The URL can be used to link to this page

1h. City Council Minutes November 12, 1996.1 r. ' �J 7 1 14 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, John Rask, Steve Kirchman, and Patty Dexter APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Mason under Council Presentations regarding the Consumer Price Index. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RESOLUTION THANKING ELECTION JUDGES. Mayor Chmiel: In do have one, and this is a resolution that the Council is going to adopt this evening, in appreciation of Election Judges. And that's a job that everybody applies for and nobody wants but thank goodness we have people who take their time and really approach us for being an election judge. And it reads, Whereas, the City of Chanhassen held a State Primary election in September and a General Election in November as required by law, and Whereas, the citizens of the city who chose to exercise their right to vote in these elections were wonderfully well served by those generous, hard working people who served as election judges; and Whereas, we, the members of the Chanhassen City Council appreciate the service they have rendered to the City. Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chanhassen City Council takes the vehicle of adopting a formal resolution to express it's thanks to all the election judges who so ably served the City in the recent elections. Be It Further Resolved, that the Council wishes in addition to give special acknowledgment and thanks to those six people who agreed to accept the additional responsibilities of head judge in each precinct and their responsibility for seeing that the election functioned smoothly in their respective precincts. Be It Further Resolved that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to each judge who served in either the primary or general election. Passed and adopted on this day of November, 1996. Is there a motion? Councilman Berquist: Move approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second. Resolution #96 -96: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Resolution Thanking Election Judges. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #96 -97: Accept Public Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in Mission Hills, Project No. 93- 23. b. Resolution #96 -98: Accept Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in The Woods at Longacres, Project No. 93 -28. C. Resolution #96 -99: Accept Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in Stone Creek 5` and 6th Additions, Project Nos. 94 -16 and 95 -12. d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding Antennas and Towers, Second and Final Reading. City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 1 dated October 28, 1996 1 f. City Council Minutes City Council Minutes dated November 4, 1996 City Council Minutes dated November 6, 1996 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 22, 1996 1 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 10, 1996 All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Mayor Chmiel: We have one of our staff people here this evening who would like to cover with Don Ashworth the approval policies for the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Mark. 1 G. APPROVAL OF POLICIES FOR THE CHANHASSEN RECREATIONA CENTER. Councilman Senn: As I understand the staff report and through discussions what I've been told by staff basically. 1 There are several different categories that effectively have been created as far as rentals from the recreation center. The categories break down into basically public, I don't know it treats government separately meaning effectively city government. And then it breaks down into Groups I, II and III. Group I includes public agencies, school districts, civic organizations, non - project professional groups, and Chanhassen based groups which contribute to the 1 well being and betterment of the community. And then the next group is Chanhassen residents and businesses and then the next group is non - residents, community groups from other cities, commercial/businesses from other communities, and non - profit organizations from outside the city. In relationship to that, it is setting it up on the basis that there be no charge for the group of, well basically the government group as well as Group I and there would be charges for Group II and Group III. I guess I'd like to have some discussion about that because I don't quite understand I guess why we're cutting the line that way. There's public agencies that service effectively broad areas other than just Chanhassen. We're not going to charge them yet we're going to charge our own residents and 1 businesses. Yet we aren't going to charge a professional group. I mean it quite honestly just doesn't make any sense to me and I would like to see some more work done on it and talk about it a little bit more in terms of how it's set up and what we charge for and don't charge for. And also based on effectively a very limited amount of information I 1 was able to get when I asked who's been using the recreation center out of these different groups, there's really very little understanding of who is, and any breakdown of it, which I think may be one of the problems. And secondly, as far as not having that understanding or knowledge, effectively knowing the economic impact as it relates to our policies down there and the fact that it was supposed to be increasingly covering the operating costs down there as a 1 result of rental income. It seems to me like this policy is going to have us basically going the other way. We're going to covering less and less from rental facilities. In here also there's a discussion of a fee as it relates to set -up charge. It basically says when we're not going to charge a group or we are going to charge a $15.00 set -up charge, which I'm just having problems with because I can't understand how you could possibly put $15.00 of labor into set- up and take down and cleaning of the facility after a use. I just can't see anything comparable in that as to what's effectively happening with the private facilities so. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don, would you like to address that? Don Ashworth: I had anticipated questions as it might deal with 112 versus 276 with really the comment being that 1 we're treating both equally. Councilman Senn's list is quite extensive and I think we might be better served to table the item and allow Mr. Hoffman to listen to the tape and make a response to each of those items. Because I heard at least several. Councilman Mason: I agree. I was going to make that motion to table this until we can get a written response to the issues raised. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Second. 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table approval of policies for the Chanhassen Recreation Center until staff can provide a written response to the issues raised by Councilman Senn. All ' voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: We'll move those other three items back to 6(a) for the requests of information provided and we'll address them at that time. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF HEARING, CERTIFICATION OF DELINOUENT UTILITY BILLS. Don Ashworth: State law provides a procedure by which delinquent utility bills can be certified to the County Auditor for collection with the following year's taxes. There's a very stiff penalty that goes along with that process. I continue to see in disbelief as to the number of people that are on that list, but it is the one way to ensure that the City does recoup it's full cost of operating the utility system. Accordingly staff would recommend that the City ' Council adopt a resolution which allows for certification of delinquent utility accounts as included in your staff report ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions? Steve? Councilman Berquist: Well I'm surprised at the number of people there is too. What's the certification fee Don? How does it cost? What's the fee that we tack on to have to do this? Don Ashworth: Each quarter there's a 10% charge that goes with the accumulative balance so you're up between 45, around 45% by the time you get to this point in time. And then an additional 20% is added. ' Councilman Berquist: Say that, 10% goes to 45% plus 20? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Berquist: So the thing's end up almost doubling by the time the certification process is over. ' Don Ashworth: 65 %. Councilman Berquist: 65 %. Well it disturbs me to see all the names in here and I can't imagine why they do it, if only to have it show up on their property tax and be deductible from that sense. I noticed in the Accounts Payable we were refunding a gentleman for a landscape escrow on two lots that he, or one lot that he was developing and he owes us under $200.00... ' Don Ashworth: I don't think there's any legal way by which you can take one check deposited for one purchase and try to use that to pay some other type of bill. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf No, I haven't any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Mike? Councilman Mason: Nope. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. n L , Ci ty Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: Well Don, I'm just curious. Have we ever done a cross search through one of the realty 1 companies and MLS or something to find out how many of these are ,for sale? The only reason I ask is in reviewing the list just off the top of my head noticed over half a dozen properties that are for sale and I'm just wondering how much of this is effectively caused by that or tied up by that. I mean it just might be a way for us to look at some ' potential of ridding ourselves of part of the problem. Have we ever thought of maybe running that kind of a cross tab? have be individual realtor and ' Don Ashworth: I don't know where we would get the list from. I mean you to each then try to. Councilman Senn: No, NILS lists all properties. All you have to do is go to one of the realtors and give them the property addresses and ask them if they'd maybe run a cross check. See how many of them are for sale. Don Ashworth: A lot of the names I continue to see year after year and I know that the properties are not up for sale. , And I'm not quite sure on the ones up for sale because they have to do a search. Each time there's a sale, there's a call to City Hall asking what is pending so that amount is given to them. So I don't. Councilman Senn: I'm not saying it's a way to avoid it. I'm just saying it may be part of why we're being part of the ' problem or something. Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. Some people think that it's a tax advantage but legally you cannot do that. You cannot include under general property taxes any special assessment amounts. So if you were specially assessed for let's say utility bill, you cannot include that in your federal income tax as a valid deduction. Mayor Chmiel: Have each of these people Don been notified of what their balances are within the last? Don Ashworth: Yes they have. They each received an individual notice advising them of the hearing. The amount that was outstanding and the procedure that would be used if it stayed unpaid. Mayor Chmiel: This is just astronomical. I've looked at this too and there are a lot of people I know that have not paid as it has indicated. And it just sort of blows my mind. The only thing I can see, does this carry over from year to year for the total amounts? Don Ashworth: Once it's assessed they pay that. Mayor Chmiel: And then it starts fresh all over again. Don Ashworth: The cut off period I believe was right around September V and so what actually would show on individual utility records would be almost as though it were a payment. Because at that point in time and then they literally start with the next quarter, whatever the current balance is at that point in time. By the time you're back to September, those same folks are there and they've got a year's worth of utility bills. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'm sorry Mark, anything more? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to close the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Ah, very good. Moving too fast. Berquist: Second. Councilman Mayor Chmiel: Motion's been made to close public hearing, and a second. Any other discussion? 4 n L L I ril 1 J City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move to approve the certification of the bills to the County. Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Don't we need to adopt the certification to the County as well? Mayor Chmiel: Well that just automatically goes with as it's shown on our information. Is that right? Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, I think there should be a motion to that effect though. Just to make sure the record is clear. Councilman Berquist: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Resolution #96 -100: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adopt the certification of sewer /water utility bills to the County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER HOUSE MOVING PERMIT, 6726 LOTUS TRAIL, TOM BYRNE. Public Present: Name Address John Raymond Chris Anderson Kurt & Mary Ellen Anderson Joan & Steven J. Cronson Larry Barnett Greg Carlson Jerry Riley 764 Lake Point Betsy Discher Loran & Paula Veltkamp Andrea Reeves Martin & Paula W. Kate & Michael Reeves Ken Reeves Todd Frostad Donald & Andrewa Senner 450 William Street, Excelsior 6680 Lotus Trail 6870 Lotus Trail 801 Cree Drive 6741 Hopi Road 760 Carver Beach Road 6728 Lotus Trail 6724 Lotus Trail 8820 Lake Riley Blvd., 8102 6630 Mohawk Drive 5917 Quebec Avenue No, Crystal Maple Grove, MN Bloomington 6680 Mohawk Drive Steve Kirchman: Mayor, Council members. Scott Harr was unable to attend tonight's meeting as the staff report... On June of '91 the Council approved a subdivision, vacation of Willow Road and a variance. The subdivision consisted of three substandard lots and replatted them into two lots, described as Parcel A and B. The subject parcel is 13,550 square foot lot and was approved for future placement of a single family dwelling. The conditions of approval for the subdivision required tree preservation, grading, drainage and erosion control plans with the building permit application. In addition a structural engineer must design the foundation due to the steep slopes. On October 15` of '96 Mr. Tom Byrne completed the applicant for a moving permit. Due to time constraints on moving the proposed house, the applicant also requested that an earthwork permit to prepare the site for the home. Staff issued the permit on October 15` Staff has inspected the site for tree preservation, building setbacks, and erosion control measures and found the site to be in conformance. Just recently I performed another inspection on November 4` and found no evidence of any erosion problems. The applicant has requested to move a house onto 6726 Lotus Trail, City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 , which was a vacant lot earlier... The City Code states that no may move a building into or within the city unless , issued a permit by City Council. Staff mailed a public hearing notice to all the residents within 350 feet and the notice was also published in the newspaper. Staff performed an inspection of the proposed structure to be moved. It's a 920 square foot story and a half home. City Code states a minimum floor area shall be 600 square feet on the ' first floor and be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation which meets the building code requirements. For the most part the house meets the building codes except for minor corrections which we pointed out to the homeowner during our inspection on September 16` of '96. The building code states that all buildings moved shall ' meet all requirements of the building code with the exception of the energy code. In addition to this, there is a requirement for the foundation to be engineered. The applicant has applied for the building permit and it's currently being reviewed but the building permit for the foundation has not been issued yet. Staff has reviewed the Certificate of Survey and the site plan which addresses the neighborhood drainage pattern by providing driveway culverts and , erosion control measures with rock construction measures. A survey showed a tree preservation areas has been reviewed and approved by City staff. All applicable setbacks and zoning regulations... proposed home. The City has received a Certificate of Insurance required for moving the home from the applicant. It is therefore recommended the City Council approve a moving permit for Tom Byrne to move a 1 %z story, 920 square foot dwelling onto 6726 Lotus Trail conditioned upon the following conditions. The applicant shall notify Public Safety Director at least 48 hours in advance of the move. The applicant shall reimburse the city for inspection of and monitoring of the moving operation. The applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee reimbursement of monitoring or inspection fees. A $2,000.00 surety bond shall also be provided by the City by the applicant and/or contractor to guarantee any street repaids resulting from the moving operation. And last, the applicant shall conform with street weight restrictions. A weight distribution diagram shall be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval or the City ' may also weigh the apparatus to ensure weight restrictions are being maintained. That concludes the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Steve. Are there any questions for Steve at this time? Councilman Berquist: Steve, you mentioned, I thought I heard you say that a mailing went out to residents within 350 feet of the property. When was that sent? Steve Kirchman: I don't know the date but it was sent 10 days prior to the. ' Audience: That's wrong. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. Councilman Berquist: That's the only one I had right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Steve, you said that you'll do a final inspection of the move. Does that include a final inspection to make sure that the home meets, I mean I'm inferring from all the issues surrounding this that the house is in a little bit of disrepair. Is the final inspection predicated on the fact that the house meets all building code requirements, etc? And will we be doing a final inspection? ' Steve Kirchman: The moving permit is completely separate from the building permit. Engineering staff will make a final inspection to check the streets and everything after the building's actually moved. And then the inspection staff ' will make all the required inspections on the dwelling while the foundation's being built. While all the repairs are made and all the changes are made so that it goes through an inspection quite similar to a new house except some areas will be closed up because the wall's already finished off, but all the plumbing has to be replaced. Windows have to be replaced. Anything else, the roofing is replaced, will have to be inspected just like it's a new dwelling. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So everything needs to be taken care of before a CO is issued? Steve Kirchman: That's correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's it. 1 H City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' Mayor Chmiel: Steve, do we have a time frame on that from the applicant? As far as when this is all going to be done. Steve Kirchman: No we don't. The building code states that a building permit expires if there's no work done in an 180 day period. But as long as a person keeps working, they could conceivable work forever and I don't know whether we can put a time permit on a building permit. I'd have to find... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger? Roger Knutson: You can't confine a permit on, UBC pre -empts us on building permits and... It says you have to keep working, otherwise you lose it if you stop for 6 months. Other than that, UBC handles it. But you possibly could put a reasonable condition on this permit. Complete the work. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mike. ' Councilman Mason: Not now, no. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: Steve can you, just for the benefit of the people I think in the neighborhood. You know I got the phone call and that's why I asked that this be put on the Council and that a hearing be scheduled and that's not the process that was being followed. Can you kind of just tell the Council now, rather than the fact that they're going to hear it later, why it was happening that way. Steve Kirchman: I can't say why except that's the way we've done it since I worked here. When I started here in ' '87, I was told that the Council didn't care to look at this. It was an old ordinance and I was instructed as inspector at that time to issue them after they met all the requirements of the building code and zoning ordinances and we just continued to do it that way as a matter of habit over the years. Councilman Senn: And so even though the ordinance is still on the book, that instruction came from basically a previous City Council or whatever? Steve Kirchman: I couldn't say that. It came from my previous boss. Councilman Senn: In terms of the ordinance itself, the ordinance itself requires all used buildings moved into, or within the city shall comply with the following and then it outlines the Uniform Building Code. The building is well maintained and in good state of repair. Chapter 20. And the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values, okay. Could you go through a brief explanation please as to how each of those have been evaluated, and maybe to put it in context before you do. Would you please differentiate in the definition of this ordinance all ' used buildings moved into need to comply with these because on face value you read this. These things need to be complied with before it's moved. Okay, and I think there's a lot of questions surrounding whether they do comply or not with these before they move. And then I guess a follow -up question to that becomes, if you move them in without these being met, what assures us that they will be met and complied with and this doesn't somehow become abandoned or left or whatever, for one reason or another in the state that it is in now. Because I think there's some legitimate questions on ... the Code, etc. Don Ashworth: At least part of that question Mr. Mayor I think the City Attorney can respond to. Roger Knutson: If you look at this Section 17 -44 of the Code. It says the City Council may issue a permit on condition that the building is brought into compliance within a reasonable period of time as determined by City Council. Councilman Senn: Okay, so effectively it is not a pre- condition or requirement then? 