of curious about what we may be able to do to effectively model the other liquor stores in the community so that we have a Chanhassen standard that would be something of a premiere standard so they'll have to go someplace else to another city to do their buying. And I'm not saying that facetiously so I'm just kind of thinking out loud and I'm throwing that thought out and wondering whether or not there's a way that we could export all the fine things you're doing in reaction to what you've experienced to other entities within the city. And I really pose that question to our city manager and legal counsel rather than you sir. Mayor Jansen: Anything you'd like to speak to that? Todd Gerhardt: I'm not 100 percent sure if we can force people to buy $15,000 cash register machines or not but we'll look into it. Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Any other questions for Mr. Maglich? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. How many MGM's are you involved in? How many MGM stores? Just the one here in Chanhassen or are you? Mike Maglich: We have 38 stores. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And how many of your 38 stores have this same cash register? Mike Maglich: Our corporate stores, we have 20 corporate stores which I have total control over and they all have that system. Cash register system installed in them. They don't all have the ID scanning program yet, but by the end of this year we will. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So was it the violation that caused you to get the ID scanning system in here, in Chanhassen? Is that what it took? Mike Maglich: No. Chanhassen was scheduled to have that system installed eventually. Councilman Labatt: And how many of the other stores are scheduled out here? Mike Maglich: Pardon me? Councilman Labatt: How many of the 20 corporate stores that don't have the ID check system are scheduled right now on paper, and you can say well this store is schedule you know, and give me the dates. Or does it take a violation to get MGM to get going? 26 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mike Maglich: No, it does not. We're installing the programs as it's fiscally appropriate for us to do it. We can't install them all at one time simply because of cash situation, number one. Number two, the training. And number three, the availability of the product so we're taking them one store at a time. It takes a significant amount of training of the employees to use this system. Not only that, we found after the first installation that it also required another type of training, and that was how to deal with the consumer once we asked for the ID from everyone. That was very, very difficult on our employees because we got a lot of negative feedback from the consumers, so we had to bring all of our employees in that were involved in the first store and train them on how to deal with that negative impact of asking for an ID from everyone regardless of how old you are. And so we've learned something by that. We don't implement the system until everybody's totally trained and ready to go with that. About a third of our register systems prior to the first of the year didn't have the capabilities of scanning so we had to go out and start purchasing new equipment. Now we've just currently run into another kind of minor stumbling block but we were using Compaq computer systems prior to this and they no longer are making the system that recognizes this scanning procedure so we have to switch to another computer processing unit, the Dell system is what we're going with now. And they're a little bit back ordered on our processors. Right now we have 14 systems on order and we're just waiting for them to arrive and then we'll install them as they arrive. Each store has roughly 4 to 5 registers so it requires some significant upgrading. I guess maybe I didn't answer your first part of the question. That all the stores had necessary equipment to do the scanning. They all have these computerized cash registers but not all of them can do the scanning. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Was this compliance check, this was one of the announced ones where they send you the letter weeks before hand, before? Mike Maglich: I believe so, yes. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So your employees knew a timeframe when this compliance check would be happening, correct? Mike Maglich: Correct. Our employees are trained that the compliance check can take place at any time regardless of whether the city sends a letter or not, depending on what community. Some communities don't. We just have gone to the extent of saying, you know be prepared and if you're doing, if you're executing our program and the stores that don't have the register system have our ID please program, which I think I supplied in your packet. The blue card here that says, MGM in cooperation with State and Local Officials efforts for zero tolerance to underage access, ask you to please be prepared to show ID regardless of age. That was our policy prior to the scanning devices. Our success with the scanning has just made it, the situation that we want to take the leadership position in. We're getting a lot of criticism from it but I think as Councilmember Ayotte mentioned, it's necessary. Human error factor, we can't eliminate that but we can help by adding the technology and that's what we intend to do. We've had several cities by the way that have modeled their programs after our's. Municipal operations. But we were the first ones to install it and I think they just basically wanted to see how well it would work with us and now they're installing it. I know the city of Richfield I believe just installed it because 2 of their stores failed their own compliance checks so they went to this system. And I believe that eventually this will be the system in place for all retail package stores. It should be. We work very proactively in every community that we're in in developing programs that are designed to eliminate youth access. Not our intention to sell to people that are underage. Councilman Labatt: Okay. 27 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Mr. Maglich? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Certainly appreciate your being here this evening and sharing with us the steps that you have taken to correct the situation as far as implementing the technology and the significant changes that you made in your staffing and addressing the changes in training so it certainly helps to build our confidence as far as looking for the compliance going forward and we'd certainly love to be in the situation of providing you with an award for your training programs as you're receiving in other areas. Mike Maglich: I wish I was getting that award. It's very hard for me to stand up here and defend this particular incident. Mayor Jansen: I'm sure it is. Mike Maglich: We recognize Mayor, it's a privilege to have a liquor license in the city of Chanhassen and we take our business very seriously and again we'd be willing to work proactively with the city in developing any new programs they'd like to involve with. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. We appreciate that. Council, I'll close the public. Oh, if there's anyone else present who would like to speak to this issue, this is a public hearing. Okay, otherwise I will close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Any comments council? Councilman Ayotte: I have a question. Are we limited to 1,0007 Can I move to have it higher? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And then secondly, can I formulate a motion that would fence the money for a program for Chanhassen to work towards age verification? A program using the money as seed stock money for a program? Roger Knutson: Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Counsel. Roger Knutson: The cap on a fine is $2,000. Councilman Ayotte: The cap's $2,000? Roger Knutson: Yes sir. But that's not, we have, just so you know, we have no stipulation on that. You can impose it. That would be at your discretion. And how you want to use that fine money when it comes to the city obviously is your, if you want to earmark that for a certain purposes, you can do that as long as 28 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 it's public purpose such as what you just suggested would be fine. That would be really an internal decision for the city to make. How you spend your money is not up to the private business. Councilman Ayotte: What I don't understand is you said there's a cap of $2,000 but we can go more, I don't follow. Roger Knutson: No, no. Todd Gerhardt: No, $2,000 is the maximum. $2,000 is the maximum that you could fine for violation of this sort. Mayor Jansen: And this is, if you might explain. I know that you've drafted the stipulation. Maybe how you've arrived at your recommendation. Roger Knutson: What we did for your consideration is put together a stipulation which MGM has previously agreed to. Again it was subject to your approval and you can approve it or not as you choose. Or you can modify this if you want. But this is our recommendation and based upon what we've seen other cities do... this is what we think is what is, would be kind of a typical penalty. But you are again free to deviate from that if you think we got it wrong. Mayor Jansen: And again it's a first time. Roger Knutson: It's a first time offense and they have gone to some lengths to install, upgrade their equipment to make sure this won't happen again. And they have a training program and they aren't just ignoring what we're doing. They're cooperating with us so based upon all those factors we recommended the $1,000 fine and the 3 days be imposed but then it's going to be our recommendation that it be suspended. The suspension be suspended so to speak for a period of years and if they don't make any other mistakes in that time period, then they won't have to serve that suspension. If they make another mistake and they come back here and you find that they've made another mistake, then they will have to serve that 3 day suspension. In addition to already having paid the $1,000. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And I think you made as one of the findings of fact, our ordinance does state the council may deviate in an individual case where the council finds that there exists reasons making it more appropriate to deviate such as, but not limited to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the State or City to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. So basically stating that we don't need to fine or close them down for the maximum if they've taken actions as you've suggested that demonstrate that they're trying to correct it. Roger Knutson: Prevent further occurrences of this unfortunate incident. If you've concluded that they have, and you think it's appropriate, then you can, you don't have to give them the maximum. You can do something less. And you have our recommendation which is in front of you. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. So this stipulation of facts is in essence is MGM is in here saying we were guilty? Mike Maglich: Yes sir. 29 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Labatt: And I would go along with Mr. Ayotte in under 6(a), payment on a civil action of $2,000. I'd like to see that instead of $1,000. (b) and (c), you know, god forbid I would hope they would be willing to do those. Pay their taxes and not sell any alcohol to minors again. (d), I'd like to get a clarification. If a new violation occurs, the 3 day suspension will not be imposed until MGM has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. That is solely on that new violation and if. Roger Knutson: Maybe I can explain. If there's a new violation, they'll be subject to a penalty separate from this for that new violation. But in addition to what you want to do on the new violation, which hasn't occurred yet and hopefully never will occur, you can, this 3 days will be imposed against them in addition to having already paid the $2,000. They will serve 3 day suspension based on the first violation, not the second violation. But it has to come back to you for you to determine that there's been a violation. We can't automatically do it. Councilman Labatt: For us to determine there has been a second violation. Roger Knutson: Right, which results in... plus imposing these 3 days which has already been assessed. It's just like in your, maybe when there's a pro-revocation, even though you know someone did something wrong, the judge has got to decide that they did something wrong and revoke their parole. Well that's what's happening here only you're the judge. It has to come back to you to impose that 3 days for the first violation. If there's a subsequent violation. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So can we add something in here, another one where if there's a new violation the penalty for the first violation, the 3 days automatically kicks in? Roger Knutson: That's what (d) does but it isn't quite automatic. Councilman Labatt: but they have to come in for a hearing though. Roger Knutson: That's the due process thing. You have to find that there was a violation. You have to determine, you have to. Mayor Jansen: And then it's automatic. Roger Knutson: Yes. You have to decide that. Staff can't do that. It has to go to you. Councilman Labatt: ... second violation occurs, they come in and are found guilty by this council. Roger Knutson: Then the 3 days goes into effect and then you get a separate penalty for the second violation. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So they could in essence up to 9 days then? Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilman Labatt: 3 for the first, 6 for the second. Roger Knutson: Yes. 30 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And Roger, the only way the second violation would come back is after they've already gone through the court process and been found guilty? Roger Knutson: That is our current process, yes. Todd Gerhardt: So if we bring this back with a second violation, it's already going to be in front of you found guilty through the courts. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay, that's all I have. I'd just change (a) then to $2,000. Mayor Jansen: Other comments from council? Councilman Peterson: I don't necessarily agree that moving it from 1 to 2,000 is appropriate. I think that my sense is we're dealing with an atypical situation. It wasn't blatant. They responded appropriately and timely. My, and part of, there's a balance between fining and is it undue hardship? Probably not, going from 1 to 2, but to some degree I don't want to take their money away from investing in incremental units for other cities and so that I want them to be putting in those systems at every one of their stores as soon as possible, and as mentioned, financial constraints are certainly there and I don't want a fine to affect putting one system in one store that can prevent this from happening again. So I think the fine is done to get their attention, and I think $1,000 is attention getter. Councilman Boyle: I agree with Councilman Peterson. $1,000 gets the job done. I'd rather see that other thousand go into training or whatever to avoid future happenings. There was a training program in effect at the time. You took corrective action. It was a bizarre incident. One individual, last day of work. I think $1,000 is plenty. Mayor Jansen: I'm going to echo those same comments. I think the penalty that staff and MGM have drafted, the $1,000 is certainly reasonable and conveys our concern with the situation. I too would hope that in maybe not making it a more extensive fine that it would more so be invested in prevention. I don't know how much more you can actually do as a manager and owner of a liquor establishment like this to put more prevention in place than you already have. A $15,000 investment in technology is certainly significant and to have backed up and done the re-training and significant changes in staff, I think that MGM has certainly demonstrated that they are a responsible business in our community and have taken some significant steps to be a responsible citizen and I think that they've possibly lost enough face that an additional $1,000 fine I don't think is necessary here to convey our extreme concern of the situation. I would favor going with the recommendation that's been made to us. Councilman Labatt: The only comments I have is, our ordinance spells out 3 days and granted we can deviate but it took a violation to get them to get going and that's what upsets me about it. That it took a violation. A compliance check that was told to them, we're coming between these dates. And there are circumstances are circumstances and that's just you know, but I look at 3 days to suspend a liquor license is a lot more money than $2,000. And $2,000, we take that and we earmark it towards something, whether it's more compliance checks or something for crime prevention is wise. I think that the stipulations are fairly lenient from what has happened up in the city of Plymouth with some of their first time offenders. So, I'm sure Roger knows about them so that's all I'll just say my 4 ½ cents worth there. 31 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: And I don't disagree with the city encouraging a more extensive training program or being able to mirror what MGM has put into place as far as training of staff. Obviously we can't force the technology issue but if they do have an award winning program for training, it might be something for us to follow up on to encourage our other businesses to follow the same sort of a training program. That I would agree with. I'll call for a motion. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members, the motion that you should be considering is approval of the stipulation of facts of civil sanctions dated March 8th and the findings of facts and decision dated March 8th. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilman Boyle: Seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve the Stipulation of Facts of Civil Sanctions dated March 8, 2002, and approve the Findings of Facts and Decision dated March 8, 2002. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte and Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. LONG RANGE FACILITY OPTIONS, SCHOOL DISTRICT 112. Mayor Jansen: Under new business we start with our District 112 presentation of the long range facility options and we have our school superintendent here, Bev Stofferand. Thank you for joining us this evening. Sorry it got a little later into the evening than we might have hoped. Bev Stofferand: That's quite alright. Mayor Jansen, members of the council. It's a great pleasure for us to be here. With me tonight is Betsy Chase our Director of Planning and Organizational Improvement and School Board member Gayle Degler. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Bev Stofferand: We've got a happier topic to talk about than either of the last 2 may have been for at least some of the residents, in that we are here to share with you tonight some information regarding a major initiative that is underway in District 112 right now, namely our attempt to create a master facility plan. So we are all about planning schools for 2014, and the year will become obvious in a moment. As we, this fall again updated our demographic study we also asked Dr. Barbara Lukerman, who has been the demographic expert from the Humphrey Institute who's worked with the district for a number of years, to meet with the case of the cities, and the managers and the developers and to try to get a real visual, or a real picture of about when we would peak out in our K-12 enrollment and secondarily, about how large we would get. The numbers are in front of you and they are arranged by the current grade configurations that the district operates under and you can see that the peak enrollment is projected to be about 12 years out and at over 11,000 students. Now to help that, put you in that context, right now we have a little over 7,400 students. Of those roughly 4,000 more to come in the next 12 years, half of them or 2,000 are expected to be here in the next 5 years. So the explosive growth from eastern Carver County seems to be continuing. So our task in the district is to create a master facilities plan that's designed to help all of our learners achieve their very personal best by meeting their space needs, by meeting their educational needs and I might add by meeting the needs of the taxpayers in that, have a plan that they are willing to pay for. So to date I mentioned that we have done the demographic report. Simultaneously what we have done was 32 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 to engage in the services of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement out of the University of Minnesota to take a look at the research done around the correlary, if you will, between student achievement and whatever implications for facilities there may be, and there some. We have received that report and then the Board and staff got together to design the parameters if you will of a master plan. In other words, what are the limitations or what are the expectations? At that point your mayor and 49 other people were involved in a long day and a half session where we had a microcosm of the community in that we had high school students, staff, both of our teaching staff and our support staff. We had a couple of administrators. We had parents. We had business people. People who were residents without children in schools who came together and on one hand were given the enrollment projections. On the other hand were given the carry report on the educational research and the parameters and suggested that they go to work, and they did. They turned out 6 different possible models, pictures if you will, of how this metaphorically speaking puzzle may be put together for, to help us get to our peak enrollment. We aren't seeking a vote from you or from our taxpayers at this point on any one of the models, but we're rather looking at those models which are listed in that newsletter. I'm not going to take your time to go through them all tonight, to show really that there's a variety of ways the various components could be put together and in so doing create a master plan. The final plan that is put together, and I'll speak about that in a moment, and it's time line, may or may not look like any one of the 6 that are currently listed in the community newsletter. Behind us all are these assumptions. That we need to be sure that we're planning for all of our learners, but at the same time being careful that we aim at the right target and not overbuild. We know that any great organizations can work and the key thing is the quality of the teacher that you put with the child, not the facility that makes the difference in student achievement. Research is bearing that out over and over again. As we look across districts in the State of Minnesota and we see very large ones and very small ones. We see every kind of possibility and grade configuration that there is. Sometimes driven by facilities, so we know that can work. We also believe that the buildings themselves should enhance and support learning that is based on research, that we need to balance what the community wants for it's children on one hand with what it can afford on the other. That's a key place to find that balance. That we will collaborate with cities, with public and private partnerships whenever possible to get the very best return for the taxpayer dollar, and that we want all of our facilities to be designed to support our district's educational plan, our guiding principles, namely that of rigorous high quality educational opportunities and high standards. As I said, we weren't looking for a vote on any one of these models but it is these components that are critically important for us as residents to think about and to give the district your feedback on. These are connected to the research, and again for time sake tonight I'm not going through the research but on page 2 of that community newsletter you see that high points. We know for example that there is correlation between the actual physical size of a building and student achievement. Research bears that out. So what do we think as a community of district 112 is the appropriate size for our schools? We also know for example that every time a child moves physically from one building to another in his or her grade through 12 career, pre-K-12 career, there will be a drop in student achievement. It will be temporary. It is recoverable but it is a drop. That has implications for transitions. Transitions has an implication for grade level organization. Number of high schools. The very first slide that I showed you in numbers projects that we will have just about 2,700 students in grades 10 through 12 when we peak in our enrollment. Currently the high school will accommodate 1,500. It's holding more than that right now, and it has the capability to have another wing put on it, another classroom addition that could take it to 2,000. It has a limitation of core space after that. Gym, media center, cafeteria, and so on. Not easily enlarged. So 2,000 is about the best, the maximum we can get in the current high school, yet the projected enrollment is 2,700. So as a community what do we want? Do we want 2 high schools? Do we want 1 large one? Do we want to figure something else out to get us through the peak years? All day kindergarten has been fully researched and is certainly a very viable opportunity for young children in upping their ability to read more effectively. They get about 6 months gain and it stays with them all through school. All through that 33 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 elementary and middle and high school career, if they've come from all day kindergarten classes. Class size. Research is abundantly clear that we can drive that class size down to 18 to 1. That's an expensive proposition however. We can significantly impact student achievement. Obviously that has implications not only for our facility size and classrooms, but, and numbers of classrooms, but also for the size of the operating budget that the state does not now fund. We're asking questions about the program choice and equity. Right now for example if you go into any of our elementary schools, they all pretty much look alike in terms of the program. We have heard from some residents that they would like to see choices available, so what that usually looks like is a magnet school for example where a curricular theme such as science and math or technology, is pulled all the way through the curriculum in multi grades. That's usually a school of choice. Is that something this community wants for it's children? And finally the affordability, the balance between what we can afford and what we, what is good for kids. So model 7. 