Loading...
1d. City Council Minutes November 13, 1995.CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, and Bob Generous APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda modified to delete number 4, the Southern Oaks proposal per the applicant's request. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: ACCEPT DONATION OF $500.00 FROM MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES IN LIEU OF TAXES. Mayor Chmiel: Is there someone going to make that presentation? Don Ashworth: I don't believe so. The check had been received by mail and I simply put the item in to insure that the City Council would be aware of that if they would want to send some form of personalized note to them. I don't know if the entire Council would like to sign that or just if the Council would like to have you Mayor do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think it's up to Council. Does everybody want to sign the letter? 1 Council: Sure. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll all sign it. Don Ashworth: It will be done. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #95 -114: Accept Street and Drainage Improvements in Shadow Ridge, Project No. 94 -14. c. Resolution #95 -115: Approve No Parking Resolution for Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Boulevard, Project 93 -32B. g. Approve Consultant Services (Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik) for the Bluff Creek Watershed. k. Amendment to Purchase Agreement for Property within the TH 212 Corridor with Rottlund Company. 1. Approval of Bills. ' m. City Council Minutes dated October 23, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 1995 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 12, 1995 t 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 n. Approve Settlement Agreement with Roger and Gay o. Approve Purchase Agreement, State Bank of Chanha: p. Approval of Private Redevelopment Agreement, Davi q. Accept Donation from Mount Olivet Rolling Acres. r. Resolution #95 -116: Approve Gambling Permit App] February Festival Ice Fishing Contest. s. Resolution #95 -117: Resolution Calling for the Sale 1995C. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PILLSBURY UPDATE. Rick Serand: I'm Rick Serand, Engineer from Pillsbury. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the micr Rick Serand: Again at the last meeting Mr. Moore could in possession of a memo updating the specifics of the exI item of biggest concern to us all is the truck parking assn the weather has really challenged us here in order to get parking on site, we have been able to get at least a prelin and we'll be parking on that and we'll finish it off in the but we do want to get the trucks off so we put the prelim guardrail for the trucks to additionally trucks off in our e: see any reason why this week we should be, have all the parking in our parking lot and off of the street this week. weather, like I say, has posed us some challenge with but place and maybe get those trucks in our parking lot and c our trucking companies now but as you all know this is a posted it many, many times. We're telling all the drivers going to be and we're hoping this will be a smooth transil smooth out next week as well. We should have everythir parking in our parking lot instead of on the street. And a along Audubon Road and our parking area is set up for ai there too. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor? Galpin Boulevard Realignment, Project 93 -26. Property. L. Obee. Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for the $4.5 Million General Obligation Bonds, Series I please. 't be here so I believe to, or at least you should all be nsion out there for Pillsbury. Certainly I think the *fated with that expansion. Even though we've had, I � I- ur employee parking lot in and the additional truck nary layer of asphalt down for employee parking lot pang. Put the finish layer on and the curbing around nary ... down rather than risk any further delay. The fisting parking lot. That showed up today so we don't ings that we need to have done to get those trucks We originally had set a date of the 15th but the w e're confident we can have all those, everything in T the street, so. And then we're working hard with s ignificant change in operations out there but we've o have, we're showing them where the parking lot is on but there will probably be a few rough edges to g in place by the end of this week so they can start an example, there's typically 10 to 15 trucks can fit pund I think 21 trucks so we tried to build a buffer in 7 2 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Yes Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you expect next week to be particularly heavy with the holiday? Rick Serand: No. Not any heavier than it has been. In fact we've been doing real good. Today as I left the plant, unfortunately there were a lot of trucks out there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: There were 9 at about 5:00. Rick Serand: Yeah. And that was back almost to TH 5 with nine of them there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yep. Rick Serand: We've been trying. We've been scheduling appointments where we can but unfortunately some of the customer pick -ups we just, we can't schedule all of the pick -ups. That's why we went ahead with this so, it shouldn't, certainly today it shouldn't be any worse than it was today. Or at least we don't anticipate it being. Most of our orders for Thanksgiving are really going out this week... ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? If not, thank you and you're just about right on time. We, as a city, appreciate all the effort that Pillsbury is moving forward with correcting that situation. F� Rick Serand: We're glad to do it also because I don't like going in and out of there any more than anybody else driving by when all those trucks are there so, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation? Seeing none, we'll move along to the award of bids. AWARD OF BIDS: RESHINGLING OF OLD ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor and City Council. Staff has advertised for bids twice in trying to reshingle Old St. Hubert's. Once this last February and again this last October. The results of our bids in October, we received two bids. One from Kastle Company and we broke out our bid specifications to include cedar shingles and fiberglass shingles. Kastle Company's bid for cedar shingles was $20,850.00. Fiberglass shingles was $14,325.00. If we were to reshingle the church with fiberglass shingles, we would have to add decking underneath the fiberglass because of the separation between the boards in using cedar shingles. So with the fiberglass you have to put new decking. So that's an additional $4,000.00 to their bid of $14,325.00. And their hourly rate for additional repairs is $32.00. Cody Construction bid $39,971.00 for cedar shingles and the fiberglass shingle bid was $24,342.00 with the decking of $4,600.00. And an hourly rate of $55.00 per hour. Based on these bids, staff would recommend going with the cedar shingles. They last approximately anywhere from 20 to 30 years longer than the fiberglass shingles. It stays with the character of the building as it exists today and based on the different cost between the two bids, it's not that much more expensive in buying for that additional time. Staff would recommend that the City Council award bids to Kastle Company using the cedar shingle alternative and also direct staff to work out a new lease agreement with St. Hubert's based on our 5 year renewable lease with them. That if they should option to take the facility back, that they would reimburse us a pro -rated cost of those improvements made to the church. This roof. Staff worked really hard with the two bidders. We sent out special ads to a variety of roofers to encourage people to bid on it. We advertised in the Construction Bulletin and we still only received the two bids so this is a difficult project and I think Kastle 3 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Companies are a reputable company. We went and looked at one of their projects today. We talked to the owner and he was very pleased with the work that they'v done. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any questions? j Councilman Berquist: Where's Kastle Company? Todd Gerhardt: They're out of Richfield, Minnesota. Councilman Berquist: How come...? Todd Gerhardt: I have no idea. I've asked the Construction Bulletin. I talked to another advertisement agency today and he was surprised because there are so many roo fers out there and they may have missed it. Their work load may have been at the point where they couldn't take it. Typically it is why I delayed bidding this out since February. It's the best time to bid these things is the January- February, November - December time frame when people are trying to take on new projects when summer and fall just are difficult times to find people. And maybe because it's, we're into that fall time where people are busy. That's all the answers I could come up with. Councilman Berquist: What's the time frame to get this Todd Gerhardt: We've opened it up to have the work done by spring so they would have all winter. From what we've found from the roofers, they say that this is a good (winter project to work on. That this isn't a project you have to work on in the summertime to get a seal, if you went with the asphalt shingles too. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why the difference in bids? I I mean that's remarkable. Todd Gerhardt: Well I think Cody, they weren't going tol, They were asking, they specialize in doing flat roofs. They do, very rarely do they do what I will call the lap shingle type work. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they weren't excited Todd Gerhardt: You know I asked them, I said not a lot they just threw out a number to be honest. it? people it seems like bidding on this project. I think Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we anticipate additional Todd Gerhardt: Yes. There will probably be some additional repair. The facility has leaked for some time. We think there might be some rafter repair, is why we put the hourly rate in there. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: So do you have any Todd Gerhardt: Not at this time. We don't know the as to what that...? it of it. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Have we inspected it at all? 4 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Todd Gerhardt: It's a difficult area to get into. It's, there is a trap door but I can't get anybody to go up into the thing to look up there. It's a tough project for somebody to take on. It's a steep roof and there's going to need some scaffolding with it and you've got to be careful in an old facility like that. It was built in the late 1800's. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is the roof going to outlast the building? Todd Gerhardt: I don't know. I would hope that it will stay there forever. The foundation seems sound. You just don't know what you're going to get until you get underneath those shingles and start ripping them off. You know at $32.00 an hour, I think that's a reasonable price. We've got them locked in on that. We do have to replace some decking. We've got some costs in that too so. From other projects, I think this was bid out a long time ago that were left in the files before I was here and there was like three bids in there and they all ranged in the above $30,000.00. And that was over 8 years ago. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: No questions. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Todd, it wasn't in the write up here but I think in your presentation you referenced proration if the church takes the property back. What proration? Todd Gerhardt: Right now, first draft which St. Hubert's has it's saying is 5% reduction each year from whatever cost that we stick into the roof. So if it's $25,000.00 or $20,000.00, each year after that there would be a 5% reduction. Councilman Senn: So over 20 years basically is the formula? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilman Senn: Who pays the utilities and the other operating costs in the facility now? Todd Gerhardt: Colonial Church. Councilman Senn: They pay all of them? Todd Gerhardt: They pay all of the heating that goes along with the church. The lights. Everything. Councilman Senn: And they do the snow removal? They do minor repairs and all that sort of thing? We're just doing this as a major repair? Todd Gerhardt: We're doing this as a major repair. They will do minor repairs around the building. And then there are certain projects where we will go in and make code updates. Three outer doors. Exit signs. Handicapped access. Window repairs. Things of those sorts are our responsibility. Councilman Senn: But they're doing the snow removal and taking care of landscaping, all that stuff? City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Todd Gerhardt: We do the snow removal and then assess that back against them. So they do pay for the snow removal. Councilman Senn: Through what, special assessment or something or does the downtown district pay for it? Todd Gerhardt: The downtown parking lot maintenance agreements that we have with the businesses downtown. Through the public parking lots. Pauly's gets) assessed. Al Klingelhutz and Jack Bonds gets assessed for the snow removal, striping, lighting and sand�ng and salting that we do in those parking lots. Councilman Senn: How much of that $5,700.00 do we turn around and spend on the facility each year? Todd Gerhardt: Well it depends. If the heating unit is working fine, I would say that we spend anywhere from $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 back into the building each year. Councilman Senn: Yeah, looking at the last several year we've kept very little of the rent. I I Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Why aren't we raising the rent to pay for the improvements? Todd Gerhardt: Colonial Church just can't afford it. It's heating of the facility can run up as much as $1,200.00 a rent to cover that, just doesn't seem to be justified. We c for another one if they couldn't afford the rent. Staff has hole in the thing. But we don't want to see the church dE the church that we've had to take care of. Having them i somebody in a facility always extends the life because th congregation home. And we do have a lease agreement lease that would allow us to up it. Councilman Senn: But I thought that lease was a short Todd Gerhardt: I think it renews every 5 years also. 30 member body, is what I've been told. And the ionth and you know trying to justify increasing the zld lose the tenant, then we'd have to go out looking eld it's ground to the repairs that we don't go in the :riorate either. And there's been water problems in there I think has extended the life. Always having do take heart in that facility. That is their th them. So I don't think there's anything in the Councilman Senn: Well, the amount of money we're keeping out of this each year after we pay the expenses isn't enough to even amortize and pay the roof. So I guess the question is, why should the taxpayers being paying for the church? Why aren't we raising the rent or increasing the operating costs to pay for it? Todd Gerhardt: That's a good question. The only come in the community. It's an icon for the community. Prev considering selling the facility, opted to take the facility the time they were considering moving it down to Murp important that this historical marker stay in Chanhassen city takes over the operations, we are in that line of liab codes. And that we keep the facility up. And I'm here going to have substantial damage to the interior of that 1 the ceilings and the walls have a special paint job to the ick I can come with is that it is a historical building ' is Council decided that when St. Hubert's was ick over and keeping it in the community. I think at 's Landing and that City Council thought it was d thus taken over the operations of it. And when the :y to make sure we meet ADA. That we meet fire light telling you that