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Roger Knutson: No. Steve Kirchman: Okay, so you would then like me to go through items 1 through 4 and explain how they will meet , the requirement? Councilman Senn: Yes, please. ' Steve Kirchman: The Uniform Building Code, item number 1, does state that it has to be brought into compliance with all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code with the exception of the energy code. In order to make those determinations, staff first goes out and examines the building ... and let's the applicant know what we observe on our inspection. We have a mechanical inspector and a building inspector and give them a list of items that we see that need to be corrected. We also make it very clear to them that if we ... the house is repaired or remodeled during the process that they will have to bring it up to the requirements of the Building Code. Because we can't see everything when we're looking at a house that's completely finished off and sitting up on blocks. But quite often ' we ... things that have to be fixed and... Item number 2. In our opinion as we've currently looked at the house, it's a well maintained building in it's state of repair. I understand that in order to move it down the street it has been cut up into a number of sections and I don't know how to respond to that other than to say it will have to be fixed and meet the requirements of the building code. I have seen how they sectioned it off. Hopefully they did it in a way to , make it easy to put back together or they're going to incur a lot of extra expenses. As far as the Chapter 20, those are zoning regulations and we pass it around to other staff. Planning Department and Engineering staff to give their opinion on it and they have signed off on the building permit so to me that means it meets all the regulations of , Chapter 20, which are basically setbacks and tree removal and erosion control as required in the previous variance. If have any addition questions on that you could ask John's been involved in that. As far as item number 4. I you don't think I'm qualified to judge whether it's going to depreciate or appreciate surrounding property values. That's not my job so I wouldn't know where to begin with that. Councilman Senn: Roger, in the context of number 4. How would we judge that? Since it's part of the ordinance. ' Roger Knutson: It depends on the permit... 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not complied with. The only way you can prove number 4 ... would be an appraisal... You'd have to have a real appraisal... Councilman Senn: That's it on questions... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Tom Byrne: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to step forward. If there's anything that Steve has said that sounds as though most things have been met. Is there anything that you'd like to state about the particular project? Tom Byrne: Well I plan on finishing... other than that, not really. I'm just here for my permit. If you have any other questions, fire away. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Do you have any? Councilman Berquist: You were issued a permit, a building permit or have you been? Tom Byrne: No, I was issued the permit to dig for the basement and I started that and I stopped because of the neighbor issues so. Councilman Berquist: So you've been issued an excavation permit. You've been, you've applied for a moving permit. ' Tom Byrne: I've applied for the permit I'm asking you for now and also the building permit to finish the house. 1 I City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Have you received the permit yet to move the house? ' Tom Byrne: No. Councilman Berquist: No, that's what you, okay. And then there's a building permit will have to be done as well? Tom Byrne: Right. I need that before I can put any concrete in there. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf. What's your time frame? ' Tom Byrne: I'd like to be done as soon as possible. Preferably by April at the very latest. It's kind of, winter projects take longer. I do underground work and it takes longer to dig in the frost but we plan on having it done by then at the latest. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you'll be doing the work yourself? Tom Byrne: Somewhat. I've hired contractors for all the important things but I'm going to try to do some myself ' too. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. ' Councilman Senn: Not right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I mentioned, it is a public hearing and we listen to both sides of the proposal. Is there anyone from that neighborhood or do you have a specific individual that would like to speak for the group? Or would you like to approach it. Yes ma'am. Would you please come up to the microphone. Please state your name and address. ' Betsy Discher: My name's Betsy Discher. My address is 6728 Lotus Trail. We are the property directly adjacent to the south of 6726... My husband and I are owners of the property next door and we've had our property for sale for quite some time and entered into an agreement to sell that property on October the 6 for which transaction I acted as owner /agent because I'm a real estate agent as well. We were set to close on December 13 It came to quite, it was quite a surprise to us when the activity next door started on the weekend of October 19 and 20 The gentleman over here stated that proper notification was made to the neighbors. That was not the case. We never received any notification ... of this nature. Nor did we receive any notification with respect to the pending permit to move the building into Chanhassen until after the fact... So as I said, it came as quite a surprise to us when the tree removal and excavation... as well as it was quite a surprise, as you can imagine, to our potential buyer. He wound up ' initiating a request to cancel the purchase agreement on our house because of this activity and the fact that it wasn't resolved. Just to give you a little history on the subdivision process. That process really was done in conjunction with the street vacation of Willow Road and was done by our neighbors, Mr. Byrne's parents in 1991, with our approval. It resulted in your File Variance #91 -4 which Mayor Chmiel signed on July 9 th of 1992. There was a ' confirming letter sent to Mr. And Mrs. Byrne, Tom's parents at that time which we also got a copy. There were comprehensive requirements with respect to that subdivision and street vacation and abandonment process simply because this is a very fragile site with extremely steep topography and ... and also soil conditions. We've got anywhere between Class III or Class IV soils there and when it gets wet, there's extreme hydrostatic pressure that is created and due to the steepness of the slope, a lot of the neighbors have had foundation problems, including us with our garage that was engineered for the city's specifications. We actually experienced a failure on that wall and had to go through extreme measures to correct that. With that in mind there was a considerable amount of work done ' with Mr. And Mrs. Byrne and the Planning Commission and the ... this gentleman outlined were made pursuant to 1 9 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' that variance. There were supposed to be grading and drainage and tree preservation plans that also specific , structural calculations were to be submitted and a structural engineer,must design any type of foundation. Also soil information must be provided according to that document. Not may as I was told by the City Engineer when I questioned him about that. And a geotechnical engineer must approve the soil. Prior to the excavation also all ' utility easements should be staked. It is significant that this particular subdivision #91 -4 has a one year lapse provision and it was signed by you in 1992. The lapse implies that re- application would be necessary unless the conditions are met and construction substantially completed within a time period of time year on that document. It is also significant, that was confirmed in a letter that the city staff wrote to Mr. And Mrs. Byrne who make no mention ' of that lapse. So it's quite possible that they were unaware of that and also that Mr. Byrne was unaware that it had in fact lapsed. There's a history of concern over this particular slope and it's soil and site problems because runoff directly affects Lotus Lake. I think some of you may have gotten a packet of information including some pictures ' that I note here and you can see from the top of that, you can see the drainage pattern. And how ... to the lake. This was confirmed in the Planning Commission Minutes and also that in discussions that I had with the Watershed Engineer who is advising to the Bluff Creek -Riley Watershed District. Our concerns as neighbors adjacent areas ' follows. There seems to be a clear failure to observe due process here with respect to the lapse, and also with respect to notification of hearing requirements. The lack of the application for subdivision variances is a major concern because it impacts revisiting the whole area and also impacts any disclosures that I might have made to a potential buyer. The allegations that were made with respect to his request to cancel our purchase agreement implies that I , had prior knowledge of these conditions and failed to disclose them. Obviously that puts a cloud on my professional ethics. If I had had prior knowledge of these conditions, I surely would have disclosed them to my buyer. However, 1 did not due to the failure to observe due process. There are some other environmental and safety concerns with respect to the proximity to Lotus Lake. There's a runoff problem. The condition of this building is in disarray. It's ' been cut apart. There are shingles missing. The interior walls are exposed and because of the age of the building there is a big concern with respect to the hazardous materials that it may contain including, but not limited to asbestos and lead. Since it's a prior to the 1978 building we all know what the ... federal requirements are with respect to lead and the concerns thereof. There's also the fragility of the soil itself. There's great potential for a wash out. I have a lot of concern about something going in on a temporary foundation while a permanent one is engineered ex post facto. I don't think that that is implicit in all these plans that were made by the Planning Commission. Also you'll notice in your pictures that there currently is no silt fencing with respect to the lake side of the property and yet excavation has al ready been done. Obviously we're getting into the colder season but when spring thaw occurs or when there is heavy downpours and you're standing out there, there is a significant amount of water that comes from the entire Carver Beach neighborhood down that ravine and into the lake. I also have concern ' about the possibility of drainage easement encroachment with respect to our property as did my potential buyer. I was assured by Mr. Hempel of the engineering department here that that should not be a concern of mine after he went out and re- inspected the property. With respect to the aesthetic considerations, how can one really gauge that? , You know this is a municipality that has a lot of purple dwellings and other things as well, and this is an eclectic neighborhood obviously. So seeing as how there are no aesthetic covenants or restrictions in this neighborhood, I don't know how one would arbitrarily decide what is the feelings of the neighborhood and what is not. ... it's like art. We all know what we like and what we don't like. However, the ramifications to myself and my husband are ' threefold actually. There's personal ramifications obviously in that our transaction may fail. The timing for the future sale of the property, market conditions and the lack of closure on the project next door would certainly cause any future buyer to take pause, assuming this one decides to breach our contract. So in that respect we may incur a monetary loss in that regard, and also I'll incur a loss of income because I'm the agent. The professional ramifications for me with respect to the lack of notification and the allegations regarding disclosure I've already discussed. It's not very much fun to be accused of something that you have no prior knowledge of. I think probably the most significant ramification however is the damage that this has done to personal relationships in the ' neighborhood and once again, this is kind of a ripple effect. Obviously it's not the city's responsibility to insure that those relationships stay good. However I feel, and I know many of the neighbors do as well, no matter what their overall feeling is, a lot of this could have been avoided with proper communication and notification. So all of those ' neighborhood relationships in one way, shape or another are affected in a negative way because of this. And obviously that's something that you guys probably can't solve but nonetheless it will exist now. With respect to remedies for the situation that the Council could take. I would ask that you strongly consider denying the permit to move pending further review. The logistics of Lotus Trail itself as well as the access to this particular site are extremely steep and it's going to be quite a show to see that thing coming down the street and up into that ravine and plunked on a temporary foundation to say the very least. Safety concerns obviously are implicit in that. So I would 10 1 1 7 �l City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ask that you deny the permit to move pending further review. If you, despite all of the overwhelming sentiment and concerns raised tonight, decide to allow this permit to move, then I would ask that you strongly consider requiring re- application for this subdivision and also a performance bond by the contractor and/or owners to ensure that this work is done in compliance with all regulations implicit in this variance and with the zoning code and also within a certain period of time. A reasonable period of time. My concern is, and we all know the economic reality is when you try to bring something existing up to snuff, often times it becomes more costly than new construction itself and so therefore there is the very likely possibility that economically it might not be feasible to finish this project in a short period of time. Or the inclination all of a sudden might be gone as well. I think that's a real concern that you can address by requiring a performance bond. With respect to recovery of any damages that we might incur as a result of this failure to observe notification and due process. I can't say at this time. Obviously you know there are a lot of aspects to this particular situation. I hope that you will give it your utmost care and consideration when you make a decision tonight. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Please come forward and state your name and your address please. Loran Veltcamp: My name is Loran Veltcamp. I'm the neighbor to the north. Betsy is the neighbor to the south. First of all I'd like to concur with everything that Betsy says. I've talked with her a number of times about this and agree with it... I want to emphasize the property depreciation that I think will occur from this, and not just in our neighborhood but in any neighborhood that something like this would happen. We bought our house 3 years ago. I've been working on it pretty much non stop since I bought it and it has appreciated in value and I'm currently just getting the list, final calculations from my engineer before I engage in about a $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 addition to my house, which is going to put it up there I think. I don't know what yet but it's going to be up there and we've worked hard on our land and we take a great deal of pride in our property but our property is not anywhere near as nice as Brad and Betsy's property and I hope before you rule on this you will certainly go through their property. I think they've spent a lot of money here. They're not getting all their money out of their house as it is. And they've been very meticulous and very artistic in the way they have developed that property and it's a beautiful property and ... and it does not deserve to be I think devastated by this other property coming in virtually overnight in the way that it has, and I don't think due process has been followed. I think the city's been incredibly insensitive to what we're trying to do down here specifically, and what our whole neighborhood is trying to do. But the Carver Beach area over the last 20 years has been developing itself as best it can. You know there are some old cabins down there and people are trying to preserve what's good and move on. You know we recently had a house that a person lived in, in a very small two room house down there for 8 years so he could buy the land. He had to wait for this piece of land to come up in back taxes and now there's a $300,000.00 house and this is what's happening over and over again in the Carver Beach area. We are trying to move in good houses and I think that the majority of the citizens feel this way about it. It's an up and coming neighborhood. It's growing in value. People are making very substantial investments. They are paying very substantial taxes and for these taxes they want consideration, they want respect, and they want property protection and by golly they deserve it. You know they're doing a pretty good job. To bring in an old house like this, I can only speak my opinion here but this house is really ugly and they're putting it on a foundation that makes it even uglier. And to me, I just can't believe anybody would do this. First of all I don't think that Tommy's going to make any money on this. By the time he gets done with this project he's got as much money as the place is worth. So he makes no money. He doesn't win. And we are definitely going to lose. Now I called my appraiser when this started to happen and I went and I took a look at Tommy's house and I thought wow. How can this be happening and I just didn't know what to do. I called my appraiser and I told him, you know I said you know my house and there's this house up in Excelsior by the church up there and he knew the house because he, you know he gets around. He knew this house. I said what's this going to cost me? He said well I can't come out and give you an appraisal before you know the City Council meeting but he said I'd say 5% to 10 %. You know just off the top. I mean he didn't hesitate. And I believe him. You know I think we need to have appraisers come out there and appraise all these properties that surround this. There's six properties that surround it. And I think they're all going to be depreciated and by the time you factor in the depreciation, the tax base will go down as much as this little house is going to appreciate taxes. So then the City doesn't win. You know you're not helping your tax base by this. It's depreciating the neighborhood and it certainly will I think. It needs to be done by a professional appraiser to be sure. But to make a long story short here, I think that Tommy's going to lose because of this. I think the City's going to lose because other people are going to bring in crack houses from who knows where, you know and start sticking them around. You know this can happen. I can do it myself. It costs $15,000.00 to move a house in. I can 11 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 buy a lot and move a house in. Other people aren't going to like this so, it's bad for the City. I think it's bad for our neighborhood. It's bad for me and it's very, very bad for Brad and Betsy. I hope that's taken into consideration. I took the liberty to go around the neighborhood and have people sign a petition, which I have here. The rest of my thoughts I put on paper here. I came up with about 30 to 35 reasons why I don't think this house should go in. And there's too many to list here but I'll submit this document. I'll submit the petition. The petition shows that a majority of people in our immediate neighborhood are not for this and they're not for it for different reasons. So I wrote a little bit about that. So I will submit the petition and I think that may be all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We'll take that. Loran Veltcamp: I think that will be it. Mayor Chmiel: We'll take that information that you have there. Loran Veltcamp: Yeah, I would like permission to submit a formal appraisal from a certified appraiser, if you have time to do that. I'll get these documents together. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Andrea: My name is Andrea and I've been together with Tom for about 7 years and I just wanted to clarify some questions. We did have a geotechnical engineer evaluate the soils and his recommendation reads, the compact brown sand encountered in the borings below the soft soil is suitable for the support of the proposed structure. It is our opinion that these soils are capable of supporting... pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Other soft soils that are on top... So that has been passed and it has been approved. I just wanted to let you know that. The basement has been engineered, and in fact from the basement contractor it's been over engineered but better over than under. We'd rather not have it fall... This house has been appraised already with what we're going to do to it and actually is missing quite a few things we're going to do to it. It's appraisal value is in keeping with the area. No, it's not as much as Brad and Betsy's home. Loran, it's probably not going to be as much as yours ... $300,000.00 but it is in keeping. There's a house behind us that sold for $34,000.00. That house down the road that's about over $80,000.00. There's one that sold for $80,000.00. That's an older neighborhood. It's got cute little houses. It's got some older houses. It's got some new ... and this house has been evaluated by the City and appraisers and it fits in with that neighborhood. Maybe you don't like the aesthetics of it. It's not going to look now like it does then because... it's going to be a lot better. And I just wanted to let you know about that and clarify some things that it is appraised at a value in keeping with the neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Andrea. Is there anyone else? Dr. Steven Cronson: I'm Dr. Steven Cronson. Formerly a dentist. I live on 801 Cree Drive in Chanhassen. I'm a new resident to the city. I've lived in my home for about a year. I do not live near ... but I have walked by there many times enjoying Lotus Lake and the neighborhood. I live in a, what I would consider a moderate income house in that neighborhood. The reason I say that, it's not based upon statistical data but based upon looking at it as Tom's wife mentioned, $34,000.00 to $80,000.00 houses. To talking to realtors about houses that are recently sold near where I live in the $175,000.00 range. Very unique structures. My house I bought in the 130's. When I moved in there, I didn't know much about my neighborhood but I liked the neighborhood. I saw that the neighborhood north of me was brand new houses that were in the $200 to probably $300,000.00 range. I wondered why they moved there. I looked at the lake and saw a pretty lake there. Anyway the point of my story is, I came to that neighborhood to enjoy it. When I bought that house I saw a house in the $130 to $140,000.00 range was a lot of money for me. I had to change careers. I've gone through troubles and I thought what Tom wants to do is a very smart thing to do. To go in and get a low cost, way to get a house and get it into a neighborhood and try to live there. But at any time when I wanted to improve my property, I wanted to put a four season or three season or two season porch in my back yard so I investigated it and talked to realtors that handled sales in my neighborhood. I talked to one who handled a sale on Carver Beach Road where the sale fell through. The realtor said, I'll never want to take another property in Carver Beach. These people want to improve their lot with a three season or four season porch. That persuaded me and sadden me very much about the neighborhood that was spending money on improvements for a home, a homestead, would never get me back any return for that investment... into my property because of what's happening 12 u I I Ll it Ll I 1 I 1 J 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 to this neighborhood. I feel that putting this house, I haven't seen a picture of this house. I know it's a one and a half story house. I do have concerns about what is happening to this neighborhood. Does it improve or does it not going to improve other things like in relation to code. In terms of what can be built there. And what can't be built there. And so I have a lot of questions and that's all I want to say tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Councilman Berquist: Yes. Someone, I think Ms. Discher mentioned the temporary foundation. Is the plan to move the building in on post and beam and then construct the foundation underneath the home? Is that the intent? Tom Byrne: Yes sir. Andrea: ...we should do it that way because, in moving... things aren't perfect... so if we make an error on the foundation, on a wall, and then move the house on in, that's his fear... Councilman Berquist: All right. Well I've got a lot of concerns on this. It is an eclectic neighborhood. In a neighborhood like Carver Beach, I think anyone doing any appraisals would have a very difficult time trying to figure out what would negatively or positively impact any of the properties in there simply because of the variations in values and types of structures that are there. I'm going to be jumping around here because I wrote things down in a jumbled manner. One of the qualifications within the subdivision approval back in '91 was that soil samples or soil results be provided to the City. Now did I hear someone say that had been done? Tom Byrne: Yes. All the, everything on that has been done. Councilman Berquist: And those have been reviewed from an engineering point of view? Steve Kirchman: The foundation has been engineered but review is underway. We haven't completed the review and we're not prepared to issue the building permit at this time until that's reviewed. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Again, the only thing that's really been done is administratively issuing an excavation permit. Steve Kirchman: That's correct. As far as the action by us. Councilman Berquist: And any other action is contingent upon getting your approval. So in essence when they came in and applied for their building permit they, it was made clear to them that risk of approval is on their heads. Steve Kirchman: As far as the building permit. Councilman Berquist: All right. Back in 1991 when the property was subdivided, I can find nothing within the Minutes of the meeting that referenced the intent to move in a house. I'm sure that it was subdivided as a lot of record for purposes of sale and construction as opposed to bringing in an existing home. Tom Byrne: ...thought that it would be worth more that way. Having two lots as opposed to the one when they sold the house. Councilman Berquist: What is the lot worth? Or better I should ask, what was the lot on the market for? Tom Byrne: It was on the market for, between $15 and $16. 13 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' Councilman Berquist: And how long was it on the market? Tom Byrne: About two years. ' Councilman Berquist: Since '91? Or since the subdivision was approved? bit Right they the house to the Veltcamps. ' Tom Byrne: No. It wasn't right away. It was a little after that. after sold Councilman Berquist: Okay. Let's see. Let me just take a quick look here before I give up my floor. Regarding appraisals. What was the tax valuation of that house prior to it being sold? What was the land value versus the , structure value? It was on the tax rolls. On the tax rolls you get a tax statement every year that says land value and structure value. 40. Just land itself ' Tom Byrne: The structure value was ... it wasn't very much. It was low. I think it was around the here in Chanhassen. Councilman Berquist: No. The house that you're intending to move on. ' Tom Byrne: Oh, I don't know. The church owned it and as far as I know they weren't paying taxes on it. They owned it for a while. I don't know what the value was of it originally. ' Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm going to be equally troubled. Kate, I'm not certain if it was you or Sharmin ' who worked on the original subdivision. Kate Aanenson: That was before my time with the City. , Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Ms. Discher mentioned that there was a one year time limit on that building. Can you address that at all? , Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think, you can check with the City Attorney on that. That's standard language. I mean the subdivision was recorded and the variance goes with it. You can't rescind a subdivision once it's been recorded. That's standard language and ... two different things that went out in the letter that wasn't mentioned. Or was ' mentioned in the letter that went out ... so obviously it was kind of a generic form that went out. But once it's a lot of record, you can't... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Basically what Kate said huh? , Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. ' Roger Knutson: I can expand on it a little bit. This is a generic form in that the reason that it will work well, it ' doesn't work for a lot area variance if you've created a lot. You use a lot area variance by creating the lot as opposed to a setback variance which you use when you put up the structure. Then you can appropriately say, well if you don't build the house within one year, it lapses. But in this, you use the variance by creating the lot. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Steve, could you speak to, and I know you ... the history on this in terms of we received a request for a moving permit. You started that process. At some point we said time out. We need to, why do the neighbors feel that due process wasn't followed? , Steve Kirchman: I don't know. We received a request for a moving permit. We processed that and when we heard concerns from neighbors we stopped the process and put it on the Council agenda and now two weeks later we're , 14 r 1 IJ City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 before Council. We have on a different track gone ahead and accepted a building permit application, but that's not unusual. We often have dual track projects, more often than not it seems like. We haven't issued any building permits. A grading permit was issued. It was based on the engineered grading plans. We had information about the soils. We had information about erosion control and slopes and they set construction limits on that and the building permit application that we received, everything's happening within those construction limits that were set with the previous grading permit. Councilwoman Dockendorf So typically, I mean we're talking about three different items that are occurring, as you say, in the same time frame. That wouldn't be a dual track. That would be a tri track. Whatever that is. Wouldn't it make sense, or wouldn't it be standard operating that we would deal with all these permits at the same time, given that if the moving permit didn't go through, why bother excavating? Why bother issuing a building permit? Steve Kirchman: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is it just that these happen so infrequently? Is that one of the issues that we're dealing with here? Steve Kirchman: Well, I think probably when the grading permit was issued we thought at that time that the house moving permit would probably be issued very shortly. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Typically we get a listing of who's been notified and a copy of that notification. Is that available? Steve Kirchman: I don't know. I didn't handle it. The publication was handled through the engineering department and I was told that it went out and apparently there's some question to that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, do you know anything about that? Charles Folch: I'm not ... specific notification but I'm certain that that's on file. I did talk with Dave Hempel when the notification did go out and put together so that information can be provided. Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could just, my current train of thought is, when it was, when the subdivision went through in '91, all the neighbors were informed of that city process and knew the intent was to build a home there. It appears to me the issue this evening is they don't like the home that's been chosen to put there. Now, not true to form we have some ordinances here that are open for interpretation and these are pretty cut and dry and we've got a couple issues where it says the building is well maintained and in a good state of repair. Again, that's open for interpretation and the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values. Again, that's open for interpretation and that's one of the jobs of the City Council. In respect to the building being well maintained, I can only take the work of our Building Inspector saying that when he looked at it in it's current site prior to being prepared for the move, it was well maintained. I've seen pictures with shingles missing, you know I question that. In terms of the building not materially depreciating surrounding property values. This is a unique neighborhood and I wouldn't have a clue as to how the assessor goes around assessing property values in a neighborhood such as this. Although I would think that it's based on, not so much surrounding property values but the home's independent value. The land. The views, etc. as opposed to how they standardly assess properties. But again, I'm not an assessor. So I'm fence sitting as it is. I think we might need some additional information before we decide to act on this. I don't know. What do you think Mike? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I sure am. Councilman Mason: I assume you're passing it to me? Councilman Mason: Thank you so much. I'd like to know legal. I'm not quite sure what due process has been violated here. I know when the lot next to me was being built on, I did not get a notification saying that somebody is going to be coming in and excavating. I don't believe that needs to be done when you're building a house in this city. I'm curious to know Roger if you know what due process has been violated here. 15 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Roger Knutson: I'm not aware of any. The due process required by this ordinance, the hearing exceeded by 10 days... Don Ashworth: Charles is upstairs looking for that notice put together by. It was put together by Vicky with Dave Hempel and. Betsy Discher: The notice of what? The hearing tonight? Don Ashworth: Yes. Betsy Discher: Yes, we did. Before we raised a stink about it did we get a notice...? No. Councilman Mason: Is this in order here? Don Ashworth: I don't think so. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we'll bring it back to the Council please. Finish our discussions here. Roger Knutson: The only notice that's required in the hearing that's required that's being conducted now, I can't independently tell you whether the mailed notice has gone out... Councilman Mason: And that may in fact be another issue. I'm certainly not going to dispute that. What I want to make clear here is that the only due process that may in fact have been violated was whether people were notified about this hearing for the 12` of November. To your knowledge, as far as ordinances go, any of the other stuff that Mr. Byrne is looking for has not in any way violated due process? Roger Knutson: No. For example getting a building permit. People get building permits, I assume, on pretty much a daily basis and there's no hearing process. Councilman Mason: Okay. All right. Now the notification of this hearing may in fact be a separate issue but I'm hearing due process being flung around pretty loosely and I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what's going on. I also live in Carver Beach, just so everybody knows. I live on the other end of Carver Beach but I too live in Carver Beach. I know for a fact when I purchased the lot next to my older home, that was not worth a whole lot of money. I then went to sell my older home so I could build a nicer home. My realtor had a heck of a time finding comparables. That's the word I'm looking for. Comparable appraisals for that area. There are $30,000.00 homes. There are $300,000.00 homes right next door to each other in Carver Beach. Make no mistake. It's an extremely eclectic area and I think that's probably why most people live in Carver Beach quite honestly. I'm hearing a lot about the ramifications to everybody on this issue. The only thing I haven't heard yet is the ramifications to Mr. Byrne and I'm concerned about the ramifications to Mr. Byrne on this. It seems to me that if Mr. Byrne has dotted his I's and crossed his T's and is following the ordinances that are set up by the city, we have an obligation to follow that through. Now if, there are a whole lot of emotional issues here and I think as a Council we need to be very careful that we separate those emotional issues out of this. This notification issue about this hearing is something that needs to be looked into. It seems to me that if Mr. Byrne is following the rules that are set out by the City of Chanhassen, I'm not sure how we can deny him the opportunity to live in Carver Beach. I continue to be concerned by the attitude of people that live, I'm going to stop. I'm going to stop. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess first, three quick questions that I had missed before. I had them on a separate page. Kate, basically there was a tree preservation plan and everything submitted? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's all been done. 16 J I 1 I City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Kate Aanenson: Jill had inspected the site for compliance so the only part that the Planning Department... make sure it was in compliance. We did sign off on it as far as the house met setbacks... Councilman Senn: And Steve, you do have the, I mean prior to the excavation permit being issued, you did have a grading and drainage plan and all that? Steve Kirchman: Yes. It was issued based on a grading and drainage plan that we received from Mr. Byrne's engineer. Councilman Senn: Okay. One question I had as it relates to the survey that we were given which is dated October 24, 1996. In the stipulations on the approval it requires effectively a 20 foot grading and drainage easement in place where the previous Willow Road was. Yet I don't see that reflected on the survey. Is there a reason for that? Steve Kirchman: Could you repeat the question please Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Okay. If you go to the conditions by which the subdivision was approved in the first place, okay. One of the conditions is a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the former Willow Road right -of -way. Okay. I look at the survey and I do not see that 20 foot. I see the standard easement around. You know I see the 10 foot mark. I see the 5 foot mark. I do not see a 20 foot grading and drainage easement, or I mean not grading. I do not see a 20 drainage and utility easement where Willow Road was, which puts the survey in error. Steve Kirchman: Okay. What I see is a 10 foot easement where Willow Road was and I'm assuming the other 10 foot falls on the adjoining property to the south. Councilman Senn: Okay. So there is a 20 foot there in the subdivision related to both those parcels then? Steve Kirchman: I said I was making an assumption. Councilman Senn: Assumption. Steve Kirchman: I see 10 foot on Mr. Byrne's property and typically they're divided half and half. Councilman Senn: Well I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, does the former Willow Road also was put on the property to the south then? Steve Kirchman: I can't answer that question. I don't know what the alignment of Willow Road was previously to the subdivision. Councilman Senn: All right. Aside from questions then, I guess comments. First to address this issue I guess of what's being labeled as due process that's being thrown around. I think due process is a very poor choice of words for what we're talking about here but I believe the neighbors concerns were effectively, I'm not sure how to say this. But I mean the neighbors were basically put in a bad position. This property was issued a grading permit and was going to be administratively issued a moving permit without following provisions of our ordinance. Okay. Now I'm not finding fault with anybody for that. It's very simply a mistake. Maybe a procedure that was established in '87 or something that I'm not sure who was established by but that's kind of hard to figure out at this point and it's really inmaterial but we do have an ordinance on the books which requires a hearing before the City Council and the Council to issue that permit and that is not the procedure which was being followed. That is the concern. That was the concern of the neighborhood and I think a legitimate concern of the neighborhood. The ordinance gave them an opportunity. They should have had that opportunity. They were not going to be given that opportunity until they raised issue with it and by raising issue with it, they've been given that opportunity which is the way it should be, so I don't think they should be faulted for it. You know looking through all the issues on this, you know I'm concerned about what the neighbors. I guess I'm concerned about the neighbors concerns that I'm not going to just make light of them. I'm also concerned about the ramifications to Mr. Byrne but I guess the way I look at this is, we do have an ordinance here and I look back at the ordinance and I say are we following the ordinance. I think in terms of where 17 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 we are in the ordinance, given what the City Attorney has said, most of the stipulations effectively are stipulations which effectively, well I mean other than Chapter 20. The other stipulations 1 and 2, which relate to the Building Code and the maintenance and repair of the structure are effectively conditions that are put off or effectively can be remedied after the movement of the house, but before a CO. Okay, so you know I think those you look at in terms of being things that can be handled administratively. The thing I don't feel at all comfortable with in this current ordinance, which we are supposed to act by, is condition number 4 which says the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values. I'm not comfortable with that purely from the reason that I've got absolutely no information in front of me which would help me evaluate that one way or the other and if this Council is being asked to act on and approve this permit, they are in effect finding that there has been no material depreciation to surrounding properties. If my fellow members on the City Council would like to do that, I guess that's fine. I don't plan to. I think this matter needs to be tabled. I think sufficient time needs to be given to get that professional information because this ordinance appears to me binds us to make a finding as it relates to that and I don't know how we can make the finding without the professional information. So I know that's probably going to cause some concern or hardship to Mr. Byrne and I'm not even going to say I think it's fair to Mr. Byrne but it is what's in the ordinance and we have these things. We're supposed to be following them. If we don't like them, we should change them. But as it sits right now, it's the rule we've got and I think that's the way we should approach it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's it Mark? Councilman Senn: Yes. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: If I may. Charles did find the mailed notice affidavit on top. Map that went out to each of the neighbors and the names and addresses of all of the owners it went to. There's about 30 of them on there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the date? Don Ashworth: October 30 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It's all here. Plus the affidavit of mailing. Well some of the comments basically that I have is it sure doesn't give the property owner a chance to even build his own home, and there are variations. There are variations within my own neighborhood. You can get them anywhere from $280,000.00 on down to $102,000.00. And yet when they review, and as home continually sell, the appraisals are taken from the highest home that is being sold. And they consider that in, if I'm not mistaken, in their estimate to come up with what the value of that home is to be sold for. He does own property the property. At any given time, did anyone have an opportunity to buy that piece of property? Yes. Would you come up to the microphone. Loran Veltcamp: I made an offer on this property through the realtor maybe 3 weeks before Tommy decided to start this thing. I offered $47,000.00 for it. The reason I offered $47,000.00 for this is because when I talked to John Rask about the tree preservation, I wanted to know all about that because that's something that can be interpreted and I specifically asked him. I said, what does this mean ... can only take out just enough trees to build on, you know. I mean what does it mean you know. He said, you can only take out the minimum number of trees that you need to take out. And I said what if there's a tree next to my house and I have to get around my house with a truck while I'm building the house. He said you may not be able to take that out. You know not for sure but you may have to leave that tree. And I said so there's a possibility that I have to leave enough trees so I can't get to the back of the house with a truck while I'm building it. You know which means I'd have to bring in a crane and lift it over the house or break the thing down and carry it around the house. These are all important considerations when you're trying to build on a lot. And I was also informed that there was a 30 foot setback. John thinks that maybe I got confused here but you know when you're buying the land you've got to be sure, you know. You're very careful in what questions you ask. I asked what the setbacks were and my understanding was that this was a flat lot. Okay, I didn't know that term before I talked to John, but this is a flag lot and as such, it has a 30 foot setback from the street, 30 foot setback from my property which wraps around the back of my property, and 20 feet everywhere else. It's a fairly small, 18 u 7 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 buildable footprint on this particular lot. And because of the slope and we share a drive and there's other factors, I said this lot cannot be worth... And the proof of that is also that it's been on the market for about 5 years and it didn't sell. So I was confident that I had made the highest offer and very reasonable offer. Their realtor told me it was a very respectable offer. I wanted to ... because I knew that if somebody didn't buy it, Tommy was going to come in and build something small. And I said I don't want that. I'm going to buy the land. I'm going to give fair value for it... And the way we poised our offer was that, you know if you can show me that it's worth more I'll pay more. Show me some comparables because I can't find any and that's the way we left it but ... and Rocky Byrne had been out of town. We couldn't find him. So that offer, and there have been other offers too but I mean I think they've all been in the 40's, which I think were reasonable. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, I can comment on item number 4. The building will not depreciate. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yeah, would you please Roger. Roger Knutson: You find something in our CUP provisions and... Audience: Sir, can you speak up please? We can't hear you. Roger Knutson: Excuse me. I'll try to speak louder. I found about 25 cases that discuss this issue and what the Courts have said uniformly is that unless the City has material evidence that it will depreciate, there's no basis for turning down the permit. So the City has to ... have that evidence that it will materially depreciate or that's not a basis for turning it down. And the Courts have said that lay evidence on this subject is not acceptable, or simple statements from realtors, one or two liners, I've seen a lot of those that say in my opinion it will do this. You need a real appraisal and if there is a real appraisal that shows it, then of course you can rely upon that information. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And who's responsible typically for providing that appraisal? Is it a 50150 split between the applicant and the City or does the City have to prove that it won't materially depreciate or is it the responsibility...? Roger Knutson: To turn this down you have, the City has to have material evidence. If there's no evidence, then there's no basis for turning down the permit on that basis. So the evidence has to come forth from some sort. Whether that is from an appraiser hired by whoever. It doesn't matter who's doing the hiring as long as it's a legitimate appraisal and it proves that that depreciation materially. Material depreciation. Councilman Senn: Okay Roger when I raised that point I said let's use legitimate professional, okay. How do you do that in 10 days? Roger Knutson: I can only tell you my experience. I've never gotten an appraisal that fast. Maybe someone can. Councilman Senn: I never have either. So I mean the question is, how do you do it other than effectively create a window or some time to allow somebody to do that. Roger Knutson: You don't. You can't do it in 10 days. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that's almost, yeah really almost next to impossible. Roger Knutson: If you find that ... someone is so under employed that he can get it done in 2 days... Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure I want that appraisal. Yeah, did you want to say something. Would you come up to the mic so we can get it recorded. Tom Byrne: Well, I got an appraisal in 3 days and it was written up for me to get the money from the loan company who actually is the one who paid for the appraisal and they appraised it at about $130, and that was not counting all 19 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 the extra work I was doing to make it nicer than it was originally in Excelsior. Or counting the fact that it's got lake view, which after climbing up to the top of the hill and looking out about where the windows would be, I figured out hey, I can see the lake from here. So I get the feeling that it may even be worth a little more than that. That's not really that big of a concern to me. I want to break even on the deal. I grew up here and I want my house there. I own the land now. I got it from my parents. You know it's an investment for my future, but I plan on spending the rest of my life there. I spent most it there already. Or next door ... I don't want to blow it. I don't want to make any of my neighbors mad. I never planned on hurting any of them either. But I feel like I've done everything that you've asked me to do. Everything that the City's ever required of me. We've been researching this for years. How long do I have to wait? How long do I have to call my parents in Florida to say, well Betsy's got another person to look at the lot. She'll be calling you pretty soon. And I let all that slide. I tried to help them and I knew if that happened, there's no way I was ever going to put a house there and it kept sitting and sitting and sitting. Finally I came up with a way to do it. I got the ambition to do it and I work hard. Make good money. Own the land now. All I'm looking for is a place to live man. Thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Well, I think it's. Betsy Discher: Can I say something? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think you had your opportunity before. Betsy Discher: I just want to say that I agree. I think Tommy should be allowed to live there. That's never really been an issue with us. We've known him for 12 years and when he lived ... we were very happy to do so. It's not my intention to keep Tommy from building on property that he owns. I do have some concerns with respect to the safety of the neighborhood and environmental issues. As a realtor I think it's very dangerous to assign value to a subject property ... in eclectic neighborhoods like that. You know as far as your comment with respect to ... I totally concur. My question is really though as to do with whether or not proper notification as to the move was made. That's my question. Every time that we've had, that we've made improvements to our property we've gone through a sequential, lengthy process. And it appeared to me that this type of process was extremely compressed. That the proper notification with respect to the move, not the hearing, were made. When you decided to contact people in attempts to place this matter for a hearing, it was then that notification for this hearing was made. There was no hearing planned on this permit to move and it was going to go through until we questioned the process. I really, you know if I wind up staying in the house, and it's very possible that I might because my sale might not go through, I look forward to having Tommy as a neighbor. You know there's no question to us that he shouldn't be allowed to build on the property. What we're questioning is, the... feasibility of the plan to move something in rather than construct something from the ground up in the sequence that the initial variance was granted. So thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to tell you that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we've belabored our point here for some time. Is there any other discussion by Council? Councilman Berquist: I have a quick question for someone. Subdivision, the property owner after getting a subdivision has a year to file it, otherwise it falls off. Was the subdivision properly filed within that year's period of time? John Rask: To the best of my knowledge. Councilman Berquist: All right, that's all... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to ask for a motion. Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm still hung up on the depreciation of surrounding property values. Generally when you build a home, or when you seek to build a home, a very broad rule of thumb is that you're going to spend anymore from 3 to 4 times your lot value on the construction of your residence. So if I were to use a sale price on the lot of $40,000.00, that would mean that we'd end up with roughly a $120,000.00 to $160,000.00 cost of construction on the structure that we're building. So we fly in the face of conventional construction wisdom, such as 20 I LI n I� r-, 0 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 it is, by moving the house of small value onto a lot of relatively higher value. The neighborhood is eclectic. Carver Beach is a charming neighborhood in many different ways. I am however not convinced that we will not materially depreciate the surrounding property values. Although Roger says that we must have proof. Mr. Byrne mentions that it's been years that he's been contemplating and working on this. I see nothing wrong with a few more weeks enabling time to pass and appraisals to be forth coming. Tom Byrne: There's a big bulldozer sitting right next to my house and if I don't get it moved soon, it's going to be trashed. I have a problem. Councilman Berquist: A big what? Tom Byrne: A big bulldozer is parked next to it and if I don't have it moved, the church has to level it to work on their project in Excelsior... Councilman Senn: Wait now, wait now, wait now. The church project was not approved in Excelsior. Tom Byrne: No, it's not approved yet but ... there are ways of working on it now. They guy said I have a week, at the most. I have a week for sure. After that it's all up in the air. Councilman Berquist: Well if my motion passes I would urge you to contact him and ask his understanding. Tom Byrne: Well if gets tabled, I've been advised that... construction is not illegal here. If I have to, I'll take my sawzall and I'll chop it up into little squares and bring in on a flat bed and then I don't even need this permit. The reason I'm here is because I'm trying to do this the right way and I want everybody to know that. I want you to know that I plan on having something to be proud of and there's other ways around it. There's more than one way to do this. I sure want to do it right. But at the same time I don't want my house to get ran over by the bulldozer either so. I don't have time. Councilman Berquist: Then you should have applied earlier. I'm going to move to table until I'm convinced that we're not going to materially affect the neighborhood. Councilwoman Dockendorf Well you know what, I'm hearing a couple different things from the neighborhood and I don't know if there's a representative per se but I'm hearing one person saying they're concerned about the depreciation and I'm hearing another person say they're just concerned that it's going to hurt the environment and safety, etc. So they're not so much opposed to the building and the construction of the home as they're concerned about the environmental affects so. Councilman Senn: Well, I'm going to second Steve's motion. Mayor Chmiel: I didn't call for the second as yet. Councilman Senn: Well it doesn't make any difference. You can second it anyway. That takes precedence. Councilwoman Dockendorf Well, I guess my point was going to be that we need a little CYA here on the Council. It is my intent to move this house to this property. I think we need to protect ourselves from potential litigation to make sure that we are not materially depreciating anyone else's property value now. And I believe that's the onus of the City in terms of getting that done and the City paying for it and if we can, and we'll need to meet our 2 week time frame. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: Further discussion. While what Councilman Berquist said I think is absolutely true about cost of land and cost of housing, I don't know that he's aware how eclectic Carver Beach is. There clearly are lots that do not concur with the 4 times or 3 times the price of the lot in Carver Beach. I mean that's the reality of that situation. 21 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 I certainly hope this Council does not choose to table this action tonight. I think with the information that we have from the City Attorney, we have more than enough to vote on it tonight. Mayor Chmiel: All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor say aye? Councilman Berquist, Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in favor. Councilman Mason: Would you restate the motion please? Mayor Chmiel: As Steve had indicated previously. Councilman Berquist: Was moving to table. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, to get the additional information. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would request that our City Manager makes a phone call to the City Manager or Mayor of the City of Excelsior explaining the situation and ask for some leniency. Mayor Chmiel: Being that I'm the lame duck, maybe we should have the Manager have discussions and find that out. Councilman Mason: Where's the motion to table this right now? I've heard. Mayor Chmiel: Well what Steve has indicated. That he would like to see appraisals done on this particular property and determine, Steve, is that correct? Councilman Berquist: Yes. The motion that I made was to table it until such time as the applicant could bring back an appraisal that solidifies his claim that the property that he's intending to use will not adversely affect the adjoining properties. Tom Byrne: We have that. Mayor Chmiel: You have that? Tom Byrne: I'm not sure if we have it with but we do have it. Andrea: I can get it up here... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is it an independent appraisal or is it a realtor's appraisal? Tom Byrne: Yeah, it was paid for by the mortgage company. Councilman Senn: I'd like clarification on your motion. Your motion when you originally stated it said you wanted to effectively table this until such times as appraisals can be provided. Councilman Berquist: That is correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. At least when I seconded your motion and took that at it's face, I assumed that gave both parties the time to get an appraisal or whatever they wanted to do to come in and make their case. With professional results. Councilman Berquist: However many appraisals that it took to convince me that... Councilman Senn: Correct, you want to have more information. That's all. 22 0 J 1 1 � 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: The applicant has a time restriction as well in what he can do with his property. If he can't get this accomplished within a week, I don't think that's a reasonable proposal. Councilman Senn: Well Mayor I'd like to understand that because my understanding is the project in Excelsior has been turned down by the Excelsior City Council and it's not going forward and it's my understanding that the church has taken steps to initiate legal action against the City or whatever as a result of that and there's going to be absolutely no immediate, or even medium term resolution, at least as far as I understand it from either party on it. At least in the near offing so I don't think this one, I guess what I would like then is I would also like some information pertaining to that. Is it real? Not real? What are the real particulars of the timing concerning that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Regardless I'd like to see a two week tabling. I don't want it to go any further. This gentleman's entitled to a determination of this issue. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Roger Knutson: So I can understand. Is the City staff supposed to have someone prepare an appraisal? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well that, I didn't understand the motion when I voted in the affirmative because I don't agree with that. I think it's the responsibility of the City to prove that it's going to materially depreciate it. Tom Byrne: ...this is November in Minnesota and we're going to get snowed on. In two weeks if the snow's too deep, the house ain't going to come in until spring except for on a flatbed and chopped up by my sawzall or, either way I'm losing money that I could be putting in to make the house nicer so even two weeks. Even if they don't run it over with the bulldozer, if the snowplow gets it instead, it's one or the other. I'm in a time crunch and I can provide ' fair representation of the cost of the house in about 10 minutes. I didn't pay for it. It wasn't done by me or for me. It was done for the mortgage company so... I� I Councilman Berquist: But what it fails to address is the impact on the surrounding properties. Tom Byrne: Probably. But it shows the value that's similar to, it's actually more than what Mr. Veltcamp paid for my old house so take that at face value. It's not a cheap house. It's not small. My lot is larger than Mr. Veltcamp's. I can't speak for the Discher's. It might be larger than their's too. My intent is to keep it as private as possible and considering all the things that are going for it, it will probably be worth quite a bit and if I can assume some of that. Councilman Berquist: Should we just pass a motion to table this contingent on appraisals and contingent on him calling Carl Zinn to talk about delaying the construction of the property? Councilwoman Dockendorf Well I would challenge that because I didn't understand the motion when I voted in favor of it. Councilman Berquist: I think one of the other two have to challenge it. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No, I do. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, she was in the affirmative. We don't have any say. Councilman Senn; You want to see a time constraint? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I want to see a time constraint and I want to see the City pay for this appraisal. 23 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: I don't think that we. Colleen, I don't want to speak for Roger but I don't think we should be in the position of commissioning any appraisal on this matter. That's not our job. Our job is to evaluate the information independent. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well then I want to see the neighbors paying for this... Councilman Senn: If they come back in here in the period and don't have an appraisal and the applicant walks in with an appraisal it seems to me we've got our information. Okay. Councilman Mason: And then the problem is, the neighbors get somebody that will appraise it their way and Mr. Byrne gets somebody that will appraise it his way. I mean this is worst case scenario now. So we need, the decision is still going to be in our lap. Councilman Senn: Any professional registered appraiser isn't going to ... because that's where they want to see. He could lose his license. Tom Byrne: It wasn't appraised for me at all. It was appraised for... Mayor Chmiel: No, we understand that. Councilman Senn: Bank appraisals aren't even always by certified appraisers though either. Mayor Chmiel: With the motion as is, and were you withdrawing your affirmative motion on that? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll recall the question. All those in favor say aye? Councilman Berquist: Are we talking about the original motion that I made? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, before we go back to his, are you asking for a new motion Colleen or are you asking for an amendment on the two weeks? I'm just trying to understand where we're at this point. Councilwoman Dockendorf I'm asking for clarification as to who's going to pay for it and I'm asking for an amendment on the time period. And I'm also struggling with the fact that we're, I'm trying to find a delicate word. We're screwing two parties here by not having, by the City not having it's act together. Councilman Mason: Well, I disagree with that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we're putting time constraints when Mr. Byrne has been following everything to the best of his knowledge to get this accomplished by the time the snow flies and that's where we've failed him. Councilman Mason: Well, then we approve the moving permit tonight and that's taken care of. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the remedy for that is not necessarily approval of the request. Councilman Senn: You know Colleen, I'll agree with part of your statement, and I'll paraphrase, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're sitting here tonight having to, and consider having to, and consider cutting the proverbial baby in a sense because you have people who have absolutely no dialogue and didn't know what was going on and that's not the way our processes are supposed to work, okay. When a house is being moved into this community, we have an ordinance on the books. Whether it's good or bad, it should have sent a red flag up and we shouldn't be here at the eleventh hour deciding this issue in this fashion. And you know I mean that's just the reality, 24 7 d City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 but we are but that's not a fair way to cram it through simply because we are here at the eleventh hour. I think we've got to follow the ordinance. ' Councilman Mason: I agree with everything that's being said here and we are following the ordinance now. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're comfortable in your mind making a determination that this project will not, in any way, shape or form, affect the values of the other properties in the negative? Councilman Mason: Based on the information I have from the City Attorney, and what I've heard tonight, yes I am. ' Based on what our City Attorney said the research that he's done on it and based on what I know about Carver Beach, yes. I am comfortable with that. ' Councilman Senn: Well our attorney's made no evaluation that we have. Councilman Mason: You asked if I was comfortable moving this tonight and yes I am. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We're going to recall that question. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the House Moving Permit for ' Tom Byrne until appraisals can be brought in showing there will be no adverse affect on the neighboring property values. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. ' Mayor Chmiel: The motion fails. Is there another motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf I would respectfully request that we wait 15 minutes to see this appraisal. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All right, and that appraisal if forth coming? Tom Byrne: Yep. It's on the way. ' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call a recess for. Councilman Senn: Can't we just table this item and go on with the other agenda items? Mayor Chmiel: Well we can. Councilwoman Dockendorf: The other items are going to take a while. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do that then. ...What I'm going to do is ask that we table this for a short period of time and move on to the next public hearing that we have. We won't sit here and wait to see what happens but I think it's crucial to get that information that can be provided to us. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALE OF LOTS 5 & 6, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5 TH ADDITION TO THE CHASKA/CHANHASSEN HOCKEY ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ICE ARENA. 1 Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing on this item. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Under Minnesota Statute the City Council must consider holding a public hearing when considering disposing of public lands. Staff did publish a notice in the Chanhassen Villager on October 31" regarding the proposed sale of land to the Chaska /Chanhassen Hockey Association for the construction of an ice arena on Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 5 1h Addition. Included in your packet was the staff report regarding this item, which was on your City Council agenda in September 23, 1996 regarding the Hockey Association's request for a land transfer. Manager's comments in the packet highlight concerns that staff had 1 25 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 brought up regarding future public works expansion and future relocation of the compost site and the recycling center. Staff ...is concerned regarding these three items and that the Council will have to deal with these issues down the line as the need arises for the expansion of all three of these... With that, staff would request that the Mayor and the Council open the public hearing to solicit public comments regarding this item. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time that would like to provide some public comments in regard to the consideration of the sale of land to Chaska/Chanhassen Hockey Association? Is there anyone here? If not, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Councilman Berquist: As I stated before, I'd really like to see this area be available for a hockey association building. I have a couple of thoughts that I'd like to bounce off everyone. Regarding the donation of the land, and the value thereof. I understand that there's a problem if the City continues to own the land outright and leases it to the Hockey Association from a primary lenders point of view. What I would like to explore is the possibility of putting a five year second mortgage on the property, reducing the balance over a five year period of time. That in essence gives you your equity and it still provides some assurance to the City that if in fact the thing, heaven forbid, does not perform, that we have some recourse with the primary lender. That's item one. Item two. I would really like to be able to see both, or all three functions, the arena, public works expansion, and/or composting and recycling worked into that site. There's two lots, and I don't know how many acres they are but it's an appreciable amount of land. I think if we were able to access it off of Audubon we could create a well hidden and very functional public works facility. In a conversation I had over the weekend there's a problem with any primary lender in any kind of a joint road or joint easement agreement from a parking perspective or cross traffic perspective. So we'd either have to create some type of an access area off of Park Circle, Park Road, Park Drive. Whatever that road is. To allow ourselves access to that remaining land that wouldn't be used by the Hockey Association, or give ourselves access off of Audubon. Mayor Chmiel: Anything more? Councilman Berquist: That's the extent. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Todd, is there room for all uses on this piece of property? Todd Gerhardt: The access off of Audubon is real difficult given the contours. It drops off dramatically and there would have to be ... brought in. I don't know if you could, and you'd have to do a lot of clear cutting through an existing grove of trees that are there. We looked at trying to incorporate the compost site on what would be off the parking lot of the plan. And there just didn't seem that there was going to be enough room. Using Eden Prairie's compost site as an example, and one of the other factors was, do you want a big compost site right next to your ice arena and... Councilman Mason: I bet they don't care. Mayor Chmiel: Just give me ice. Councilwoman Dockendorf: In terms of public works expansion, would the soils even support a building without very expensive soil work? Todd Gerhardt: We don't feel that there's, that an ice arena and a public works facility can exist... 26 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: If it were not an ice arena, would it be financially feasible to build a public works building on that site? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Basically the ice arena is the same kind of facility that the public works would be. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all the questions I have right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm interested in what Steve has to say about trying to figure out if we can do multiple use there. It sounds from Todd as though that. Todd let me ask you, did you see that as being completely out of the question? Todd Gerhardt: No. I think there have been some other discussions that we've been working with the lake communities in trying to share uses and we've completed a current survey and they mark down their number one, or our's was shared compost site. I don't think we're ever going to be exempt from having some type of local drop off... Don Ashworth: If I could Mr. Mayor. ! Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Don Ashworth: The site would not be big enough to do a sharing, as Todd said, with public works or composting. I think as we grow at public works there is the potential for the recycling component as it's currently being operated by Carver County. So there may be sufficient room for ice arena plus that type of an operation, but not composting. Composting or public works, either of those two would devour the entire site all by themselves. Councilman Mason: Okay, so just to make this really clear. Recycling and the hockey arena may. Don Ashworth: May. Councilman Mason: Be an option. I certainly concur with Councilman Berquist about the need for ice in the city of Chanhassen. I think all the reasons have been remunerated more than often enough. I'd like to know how we can move forward with that tonight as we continue the discussions. What we would need to do to protect the City's interest and make it possible for our Chan/Chaska Hockey Association to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, first of all I guess I'd like to compliment the Association because I think it's just wonderful that somebody's come in and said, you know in some type of a partnership relationship, it'd be nice if the City could do something on the land and we'll take care of doing all the capital improvements and the facility and stuff like that. That's not generally the way we're approached. I mean we're generally approached is will you do it for us. So I'd very much like to compliment the Association on that. I think as an end result I think that's what we need to accomplish. I don't know if we've found the best way to do that yet. Todd, kind of a question. I mean I understand the staff analysis we've been given, which primarily goes into an analysis of placement of or use of as a public works facility, compost, recycling, etc. Okay. Have we done any analysis as to, is there another place or a better place or equally as good a place to provide the same land to the Hockey thing? I mean have we looked at all the alternatives? I don't know. I'm no expert on it. I mean a corner of Bandimere Park. I mean you know, where the soccer field's supposed to go in the Villages. Rather than a soccer field, an ice arena with shared parking with the church. Have we looked at any of the alternatives is what I'm saying? ' Todd Gerhardt: I think Todd did sit down with, I think it was Steve and pulled out the city map wherever we owned land and they tried to find another location that would accommodate the size of this building and parking. We looked out at Lake Ann. How to use federal monies in acquiring and we'd have to reimburse the federal government to locate a facility out there. And Bandimere, due to the amount of grading and everything that needs to be done out 27 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 1 there, for future development of that park, it was never a concept to include an ice arena... Those basically are the ' only sites where we own property that could handle it. Councilman Senn: How about under the new referendum to purchase the property on the park referendum? Todd Gerhardt: I think that plays a factor into how soon they need to get going. CCHA Representative: Yes. We need to get going with the location... to secure. I won't do any of those, I won't go any further on the negotiations until we've secured land... Councilman Senn: Well and I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. CCHA Representative: This is not an ideal site with respect that it will need some soil corrections... If you've got a site that's better than that, certainly entertain that offer. But yes, time is growing rather short in respect that we do need to know where our site will be before we can go further with negotiations with the corporate... Councilman Senn: A question back to you. In that we now have a plan for a fair number of temporary soccer fields and we have a long range..., what about the idea of the soccer field that was going to be incorporated in closer now under the Villages plan? Is that the recreational facility it needs to be? I mean is there possible common parking then with the church as it relates to this, or what? Or where do we sit? I mean that's kind of all been off in a separate negotiation but where is that going? , Kate Aanenson: There is no soccer field on the Villages site. That's off. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's off now totally? Kate Aanenson: Yes. The only way there would be a soccer field is if they were to come back in and go through that process but that has been eliminated from the site plan. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, so totally. Okay. All right. I guess if this is, if what I'm hearing is this is kind of like the only and the best place to put it, I understand our plight as it relates to public works. But at the same time I really want to see us do something to accommodate the association, because like I say, it's nice to see a proposal of this ' fashion. I wouldn't want to discourage it in any way. As we get past this as a concept and the particulars though, I think there's one issue we're going to really have to make sure that we deal with and I understand the issue of providing the land on a lease you know versus a sale. In fact I made that comment when this first came up. Well in fact we just, our company just represented a client on one that happened about 30 days ago involving 2 acres and a Holiday convenience store on it, on a long term lease that was financed out. You can finance out land leases. Now, the only reason that I think we need to look at that harder is, is I don't want to see us put the City in a position whereby we effectively furnish a gift or a piece of land and our only way to recover that investment is to buy our own , land and the building back if it goes bad. I don't think that's the proper position for us to put the City in. I think there needs to be some sort of specifics or way designed where we look at what we're providing as an investment to the community, which is what I think it is, but we also need to protect that investment... in case the thing goes down the tubes. And nothing against the association but, you know we don't need to end up losing effectively land control as well as use control and end up with a warehouse functioning out of a hockey dome. And our land effectively providing a lot of equity to whoever buys it from the bank after it's gone bad. So I think we need to spend some time on those specifics and those types of protections and make sure that while accommodating what both sides need, again make sure we accommodate the City's side too. I guess enough said on that, and I think we need to make sure that happens. Councilman Berquist: The conversation that I had with the bank about this today, the gentleman indicated that given the structure of the Hockey Association, and the inherent risk in a project like this, that they would, yeah. You can definitely finance leased land structures. But a lending institution would have a hard time swallowing it. So what it's going to amount to if we want to start, and I don't have a problem with it. But what it's going to amount to is ' that we're going to have to sit down with the lenders, the proposed lenders and find out what they want and how we 28 i r City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 can help them structure this deal. We're not going to be able to give any direction without knowing what type of end strings are going to be attached to the mortgage. 1 Councilman Senn: Steve, I agree but I think we need to make sure that our approval makes us kind of contingent on participating in that process and making sure that we protect, you know effectively the City's interest. That way, I mean otherwise sometimes things can just, you know happen as a matter of convenience rather than a matter of need and again, I understand what you're saying. Churches, by the way, have the same problem when they go to build new churches because again there's no live, you know one single live, warm person or guarantee or something to grab onto if the thing goes bad. But I think we're remiss in doing our jobs if we make sure we're not also protecting our investment in kind of the same fashion. I think it can be worked out. We just need to, I think make sure we do it right. Councilwoman Dockendorf Mr. Mayor, may I? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we've got two competing city uses. One very glamorous, one not so glamorous but both necessary and I'm hearing consensus that we all want to go with making this work for an ice arena. Since we're only asking for consideration of this to happen I would forward a motion that we approve the sale or lease of this parcel to the Chan/Chaska Hockey Association contingent on working out the details, keeping the City's interest in mind, in terms of if it goes bad, etc. ' Councilman Senn: Friendly amendment? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Would you turn that last sentence basically saying contingent upon the City's approval of the final financing conditions, and I think you'll accomplish the same thing? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, right. Councilman Senn: City Council's approval. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That gives the Association the wherewithal to go forward on it. Councilman Berquist: An additional friendly amendment as to the subdivision of the land. In Don Ashworth's memo to the Council he alludes to the dividing the property so that the City maintains possession of, what I'm assuming to be the wooded areas that are off of Galpin. So I'm suspecting that he has some use in mind, whether it be recycling or composting or public works. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to retain all pieces of the parcel that are not necessarily necessary for the construction of the arena and parking. ' Councilman Senn: Yeah, I had assumed that in the motion from the staff report. That's fine me the second. We're only selling, or I mean we will only provide effectively what we need to provide. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's necessary. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. 1 29 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 1 Councilman Mason: Can we, yeah. Before we vote on this, can we hear what CCHA, what their feelings are on all of this. Mark Ekloh: Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Mark Ekloh. I'm involved in the financing of the association's , building and looking at the different alternatives. We understand the Council's wanting to protect the City's interest and not get involved in donating something that could go bad, and then benefit some individual. Understand. We're dealing with a number of large corporations for sponsorship to help build this building. And for us to go ahead and spend a lot of time designing and building this building, we need to know that the financing thing is a decision that can be made. We don't want to go through that whole process and then come back to the City. So I think a compromise would probably be something along the lines of what Councilman Berquist originally proposed. That you put a second mortgage on behind that lasts for X number of years with a decreasing value each year or something, and in that way you're assured that your property is protected in the sense that if something goes wrong in year 1 or 2, you would only be incurring the cost of the arena itself. Not the land. I didn't understand your statement Councilman Senn when you said we have to buy our own land back. I don't know how that would happen if we're providing a down payment plus the land, the mortgage will be approximately 60% of the cost of the total project. Councilman Senn: And if it goes bad, it goes back to the bank and the bank will sell it to the highest bidder. Okay. And if we are going to get our land back, we have to put in a bid, which includes effectively the price for the land and the improvements on it. Mark Ekloh: It would only be a bid for their mortgage, plus a dollar. Councilman Senn: Well, whatever they had at the Sheriff's sale. That doesn't necessarily have to be. , Mark Ekloh: But essentially it would only be the building itself that would then be purchased. And that way I think it gives the City a guarantee and you doing your due diligence in terms of making sure that the building is properly � used. But yet it gives us the freedom to go out and deal with a bunch of these corporations and stuff in terms of negotiating our final financing for the building. For us to spend the time and energy to pull all these people together and then come back and go through Council approving the financing package, it would be almost impossible for us to do that. Unless it's a more cut and dry proposal. Something along the lines of what Councilman Berquist proposed. And leasing just does not work for us. We've approached three or four different lenders with corporate help and everyone of them said unequivocally, if leasing is the option, tell them no. It won't work. They've told us that... information that he received regarding leasing, that given the type of building and the organization that's building it, the structure of the organization, that leasing just isn't a possibility for us. We would have to say thank you, but no thanks. It doesn't work for us now if that was the case, where you thought you had to go that route. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I just finished going through a project in the City of Plymouth. Lifetime Fitness project. The City owned the land and just worked through all these issues. Councilman Senn there is a way by a subordination agreement where we can provide, if they default on their mortgage, we can pay off their mortgage, and there's a time period for us doing that. We can also talk about assumption, but normally you would not want to assume a mortgage because you can get a much more favorable rate than they possibly can. So you can structure it that it's satisfied, and in the case I'm dealing with Norwest Bank, and they have millions at stake. Not $200,000.00. Millions and millions, and they were very comfortable with it because they knew they were going to get their money. That's all they wanted so all we have to do, if they default and god forbid they never do, but if they do, then all we have to do is essentially pay off that first mortgage and the property's our's. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen, under those circumstances, do you feel that you'd like to withdrawn your. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I was going to say. Let me withdraw it altogether. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and the second of that as well? 30 � 1 � J City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Steve, I think you seconded it. Councilman Berquist: Did I? Councilman Senn: No I did I guess. I'll withdraw the second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then I would ask for another. Councilman Senn: How about a motion that we approve the sale where I guess. Well, I guess what do we term this? I mean is it actually. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're not approving the sale. Councilman Senn: I mean we're approving the, Roger what are we approving? The concept of the sale? Roger Knutson: That's all you're doing. Paperwork to follow. Councilman Senn: Okay. So what we're doing is we're approving the concept of the sale and we're providing, and we're asking staff to basically provide or. Roger Knutson: Put the paperwork together. Councilman Senn: Put the paperwork together and provide the proper safeguards through subordination, second mortgage, whatever to protect the City's interest in relationship to. Roger Knutson: You're not... Councilman Senn: No, no. Mayor Chmiel: No. I think the motion that Steve made, would you like to repeat that one Steve. No, no. The one he had before I think probably will play the same part as to what you're saying. Councilman Senn: No, because I don't buy the 5 year second mortgage. I mean the subordination idea I think makes sense... it goes the full term of the mortgage. Mayor Chmiel: That's true. That will interfere with. Councilman Berquist: I suspect there's going to be some input from the lender as to what his desire is. The important thing is to express the intent. Mayor Chmiel: And we're talking strictly considering of the sale with staff preparing all the paperwork as Roger indicated. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second Mark's motion. Councilman Senn: And just so the applicant understands, I mean again that paperwork still has to come back for approval, correct? Roger Knutson: Oh sure. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Councilman Senn: You can't take that away. Mayor Chmiel: But we have to start somewhere. 31 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Roger Knutson: I think they have a very plain, clear indication of what the Council's direction is. Now all we have to do is put it on paper. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: Do you want to throw anything on there about the subdivision of the land? The splitting of the land to ensure that the City has that land that abuts Audubon. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Just to basically say that the land, the concept of sale here involves only that land which is absolutely necessary for the hockey facility. Councilwoman Dockendorf That was my understanding as well. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the concept of selling that portion of land on Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 5` Addition necessary to facilitate an ice arena to the Chaska /Chanhassen Hockey Association and directing staff to prepare the necessary paperwork. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONTINUATION OF HOUSE MOVING PERMIT, 6726 LOTUS TRAIL, TOM BYRNE. Mayor Chmiel: We'll go back to item number 3 on the house moving permit. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let me, may I Mr. Mayor? , Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to restate my intent for requesting the continuation or recess or whatever we did there. My intention was to get some documentation about the valuation of the property and I'm not certain that that's going to placate my desire to make sure that we're done everything in the proper steps. My desire is to make sure that the neighbors who are concerned about their depreciating property values, have the opportunity to make their case that's necessary. My other thought is, as I expressed earlier, it's very unfortunate that we're to this time , constraint. But I also do respect the desire of the applicant to get things moving before the snow flies. Having said that, I would forward, restate my motion, and maybe I didn't make it a motion last time. That we give the, all parties concerned the opportunity to provide some documentation about the effect on surrounding property values. And I want to put a time period of two weeks on that, recognizing that that is a constraint, but also recognizing that the applicant has gone through every proper step in order to get this accomplished. Somewhere along the line the City fell down, or perhaps just the way things are normally taken care of that there's not adequate time for people to figure out what needs to be. Well, anyway. I do have a couple questions, if I may. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Roger, would the Carver County Assessor have a conflict of interest if he were appointed to give an independent assessment of this parcel? And the surrounding property values. Roger Knutson: I can only speculate. I doubt very much that he would do that. Excuse me. I would guess he would not undertake an assignment to make individual appraisals. The Courts give you the market value data he has on the whole neighborhood. That's public information. But he wouldn't undertake an appraisal for you. For this purpose. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. My second question is, in your professional experience, have you seen a -situation similar to this where a property has decreased the value of surrounding property? Considering that this is an improvement to the current land. Roger Knutson: No. To be honest with you. That doesn't mean it's not, couldn't be possible but it's very difficult. Lots of people have tried and probably the most famous case in the State of Minnesota is the airport noise cases, 32 n City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 which was litigated over a period of years. I would guess, and just guessing, hundreds of thousands of dollars were thrown into the appraisals of...and we got a flat zero. They were unable prove, even though my common sense tells ' me it's depreciated, because I live over there. And that's why I bought it is because I got a good deal. But they were unable to prove that there was any depreciation of value caused because airplanes were going right over your house. Other examples, I worked on a gravel case, always on the city's side. I was involved in a gravel permit issue where the neighbors tried to prove depreciation of surrounding property values by the location of a new gravel pit which the neighbors didn't find very much to their liking. The appraisal testimony that came in was, no. It would depreciate values at all. Another example locally. Getting back to home, is the Eckankar situation where the City in that case commissioned an appraisal because there were concerns raised and the answer was no. No depreciation of values. There's a lot of issues like that. Lots of times the plans are made very hard perhaps going onto impossible to substantiate. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would still support my motion that the neighbors are provided an opportunity to prove that and with a two week time period. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger, you had a chance to review their proposal that they had gotten for their appraisal. ' Roger Knutson: Yes, they have presented us with an appraisal dated October 10` of this year from a licensed appraiser in the State of Minnesota. It says the property as of October 9 with the house, with the improvements, is ' estimated at a market value of $129,000.00. That's based upon comparables. Councilman Senn: I'll second Colleen's motion. Councilman Berquist: I want to make sure I understand. Your motion is to put the onus on the adjoining property owners to solicit appraisals documenting devaluation or ascertaining their existing property values with or without the structure. Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's correct. Councilman Berquist: And it does not infer any, or it doesn't cause any cost to the City. You're not advocating that the City pay for this? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's correct. r Councilman Berquist: Okay. And you're advocating a two week time period? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's right. Councilman Berquist: And in the event that appraisals are not forth coming within two weeks, then the decision rests solely with the Council. Okay. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Mike. Councilman Mason: I think I've made my position pretty well known throughout this. I do think that putting a time limit on it is, if you will, a decent compromise and I certainly sympathize with your concerns. I'm hoping you can wait 2 more weeks. And I understand your issues but I think when everything is said and done here, waiting 2 more weeks, I would hope, I would think would certainly help any neighborhood situation out as well. ' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: To clarify Colleen, or Councilmember Dockendorf s question. I believe that we would be able to contact the assessor and ask him the question, after looking at the house that would be proposed to be moved in. In 33 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 1 his opinion does he feel as though the surrounding properties should be reduced in value or increased or stay the same and I think he would provide that response. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Then I would request that. And I'll make that part of my motion. Mayor Chmiel: All right. Does the second accept that addition? Councilman Senn: Do you think he'll do that? , Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. Councilman Senn: No, but I mean if I were the County Assessor, I wouldn't be doing my job if I came back and said that it's going to reduce values and then provide effectively all those people automatic appeals to reduce their houses Don. It's not going to happen. I mean I don't mind asking the question. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Let's ask the question and leave it at that. Councilman Senn: I don't mind asking the question but I think let's do it independently of this motion and not make ' this motion contingent upon something that we don't know how he's going to answer. Otherwise how are we going to get back together here inside of two weeks and change the motion not to include it. I mean again, we can't speak for the Assessor tonight. Let's not obligate him. Andrea: I have a question. Are they going to be able to accurately assess that house in the condition it's now in? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would think that they would take last year's appraisal from Excelsior. That would be my estimation. Andrea: Because there's no roof or walls or... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: So your motion stands as is? Originally stated. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Without the request to the assessor. Councilman Mason: I guess my only hope would be, with any sort of independent appraisal, well no. r Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying basically is it just might take longer? , Councilman Mason: Well I'm going to vote on this in two weeks. I think that's only fair at this point. And I hope that any certified appraisal would take into account planned and future improvements. Mayor Chmiel: All right. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table consideration of the House Moving Permit for Tom Byrne at 6726 Lotus Trail for two weeks in order to give the neighbors time to obtain appraisals. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: Clarification. I'll make the assumption that you still want me to try to contact the Excelsior City and I slow things down. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was part of it. 34 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING ZONE" ALONG FOX HOLLOW ROAD BETWEEN PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND GRAY FOX LANE, FILE NO. PW -056. Charles Folch presented the staff report but it was not picked up on the tape due to a number of conversations going on in the room at the same time. Councilman Senn: One quick question. Non curb section? Charles Folch: Right. The section, if you look at the location map on your staff report, you see there's kind of a curved linear portion of the roadway. Basically a connection with the subdivision. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're talking about the little connector street in- between that and the other neighborhood? Charles Folch: Exactly. That's the portion that's not the standard width ... so when you do have parking on both sides it creates a problem for access. Councilman Senn: All right, move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Yes. Audience: I've just got one question. Are we sure it's not going all the way up to Gray Fox Lane? Charles Folch: No it's not. It's just the non -curb section. Resolution #96 -101: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the resolution restricting parking on the north side of Fox Hollow Road between Pleasant Park Drive and Gray Fox Lane on the non -curb section of Fox Hollow Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, POST OFFICE CARRIER ANNEX SITE, WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD ON LAKE DRIVE WEST. 1 Public Present: 1 �. I Name Address Marcia Strand 8631 Valley View Court Bob Beduhn 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North Bill Kemble 1782 Valley Ridge Trail North Brian Marschall U.S. Postal Service Lora Grgich RSP Architects Ltd. Mayor Chmiel: Staff has indicated we just recently got some information, received information from the post office. Kate. Date Aanenson: The site is located in the Chan Business Industrial Park. It's located off of Audubon Road. The U.S. Post Office is proposing to build a 46,000 square foot building. The site is zoned IOP ... office park. The post office intends to use cut faced block on all four sides of the building. With three different colors. This site plan has been modified ... it does have canopies with it. The PUD requires that all the walls be given architectural design and appropriate landscaping. The building itself, the bands meet that requirement of the PUD as far as detail and design. The landscaping plan, staff had additional comments. The use of the building is classified as warehouse which is permitted in the PUD. The building itself has ... parking spaces for the mail carriers ... and then three garage doors to service this area with access to the building. The carrier annex ... and loading dock to the rear. Staff had 35 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 recommended` additional berming be placed along the rear. There is a 100 foot berm between the adjoining the properties. Bluff Creek Estates subdivision. There's a 100 foot berm here and a trail. Staff had recommended additional landscaping. On November 6 th the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan from the post office carrier annex and had made recommendations. The post office was exempt from the... regulations. The Planning Commission had made recommendations to the City Council. Prior to that there was a neighborhood meeting and there was an opportunity to provide information to the neighbors regarding the specific proposal project. When staff received an EAW, it was indicated that the project ... site plan review, which a member of our staff was working with the post office on, and also indicated the hours of operation as far as night time hours, and at that time there was no night time hours indicated as part of the EAW. The post office's architectural firm had prepared at the Planning Commission meeting additional landscaping. The neighbors also hired a landscape architect who had a separate proposal. Their proposal had a berm 8 to 10 high with a fence on top of that. There was some concern about the ground vegetation and the alteration to, what it would do to the drainage pattern in that area. The Planning Commission recommended that the City facilitate a landscaping and lighting plan with the neighbors, and that meeting was held on Friday. That meeting also included the City Attorney, the Planning Commission Chairman Nancy Mancino and a neighbor via a conference call. At that meeting we reviewed options and also discussed the EAW... One of the options that was proposed is maybe having an acoustic consultant look at that. Whether or not noise continuation could be accomplished in looking at the berm, and what's the most effective way to accomplish that. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the project but incorporated several conditions. One being that the City incorporate the industrial driveway apron detail. There were engineering concerns. Also rock entrances during the construction. Grading and ... of the berm ... the neighbors, what their issues were. That the roof mounted equipment be screened. We had numerous applications within that district with the Weather Service. Because those buildings were intended to be, in the industrial park, they were intended to be lower in elevation... some of that would be seen but the intent was to try to screen some of that. ...what we did on the National Weather Service building. There were parapet walls extended to try to cover it up but there's no way you can do a total screen based on the fact that that's so much lower than even from Audubon Road. So we had... screening roof top equipment. Also we had the standards for the sign requirements, which no sign detail was submitted. Finally, a lighting plan. We did receive a lighting plan. They have to meet the %2 foot candle at the property line, which they have indicated that the existing... plan shows the details of the lighting today so we have received that. The other things that they had recommended, the Planning Commission recommended the post office, is that they move the loading dock to the east side of the site, and I'll let the architect handle ... of that. And also, the issue that really the City Council has to look at tonight, as far as the landscaping is, one of the proposals for additional landscaping, which would be the relocation of the trail, so that may be an issue. And then also, I included one thing... proposed fee for using the acoustic consultant if the city was to choose to go that direction and try to get some better information on what would be the best way to accomplish... It was an issue with the neighbors with the sound lines backing up... EAW had no night time traffic shown on there and most of the traffic is actually coming off of loading, in and out of the carrier routes. So that's certainly the issue the neighborhood... So with that, those 9 conditions, Planning Commission recommended approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions of Kate? Steve, do you have any? Councilman Berquist: No. Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: What's the cost involved in hiring this noise consultant? Kate Aanenson: The bid that we were given. Roger Knutson: $3,390.00. Councilman Mason: And that would be city expense? 36 [_l l Lj II u City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 t Kate Aanenson: That's coming out of that... Councilman Mason: As it stands now, just so I'm clear. Any of these recommended changes would cost, and at issue, is who would pay for those costs? Kate Aanenson: I believe the post office is willing to do additional landscaping. They can speak to that tonight. Bryan Marschall: Can I make a correction on that? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Bryan Marschall: We're, my name is Bryan Marschall. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can. Bryan Marschall: ...with the U.S. Postal Service. At this point, what we've committed to do, and at a previous meeting we had last, a week ago Thursday, was to work with the City and the developer and owner of the business park to make whatever changes might be necessary to the 100 foot easement area to the rear of the postal service site ' that would satisfy, or would help alleviate the concerns of the residents who live in back of the postal service, proposed carrier annex. So at this point we think there's an issue about who should be paying for those, the berm, the landscaping and that kind of thing but we're willing to sit down and talk to the City and the owner /developer of the business park as to just who ultimately ends up paying for those improvements. But at this point we're willing to, ' we're committed to working with everyone involved to help satisfy the concerns of the residents. So I did just want to make a little clarification in what you were saying. 'J Councilman Senn: I have a question then. Are you willing to stop construction until that happens? Bryan Marschall: No, we're not. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'm sorry, maybe it's the hour of night but I didn't hear any clarification there. I heard you were willing to sit down and talk about who's going to pay for it. That didn't clarify the issue for me at all. Bryan Marschall: How can I help you? Councilwoman Dockendorf Are you willing to pay for an acoustics engineer? Bryan Marschall: I wouldn't be able to commit to that tonight. We'd have to look at that issue. That's the first time it's been brought up, called to my attention. Councilman Mason: I don't have any more questions at this time, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: All right, Mark. Councilman Senn: Not at this moment I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, nor do I. I suspect that the neighbors that are here this evening, and it's one of those things that sometimes Council goes on and on. Is there any questions that you have in regards to the discussions that we've had just now? Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name is Bob Beduhn. I'm a resident of the Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North. And I do have some questions in regards to the postal service, and maybe what I can do is raise questions that the Council can ask of the postal service. I don't know how this forum exactly works but I 37 , Ci ty Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 , don't know if I'm allowed to direct a question at the postal service in this forum so I'll ask the question and maybe you can ask it back to them. I'd like to go back to this environmental assessment that Kate did talk about, and I've been doing some research in regards to you know, what sort of rights does the city have, and we as citizens have in regards to dealing with the federal government. And it's been obviously made very clear to me that the federal ' government is not subject to local and state rules unless they voluntarily make themselves subject to those rules and those requirements. But they are subject to their own rules and it's very clearly stated in the 39 CFR, which is the Code of Federal Regulations that governs the postal service, that they are supposed to follow what is called the National Environmental Policy Act. And as part of that, following those acts, one of the things they have to do is when they're doing a new facility like this, is do an environmental assessment. And they follow that. They prepared an environmental assessment and they notified the Mayor. They published a notifications in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. They notified the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Metropolitan Council. And what this is supposed to do is they're supposed to kind of, they hired a consultant and the consultant's representing the postal service and they go through and they say okay. We've got all these environmental issues that we have to deal with and how are we going to address them and mitigate them, and then what they have to do is they have to do a Findings , of No Significant Impact which states that, based on our environmental assessment and the mitigation measures that they've proposed in this environmental assessment, that we're not going to have an impact on the neighborhood. And I'd like to point out just a couple things for the Council, because I know you might not have had a chance to read all these documents, and ... to a couple things that I've found in the document. On page 513 of the document, , where they discuss impacts to land use and zoning patterns, the last paragraph. I'd like to read what the postal service put in here. Furthermore, the design and layout of the facility between lighting, landscaping and building characteristics ... adverse impacts to adjacent land uses are minimized. The next paragraph. Landscaping and design ' elements included as part of the proposed project will serve to mitigate any potentially adverse impacts to surrounding land uses. On page 71 of this document, the postal service ... what permits they're going to apply for. That they say is the required permits and what they're going to do is make sure that they mitigate the negative environmental impacts of this facility. The second item in that table on page 71. It says local government. City of Chanhassen, site plan application, site plan review, status. To be completed. They never went through the site plan review process until after they broke ground and after the neighbors made a big deal of it. They never voluntarily did it. The City Planning Commission, at our request, did a site plan review and brought recommendations to the ' Council. They have never voluntarily gone through that. And one of my questions I would like you to ask them is, why would they put this in here if they did not intend to follow it. The second item which I think is important is to deal with the transportation planning issues of this project. And I refer to page 519 of the environmental assessment, and then the subsequent table, 5.2. In that document they clearly state to do a traffic analysis and trip , generation reports. Hours of operation. When the first semi's going to arrive. All these sorts of things. Now the concept in doing this is that the Mayor and'people on the Environmental Quality Board will read through this and say, is this a reasonable project... reasonable steps to mitigate ... you know what, they're operating during normal , business hours. And they're going to do landscaping and berming. They say they're going to do that. I mean this landscaping and berming they're doing, they say they're going to do that right here in this document. They're not doing anything extra. This is something they said they were going to do. And here they're saying that they're going to operate during normal business hours. 