6 models have been put together. Model 7 will be put together after we've heard back from the community. Right now we are in the stages of doing a lot of what I'm doing here tonight, gathering or trying to get on people's radar screens. Get awareness up and ask for feedback. The feedback is either the back of the survey that can be marked and sent in, or it can be access on our district's web site which is district112.org. The same exact survey is there along with a full copy of both the demographic study and the research study, for anyone who wants to go into that. So right now we are listening to the community, the staff and we are gathering feedback and when we get all of that in we will put together what model 7 looks like. And using that then as a springboard, we will come back to a representative group in late April with the research, or I'm sorry, with the results of the survey on one hand saying here's what the community seems to be saying and here's how it would translate, and get feedback again on that. Come back in May. Put a final tweaks to it if we will and have it front of the school board either late May or early June, for their consideration. So we're on an accelerated time line here. But we really feel that we as a community need to create the future that we want for our kids rather than let it happen to us and be in a reactive mode. It would be far easier for us to simply say well, you know. We're out of space at the high school. We know in 2 years elementary's are full again and 3 years out the middle schools will be full again, even in spite of the fact we're building a new one and opening in the fall. And think no further than that. That would be the easier, not easy but easier thing to do. We think this is the right thing to do so that we get out there. Take a look at our peak enrollment and decide as a community what we want. So we would welcome your thought as a council and certainly your thoughts as individual residents of the city of Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate your being here this evening. And Bev, I'm not sure if I missed your mentioning it. Did you mention your Decision Resource survey that's being done? Bev Stofferand: Thank you very much for that. I meant to mention that. Surveys will be coming, or can come back to us from residents but we are also, in fact it's in the process right now of being called, Decision Resources is also doing a survey for us on these same questions, plus a few other ones, but we wanted to be very sure that we get scientifically accurate information that can be generalizable back to the larger community. Mayor Jansen: And that's a 400. Bev Stofferand: 400 random sample. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. So similar to what we did for our community survey. How many surveys have you gotten back? Are you keeping track as we go? Bev Stofferand: Somewhere over 300 altogether. 34 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Over 300 altogether so far. Bev Stofferand: They're coming into the web site and being mailed in every day. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well good. At least you're getting some response. Bev Stofferand: We're getting some response. Mayor Jansen: People are responding. Council, any questions for Bev? Councilman Ayotte: Life cycle. In the discussions that you had with the young person getting onto the bus, travel time, going to school, close curriculum activity, I would suspect that was addressed. I did a quick cursory look but was there much discussion with respect to life cycle and the special distribution between where children live today and as they grow older and how that would influence the flexibility of the buildings? Bev Stofferand: Not specifically in terms of the research but common sense tells us a number of things. One, we're geographically a large district so as we get down the road further and need to build new schools, we need to be cognizant of the siting of the schools from a number of perspectives, and one of those is transportation. The more we can get children to be able to walk to a school, the easier it is for the family, the child and the less cost in transportation, the less time on a bus. That may or may not be more possible in some of the existing schools, just because of their location. That's one thing that's certainly in our minds. Secondly, in terms of life cycle and flexibility of the buildings. We have taken some steps in the two new buildings to make them interior much, how do I say this? To have fewer load bearing walls than some of the existing structures so that when, and we know it is inevitable. This district will be probably not like, unlike every other one in front of us, that it will peak in it's enrollment and then someday not need all of the buildings that it will have, that those buildings will be more easily transformed into something else. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions or comments for Bev? Councilman Boyle: Very interesting and educational presentation, thank you. Bev Stofferand: Thank you for your time. Appreciate it very much and I would be interested in have you take a look at that survey and think about it. Councilman Boyle: Already have and it's been sent in already. Bev Stofferand: Great, thank you. Councilman Labatt: Thanks Bev. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And I have to say if you've never participated on a school district task force, it is an experience. And one that I think everyone deserves to go through, and I say it's an experience in that, it's gratifying to know that when we have an organization that so impacts our residents, the effect on our 35 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 children as well as if we're all thinking as taxpayers, it's a significant financial investment that we're all making through our taxes. These folks put a great deal of effort into trying to make the right decisions and making sure that they're contacting their residents. Getting our input. I don't know of how many other ways they could be going about trying to communicate to us, that they're undergoing this significant task and asking us to participate in it, and I do commend them for that and participating in this study. We literally were exchanging ideas with the high school students. You could hear from them the impact of some of these questions and decisions that are coming from a student perspective so it was really quite enlightening and appreciate your being here this evening. We certainly will continue to try to spread the word with our residents that you're conducting this survey, so thank you. Bev Stofferand: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Gayle, was there anything you wanted to add? Should I put you on the spot since you're here? Gayle Degler: I think the biggest thing is any information, any input, please give us, give somebody a call because we want as much input as we can get. Mayor Jansen: Great, thanks Gayle. Appreciate it. Gayle Degler from our school board. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION, 1420 HERON DRIVE, STUART & TANYA BROWN. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicants, the Brown's are located in Lake Susan Hills, the 3rd Addition. It's zoned PUD. This is a picture of the home. They want to put the garage this way, which is shown on this site plan. It needs a 7 foot variance. On February 19th the Planning Commission heard this request for a variance and recommended denial. The applicant is appealing that decision. The Planning Commission looked at the surrounding neighborhood and concurred with the staff report that felt that there wasn't a hardship with a third stall garage so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. We don't typically hold another public hearing at our council meetings but we would open it up for, if you've got 5 minutes that you'd like to add. We all have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, so we do have your presentation that you had done to that group so if there's any new information that you would like to add, certainly do that at this time. Stuart Brown: Alright, you opened the window. I'll be brief. I'll be brief. Mayor Jansen: If you'll state your name and address for the record for us please. Stuart Brown: Stuart Brown at 1420 Heron Drive. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Stuart Brown: Thank you. Just a, I didn't present, you know I want to change from what I've learned in the last process, talking about hardship and now that I understood a little bit more of what you must approve or... contrary to the public interest. I was going to quote, I have a paperclip here. From the 36 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Planning Commission's own findings, that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the land or other improvements in the neighborhood. I couldn't have said it better. This variance, if granted, is in harmony with the spirit and the intent of all the zoning, and I list them all but I won't go through them but you can't find a one that this violates harmony, spirit or intent of keeping sight lines and property values and over crowded and all these things. It would not result in a diminished value of the, my property or any surrounding properties. If approved will result in substantial justice being done. Has full support of the neighborhood. That's redundant in what you've read. I did bring more signatures tonight if needed can throw in the file. And correct me if I'm wrong but of all people polled within 500 feet, there have been 0 people with any problems. If approved, 40 percent of the homes on the cul-de-sac would have a third stall garage. Not a vast minority, so that'd be 4 out of 10. And you can go through there's little graphs so I guess it's statistically a minority but it's not, it wouldn't be like oh my gosh, look at this third stall garage would be almost half. It's 4 out of 10. It has no negative impact on sight lines and I know that's important on comer lots. I will not go through, you know there's over crowding.., but again none of the issues of the reasons why you have zoning variances that you list in, you know for the reason for having zoning. You can't find one that this violates the biggest fear is precedence which I'll get to in a minute. And the alternatives.., by people such as ourselves in this day and age, I imagine, I bet 15 years ago a single car was probably a reasonable use of property and that probably crept up to 2 but the alternatives, and I've seen it all over the neighborhood are oh, stuff on the outside of homes. Cars in the street. Cars in the driveway. Cars on the side of the houses with blankets on them and that kind of thing which I think violates, goes against the spirit and harmony of a few of those reasons of the zoning ordinances, more than this. Is there a hardship? I absolutely, positively think so. We've got a couple sets of maps that were done. Over, I have a comer lot with almost, it's .46 acres of land. Calculations bear out that 13,000 some square foot of that is not, can't have any building on it. That's because, I don't know ifI can go to this thing. Is this centered on there? From the center of the street here got 42 feet approximately in from the curb you know, and 40 feet from the, here's my 2 setbacks. You're left with here, this is about mathematically about 29 percent of the property is buildable, or can have anything on it. The Planning Commission noted that while there's always that 10 foot setback or that right- of-way, then it's really only 54 percent of the square footage that I really could, have ever actually had anyone mow and water it and things that are something I could have dealt with. One exception to their exception is they say that all lots are the same, that comer lots really don't have it worst. And that regular lots have a 30 foot setback also two of them, on the front and the back. But if you talk about a rectangle, I'd much rather have a 30 foot setback here and a 30 foot setback here. I would have, it's not, just saying well they both have a standard lot, front and the back. I've got a short and a long side, anyone on a comer lot. Most lots are deeper than they are wide. So you definitely, you lose a lot more square footage. This lot for being .46 acres, I effectively, I can't improve or modernize my home. I want to stay here. Been there 12 years. 11 years. 1990. We want to stay there. Great neighborhood. Great, we pay taxes and do all those good things. Keep the yard clean. I think a picture's worth 1,000 words. I played with some digital photography and went to another home just like mine that does have a third stall. This is the comer we're talking about. Here's Ibis, and it extends this way. Heron Drive this way. Here's my home today. I superimposed a garage of the same size I'm proposing on there and took great care to size it appropriately. This is what we're talking about. This comer here would be 30, the city reports it 35 feet. Worst case, 32 to 33 feet from the street. This one would be even further. So this is about 7 feet over the city code. And here it's about 3 feet away. So on one comer, you know both comers are out but the property angles. But again all my neighbors, they're all in bed now, or not. But we definitely prefer, my options would become things like sheds and those kinds of things and they all unanimously said, they'd much rather see a discreet professional addition of a garage, and again I want to emphasize, I didn't emphasize enough at the Planning Commission the hardship of this lot. It's a giant lot. 240 feet deep. I certainly moved here thinking I could expand somewhere and I... tremendous amount of square footage with no again, nothing contrary to public 37 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 interest and harmony with all the spirit of the ordinances will result in anyone losing any property value and substantial justice will be done by improving it. That's, I'm open for questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Councilman Labatt: I've got one. Stuart, were you the original purchaser and sited the house on the lot as it is? Stuart Brown: Yes sir. Councilman Labatt: And maybe Kate can answer, in looking at that buildable portion Kate, and the size of the house, is there a different way he could have situated the house? To allow a third stall by turning the house at an angle or anything? Kate Aanenson: Possibly, yeah. Or the style of the house too. Councilman Labatt: The what? Kate Aanenson: Or the style of house. Or if it could have been oriented even the other way off of Ibis Court. Having the driveway come in the other way too because that would have made it longer. If you would have put the house this way... Councilman Labatt: So the house would look east. Kate Aanenson: Correct...this way and the driveway coming in this way... Councilman Labatt: Okay. Stuart Brown: It'd be a hardship to do that now. Mayor Jansen: I would say. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. I'll bring this back to council. Comments, council. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I feel like I'm in a turn down mode tonight but I think historically I've always looked for a quote, unquote, a compelling reason to give a variance and I just, I don't see a compelling reason here. If we approve this one, there's nothing compelling about this one that says that we wouldn't, that we shouldn't approve every one that comes in front of us then and that's what concerns me. Even though the neighbors feel that way, I don't want, and I don't think it's appropriate that every variance we get people survey their neighbors and is that okay then. That's not okay. There's a much more encompassing reasoning that we're building in a statutes on in the variances so, I don't think it's appropriate. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Other comments? 38 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: Well I agree with Councilman Peterson in one sense but as I think through this, I don't see how it negates the neighborhood. The luck of the draw with the positioning of the home, and I would feel comfortable with disapproving other requests if there was that rule being broken. That it has an adverse affect to the neighborhood so I tend to think that, or I want to override the Planning Commission's decision. Councilman Boyle: I'm leaning that direction also. I think each request has to be measured on it's own merit. One variance is different than another and I'm not so hung up on the precedent setting part of it. I agree with Councilman Ayotte. I'm leaning that direction. Mayor Jansen: One of the things that Councilman Peterson mentioned, the compelling is one of the challenges that the Planning Commission actually has to apply every time they look at one of these variance requests, is to try to find that compelling reason. Because one of the things that we look at as a policy making body, is if we are consistently getting the same variance request, does it mean that we have an ordinance that needs to be changed. This is a standard comer lot. You probably couldn't get more of a standard location and it's a standard home. It fits what was created in this neighborhood so when I look for compelling, I'm looking for, and variances, I look at Carver Beach. I mean there's where you end up with the compelling. You've got odd shaped lots that are affecting homeowners that want to do minor things to their homes, even add the second car garage. They only have one car garage, so maybe I've just seen too many of these that scream we need to do something because of the hardship. When we talk about precedence, it's in my mind, that's more referring to being fair and equal in how we apply our ordinances. Because however we look at each one of our residents and their requests, we certainly shouldn't be showing any bias or favoritism and the only way to really avoid doing that is to be consistent in the application of our ordinances and how we apply them to each request. And I think that's where I've consistently heard Planning Commissioners challenge themselves to look for that compelling reason for granting that, the variances. And though it is a hardship on this particular homeowner, and we can certainly all feel the discomfort of wanting to expand your home and certainly we appreciate that that third stall is something that you feel is a necessity, it in fact violates the ordinance that is in place for a comer lot and I would not be compelled to want to change that ordinance. Therefore I would stand with the ordinance and with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. And looking at other opportunities on the lot, whether it's expanding towards the back and heaven knows there are numerous of the pre-fab sheds that end up being used for storing of equipment, and at least that is one option that is available, though may not be one that's favored. But those are my comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well tom. For years I've sat up here and I've always favored on the side of the homeowner and you know I look at if we could all go back and change things we've done 5 years ago, a year ago, 10 years ago and maybe Mr. Brown would position his house differently with future expansion. I don't know. But I look where I live, and boy I have one of these standard comer lots and when I bought my house from Lundgren Brothers, and I do, I think they got a variance on my house when they built it for my garage. I don't know. Something's clicking in my mind that I had to sign something about, acknowledge that there was a variance on there. So I've always, you know I agree with Mr. Boyle that take these on a case by case basis and look at them and is this reasonable? I mean it's almost a half acre lot and you know is Mr. Brown going to be penalized because he's looking at the way his house is positioned and he can't get his third stall in there because his 30 foot rear yard is now being applied to his side yard. And maybe he wasn't aware of that and all the things but I tend to take a good lean towards the homeowner and let, have a reasonable use of their property so we'll leave it at that. Mayor Jansen: With that I'll call for a motion. 39 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Boyle: I'll make a motion that the appeal be accepted and the request for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a third stall garage addition be approved. Councilman Ayotte: I second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve Variance Request #02-1 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition. All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen and Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 5.584 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,617 SQ. FT. BUILDING; LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD; PARK NICOLLET FIRST ADDITION, AMERICAN LEGION POST 580. Public Present: Name Address Harold Lund Daniel Dege Gene Borg Paul Differding Pat Hallisey Fred Bialczyk Bob Meuwissen Don Magee Ken Wicklund Tom Pzynski 1481 Scenic View, Chaska 2145 Ford Parkway #201, St. Paul 55116 15455 1 l0th Street, Young America 7228 Frontier Trail 1304 West Medicine Lake Drive, Plymouth 310 Sinnen Circle 201 West 77th Street 7995 Great Plains Boulevard 3970 Linden Circle 7340 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, as you mentioned there's two actions tonight. One is the subdivision and the other is the site plan review. Just to get the bearings here, the Legion property is located on Highway 5 and off of Great Plains. It also gets access via this strip mall and the gas station that's on this property here and is adjacent to the Northcott and the daycare in that site area. The first action is the subdivision. We looked at sharing parking, the use for the Legion is predominantly evenings and this which would be a future clinic, Park Nicollet, which probably won't come in for a couple of years, is more daytime. We requested a parking study done by Benshoof and Associates and the study came back that it does work for shared parking arrangements so we think that's a win/win. This pond was oversized when Northcott came in and there's agreements for the expanded use of this pond, again sharing the resources there. The other part of the subdivision was access. There's two access points, one off of Lake Drive. The other access point is off of Great Plains. Again when the Villages on the Pond came in, a traffic study was done on Great Plains Boulevard. We looked at this. When this subdivision for the strip mall went in, access was to be provided through this driveway here. In working with all the property owners in the area, it was agreed to move the driveway to this location here providing an access point which we think works. The other thing that will happen is it's a right-in/right-out only so the median will be moved down. At this time with the Legion that will not take place until the Park Nicollet building goes in. At that point this access drive will go in and the extension of Great Plains will come down. Currently with the Legion site, 40 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 just this drive will be served and we did look at the traffic to see how that worked. So that's the subdivision. Your first action. The site plan is the second issue before you tonight for the Legion itself. Again this is a parking. They do need additional parking onto the Park Nicollet site to meet the minimums required for them to open, so they've agreed with all those. Working that out with Park Nicollet. The building itself is approximately 7,800 square feet and Sharmin A1-Jaff on our staff has worked with the Legion. Got a beautiful design. The Legion has worked really well to come in with, they brought in 2 or 3 different designs. The first few we moved to make it lighter. It's adjacent to Highway 5. It has the visibility and the compliment to Northcott which eventually will have a second building on the site. We liked the pitched roof line. It's got a lot of movement. The one issue we had was some of the colors seemed to blend a lot together, particularly some of the siding pieces. They've agreed to darken those up a little bit so we get a little more contrast, but we think it's a very, very nice building and a compliment to what we have along Highway 5. With that, we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report for the subdivision and the site plan. Both have findings with them and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff? I know we have a representative from the Legion here this evening, obviously. If there is anything that you would like to add to the staff presentation, you're certainly welcome to. Otherwise we'll just go with the report. Dan Dege: Be my guest. Mayor Jansen: Yes. Do come forward and state your name and address for the record. Harold Lund: Thank you. I'm Harold Lund. I'm one of the Housing Committee members. I'm also the Champlin of the Legion, so you've got a little spiritual stuff here tonight. I know a few of the people on these council. Good friends of mine. Couple things I'd like to say is, I'd like to comment, commend your Planning Commission. They did a fine job for us. We had excellent results with them. One other question I'd like to ask is, I approached Todd on the Park and Rec about the park and rec fee. The last 15 years I would say we've let that land that we have there now be used by the kids in this community. We put up a free standing out in the park here, pavilion, little stand that the Legion donated to and I guess I was wondering if this council wouldn't take a look at a little bit that park and rec fee for us veterans. As we all know there's a lot of stuff going on with the wars and that stuff, and I did a little research after talking to Todd from the Park and Rec. There's no other, he talked to the attorney. Nobody's ever waived that but I also know all the veterans organizations around here, because I'm well involved with them, and none of them had the facilities like we had to let the kids use, so I'd just like this council to take consideration a little bit maybe of giving us a little break on that park and rec fee. With that, that's it and I thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else? If we could make this brief, I'd very much appreciate it. Dan Dege: My name is Dan Dege. I am with Finn Daniels Architects, some of the architects for the American Legion, and I will make this very short and it's all I wanted to say is that we've worked with a lot of cities throughout Minnesota and other communities and this has been a very good experience for us. Working with, especially Sharmin A1-Jaff was very positive and the planning council meeting that we had a few weeks ago and so I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank them and the city for their help in getting this project off the ground. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. We appreciate your recognizing staff and the commission and working with us. Appreciate it. Mr. Gerhardt, I realize Mr. Hoffman isn't here. I think he was earlier. I know before 41 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 we make major changes to recommendation we do usually like to seek the staff recommendation and I wonder, I don't know if you want to speak to the request as far as the park and trail fees, or if that's something that we could ask staff to speak to and address when the final plat comes back to be approved at the time of platting. Do we have another approval? Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that? You'll see the final plat and subdivision. You're reviewing the preliminary plat tonight. Todd does have a recommendation in for at the time of the subdivision is when you would extract the fees for the lots. You would collect some with the subdivision recording. We've changed that to 2/3-1/3 and you'd collect the rest with the building permit. But it would come back before you. Generally that's on consent for the final plat but that would be an opportunity to review the fees. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I'm not 100 percent up on this issue but it would, I can't remember a time where we've waived park and trail dedication fees in my time with the city. I would ask Todd to prepare a report as the final plat comes through. But I cannot remember a time when we've done that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess I would appreciate getting a staff report and recommendation then at the time that this comes through for platting so that we can address it at that time with all the information in front of us to that request. Any other comments from council on the project? Councilman Peterson: I think architecturally it's wonderful. It fits into the area and it will be as close as that is to 5, probably one of our closest buildings, if not the closest, it will get a lot of sight lines from 5 and I think it's just wonderful. Mayor Jansen: Great. Anyone else? Councilman Labatt: My only disappointment is it's not closer to my house. Councilman Peterson: So you can walk back and forth? Councilman Labatt: So I can walk. I was hoping 5 and Galpin property down there...but I think it's a great building. I really do. Councilman Ayotte: I don't want to address that because the 101 trail with me walking back and forth but, but I will say it's the least our veterans deserve. Thank you very much. Councilman Boyle: I think it's fantastic. So I can walk over there, maybe we can put another bridge over 5. I'm just kidding. This is a good example of when there's good cooperation and collaboration and two entities working together, you get something done so I think it's just great all the way around. Mayor Jansen: Great. I want to congratulate the Legion on getting this accomplished. I know this has been a very long process for all of you as you've worked on getting a project for your site and it certainly is a wonderful project that you've brought forward as your part of this. We certainly appreciate seeing you ending up in a bright, sparkly new home. I think it's wonderful and thank you for working with staff as closely as you have and bringing in such a wonderful project and being a part of our downtown area. We appreciate having you be so visible and available to our central community. With that, I think we have an obvious conclusion as to how the vote's going to go but could I have a motion. 42 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that council recommend the approval of Subdivision 2002-3 for the replat of 5.5 acres into 2 lots, Park Nicollet Addition as shown on plans dated January 15, 2002, subject to conditions 1 through 18. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Boyle: I'll second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve Subdivision #2002-3 for the replat of 5.58 acres into 2 lots, Park Nicollet Addition, as shown on the plans dated received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions: Calculations shall demonstrate that all downstream facilities are adequate to accommodate storm water from the proposed development. The applicant shall demonstrate that the property owners to the east have granted permission for grading to occur on their property and that they have agreed to combine the storm water ponds for both sites. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponding areas. Silt fence shall be provided in areas where sediment may otherwise be carried off- site. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 5.58 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $32,972; the water quantity fees are approximately $24,329. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the storm water calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $57,301. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. 10. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 43 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 12. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise storm water calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, and drainage swales, up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 13. Minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. 14. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 15. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. 16. Park and Trail fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon application. The current fees are as follows: Legion Site (Lot 2): At the time of plat: Park Fee: Trail Fee: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: Trail Fee: $3,180 $1,060 $6,360 $2,120 Park Nicollet Site (Lot 1): At the time of plat: Park Fee: Trail Fee: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: Trail Fee: $5,310 $1,770 $10,620 $3,540 17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 18. Any retaining wall that exceeds 3 feet in height shall be designed by a Registered Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Next, go ahead. 44 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that the Council recommend approval of Site Plan Review #2002-2 for the American Legion Post 580 as shown on site plan dated January 15, 2002, subject to conditions 1 through 35. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #2002-2 for the American Legion Post 580 as shown on the site plan received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on the southwest elevation only. The sign area shall meet standards set in the sign ordinance. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 2. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. Any kitchen vents shall be concealed or painted the same color as the roof. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Two additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrants. b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e, street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure 45 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 that the hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire code Section 901.3. d. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. e. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. f. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. g. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding notes being included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. h. "No parking fire lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904- 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The applicant shall change the color of the accent medallions to a more contrasting color. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan including fixture styles, meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official's conditions: a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Demolition permits must be obtained form the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures. d. Detailed occupancy related code requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are submitted. It is evident however that the assembly space in the basement must be of one- hour fire-resistive construction and the exits as designed do not comply with the code. e. The proposed building on Lot 1 was not reviewed for building code compliance. f. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Applicant shall increase the easterly buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. Spruce trees shall be added to the east of the trash enclosure and the loading area. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to city council approval. All Colorado Blue Spruce trees shall be replaced by Black Hills Spruce or other species as approved by the city. 46 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. All parking lot landscape islands must have a minimum width of 10 feet. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. All construction vehicles shall access the site from Lake Drive North and not Great Plains Boulevard. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Haul routes, if necessary, shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. Private utility easements will be required for the storm sewer line that runs from Lot 2 to Lot 1. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2101, 2109, 2201-2205, 3101, 3106-3108, 5204, 5207, 5214, 5234 and 5300. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. The minimum rock construction entrance must be 75 feet away. The applicant must obtain a permit from MnDOT for grading in the right-of-way. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise storm water calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, and drainage swales, up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. A silt fence shall be added around the east side of storm water pond grading limits of the site. The silt fence must be Type II. All of the proposed rock construction entrances must be lengthened to 75 feet as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 47 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. On the utility plan: - Revise catch basin nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 to catch basin manhole nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7. - Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". - Shift the watermain toward the southeast comer adjacent to the curb and call the fittings. - Show the utilities easement. - Add a storm sewer schedule. - Change the type of public watermain from DIP to PVC C-900. - Show the proposed pipe slope, class and length of the storm sewer. - Under the Sewer and Water Notes, add, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR26. On the grading plan: - Show all existing and proposed easements. - Show the benchmark used for the site survey. - Add a note "clean existing pond after pond enlargement grading is finished". - Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". - Add a note for removing existing bituminous and close off the existing (west) American Legion access. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard from Lot 1, Block 1 shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans should be constructed along the south property line of the site concurrently with the construction of Phase II. Obtain a liquor license from the City. The existing Legion building shall be removed no later than 60 days after receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. 48 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 31. The applicant will work with staff to explore the possibility of having a tree island on the property line as well as placement options for a sidewalk. 32. The applicant shall work with staff to minimize impact and save the significant stand of trees located in the southwest corner of the site until future plans are developed. 33. Park and Trail fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon application. The current fees are as follows: Legion Site (Lot 2): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $3,180 Trail Fee: $1,060 Park Fee: $6,360 Trail Fee: $2,120 Park Nicollet Site (Lot 1): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $5,310 Trail Fee: $1,770 Park Fee: $10,620 34. The applicant shall be responsible for closing off the existing Citgo Gas Station (west) access, removing the existing bituminous, extending the curb along Great Plains Boulevard (east side) and extending the median located across from the existing Legion curb cut to eliminate left turns. 35. Recycling space shall be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Kate Aanenson: Clarification on the motion. I'm assuming when it comes back for final plat is when you want us to address the fees. Mayor Jansen: Yes, if you would then have a report in there with a recommendation on the park and trail fees, thank you. Appreciate it. CONSENT AGENDA: ARBORETUM VILLAGE 2N~ ADDITION, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Jansen: Actually we have the adjoining property owner, Ms. McAllister who has requested to be able to speak to this issue and is present here with her attorney. Hugh Bishop: That's right, I am Hugh Bishop. I represent Susan McAllister who is the owner of the adjoining land which is known as Miss Rosie's Farm. The agenda item is for final plat 49 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 approval and approval of the development contract of Arboretum Village 2nd. Looking back, ! believe the date is March 12, 2001, the initial approval was given contingent with certain conditions. One of those conditions was an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Ms. McAllister would like to present her belief that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was not completed and ask the questions, if it was not completed, what is the significance of that? And how could it be completed? And if it is not completed, what is the significance? And particularly focus on the historical preservation aspects. We have just a few minutes ! know. It might be possible to accelerate if you would like to ask questions during her presentation in order to get to the heart of the matter. There are two things that are possible in her request for action. One is that the matter be tabled. But the other is, in this section right here. I'll move it up this way. Point for me there and I'll stay with the microphone. If you can point out where the farm is, where your property is .... and in this peninsula there on the existing plat proposal are these buildings, just point again here. The twin homes. One possibility which would satisfy the incompletion of the EAW and the incompletion of the historic assessment would be to approve the plat as is, except to have that one area for the moment be an outlot so that these could be completed before making a final decision about approving the buildings at that point. Ms. McAllister would like to present. Mayor Jansen: Okay, if we could maybe address what the issues are and why you believe the EAW is incomplete so that we can have staff or the city attorney, whomever, address those issues with us. That would be appreciated. Susan McAllister: Sure. Okay, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was done in July of 2000 and part of that EAW included part of the archeological assessment that was conducted on Phase ! of the Pulte Development project. And it asks about the farm. It says here the project team therefore recommends that the proposed project be allowed to proceed as planned with the following qualifications. Number one, the study did not include a survey of a farmstead located along the east side of Highway 41 on a, it says 3 acre property but really a 6, of land not being developed by this project. The plot is shown on 3 sides by the development. Should the development be subject to review under Section 106, which we found out it is, the farm would fall within the area of potential effect in it's National Register potential should be evaluated. If it is eligible the effect of the project on the farm should be ascertained. So far that, ! mean it says, it did, the historical assessment came up saying that it would have an adverse affect on the farmstead and so that's my concern right there. And then on, so it came up 2 times in the EAW. On page 8 it talks about the Dennis Gimestad Government programs and compliance officer Shippo to Teresa Defore Hedlund April 5, 2000. The present report only addresses the project's affects on a fruit breeding farm. It does not examine the other property in the vicinity, including an undeveloped, they say again 3 acre parcel along Highway 41, which is my farm which is 6 acres so that is well, my concern is because of the fact that if that was not taken into consideration, and that's part of the EAW, how can the EAW be a completed document? Mayor Jansen: Okay. ! don't know, Kate or Roger, whichever one of you is able to answer that question about the EAW being complete. 