the roof leaks so bad that you're ility. And if you've been in that place you know that , and there's delicate ribbing painting throughout the 1 ' City uncil Meeting - November 13 1995 h' g , facility. And it's getting to the point where we may have to come in and repaint or replaster those areas and ' then we are going to have to put more capital dollars out to make sure to repair that. Councilman Senn: Well I've been in it and I can't disagree with you I guess. The primary question I get in my mind is, if the city's determined that it is a landmark that it wants to keep, why hasn't it simply been deeded to the city so the city can fix it up? Do it right and get out of this endless game of getting killed with, you know big fix up expenses. ' Todd Gerhardt: That's up to the City Council to decide. I mean if they want to. Councilman Senn: I mean why wasn't it deeded to the city in the first place? Why is it set up on a lease? Todd Gerhardt: I think St. Hubert's probably didn't want to lose out on an option that they may need that facility back for some type of operation. This keeps their options open. ' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Don. ' Don Ashworth: Todd is correct. When that was first went back to the city that, first of all the church really didn't know what it was the city, how well we would treat the facility and they questioned, you know at some point in the future we may want that facility back. That's the reason it was set up on continuous 5 year leases. As to your other question, you know there have been time frames where we have not had a tenant in there and then it has come back on the city to pay those costs that's averaged, I would say $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 per year when we weren't able to get a tenant in there. And I also agree with Todd. With the small congregation, it ' is really tough to get money out of them. I mean I did that before I kind of turned it over to Todd and the last one I really congratulated him for in terms of the amount of money that he is getting out of that facility. The third item is the repairs are going to be paid for out of historic trust. So they are not going to be part of a ' general tax levy that would be made to Carver County or against all of the citizens. It is to come out of that specially dedicated trust fund set up for repairs within the downtown so. Councilman Senn: I guess the question is, if we're going to start sticking this kind of money in it, why don't we deal with the issue of either owning it or not owning it and what public use should be in it, if any, or whatever. Don Ashworth: I see Al Klingelhutz in the audience. I know that Al wore two hats for many years. One ' representing the city and also on the church board and I think that Al was a part of a lot of those negotiations during that '76 through '78 timeframe. '78, '80. Somewhere in there. Do you have any insight Al as to, you know would the church consider a long term or literally deeding that to the city? Al Klingelhutz: I don't believe they would. I think that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Al, could you come up to the mic so we can pick that up please. Al Klingelhutz: I believe that the deal was made after I was out of office here and I probably wasn't on the church board at the time and the negotiations were with the Mayor and City Council, and I believe... Hobbs was ' the Mayor at the time. It was a 5 year lease at $1.00 a year. The City would pay the church ... St. Hubert's, actually four churches have started there. I think it was declared a historical site by the Federal government and City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 I think Don described it. There is the historical trust fund has been set up to help maintain some of the historical buildings in Chanhassen. The old City Hall was another one of them. There's been quite a few dollars spent on that to ... that. If we can keep some of our history intact... same thing to maintain some of the history in their community. Actually we have to remember that the City of Chanhassen was started by the church. I don't know how many of you recall when all the streets in Chanhassen were named after saints. And they've all been changed but main street was St. Hubert's. There was St. Claire's and all the different names. The church actually laid out the city of, the village of Chanhassen in the first place so there's a lot of background with the church in Chanhassen. I remember when Al Smith ran for President and Chanhassen was the only precinct in the State of Minnesota that voted all for Al Smith, because everybody in the city that was living here was Catholic. There's some of the history tha: I'm bringing up but ... I can still remember that on the radio. When the vote came in, they called the village of Chanhassen Little Rome because... I'm not sure what I can say about what Mark has been saying. The rent should be raised on the church that's starting. I believe... Christianity and I think churches are good for a community. It doesn't have to be a catholic church. The catholic church was the only church in Chanhassen for m�ny years. Even Chanhassen township and look at all the denominations we have here now and a lot of people have a little different views on Christianity and they should, I feel ... place for a new religion in Chanhassen it's a good place in a building like St. Hubert's. Thank you. j Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree Al. I think basically what you're saying is true and it's either pay now or pay later, and if we don't have anyone in there the costs are going to be exorbitant as well and this way at least some of those costs are being absorbed. Councilman Senn: Well I mean, don't get me wrong. Nothing I said said let's kick the tenant out, okay. Mayor Chmiel: No, by raising the rent you just might do that. Councilman Senn: But the real issue in my mind is, if the city's going to start sticking in this kind of money, I agree. It's a historic structure worth keeping and maintaining, okay. But if we're going to do this, I think we ought to look at ownership, especially given the fact that St. Hubert's is looking at selling their old church here in the next 2 to 3 years. I mean this is an issue we should deal with now before we stick $20,000.00 into this. Into capital improvement and if it's something we're going to make a decision to maintain, I think that decision ought to be ... otherwise we're going to be adding this negotiation in a couple years anyway. Or within a couple years anyway if they go ahead with their plans to sell the existing church. So it seems to me it's a lot more prudent doing it before we spend the 20 grand than after. Mayor Chmiel: Well too, as Todd mentioned the fact that if we don't take care of the problems existing now, we may be paying a lot more by redoing the inside as well. Councilman Senn: I have no problems with that. What I'm saying let's deal with the issue and talk to the church. I don't think that has to delay the repair. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what I'd like to do. Don Ashworth: If I can. I thought Todd's commenting in here is excellent. That we try to work something out with St. Hubert's. If they try to take that facility back, and you pick out some timeframe within the next 7 years, 10 years, whatever. They would have to pay us the amortized cost that would be remaining over that 1 L� ii City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 period. So if you want to take it over 10 years at whatever. After 10 years they want to take it back, it'd cost them $10,000.00. Councilman Senn: Well that's assuming the cost is 20 and not 30 by the time the whole job gets done. Don Ashworth: Well, I think that they would be amenable to. Todd Gerhardt: We'd have to prove what dollars we put into it. I mean right now in the lease agreement I think it's just a blank line to be filled in once we know. Councilman Senn: But is that just the roof repairs or is it going to include the interior repairs you're talking about following through with afterwards? I mean where does it start? Where does it end? Todd Gerhardt: I guess I would leave that up to City Council to make that list for us. Right now I was considering any capital cost that were up and above the $5,000.00 cost figure. I was using the roof. If the boiler should go bad in the thing. Unless we can find Merit Heating and Cooling that would donate it. You know large capital costs. Not the maintenance dollars. I consider re- roofing the thing a major capital cost. And I'm trying to live off the budget and the Colonial people have been good to try to adhere to that budget at each year and over the last 6 months we've... where we might even come up with a budget each year of things that they feel are important. But I'm trying to live off of the rent money and sticking it back into the facility. So up and above that, you know the windows would be probably a large capital cost. Those stained glass windows are a maintenance headache. The crosses on the top of the church. We should really have somebody come in and inspect those and see what we can do to maybe firm those up. There looks like there may be a rust spot on one side of them that I'd hate to see that thing come tumbling down and land on anything. Those are things just off the top of the head which I would think are large capital costs. Windows, cross and roof. Mayor Chmiel: Al did you, you wanted to say something there for a quick instance. Al Klingelhutz: Well I was going to say, if I remember correctly, and I haven't seen a contract with the city or the lease agreement but I believe that lease agreement did state that the city would maintain the building so it wouldn't deteriorate and if the roof has been leaking, and if it should cave in and ... the building, I think the city would be obligated to a much bigger expense than just put a new roof on it. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Yes. Larry Schrader: My name's Larry Schrader. I'm from Colonial here... I agree with Councilman Mark Senn. Is that how you pronounce your name? This has been going on for a long time back and forth. I think one objection that maybe St. Hubert's has and probably I guess as a person ... too, that is a church and some day it's not rendered a church, it's a public ... it might be, have a new perspective... We try to maintain it. We paint downstairs. We try to stay on top of things. Clean things up. Outside we do all of the cutting of the grass... In the wintertime the snow and we try to maintain it the best we possibly can. It's a big chore. The roof is a big problem. Ownership, I've been saying for years, has got to be... Somebody's got to take the final say. This is our's and that's a real problem so someone wanting to get, if the city does put the money into the roof, either they work out something with St. Hubert's. I don't think they ever want it back. If they do want it back, I mean tonight the Boy Scout's are there. We let the Boy Scouts use it. They have the whole basement... so it is being used as a public facility but still at the same time you've got to figure out who's on first. Who's going to City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 take the final ownership for it. We're doing our best trying to maintain it the best we can so that's really all I have to say. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Larry. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I will move that the City Council award bids to Kastle Company in the cedar shingle alternative with a bid amount of $20,850.00. I'd also like the motion to include what it says about, in the staff report about staff being directed to work with St. Hubert's in arranging a new lease agreement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second. Resolution #95 -118: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist moved to award the bid for remofmg of Old St. Hubert's Church to Kastle Company in the amount of $20,850.00 for cedar shingles alternative and to direct staff to woiic with St. Hubert's in entering into a new lease agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RURAL/URBAN TAX DISTRICT, FINALIZE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Don Ashworth: Following our last City Council meeting on this item, the Mayor did select a citizens committee that was also composed of Councilman Berquist. During the meetings of that citizens committee, Councilman Mark Senn also attended those meetings. The task force was really given two primary duties. First of all, how should the definition be changed for the rural service district to represent that. They made quick order of that task basically coming back saying it should solely be farmed. The City Attorney has prepared a redraft of the ordinance and the City Council does have a copy of that ordinance which would limit qualifying parcels to farms. Second issue was one of looking through the existing list of approximately 82 parcels and trying to make a decision as to which of those parcels qualify under the new definition and which ones don't. The final report as completed today and I believe copies have been presented to the City Council showing the task force's recommendations as to which parcels should be taken off. The third item that was taken on by the task force, although I'm not quite sure why, was how to consider potential rebates. I had a number of concerns with those discussions because of the fact that one, this was a technical error as to how a distribution would occur. So the city, county, school district did not receive one penny more than they would have received if it had been set at 75% versus 90 %. At issue is a certain group of owners paid more and a certain group of owners paid less. But as far as the city physically having that money, putting it in the bank, that never occurred. Two is, I question what error was made. I think a lot of time was spent on talking about 75% versus 90% but the fact is that I think that if any one of us would have been the list that showed Gedney as qualifying, Prince, Mills Fleet Farm, I think everyone of us would have said whoa. This isn't really right. I consider a more major error was in allowing a number of these parcels to be on this list for as many years as they were. Third issue is really State law and that is, if you're going to consider an abatement, there's a specific procedure set out in State law under which that is to be considered. Four, I had to believe that the committee might be considering well let's just go ahead and do it anyway, and where there is a procedure set out in State law, I really cannot recommend that type of a process. Finally, staff has a problem with the rebate thing as far as who's going to get the check. Let's assume we do the calculation as it would apply for 1991, and by the way I did not get the list back from the Carver County Auditor's office that the committee had been talking to the auditor about. I left a message but they did not, I don't know, Maybe Laurie was not there. But the question's really who gets the check. You 1 I I 1 I �1 10 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 do the calculation for 1991. Are you going to send that check to the National Weather Service and Jehovah's Witness? Are you going to send it to the, I think they were called Highway 5 Partnership, which is primarily Betty O'Shaughnessy and a number of those owners. They had the property before the National Weather Service. And then there was a true farmer who had the property sometime before that. The same thing would ' be true of really any of those parcels. I mean you've got 10 subdivisions that have occurred since 1991. Is this check going to go back to somebody who now lives in Trotter's Ridge, Windmill Run, Royal Estates, etc? Is there a solution? I really think that there is. I think that the City Council should consider adopting this ' ordinance as recommended by the committee. That putting in the definition of farms. I would recommend that the City Council follow that by adopting the committee's recommended list of what parcels should fall out of there. After you've carried out those two actions, we now can