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. is when semi's are supposed to come in and out of , that facility. Now we have them on tape, 3:00 a.m., 4:00 a.m., 5:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., six days a week. So my other question is why, you know that's a pretty significant change. Why didn't they redo the environmental know assessment when they found out that they were doing a substantial change in the operation of the facility? You to put it frankly, in my opinion, they lied. They prepared this and they defrauded everybody. They defrauded the NEPA process. They defrauded the Environmental Quality Board. They defrauded the Met Council and they defrauded the City of Chanhassen. They lied to you. Staff reviewed this. Got ... and kind of working with them and they said they were going to go through site plan review. They were going to make application. They got normal ' business hours. And low and behold on October 8th they submit final plans and a couple days later they start moving dirt and then they hide behind their federal privileges that we gave them when the Constitution was written that they have all these powers. And so now the federal government's saying, you know what. Eh, we don't need this , environmental assessment. We're the federal government. We're just going to build this thing. Maybe we'll work with the City of Chanhassen on moving a bike trail. We're willing to sit down with you and work with you. Well you know what, they said they were going to do this anyhow. So I'd like to have those questions answered. Today I talked to the U.S. District Court. I talked to the State Attorney General. I talked to lawyers at the Environmental Protection Agency. I've talked to private attorneys and you know what, I think I'm going to be spending the weekend at the University of Minnesota Law Office. Because I'm not going to take this crap. They said they were , 38 n I' I� J � i F1, 1 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 going to do something. By god, if I have anything to do with it, they're going to. If that means stopping construction and costing the postal service a bunch of money, well gosh darn it, it's going to happen. Because I know I can write a document and I can take these suckers to Court and you know what, this is my family. I've got a little daughter at home and these guys are going to screw her life up. Because they're going to come in at 3:00 in the morning and they're going to be backing their trucks up and they're going to be disturbing our neighborhood. This isn't consistent with this environmental assessment. That's what I have to say and I hope you ask them those questions. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Marcia Strand: My name is Marcia Strand. I also live in Bluff Creek Estates at 8631 Valley View Court. Now I'm a former teacher so I have handouts. As anybody will remember, teachers don't trust you to take your own notes so they create study guides. So I thought what I would like to do is take a few minutes of time, even though it's getting late, and go over how we got to where we are today. As Bob stated, he first found out about this construction when he was out walking his dog and noticed that there was construction going on. The following day he spoke to the planning office and the clerk said it was the United States Postal Service and they were building a carrier annex there. And took some time to walk around the neighborhood and advise all of us of what was going on. We found that he was able to look at the plans, that the most disturbing part of this facility was that all the employee parking and the loading docks, basically the business end of the building, was on the only side that faces the residential area. And on that plan there was no berm shown. We had had a berm that had been built there. We listened all summer to them building that berm and planting seed on it and all that kind of stuff. So the berm was there but according to the plan it was not going to remain. So the next several days the city office, planning offices and several councilmen and all sorts of people were barraged by the neighbors to try to find out more information about this. We got a lot of federal authorities blaming the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chanhassen talking big bad government. And everybody pointing fingers with no resolution. So we continued to work. We met as a neighborhood group to try to prepare ourselves and share our information. We all stated, as we gathered together, that prior to buying our lots to build our houses, every one of us who currently border the business park had spoken with the planning office. I personally spoke with Kate, and at that time asked her about what was planned for there. She had no idea. There were no plans. Nobody had purchased the lot but she did assure me that there was a 100 foot buffer zone between any property development and my property line, and that because I was within 500 feet of any development, I would be notified prior to development, in the planning process for Chanhassen. And because we know, as people who built houses in Chanhassen, how stringent the planning process is, the details that are paid close attention to, my husband and I felt like we had made enough, and had received enough assurance that this was going to be adequate protection from something coming in that we were unaware of and having no opportunity to have input on. We also learned in the plans that the planning department had received word dated 10/8, which was only 2 weeks prior to when we were first finding out about this. On the 28` we attended a Council meeting. Had an opportunity to state our concerns and asked for some support at our meeting on the 30` and there were some Council members available for that. We continued to call. We talked to all sorts of people. We learned on the 301h, in our meeting with the neighborhood, that this was a modular building designed to be the most efficient facility possible for the postal service. And the postal service claimed that they had visited the site, which led me to believe that they intentionally set the property up to have the business end of their building facing my family room. We also were disturbed to find out that although we had been led to believe in our conversations, our recent conversations with the planning department, that they were as shocked as could be about what was going on. I talked to, well I talked to everybody. Everybody was shocked to learn that this was going on, when in fact on the 20 of December of 1995 the Mayor and the planning department got letters saying this is the lot we're going to use. At that time they didn't have the environmental assessment that said they were going to be going through the site plan process, and I can only assume that as professionals they realized that the government did not need to go through site plan review and they would start protecting the citizens of Chanhassen, who pay their salaries, by looking at how this building's going to be built. On the 3 of June we found out also that they received 60% complete plans for review. Or as courtesy plans, and I can only assume that the postal service wanted review. Also at that meeting the postal service said that they would work with us on a berm and asked us to send in writing the request that the neighbors had for this development. We did in fact fax that to them the following morning. They also promised us a timely response, and when they were pressed, they said that would be 2 or 3 days. We got a response to our request yesterday I believe it was. A written response. The most disturbing thing to, or the first disturbing thing that happened was, on Saturday, the 2 nd of November when at 7:00 a.m. they started moving dirt and went all day long, and I've got to tell you it was like salt in 39 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 the wounds. They'd been asked to stop. They refused to stop. And then they worked all day long where we all could watch, and it was really disheartening. That's when we began ,also to learn about the environmental assessments and as Bob, who's credited with doing a great deal of research, learned a lot about environmental assessments and what was required. We all agreed that none of us, as impacted landowners had been contacted by the postal service. We were concerned about what was going to happen in this case so we hired our own landscape designer who helped us put together a berm that met our concerns. Or hopefully would meet our concerns. Each day then the construction continues and the piles of dirt are growing. And we met and talked about what we were going to do when we got to the Planning Commission meeting. Which we attended on the 5 1h and we got a lot of cooperation and support from the Planning Commission, and Kate already talked about the suggestions that they made. We continued and we met, some of our representatives met with the City Attorney and Kate and talked with the postal service. We learned that, as we investigated the environmental assessment again and again, we learned of more and more inconsistencies in what it stated and what was actually happening. We spoke with environmental attorneys. The up shot is that construction still continues. Every day I come home and the dirt is closer to my back yard. It now has completely covered the bike path that's back there that the City has paid money to develop. I assume the City paid for it. I don't know. It's gone over new trees that were planted. I can only assume that they are now killed because there's big piles of dirt up there. And that brings us to today. One of my big concerns is that we can't wait a whole lot longer. I don't know that the postal service is going to do what I want. What we want, and that's to move the loading docks. But I also can't stand around when, as Bob said, we all have children. We did a count at one point and just in the houses that back this up, we're talking about 20 kids under the age of 10. They all go to school. They ail are woken up at 3:00 a.m.. It's definitely compromising our living environment. We all knew we were moving next to an industrial park and we all knew that there was a chance that something was going to come in, that wasn't exactly what our dreams were. But we also thought that we had the protection of the City and the planning process and have been disturbed at the fact that although we all work full time jobs, just like many of you do. We have families that are busy. Every day since we learned about this, I feel like it's almost every day, there's something that was done by the citizens in our neighborhood and I'm just not too sure that I feel like the City Council, our federal representatives, or the postal service are giving this an iota of attention compared to what is happening to us. And I look for the Council tonight to take some action, make some demands of the postal service and quit rolling over on the back and saying, oh it's the big government. The postal service has a history of working with cities. Of trying to get resolution to problems but if you don't ask for anything, they're not going to give us anything. We need your help and that's what we're counting on. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Jerry Riley: I'd like to speak I guess after they represent their landscape here. Are you presenting tonight? Lora Grgich: I sure can. I didn't know if it was necessary. Jerry Riley: I would like to speak I guess after your's, if you are. Okay? Lora Grgich: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Could you go through this proposed berm as it says in the letters, and with landscaping and the type of species you're planning on using. Lora Grgich: My name is Lora Grgich. I'm with RSP Architects, and we're contracting with the post office for this facility. I met Friday afternoon with Kurt and Jerry to discuss an alternative on the landscape plan that would bring the post office's ideas and the residents' ideas closer together. And what you see tonight is another step towards that. What it basically involves is putting more trees. Some of the concerns that the residents had, in this meeting with Jerry and Kurt. Jerry specifically was talking about wanting spaded trees to be brought in as opposed to being new trees that were going to be smaller. And that's something that we've looked at financially and are willing to do in the, I don't know if you can read this or not. In the planning schedule it goes through what trees are spaded and what trees are being... And the other, and another of the two alternatives and the one that the landscape architects or the landscape architect for the residents came up with, and what we came up with, were really quite similar in a lot of ways. And there are a few major differences. We're both talking about using a 2:1 berm. Technically the City ordinance is 3:1, and that's a mowable surface but we're anticipating this would not be mowed. It would have 40 J L 1 L LJ J City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 shrubbery, etc. Secondly, we were both talking about moving the path. As someone earlier said, on the west side of the site, the path would have to be moved south in order to have space to put a berm in at all. Basically the path, we're showing it here at this new location 24 feet south of where it currently exists. And if that didn't move, you would get roughly a 2 to 3 foot high berm which clearly isn't going to screen too much for the residents. That was very similar on both the schemes. The one large difference was to the east side. The federal Weather Service site. The residents would like the berm to tie in on their property and clearly we have no control over the Weather Service's property. I think that's something that perhaps the City could get involved with. And the number of trees obviously was very different. They had a great deal more trees than we were showing. So this is kind of a compromise between the two. It's showing, and the new one is showing, let me do some quick math. It's too late for quick math. 12 deciduous trees, and this is all just in the buffer zone incidentally. There are more trees on the site. 23 evergreen trees and 40 shrubs. And of the trees, as I said, we'd do some that are spade. On this current plan are showing 5 deciduous trees that are spaded and 7 evergreen trees that are spaded and so those would be I believe 15 feet high. Jerry, did you want to talk now? Jerry Riley: If you're finished, I will. Lora Grgich: Sure. Jerry Riley: Okay. Lora Grgich: Unless, I'm sorry. If someone had some questions. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have any questions? I guess not. Thanks. Jerry Riley: My name's Jerry Riley. I live at 1774 Valley Ridge Trail North. Lora has a fairly close concept I guess for what we want. If the postal service is willing to work with us, and spend probably just a little bit more money, we should be in the same ballpark. This is not to scale, and I apologize for that. I don't draw for a living. This is where I live. I live right on the southeast corner of Bill, Kurt, Bob, Ken, which is Marcia's husband, and Kent. Basically she has the same concept here. We do need permission from the Weather Service to go onto their property. Now who is going to do that, I do not know. I met with him today. He's very reasonable for this, but the reason for this is, the berm drops off right here. It stays on their property. Right here is where 60 employees are coming in every morning starting at 3:00 a.m.. All semi's are coming right here. This is probably the most important area you want to hide to cover the sound and the lights and everything else that is going to be happening there. How I basically looked at the plan is I just drew a sight line for lights and such and Lora comes up with you know quite a bit less numbers than I do. Granted everything's going to be growing but in 30 years when those trees reach maturity, the worms are going to have me. It does me no good right now. And you know, I have two kids. One's 2 `/z and one's 1 %. I don't want them getting up at 3:00 in the morning. They do now, and I hate it. In any event, they also put something in the easement here where the trail was supposed to go. Basically this is our property lines here. And if we would get three into that, although they're not the spade ones. The orange ones are the spaded. The reason why I guess we'd like to spade them is you can get more height out of them. More dense. Basically I have 35 there. Breaks up the cost of $13,000.00. You can't put them on the side of the berm but if you flatten out the top, you can put trees up on top. Takes a little more work. I guess you can spade them into the side but it does take a little more work. I also wanted 40 balled and burlap pines, which are shorter. 6 foot. Cost there $2,700.00. Just basically for the ... of the lights. When a car turns in, nobody wants to see anything. Also would help density to absorb the sound. We would, which is in the budget at this time, an 8 foot board on board fence to cover the bottom of their property. Basically is no one decided to maintain this fence up here, I don't want to be staring at it on top of the berm as it rickets away. The other smaller, or I do have 33 -3 %z to 4 inch deciduous trees. I did look at it from their property then say if this fence is here, and these trees grow up, everything's going to look pretty decent from their side of the fence also. We do have an issue, if we go on to the property over here. The guy's name that I talked to is Brian Bennick. His phone number is 949 -9452. He is not the man, he's the man in charge of grounds and the facility over there. He had to make a phone call to Chicago to get this okayed but he looked at it and said, I don't see a problem with it so we need to get the legalities taken care of with an easement or whatever it's going to take. The issue is drainage. Okay. If you wrap the berm towards the path, you're going to have to have a catch basin here on the plan as shown. They already have a drainage here. So okay, maybe you put a storm sewer or something there, I'm not technical with that, but there is a pretty easy solution to it. Total cost of it, 20 grand. I don't think, you know 41 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 not being let known what all is going on here and such, I don't think that's very outrageous for someone to incur, price wise. You know, both the city and the government I believe are somewhat at fault. In the other meetings we were saying, you know they said, you said, blah, blah. Whatever. I guess they could have let us know and so could have you guys. According to the City. I guess she had looked at, mentioned of moving the path. I think we're in agreement with that. I do think we need to meet again Lora for some more density in this project, if that's okay with you. You know how to get ahold of me. I guess, you know the concerns I have is where everything got lost. You know we call, make some phone calls and such and nobody knows anything about this and in reality somebody knew something about it over a year ago. And you know, for that matter I didn't get notified for the meeting tonight with a letter, such as I'm supposed to, since I'm on the agenda. Something's rotten in Denmark here. It needs to get taken care of. Because obviously it's like deja vu with the previous situations that went on here before. Somebody didn't let somebody know. It's just kind of funny you know that, Mr. Ashworth can I direct a question directly to you? Can you define scramble for me please? In your words. Don Ashworth: Scramble? Councilwoman Dockendorf I wouldn't answer that Don. Don Ashworth: I'm being advised, well. Why? What are you taking this out of? I mean there's all kinds of scramble. You have a golf scramble. Jerry Riley: Can you define it? Councilwoman Dockendorf Mr. Mayor, would you object please. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that question's absolutely necessary. I really don't. Jerry Riley: It's not? Okay we had a, I read an article in the Villager that said quote, Don Ashworth, we were scrambling to notify residents. Okay. That's what I want to know what scramble means to you because scramble to me doesn't meet 3 weeks to let me know that something's going on behind us. Don Ashworth: I do not recall ever using that word with the newspaper. Jerry Riley: Well you know what, let me go find it. It's right here. Ashworth said, and I quote, we have been scrambling to notify neighbors. Typically that is done by the applicant, which I stated, they could have done. But we have also taken that role so on October 8` and I got mine on October 23` Boy, if I didn't pay a bill I wonder what scrambling would mean then. Huh. In any event, we're all not real happy about this. Something should have been done. Somebody dropped the ball. And I would hope in future situations such as this, that something will be done about it... Mayor Chmiel: I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your presentation. I'd like to bring this back and discussion with Council. And I think that's where it's going to lie as to what's going to be needed within that particular location. Jerry Riley: Okay. All's I would ask is that we as residents would like something firm on this. We are close. This is affecting everything I do. I mean work and family and the whole works, and I'm sure as everybody else is. We just want something firm on this and within the next few days would be great so that we can kind of feel at ease here So yeah, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Yes. Bill Kemble: Mr. Mayor. My name's Bill Kemble. I live at 1782 Valley Ridge Trail North. I just wanted, on behalf of the residents to make sure the Council stays clear on what it is that we're asking you to help us with. It's real apparent that we're frustrated. And I want to just make sure everybody understands what we're asking for. The berm and landscaping be built to our satisfaction. Meet all of our concerns. That includes what Jerry has outlined here. More importantly I think it includes the input that we're going to get from the sound consultant, so we want 42 L� I L 1 i 7 L 7 Li City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 1 you to take that information and take that proposal under very serious consideration and I think it's going to be real, real critical in providing us the kind of berm and landscaping that we need. So in addition to what Lora from RPS ' has designed, what we've put on top of that, we need the sound consultant's input into this. That's very critical. We also want you to take into consideration the fact that we've asked the postal service to move the loading docks and they have flat out refused that. And I'm not convinced that, you may have to put up something like the Berlin Wall ' in order to keep sound and lighting and the traffic trailer lights and everything from going into my bedroom window if you don't move the loading docks. We do not accept the fact that the post office has turned around and refused to move the loading docks. We need that to be taken under very serious consideration. The letter that Mr. Marschall sent back in response to our request was addressed to me and we asked for three things. Two things were flat out ' refused. And we really didn't get anything back in writing that wasn't said in the neighborhood meeting, almost 2 weeks ago. Bryan gave us his personal commitment, and we got that on tape, at that time, at the neighborhood meeting, that they were going to work with us on a berm and landscaping. Well, now we find out what that really means. It really doesn't mean anything. They may have put a little bit of time into a design but they've not gotten up here and said, you know we really made a mistake. We're going to pay for this. We're going to pay for the mistakes we made. I think the postal service is expecting the City of Chanhassen to pay for that. I'm not saying that's right but I think everybody here needs to understand that. That's the tact, that's the strategy that the post office is taking ' here. Meanwhile, as Marcia said, construction speeds ahead. Pretty soon it's going to be too late for anything to be done. One other thing that really struck me in the letter, the official response that we got back from Bryan. The way, the planned location of the facility and the way that they have designed all of the various functions within this facility, was the result of numerous layout experiments. So what you're telling us really is, it wasn't an oversight. The way that they've oriented this building was not an oversight. It wasn't a mistake. They didn't put up the plans and then get to the site and say oh no. There's houses out there. There's people's back yards there. There's ' people's bedrooms there. There's 50 kids in the neighborhood who go to elementary school. What they're saying is they made a conscience decision to build and orient the facility the only way that it would impact us dramatically. Looked right at our houses and said, yeah it's okay. Put the parking lot, put the loading dock, put the noisiest part right out there. We can do it. We're the post office. I'm a small business man. If I did that to one of my customers, if I do that in business, and if I don't make a good faith effort to repair those mistakes that I've made, I'm out of business. In addition to the things that we're asking you to do, make sure that the berm happens. Make sure that the landscape happens. The sound consultant is allowed to provide his input. Try and get the loading docks moved. ' The main thing here is, we need the postal service to make a good faith effort to act responsible. Nobody's doing that. Nobody's doing that. And Bryan, I don't know what they're paying you but it ain't enough to sit here and have to listen to this because the postal service is acting irresponsibly and that needs to change. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council. Steve. Do you have any great insights here that. ' Councilman Berquist: Not on this particular subject. I've got a number of questions regarding things that have been brought up tonight and things that were discussed at the previous meetings that I've attended. I would really like to see the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission adhered to but I've also got some questions regarding if in fact this building would have come through the normal planning process, would in fact the orientation ' have changed. Would the parking be towards the circle as opposed to towards the houses. Would, if the post office were a private business, small business coming in, would there have been orientation changes as to how the building lays out. ' Nancy Mancino: Can I answer that for you? Councilman Berquist: Please. ' Nancy Mancino: I'm Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. Chairwoman of the Planning Commission. I don't know if you read the Minutes but that was one of the things that was brought up at the Planning Commission ' meeting. That if this would have been anyone, anyone who would have come in, that we as a Planning Commission would have looked at it and said, we need to change the docks. We need to change the parking area for the employees. That they should not be up against single family homes. And we would have requested that from the applicant. 1 43 Ci ty Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' Councilman Berquist: Thank you. Given, I suspected that that was probably the answer, plus the normal notification ' probably would have occurred and the neighbors could have provided input at that time prior to any construction beginning. I would ideally like to see all the conditions that the Planning Commission would have put on the ' construction of the project, in fact put on the project. If the environmental assessment worksheet stated that the post office fully intended to go through the normal planning and review process, if the environmental worksheet contained language which was purposely or not purposely misleading, for whatever reason, and it wasn't redone to reflect a true operation that was going to take place, I think we have every reason to expect that the United States ' Post Office would live by the commitment that they made prior to any construction occurring. Pretty cut and dry. That's the extent of my comments right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, given the fact that the postal service has said they're not going to stop construction, what kind of time frame do we have to work on the landscaping issues and acoustics engineer? , Kate Aanenson: The neighbors had a meeting with Lora. We've been in dialogue with Lora. I think that they are working in a good faith effort to try to get that issue resolved. I guess what the big question is, is who's going to pay ' for it. Again, I think we can get concurrence on the ... but the question is. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, but my question is, are they getting so far in their construction will they, if we, I mean if it's going to take 3 weeks for an acoustic engineer to figure out and for everyone to decide on what the ' landscaping and berming should be, is it too late? Not for landscaping but for berming. Kate Aanenson: I believe that's why they're still talking about it... ' Lora Grgich: That's correct. We've already, the initial bid on the job by the excavator was to remove 13,000 cubic yards of.. In a last minute crazy Friday afternoon I found out that they were planning on moving that dirt the next day and made arrangements with the excavator to purchase 10,000 of the cubic yards that's currently as Kate said, ' stockpiled in the back of the site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's not too late? ' Lora Grgich: That's correct. Yeah, and the landscaping issues, I mean that will be one of the last things done so that's... The reason that that dirt was going to be moved so quickly is because they're trying to get utilities in before things freeze. ' Bryan Marschall: Lora can I ask, what did it cost for the postal service to purchase that dirt? Lora Grgich: $30,000.00 for the 10,000 cubic yards. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: This may be water under the bridge, and it may not be but I think we all deserve an answer from the postal service as to why they did not follow the process as promised in the EA, and I'd like that ' answered Mr. Marschall. Bryan Marschall: I have to apologize, not having been involved in the EAW process. That was all handled by our ' facilities office in Kansas City. I'm not able to speak to that but I think their position is that they have followed the process. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But how can they state that? ' Bryan Marschall: Well I'm not going to be able to answer that because I have no knowledge as to what was done. I have not even read the EAW. I'm just here representing the postal service locally but all of the real estate work and , the facility design work and the construction contracting was handled by our office in Kansas City and unfortunately there was nobody available locally from that office to come here tonight to address your questions. But again, I think their position would be that they have followed the process to a T and we've built 15 post offices in the Twin , 44 II r� j� City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Cities metropolitan area in the last 10 years and it's the same process. We used the same process in Chanhassen that we use in every other facility that we've built and there hasn't been a problem. I think again, I have to remind everyone here that the City was furnished, the City knew in the first week in June how that building was going to sit on that site. With the loading dock facing the residences. As far as I know, nobody with the City or the City planning department, raised any kind of objection or concern at that time or any time since that time about how we were going to build that building. So at this point, after we started construction and have the footings in the ground, this is the first time that we became aware that this was, that anybody had a problem with it. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, had the postal service lived up to it's word of going through our normal planning process, it would have been addressed prior to soil being excavated. Bryan Marschall: I think at that point I think I can't address that because again, I wasn't involved in the process but you, the City did have a copy of our plans on the first week of June so everybody should have known what was going on, including the neighbors. Audience: Not hours. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would like some commitment, I mean I'm hearing commitment from the landscape architect but I'm not hearing commitment from the postal service that they would be willing to address these landscaping and berming issues and an acoustic engineer. Bryan Marschall: As Lora just indicated to you, the postal service has already spent $30,000.00 in an effort to help address the berm issue. I guess I would consider that to be a pretty good commitment. We stand ready at any time to sit down with you, the planning department, the neighbors to come up with a scheme, a landscape design, that they're going to be satisfied with. We've already invested $30,000.00 towards that goal. I consider that to be a commitment. Councilwoman Dockendorf. All right. I'm done. Councilman Berquist: Can I ask one other quick question before. During the EAW, is it standard procedure to notify adjoining land owners? Jerry Riley: Are you asking that of me? Councilman Berquist: No, I'm asking it of Kate. Kate Aanenson: Generally it's ... to the staff... When we go through the EA process, we notify neighbors as part of the hearing but... clarify something that Nancy said. The Planning Commission may have had concern about that but... Councilman Berquist: 7:00 to 5:00. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: Well, right now it seems to me the issue is not, we can talk about what should have happened. We can cast dispersions. We can blame the City. We can blame Council. We can blame planning staff. We can blame the United States Postal Service. Whatever. That quite honestly is going to accomplish absolutely nothing right now. It seems to me what needs to happen is we need to take what we have and move forward. Now like it or not, I'm hearing that the United States Postal Service has already invested I guess isn't the right word but put in $30,000.00 in this issue. Again, not seeing the point in dwelling on the past but trying to move forward, I'm hearing the postal service say that at the very least they will sit down and talk. Clearly it sounds like the adjoining neighbors 45 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. ' Ci ty g Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 for it, but it ' have a plan that looks pretty doable. The issue that I see right now is cost and who will pay seems to me , that even before we get to that issue, we have to have a plan that is agreeable to all parties. If nothing else, it seems to me that's a starting point and at the very least, we've got to sit down and come up with a plan and then it seems to me we have to negotiate who, what and how it's going to be paid for. I don't see the point in throwing any more stones at this. We need to move on from here. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well said. ' Councilman Mason: And incidentally, that doesn't mean I'm happy with what has happened or that I think what has happened is right but the issue here is that this stuff has happened and we need to come to some sort of positive , conclusion to it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? , Councilman Mason: No. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't know. I'm just not happy with this at all. I guess I liken this to the steamroller just kind of slowly but surely going down the road and kind of running over the bodies but throwing candy off the side to the masses in the meantime thinking the candy is going to placate them. I don't buy this $30,000.00, excuse me, crap at , all. I mean the EA said there was going to be a berm. They spent $30,000.00 to keep the dirt on the site that was supposed to be left on the site in the first place because the EA said there was going to be a berm there. So I don't buy it now that the post office is being generous to spend $30,000.00 to do a berm that they were supposed to do under the EA in the first place. I mean guys read the EA. It's very enlightening. You know got that from staff. Got ' the stuff from Roger and read it over the weekend. This whole thing is very enlightening. The post office has done nothing but lying left and right through this whole thing. I can't disagree with one statement that this gentleman made because he's read it too. Okay. I guess two choices here. I would like to request that we go into a 10 -15 ' minute Executive Session to consider legal action against the post office. If Council isn't willing to do that, I will proceed with my comments in front of the post office. Mayor Chmiel: I'd rather have you, in my opinion, I'd rather have you do your discussions. Going into suits is not ' going to give anybody anything. Councilman Senn: Well that's something I'd rather discuss in an Executive Session and I have talked to the City ' Attorney about it and he thought that'd be the best place to discuss it. Councilman Mason: Well I personally don't see the need for any discussion at this point about legal action against the postal service. I don't think now is the time for bombast Mark. I think now is the time to try and come to a ' solution and I don't think bombast and pounding tables is any kind of solution. Councilman Senn: Okay, fine. I'll do my comments here then. , Councilman Berquist: I disagree. I disagree with Mike and with Don. I think it would be foolish of us to open a can of worms that we may not be able to close in a public hearing and insofar as that neither of you gentlemen attended either the Planning Commission meeting or the meeting that took place between the homeowners and the postal ' service, for you to arbitrarily choose to air the suggestions in a public fashion is short sighted. Councilman Mason: You misunderstood what I said Steve. I said now I do not think is the time to be pursuing legal ' action. I did not say that I think his comments, or anybody's comments about legal action should be made public at this point. My statement was, I think we need to come to a solution without looking at legal action right now. discuss it better in ' Councilman Berquist: I don't disagree that we need to come to a solution but I think that we can an Executive Session than in public. City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: What is Council's consideration in regard to this? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'd like to go into Executive Session for 10 minutes. No more. Just to explore the possibility. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's go into Executive Session. Roger Knutson: So we're clear, if you want to do that but the sole purpose of it is to discuss litigation strategy, not general legal advice. Litigation against the United States Postal Service. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Berquist: Or the potential thereof. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do it. Bryan Marschall: Are you going to need me here because I think I have to get home. I've got a family to take care of. I think quarter to 12:00 ... is enough. Do you think you're going to need me for anything more tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think basically once we come back with some thoughts on this, it'd be good for you to take it back to your supervisors. Bryan Marschall: I think I can get that information in the morning, if you don't mind. Mayor Chmiel: Kate? You'd be willing to interpret for them? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The Council recessed into an Executive Session to discuss litigation strategy against the United States Postal Service for 15 minutes. Mayor Chmiel: The conclusion is that Roger's going to send a letter out, as well as we will get a. Roger Knutson: I think you want a motion to hire the consultant. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm just trying to clarify. Roger Knutson: And in that same motion if you want to, you can authorize me to send them a draft letter. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Berquist: I will move that we authorize the retainage of David Rothoff, Consultant and Noise Engineer for any impact that the carrier annex will have on the adjoining neighborhood. And that Roger revise and prepare a letter for delivery to the postal service. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf. And I would make a friendly amendment that we also pursue additional assistance from Representative Minge's office and. Councilman Mason: I wouldn't limit it to just his office. 47 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. We might as well do them all. Mayor Chmiel: And that we fax that directly to them. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And furthermore I want to make note that we are meeting next Monday at a City Council work session at which time we may reconsider legal action based on the events that occur this next week. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Will he be calling you from the post office? Did he say? Kate Aanenson: ...more than likely I'll probably have to call him. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: If it's not been seconded, I will second it. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize staff to hire a Noise Engineer Consultant to study the impact of the carrier annex on the adjoining neighborhood, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare and send a letter to the postal service. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Okay Michael. You had something. Or do you want to hold it for another week? Councilman Mason: Well it will just take a couple seconds. We've been, as we're working on the City budget we've been bantering around some CPI figures. As I think many of you know I'm a negotiator for the Teachers Association for Eden Prairie so I also have an interest in that. And have done some homework on my own and my information is different than what I've, I believe I've heard 1.9. Would you pass that down please Steve. What I got from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security is significantly different than 1.9. It's either 3.1 or 3.3. CPIU stands for urban and residential areas. CPIW is a consumer price index for all workers. So I think before we settle on 1.9 we've got to find out exactly what the figures are. I mean that has a pretty vicious impact on a whole lot of different things so I just, and I'm not quite sure what CPI we end up using but again, according to Minnesota Department of Economic Security, it's 3.3. It's not 1.9. And I'm not saying one's right and one's wrong. We need to figure out just what the deal is here. And maybe this will get discussed further on our work session but just I'm throwing this out for now. Councilman Senn: And this is from the State of Minnesota? Councilman Mason: That's correct. This is the CPI for Minneapolis /St. Paul. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay. Well the numbers that were given the other night were from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Government. Okay. Local office here. And were numbers which were t Minneapolis. Mayor Chmiel: Read the bottom of this sheet. Councilman Senn: Was for Minneapolis /St. Paul area. Councilman Mason: Well this says source, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The CPI for the United States is on the left side and the Minneapolis /St. Paul is on the right side. Mark, I'm just saying, we've got conflicting reports here. Councilman Berquist: I don't think you do. I think you've got the same data but your's is cumulative and your's is year to date. 48 u City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 ' Councilman Senn: Which is what we're dealing with, year to date. ' Councilman Mason: This isn't cumulative. This is also year to date. Percent change from one year ago. Councilman Senn: No, not from one year ago. Well, that's what these columns say right here Mark. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know what, figure it out Todd. Councilman Mason: I'm just saying, we need to figure out what it is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks for that information. ' Councilman Berquist: Good information. I love this kind of stuff. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, how long is it going to take you to do growth options? ' ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: GROWTH OPTIONS. PLANNING DIRECTOR. Kate Aanenson: Two minutes... direction that the Met Council is moving as far as their development packet. ' They're holding public hearings on it... Really for the City of Chanhassen... city by the year 2020 be fully developed. What this does allow the city to do is talk about the staging of their urban development. How... we can only finance so much development anyway... There's just a couple of things I want to point out to you on page 6. There's a policy... and I guess the position that we take is, ..we've got our housing goals and policies in place and we ' believe that's addressing that issue. I guess I want to make sure that we... As you're all aware, we'll be working on a comp plan update next year... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Mayor Chmiel: Do what you may. Councilman Senn: Well I'm going to make that a motion then. Just to make sure it gets on the record. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That what? Councilman Senn: I'm going to make a motion that the correspondence be sent, along with our comments, to the Met Council that the City of Chanhassen is not necessarily in agreement nor endorsing the request to change this by the 212 Community Highway Association. Councilman Berquist: In all honestly I have not read it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, me either and I can't, that's why. Councilman Berquist: I'm not going to vote on it, unless you give me 10 minutes, which I know nobody wants to do. Mayor Chmiel: No. You're right. Don Ashworth: Would you like this issue brought back up with the three other consent items which I would propose that we put on for next Monday's work session. Do you want me to put this one on there as well and discuss it a little bit? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's talk about it next Monday. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Okay, is there a motion to adjourn. 49 City Council Meeting - November 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor , and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 50