50 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Roger Knutson: Maybe we can both chime in. The EAW was completed in July of 2000. In July of 2000 the City made a negative declaration declaring that there was not a need for preparation of an ElS. That decision is final 30 days later. The time to appeal from that decision was some time in August or early September of 2000. Susan McAllister: No, it was September 4, 2000 to October 4, 2000. And that is correct, that that was the time to make the comment on it. Mayor Jansen: That was the appeal period you said? Roger Knutson: That's the appeal period. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Roger Knutson: Once the EAW is done, anyone who thinks it's inadequately prepared has 30 days to appeal that decision. Susan McAllister: Then ! have something ! want to include. ! would like to ask Kate, at which date of the newspaper of the Villager newspaper did you publish the availability as a press release of the EAW? For viewing. Kate Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me. Susan McAllister: Well do you know when you did because ! examined the entire year and ! didn't see anything like that. Kate Aanenson: Well I'd have to go check the file. Mayor Jansen: Okay so, are you suggesting that you did not know that the EAW had been done? Susan McAllister: No. Mayor Jansen: Because. Susan McAllister: Because of the fact that when, in my, ! have a 7 page letter that I'll give all of you but when ! did talk to Todd Gerhardt about you know, the fact that ! found out that my farm was coming up in it, that was in, it might have been in December. ! have it listed as November, but ! think it might have been in December so ! asked Todd, ! said well ! want to make a comment because it asks you know for comments and he said no, you can't because it was done, it was finished making comments in October. ! said well, ! didn't even know about it. ! mean ! did not know about it but it says in here that you have to, within 5 days of the date of submission of the EAW to the EQB staff, the responsible government unit, which the city took, they took that responsibility okay. They were the RGU, shall provide a press release containing notice of the availability of the EAW for public review to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the area where the project is proposed. The press release shall include the name and 51 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 location of the project, a brief description of the project, the location at which copies of the EAW are available for review, the date the comment period expires, and the procedures for commenting. So I'm asking which newspaper publication that was in. Kate Aanenson: All that was given to the EQB, they do the publication. All that is recorded in my minutes to the Planning Commission. All the dates and the comment period when it opened, when it closes, all are part of the staff report which I've given you over a year and a half ago. Mayor Jansen: Okay, so I don't know ifI can set that issue aside and come back to what, what does it mean to even want to go back and to this project now and re-open that EAW. Roger Knutson: We're 2 years late. Or a year and a half. Susan McAllister: ! talked with John Larson from the EQB and ! asked him, ! said if the farm was not taken into consideration, if that information was not taken into consideration about the historic you know assessment was not being done because it was hidden, do you believe the EAW is complete, and he said no. He doesn't believe it is. That was part of the EAW. Roger Knutson: Anyone who didn't like the decision you had 30 days to appeal from that decision after you made the decision. Based on August-September of 2000 was the time line. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Susan McAllister: ! need to say that ! could not appeal because ! did not know there was such a thing. ! tried to appeal as soon as ! found out it was in the packet for the January 16th Planning Commission meeting. And ! was told that it was over in October so that was like 3 months prior to the time ! came rushing up to try to make a comment. And that's what I'm saying, that yes. ! need to find out exactly what newspaper date the press release was published in. ! looked the entire year of 2000 in the newspaper, the Villager newspaper and ! did not find anything as a press release being offered. Mayor Jansen: Okay so, ! gather you're going to try and snag this on a technicality, which is what I'm hearing loud and clear, and that's fine but we're 1 and lA years later and we now have the project in front of us and what I'm trying to ascertain is what exactly it is we think will be accomplished by now having the farm, even if it were then included in the EAW, what impact it would have on this project. Because ! mean if we're talking about a historic preservation and the site, is that not just impacting what happens on that site versus it reflecting into the Pulte project. Roger Knutson: The purpose, the sole purpose of an EAW is to determine whether an EIS is necessary. Susan McAllister: Not necessarily, ! don't agree with that. Mayor Jansen: Excuse me, please don't interrupt. ! appreciate it. 52 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Roger Knutson: In my opinion, and what the rules say, the purpose of an EAW is to determine whether an EIS should be prepared. A full blown Environmental Impact Statement. And you made the decision that it should not be prepared, and I believe everyone knew the farm was there but. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Roger Knutson: So you made that decision a year and a half ago, 2 years ago. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And again, what I'm hearing is we're trying to snag this up on a technicality when I think what we're coming back to is or isn't this a historic site. And that drives whether or not there is issues around preservation on this site. Now, you and I spoke earlier today and you've not as of today started that process, correct? As far as getting this on the Historic Registration. Susan McAllister: I have not started the process but I am finding you know different agencies that can do it for a fair price. It costs $5,000. Can I read two definitions of the rules and regulations of the Corp, Department of the Army Corp, Section 1067 It says for clarification we added a definition of quote, historic property which includes both designated and undesignated historic properties. It should be noted in this regard that the term quote, historic property, as used in this appendix is broader that that term as used in the National Historic Preservation Act. This is because our public interest decision requires us to consider impacts on all properties with historic importance regardless of the degree of their historical importance and whether or not they may be eligible for the inclusion on the National Register. Then we've got a definition of designated historic property. As a historic property listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), or which has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register pursuant to 36CFR, Part 63. A historic property that in both the opinion of the Shippo and the district engineer, which I did get their opinion. They do believe this. They are in agreement. Appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register will be treated as a quote, designated historic property. And so that means that I am in the same category as if it were already done. And the reason why they do that is because it takes so long to get a property on the National Historic Registry that if you don't give them the same, what am I trying to say? The same, what am I trying to say. I don't know. Designation. That that potential property that could be eligible would be gone because of the fact that the development would take it out. Or impact it negatively so, I clarified this with the shippo. I clarified this with the. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and we all know that you've been in extensive conversations with staff and our attorney's very familiar with this situation and I guess part of my question, bringing this back to you Mr. Knutson. Knowing all of the steps that we have taken through this process and where we're at today with Pulte, and our requirements with them as a developer, with everything that we have already approved, are we at a point where we can even throw this kind of a delay, even if it is just on those upper properties, is it reasonable for us to delay that part of the project for any additional review that needs to be done by the Environmental Quality Board? 53 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Roger Knutson: We have two constraints we're dealing with. First, ! believe we have a time constraint. Within 60 days after someone files a properly completed final plat application, we have to approve it or it's deemed approved. That's 60 days, and ! don't know when the dates run but I'm sure it's, I'm not sure when the date runs so we have just 60 days or we lose control of the project entirely. Second, this is not a preliminary plat approval. This is final plat approval. You've already given preliminary plat approval. That's where you take into consideration the policy issues. The purpose of final plat approval is simply to make sure all the I's are dotted and t's are crossed and the conditions upon which you've approved the preliminary plat have been executed. So for example in conjunction with preliminary plat you told them move a lot line, change a street location, whatever you told them to do, they've done that. And the development contract's been prepared and they're ready to execute it and provide a letter of credit. That's the status you're at now. You're at the last hurdle. All the big, frankly heavy lifting has been done. You've already approved the EAW and made a negative declaration on that a year and a half ago. So you don't have a lot of choices here. Mayor Jansen: No we don't. Were we to approve this this evening, would there be the potential of attaching a condition that those units not be constructed until we get an opinion or some sort of an, and ! don't know if we can put a time frame on it. We don't want to delay this thing out 3 months or 6 months or whatever it takes for the historic designation, but if the environmental board needs to look at it. Roger Knutson: ! don't think the environmental board is going to be looking at it. ! mean you made the decision. You were the local government unit that made that decision. The EQB doesn't make the decision. That's your decision, not their's to make and you've already made it. Todd Gerhardt: We're the LGU. Mayor Jansen: Pardon? Todd Gerhardt: We're the local. Roger Knutson: RGU. Todd Gerhardt: RGU. Roger Knutson: LGU is wetlands. If they've met the conditions of preliminary approval, of the preliminary plat, unless you, ! know of no basis for just putting out some lots frankly. Mayor Jansen: Okay, appreciate your opinion on that. Susan McAllister: Can ! interject something? Mayor Jansen: As long as it's toward the council, yes. Thanks. 