talk about who it is that rightly should have gotten a lower tax rate in the last 4 years. If it was set at 90 and it should have been 75, that means a 15% ' error was made per year for 4 years. Or 5 years. Simply set the rate at 60% for 1996, '97, '98 and '99. I don't know what happens to 2000, and give those owners that lower amount. If they sell it, if somebody else is farming, fine. That next person gets the lower rate. If they sell it and somebody develops it, the list comes ' back to the Council each year. You'll simply knock that parcel out. In fact I would recommend that we keep the committee intact for the next 4 years and each year when we get into this time of the year, we ask the committee to look at all these parcels. Figure out who should continue at 60% and who shouldn't. I really believe that that would be one way that Mr. Degler, I believe will be farming for the next 5 years. He should get the tax break in the amount that he overpaid for the last 4. But surely do not take and give that rebate back to Prince, to Gedney, to.Mills Fleet Farm. I don't think any of us could support that. End of report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I concur with your analogy that you just went through. Steve. Councilman Berquist: The biggest reason that I asked to be named to the citizens group was so that I could attempt to be convinced that there was some actual benefits gained by the actual lack of service if you will garnered by the rural parties. However, in looking at all the different tax ramifications that affect someone who owns acreage in the city of Chanhassen, primarily green acres, it's obvious to me that there really should not be an urban/rural district delineation. I don't know that I'm going to be able to convince the other members that ' are affected that that's necessarily the case. But I'd like to talk about a couple of your issues in your report, specifically the let's do it anyway. I want to know what the, you refer to some ramifications if we start to deviate from a statutory process. Don Ashworth: I would prefer to take and have the City Attorney respond to that. You and I talked about this shortly and I think I put in wordage similar to what he gave me but I guess I would defer to him in terms of ' what happens if we decide that we're just going to kind of ignore statute and go ahead and do our own thing. Councilman Berquist: Do it quickly. I mean you don't have to get into a lot of details. I mean what can of worms do we open? ' Roger Knutson: Don set it up... The legislature just said, if there's a problem. Here's how the problem should be corrected. It's a statute. You should follow it. We have no authority to do elsewise. If we ignore the ' statute, deviating from the laws as set forth by the legislature in violation of...and as Don said, as your attorney I can't ever advise you to violate the law. Councilman Berquist: The 5 members of the task, the 3 members of the task force that are not either on the ' Council or city staff really put a lot of work into this. There's a lot of hours sitting in the Council, or in the conference room going through the different parcels and Al drove around and looked at the different parcels. I 11 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 suspect maybe Willard and Gayle may have done the same thing to try to determine whether or not they in fact were being farmed or whether they were simply sitting dormant or whether there were horses on them or what exactly was going on. After going through the list, I think we finally came up with 41 was it? Was that the total number of parcels that qualified? That we considered were qualifying as ag. If I buy into all of the rest of this, which I do, in the report. I'm perfectly content I think in going ahead with the ordinance approval and then going for the 60% tax rate for the years 1996 through 2000, or 1999. Whatever works out to be commensurate with the over tax. And I think that will alleviate the problem and get us back where we need to be and then in 1999 we can get rid of this stupid thing. Mayor Chmiel: Well put. Thanks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't think it's a stupid thing. I think there's a good reason for it, and I also think this is a very creative solution. I agree with it totally. Do we have a sunset on this ordinance or are we just going to look at it annually? Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Roger go ahead. Roger Knutson: There is no sunset on it as drafted. If you wanted to propose a sunset for example on the entire urban /rural service district distinction class for taxes ... we certainly can do that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just don't want it to get lost. I mean I think when we look at the parcels annually, we should also look at is it still applicable to still be there. Roger Knutson: Mayor. The only problem, it sounds like an easy solution by just putting it in the ordinance when in fact we have to remember it anyway because if someone doesn't catch it and bring it to the county auditor's attention, it still will go on. But you can put the sunset in there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm not interested in doing that now but I just don't want us to forget about it I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I think solutions that, yeah I agree with Colleen. I think that... doing. I understand that some people on the committee however would like to see this tabled and some more work can get done on it. Al Klingelhutz: There was quite a bit of discussion on that. I guess I should come up here and talk. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, would you Al. Get your exercise tonight. Al Klingelhutz: I left the cane over there ... it's getting a little better now. Looking back, the assessor went over this list and he found 42 parcels that should stay on and Willard and Gayle and I. Gayle drove the southern part of Chanhassen. I drove up along Highway 5 and we checked each one of these parcels to see if they were growing crops or not because we wanted to make sure we were pretty right on that because I can still remember when the city was taken to court when we first adopted this ordinance. We took a couple of people out and the city lost the case in court, which cost the city quite a little money in court and attorney fees ... and I didn't want 0 L 12 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 to see that happen again. I think one of the reasons, and I probably shouldn't mention Gayle's name but he's ' still outside the MUSA line. He don't know exactly when he's going to be in. He kind of hates the idea of putting a deadline of say like 1990 or the year 2000. They're having to drop it out of there altogether. I can understand the concerns there because you never know what the Metro Council's going to do as far as extending ' the Metro Urban Service line... I think one of the things that we did pretty much want to see is actually how much it would cost the city to repay those dollars that were expended by the people in the rural service district through these years and that's one of the reasons that... should be delayed to actually get all the information ' possible before we actually settle on this. I know, I'm not taking on the City Council. I know the position most of you are in. I know the position Don is in. Where are your dollars going to come from if we pay it back? But it was a mistake. It shouldn't have happened... several people paid more dollars in taxes every year than they should have. I guess that's one of the reasons we would like to see an evaluation to see how many dollars ' actually were taken from these people. Probably ... MUSA line, I think by the year 2000 I'll be out of there. Councilman Berquist: Correct me if I'm wrong. What we're dealing with tonight is strictly how the taxation for ' the coming year is going to look at this, these properties in terms of the percentage. We're not dealing with who got taxed what. What errors were made in the past. We can still deal with that issue at our next get together after the auditor