The URL can be used to link to this page

1h Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Ayotte COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam, Sgt. Dave Potts, and Mark Ruff A. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DRAFT WORK PLAN. Todd Gerhardt gave background information on what' s been done on this year' s work plan. Sgt. Potts outlined the changes that will occur this year at city events. Mayor Jansen stated that Sgt. Potts' presence at the Chamber meeting was a good example of public exposure for the law enforcement department. Sgt. Potts explained the problems associated with the change in software at the County level. Mayor Jansen asked if the Lion' s Club would be interested in having the sheriff' s department speak at their meeting. Sgt. Potts suggested the Fire Department's Open House, or holding their own Law Enforcement Open House, and discussion ensued about what would be the best scenario. Sgt. Potts asked the council if they had heard any feedback from the public on law enforcement in the city. Councilman Boyle stated he had heard positive remarks regarding their presence. Mayor Jansen stated she has had comments on the need for more investigative personnel. She was having a meeting with other mayors to see what their cities do. B. 5-YEAR CIP FOR MSA AND ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. Teresa Burgess passed out a handout and Matt Saam went over the information with the council. Councilman Ayotte asked about the life cycle of roads and if there was any technology available to make roads last longer. Teresa Burgess stated that MnDot gives seminars on that issue. Councilman Ayotte asked about what percentage of roads can be bonded which Mark Ruff responded to. Mayor Jansen asked several questions related to the projects being presented during the regular council agenda and what staff was looking for City Council to do. Teresa Burgess stated she wanted the council to-digest the information presented and suggested that Council will have to make a pOlicy decision regarding the percentage to assess on MSA roadways in the future. That decision did not have to be made at this meeting, but just give direction to staff on how to proceed. Todd Gerhardt asked what other communities were using as percentages. There was discussion surrounding the results of the community survey and how the results were being interpreted. Councilman Peterson stated that the residents along Highway 101 north had requested 5 minutes to speak on the trail issue which was on the consent agenda. Discussion was held about procedure. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Jill Sinclair, Teresa Burgess, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd Rod & Scott Cummings 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 1570 Bluebill PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: E. PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS. Mayor Jansen: We do have a couple of public announcements this evening. The community does an Environmental Excellence Award which we have our recipients here this evening so we will be doing that presentation at the beginning of our meeting. We have our chair of our Environmental Commission, Dottie Shay here with us this evening and Dottie, if you wouldn't mind coming forward as we do these presentations to assist, I would appreciate it. We'll come out in front of the podium and hand out the awards. Jill Sinclair, our environmental specialist will be helping us with those. We have three different categories for the awards. The first category A is for our residential projects in the community. The first recipient will be John and, and forgive me. All of the names on this list are a bit of a test for pronunciation. John and Rena Dragseth. If you could come forward please. And if you wouldn't mind as you receive your awards, maybe tell us a little bit about the project that you did for the community to receive the award. John Dragseth: In the residential category our project was a home building project. We moved down from Plymouth what, 9 months ago now. And we general contracted our home ourselves and worked with Doug Wentz Construction out of Chaska and he was flexible enough to let us kind of call the shots a little bit and so we were able to implement a lot of things that were good for the environment, including keeping our builders away from the trees and our subcontractors away from trees. Replanting many of the trees that were affected, and landscaping in a way that minimized the effect around the house, and many other things but I can see there a lot of people here with a lot of things tonight so. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Congratulations. And the award in that category is a $50 check. Our second recipient is Elaine and John Malakowsky, if you could come forward please to receive your award. Thank you. Tell us a little bit about your project. City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Elaine Malakowsky: Well we live on top of the bluff and we've been there for 39 years now and we have 2 acres altogether. And so we've been very, trying to be environmentally conscious and doing things you know that would be good for the environment so part of our land we' ve returned back to trees. We're just letting it grow back up into trees and grasses and that type of thing. And I have a huge, organic garden. And then we had quite a bit of lawn and now the projects we've been working on the last couple of years is turning some of that lawn back into gardens and planting shade plants and shrubs and that type of thing. We're doing a little bit each, you know using natural, local kinds of trees and plants. So we' ve been doing that the last 2 years and we plan to continue that. And one of our biggest projects that we've been working on is getting rid of the buckthorn. I didn't realize til 3 years ago that we had buckthorn and so we' ve been going after it pretty hard and we' re gaining control of it I think. Another plan we have, maybe for this summer or in the near future is turning part of our ditch in front of our house, along 101, into cattails and grasses because it's been kind of a soggy area there for quite a while and so we may be doing that this summer so that's some of the things we've been doing. We use all organic fertilizers and mulches. I don't use any pesticides in our yard or garden or anything like that and we use environmentally safe cleaners and laundry products thinking that you know from the runoff down into the fen, that would be beneficial there and so that's some of it. Mayor Jansen: Great. Congratulations. Our third recipient is Jennifer and Marcus Zbinden. And your helpers. Congratulations, thank you. If you could tell us a little about your project. Jennifer Zbinden: Okay. This year we tried to focused our house on hazardous waste a little more. We've been doing solid waste kind of in our home a lot, but we really consciouSly try to buy only what chemicals we needed to use in the house as far as cleansers and what not, and what we couldn't use we made sure we brought into the County Re-use program and we did quite a number of household projects around the house and made sure that we got our paint and some stripping materials and even some yard and garden supplies at the re-use center as well. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Thank you very much. Our Category B recipients are from our business or commercial residents I should say. Our first recipient is General Mills, the Chanhassen Plant and this evening we have Garth Wydell here to receive the award. And this award is a plaque with the Environmental Excellence Award and the symbol presented to General Mills. Thank you. Appreciate your participation. Can you tell us about your project? Garth Wydell: Oh, what we're doing is just getting all the employees involved in everything from clean- up to landscaping and tree planting along Bluff Creek so that' s what we're doing. And thank you to the City of Chanhassen for this. Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. Appreciate that. Our second recipient is Bridal Beginnings and we have Bobbie Portier here to receive the award. Thank you. Congratulations. And do tell us about your project. Bobbie Portier: Well I have tried to move from a paper based business to an electronic based business. Reducing paperwork for my bridal business that I receive by e-mail and faxes and I've just tried to cut down on a lot of that and I' ve gotten in touch with a lot of vendors that I deal with and have requested that they cut down on the allocated materials that they send to me and just trying to cut down on paper and not the trees. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Appreciate your participation. And then our third category is the community groups and organizations or schools and the award is for St. Hubert's Catholic Church and City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 we have Loretta Stoltz here to receive the award, if she could come forward please. Congratulations. If you could tell us a little about your project. Loretta Stoltz: Yes. My project was to design and develop an all organic meditation garden and that is on the grounds on St. Hubert's Church. Many of my plants I selected are drought tolerate. I also used a lot of organic mulch. Ail organic fertilizers and just as a little extra bonus I have children involved in planting annuals, and all of the annuals are started from seeds and I work with the children to do that. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Thank you and thanks to all of our participants and we certainly encourage everyone to participate in this event and submit your projects for the award. We do this annually now. Thank you and thank you for organizing it. Appreciate it Dottie. F. PROCLAMATION DECLARING FEBRUARY 14TM AS CONGENITAL HEART DEFECT DAY. Mayor Jansen: Okay, the second public announcement this evening is the proclamation declaring February 14th as Congenital Heart Defect Day, and I have the proclamation to read here. Whereas, congenital heart defects that exist from birth are among the most common kinds of birth defects and are the leading cause of defect related deaths; and Whereas, more than 32,000 infants (1 of every 100) are bom each year with heart defects in the United States. Too many babies, children and adults with congenital heart defects or childhood onset heart disease continue to die due to the severity of the defect. The heart defect not being detected in time, a lack of donor hearts or failure of the medical intervention used, and Whereas, professionals are researching congenital heart defects and childhood onset heart disease to accurately describe it's origin, physical signs, symptoms, and surgical oPtions. With familiarity of these disorders, more diagnoses are being made of what was not long ago thought to be rare disorders and non-repairable; and Whereas, citizens of Minnesota should be made more aware of congenital heart defects and the childhood onset heart disease so that early diagnoses and intervention becomes a top priority. Now, Therefore, I, Linda Jansen, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim February 14, 2002 as A Day for Hearts. Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: bo do eo go h. Resolution #2002-07: Accept Utility & Street Improvements in Summerfield 2na Addition, Project 00-13. Resolution g2002-08: Accept Utility Improvements in Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition, Project 99-19. Resolution #2002-09: Accept Utility Improvements for BC-7 & BC-8, Project 00-01. Resolution #2002-10: Accept Street & Storm Sewer Improvements in Lynmore Addition, Project 99-10. Resolution g2002-11: Approve Change Order No. 3 for BC-7 & BC-8, Project 00-01. Approve Easement Settlements for BC-7 & BC-8, Project 00-01. Resolution g2002-12: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Tristan Heights, Project 01-07. City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Resolution #2002-13: Receive Revised Feasibility Study for Dogwood Road Improvements, Project 00-01-1. j. Resolution g2002-14: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Arrowhead Addition, Project 00- 09. 1. Resolution #2002-15: Approve Resolution Calling for the Sale of Library Bonds. m. Approval of Bills. no Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 14, 2002 - City Council Minutes dated January 14, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2002 Oo Resolution g2002-16: Receive Feasibility Report for the Extension of West 78th Street, Project 01-14. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Now traditionally if we remove an item from the Consent Agenda, we would move it to the end of the agenda. However, realizing that we do have a rather lengthy public hearing process that we're going to be hearing this evening, I would hate to keep individuals waiting, and I do see several familiar faces who would be interested in the 101 discussion so if council is okay with our discussing that at this point instead of our traditional end of the meeting, I would suggest that we go ahead. Okay Craig, since you pulled that item, if you'd like to go ahead with the discussion. K. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH 101 TRAIL. Public Present: Name Address Neil Libson Leon Narem Bryan & JoEllen Price Liza Bloom Cory Watkins Greg Flickinger Steve Frankwitz Tim & Sandra Love Jim Erny Wayne & Cathy Dionne Charles & Paula Hallau Peggy Naas, Lauren, Michael, and Steve Mestitz 140 Choctaw Circle 20 Sandy Hook Road 7006 Sandy Hook Circle 6781 Brule Circle 595 Summerfield Drive 7013 Sandy Hook Circle 6770 Brule Circle 7010 Sandy Hook Circle 7008 Sandy Hook Circle 90 Choctaw Circle 115 Choctaw Circle 7200 Willow View Cove City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Jean & Scott Fransen Steve Bloom Lenore Dryke Bill & Mitzi Shimp Barbara J. Vernes Frank & Lisa Mendez Mark Senn Mark Christensen Dorthea Shay Kurt Fossey Steve, Kurt and Robin Liebtke Mel Kurvers Chantha Bo Char, Rich, Jaime, & Venessa Borotz Dan & Ruth Shoemaker Sandra & Sy Resnik Sandy Carlson Sue & Shannon Senn Deb & Ty Wolff Brenda Vatland 151 Choctaw Circle 6781 Brule Circle 105 Choctaw Circle 155 Choctaw Circle 83 Castle Ridge Court 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7160 Willow View Cove 7019 Cheyenne Trail 7230 Frontier Trail 7381 Kurvers Point Road 7231 Kurvers Point Road 7240 Kurvers Point Road 7004 Sandy Hook Circle 6750 Brule Circle 7380 Kurvers Point Road 7370 Kurvers Point Road 7271 Kurvers Point Road 7160 Willow View Cove 31 Basswood Circle 7290 Kurvers Point Road Councilman Peterson: I think the reason why I pulled it is I think we wanted to maybe perhaps open it up to the public for a few minutes just to give them an opportunity to review where their heads are at and essentially where our's are at. I think we've heard some new things in the last week about 101. I think it's'important that we are on the same page as the- community with all the information so. Mayor Jansen: Sure, appreciate that. In fact we've had an even more recent update. Teresa, not to put you on the spot, but possibly if you could give us just a brief update of where we are as far as the limited use permit process and the timing of the grant, and now we do have the update on the traffic study as well. Teresa Burgess: The limited use permit, we have submitted to MnDot for that process. That will take 30 to 60 days. However, I'd just like to stress to the council the last time we did that process it did take 90 days. At this time MnDot will be reviewing that. There is no statutory limit for how long they can take. We will keep pressure on them. Representative Workman has also stated he will keep pressure on them. Right now, Friday afternoon we received a fax from our consultant. We have shared it with MnDot as well, that the two lane with shoulders and turn lanes and traffic signals, turnback project as proposed by the City of Chanhassen, except for one exception does meet the level of service D, which means that it does qualify for turnback funding and does meet the state standards. That exception would be at Pleasant View. The left turns from Pleasant View onto Highway 101. The eastbound Pleasant View. That means that we will be continuing our discussions with Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie and Chanhassen as well as MnDot to see if we can get an all inclusive project going and MnDot has said some very encouraging things lately in the last couple of days regarding the turnback funding and getting a project all together and on the ground very quickly. We are going to be meeting with, staff will be meeting with representatives of all the parties next week on the 7th or hopefully around that time line, and then we will be meeting back with Representative Workman and representatives of MnDot and I believe Frank, you're attending that to represent the neighborhood as well. We'll be meeting back on the 11t~ of February to see where everybody is. There were a number of tasks that were assigned when we left our last meeting with Representative Workman. The new information on the City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 turnback though that we do qualify with level of service D is exciting news because that's been something that everybody's been kind of waiting for. We will be posting that information on the web if you'd like to see the information. The memo. The draft memo. It hasn't been finaled yet, out on the web. It will probably take us a couple days to get that converted and into the computer, but that will be out there and if you'd like to review it, you're certainly welcome to do so. And hopefully MnDot and everybody else will be falling into step with us and we'll be able to get a project quickly. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And I guess from what Teresa just said and some of the e-mails that I know I received today, I certainly hope that what the neighbors are hearing is that there's a lot of activity going on in trying to move the project forward. And I shouldn't say trying. It is moving forward. It's just a matter of in what form it moves forward. We did get some unfortunate news from Representative Workman that the $500,000 grant in fact is up for discussion at this point. He's not saying that we've lost it. It is up for discussion in the legislature as a part of all of the budget cuts that are occurring, as you're all aware from the newspapers at the state level as they're evaluating their different grant programs. However, we're not waiting for the word on that grant. We are continuing to move the trail project forward, but the first step in doing that is securing the limited use permit from MnDot. We can't build a trail until they approve the limited use permit for us to build the trail in their right-of-way. So that is why in our last meeting we did take that action already and requested that staff submit the feasibility on the trail. So if you recall, and I know you've all patiently gone through this process with us once before, we submitted the feasibility for the trail to MnDot, and they denied the limited use permit. The reasons for their denial have now been addressed in the new design so by submitting the new design to MnDot we will find out whether or not the new design answers all of their concerns. And if it hasn't, then we can at least address those issues before we move the project. Well we can't move the project along until we have the LUP, so once we have met what they consider to be the needs in the design, then we can move forward with the trail. So it's not, nothing has been put on hold. It's in fact both tracks are moving forward and that was what the communication and the letter out to all of you was to convey, is that both tracks are moving forward and we' re not waiting to hear whether or not the grant is actually approved. We would like to hear that Representative Workman secures it but we will have to wait until the session continues to find out if that contribution will come to the city. So with that, if there' s comments from the neighbors that you'd like to share, if there' s a representative and Mr. Mendez, I know that you've been acting as the representative from the neighborhood. If there's comments that you'd like to share with us, certainly come forward to the podium at this timel Mark Senn: Hi. My name's Mark Senn, 7160 Willow View Cove. My longtime co-chair on the 101 group, Frank, thought maybe you were getting tired of hearing from him so I got stuck on this tonight. We're just going to have one speaker and our intention is to keep it very short. We'd very much like to thank City Council for keeping the 101 trail project going in the right direction. In hope of avoiding yet another detour, there are several important points we'd like to make tonight. First, we feel the city's committed to constructing a trail along 101 in 2002. Secondly, we feel the city's funded a majority of the trail in 2002. Thirdly, working with Representative Tom Workman, our group and Mr. Workman were able to essentially secure $500,000 from the State that the city could now use towards this project. Those are all I think very monumental steps. Very much so in the right direction. Over the last 20 years every time the trail issue has come up, it's basically become subservient to a road. And lo and behold every time that happened the project always got stalled. Here we are 20 years later without a trail, and from the neighborhood's perspective, a trail which would bring us a vital link to the community still just isn't there. A couple of years ago the City of Chanhassen succeeded in making the trail a driving force, and I think that was really a crucial point. The road became subservient to the trail. Things finally started to happen at that point. There's been more activity on this project in the last 2 years than there were for the previous 18 years. Please, let's not once again detour as being suggested in some of the City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 recommendations from city staff. Please, let's keep the trail the driving force and let the road and others catch up to the trail if they desire. We're really here tonight to reinforce your as our city leaders to keep this trail a reality now in 2002. We're also here tonight to make certain that you know that our expectations as your constituents are very simply stated. We feel that the city really must move ahead and proceed with ordering the preparation of plans and specs for a minimum impact trail along 101. And the city must also move ahead with constructing that trail in 2002 as has been committed to and thus keep the trail the underlying driving force. Then we firmly believe that everyone else will catch up. But if they don't, to be really honest from our standpoint, if they don't catch up, we've not taken another detour caused by delay or caused by City Council action or anything else, and we're still proceeding on a long promise and long awaited trail. I just got off the phone with Tom Workman. He was actually going to be here. He's on his way. He just got out of the capitol and he's stuck in traffic. But Tom's very confident that with the City of Chanhassen's leadership in this approach, moving forward now in 2002 we will get the necessary approvals very quickly from the State, and we will keep our funding. Tom's also very confident that the roadwork as it's being talked about, will catch up and happen in the manner that we want it to, and that's great. And we really hope that's the case and essentially that's what happens. However, if the road doesn't catch up from a neighbor's perspective, we look at it this way. Finally let's get our trail done. Let's not wait another 20 years to see what's going to happen with a road before we get the trail. So please proceed. Please proceed now in 2002 and please provide this vital link to our community. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Actually I can say with confidence that everything that Mr. Senn brought up here at the podium is exactly what we are pushing forward with Representative Workman and I can appreciate hearing that Tom is as confident as we are in that we are working with him in these meetings, It is a partnership. We are pushing together to work with MnDot to give them the information that they need in order to help us expedite this. We've put the study into their hands requesting the limited use permit, as soon as we had it back so we moved that forward as quick as we could. And as far as the trail being the driving force, that has been what we have been consistently saying to MnDot since we re- opened these discussions with them at the beginning of last year. Is that Chanhassen needs to build this trail and we're moving forward with our plans to build the trail with or without their roadway. Giving them that message and moving forward with the actions that we took on the trail has us at the table now feeling confident that they are working with us on the roadway and the trail plan. We're parallel tracking them. We're moving both projects forward within the processes that have to be followed and we're going to make one or the other of these work. And it will have a great deal to do with Tom Workman's efforts with MnDot. They're hearing the City's conviction to build the trail. We've now given them the traffic numbers and without saying it too politically incorrect, there were a lot of doubts raised by the community and by council looking at those traffic studies that were forcing the issue to build a 4 lane roadway and I hope what you just heard our staff say is we had those traffic studies re-looked at and now we have, hopefully, the statistical data that is supporting the 2 lane concept and we're going back to the table with our continued discussions with the other parties to say this meets the needs for the traffic in this corridor. And it's one more step hopefully towards moving that project forward and we've got both of them moving. They're not stalled.' They're both moving. It's been weekly discussions. Teresa's been working very hard on this project. So we appreciate your conviction to helping us move the project forward. Frank has participated in our discussions. Your voices are definitely being heard and we will keep you posted on all of the feedback that we do receive. You heard Teresa mention that there are a couple more meetings that are scheduled in the immediate future and we'll have additional updates for you as we're talking to the other jurisdictions and getting more information on both proposals. And we hear back to let you know whether we end up with a limited use permit approval. So we'll certainly give you those updates, and appreciate your attending and I gather that was the one speaker that needed to step forward on I01 on behalf of the neighborhood. We appreciate, like I said, I see several familiar faces for City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 this project. Appreciate your coming here this evening and with that, if we can move on with the meeting, then I'll do that. Okay? Great. Councilman Peterson: I've got one question for Teresa. Teresa, if we wait for the LUP, does that essentially put the trail off if we don't do plans and specs like very soon? Teresa Burgess: At this time we do have a little bit of fluff time that we can delay starting those plans and specs. The initial work was done with the feasibility study. It's not that hard to finish it up. At a certain point, yes. Delaying beyond that point will make a difference but staff will continue to track and at a point when we start to say you know what, we need to get started if we're going to stay on schedule for October completion. We'll bring it back to council at that time for discussion. But right now, waiting a couple weeks to let MnDot do their initial review and give us a gut reaction is not going to cause a delay. Councilman Peterson: But you referenced 90 days that it could potentially take them. Teresa Burgess: It could potentially take them as much as, the last set did take them 90 days. There's no statutory limit on how long they can have. We anticipate 30 to 60 days for the review period, just because that's their typical for review of other city submittals. But there is no statutory limit like there are with other city submittals. Councilman Peterson: We could streamline the process by approving plans and specs tonight to give you the tools to go ahead when appropriate. Teresa Burgess: You could authorize preparation of plans and specs. I do not have the work order tonight with me for approval. That would have to be worked out. You could direct that we prepare the work order for approval by council but at this time we don't have that. The way that we did the proposal from HTPO was we asked everyone to make a proposal...that the feasibility study was known so that we have a rough idea what it's going to cost but we want to get more precise since it is a not to exceed amount. Mayor Jansen: And at this point, with the LUP with MnDot for their approval, the plans and specs could possibly change if they were to come back with any concerns. What does that do in the process if they come back and need something else addressed? Teresa Burgess: That would address, first of all if they ask for something different from what's in our feasibility study, which is what they did the first time to us. They asked for significant changes. That will impact the design significantly. We're going to have to make shifts in where the location is. We're going to have to make changes on grade if they did exactly what they did to us last time. I'm hopeful that once they look at the feasibility study they can give us a gut reaction and that they'll be willing to evaluate at that time and say, you're on the right track. We think you're going the right way. Give us some feedback so that in 30 days we would be able to come back to council, even though we may not have a final yes, we may have a maybe type answer or you're close, and be able to discuss it in 30 days to 60 days and move forward at that time. That's really where we're hoping to be in 30 to 60 days. Councilman Boyle: If we did approve to go ahead with plans and specs and the LUP was not approved, what would be the economic impact? Teresa Burgess: We would be out the cost of design. City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Boyle: And how much would that be? Teresa Burgess: The total contract is estimated for design and inspection at about $120,000 and that would have to be adjusted based on that feasibility study. We don't have the revised work order. Just a little over half of that is probably going to be design, but I don't have the exact dollars yet. Councilman Boyle: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: That's assuming that during a turnback, if we get turnback, that that wouldn't be reimbursed? Teresa Burgess: That would not be eligible for reimbursement if we did turnback. Would not be eligible. Mayor Jansen: So did I hear you say that once we reach the point where we would end up delaying the project by not authorizing the plans and specs, you could make sure you've got it back before us again in time to avoid that happening. Teresa Burgess: Staff would continue to track the time line and make sure that we don't delay the project at the end. Or that we have a turnback agreement in place and at that point we would bring a turnback agreement to the council for approval. Whichever process is moving forward to get us there at the end product that we need to get to. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So is that why then you had it on the consent agenda to accept this' evening so that you would have the ability to wait for that LUP and then bring this forward. Teresa Burgess: I had it on consent agenda this evening because consent agenda are those items that we feel council has already expressed support for the staff position or we don't feel that there will be a dissent from our staff recommendation and with that placing it on the consent agenda, in staff' s eyes, we're showing that this issue is such a done deal that it just needs to go on consent and continue to move forward with the council. Unless we're directed otherwise, we would bring back the work order and the authorization to prepare plans and specs at the time it's ready to go on consent because we anticipate that there would be no need for discussion. Council would automatically approve it without needing to decide if that's where they want to go or not. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. I hope Mark Senn's right and I suspect he is with respect to the $500,000 that Representative Workman's going after. If we get to a worst case scenario and the 500K is not available, there is enough 410 month to take care of business based on a rough order of magnitude estimate, correct? Teresa Burgess: If we go with strictly the trail, we are short a half million dollars. The council will have to decide how and if we can finance that through other funding. I can't answer if we have a half million available. At this point what is in the budget is allocated towards projects so the council will have to make some difficult decisions. City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: So it would have to be something falling off in order to get that 500K if it didn't come through? Teresa Burgess: It's a direct impact. That's something that Bruce would be much more qualified to answer but it's a direct impact to. Councilman Ayotte: And Bruce probably is wise in not being in the room at this point in time, is that correct? Bruce? Teresa Burgess: I'm sure he couldn't answer it this evening because it's going to take some thought and making recommendations but we would be a half million dollars short and we would have to decide what we want to do to come up with that funding. Councilman Ayotte: One other question. Is there any advantage with respect to the trail to address aggressively the issue with the eastbound turn lane on Pleasant View? Teresa Burgess: I believe very strongly that since that is the only leg that is deficient, that that is something that, if that is the only hold up on a turnback project I would recommend to council that we do what it takes to make that non-deficient. It's not that big a deal and the remainder of the project is well within the requirements and so I don't see that Pleasant View being an issue. The other thing also is that the recommendation, the review took into account assuming that all legs of the intersection would grow at the same rate. I think Pleasant View is probably getting very close to capacity as it is right now along the entire route. They did not take into account any bottlenecks that happen further to the west of that intersection that would be restricting the amount of growth that could happen at that intersection. So even if we were to improve that intersection, that's something we can go back and look at as we move forward, but it may never get the traffic that they've assumed would get there because there was a previous bottleneck that people can't physically get to the intersection. Councilman Ayotte: But you're saying that we should go forward to correct the problem. Do you need council direction to do so? ' Teresa Burgess: I do not need council direction. That would be something that would take place in the design of the turnback. I am assuming that my statement to MnDot that we're willing to do what it takes to make Pleasant View work for those left turns is correct. Mayor Jansen: I think you say that with great confidence. No problem. Representative Workman. Now that you've fought traffic to get here, I don't mean to put you on the spot but if there is anything that you would like to share with us, we've pretty much covered our 101 discussion but we'd certainly not mind hearing from you. We did cover the fact that the $500,000 of course is up for discussion and that you are valiantly working at keeping that on our behalf. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, as Representative Workman's coming up to the front. I'm not sure if he heard the news. I haven't been able to touch base with him yet. We did get the level of service report back and we do meet level of service on all legs except for Pleasant View eastbound left turn lanes so I believe the council just reaffirmed, we will do what it takes to make Pleasant View work and we then meet the qualifications for a turnback. Mayor Jansen: And then you also shared with us that there is a meeting of alt of the jurisdictions on February 7~? 10 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Teresa Burgess: MnDot is still trying to set it up but we're hoping for February 7th. Mayor Jansen: And that was that last piece of information then that was really needed to be able to share with them, was the traffic information. Welcome. Tom Workman: Well Mayor, thank you. Council, thank you. Good to see you again. Sounds like I missed a good meeting. Where's that meeting February 7th? Teresa Burgess: They are still debating where that's going to be. I've offered our council chambers or one of our conference rooms. They're going to see if they can get something closer to mid-point between here and Water's Edge. Tom Workman: Sounds like my office. Teresa Burgess: I told them your office was wide open if they wanted to do it there. Tom Workman: And thank you to staff and mayor for coming down this week to a couple hour meeting to hear MnDot say again, you know gee, golly, you know it might be 2005 or 4 or whatever and we got them back on track and so it was all very worthwhile. The $500,000, let's call it the Workman 500,000. The Governor, I was at some meetings tonight. We start, this is Legislature Eve here and so if you haven't dug your bunker yet and sand bagged it, please do now but we, the Governor is really the only person in the State of Minnesota that is constitutionally required to balance the budget, and he has lobbed over to the legislature a plan that really doesn't resemble what is going to have to occur. Because he figured well, we would take care of the problem any way and I think the legislature' s going to take care of the problem. Well we're going to have to. The DNR has picked out two programs. Mayor, as you know, out of their one time funding. My $500,000 and the finance, Environment Finance Chair, our good friend Mr. Holston, we'll just get our $500,000. His trail program also. So you can imagine how that is going over with Mr. Holston. It appears as though his community is maybe going to decline the match on his grant and so if his goes away that doesn't matter. But he wasn't amused by either the Governor or the DNR proposing our $500,000 for that trail. It is merely a proposal just like everything else. Am I going to raise the gas tax 5 cents to balance the budget? I don't think so. Would I possibly do that to get 5 cents for new road funding? Yes, that's a possibility but the legislature is unanimous in their disdain for a lot of the parts of the Governor's program and so we're going to have to do some of those things. But to the trail on that east Pleasant View, that certainly is another city. We could make a cul-de-sac out of that and then you wouldn't need another lane there. Just an idea. And there's probably some Eden Prairie people in the room and they're my constituents on that side of the road too but. But I am quite confident. 'I did ride the rails today, the commuter rail line up to Elk River today and I met with all the MnDot people again. And they're re-committed to helping us get this, what is a pretty small problem to them accomplished, and I'm nothing but optimistic about our future with this. And again, I want to state in this year, and I didn't hear a lot about how you laid that all out. Whether or not the city is committed to this year but. Mayor Jansen: That's what we're trying to accomplish. Tom Workman: I think the road is certainly an easy part of it, and I think in our meeting you saw how everybody behaved when we said well you know if the road isn't going to get done, then let's build the trail and that's really what I think this community is more interested in and if we have to forget the road, we'll forget the road and then MnDot's going to really have some problems I think and so, that is a 11 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 leverage point for us and I'm sure that it was Mark Senn or somebody who said, we should have built it 15 years ago because it will be another 15. Let's build it today and then in 15 years the road will come and certainly if we can get them both done economically more advisable for the city, but if we're going to hear the same line and that is probably my biggest task and that is to nursemaid this leaking of the schedule that is inherent in all road projects, to get this done as soon as we can and so I'm here to help. I appreciate the support you guys have given this and certainly hold the people in the room who've really pushed this. We, as elected officials listen to the power that these people have, at least I do and so excited and I don't know if you have any questions. Mayor Jansen: Well we certainly appreciate your partnership on it and you very well echoed what we were expressing. That it was the trail, or is the trail that we're using as our leverage. That one way or the other we will get that accomplished this year and you've certainly helped express that message to MnDot and it does seem as though we might get somewhere on this and we in the community thank you for all of your efforts. You have certainly focused on this project with us and been a real partner in helping us now move forward two options that we might be able to pursue and I guess we should mention, and we haven't yet, that even if the road moves forward, the $500,000 grant could conceivably still be applied to the project so it's not as though we would be foregoing that grant, but it would in fact be applied to the other project as well. So thank you. Tom Workman: And Mayor I would, it is not my intention to roll over, as we would say down there, on that $500,000. Whether it's a turnback and the road is accomplished or not, I have better friends at MnDot than I do at DNR, God bless them all but everybody's nodding and winking down there right now and they'd like that money, and who'd like that money and so I think the Chanhassen Lion's ought to have it frankly but. But no I do not intend, the battle has really not even started on that $500,000 and just because the Governor says, or his staff at DNR says that's the way it should be, isn't the way it. We get to decide. And one final comment on that. It was crafty legislation to get that accomplished. DNR has now said well that really wasn't a trail fund anyway, and as Chairman Holston retorted back, the legislature said it was trail money. The Governor signed the bill that it was trail money. Therefore it's trail money. And so I don't care what fund it came out of. It's Chanhassen's $500,000 and I'm going to fight to keep it there so, thanks a lot. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And we wish you luck in your session. It Will not be a fun one. It will certainly be an interesting one to watch but good luck. You've got your task ahead of you. Council, we still have item l(k) for a motion. Councilman Peterson: Mayor, I guess I'd make a motion and amend it from what it previously was to accept the feasibility study for Highway 101 and let staff go to plans and specs and prepare the work order for the next agenda in an effort to just ensure that we parallel and we don't lose any time at all. If we're dealing with next fall, we're dealing with weeks of build time and I think it'd be appropriate to move at this point in time as to direct staff to go ahead with plans and specs. Councilman Boyle: To prepare. Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second for the motion? Councilman Boyle: I'll second that. Mayor Jansen: Discussion of the motion. My only, and certainly I'm going to vote in favor of this. I would just appreciate our staying open to staff's communication on feedback from MnDot in regards to 12 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 the LUP so that we're not moving forward with plans and specs on something that we may need to do some minor adjustments to. Hopefully it would be minor if MnDot were to point out some things that they needed to work on, so that at least we show some flexibility on that end with staff. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if I could just clarify, because I'm used to standard wording. Did I just, are you recommending that we authorize preparation of plans and specs and you're directing staff to prepare a work order, correct? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Teresa Burgess: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to accept the feasibility study for the Highway 101 trail, authorize preparation of plans and specs and directing staff to prepare a work order. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Why don't we just pause long enough for everyone who would like to depart, to do so. We'll just take a couple of minutes. Thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane and I just would like to draw your attention to the agenda item number'7. And I represent the residents surrounding the Lake Lucy Ridge development and I just want you to know we presented at the Planning Commission last, 2 weeks ago. Mayor Jansen: If I could, and I'm not going to cut you off if you'd still like to speak after I tell you that this item is going to be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review so that any changes can be worked out with staff and the Planning Commission. Tamara Sather: Right. And I wasn't going to present anything. I just wanted to draw attention to the petition. Mayor Jansen: I didn't know if you were aware of that action being taken tonight so I just wanted to share that with you. Tamara Sather: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Oh, you can go ahead if. Tamara Sather: Well no, I just wanted to draw attention to it. That the neighbors oppose it and that we don't want to present again but we oppose the development. Not a development there but just that particular development so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I would encourage you to follow this item back to the Planning Commission. Kate, do we have any kind of an idea of which Planning Commission meeting this would end up on? 13 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Kate Aanenson: Well actually the motion before you is for denial so we're looking for some direction. He has asked for an extension and when we get to that item. We do have some issues that we would like to discuss with the council as far as if you are to grant the extension so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And also I just want to say Tamara did make an excellent presentation at the Planning Commission and your presentation was included in the council packet. Mayor Jansen: Yes it was. Tamara Sather: Right, I was just drawing their attention to it so okay. That's all. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, Council members. Taking a look at the information that I passed onto council. First is the Sheriff's office area report. You see the year end numbers indicate a relatively substantial increase, but if you noted the biggest increase was in traffic and traffic encompasses a number of things. One of those being traffic stops made by officers, as well as calls, traffic related calls. Debris in the roadway is one example. Anything traffic related will go into that category and of course that's with traffic and roadways, an ever increasing number. But the bulk of that is probably officer activity due to a couple of different factors. Number one, more officers working in the city during 2001 versus 2000. And with the ongoing hiring of the sheriff's office, we have more officers who are calling in their traffic stops these days. And just kind of an officer safety mindset that the officers have in this day and age, as well as during our evening hours when we have 3 deputies on duty, they've taken the opportunity as time and call load allows, to do some sting operations where they aren't necessarily writing tickets left and right, but they'll set up in a problem area and perhaps stop 20-30 cars in 45 minutes or an hour doing checks of driving for violations so that's kind of in a nutshell where you would see a substantial increase in that particular number. I just wanted to point that out to council. You also have the community service officer highlights, crime prevention specialist highlights and just my miscellaneous items for this month. On December 11th an officer attempted to stop an erratic vehicle on Highway 5. It turned into a parking lot at the intersection with Dakota and the 2 occupants, both juveniles, fled the vehicle on foot. The officer did pursue the driver through back yards, over fences, across streets and various other obstacles and was able to apprehend the driver of that vehicle. However, before other additional back-up officers arrived, the other juvenile went back to the vehicle that had been stopped. Jumped in and took off. But because that juvenile also was intoxicated, as was the first, drove through the red light at the intersection there. Caused a relatively serious accident and both of those juveniles ended up in significant legal trouble, we shall say, but I just wanted to point that out. It was a good job by the officers working in Chanhassen here, and good coordination of effort there. Another example from December, on the 14~h, officers were out on a call at an apartment complex downtown Chanhassen here and one of the officers split off of that when he heard some unusual noises in the parking lot. Was able to witness an attempted damage to property of a vehicle in the parking lot. Pursued on foot 2 suspects and caught both of them. One happened to have fallen down so that made it a little easier, but both of them were taken into custody for damage to property. A felony level by the way is they damaged an expensive picture window at an apartment building. December 21st, kind of a run of the mill call. A suspicious vehicle that when the officer arrived was no longer in the area, but this particular deputy, Kyle Perlich took it upon himself to dig deeper. Broader his search of the area and behind a couple of 14 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 businesses in Chanhassen where there are many vehicles parked, did locate 2 juveniles and was able to interrogate and get confessions from these 2 juveniles that they were in fact breaking into vehicles and stealing items. And also attached to my monthly report you' 11 see a positive performance tracker for Deputy Kyle Perlich, and something you haven't seen in the past in my monthly reports but something you' 11 see in the future. I' m attempting to get on the list to get a copy of all the reports of this nature that, all the positive performance trackers that we get on our deputies and include those for your information as well. The last item, tobacco and alcohol compliance checks. Just kind of a touch on the year end results of those. I was able to learn that the sheriff' s office came through Chanhassen on 2 different occasions. Was able to check 7 businesses that sell alcohol in the city. 2 of those businesses were cited or actually employees that work at those were cited for selling to underage persons and those cases are being pursued. Also, 14 businesses that sell tobacco were checked for compliance resulting in only 1 sale from a business in Chanhassen during 2001. Any comments, questions or anything else from Council? Mayor Jansen: Council? Councilman Ayotte: Any feedback on the crime alert associated with the mail theft that's been going on? Question one. And question two, you had a very successful seminar. You're looking at doing some more. Any more development in that area? Question three. What's your sense, how are these crime alerts working? Are they paying dividends? Sgt. Dave Potts: Crime alerts are mostly for awareness and education purposes. We hope that at some point in time somebody who gets a hold of a crime alert will be that much more diligent in looking around and see something that they will eventually report that will lead to an arrest or something like that. I can't think of a specific example where that's occurred to date, but again the primary thing is awareness and education with those alerts. At the work session we did discuss community presentations and that type of thing and we are looking to expand that type of activity in the upcoming year. I don't know how much detail you wish me to go into. Councilman Ayotte: That's alright, I'll give you an e-mail and then we can go back and forth that way. Sgt. Dave Potts: Okay. And the third question again was? Councilman Ayotte: Well the mail. Sgt. Dave Potts: Oh mail, yeah. That was something you'd be hearing about next month. We're in the midst of that right now. We did see, not a huge rash but a few highlighted incidents of mail theft that led to check forgeries or attempted check forgeries, as well as credit card types of fraud so we're right now working with our neighborhood groups to bring up the awareness of that. We're also meeting with the Chanhassen Villager newspaper. I believe there's going to be a news brief in this week's paper, just to mention it and the Villager's expressed interest in doing a more in-depth article. Getting the perspective from crime prevention, law enforcement, as well as some of our victims. I contacted 4 victims today and asked if they would be interested in participating with the Villager in developing an article. Getting the victim's perspective as a way of just educating the people what a nightmare this can be if you fall victim and how to avoid it, so that's something we're in the process of working on right now. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. 15 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Excellent. That's great. Any other questions? Okay. Appreciate your coming this evening and for the update. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is our update from our fire department. We have Greg Hayes here. Greg Hayes: I have to move the podium so I can use the computer. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Greg Hayes: Mayor, City Council. What we wanted to present shortly is give you the executive summary. Each year we look at where we've been and where we're going and is there ways that we can come up with to slow our business down. It's unusual to hear a business trying to slow down but we like our's to be a little bit slower than it's been. We've, things like priority medical dispatch. Other things we've instituted, we're reviewing those because now we've had a full cycle. We've had a full year in some of the new protocols and changes and seeing what impact that they've had. But in looking at our 2001 calls, we had a total of 799 calls for service last year. Our highest is medicals. That is traditionally where it's always been. This past year we had around 4. I believe it was 400 medicals. Our second highest was fire alarms and car accidents. In looking at what time we get calls, that's kind of important to us. It always seems to hit us at the important times. 6:00 at night when we're having dinner, at 11:00, between 11:00 and noon when we're eating lunch and we haven't figured out why that is yet but that seems to be our busy periods. With somewhere in the mid to late evening we've had increases in calls. We' re right now looking at the data to try and figure out what is causing this increase. Our slowest period luckily is at 4:00 in the morning so that's kind of where we like to keep that and if we can slow that one down any farther, that would be the best. When are our calls for service? We are looking, when we get our calls for service, how long does it take us to get there? That's one of big criteria is when we get that call, how long does it take us to get on scene. Our coverage area is very different than a lot of cities. We cover all the way, as you know, all the way down to the river in Shakopee. That's one our borders and that's our longest stretch, but we can reach anywhere in the city, and we have been consistently in 4 V2 minutes. So from the time we get the page to the time we're walking in somebody's front door to help them, it's 4 V2 minutes and that ranks up there nationally with full time fire departments and we're doing this with our 45 paid on-call fire fighters. So we're extremely proud of that fact and we're one of probably the best in the metro area for response times. When we look at what we've done, what are our calls? We look at, we've had 799 in 2001 and when we look backwards, back down to 1992, we were running 396, so we're gradually seeing an increase. Obviously we know where that's coming from. Our city's growing. We did look at some of the numbers. We did find that overall there seems to be more people living in one household and that's provided a little bit of an increase there but we're going to further look at some of this data to see if we can help look at ways that we can use our resources just a little bit better by looking at this. But we had 799, which has been by far our busiest year so far. When we look at the future as to where we're going, we looked out to 2010 and that's going to put us almost at 1,200 calls per year at the current rate that we're at, so we trended this out and looked at, as long as we don't see too many big spikes, we should be around 1,200 calls per year, which is right as our organization sits today, we're going to have to make a change. Some of the changes we're looking at is increasing our personnel. We may have to, depending on the growth in the southern end of the city, add a station and we're going to start planning for those things so that they don't sneak up on us and then we're kind of, they're here today and we have to deal with them. So when we looked at another arena, it's our fire prevention and this is one of our areas that's been a really, really big impact. When you look at our overall fires, we're fairly low and we accredit it right back to, oops. I've got to back up to the medicals. Apologize for that. We looked at our medicals, our busiest side. What is, what's the most calls for service. Unfortunately on this slide I got my numbers, I was off by 4 so it says 396 up there. It should be 400. But when we looked at our medicals we saw a really big spike this year. I wasn't able to 16 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 get the day to day because the person at Carver County was out. We wanted to find out how many calls didn't we get. Through priority medical dispatch, if that was not there, if this was a year ago, how many would we have seen? They were, people were guessing about another 200 runs. So we should have had about 1,000. The ambulance now located at Lake Ann is taking a lot of runs for us. And we are seeing that quite a bit. We'll see them running around the city, when typically a year ago we would get that call. So there is quite a significant benefit to that priority medical dispatch. Looking at our fire prevention now. Fire prevention is one of our biggest areas. It' s, we feel it's had the biggest impact in keeping our fires down and we looked at what are we doing construction wise? Our busiest is new construction. That's where we've had our most inspections. We do get into our existing businesses, and that was about 5% of our overall fire prevention time last year, and the businesses we typically get into on an annual basis are the buildings that house lots of people or that a lot of people attend, i.e. dinner theaters or apartments. Hotel/motels so we see those on an annual basis. Support activities. Those other things that we do, that eats up a lot of our time. Between myself and Mark and that was about 71% of our time overall. Calling people on the phone and writing letters and doing a lot of follow-up. But the biggest thing, our highlights when we looked at 2001, one of our biggest highlights is our fire prevention week. In October we spend a week where essentially we shut everything down and we focus on the schools. We had 20 fire fighters this year do hands on training for over 2,000 students. Where we were doing one on one training with students from different schools. We were very successful. That number keeps growing, and we' ve tried to keep up with the growth in the schools. The biggest factor there is the 20 paid on call people do it for nothing more than lunch. We don't pay them. They take off work for a week and do this, so that's one our biggest credits. When we've talked to fire departments around us, they don't have that same result. It's usually about 2 or 3 people. At our open house this year, at the end of our fire prevention week we had over 1,000 participants. We used flyers to count people and we had over, we handed out all of our flyers and there were still people coming in so we had over 1,000 people. Look at the fire suppression side. We had 1,300 hours logged for training. That's our Monday night training that we do, and we did receive an award for our web site and web site development for our fire department to promote our fire prevention. To promote our fire department and the service that we provide. And we also received 2 grants last year to help offset some of our training and operational costs. With that, I'll take any questions. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Any questions? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I have a couple. Your cycle time is 4 ½ minutes,, which is by the standards that you've researched, excellent. You' ve stated that you can anticipate some cost drivers, possibly the need for another station and so on. So I would suppose there's a correlation. Greg Hayes: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And you had stated that your highest number of calls are, the highest number of activities categorically is medical response? Greg Hayes: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: To the tune of about, did you say 400? Greg Hayes: 400 last year out of 799 calls. 17 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: So from the standpoint of prevention, would more emphasis and thrust in prevention help deal with the medical calls and possibly defer the need for, or reduce the need for another building as an example? Greg Hayes: One of the areas that we've been talking about is doing, we do fire prevention. Maybe do medical prevention and getting public information out there on what to do from a basic standpoint medically. We're also looking at some other models that other cities have used to offset some of these numbers to keep our numbers where they're at, or at least slow the growth down. Those are some of our options and right now what we're trying to do is plan for the next 5 years. Having Ridgeview downtown was a real big supporter for us. Councilman Ayotte: Having what? Greg Hayes: Having the Ridgeview move to Lake Ann park shelter was a big supporter, so now we need to find the next step because now we've finally had a year with priority medical dispatch. And we are going to change protocols in the short term. To lessen some of those calls. Councilman Ayotte: Do you know why you're so good with the 4 ¥2 minute turn around time? Greg Hayes: One of our benefits is we, people are excited about the organization. They like showing up. We get-an average number, about 16 people per call. We also have a lot of people that live very close to the station and that helps out quite a bit. So they get out the door, we're one of the quickest when we listen to everyone on our county wide system. Councilman Ayotte: I just, with the things that are facing us, it just seems to me that we ought to think seriously about what we need to do to allow you to do the research you need to anticipate costs. We have cost avoidance in the area while not diminishing the level of service to the community, and I just, you're given me some indications that we should be wringing our hands in a little bit. Greg Hayes: We're working. We need to get an overall picture with the data and see what, formulate a plan. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: In fact I would commend the fire department for putting as much effort as they have previously into identifying their calls and doing some creative things, like your call prioritization and the protocol there so, we appreciate it and they have been very sensitive to taking a look at those projected increases and needs and services and capital so our appreciation to all of our volunteers for all of their efforts that call out number, that 4 1/2 minutes is certainly impressive so you're a hard working group and send our congratulations and appreciation back to the group when you see them. Greg Hayes: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND APPROVE CONSULTANT WORK ORDER FOR 2002 MSA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 01-08. 18 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 Public Present: Name Address Sam Chase Scott Eimen Jon Steckman Tony Coult Loretta Stoltz Richard Allen Matt Pekarna Mary Stacken Jeff Baumer Bryan McCoskey Bob Kendall Carolyn Barinsky Pamela Strand Phil Thiesse Sy Roerick Judy Jacques Kevin Crystal Dave Stockdale Todd Deckard Matt Hoffman John & Mariellen Waldron Larry Y. 6621 Arlington 1206 Lake Lucy Road 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6606 Chafing Bend 7351 Cactus Curve 911 Saddlebrook Curve 6559 Shadow Lane 1430 Lake Lucy Road 6500 Shadow Lane 6720 Pointe Lake Lucy 1645 Lake Lucy Road 8731 Audubon Road 8640 Audubon Road 1675 Stellar Court 6600 Arlington Court 1214 Lake Lucy Road 940 Saddlebrook Curve 8301 Audubon Road 6611 Arlington Court 931 Saddlebrook Trail 1900 Lake Lucy Road 30 Lake Drive East Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Before I start, there was an error that needed to be pointed out on the staff report itself. If you can zoom in. If you'll notice, under rehabilitation, Shadow Lane is listed as a rehabilitation. That should have been a maintenance project. And Stellar Court is listed as a maintenance project. That should be rehabilitation. Those 2 got switched around in the staff report. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Teresa Burgess: If anybody hasn't guessed yet, I do have a sore throat and so I may lose my voice halfway through this. As I start to fade out I apologize but there were handout, there was a handout tonight and that does have verbatim my comments so if you're having trouble hearing me, specifically Bob. I made you a copy. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that. Teresa Burgess: Follow along. This is as loud as I get and as I get softer, it's not because I'm not trying. I'm just losing my voice. Tonight we're talking about the City of Chanhassen 2002 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project, City Project 01-08. It's the 2002 construction is what this is proposed for, and as you look at the map it shows Audubon Road, Coulter Boulevard, Lake Drive, Lake Drive East, Lake Lucy Road, Saddlebrook Curve, Stellar Court, Pointe Lake Lucy, Mulberry East and West, Heather Court 19 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 and Shadow Lane. Six of these streets, Audubon Road north of Lake Drive, Coulter Boulevard from Audubon Road to Pillsbury, Lake Drive and Lake Drive East, Lake Lucy Road, Saddlebrook Curve and Stellar Court are proposed for rehabilitation work in 2002. Five street sections, Audubon Road south of Lake Drive, Pointe Lake Lucy, Mulberry East and West, Heather Court and Shadow Lane were also considered as part of this feasibility study. The feasibility study recommends continued maintenance on these street sections instead of rehabilitation at this time because of the current status of the pavements on those streets. How were the streets selected? This graph shows the typical road deterioration. The curve is based on actual experience in the city of Chanhassen, or as Bob likes to ask me, is it based on impurical data? Yes it is. PCI is the Pavement Condition Index. This number is assigned by the computer based on the pavement survey by a field inspector. The city had all of the roads inspected in 2001 by a consultant so that the information would be consistent across the entire city. The PCI is used to rank and prioritize the road projects. The computer then recommends roads for improvement based on available budget. The PCI of 75 is the typical cut-off point for recommendation of a rehabilitation project. A typical rehabilitation project would include mill and overlay and minor sub-grade and/or curb and gutter improvements in spot locations. A rehabilitative road would return to a PCI of 100. All of the projects proposed in this year's project are rehabilitation projects. A PCI of 55 is the typical point for recommending a reconstruction project. A reconstruction project would include construction of new road from the sub-base up. Projects are usually not initiated at PCI 55 since the project costs the same at 55 as at 35. Instead they go down in priority. This leads to a strange but logical practice. In doing projects on pavement that is in better shape. For instance Lake Lucy Road being considered instead of Yosemite. Before I leave this one, if I could just point out, an'd it doesn't show up as well on your small scale. Because this is based on actual roads, you can see that there's a pretty standard curve that comes through here. This is what we typically see, but if you notice there are roads that are older that last longer. There are roads that are younger that are starting to fall down into recon. This happens for a number of reasons. It can happen for sub-grade, because of sub-grade problems. It can happen because of utility cuts, either because of city utilities or because of the gas company, the cable company making cuts across our roads. That drives the road to failure much faster and so without looking at what the individuals are, this one is a concern. Why did it fail so soon? It's already into reconstruction and it's only about 7 years old. But roads do vary depending on individual circumstances. The main curve is the most typical failure rate and these are, each of these points is a specific section of roadway in Chanhassen. So why are we talking about this now? Well as streets age the cost to maintain them increases. At a certain point it becomes more cost effective to rehabilitate or reconstruct than to continue to maintain. Rehabilitation is less expensive than reconstruction, and less disruptive to the neighborhood. Since many of Chanhassen streets are in relatively good condition the city can do rehabilitation projects and avoid reconstruction except in the case where the road does not meet city standards, either for width or lacks curb and gutter. This is the situation for Audubon south, which is part of the reason it was removed. When there are sub-grade problems, again Audubon south of Lake Drive, a road is left too long and sub-grade deterioration begins. Or utility cuts and work in the sub- grade cause damage. So how are we proposing to finance this project? Staff is recommending the following project financing. 60 percent of the project cost be paid using municipal state aid or MSA dollars. MSA dollars are allocated by the State of Minnesota for use on designated roads within the city. These are dollars that come out of our budget, even though they are not property tax, they are gas tax. Assess 40 percent of the project cost to abutting property owners. Assessments are a legitimate funding source for street improvements and many cities do assess at some level, including Shakopee, Eden Prairie and Chaska. However, assessments cannot by law exceed the value received by the property. This means that the property must increase in value equal to or in excess of the amount that is assessed. If the property owner does not feel that they've received this benefit they have the legal right to contest the assessment, first to the City Council, and then if they feel they have not received justification from the council, at the district court. That is the purpose of the assessment hearing. Tonight's meeting is just to 20 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 talk about, should we do the project? Certainly we want to hear from people if they think that the financing method is wrong, but we are not talking about individual contesting of assessments. If they want to contest those, they will get a notice they have to attend the assessment hearing, or file the',n' contention in advance of that hearing. Third, increase the maintenance levels currently being done on Audubon Road south of Lake Drive. This work would be funded out of the annual general fund budget and would not be assessed to the abutting property owners. Property owners would be assessed when the road is eventually reconstructed. A feasibility study would be done at that time to address the cost and the assessment amounts. What alternatives do we consider? So what alternatives did staff consider for alternative assessment amounts? Assessments cannot exceed the benefit to the property owners, and property owners do not like being assessed. However, the recent community survey showed that residents had mixed feelings about assessments. Right now we're proposing a 40 percent. We did look at 100 percent, and if the council feels appropriate they can adjust that assessment as they feel is appropriate to this project. As an alternative staff did consider continuing the city's practice of just increasing the maintenance on roads. While this would continue to work for a while, eventually the roads will need work and the opportunity to rehabilitate versus reconstruction will have been lost. There' s a very limited time period, if you noticed on that previous graph. In addition the city will need to identify funding for the increased maintenance as we go down that path. The thing that every property owner wants to know. What does 40 percent assessment mean to the property owner in the matter of their budget? For Audubon Road, Coulter Boulevard, Lake Drive, Lake Drive East, Lake Lucy Road and Saddlebrook Curve, a 40 percent assessment comes out at $4,050 per parcel. If you'll notice in the assessment rolls that were handed out in the preliminary feasibility report, there was an error on the Lake Lucy assessment roll. It included assessments for Arlington Court. That street was removed from the project so that would not receive the $4,050 a.ssessment, but that would be corrected when we do the final assessment roll for the adoption by the council. A Per parcel calculation was used since Chanhassen does have flag lots and no frontage lots. Properties that abut more than one street were assessed if their driveway was on the street to be improved, but not if their driveway was on the un-assessed street. What we've done is, I've calculated out an 8 year spread. The 8 years would need to be approved by the council. That is what we used in 2001. 6.5 percent interest is the interest we used in 2001 for those projects and based on where things are going right now, it looks pretty stable and so finance was comfortable with sticking with the 6.5 with the finals to be adopted by the council at the time of final hearing. And you can see what the payment would be per year, and that would come out on your taxes. You do get 2 statements per year so it would be split across the 2. Again, proPerty owners that choose to can come in at any time and pay off the remaining principle. There is no penalty for doing that. For · Stellar Court, a 40 percent assessment comes out at $2,671.57 per parcel, calculated the same way as the other streets. With that I'll answer any questions before the public hearing. Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: I'm looking quickly, sewer and water's not addressed to any specifics of these projects. Teresa Burgess: All of these projects we reviewed with the utility department, which is actually part of public works, and they did not have any concerns on any of these. The only exception would be that we have heard in the open house from some property owners that would like to consider the extension of sanitary sewer as part of their project, but we haven't seen a petition from property owners that are interested in doing that, and that would be the normal process for initiating a project for sanitary sewer. Councilman Ayotte: In your technical, professional opinion, should we look towards water and sewer on some of them? 21 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Teresa Burgess: It's always nice to do them as a solid project. If we're going to do sanitary sewer, the specific one that comes up would be Lake Lucy. If we' re considering sanitary sewer on Lake Lucy, then we should allow Lake Lucy to go into reconstruction instead of doing the rehabilitation, but that would only be the case if we're relatively sure that that's going to happen within the next 10 to 15 years. Councilman Ayotte: As you know, I feel a little uncomfortable about the black and white assessment approach, and I'm interested in seeing tables, algorithms that may give some forecasts of what the hit is on a resident. Should we change those percentages? And also whether or not, and I believe all of this is based on an 8 year term. I'd like to see, personally some... Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: ...of the period of performance. Mayor Jansen: All of those comments, if we can hold those until after the public hearing, it would be more appropriate. Appreciate that. Councilman Ayotte: I'll hold them. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Councilman Boyle: Not at this time. Mayor Jansen: I had one that was actually raised on the feasibility study for the Audubon Road project. It noted in here under the assessments that it may be appropriate to contact MnDot regarding contributing to the repair for the damaged sections because they were running their construction traffic over those sections. Though this is worded as a may be appropriate. Teresa Burgess: We have already completed that. We did contact MnDot and I can't repeat the response but it was a no. It was very emphatically no. They stated the legal truth. Audubon is a legal right-of-way and they do have the legal right to use that roadway and they did not do anything that was documented as inappropriate. We do not have any tickets that were issued for overweight limit and therefore there is no legal requirement for them to participate in reconstruction of that roadway. Mayor Jansen: That's unfortunate. Teresa Burgess: It is. We are hoping that with continued discussions we can change their mind, but at this time the statement was pretty clear that they were not going to be participating. Mayor Jansen: Okay. If there's anything that we can do to be of help on those negotiations, you'll certainly I'm sure keep us informed. Teresa Burgess: And as was stated, I don't know if the council caught it. We did revise the feasibility study from the time of the staff report to exclude that section of Audubon that is south of Lake Drive because it is in a little bit worse shape. We like to get about 15 years out of our overlay projects. Our mill and overlay projects and we didn't think that we would get that out of it. Also that section of roadway will most likely be reconstructed when Lyman is done and so rather than do the project now, we're proposing instead that we increase maintenance on that section of road and hold it for a couple 22 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 years. I' ve talked with MnDot and they have agreed to lower the load limits on that section of roadway. That will require a council resolution. I' 11 be bringing that separate and we' 11 be posting that as most likely a 5 ton roadway and that will reduce the wear and tear on the road and hopefully we'll get another 3 to 4 years out of it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. That change in the project, does that change the assessment roll then? Have those property owners been notified? Teresa Burgess: It changed the assessment roll from $4,052 to $4,050 so we did not re-contact the neighborhoods. We will, when we have the final projects and we go to the assessment hearing, we would contact the property owners on a per project, per property basis with what their assessment is proposed to be. That is a worst case scenario so unless I hear different from the council tonight, we would do whatever you know we had talked about in the work session, should we be preparing multiple final assessment rolls? We would send them the worst case of the multiple final assessment rolls with the understanding that the council may choose to reduce those in the assessment hearing. Mayor Jansen: So at this point this evening we're opening this up for the public comments. We'll bring it back to council to get a feel for what direction we would like to give you as we move forward in the process. Teresa Burgess: Right. And if you refer to your staff report, what council is asking for tonight is the 4 points at the top. Hold the public hearing. Accept the feasibility study. Authorize preparation of plans and specifications on those portions you feel appropriate. And approve the consultant work order which I do have with me this evening, and I left over there. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Teresa Burgess: The consultant work order is in the amount of $51,200. That is, what we did for this project is we did all of the consultant' s proposed based on the entire project with the understanding that when we got the feasibility they would come back and re-propose for plans and specs but we would not go and open it up for everyone. We would just ask for a proposal from our consultant that was selected for the project. That eliminates the problem we've had in the past of we change consultants, we Change philosophies on how things Should be done. We also end up with some gaps inbetween our projects where things fall through. Where we're missing some communication and so this, by using one consultant all the way through we're hoping to realize first of all some cost savings because we aren't having those type of problems, and also consistency for the neighborhood. They're seeing the same consultant through all the pieces of the project. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great, thank you. Anything else for staff at this time? Okay. I will open this item up for the public hearing, and what I'm wondering, just so council can follow along. If I might be able to call this according to road project so that we can maybe group the comments...which project we're on and certainly if you've missed it and we've moved on, be sure that you do get your comments shared with us but this will help us be able to keep all the comments on each project together. I'm just going to follow. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I do have the latest edition of these with the changes from Wednesday night if the council would like them. Would you like these or to keep with the packets? There's not that many changes but. 23 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: I think we're okay with what we have, thank you. Why don't we start with the first of the projects which is the Coulter Boulevard project. If there's anyone present that would like to address the council on Coulter Boulevard, please step forward. Moving on to the next project in our packet. I skipped over Audubon. Why don't we do Audubon. Anyone here who would like to discuss the Audubon project with the council, please step forward. Seeing no one, how about Lake Drive. Vernelle Clayton: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I'm at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen and I just when you think you kind of know something, you realize maybe you don't and I'm SO1Ty Teresa that I haven't called you about this, but for my assumption that Village on the Ponds was not affected by this and that we somehow or other got the notice by mistake, I would have called you. However, about 10 minutes after 5:00 1 got a call from one of the owners of parcels of land in the Village on the Ponds project who said Vernelle, I don't think we're right in assuming that we're not affected by this. And so I'm afraid I have to ask a couple questions. My assumption that we were not affected was based on 2 facts. One that, on the map that I saw, the solid line stopped when it got to the west edge of Village on the Ponds and then picked up again on the east side. And therefore it was not, I was under the assumption that that road would not be affected. And secondly I was under the assumption therefore then that there would be no assessments because none of the properties would be abutting or directly benefiting from the project. I understand that some comments have been received by some of the land owners that would seem to be, my assumptions would seem to be contrary indicated. So can I just ask you Teresa, is Lake Drive as it goes through Village on the Ponds excluded from this project? Teresa Burgess: ! assume you're concerned about the assessment roll and not whether we're doing the project. Vernelle Clayton: I would be concerned about both. Teresa Burgess: I have the assessment roll here Vernelle and probably the easiest way would be for you to look and just look at it quickly and see if you're listed here anywhere, rather than my try to recall. Vernelle Clayton: Okay. AUSMAR is on there. Does that mean you're planning to do some work on the road? Teresa Burgess: The work we're proposing...would be the work on Lake Drive. Vernelle Clayton: All of Lake Drive that goes through Village on the Ponds is private. Teresa Burgess: But that section of road connects to the public section. Vernelle Clayton: Not directly. It's. Teresa Burgess: It's on either side. Vernelle Clayton: I think it skips actually. I think that Great Plains that comes down south and connects to Lake Drive. But we just built that road. I'm happy just to bring this to the council's attention at this point. Mayor Jansen: I think that might be best Vernelle and then being able to sit down with Teresa and staff and going through the specifics. 24 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 Vernelle Clayton: My only point in being here is to alert everyone to that and if the $4,000 estimate was based on a contribution from these folks, it would be our suggestion that we need to look at it. So I'm really not inclined to spend a whole lot of time, and we can. Teresa Burgess: This is what's proposed to be constructed... Vernelle Clayton: Right, and that's not in Village on the Ponds. We'll just talk about whether there's any logic in assessing us. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Appreciate your bringing it to our attention Vernelle. Thank you. Anyone else here to discuss the Lake Drive, Lake Drive East project with the council? Okay. How about the Lake Lucy Road project? Please step forward to the podium. Pat Johnson: Good evening. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. If you could state your name and address for the record please. Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson. My address is 1730 Lake Lucy Road, and I do have a presentation. Part of this is from my neighbors. And part of it is mine, so you probably can't probably zero in on that as well as we could on a power point. Certainly myself and most of us I think on Lake Lucy Road don't see a need for this project at this time. The road frankly doesn't look like it's in that bad of shape. It was built in 1988. I believe 87 or 88. It has become a major road in the northern part of Chanhassen, and I think that that's one of the reasons frankly that we don't see this as a great need at-this time is because that area has not been totally developed. And this road seems to take a fair amount of abuse from major traffic, service vehicles and particularly construction vehicles during the building season. Those developments in that area not done yet. They won't be done for 3 to 5 years, and we think the road's gotten beat up in part because of the developments that have been ongoing in the last, well really the last 5 years in that area. So we don't see a need right now for the reconstruction of that road, or rehabilitation of that road. But the, probably the more important point we want to make is the appropriateness of assessing Lake Lucy Road property owners for that project. And if I can show you the city's map of the area, you'll see that, as we all, you probably all know, Lake Lucy Road is about the only east/west corridor between Highway 7 and Highway 5, and that's certainly going to remain that way in the future. There won't be, because this is parkland, there certainly will not be any east/west road between 7 and Highway 5, other than Lake Lucy Road and those of us who have lived there in the last 14-15 years, have seen a huge increase in traffic. Now because this is a county road, the north/south corridor of Galpin Boulevard, and the north/south corridor of Powers Boulevard, and because there are state highways on the north and the south, those roads of course are paid for by the county or by the state. Our road is a city road and unfortunately the city's proposal to assess the property owners, and there aren't that many of us, for the rehabilitation of this project when in fact our use is miniscule compared to the amount of traffic on the road, we think is wrong. We think it's unfair. The criteria used for the assessment, a 40 percent assessment, is I think arbitrary. We don't, I have not heard how that 40 percent amount came to be. We do know that about 60 percent of the project cost is being paid for by the State of Minnesota by some state fund. And so we of course think that the 40 percent is being paid by us because we're the source of funding for that particular project. So we see it as arbitrary, the criteria of a 40 percent assessment on the property owners. We've taken some traffic counts ourselves on this road and it's my, it was my calculation that we have about 5 vehicles per minute during the morning and evening rush hours, and well over 1,000 vehicle trips a day on Lake Lucy Road. It's quite clearly more than just a connector road or collector road. It's really a thoroughfare in the city. Probably no different 25 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 in terms of trips than Galpin Boulevard. Probably a little less than Powers Boulevard, but not much. I compare this more to Kerber Boulevard, and I don't know the history of Kerber Boulevard exactly but I would be surprised if any of the property owners on Kerber Boulevard were assessed for that project. The assessment also, the proposed project also, as I said, Lake Lucy Road was built with some state funds. It was built wider with bicycle paths. It's use as a residential street, it simply can't be used as a residential street as we could typically think of a residential street. I' ve had neighbors who have had to move their driveways in different ways because frankly it was dangerous to pull out into Lake Lucy Road. The speed limits on Lake Lucy Road is posted at 35 miles an hour. Everybody goes 45-50 miles an hour. Yesterday I followed a county patrol car, he did 45 to 50. 55 miles an hour down Lake Lucy Road, and he wasn't going to an emergency. It's simply a road that people drive on that they speed on. The point being, it is built like a county road. Or even a state road, and it's used that way by the residents because it's the only east/west road. We have now literally hundreds of new homes in the area and they use that road to go to work, take the kids to school, to get to Highway 7, to Highway 5 or whatever. We don't think as property owners, because we happen to have a parcel Of property on this particular road, that we should pay for it. We think that the criteria used, if you're going to use a criteria, should be based on traffic counts and some sort of calculation based on traffic counts should be used in deciding to assess the owners. If at all. Finally with respect to my situation, I don't even have a driveway on Lake Lucy Road. I have 2 parcels on Lake Lucy Road. One abuts Lake Lucy Lane on the north side. The other one that my house is on. They're both actually homestead, is assessed by a private driveway. That comes out to Lake Lucy Lane. And yet myself and some other neighbors in the same situation are still being assessed for this particular project, and I know that's directed more perhaps to an individual assessment hearing, and I don't want to get off the point that as a group, certainly individually, I don't think it's fair to assess any of us for this particular project. Finally I don't think, I think it's a unique situation. I think Lake Lucy Road is somewhat unique in these circumstances because unlike some of the other projects here such as Audubon Road, it is primarily residential lots along side Lake Lucy Road. It is not, we don't have any industry or commercial, but at the same time it certainly is a connector between other large developments and our commercial areas of the city. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else with comments on the Lake Lucy Road project. Barbara Spiess: My name is Barbara Spiess and I'm at 6610 Arlington Court, and I have a question. How does one go about finding the formula or ratio of assessment depending on the road type? For instance, a Mulberry Circle when it's repaved as opposed to a Lake Lucy. A percentage of the 80/20, 60/40. This one on Lake Lucy happens to be 60/40. Is there a table that? Teresa Burgess: No there is not. The proposal that's before the council previous to this, the direction from council and previous council. Not this council. Was 100 percent assessment. This is proposed to council as 100 percent assessment is not a viable option. That's why road projects were not done and we are recommending to council they consider an alternative. We have put forward 40/60 as a starting point for those discussions. If the council feels that's appropriate they would adopt that when we get to the final assessment hearing. If council feels it is appropriate to adjust that, that is their decision based on input from staff and the public. Barbara Spiess: Okay. Second question is in '88 Lake Lucy Road was a county road. When did it become a city road? Teresa Burgess: It was turned back, I don't have the exact date, but upgrade was done in '88. Barbara Spiess: 88? 26 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Teresa Burgess: Was the upgrade. I don't know what the exact date of the turnback is. I'd have to check files. I don't have that information with me tonight. Barbara Spiess: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And Teresa, do I have my notes correct that Arlington Court was removed from the assessment roll, correct? Teresa Burgess: Correct. It will be removed when we do the final because they are not being paved. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Mark Williams: My name's Mark Williams. I live on 1655 Lake Lucy Road. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm actually the guy that did move my driveway on Lake Lucy Road. I wasn't responsible for where it was originally. I don't know if the city had any assistance or advice when they came up with that place but I moved the driveway at a significant cost to myself, just due to the fact that it was an unsafe location and that's based on a variety of the things that you see on Lake Lucy Road. Pat Johnson got up here and spoke and did a great job so there's not a lot of things to add to this but a couple things I would just like to point out. First of all, on page 5 of your very same proposal here you state that however assessments cannot by law exceed the value received by the property. This means that the property much increase in value equal to or in excess of the amount that is assessed. I'm going to leave here a letter that I' ve written but I' ve been told and I believe this, that actually property owners along Lake Lucy Road are, if you were to go and have, to get an appraisal done on your property, they would first come to some figure in terms of the value of the property, and then actually decrease that by some amount due to the fact that we live on Lake Lucy Road which is considered a very busy road. Anything that's done in my estimation to encourage and increase traffic on Lake Lucy Road at an expense to me actually comes at, there's no benefit to me at all. In fact it costs me additional money in terms of the appraised value of my house. A couple other things here that I'd like to just point out. There's, I'd like to see some data but our estimates based on sightings and counts and some educated guesses that we've made is that the owners that are being proposed to be assessed are using the road somewhere in the vicinity of 3 percent of usage of the road. Granted anybody can argue numbers like that but I would think if you go apply some logic to it, make some counts, you'll find that it's not a very significant amount. Another, just kind of a logical train of thought on this. There are several developments off of Lake Lucy Road who have no access to their property except to go down Lake Lucy Road. I guess I don't understand, I'm an engineer, is the logic applied to this just kind of dumb founds me. I just go, how can people come up with a conclusion that the cost should be assessed in this proportion. It makes no sense. Councilman Ayotte: Could you re-state your last point with respect, because there's no egress/ingress, is that the point you're making? Mark Williams: For instance there are several developments who's only access into that development is off of Lake Lucy Road. So every time they make a trip anywhere, they use Lake Lucy Road. Okay. Why then, I'm not proposing that they be assessed but if you take that logic and expand it out, very soon you come up with the conclusion, this is a collector road. It's more than a collector road. This is an expense that should be incurred by the community at large. Not a small group of people. Okay? Not a small group of people. That is unfair. It's completely unfair. And these are the kind of things that make 27 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 a citizen of the community like me, these are the kind of things that get us really upset, okay. It appears to be a cavalier attitude about. Mayor Jansen: I would appreciate your keeping in mind that this is an initial hearing. An initial proposal to the council. We have several options before us that can certainly be considered and as staff had mentioned, the prior policy of prior councils was a 100 percent assessment. So we have opened this up and at staff s recommendation we are certainly looking at numerous alternatives for financing these projects. Mark Williams: Okay, I'll just make a couple small points. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. Mark Williams: If the homeowners along Lake Lucy Road had our way from the very start, we would have had a nice little, small road that just wound through the neighborhoods and didn't encourage large amounts of traffic. But that's not the road we have. In fact we have a road that's much larger than that and by it's very nature, just how big this road is, increases all these costs associated with it. It increases the cost associated with maintaining it, plowing it, all those things. That's another thing you should keep in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is that as an initial, when we lived along this road when that road was built. We paid a fairly hefty assessment at that time. I paid $8,695 at the time that that road was built. There's just a variety of things here. I'll leave copies of this letter I wrote and...quick look at that. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. I'm going to ask, and we certainly all here can appreciate that, you know when there's money involved, that it can get quite emotional. But we do have an etiquette that we do try to stick with here in the council chambers so if we can hold this to the calm of what we consider to be a business meeting, I would appreciate it. And as I expressed, this is an initial hearing. When we're certainly wanting to take your comments and your input prior to moving on with our discussions, but do take it as an indicator that we are evaluating this situation in that we are already moving from what was the prior policy and we are evaluating it. So thank you and ! just appreciate your maybe remaining in a calm,-so we can move the meeting forward. Thank you. Go ahead with your comments sir. John Waldron: My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road and I won't repeat a lot of the comments that some of my neighbors have already mentioned but I will give you some hard facts from traffic count. My wife was kind enough to, from 4:15 to 6:15 tonight count the cars going down Lake Lucy Road and there was 503 cars so this evening there's 4.2 cars per minute going down Lake Lucy Road. And I can assure you that my neighbors weren't driving up and down the road to build up the car count tonight. So we've got over 250 cars per hour, you know just in that time period. And in the morning, it's equally as busy so it is in fact a road that's being used by an awful lot of people in the city. Address it from the standpoint of fairness. Yeah, we do use the road so yeah maybe if yot~ are going to assess us, there should be some portion that you end up paying, but in this instance I would say that that percentage ought to be awful small. And in fact it doesn't seem fair when the money I know it's state aid money that the city has to use and say okay, here's where it goes. Different spots. But it still does come from the state and the proposal does not seem fair at all that for Lake Lucy Road that 60 percent of the money comes from state, and 40 percent is coming from the residents. And then if you take a residential street that the city, not the state but the city then is saying well okay, can the 60 percent of that and the residents kick in 40. And so even that on a comparison where they don't have 4.2 cars a minute going past their house on a residential street, the city in that instance is willing to kick in 60 percent. And so all of that whole setup does seem to be arbitrary and doesn't seem to be fair. And while I'm up here I'd like 28 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 to make a comment that the enforcement on Lake Lucy Road really is very, very bad. Almost every time when I'm coming down the road to go into my house, there's cars that get stacked up behind me because I do try to go 35 miles an hour, the speed limit. And then when I put my blinker on to turn into my driveway when I'm heading to the west, so I'm on the right hand side, they go past the double line. Or double yellow line and pass around. You know cutting over there if I'm coming the other way they try to go on the bike path to go around me. In the summer time you've got kids drag racing, you know 70 miles an hour down there. You put a 4 way stop sign at Galpin and Lake Lucy Road and we sit up on the hill overlooking that, and it actually is worst than it was before because before people knew on Lake Lucy they had to stop because traffic was flying through on Galpin. Well now people know that there's a 4 way stop so as they approach it they know that people are going to have to stop so then if they don't see anybody coming, they don't even bother to stop. Just cruise right on through so, that's even a worst situation. And so we would appreciate a little more enforcement and I know asking Teresa questions, she said we can't lower the speed limit because the irony there is that MnDot would have to come out and do a test and what MnDot would do in their test is that they would say okay, here's the average speed limit and so they'd find out that it's 45-50 miles an hour and so then they'd post it 45-50 miles an hour. So I guess we don't want to have MnDot come out so. Mayor Jansen: Exactly. John Waldron: Please send some more sheriff's. They're more than welcome to sit in my driveway and that will more than pay for any extra sheriff's just sitting there so thank you. I would appreciate it if you do look at collector streets, in particular this one because it is being used you know, lucky if it' s 5 percent by the residents so paying for 40 percent for that use isn't a fair thing. And I would put forward to you that if you did want to propose 100 percent assessment to the people on Lake Lucy Road, that I would be very surprised if you'd win in court so, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there' s anyone else that had something new to add, if we can maybe move forward with any new comments on this particular project that haven't been shared, that would be appreciated. Anthony Coult: My name is Anthony Coult at 6606 Charing Bend. Mayor Jansen: If you might pull the microphone down for us so we're catching this for the minutes. Anthony Coult: 6606 Charing Bend, Anthony Coult. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anthony Coult: I'd just like to say I agree with everything everybody says. It's completely unfair. That road is heavily used, but also in your own comprehensive plan, on page 73 it does list Lake Lucy as a Class I collector. Nobody really did mention that but it is in your own plan so that's it. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate that. Todd Deckard: If I may ask a question. My name's Todd Deckard. I actually live on Arlington Court, but I still have the same question. You've mentioned it in the past it was 100 percent assessment was proposed, were your successful in applying 100 percent assessment for rehabilitation projects? 