54 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Susan McAllister: Towards the council? Okay. Well, I'm just saying that Pulte withheld that information until ! found it out. ! mean the historic significance in the historic assessment would have been brought out last December, 2000 if it would have come forward. ! found that out on my own. Mayor Jansen: Well and again what ! keep coming back to Sue, and ! know you and ! have talked about it, is in the comments that have been made and the documents, and maybe ! should have started with acknowledging that you've put a great deal of effort into your, into this project and really trying to research it and get your arms around all the different regulations and the people that you've been in contact with is significant. You've done a lot to try and really understand what's going on. In the letters, the only mitigation that they've spoken to is adding trees along the one side of your property where they don't exist, and ! know you've said that you think that that's more detrimental versus it being an asset. And then they questioned, what was it, the road. And you've already had them out to take a look at the road access and where that should be. So ! again question, for us to go against what is in front of us, that we've already approved up to this point, isn't accomplishing stopping what you want to stop. You can still mitigate what's going on around your project, and what goes beyond your property line. ! don't see where you need to exercise control in order to maintain your historic importance. And the preservation of it. That's ! guess my concern and that if you have issues with Pulte, that's between yourself and Pulte as far as that information and how the information flowed. But the EAW was to determine whether or not we needed an ElS, and there wasn't anything significant to stop us or move us forward into producing that document. ! certainly encourage you to continue to pursue that historic preservation designation and certainly get your concerns addressed, but ! don't know that this is the venue to be having those addressed. Susan McAllister: I'm not trying to do that but ! believe that, and ! might be wrong, but I, Kate believe did not have the archeological survey because when ! asked for it, ! got it in July of 2001, and she said she didn't have it. So therefore if she were to see it, if she were to have seen the archeological survey, the same pages were in there that asks about the farm. About the historic, about the farm should be looked at as possibly historic. But so that ! would say is negligent on your part. Because she didn't have it. She had it that day but she didn't have it, but she said but got it for you when you asked for it. But ! go Kate, that's a year later. Mayor Jansen: Well and again, we're here we're doing the he said, she said thing again and ! mean we had an EAW. We approved an EAW. You waived the flag and supported the proposal as it came through and expedited things for Pulte. ! mean you recall your active support of it, and maybe at that time. Susan McAllister: ...I did not know my farm was... Mayor Jansen: There should have been more focus on this particular issue on your part, but that wasn't our responsibility. ! mean we put the EAW out there. We got the results back from the organizations and we're at the point that we're at. 55 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, ! think that this, just from listening to Roger and listening to the conversation tonight, my sense is that we move ahead tonight, making a decision on what's in front of us tonight. And then if there are technical issues and legal issues that need to be sorted out, then so be it. That's not for us to decide tonight. Let's let Roger and whomever deal with that on a go forward basis, but ! don't think we can dissect it any farther than we've got in front of us tonight so ! think that's the appropriate way to move ahead. Councilman Ayotte: ! like the idea of making Roger do it. Mayor Jansen: ! appreciate that comment and that's definitely the sense and ! know there's been a lot of conversation between both parties and maybe you need to have some additional conversation, so at this point I'm going to bring this back to council and ask you to continue, if you've got your concerns, to address them with the city attorney and see what we can't reach as far as a resolution to your concerns. Susan McAllister: Okay, that's fine. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, bringing this back. I don't know if there's any comments or if ! can just call for a motion. Councilman Ayotte: Madam Mayor, ! so move that the City Council approve the final plat for Arboretum Village 2 Addition with 33 blocks and 142 dwelling units. This plat also includes Outlot A and B, Lot 13, Block 1 and Lots 4 and 14, Block 2, which is a common space for the units as shown on the plans prepared by Hedlund Planning, Engineering, Surveying dated February 4, 2002, subject to conditions 1 through 21. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the final plat for Arboretum Village 2nd Addition with 33 blocks and 142 dwelling units. This plat also includes: Outlot A and B, Lot 13, Block 1, and Lots 4 and 14, Block 2 which is the common space for the units as shown on the plans prepared by Hedlund Planning, Engineering, Surveying, dated February 4, 2002, subject to the following conditions: Compliance with the Development Standards (site plan dated October 23, 2000, revised February 7, 2001, and revised March 5, 2001.) This resolution shall not entitle the owner of any land adjacent to the new development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the development of the new planned unit development in accordance with it's approved conditions. And (b) shall not entitle the owner of any land located in the new planned unit developments to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as 56 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 to prohibit the construction, maintenance and use of any adjacent land of buildings and structures that now are or would be currently allowed by the zoning code as it now exists. Submit soil reports to the Inspections Division. This shall be done prior to issuance of any building permits. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles". The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant shall supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. Also, any off-site grading will require temporary easements. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the draintile as directed by the City Engineer. Landscaped median islands may be permitted within the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. 10. Accessibility shall be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 11 Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines shall be one-hour fire resistive construction. 12. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy (a building containing three or more dwelling units on the same property) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area shall be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 57 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the building official. Landscaping and tree preservation: Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. All evergreens used as overstory trees in buffer yard areas shall be increased to a minimum height of 8 feet. The plant schedule on the landscape plan shall be changed to reflect this requirement. The minimum number of shrubs shall be required in buffer yard areas along Highways 5 and 41. The applicant shall work with staff to meet minimum requirements for shrubs along West 78th Street. d. Boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be spaced 55 feet apart. All Colorado spruce specified in landscape plans shall be replaced by a new selection of evergreen. f. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. To ensure clear communication the applicant shall have all homebuyers sign a disclosure statement that would be part of their restrictive covenants. The statement shall include information about Miss Rosie's Petting Farm, Gateway Group Home and potential future road extension. Signed statements shall be submitted to the City. The applicant will be responsible (security) for a portion of the cost of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street. The main loop streets north and south of West 78th Street and the street accessing the city park in the northeast corner shall be a public street. These shall be a 60 foot right-of-way but the city will approve design standards (less than standard pavement width). A standard asphalt width of 31 feet. The developer shall work with the city to accomplish city goals for housing including the provision of"affordable housing" a minimum of 30% of the ownership housing shall meet the criteria established for affordability by the Metropolitan Council. The developer shall also work with the City on affordability mechanisms for Income Qualifying and Maintenance of Affordability. The remaining park and trail dedication fees required to be collected prior to the city signing the final plat are as follows: 58 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 14 twins = 28 units Park fee 28x$1,500 Trail fee 28 x $500 Remaining 114 units Park fee 114 x $1,250 Trail fee 114 x $417 Total $42,000 $14,000 $142,500 $47,538 $246,038 20. Pulte Homes shall construct the north and east wetland trail as public amenities with reimbursement from the city's trail dedication fund. All necessary public easements required to accommodate these trail shall be dedicated to the city. 21. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges shall be collected at the time of each building permit issuance. The current hookup charges are $1,382 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for water. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Okay, so I still need the development contract please. Item l(b)-2. Councilman Labatt: I would move we approve the development contract. Councilman Boyle: lb-2. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, lb-2. For expediency sake. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, I don't think there's anything specific. As designated in the staff report. Teresa Burgess: That motion is sufficient. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second please. Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve the Development Contract dated March 11, 2002, and Construction Plans and Specifications for Arboretum Village 2na Addition dated January 10, 2002, prepared by Hedlund Engineer, conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $863,004 and pay an administration fee of $105,476. 59 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with the City staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Just a point of clarification. There was 35 conditions instead of 21 as I'm reading this. Just to, to Bob's earlier motion. Perhaps we should bring that back. Councilman Ayotte: 1 through 35. Mayor Jansen: To amend? Councilman Peterson: ! just want to do this right. Kate Aanenson: You're right, there's 35. Todd Gerhardt: ! thought he just made the motion to approve the final plat. Councilman Peterson: Roger, what should we do with that? Mayor Jansen: Just a general motion to approve the final plat. Kate Aanenson: The 35 are the conditions that were shown as we modified them and changed them, so that's for your clarification. Just to show, the 21 are the final language and actually those are all rolled into the development contract just to be clear. Councilman Ayotte: So the 21 holds? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: So we're okay? Roger Knutson: ! think so. Kate Aanenson: Just for clarification. Councilman Peterson: That's why we pay him the big bucks. Roger Knutson: ...the 35. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we carried through the conditions, the original conditions so you can track which ones have been met with the first plat. Which ones have been modified so if they dropped off, we try to explain to you why and then those... 60 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: So there's 21 modified. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Gotch ya. Roger Knutson: And normally a development contract would be just approved so. Councilman Peterson: So we have the bases covered. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: And reports council? Councilman Peterson: ! have none. Councilman Ayotte: We had a meeting with staff and the water treatment to formulate the approach to handle the source selection and how the committee will operate. Those recommendations were forwarded to Teresa and she'll be responding and sending out to council results of that meeting and discussions. Do you want to add to that Teresa? Teresa Burgess: We're looking at our first interviews being set up in the next week or two. Right now I'm still waiting to hear back from one final person on the pack what their recommendation for interviews are but ! have heard back from 3 of the 4 and so ! just need that final person to let me know what they want to do. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? We had the public hearing on the park concept plan on Thursday evening. Now we will meet again as a park committee with the Park and Rec Commission on Tuesday evening to review that concept, public comments and take a look at some of initial budget numbers. So we are continuing to work on that project. Council doesn't see it until April 8th' Councilman Labatt: How many residents stopped by? Mayor Jansen: Not many. Councilman Peterson: 3? Todd Gerhardt: 3. 61 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Councilman Boyle: You're kidding? That's all. Councilman Peterson: 3, trust us. Councilman Boyle: ! believe you. Todd Gerhardt: That was the night it was sleeting rain. Councilman Ayotte: Well that's okay. Todd Gerhardt: It was a pretty nasty night. Councilman Peterson: And these people came in to get out of the rain. Mayor Jansen: That's more the story. Todd Gerhardt: They were here for the Johnson wedding. Teresa Burgess: But to be honest, we had the open house for the assessment project that was earlier this evening, and we had 6 and it was a beautiful night. Mayor Jansen: Just difficult to get people to show up for things like that. Todd Gerhardt: ! mean we can have additional meetings. The construction of this project probably will not occur until 2003, so you have almost a year to continue your planning of this facility so. Mayor Jansen: That's what Todd and ! talked about earlier today. That certainly what we're trying to accomplish is getting a feel for what we're going to be doing on this corner in case there were things that we needed to take into consideration as they were starting to dig the footings for the library. If we were going to need fill on this site, it certainly would have been prudent to just move it over versus trucking it off and having to bring it back so, at least we're answering those questions but there will be plenty of opportunities for people to get a look at the concept plan and make comments and make adjustments. ! did attend the Southwest Metro Transit Commission meeting. There wasn't anything of real big significance. They did present the 2001 report with a 2002 preview and I've had Mr. Gerhardt put Len Simich on our council agenda for ! believe it was April 22nd, to come in and present council with that report and that information. So that we're all up to speed on what's going on. We usually have Len in once, if not twice a year. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Usually budget period we bring Len in also to speak to the organization and what's going on. 62 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: And they'll have their year end report completed by then too. So he thought that was key. Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Otherwise why don't we move onto Administrative Presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON TH 101, CITY ENGINEER. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Based on our request for an update on Highway 101, real briefly the consultant is continuing to work on the design of the trail. Currently they're focusing on preparing the cross sections. That is relatively far along in the design so that there will be some work that's required to get to that point. The cross sections have been requested by MnDot in their review of the Limited Use Permit. MnDot is continuing that review. At this time it's unclear how long that process will take, and at the same time staff is continuing to work with the other agencies to consider the possibility of a turnback project. At this point we had looked at February 28th as being kind of our drop dead date for dual tracking. We have continued with the dual tracking, however are now incurring additional expenses on both of those tracks that we had not anticipated. But we feel that there is, that it is worth the extra effort to see if the two lane with the shy distance is something that is a viable option. At this point we're waiting for comments back from the other agencies and MnDot is attempting to set up a meeting later this week to discuss those comment to see if that is a viable option and give us an answer. The LUP, MnDot has not told us a timeframe, but they are telling us that they are working on it and trying to expedite it through the system. Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Any questions for staff?. Councilman Peterson: Teresa, if February, as we said, February 28th was a drop dead date, do we have a new one? Teresa Burgess: No. At this point we will be waiting to see what the other agencies have to say. Hopefully they will come back with their comments and at that time we'll make an evaluation on whether it looks like negotiations are going to be fruitful or not and make a decision at that time. We're not putting a date on it. We had our information out before the 28th and felt that we could no longer wait and still meet our deadlines for the trail. Councilman Peterson: So let me rephrase the question then. When do we have to make a decision in order to get the trail in this year? Teresa Burgess: We've already had to make that decision to start the design. Councilman Peterson: Okay, so you're saying that there is no date. We can wait til November and still get the trail in? ! mean I'm being unrealistic but. 63 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Teresa Burgess: No, assuming we get our LUP at a reasonable timeframe, we'll need to advertise that project this summer and start construction in late summer to be able to get the trail done yet this year. Councilman Peterson: So we're dealing with months instead of weeks or certainly days. I mean weeks instead of days. Teresa Burgess: Delay at this time, we've basically used up all our slufftime .... the design and say well we'll just incur the cost and ! think from a staff standpoint we felt that it was a risk worth taking. We may be out a few dollars on design, but if we were to be able to come back at the next council meeting in April and say we've got a deal, we're going to go. Here's what we think we can do, and ask for council approval, on a turnback project that would be wonderful but if we can't, we haven't lost the time on the trail design and so we are moving forward with that at this time. Hopefully within the next two weeks staff will have a good idea whether the turnback is a viable option at this time or not. But until we have that meeting with the other agencies we won't, we don't have any comments back from them yet. Todd Gerhardt: Teresa, the design portion only cost estimate was not, it was just $60,000. It wasn't the 150 which included some testing. Teresa Burgess: The 150 includes all of the design construction engineering and the testing work that will be necessary. The 60,000 is the actual design work being done by HTPO. We will incur some testing costs as they get further down the road and we'll have to take a look at that, but we won't incur that before the point where we'll know if the turnback is viable. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and really that February 28th drop dead date was more in relation to how long we could wait before you started that design so that we wouldn't start spending that 60,000 if we thought we were going to get an agreement on the road. Teresa Burgess: Correct. Mayor Jansen: And what you're saying is you've gone ahead as of that date and started into that design phase to avoid the delay. It's now costing us 60,000, if in fact we end up coming back and saying we can do it with the road. So that's where you're saying you thought it was worth the risk as far as. Teresa Burgess: It's worth the risk. At this point we feel that it's worth the risk. To delay further on the design would mean delay in the construction. Having said that, I would like to stress again, we cannot construct the trail without the Limited Use Permit regardless of what we have in place or where our design is, and MnDot controls that process. Mayor Jansen: So it wasn't as though, by February 28th we needed to do one or the other? We didn't have to give up dual tracking? 64 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Teresa Burgess: No. February 28th was where we started to incur additional expenses because of dual tracking. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I think that's the part that maybe some of the residents didn't understand. That they were maybe expecting us to abandon one or the other and that wasn't the case. It was whether or not we started to incur expenses on one, when we were still pursuing the other and hadn't made that decision yet as to one or the other. Okay. I'm sorry, Steve. Councilman Labatt: When did we start that application for the LUP? How long ago? Teresa Burgess: We submitted the LUP, boy I don't have the date in my head. When we adopted the feasibility study, council also authorized us to submit that LUP. Mayor Jansen: January? Todd Gerhardt: It was the end of January. Teresa Burgess: End of January and there was a delay while we waited for the resolution, but we started that process then. The last time ! spoke with MnDot it had not gone real far and we have placed some political pressure on MnDot. Both by contacting some additional people within MnDot to act on our behalf, and also with conversations with them on the road project. ! know that Representative Workman has placed a well chosen words with MnDot to try and move that process along. Their normal LUP process, the last time ! checked is taking 6 months. We have been accelerated beyond the 6 months, but ! don't know how much that will actually, is that 4? Is that 2? ! don't know where in there we are. ! know we will get done in quicker than 6 but that's all they could tell me. Councilman Labatt: ...but in the review process, what are they doing in the 6 months? Take us to LUP school real quick. Teresa Burgess: What they're reviewing is, because they own the right-of-way, they want to make sure that whatever we do in that right-of-way does not cause liability to the State of Minnesota. Specifically they're looking at number one criteria, are we actually in their right-of- way. We have better records about the MnDot right-of-way than MnDot does so we are supplying them information in that. When we approve plats, we have that information but MnDot doesn't get it. The second thing they look at is drainage. One of the other things they look at is any impacts to the road itself. Are we causing any damage to the road or will we be addressing the longevity of that road. And then the biggest one for MnDot is liability for the traveling public. By placing that trail in the right-of-way, are we causing a liability issue for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and they will be looking at that to make sure that in approving this that they are not opening themselves up to liability. And looking at those things, unfortunately the reason for the delay is because of, it is reviewed by the MnDot right-of-way office, which is depending on your point of view, either understaffed or overworked and they are seriously back logged. ! do know it has been moved up because the first time ! called it was sitting on somebody's desk. The 65 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 second time ! called it had been routed and was in the process of being reviewed. And so in that time period they had moved it up the priority list. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Council? Thank you. Appreciate your report. Moving onto agenda item number 10. RESOLUTION REGARDING SAFETY CONCERNS ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 FROM MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY TO ONE MILE EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 41. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. ! apologize that this was such a short notice. On Friday afternoon about 4:00 ! received a phone call from the City of Shorewood asking if the City of Chanhassen would be interesting in co-sponsoring some safety, a safety review of this section of roadway. They originally had anticipated putting this on the March 25th agenda, but we're not able to do that because the agenda has been cancelled. Specifically the Shorewood City concerns were related to the most recent accident was ! guess basically the straw that broke the camel's back. The City of Chanhassen has previously sent memo's to the MnDot field office as well as the central office with concerns about traffic safety. The most recent being the construction that took place this summer. We saw several accidents that occurred, and requested that MnDot take a close look at the entire stretch of roadway. With the most recent fatal accident out there, Shorewood felt that they would be interested in doing a cooperative project between Chanhassen and Shorewood, and so that is the purpose of this resolution is to initiate that and to make the direction to staff to start that partnership on this stretch of roadway. And also to show a solidarity to the Minnesota Department of Transportation that both cities are willing to step up to the plate and do our part if they will come and do their's, and so we are requesting tonight that you approve this resolution and we'll be sending it onto MnDot and asking them to assist us in addressing those safety concerns. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Within the language of the resolution, are we committing the city to any sort of a financial commitment at this point or just participating in supporting their researching? Teresa Burgess: There is some question of that. Both the City of Shorewood and Chanhassen, I've talked with the City Engineer and the City Manager at Shorewood and there is some concern. At this time it's our opinion that we are not committing financially any consultant work or financial considerations would require council approval in the form of an agreement. We're just trying to bring it to MnDot's attention at this time, and ! think in talking with the City Administrator over at Shorewood, we both felt that it was appropriate, even if there were some reasonable financial implications, but those would have to go through budgetary process to make sure that we have the available funding. 66 City Council Meeting - March 11, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Okay. I certainly think it's reasonable and responsible for us to step up and maybe try and get MnDot's attention on addressing the issues. ! would of course just want to see, as you said, what the financial implications would be, if any, before that were to move forward. Council, any questions for staff?. Councilman Boyle: No. Mayor Jansen: Could ! have a motion please? Councilman Boyle: ! make a motion we approve the resolution. Mayor Jansen: Can ! have a second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Resolution #2002-28: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Resolution concerning Safety Concerns on Trunk Highway 7 from Minnewashta Parkway to One Mile East of Trunk Highway 41. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Everybody is like one foot out the door. Any correspondence? Oh actually, still under administrative presentations. Todd, anything to add? Todd Gerhardt: Just the accounts payable packet will go out on the 21st of March, not having the 25th, so we'll send it out to you. If you have any comments, please review it. Get back to us. We will send checks out on the 26th if we do not hear from you. Okay, great. ! think that's the same policy we did when we cancelled our second meeting in Mayor Jansen: Todd Gerhardt: December so. Mayor Jansen: Todd Gerhardt: Mayor Jansen: adjourn. Okay, that's reasonable. That's all ! have. You heard the zippers going up on jackets. Okay, if ! could have a motion to Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 67