brings that information back to us. But from a timeliness issue, this needs to be addressed. Is that correct? ' Don Ashworth: Well Al, I had a discussion with both Mark and Laurie, at which time they told me that if the City Council could get this adopted by the next Council meeting, that they could have this effective for tax year ' 1996. Now Councilman Senn informed me that Orlin Shafer had told you that '96 is out of the way. The first time it can be effective is '97. Al Klingelhutz: That's exactly what Orlin, and I think Willard will vouch for that. That's what Orlin Shafer told us. That it was too late for taxes payable in '96 but it could be adopted for taxes payable in '97. I don't know where the two of them got mixed up. Other than what Orlin told us that first meeting we met. ' Don Ashworth: Why, I didn't understand why Orlin Shafer, as assessor, would be attending a meeting that's talking about taxes and taxation which is really the responsibility of Mark Lundgren. I didn't quite understand that. Al Klingelhutz: Actually Orlin Shafer I think is the one, in fact from 1967 on there's a lot more people than 100 and some ... and each year as some of these properties developed and he automatically took them off. I know there were some that were on it last year that aren't on this year. Mark Stein was on last year. He isn't on this year. So he has been doing some of it, but he hasn't been watching it. I guess it's really up to the city's responsibility to take these off but he has been taking quite a few of them off as they develop and for some of the 10 acre ones that something else is happening ... In fact I asked Orlin to be at that meeting because I didn't ' want us to make any mistakes on what could happen if we made a mistake as far as explaining rural agricultural land. And he came up with 42 parcels and Gayle and I and we went over some of them last week... because we checked on the map and some of them we hadn't even looked at yet. We thought we could check those off and ' see if they were actually going agricultural or not and we came up with 41. Don Ashworth: I would still, Mark's office is the one that actually sends out the property tax statement. Laurie is the one who puts everything through the computer. Those two stated that if we could adopt that this evening, ' they could have it effective for 1996. 1 still believe that those statements are correct. 1 13 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Mason: Well is not the issue, if we don't change this those wrong tax figures are still going to be in place. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Mason: If we don't make this amendment tonight. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: And it just becomes part of the same abatement problem. Councilman Mason: Right. So it would seem to me we should act on this tonight then and continue the process that these fine gentlemen are involved in. I mean if we can change the tax rates now, I think we should do it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think we've got a good solution here. I don't see, and to be perfectly honest, that wasn't the charge that we gave the task force. Discuss the abatement procedures so I mean I think this is a great solution. I don't see the need to go back and try to figure out what any kind of rebates could be SO. Councilman Senn: You know the Council did specifically request a list of the properties and the dollars involved before we made our decision at the time that we tabled it and we still don't have that information. We don't know the extent or the scope of what we're even talking about. Steve's point that what he's assuming as in let's just abolish the district. I may very well agree with that but I don't know how I can agree or disagree with it until I know the extent of the problem and I don't agree that what's in the staff report is necessarily a good solution. I mean you read number 3, it says let's ignore all the parcels except 30 to 40 that we're reclassifying now as being proper. Saying let's ignore them in relationship to any future treatment or past treatment that relates to what we're paying. I don't know, there's some real problems with it since we had an ordinance in place saying that we were acting improperly. I think we're ... I think we ought to take the time to assess that and find out what those property owners think. I don't think we can just randomly say we're going to include these 30 or 40, back dating it to '92 and saying we're going to boot the other, whatever parcels out of there or something... Mayor Chmiel: We were just looking at this and seeing what the totals are and the amount of taxes that are for each of these respective parcels. It shows township and city for the first one on the first page, page one. That would be $234.40 would be the city's portion. That would have a rebate of approximately $34.00. Don Ashworth: Correct Mr. Mayor. You simply take that line. Multiply it by 15% and that is the amount. In that particular case the $234.00 would be $34.00. So I mean. Al Klingelhutz: Per year. Don Ashworth: Per year, correct. Per year. But I mean you've got an awfully good approximation. I mean when we get the list back from the county, which I said don't hold your breath on but if they don't take and get it to us, I'll go through there and I'll do it myself and I'll submit it back to you. It's not that difficult... LJ 0 14 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And would it be a matter of just informing these property owners and if they want ' to follow through with the abatement process, that's their prerogative? Don Ashworth: Yeah, I suppose. I think that the County Board, in knowing that we were going to take and ' reduce the tax rate for them, I think that the County Board would be reluctant to go through the abatement process but I can't speak for the County Board. And I do know their costs of processing an abatement is a lot more than $34.00. ' Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but in your solution here Don you're suggesting that we not only reclassify the parcels tonight, but that you implement the 60% because that's what the auditor needs to know. IJ Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: And you're saying implement that only for the 30 to 40 parcels that have now been classified as being properly. Don Ashworth: 42. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Not all of them that were classified previously under the ordinance Don Ashworth: But doesn't that get back to the error? I mean don't you consider that it was an error to allow Prince to take and continue to be on that list or Mills Fleet Farm or Gedney. Councilman Senn: I agree but I haven't heard anyone tell me we have no legal exposure for acting outside of the ordinance and then saying we're going to close our eyes and ignore it. For part of the people. I mean that's what it really comes down to is for part of the people. Councilman Mason: I don't understand how we've ignored the ordinance. If we've made a mistake, there's an abatement process that people can go through and we're now trying to rectify the problem. I don't call that ignoring anything. Councilman Senn: No, but you're by- passing the abatement process by saying you're going to implement a procedure to give them an additional 15% off for the next 4 years. Councilman Mason: People have the right to go through the abatement process regardless of what we do here. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Mason: I don't, I quite honestly don't see what that issue is at all Councilman Senn: The issue is that you've decided, or you're being asked to decide that some of the people who overpaid according to the previous ordinance will get their money back and other people who overpaid according to previous ordinance don't get their money back. That's what you're saying. Councilman Mason: And those people can go through an abatement process if they have a problem with that. Councilman Senn: No, they cannot because the abatement process will not allow them to go back to the years necessary to recover their money. They can only go back two years. 