29 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Teresa Burgess: Projects were not initiated because the assessments were known to be too high. In February of 2001, up until that time when I came here I was directed 100 percent assessment. In February of 2001 I did do a feasibility study and brought it to the council to show why it was not feasible to do 100 percent assessment. Those assessments were calculated at $26,000 per parcel. At that time council changed it's direction from 100 percent assessment, directed staff to evaluate alternatives. We contacted several cities and did not find a standard pattern. What we were looking for was an assessment that came out with a reasonable dollar amount, and I realize when I say that, you're talking about paying it, you may not agree but we have brought it down to a level that we feel is defendable in court and that is where we tried to set that assessment. And so that's why we came to the 60/40 split. Todd Deckard: No, this is helpful for me. It only clarified whether we were changing our behavior from the past. In fact we' re not. Teresa Burgess: Yes we are. Todd Deckard: But the 100 percent assessments have not been applied successfully. Teresa Burgess: We did not do projects period because we knew that they were unreasonable assessments. For instance $26,000 assessment, it was in excess of that actually. If you put that into mindset, that comes out to a car payment every month to come up with $26,000 paid across a 8 month period. Typical car payments is 6 but I looked at that personally and my statement to the council was I can't afford that. Can we ask the citizens of Chanhassen to do that, and so based on that recommendation staff was directed by council to investigate alternatives. But we did not even initiate projects at 100 percent because staff was uncomfortable with those assessment levels. Todd Deckard: ...my question so thank you. Mayor Jansen: And that was the policy as it was presented to us and that's when we did open it up and agree as a council that that was unrealistic and if we needed to move the projects forward, we need to come up with a way working with our community to best figure out how to do that and how to pay for them. Todd Deckard: Okay. Well I have my question answered, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilman Boyle: I think it's important to reiterate one more time too. The 60/40 is being recommended by staff. It is not policy. It's just being recommended on this particular program. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Mary Stacken: Hi. My name's Mary Stacken. I live at 1430 Lake Lucy Road and I'll make it quick. But I just want to reiterate. I think the point wasn't driven home enough. I have a few stats. It's the 35 homes that are abutting property owners that are being affected with this 40 percent assess that will be assessed the 40 percent charge plus tax increase on the property taxes. I've got like a 15 yard driveway onto Lake Lucy Road versus say 150 yard cul-de-sac onto Lake Lucy Road. But also I think the fact that because it's a collector road we get people from Waconia, Victoria, Chaska, Western Chanhassen and Southern Chanhassen. They take Highway 5 to go east, Galpin Road to go north, Lake Lucy Road going east and Powers Boulevard going north to get onto Highway 7 going east to work every morning and 30 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 work back. I don't know how many neighbors and friends and people that live in the community say that's the access points they take to avoid Highway 5. Going in Highway 5 west to Powers Boulevard so many, many more people travel that road than just the neighbors on that road so bringing the collector road point home so I think the charges need to be spread across. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Sam Chase: My name is Sam Chase. I live on 6621 Arlington Court. One quick point. It would seem to me that it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to take a look at what it should cost if this were a normal road, and just simply make your adjustment proportionate that the city kicks in to average these people's .costs down to what it should be. Just take a look at the average cost for the roads in the city and say these people are in an extraordinary circumstance. Let's not assess them any more than they should be just because they're on this road. It's clearly used for more than just city use, and have the city taxpayers, me, kick in the other portion. It seems to me very clear. It needs to be done. Someone has to pay for it. I pay for my road. They should pay for their road, but they shouldn't be paying more than I should be paying because they don't use their road any more than I use my road. The last question I've got, I don't know if it's a question or just a suggestion but a lot of cities don't consider re-paving assessment. They consider it maintenance and they just throw it into the general fund. It would eliminate all of these discussions. It would eliminate your time being tied up as to whether it ought to be paved or not paved. Is there some reason you can't consider doing that? Mayor Jansen: It is one of the options that we certainly have before us that we can consider. Sam Chase: Okay, because it certainly would make it more_beneficial. I'll never know when you're paving the road. It will just slip into my taxes and slip out, which is the way it should be and it's so much easier. Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Judy Jacques: I just have one comment. My name is Judy Jacques. I live at 1214 Lake Lucy Road and it's just not the residents that are using it. Everybody said that, I understand that. But every single day my dogs howl like you wouldn't believe when the sirens go for the firemen and the firemen that were here tonight and said they have an excellent response. Well, they use Lake Lucy Road a lot. Believe me because my dogs howl every time they go by. And so do the cops and like somebody else said too, they go fast and I' m the second exit off of Powers and sometimes I have to keep going straight and go around in the cul-de-sac because they're going so fast by my road, I can't even go into my driveway because they're just going way too fast so that's all I have to say. Mayor Jansen: Sure, thank you. Anyone else with comments on the Lake Lucy Road project? Scott Eimen: Hi. My name's Scott Eimen. I live at 1206 Lake Lucy Road and I just want to know what the total cost for Lake Lucy Road is. Mayor Jansen: We'll have that with you momentarily. Scott Eimen: Sure. While they're looking at that, on my way home after talking to Teresa earlier today, I took a right on Lake Lucy Road on the other side of Powers Boulevard. It's not being assessed. There's more cracks per 100 feet in that section of road which is gosh, it must be at least 10, maybe it's 5 to 6 years old, and you know so Lake Lucy's got 10 years on this road and it's less, it's got less cracks in 31 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 it. The consulting, I don't know what their consultants found but how about our city workers, what do they think? And I also think that putting back the roads that in worst shape, beyond repair or rehabilitation, that's damage to vehicles. It's damage to city plows. Accidents could occur. So I think them roads should get the attention and just spread it all out like they said in the taxes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Did you find that number? Teresa Burgess: Yes. Lake Lucy Road from Galpin to Powers is estimated at $216,064.97, and I'm sure we'll be right down to the penny. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Scott Eimen: And there's how many homes? Like 30? Mayor Jansen: I think we said 35 abutting properties. Teresa Burgess: The assessment roll needs to be adjusted because it does still include some properties that would not be assessed. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Eimen: But 30 homes at $4,052 is $121,560. That's not 40 percent. Teresa Burgess: I show 26 homes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Scott Eimen: Okay. Well you can do the math I guess and. Mayor Jansen: Between now and the final assessment, the math would certainly be double checked, if that's the concern as to whether or not it was properly calculated. Scott Eimen: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else with comments on the Lake Lucy Road project? Appreciate everyone who did share comments on that. Moving on, the Saddlebrook Curve road project. Is there anyone here who would like to address the council? Richard Allen: We wouldn't want to end that quickly. My name's Richard Allen. I live at 911 Saddlebrook Curve. I' ve actually only lived there for about 2 years so I'm not that familiar with the history of the city. But I actually oppose the project for 3 reasons. First of all I think the project is maintenance and not improvements. Secondly, I think the cost allocation method is both inequitable and unfair. And thirdly, I think the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property owners on Saddlebrook Curve. Councilman Ayotte: Say the third one? Richard Allen: I think the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property owners. Just in looking at the numbers that were given out at the open house or whatever that was last week. The Saddlebrook Curve 32 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 project cost is $35,650. There are, if you take the 40 percent of that, the cost comes down to $14,260. There are 14 houses abutting Saddlebrook Curve. The cost per house on Saddlebrook Curve is $1,018. The assessment to the tenants of Saddlebrook Curve is $4,000 now $50. To me that is unfair and inequitable. And I don't think that my property value will approve by $4,000. It's interesting that if you take away one of the projects like the Audubon project, the assessed value for this project drops. The assessed value for each of the projects is different depending on where the property owner lives, which I think is an inequitable approach to assigning assessed values. I think once the project is designed, if the project changed, the cost should not change on a per house basis. My understanding is that the project on Saddlebrook Curve was done about 12 years ago. My understanding typically is a road project, the estimated useful life is about 30 years. So at this point in time we're not extending the life of the road, we're making improvements to maintain the life of the road. Just a point with regards to the property owners. If we look at the residents of Saddlebrook Curve, I mentioned there are 14 residents on Saddlebrook Curve. Canyon Curve is a road that abuts to Saddlebrook Curve. Tenants cannot get in or out of Canyon Curve without going on Saddlebrook Curve. There are 26 houses on Canyon Curve, and I realize they' re not directly benefiting from this but again it's an example that they utilize Saddlebrook Curve and not just the owners of Saddlebrook Curve. Saddlebrook Curve also is a major east/west road and it's used very heavily by individuals bypassing from Powers Boulevard to Kerber. And as a result I think if we actually did a traffic assessment, which I have to admit I was very disappointed that we did not have traffic assessments done prior to this project being brought forward at this level, I think we would truly find that the percentage of traffic on these roads is considerably less than the amount of residents living on these roads. And I think the way the assessment should work is based on the use of the roads as was mentioned before as well. That's all. Thank you for your time. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else here to speak to the Saddlebrook Curve project? Okay. I'm going to move on then to Stellar Court. If there's anyone here to address the Stellar Court project. Seeing no one, Pointe Lake Lucy. Seeing no one. Mulberry Circle East and West. How about Heather Court? Shadow Lane? We' re moving right along. Arlington Court. Actually it was removed. Okay. Did anyone miss being able to speak to their roadway as we passed over the project that would still like to get up and make comment? Okay, seeing, oop. Seeing one person getting up and hurrying to the mic. John Spiess: I'm John Spiess, 6610 Arlington Court. The one question I have, Pleasant View was done a few years ago, does anyone know what that was assessed at? Or if it was assessed? Teresa Burgess: Pleasant View was not assessed. John Spiess: Why? Teresa Burgess: The council at that time chose not to assess it. John Spiess: Do you know what that cost is? Teresa Burgess: No, not off the top of my head. John Spiess: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: So in having not assessed it, that project then would have gone onto the levy. Would have basically been expensed. 33 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Teresa Burgess: It would have been expended complete out of city funds. That was prior to my time. I don't know what the justification was for that but that was how it was done. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And it was prior to anyone serving on this council so we can't speak to that decision either. Sorry to interrupt. , Teresa Burgess: I also can't answer what the project was. We do not assess for sealcoat projects period. So if it was a sealcoat paving, we would not have assessed, Lake Lucy was done last year. We did not assess the sealcoat for Lake Lucy. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So we'd have to get more information on that project to really be able to speak to it accurately. Okay, thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Chris Vanderploeg: Christ Vanderploeg, 6719 Mulberry Circle East. I guess related to that question, if past projects weren't assessed, my question is on future projects. If we're determining a 60/40 split on this one, and the residents end up paying, is there any guarantee that the next council would come back in and not assess future street projects as well? Would this set precedent where you would have to continue at 60/40? Teresa Burgess: There is no precedent set on this. The council has the freedom to adjust the assessments as they feel appropriate. So if they chose to next year they could reduce assessments or they could increase them to a higher level than the 60/40 split. We would as staff recommend consistency to the council and feel that that's appropriate, but there is no requirement. Mayor Jansen: That's true of just about everything that we do unfortunately. Chris Vanderploeg: With me, I'm not involved in this. My street was taken out of it but I think the 40 percent assessment is excessive. I agree with that. And then I guess I just got another question. Councilmember Ayotte was talking about his concerns earlier, and I think he's probably got some inside, or not inside information but he's talked with Teresa before. I'd like to, I would like to hear his concerns in the public hearing. Mayor Jansen: We move onto comments next and so I will be bringing this back to council and we'll be having that conversation as to what some of our options are and some of the concerns. Chris Vanderploeg: Great. I just wanted to make sure that his concerns are brought up in the public... Mayor Jansen: Sure, absolutely. Chris Vanderploeg: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring this back to council. And again, I want to thank all of you for your comments here this evening and understanding that we are very early on in this process and the whole purpose of this type of a hearing is so that we can get the public input on these kinds of projects as we're moving them forward and setting a policy. We do need to hear what the concerns are. This was no surprise. As to what some of the issues obviously are and we need to address somehow within our different options before us what is in fact fair. So that is what we'll be working on and it may take us some time to actually reach a conclusion and that's what staff is looking for this evening from all of us. Are cormnents and some 34 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 direction as to what other information we might need in order to better evaluate what those options and altematives are. One of the concerns obviously is the equity between the different size of the roadways and Lake Lucy Road of course being a collector one of the issues, and I'll back up a step. We start an initial conversation in our work session because we were looking at the residential projects that are in fact not a part of this proposal. And looking at those in comparison to this, obviously the assessments on residents who do live on these collectors do stand out as a significant cost burden above what is born by some of the residents who are living on regular residential roads. That being explained to us and the detail of course we do understand the concerns of residents that that end up living on these larger roads and wanting to see them be more equitable with other residential properties. So that was raised to us by staff as to that type of a comparison. And in trying to evaluate the different philosophies staff had pointed out to us, fortunately we had done our community survey at the beginning of last year and staff in that survey had posed the question as to how we should be funding our roadways. One way or the other, you know unfortunately we all as property owners are going to bear the burden of paying for the roads in the community. And how do we most fairly spread that across our taxpayers so that everyone's at least bearing an equitable burden of those projects. The survey came back and as we read the results, we didn't think there was a conclusive direction given whether we should be putting it all within the levy or assessing the way that we are. But we felt that, I think and council correct me if I'm wrong. My reaction to that was if anything we have all the options to consider, but we do need to make sure that everyone is feeling the equity versus the spikes that you in fact incur when you're on some of these larger roadways. And as it's been pointed out by the Lake Lucy residents, obviously we're all driving these roadways. It isn't just the residents that are on those roads so I'm sure council will be taking that into consideration as we're having our conversations. So as staff pointed out earlier, it's not as though other communities aren't assessing. In fact it was pointed out to us that there are numerous that are applying a 25 percent on the reconstruction projects was one percentage that was thrown out from Chaska and Shakopee. Eden Prairie was a significant dollar amount above, in ~act double what our highest assessments are that were proposed by staff. Minnetonka was pointed out as applying these projects to their general levy so' everyone in fact ends up experiencing that property tax increase on an ongoing annual basis. It's not as though it's an assessment that you're incurring in an 8 year period for the project. So we would be faced with of course as we' ve been trying to reduce taxes, now adding this to the levy, if we decide to go in that direction, will be one of the conversations of course council will have to have. And we can certainly direct staff to come back to us showing us what the results of that sort of an action would mean to our individual property tax owners. That is one direction that we could give to get more information-on how that would then be spread across the community and what some of those peaks and valleys were. We also could request the comparison to the residential projects on some of these larger projects to see what then the city would incur and would need.to be spread across the levy and across the rest of the community and see how that spikes so that would be a second alternative that I heard in the course of the presentation. Council, if you have comments you'd like to share, Councilman Boyle. Councilman Boyle: Well you've covered most of them. Obviously I think we have to ask staff to run some other percentages. Starting as low as 5%. Well starting with nothing. Starting with nothing if we didn't assess. Mayor Jansen: And putting it on the tax levy then. Councilman Boyle: On the levy and what the result of that would be. Quite honestly I think that would be a great way to go. I think everybody in this room at some point in time, well obviously in this room but everybody in the city at some point in time is going to be affected. Obviously we get a lot of, we think we have a room full of people tonight, my goodness. We'd hear about it pretty heavy. I mean I don't think it would be a real popular move but I'd like to see it. I also agree, when you assess, Lake 35 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Lucy Road is a very good example of many homes, lots that have to use that road that, to get access into their road. We should consider those additional homes if we're going to assess them, if we can. Teresa Burgess: If I can answer that. It is legal for us to assess those to do, to do area assessment. One thing to keep in mind though is that then those property owners, you have to consider is that equitable because they would be double assessed. They would be assessed for Lake Lucy and for the street in front of their home versus just for the street in front of their home. It's legal, but the question is are you, you're going to be double assessing. Is that equitable? Councilman Ayotte: We're double assessing some folks now because they paid before too. Teresa Burgess: That's a different situation. You're assessing for the same road. What you're talking about with an area assessment is you're assessing a property for 2 different streets, and if you feel it's appropriate to do that, I don't have a problem putting it forward but I can tell you right now what will happen with an area assessment is there's nobody in this room compared to what will be here if we do area assessments. Minnewashta Parkway was done with area assessments and I believe Todd was here at that time and Kate was here at that time, and we still get beat up in meetings over those area assessments, so they're very unpleasant. Mayor Jansen: I think the equity comes from reducing then the assessment on those that are on the more heavily used roadway down to what the residents would be assessed. Living on the regular residential roads, if you went that direction. Councilman Boyle: Probably not a good option to pursue. Thank you for sharing that. That's all I had. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Comments. Councilman Ayotte: I want to make sure I heard folks right. Number one, consideration for egress/ingress to an area, should be a very important. Number two, I heard that there are 3 types of roads. Collectors, residential and a third, and I haven't come up with a cool name for it yet, but the third is where there is factors or variables that will change it's use over some period of performance, i.e. Lake Lucy. The idea about maybe having the toll for those people in Waconia. I don't know if we can work that one out but, and also the validation of the repair requirement. Whether we employ core samples or something along that line to validate what we've determined from the consultant to see if there is some movement plausible on the start-up of a project. I also heard that, take care of the maintenance by levy versus, so take a look at part of this may be consider maintenance by levy. I'm going to go back to this other one. Definition of egress and ingress to an area might be something that the council could use because if anyone could come up with good definition, it's Teresa to possibly give us a tool to help us gauge that. And that the collector roads in that third category would receive a smaller assessment to the residential based on that higher utilization. That's what I heard. Am I wrong on any point there? Alright. Councilman Boyle: Probably. Mayor Jansen: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: That was it? Councilman Ayotte: You want me to talk more? 36 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: No, that's fine. Councilman Ayotte: I'll shut this off. Councilman Peterson: In general I agree with my fellow council people. I think we should move ahead with the feasibility study and plans and specs and consultant work ordering. You know I think generally, you know I don't know if 100 percent assessment is the right way to go. I think there's a lot of people in large developments and private streets that probably would disagree with that. And generally I'm not comfortable with 40 percent. I'm in full agreement that if we do any kind of assessment, that we make it parity between types of streets. I'm not at all comfortable that collectors should be billed, assessed equal to that of residential streets so I clearly need some more data points and I want to look at more what other cities have done. More specifically, and I want to see the impact on the capital plan and the levy in the years moving ahead from now. I think that's, right now we don't have enough information to make a decision. I think we've all agreed upon that so let's send staff back and get a lot more data and make a recommendation when we have to. That's it. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. I think we've been pretty consistent Teresa as far as what we're asking for but let me just maybe recap again so I'm sure we're being clear in what we're asking for. Number ' one, maybe taking a look at what the levy impact would be of moving these projects into a levy situation, and of course we'll want to see what that impact might be on homeowners to move that into our, and impact our levy limits and so forth. Also taking a look at that capital improvement plan and of course I'm thinking of the other portion of the projects and those numbers that you were sharing with us so of course you identified to us that these two projects are very closely linked. So if we can see the impacts of the two together, I think we can have a better idea of how in fact we would be communicating this to the community as we would potentially move to put it on the levy. Todd Gerhardt: I just wanted to add one point to the levy portion. If you do not assess, you cannot bond so we'd have to build up a reservoir of money to do some of these projects. So you may have to look at a 2-3 year period of time to save up enough money to do projects. Mayor Jansen: And the minimum assessment to trigger being able to bond for the projects is at 20 percent. Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. Mayor Jansen: 20-25 percent. So if we could include that in the options, you had suggested that you could bring forward for us the numbers giving us, not just the 40 percent but if we moved down from that. Would council like to see a 30 and 25...and the 20 percent cushion that Teresa was sharing? Councilman Peterson: The later. Teresa Burgess: That is something that we'll do in a table and it's just a matter of printing it off. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Yeah. Just go ahead and just work the numbers. Teresa Burgess: We'll just do every 5 percent from 0 to 40. 37 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: With different periods of performance too. Could you throw that in too? Like 8, 9, 10 year types. At some point, you know I don't think we should go all the way up to 30 obviously but some. Teresa Burgess: If I could. The spread-out period is something that we can discuss separate from this because you're talking about the difference between how much are we charging versus how many years do they have to pay it. They' re still being assessed the same dollar amount, and one of the things that many property owners have brought forward, and I apologize if I'm speaking out of turn for those property owners, but many property owners have said they're not going to be in their home 8, 9, 10 years so they don't care if it gets spread out. Rather they're concerned about the dollar amount upfront because they may have to pay it off all at once. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And thank you for mentioning that. Mr. Gerhardt, appreciate it. Also an option that shows us maybe moving to parity were we to go to the assessment values that are being shown for the residential streets on the collector streets, so that everyone's being assessed the same amount as an option. I heard Councilman Peterson ask for more information from other communities as to how they handle these same types of projects. And I think that was everything that I caught in the comments. Councilman Ayotte: How about the third category of something, a hybrid between collector and where you have a temporary hit on traffic that may go away. Would that have an offset in one fashion or another? Mayor Jansen: I don't believe so. You're talking to the actual use of the roadway versus the life expectancy? Councihnan Ayotte: Well like until Highway 5 is done you know we're going to see more traffic on certain collectors and should that be a consideration in any way? Teresa Burgess: If that were to cause damage to a road, we certainly would look at that when we do the feasibility study. Should it be appropriate that it be assessed at a lower rate. As we talked about during the work session, because the city does not have a formal assessment policy that allows us to have that freedom to say something like, because of construction that was non-related to the property owners, we can adjust that. In the case of Lake Lucy there has been some by-pass from Highway 5, but a lot of that traffic is related to construction adjacent to Lake Lucy and that is not going to go away in the near future. Councilman Ayotte: Though it should be a consideration when we take a look at these assessments. Teresa Burgess: Council needs to look at it from a standpoint of what is equitable for assessment and what is appropriate and if that traffic continues then the decision is should we continue with the project or should we delay it until that construction is completed. Mayor Jansen: And to your last point that you just made, I had noted Mr. Johnson mentioned the amount of construction that is on Lake Lucy and I know we're still looking at some projects along Lake Lucy and I don't know if that's been taken into consideration as to the timing of this project. Teresa Burgess: This project was triggered based on the pavement management system. It was not based on the number of homes yet to be built. One thing to point out is, those properties, once they are developed will most likely have their own internal streets and so where right now those properties are being assessed because they don't have an access except for Lake Lucy, under the way that we've 38 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 calculated it now avoiding double assessments, most likely those properties, none of them would be assessed for Lake Lucy if we were to wait until they were completely developed because that would assume the double assessment. That they would be assessed for Lake Lucy and then later for their own street when it was reconstructed eventually. Mayor Jansen: And I wasn't thinking quite as much of the assessment as not wanting to do this project prior to the completion of all that construction traffic moving in and out on Lake Lucy so we're not putting in a new roadway as they're still using it for all of the construction traffic. Teresa Burgess: One of the things that's kept in mind when we do that is there's a very short window of time, about 8 years when you can do rehabilitation projects. If you slip past that point of time, and certainly projects, roads go at different speeds but if you slip past that period of time, that window of rehabilitation, you slip into reconstruction and that's a much expensive process. Because of that they, we usually try to at that point, once we' ve slipped into reconstruction, we try to squeeze every year out of it. If we allow Lake Lucy to wait until all of the construction is completed, we will definitely have gone that period of time and be slipping into reconstruction. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that it's something to keep in mind from a budget standpoint is that you are choosing to do a more expensive project in the future rather than do the cheaper one now. Mayor Jansen: So we think a year could make that much difference? Teresa Burgess: A year wouldn't make that much difference, but you're looking at several years of construction out there. Those aren't going to build out within a year or two. They're going to build out, and Kate, if she had time would certainly be able to give us a better idea, but we're going to see several years of construction. You're looking at developments that are going to take at least 4 to 5 years before the last home is built. Councilman Ayotte: And that's probably something we should know about before we make... Mayor Jansen: If we coUld maybe get information on that before we move forward with the Lake Lucy project, I think that would be beneficial. Just so we know which of those projects in fact are going to be going in and out on Lake Lucy versus further up towards Galpin, because I think the one has an entrance closer towards Galpin so they wouldn't be affecting Lake Lucy quite as much. It'd just be the one end. But yeah, let's get that information before we move that project forward. Anything else council that I missed in trying to pull everyone' s thoughts together? Okay. As far as staff coming back to council with this information for us to take a look at, what type of timing would we be looking at? Teresa Burgess: That depends on when the council wants to review it. If you authorize preparation of plans and specs tonight, obviously we would need to come back on Lake Lucy Road relatively quickly so that council can authorize that piece of the plans and specs. But as far as assessment rolls, if council's comfortable, that could be done at the assessment hearing. Otherwise we can bring it back in a work session sooner than that so that we can let people know what the assessments are going to be when we give their assessment hearing. Rather than as we discuss it, they would get a worst case scenario. They could get a more accurate idea of the assessments and cut down on the heartache when we do those hearings. Mayor Jansen: I don't know, I think I'm liking that suggestion towards the end. How about council? Should we come back into a work session so that we can get out accurate information to the assessment hearing? 39 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: I think we'd better. The other factor of 101. I mean she's going to have a plate full beyond belief dealing with some other issues. I mean she's good but she's you know. Mayor Jansen: So if we could, let's take a look at a work session and have you come back with that information so that, while it is all still fresh we can address it and get more accurate information out to the residents. I think that would be more fair. Okay. So then we need a motion to accept the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specs and approve the consultant work order. If I could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Jansen: So moved. Councilman Boyle: And seconded. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Resolution g2002-18: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to accept the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specs and approve the consultant work order for the 2002 MSA Roadway Improvement Project 01-08. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: And Teresa, I'm assuming that's with the understanding we need that additional information on the Lake Lucy project before it goes to plans and specs. Teresa Burgess: I'm assuming the council will only authorize preparation of plans and specs for the other projects and not Lake Lucy. We will put that at the end and make sure the consultant is directed to do that piece last. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Thank you. And thanks to everyone who came this evening. We certainly appreciate all of your comments and we will be looking at this then with staff as they get back to us with some of the answers to the questions that we posed. So thanks for being here this evening. Appreciate it. Councilman Ayotte: Can we take a break? Mayor Jansen: I have a request for a 2 minute break. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2002 TRAIL CONNECTION PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Back on January 14th the City Council accepted the study report for the 2002 trail connection project and scheduled a public comment period for this evening. Approximately 400 mailings were sent to area residents. I received 1 phone call from a resident on Summerfield Drive I believe it was that requested a full copy of the study. That was mailed out and I've not received any other correspondence since. So with that, I don't think we'll go through the full display of the project and will just ask for public comment and answer any questions that the residents bring forward this evening. 40 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Any questions for staff before I open this for public comment? Okay, seeing none, if there's anyone here who would like to comment on these trail connection projects, please step forward. Cory Watkins: Cory Watkins, 595 Summerfield Drive. I represent some other Springfield neighborhood residents that, this is mostly a fiscal responsibility issue. The connection between 101, there's a development to the northwest of us and Bandimere Park. There's not a lot of people that use the road, as I see it, to get between that area and Bandimere Park. It's $200,000. That's an approximate cost. I would rather see that money used to improve tax gathering mechanisms such as industry or other retail businesses into Chanhassen. So I think it's mostly it's an effective use of funds. Secondly, the fact is, they're going to probably redo 101 in 4 or 5 years. Maybe it's 10 years. When we do that, what's going to happen to the trail? You know $200,000 spent that's going to have to be redone or spend the money again so I just don't see there's a strong need to spend that money on that trail. I don't see a huge public benefit to it, so. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Todd, if you would maybe like to speak to a couple of those points. Todd Hoffman: Sure. The connection between the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood and Bandimere Park is what we would call a missing link between the north and south half of our communities. Trails are the number one requested amenity in our community and we continue to .try to fill in those gaps and so with the exception of 101 north, this section between the north and south half of our community is the next piece most highly recommended or highly sought after trail connection within the community so it's something that the Park and Recreation Commission feels very strongly about and it favors the favorable input over the years to make a connection there. Mayor Jansen: And as you're saying that this connection of course doesn't terminate but it's beginning at Chan Hills neighborhood but as you're saying north/south connection, I'm knowing that you're meaning that it's also connecting into downtown and bringing residents from further north than just this particular development. Todd Hoffman: Yeah. The system goes from downtown Chanhassen currently now to Chanhassen Hills and then this would continue from there. And so people have the opportunity to walk or bike and to take other modes of transportation rather than get in their cars. People call us all the time and talk about their running or their walking routes and they just don't feel safe walking in the shoulder of 101 and they would like to see that connection made so they can enjoy the same quality of life that others are in areas where they have trails. Councilman Ayotte: I'm afraid I didn't hear your name sir but would you also address the color of money and what can and cannot be used, because he brought up. Mayor Jansen: Yes, we're going there still. Thank you. As to the effective use of funds, the park and trail fees are actually a dedicated fund that we would not be able to use for some of the uses that you thought would be more appropriate uses of city funds. These are fees that were collected specifically dedicated to our parks and our trails so it's not as though it's a resource that we can rely on for even reducing the levy. The other point that was raised was what happens with the 101 reconstruction, or actually the, if 212 were to come through, which at this point the pessimistic estimate. Whether you look at it as pessimistic or optimistic, is 2010. Is when it's forecast actually to have funding, though there is a pretty healthy push on to try to have that come sooner, but if you might speak to what would happen as far as the trail in a situation like that. 41 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Todd Hoffman: Sure. Any trail built in the community generally has a similar lifespan to a street so approximately 15 years before you would see a major reconstruction, depending on the soil types in the construction area. So given that you would hopefully receive the majority of your use out of this trail prior to reconstruction being, or the construction of Highway 212 coming through, or 312 at that location. At that time there would be either trails at grade or over passes that would be constructed as a part of that roadway reconstruction at that location so these connections will be remade in the future at the time that that highway is built. Mayor Jansen: And to the same point that we're having the conversations on 101 north, if the trail is included with those state and federally funded projects, the city at most the estimates are we end up bearing maybe 10% because all we do then is actually blacktop the trail after the grading has been done so it is very economical to have it constructed as part of that reconstruction and I do recall it' s a nice system that is planned with that 212 intersection, when that does eventually come through that section. So I appreciate your comments. I think we spoke to all the issues that we raised. That you raised. Okay. Councilman Ayotte: One missing. Councilman Boyle: Economic development. To encourage other businesses. Mayor Jansen: That was in regards to using these funds to be able to do that. Councilman Ayotte: No, no, no. The gentleman mentioned the fact, he'd sure like to see some money go towards some activity to develop, you know and you've got some things going on with that. Do you want? Mayor Jansen: We do, I understood the statement differently than you're bringing up but there are other efforts that have been put on by the city and by the council to do more economic development. Again, it doesn't involve these funds. This isn't something that we can use for that but there are other initiatives is what Councilman Ayotte wanted to share with you. There are things. This council's very supportive of economic development in the community and we are putting forward some initiatives to help stimulate growth. Anyone else that would like to speak to the trail connection projects? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Council, any comments or questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable moving ahead. Councilman Boyle: I would like to make a motion that we accept the project as presented and that we go forward with preparation of plans and specifications at the current time. Mayor Jansen: And a second please. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to accept the study report for the 2002 trail connections project as presented and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. CONSIDER RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING. 42 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 Jill Sinclair: Thank you Mayor. First I'd like to give a little background as to why this is here tonight. It was an idea from the Environmental Commission, among their discussions of various projects to do this year. They had brought this one to my attention. They've had a number of presentations from the Carver County Environmental Services about the program that the County has for environmentally preferable purchasing, and they thought it would be a good idea for city hall and public works and the recreation center to implement and ask that it be brought before the council. By adopting the policy the council would be implementing the following actions. Staff would have to form a committee or appoint a coordinator for the program and this person or group would look for ways the city could increase it's environmentally preferable purchasing, provide general support to departments to implement it, act as a liaison with the County Coordinator, and give an annual update to the council. It would also require staff to purchase environmentally preferable products, goods and services, when possible and this would be when the quality is equal to better than the products that are currently using or when the price is no more than 10 percent of what the products they're currently purchasing cost. And the program would be integrated into all purchasings done by city hall, public works and the rec center by June 1st of this year. What this policy would not do is limit the city's purchasing choices or cause it to incur undue expenses. All the department heads have reviewed the policy and I' ve had no comments, negative or positive about it, and so staff would recommend that the council would adopt the policy. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Have you had any conversation or have you considered whether you would in fact form a committee or if you're going to take on sole coordination. Jill Sinclair: No, no, no. No, I would leave that up to either the council or the city manager to decide. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The one thing that stood out to me that I would just raise, I wouldn't want to create any busywork per se, and there was some mention in here about reports and it just seemed like it might become more burdensome and create work that wouldn't be necessary to make sure that the program's successful. Jill Sinclair: Yeah, and that's up to the council. If the council wants to get an update as to what, you know how this policy has affected what we purchase. Our costs for purchasing. You know if we found a lot of different products or if it' s had a big impact on what we use here at the city. Or not. I guess that' s completely up to you. Mayor Jansen: If we kept it simple. I just wouldn't want to put more of a busywork burden onto staff as far as the updates so as long as it was more of a keep it simple reporting to let us know how successful you were in getting it implemented. Again, I just wouldn't want to be causing extra work. Jill Sinclair: So you would appreciate an annual update perhaps, but you don't necessarily need technical data? Councilman Peterson: That's right. Mayor Jansen: Exactly. If council's comfortable withthat. Councilman Boyle: By all means. Mayor Jansen: Any other comments council? 43 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: That was mine too. I think to look at it again in 12 months and, because I think that sometimes you can become overly focused on trying to find a cleaner that says green on it, and even though it's within 10 percent of the price doesn't mean it's all that environmentally friendly but I've seen a lot of people buy stuff that they think it's environmentally friendly because it's got the word green on it and it's not as simple as that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And thank you for bringing the proposal forward and suggesting this. I hope that you can in fact find some level of implementation to it. It's certainly admirable to know that with the amount of paperwork that the city does go through, that we are trying to be as conservative as we can. Todd Gerhardt: Jill did you mention that the Carver County also has a similar program like this? Jill Sinclair: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that if I could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve adopting the policy as submitted. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Boyle: Second. Resolution 4/2001-19: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the Environmental Preferable Purchasing Policy as submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND AN 11.5 ACRE LOT INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 10UTLOT; LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF LAKE LUCY~ AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION, LAKE LUCY RIDGE~ NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant has asked for an extension. I just wanted to go through a few brief points with the City Council. Just because there's some concern with the staff. We've been working with this applicant for over a year. When it went to Planning Commission we had recommended some changes. The Planning Comnfission did ask the applicant if they were willing to make the changes, and the applicant at that time said no. So the Planning Commission felt like it was inconsistent with a land use change, therefore all the other requested proposals fell by the wayside. I just want to share with you briefly some of the changes that we had, because we'd just like a little bit of direction if we're going, you have 2 choices. One is to support what the Planning Commission did, and that would be to recommend denial and have it come back for findings. Or allow the applicant for an extension. Councilman Ayotte: Allow the applicant what? Mayor Jansen: An extension. 44 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 Kate Aanenson: Again, this is off Lake Lucy Road. There is a land use change on this proposal and that's what the Planning Commission recommended against the land use change because of the change between the large lot, which is on the other map. The large lot property, and as it moves toward the Lundgren subdivision. The concern that the staff has was the amount of grading. There are bluffs in the area which is the darkest green. The staff had recommended in order to reduce the amount of grading and give lots that were allowed for additions of patios and decks and a back yard that didn't slope off, that the road be moved. This would result in a number of lots being lost. So what the staff is looking for for direction, if the council does choose to allow the applicant the extension of time, is that you give direction to the applicant. And I'm not sure there's anybody here representing the applicant tonight, of the expectations because, and what we heard from the Planning Commission and the staff' s recommendation is dropping one lot, was not significant enough to make the changes in order to make the transition with the large lot rezoning. So the other point I wanted to make is he did ask for an extension to March 15th and that does not work in our timeframe for the staff. Councilman Ayotte: It does or does not? Kate Aanenson: Does not. We're requesting at least a 60 day, and just looking at the timeframe, one of the things that we would, if it does go back to the Planning Commission, is the neighbors were deeply concerned. Again, you' ve got a large lot, 2 V2 acre on one side and the average lot of over 20,000 on the other side and the concern was the transition. So in order to go back to the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing and get the neighbors informed, we need the 60 days, which will probably take us out closer to first part of April. So if you are going to give the extension, his letter says the March 15th, and we really need 60 days. We couldn't turn it around that quick at the City Council. Get you a Planning Commission hearing and back. Mayor Jansen: So when you're saying first part of April, do you have a date in mind? That we would be communicating. Councilman Boyle: Or first Planning Commission meeting?. Kate Aanenson: It would be the first City Council meeting in April. Mayor Jansen: In April? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I had April 8th on my, I believe that's the first City Council meeting. Councilman Boyle: When would it go back to Planning, would you guess? Kate Aanenson: I looked at most likely it would be March 19th. That'd give you a month to turn around, because we haven't seen any changes to date and he's not here to give us the timeframe. Mayor Jansen: And I'll share with you here that he did call me shortly before the meeting and it was my fault for not being available. I was in a meeting all day, that he wasn't able to communicate to me until later this afternoon that he would very much like the extension to be able to work with staff prior to going back to the Planning Commission. This is one of those issues that I have sat through now twice as the liaison on the Planning Commission so I did clearly communicate what we would need to have happen, and that in fact we would not be addressing revisions here at the council meeting. That we do rely on the Planning Commission and the Planning Commissioners I thought were very specific in their comments as to what the needs are for the revisions. So he has expressed his willingness to come in and 45 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 work with staff. I can certainly maybe help be sure that he is in fact moving in the direction before it goes back to Planning Commission so this does not end up belabored to Kate's point as far as our giving clear direction as to what we would like to see happen. I do think, and Kate correct me if you disagree. I thought the Planning Commission, if we can direct him along the lines of their comments, it would be, he should be able to come in with a project well guided by their comments. Kate Aanenson: Right. Staff would concur. We certainly want to work with the applicant. He was asked specifically if he was willing to make the changes and we've been asking him for over a year and the Planning Commission at that point said, then we have to recommend denial because they didn't support the land use change. So again the proposal for you tonight, just two choices. One is to recommend the denial with the motions in the staff report with the City Attorney coming back with the findings of fact, or to grant the extension. And I need clarification from the City Attorney because he did give us the date of March 15a and I' m not sure that' s going to give us enough time. Roger Knutson: I think what you could do, if you want to is you could tell him that you need until, what is it, April 8a? Kate Aanenson: April 8a~, yeah. And that's the outside one but I believe that's up there. Roger Knutson: You need til April 8~h to properly review, to bring this back through the review process so he has a choice. He can give us an extension til April 8~h or you'll take this up at your next City Council meeting and you'll. Mayor Jansen: Deny. Kate Aanenson' Okay again, just for clarification. The 120 days ends on February 22nd, and I believe your next meeting is the 11°~ so we should stay within that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, good. Kate Aanenson: So we could put that on consent if that's, with the letter, that's my understanding. If he does give us an additional letter or it would be on the regular agenda if we don't get the letter. Roger Knutson: If he gives you the letter, you wouldn't need to do anything. The council tonight could say we'll, we will, grant, we will table action on this consistent with the instructions you want to give him, including the fact that he'd better give us an extension until April 84. Or rather than go through a review process that won't be adequate, you'll take this up to your, at your next City Council meeting and act appropriately. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Boyle: Have you got that? Mayor Jansen: And also as a part of our motion, and why don't I just go ahead with this. I'm going to move that the City Council grant the extension to the applicant to April 8th so that proper revisions can be made, working with staff as directed by the Planning Commission, moving this project then in it's revised state back to the Planning Commission for review .... an extension to April 8th. Do I have a second? 46 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Jansen moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council grant an extension for Lake Lucy Ridge so that proper revisions can be made, working with staff as directed by the Planning Commission to move this project in it's revised state back through the Planning Commission and to City Council by April 8, 2002. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: In fact Kate, it might be helpful in this situation to maybe bullet point the issues that the Planning Commission and yourselves are suggesting as revisions to the plans, just so we do have it clearly documented and communicated. As I said, I did speak with him today and made that direction pretty clear I think as to what we were looking for as far as his working with yourself. Thank you. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN TIlE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; CONCEPT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS; SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 8.52 ACRES; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3~960 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND A 2~873 SQ. FT. CAR WASH; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BLVD, GALPIN BUSINESS PARK; WCL ASSOCIATES. Kate Aanenson: I'I1 try to make this brief but they've been waiting here all night and so we'll try to give you a little bit of the project overview. This piece, the VanDeVeire piece is being available...based on the West 78~ road going through and providing a~cess to the development. This is being rezoned. There's actually 4 requests for you, and that's put on that executive summary. It needs a rezoning'to PUD and this, the staff believes this is an excellent example of the use of the PUD in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and I'll just take a minute to go through that. It's also a subdivision, a conditional use for development within the secondary zone, and also a site plan review. The application of the PUD request is actually because with the West 78th project there's a remnant piece on the north side and in order to protect the creek and yet go back and landscape it, the PUD allows the transfer of the impervious surface within the project so it's actually a win/win situation. This is the proposed Kwik Trip as it's coming in for site plan revieTM. The Planning Commission had several issues with the overall site plan. Some of the neighbors got up and spoke regarding lighting, as looking at it from the Walnut Grove area. Included in your packet was the cross section of the lighting. We spent a lot of time in working with the applicant, it was an all brick building. I'll pass around the materials in a minute, but we were really pleased with the way that it laid out and actually the best side of the building, all brick has been changed. They made modifications to the site plan and the car wash. We've asked that they both be brick. Original for the car wash was block. We've added changes, asked for changes. What they've made for the building, but you'll have a brick building with windows on the back side, West 78t~ and the extra canopy will be on the front. And then you have another building so actually the canopy's kind of sandwiched inbetween which we think adds to reducing the light issues, but the neighbors in Walnut Grove were concerned about light. We had them do a cross section, if you can zoom in on this quite a bit. This would be the Walnut Grove area. Looking across the creek through the gas station, you won't see the canopy, which was our intent when we originally worked with the applicant on that. So we think - that' s, and we did provide this information to the neighbors so they can review that. So with that, being the fact that it's all brick, they've asked for changes. The color renderings that you see in your packets, there has been modifications since then. One of the other requests that they had made was for a pylon sign. If you're adjacent to Highway 5, you can go 20 feet in height. The Planning Commission wanted 47 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 to do something less than that so what we've allowed them to do is actually, because this is a neighborhood business district, which is why the all brick. More compatible with the neighborhood, to do a, the sign that's proposed or shown on the color renderings that you have in the revisions, it's going to be actually more like a monument so it's more solid on the bottom. Similar to the Target or the Byerly's, and then both uses would be on it but we are, the Planning Commission did recommend 15 feet in height for that. Another issue that came up that was a little...the developer was that MnDot had recommended no right-in/right-out. We did, they had done a traffic study quite a few months ago regarding this project and MnDot had agreed to that. The person reviewing the project eliminated that, but that has been resolved and there is a right-in/right-out there. There was still some discussion. This is the right-in/right-out. There was some discussion that MnDot may allow that only right-in, and if you want to go right-out, it would have to be at this movement. Again, MnDot does have jurisdiction on that and we'll have to agree to what they say there but I don't think that's such a big problem. One of the issues that came up with the Planning Commission was traffic in this area. Pedestrian movement. Again, this is a neighborhood use. Something that we expect people to bike to. People in the neighborhood to use and there is a trail on this side, the north side of West 78th that runs contiguous. The Planning Commission was concerned about, there's the underpass coming up underneath Highway 5 and will also come underneath the frontage road. If you'd come up on the other side, the north side, you'd have to work your way back, if you're a child to come back underneath. We were directed by the Planning Commission to explore the opportunity of putting a trail on this side. It's too steep. It's unsafe. It doesn't work in that location. Ultimately as traffic warrants, there most likely will be another signal at Galpin and West 78th, and that will be the safe traffic movement at that point. But at this point a sidewalk along that segment doesn't work for safety reasons. You've got the. pond and the large wetland there. Again, there are 4 motions for your consideration and Planning Commission did recommend approval 6 to 1. The recommendations for approval, again the 4 motions start on page 23. There's a lot of information in your packet but I'll pass around the renderings and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Ayotte, you missed your cue. Okay. That's doing pretty good. Councilman Boyle: We need 4 separate motions, is that what? Mayor Jansen: Yes. The only issue that stood out to me, as this came to us from the Planning Commission was, they were concerned about the 2 signs. Though they reduced the height of the pylon sign, the point that was made at the Planning Commission was that in neighborhood business uses the monument sign, which they're also allowed, is typically a 24 square foot sign with a 5 foot height maximum, correct? Is what was noted in the minutes. Within the approval for the project they are allowed a monument sign with a maximum height of 8 feet, so 3 feet above what is normally in a neighborhood district, and 64 square feet of sign face versus the 24 square feet. So I just wanted to point that out to council because they did pass that along with the notation that they wanted us to be aware that that continued to be a concern. The pylon I think they accepted the fact that because this business is located where it is, it needs that kind of visibility, and I certainly agree with that. But I wanted to note for everyone the monument sign issue. And I was relieved to read that it was going to be brick instead of siding because of course I looked at the pictures and had a completely different impression but, it does look a very nice project. And we are getting to you what, 2 hours prior to the time that you were before the Planning Cormnission so we're getting you here a little bit earlier. If there is anything that you would like to add to staff's presentation, you're certainly welcome to. Otherwise I think. 48 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Applicant: I think we're here just mostly for any questions or comments that might come up. As far as I know everybody is comfortable with the recommendation and all the conditions that are set forth. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay, so council. Any comments? Anything to add? Councilman Peterson: I'm comfortable with the signage as presented. I don't think it's, I think that area, I don't think you're going to notice it. I don't think it's going to stand out. I think it's a nice building. Nice spot for it. It will be a nice asset to that general neighborhood. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other comments? Councilman Boyle: I'm not concerned about the signage. Not an issue. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Nice project. Appreciate your working with staff and having made the changes that were requested and it certainly is a nice addition to the community out in that area so thank you. If I could have a motion please or 4 of them. Councilman Boyle: First motion has to do with the planned unit development or PUD 2002-1. Make a motion that we approve the concept and preliminary PUD rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development based on the findings in the staff report dated 11/15/02. Mayor Jansen: And if I could have a second. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD ~2002-1) rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development based on the findings in the staff report dated 1/15/02, incorporating the following design standards for the district: GALPIN BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS (PUD) A. Intent Galpin Business Park is a PUD created to accommodate neighborhood services and conveniences. The use of PUD zoning is to allow for a greater variety of uses, the internal transfer of density and construction phasing. In return, the development provides higher quality architectural standards and a more environmentally sensitive project. The goal is to preserve open space, protect wetlands and retain existing vegetation through the efficient/shared use of land, transitional and buffer landscapes. All future lots that are developed are to be reviewed based upon the development use and standards listed below. All submittals are to consist of: Architectural site plan .- Rendered building elevations Material board Grading and utility plans to conform to current city standards in effect when the proposed new development is submitted for review. 49 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Landscape plan to conform to the city landscape ordinance and these standards. Color rendering/photo-composite images of the new work proposed as seen from Highway 5 midpoint along the wetland in Outlot A, the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin and the intersection of Galpin and West 78th Street. Three total. Mutual access, cross easements and maintenance agreements are required of all property owners. If discrepancies arise between the PUD and other sections of the city ordinances, the stated PUD shall govern for a period of up to two years after the final plat approval for Galpin Business Park. B. Permitted Uses The permitted uses for this PUD shall consist of and be limited to those listed and described below or as approved by the city council. The city council shall interpret whether or not a future use meets the following definitions. Convenience store with gas pumps, freestanding canopy and car wash. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations. Retail shops. Self service laundry. Day care. Offices - professional and business. Health services/medical facilities. Financial institutions. Small appliance and shoe repair shops. Personal service establishments. Standard restaurants without a drive through. Fast Food restaurants without a drive through and integral (less than 40 percent of the building area) with a multi-tenant building. Veterinary clinics. Ancillary approved uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use). Telecommunications antennas/dishes if concealed from view at the public right of way. Parking. Trash/equipment enclosures. Up to a four lane covered drive through for a bank A single covered drive through for a pharmacy. Outdoor storage dispensing display, e.g., pop machine, ice machine, secure propane tank storage. ATM machines Prohibited uses: Outdoor storage and/or sales areas. Automotive sales, service and repair. 50 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 - Fast food with a drive through. C. Setbacks The development is to be regulated by the Highway 5 corridor HC-2 District and the PUD standards. There are no minimum requirements for building, parking or drive aisle setbacks on the interior lot lines within the PUD. Frontage Minimum Setback Building/Parking/Drive Aisle Maximum Setback Building Highway 5 70¥70¥50' 150' Galpin Boulevard 30'/20'/10' 100' West 78th Street 50'/20'/10' 100' Bluff Creek Overlay 40'/40'/40' N/A Wetland (Shown Outlot A) 50'/50'/50' N/A D. Lot Coverage The hard surface lot coverage will be limited to a maximum of 41% over the entire site. Any single lot may exceed the 41% requirement. The hard surface area of each lot is as follows: Lot Total Area HARDSURFACE AREA Building Paving (up to) % (up to) Footprint (up to) Lot 1 81,037 sf/l.86 ac 12,000 s.f. 61,359 s.f. 90% Lot 2 78,874 sf/l.81 ac 20,000 s.f. 43,178 s.f. 80% Outlot A 168,112 sf/3.86 ac 0 s.f. 16,754 s.f. 10% Outlot B 42,902 sf/.98 ac 0 s.f. 0 0% Total: 370,925 sf/8.52 ac 32,000 s.f. 121,291 s.f. 41% 1. Development Standards 1. SIZE, PORTION PLACEMENT 51 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 1. Entries: Main entrances shall be oriented toward Highway 5. Entrances shall be designed with additional architectural detailing. 2. Articulation: Buildings of more than 40 feet in width shall be divided into smaller increments, between 20 and 40 feet, through articulation of facade. Large unadorned CMU walls; solid unrelieved walls without architectural detailing, changes in material, color, accents, fenestrations, etc.; or walls without significant visual interest in keeping with the mass, size and scale of the wall as viewed from public ways shall be prohibited. Buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. No two structures are to be identical. All walls to incorporate architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. Acceptable design shall incorporate changes in materials and colors, materials with textured surfaces, aggregate, etc. and/or offsets in the building walls. 4. Multi-story_ Structures: Ground level of multi-story structure shall be visually distinct from upper stories. 2. MATERIAL AND DETAIL 1. In order to meet the requirements of a PUD, the development must demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and design. . All materials shall be of high quality and durability. Masonry or higher quality materials shall be used. Color shall be integral to the material used, i.e. colored CMU, brick, or stucco. No painted masonry surfaces will be allowed. Colored mortar is encouraged but not required. . Acceptable materials include: 4. Brick. 5. CMU/Block - shall be of a decorative nature with either a split/rock face, burnished, fluted or scored. Block shall be used as a base material or for building accents (not to exceed 15 percent). 6. Stucco or EIFS, as an accent material (not to exceed 15 percent). 7. Stone - natural or manmade. 8. Glass - clear, colored, textured, translucent or glass block. 9. Laminated shingles, standing seam metal roofs, concrete or quarry tile roofs, or other materials as approved by the city council are to be used on all pitched roofing. 10. Metal panels, siding or structures may only be used for canopies, soffits, trim, HVAC screens and building accents. 11. Paved areas shall consist of any of the following: bituminous, stamped/colored bituminous, concrete, stamped/colored concrete, brick or stone pavers. 12. All building facades visible from a public right of way must be treated comparable to the rest of the building. Design elements must be used nearly equally on all sides. 13. Overhead doors where required, are to be screened as best as possible without 52 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 interfering with their use or creating a safety hazard. Screening may consist of landscaping, earthen berms, or walls built to match the building. Screening does not need to be complete. Overhead doors shall be the same color as the primary building material. 14. Drive throughs are allowed if used in conjunction with a financial institution, pharmacy, or other occupancy specifically approved by the city council. No drive through will be allowed for fast food restaurants. The drive through must be connected to the principal building. The drive through shall not be located on the street frontage of a building. Materials must be of complementary appearance to the primary building. 15. A convenience center fueling station canopy up to 20' above finished grade is allowed. 3. COLOR Colors shall be harmonious. Building colors shall be muted colors with low reflectivity. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used for accent purposes occupying a maximum Of 10 percent of building facade. 2. All materials, color, size and texture, are to be approved to assure compatibility with the PUD. 4. HEIGHT AND ROOF DESIGN Building heights shall be limited to 3 stories or 40', as measurement to the highest point from the top of the first floor elevation. The measurement shall include architectural details (parapets), transmission antennas, transmission equipment, satellite dishes, and non-structural building elements. Pitched roofs shall 'be measured to the midpoint of the roof. . Each primary building shall incorporate one or more of the following: pitched roof, stepped parapet/roofs, or raised tower elements depending upon the scale and type of building. Other architectural elements such as arches, vaults, canopies, recessed entries and niches, colonnades, detailing, etc., may be used to add architectural interest, direction or articulation to the buildings. 5. FA(~ADE TRANSPARENCY 1. At least 50 percent of a building elevation adjacent to a public right-of-way shall have windows and/or doors. Reflective glass is not permitted. 6. SITE FURNISHING 53 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Site furnishings shall be designed as part of the site architectural concept and landscape. Benches, tables and chairs and similar features shall be required with all new development. 7. FRANCHISE ARCHITECTURE 1. Franchise architecture shall be revised if it does not comply with the design standards. 8. LOADING AREAS AND REFUSE AREAS, ETC. 1. All accessory structures shall be complementary to the primary structure. . All building and mechanical equipment, processing machinery, etc. mounted either on the ground, building or roof shall be screened from view from adjacent public right of ways. Screens shall consist of parapets and/or walls of compatible appearing materials. Wooden and chain link fences are prohibited. 3. Each building shall incorporate space within the building or adjacent enclosed or screened structure for recyclables. 4. All utilities are required to be undergrour, d. 5. Gate material shall not be chain link. 9. LANDSCAPING 1. Natural areas shall be preserved to the maximum extent. 2. Landscaping shall enhance natural and architectural features, strengthen vistas, and provide shade. 3. Landscaping shall emphasize massing of plant materials over isolated or scattered material. . The master landscape plan for Galpin Business Park shall be'the design guide for the site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review. Total quantity of landscaping along Highway 5, West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard shall comply with Buffer Yard Standard B, City Landscape Ordinance for Vehicular Areas, and Foundation and Aesthetic Plantings. . A portion of the canopy and under story trees required by city ordinance for Lot 1 and Lot 2 may be relocated onto Outlot 'B' to further enhance Bluff Creek and buffer the residential area to the north subject to city approval. 6. Outdoor storage of materials is prohibited unless it has been specifically approved during site plan review. Alt approved outdoor storage must be screened with 54 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 , o o either masonry walls/fences, landscaping and berms or a combination of the two. Landscape berming is encouraged for use in screening elements such as overhead doors, parking, equipment, and trash enclosures. Maximum slope 33%. The berm is to be sodded, seeded or covered with a wood or stone landscape mulch. The same type of mulch must be used throughout the entire development. Mulch areas must be bordered by sidewalk, curbing, brick pavers, masonry pavers, metal or plastic edging materials. Landscaping may be installed incrementally as the lots are developed. Lot 1, Outlot 'A' and Outlot 'B' are to be completed simultaneously. Grass areas with potential for erosion are to be sodded or seeded with erosion control fabric per master plan. The landscape areas within Lot 1 and Lot 2 are to be irrigated. Buffer yard plantings shall be installed with the first phase of development. On Lot 1 and Lot 2, deceased trees and shrubs within the buffer yard are to be replaced in kind as originally approved, within one year unless approved by the city council. Trees and shrubs are to be maintained, pruned, and trimmed of dead branches, volunteer grasses and weeds. Lawn areas are to be mowed regularly. Wood mulches are to be replenished to a like new condition every five years or less. 10. Prairie grasses and similar natural vegetation is to be left in a natural state. 11. Loading docks shall be screened year round from view of public right of way by walls, berms, landscaping, a combination thereof, or as approved by the city council. Overhead doors shall be the same color as the primary building materials. 12. Retaining walls may be used to accommodate changes in grade elevations. Acceptable materials include natural stone, cut stone, and integral color concrete block retaining wall systems. Wood retaining walls are prohibited. 13. Perimeter vehicular use areas adjacent and/or fronting the public right of ways is to be screened to the height of 3' above the parking surface. Landscaping, berms, fences or any combination thereof may accomplish this. 10. LOT FRONTAGE AND PARKING LOCATION One row of parking shall be allowed within the required building setback adjacent to Highway 5 or West 78th Street. The majority of parking shall be located to the side or rear of the building. 2. Each developed lot to provide bicycle parking. 55 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 o Parking quantities and stall sizes are to meet current city standards in effect when the proposed new development is submitted for review. Each change in use shall require a reevaluation of the parking. 4. Shared parking shall be required throughout the project. Parking stalls may be located on the adjacent development as negotiated between the affected parties. 5. Each developed lot to provide pedestrian access from the public sidewalk along Galpin Boulevard to the principal buildings. SIGNAGE io Galpin Business Park, Chanhassen, LLC, shall be permitted one shared pylon sign. The pylon sign shall be located along Highway 5 near Galpin Boulevard and setback a minimum of one-half (1/2) the required building setback from the property line. The pylon is to be no more than 15 feet above finished grade to the highest point. A maximum of 64 s.f. of sign face per side is allowed. The maximum width of the sign shall be 10 feet. Pylon signs shall be of monument style. . One monument sign each is allowed for Lot 1 and Lot 2. The maximum height of monument signs are to be 8' above grade. A maximum of 64 s.f. of sign face per side is allowed. The maximum width of the sign shall be 10 feet. , The pylon and monument sign bases and supports are to be of masonry materials (brick, decorative CMU, stone or stucco) to match the primary buildings, be consistent, and to compliment each other. Sign faces shall be colored translucent plastic. If illuminated, signs are to be internally lit. 4. Signage throughout the development shall be consistent in size, location, heights, materials and illumination. 5. Wall signs shall be as permitted below. Maximum Percentage of Wall Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square Footage of Signs 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 56 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 3% 4,500+ 240 6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. G. LIGHTING o Site lighting throughout the development shall be consistent. Access roadways to be lit comparable to the existing lighting on West 78th Street. A uniform average of up to 7 foot candles is to be provided throughout the developed areas. A maximum average illumination intensity of 50 foot candles may be used below canopies and drive throughs. Canopy and drive through lights must be recessed. 2. Site area lighting to be shoe box fixtures with metal halide lamps. 3. Light poles to be consistent throughout the development, square, prefinished, 30' maximum to the highest point. . All site lighting must be shielded to prevent any off site spillage and glare. A maximum of 1 to 2 foot candles are allowed along the property lines at Highway 5, Galpin Boulevard and West 78th Street. H. 1. Loud speakers are prohibited." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please. Gary, you're on a roll. Councilman Boyle: I'll make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision number 2002-1, Galpin Business Park, creating 2 lots and 2 outlots subject to the conditions as outlined. Mayor Jansen: 1 through 32. If I could have a second please. Councilman Peterson' Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-1, Galpin Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated March, 2001, creating two lots and two outlots, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a development contract/PUD agreement with the city. o . The development design standards shall be incorporated as an exhibit to the development contract/PUD agreement. All development of the property shall comply with the design standards. The Galpin Business Park shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees pursuant to city ordinance. 57 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 . . A 0' to 20' wide wetland buffer (with a minimum average width of 10') shall be maintained around this wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. Wetland buffer edge signs shall be installed, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall be purchased from the City for $20 per sign. Any disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be reestablished using native wet meadow species from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan (Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities) or other species as approved by City staff. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 40' setback from the wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer and setback shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 6. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands and storm water ponds. 7. Revised storm water calculations shall be provided. , o On the grading plan (Sheet 2 of 5), the directional arrows between CBMH 3 and 4 appear to be going the wrong direction. The rim and invert elevations are not consistent between the grade plan (SP4) and the utility plan (Sheet 3 of 5). Revised plan sheets showing these changes shall be submitted. Based on the proposed developed area of 3.69 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $21,804.21 and the water quantity fees are $16,088.40. Current calculations indicate that the project proposes water quality ponding for approximately 4.41 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $26,058.69. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $9,333.92. This amount will be finalized prior to final plat approval. 10. Private utility easements will be required for the storm sewer line that runs from Lot 2 to Lot 1. 11. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1006, 2101, 2103, 2109, 2110, 2203, 3108. 12. Prior to final plat approval, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota. 13. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 14. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 15. The minimum rock construction entrance must be 75 feet. 16. Show the sanitary sewer service to Lot 2. 17. Revise Arboretum Boulevard to West 78th Street. 18. The minimum storm sewer pipe allowed is 12" RCP. Revise the pond outlet pipe to comply. 58 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 19. Revise storm sewer, sanitary and water lines on sheets SP1, SP3 and SP4 to match with the proposed utility plan. 20. Revise detail plate nos. 1004 and 5300 to show the most recent version of the plates. 21. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site; however, additional information is still needed. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 22. Silt fence shall be added around the perimeter grading limits of the site. The silt fence, shown on the plan adjacent to the existing wetland, should be moved to the top of the existing slope and away from the wetland. Also, this silt fence must be Type 1II, heavy-duty. Silt fence shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. All of the proposed rock construction entrances must be lengthened to 75 feet as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 23. Minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. 24. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 25. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 26. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. 27. Cross-access easements will need to be obtained and recorded against the lots for each of the entrance drives. 28. On the utility plan: - Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". - Change the 8" tee on the watermain going to Lot 2 to an 8"x6" tee and delete the 8"x6" reducer. - Show the utilities easement. - Add a 6" gate valve on the watermain going to Lot 1 just past the 8"x6" reducer. - Change the type of public watermain from DIP to PVC C-900. - Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer. - Change storm manhole 1 to a 3-foot sump structure. 59 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 a. Show all of the existing utilities in Galpin Boulevard and W. 78th Street. 29. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. - Show all of the existing utilities in Galpin Boulevard and W. 78th Street. c. Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan." - Remove the proposed water and sanitary sewer lines. 30. If the parcel on the north side of W. 78th Street will be platted, show this area on the preliminary plat sheet. Also, show this area as an outlot or a lot. 31. The developer shall record a conservation easement- over Outlot B. 32. Development of Lot 1, Outlot A and B will be done simultaneously." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Councilman Boyle: I'll make a motion that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #2002-1 permitting development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the conditions 1 through 3. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2002-1 permitting development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: Native woody species shall be planted on the property north of West 78th Street from the top of the slope (elevation approximately 958) down to the existing vegetation. Species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ( See Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities - Maple- Basswood Natural Community Category). A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. . The slope area between the primary and secondary corridor boundaries shall be restored using native vegetation in order to ensure protection of the creek and the surrounding natural communities. . Conservation easements shall be placed over alt areas within the primary and secondary corridors. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Councihnan Boyle: Final motion is that the City Council approves Site Plan #2002-1 for a 3,960 square foot convenience store and a 2,873 square foot car wash, plans prepared by Insites dated November 29, 2001, subject to the conditions 1 through 28. 60 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan #2002-1 for a 3,960 square foot convenience store and a 2,873 square foot car wash (Kwik Trip), plans prepared by Insites, dated November 29, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter in to a Site Plan Agreement with the city. . The car wash should be constructed of the same materials as the convenience store (brick). If the developer desires to use block, it should be used as a base or foundation material, or in decorative columns, rather than a primary building material. o The north and west elevations of the convenience store shall be provided with an addition 8.5 feet and 14.5 feet of windows on the north and west elevations, respectively. In addition, the northern elevation needs additional articulation. . The wing wall around the mechanical equipment shall screen the mechanical equipment from views from the west. The wing wall shall be constructed of the same material as the convenience store (brick). . All light fixtures shall be shielded. Lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view and glare. The canopy lighting shall be completely screened from direct off site views through the use of screening structures around the lights or by recessing the lighting in to the canopy. 6. Pedestrian ramps will be required at all trail/sidewalk access points onto drive aisles. The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval. The applicant shall increase the number of evergreens along West 78th Street and work with staff to determine which side of the street. 8. The developer shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 9. The developer shall provide a bicycle parking area and bicycle racks. Additional site furnishing shall be added, such as benches or chairs. 10. The convenience store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 11. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 12. The canopy over the pumps must be constructed with non-combustible materials or materials equivalent to one-hour fire-resistive construction. 13. Detailed occupancy related requirements couldn't be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 14. The proposed building on lot 2 was not reviewed for building code compliance. 61 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 15. Utility plans: The water service and sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 must have independent connections to the public utility lines. The flow direction from CBMH 4 to CBMH 3 on sheet 3 of 5 is incorrect. The water service for Lot 1 must be sized for domestic and fire suppression demand and a PIV is required. The utility plan sheets submitted must correspond with each other. 16. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 17. The building is required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. 18. A PIV will be required for the convenience store. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 19. "No parking fire lane" signs are required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs as well as curbing to be painted yellow. 20. The fire hydrant located on the northwest comer of the property will be required to be moved easterly approximately 20 feet. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact re-location. 21. Location of the fire department sprinkler connection on the convenience store will be required to be located on the west side of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 22. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 23. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy # 29-1992. 24. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 25. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. 26. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. 27. No chainlink fences or gates are allowed. 28. The westerly access on West 78th Street shall be limited to a right-in only." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: That was everything, wasn't it? 62 City Council Meeting -January 28, 2002 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great, thank you. And welcome to Chanhassen. Okay, moving on. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: A quick update. I do have to compliment staff on the wonderful job I thought they did at the Chamber luncheon presenting the State of the City. We presented a little different format than usual, and I simply did the presentation of council strategies on our strategic goals. And staff did a great job of coming in and touting their own successes in a power point presentation that included commercials, so there was some light heartedness. We showed a little character and personality, but I thought that Mr. Gerhardt and his staff did an excellent job. We spent an entire hour going through all the information. Todd Gerhardt: Gary called and I told him to wear comfortable clothes. Councilman Boyle: And get a comfortable seat. I would like to second Linda's comments. As an observer, it was very informative and I think very well received, but I think the format was excellent. Todd Gerhardt: Well Karen and Vicki need a lot of the credit. They kind of formatted the power point presentation to make it look really nice. I thought it was very professional and scanned a lot of those photos in. It took a lot of time and make sure they fit just right so they get a lot of credit for that. Mayor Jansen: They did a great job. I did attend the Southwest Metro Transit Commission meeting on Councilman Labatt's part. Probably the most notable of the actions that-was happening that evening that I thought you might be interested in was the conceptual approval of the development plan for the transit hub. There is a significant amount of development that's being proposed on the west, the east side initially which will include retail. Numerous restaurants, and then the housing component then on the west side. But that conceptual plan was presented to the commission and they have blessed it for it to go onto the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and 'onto Council for their approval so it will be starting through their process here shortly. The timing of the start of that development is contingent upon the completion of the parking deck, which won't be occurring too quickly. We won't be looking at any major development really until next year because we do have to 'make sure that we've got all of those parking spaces available for the transit customers prior to bringing in additional customers onto the property, but we could still see some activity out there this summer depending on progress. And then of course as you know we have been meeting with Representative Workman was the only other thing I was going to mention. I did attend the Seminary Fen proposal, meeting proposal that was held with him at the Capitol and he is expressing his support for moving forward some legislation for us to be lobbying for what little funds there might be available. It is a bonding year and so it would be a part of that proposal that he would be moving that forward. And then of course as you heard he has committed a significant amount of time in his schedule to be helping us with the Highway 101 trail project, and we're certainly taking him up on that commitment and he's been very helpful in that regards. And then today I attended the District 112 Facility Task Force meeting. They're moving forward with trying to forecast what their facility needs will be out through 2014. There was some pretty interesting information that was shared. I will make sure that I get copies of that back to staff so that they can include it in the administrative packets, so you can see some of the issues that they're working on as far as placement of schools throughout the district. They're not looking at sites right now. They're just trying to forecast what their facility needs will be. And it's a two part session. We'll complete that on Wednesday. And then they'll 63 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 move forward with a much bigger process for public input into what some of those proposals will be. Anything else from Council as updates from liaisons2 Councilman Ayotte: The Environmental Commission, as you all know, we're making an announcement for yet another commissioner and we'll have the Maple Leaf Award coming out for one of the commissioners that's leaving the commission. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And we should also mention, we've at least had one ad run for commission applications. We're coming up on the interviews for terms that are coming up in 2002, and so I believe there's been one newspaper ad so far. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And our joint meeting will be, with the commissions on March 18th. That's our off Monday night so you responded and said 6:00 was a good start time. And then Steve Labatt will be out of town, so he could not be there so I'm still keeping it on the 18th just as we're getting later and later into the year. Mayor Jansen: Do we have any feel for whether we'll lose commissioners because of that date? I mean are we going to end up with a lot of people out of town? Is it a heavy travel time? Is that spring break? We moved off of that. Kate Aanenson: The next week is spring break. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We moved away from. Kate Aanenson: For both 276 and 112. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay. So at this point we'd be missing Steve for those. Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Items (c) and (d), do you want that on a. Mayor Jansen: That's what I was about to ask. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Council, we're at 10:30. We have (c) and (d) from our work session that, Craig is putting his jacket on. Councilman Ayotte: Cold? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, it is cold in here. Todd Gerhardt: It was hot earlier. Mayor Jansen: The one point, maybe (c) we can. Okay, everyone at least, between now and the next meeting, and I'm gathering we're going to be moving this. Look at the schedule and consider how much more quickly we could do a strategic plan review if we did it on an off council Monday night, because at this point as we' ve scheduled the different strategies for the different work sessions, we have our last one 64 City Council Meeting- January 28, 2002 clear out to April 8t~. So if we can manage to hit these on a Monday night, and leave our work sessions for issues that staff needs to bring forward and needs to be addressed, it might be more productive for us to move through this, and we could have Todd maybe throw some dates out to council and see if we could come up with enough. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I put some tentative dates down. We've got February 11th when we're going to start talking about Economic Development. Mayor Jansen: That's what I was referring to because we do end up with, when you and I did these dates, we' ve got the one that' s clear out on April 84. If you can, and we can review this maybe this week in our status meeting. Which items staff would not be able to have prepared information for us as quickly, and maybe we can stagger them a little bit. But if we can move some of these into an off Monday night, that we can come in and maybe move through them more quickly than having to schedule them out quite so far. Todd Gerhardt: Sure, alright. Mayor Jansen: Okay, that'd be great. I don't know how much discussion we'd need to go into (d). The assistant manager job description. Part of the reason for directing Mr. Gerhardt to give us the job descriptions was to be sure that we were all familiar with what his duties have been as an assistant manager, though he shared with us and had given us the original assistant manager job description. It wasn't at all what his list of tasks actually were for that position that he now, I think clearly could use someone in there to assist with some of the things that he was doing. I did put a phone call into Mr. Knutson to make sure that we understand our role in this part of the process. It's a budgeted item, therefore it is a job position. Beyond giving some direction to Mr. Gerhardt as to some of the tasks that we would like to see covered, and directions that we would like to see covered by the assistant city manager, our getting down into the detail is really beyond what our typical jurisdiction would cover. As I was having my conversation with Mr. Knutson, we were discussing how Todd's role pretty much changed between Ashworth and Botcher. Referring to Mr. Ashworth as an assistant city manager had Todd doing a certain task and tasks that maybe he didn't necessarily want to tackle himself, and Mr. Botcher then of course shifted those directions as he came in, so certainly the city manager has that discretion as he does over any of his employees. In that he is our only direct report, we could give direction as to what we would like to see this individual do, but he would like to move forward with posting this position and seeking applicants. So if we had a feel from council as to moving forward with the position, I think he would appreciate that kind of direction. Councilman Boyle: Move forward. Mayor Jansen: You're in favor of filling the assistant manager position? Councilman Boyle: Yes I am. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Boyle: And I think that as far as any of the details of the job or the job description, that's definitely Todd's prerogative. He's managing. Mayor Jansen: And we've certainly voiced that we would like to see some of the effort put into the economic development and housing and I know he addressed some of those things in the description and 65 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 responsibilities to try and make sure that he was putting more focus on those areas. And I think most of council did contact Todd with comments on the job description since we've received it. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I didn't, because I thought we were going to talk about it in general. I think I'm not against filling the spot. I guess the only thing it was more of a, is that the right title. And I don't know if that's truly an assistant manager position or not. And again we're getting into the details perhaps but I guess when I approved the budget I didn't really, I approved a dollar amount but I didn't really approve, we were going to figure out what we were going to have that person do, and I haven't talked to Todd about some of the personnel issues that I can see he's decided to put into that position. And I'd like to have more dialogue with Todd. One on one I guess. We're not going to talk about it as a group in depth, because I think there' s some pro's and con's of moving certain things and keeping certain things and you've made some decisions and I just want to get in your thought process as to why you did that. And is the assistant manager appropriate? Is that, is it really an assistant manager or is it something else? Is it an EDA coordinator or something like that, that's more indicative of the responsibilities? So I'm not ready to approve it tonight but I' 11 certainly follow the rest of you. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I'm flied. I don't know if I could really talk intelligently about it tonight. I'm kind of beat. And it's pretty important. I think going forward and starting to research, I think by going forward you might crystallize what you want. So I think starting activity with response to informal discussions and what has to go forward with respect to solicitation for additional hire is the right way to go. I kind of would like to wait a little bit longer to chit chat more about it but I think some informal solicitation to get an idea of what we want may not be a bad idea to help formalize what you want. Councilman Peterson: I think you successfully landed on the fence on this one Bob. Mayor Jansen: That's okay. Councilman Boyle: Do you have direction...? Todd Gerhardt: I'm meeting Craig for lunch? Mayor Jansen: Why don't we do that. We certainly would like to have everyone comfortable, if you're comfortable. Todd Gerhardt: No, that's fine. I'd like to meet Craig for lunch and go through it. We can have a great conversation. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I think that is a good idea. To get more familiar with what Todd's goals are and what he sees the position moving into. I did have that conversation with him and went over the job description that he put together, so if there needs to be more council conversation, just let me know and we can bring it back to another work session, if that would be more appropriate Craig. We can just move it to the next meeting. Councilman Peterson: That's fine. Mayor Jansen: So at this point we will not take any action on that this evening and you'll have lunch. Was there anything else on your list? 66 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: Just in the administrative section you saw the League of Minnesota Cities impact on Jesse Ventura's budget cuts for the year, or budget cuts that would have to be balanced onto cities so I do have a new version. The number has gone up about $40,000 so the League is going to lobby. There is going to be an impact on the cities. To what extent nobody knows yet. We will be submitting in writing to the League our concerns with how they went about it, and we believe that debt service should not be included as a part of excess levy is the approach we're going to take and use the general' levy increase over the past 3 year average and we're below then the 3 year average of 8 percent. This year being 6 ½ approximately so, and see how we go. We' 11 be in Workman's office probably asking for his help. Mayor Jansen: Exactly. Well, keep us posted and let us know if you need an elected voice as part of that lobby effort. Todd Gerhardt: Okay, I will. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Anything else council? Motion to adjourn. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 67