15 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Mason: That's correct and according to State Statute, that's the way it is and I'm not inclined to violate a State Statute. Councilman Senn: Except what you're adopting by staff recommendation here is that you're going to go all the way back to '91 for some people by implementing this 15% deal. Only some. Don Ashworth: I would argue Mark. We're trying to correct two errors. One error was a whole group of people that shouldn't have been in there for this whole time period. The other error was the 15 %. This ordinance, handling it in this fashion corrects both errors. And I do not see we're going back and trying to give money back to Gedney corrects the other error that I saw happen, which was they shouldn't have been there. This way allows you to correct both errors. Councilman Senn: Well, then I'd like a legal opinion telling us we can do that. Roger Knutson: You can adopt this ordinance. It's under your discretion to set the amount. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's got to be an ordinance. What I'm saying is dealing with the past. Can we implement an ordinance for a portion of the people which allows them to get their money back previous to the abatement process that they can go through and tell the other part that they cannot? Even though we had an ordinance in place saying here's how they were to be taxed. Roger Knutson: It's within your discretion to adopt this ordinance. Setting that tax rate. Councilman Senn: I understand that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't mean we're, I mean we don't. Roger Knutson: There's nothing illegal about this. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. We don't say we're trying to rectify. The ordinance doesn't say we're trying to rectify a past error. All it says is we're going to set it at 60% for these parcels going forward. Roger Knutson: Your reason for why you think this is a good ordinance or why you think it's a bad ordinance, is really just... yourself. The courts don't review your personal thinking as to why you think this is a good ordinance. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve this ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just going to call the question. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes, I'll second it and I would, the reason I am going to second it is I know there's still some concerns about whether there are 42 or 41 parcels, this, that and the other thing. I would like to see the tax, the reason I'm seconding it is I would like to see the tax rates fixed where they should be now as opposed to having them be 90% and having this problem continue further. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the ordinance amendment for the rural /urban tax district as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. 16 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before if there's anyone who's still sitting here for item number 4, that Southern ' Oaks proposal has been tabled from this evening's agenda. CONSIDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NEZ PERCE EXTENSION, FRANK BEDDOR. ' Don Ashworth: I have forwarded to the City Council a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. This is what has been negotiated by the City Attorney's office with Mr. Beddor and the others as a part of that lawsuit. ' The only negative that I have been made aware of is the fact that some owners do not want to see the city entering into something that says that we'll not extend that street for at least a 3 year period. I would remind the Council and those people that failing to reach agreement, Mr. Beddor has made it very clear that he will keep this item in court for at least a 3 year period, and there's no question in my mind but that in fact he can do that. There are enough work items that are yet to be accomplished that he could easily challenge each one of those processes and extend this well beyond that 3 year period of time and the only difference is that, in the one instance you get to pay the City Attorney for 3 years of fighting in court. In the other case, you simply wait the 3 year period of time to put the road in. Roger Knutson: Don, there's another difference. This ... get it for nothing. Don Ashworth: That's true. I'm sorry. Now you made me forget what I was saying. So anyway, we're recommending approval. I know not all parties are going to be happy with the solution but I think it is a way to insure that from a long range planning standpoint, that the roadway is there. That we have made inter ' connections throughout the community and I think that we can pretty well hold our heads up in terms of saying we worked this thing out and basically got what we wanted. Approval is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this this evening? Okay. Councilman Mason: I have a question and a comment. t <- Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Mason: My comment Don to what you said. I have had, because that is kind of my neck of the woods, I have had people calling me frequently to see what's going on and that concern was expressed to me. However when I did explain to them that it would be at least 2 years until we got it and it'd be in court that long anyways, as unhappy they may have been, they did also understand the sense of that. One question, and I'm not sure who to address this to. I guess it's either to you or to Roger, Don. That easement between those ' two homes on Lake Lucy Road, that there was at some point. I'll admit going through this I don't understand all the wording. Is that easement not an issue? I mean this is all done. He can't put a road through there? Don Ashworth: Well this is silent on that issue. Roger Knutson: Right. There'd be no reason to put a road through there but the easement hasn't gone away. ' Councilman Mason: Right, but because of the way things are platted, that's no longer practical. Roger Knutson: With this street going on, and people can suggest anything. I can't imagine why that would be ' on the table. 17 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: It shouldn't be, right. Councilman Mason: Okay. That's all I have to say. Let's get it done. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's put it to bed. I'm tired of this issue. Mayor Chmiel: Mark? Councilman Senn: No problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Settlement Agreement for Nez Peree Extension. All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who was out of the room at the time, and the motion carved. PRELEWWARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,742. SO, FT. TIRES PLUS FACILITY LOCATED ON WEST 79TH STREET: AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR CROSSROADS PLAZA 3RD ADDITION, PROJECT NO. 95 -2. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This is a two part request for this... Housing and Redevelopment Authority is requesting a preliminary and final plat to replat a lot in the Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. Basically the replatting of the lot creates four lots. The two smaller lots to the rear and two larger ones on the front. As part of this the city is also developing a master concept for this site that would include the provision of the majority of the parking in the interior of the project with cross parking and cross access easements between those... We're looking at providing an internal access to the bank parking lot and potentially in the future another one to the shopping center on the east side of this project. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. The second component of the project is the Tires Plus building, which is located in the northwest corner of the site. We have been working with the applicant and the cross hatched areas are additional landscaped areas that we were able to get through redesign of that project. There have been 400, approximately 400 square feet of the required landscaping, landscape areas for the site. However, as a condition of the subdivision we are requiring that the entire site meet the 35% landscaped area rather than the individual one because our concept plan shows a 36% landscaping area, potential for the entire project. The only issues that was really left at the Planning Commission stage was the type of roof treatment that the applicant did propose. While one of their concepts is they would provide a short pitched roof element just over the front portion of the site. That's Alternate A. A second alternative was to continue this roof treatment across the entire body of the building. Staff and the Planning Commission were real concerned that we'd have this large blank wall area and so this wasn't the preferred choice. The third alternative was to provide some roof massing along the front of the building and we believe this is the best alternative for u n 18 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 this site and not only is attractive on the structure but provides the screening for the bowling area to the rear from Highway 5. With that staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, were there any questions of Bob? Councilman Berquist: Provide screening from the bowling alley? ' Bob Generous: For the bowling alley. People looking towards the back won't see this... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Applicant: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything that you wish to say in regards to the conditions or your position? Applicant: What I wanted to say is we worked the last few months developing a plan that with the planning department and engineering staff to produce a plan that we hope you'll be happy with. I brought along with me a color rendering of the site plan and building elevations and... bricks and building materials for your review. And I brought a photograph of an existing site much like the one that we're proposing for your site. This was built last year in Apple Valley, and incidentally it won the Minnesota Shopping Center Association's Award for best building under 10,000 square feet. The Planning Commission added the roof line, which goes along very nicely with the rest of the plan. There was some concern on color of the red roof. They wanted a natural red color and we believe that the color. That's the color of the bricks in the front. This section at the top and this is the color of the band here and the roof is an extruded aluminum. This would be red, much the same color as the colors of the American Flag there. And the building... they've also included an added element on the edging. The roof edging. And we're looking at this kind of a treatment on the edges to give it a little more character... And I guess we're looking at—decide if it's pitched. ' Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any questions? ' Councilman Mason: So you're, this is Option C right and you're set to go with that if that be the choice? Applicant: Right. Councilman Mason: Good enough. Thank you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where are the dumpsters located? Applicant: The dumpsters are inside. Applicant 42: In this space, the showroom. From the front these windows are on this narrow space in front of the dumpster area. The dumpsters are accessed through this space and they're enclosed space. Showroom but from the front of the building, this extension is between these two points. The actual showroom runs this direction. 19 I' City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's great. The reason I ask is because I am concerned about the rear elevations because we probably will be doing something retailish behind it so, I mean you have a double frontage basically. Applicant #2: It will be completely screened from there. Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's great. That's all the questions I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any questions? Councilman Berquist: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Not of the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks. We will need, if it meets Council's approval, two motions. One regarding the subdivision and one regarding the site plan. Councilman Senn: I have a question for Bob, if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilman Senn: You reference the green space requirement. If I'm understanding you correctly, your intention is to make up on one of the other parts of this parcel, the green space requirement that you're not putting in here? Bob Generous: Correct. It's really like one site since we're using the cross parking agreement to reduce the coverage on the other site. Specifically the restaurant. Councilman Senn: Why don't, I guess are we backing ourselves into a corner? Why don't we just bury it? I mean I heard we've already lost one restaurant group because of that. Fuddrucker's? Todd Gerhardt: They didn't give any reason why. They still may be interested. I would think that they'll probably come back. I mean in their comments, they said they'd like to be in a year after Applebee's is open. So he's kind of gambling hoping that the site will still be there. Councilman Senn: Well the head of Fuddrucker's said that they were backing off because of the cost of the land per square foot and the green space requirements on that cost of land per square foot. They couldn't afford it. Todd Gerhardt: He never made that comment to me. Councilman Senn: So you don't think we're backing ourselves into a corner? Bob Generous: No, I think it's doable. They actually have access. The landscaped area that they could lose some more. 1 20 1 i 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Senn: This does? Bob Generous: No, the entire site. If, they're at 36 %. Councilman Senn: Depending on what goes on the site. Bob Generous: Right. Well and we have the parameters basically established for the development. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: Do we do these all at once or one at a time? Mayor Chmiel: Well let's take the subdivision first. Councilman Mason: Okay. I would move preliminary and final plat approval for Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition for the Tires Plus facility. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason: With staff recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: And a second has been made. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95 -13, Crossroads 3n1 Addition, plans ptepaied by Peters, Price & Samson, dated Received November 7, 1995, mplatting Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads 2nd Addition into 4 lots subject to the following conditions: 1. Mylar as -built construction plans will be required upon completion of the public improvements. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 21 11 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to compliance with the terms of the development contract. guarantee 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control ' Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. ' 8. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the wetland mitigation areas into the surroundings is recommended. 9. Prior to filling the wetlands, the City shall receive all necessary permits to complete the project in accordance with the WCA and Army Corps of Engineers. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. r 11. Overall within the subdivision, 65 percent impervious surface coverage will not be exceeded. Councilman Mason moved, and Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to also approve Site Plan #95 -10, plans dated November 7, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for Tires Plus on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building is required to be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13. 2. Ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 3. Submit radius turn dimensions for approval. 4. Signage will only be permitted on the south elevation and must comply with city code requirements. No panel signs will be permitted. A separate sign permit will be required for signage. 5. Grading of the site must be consistent with the master development plan that will be required of the plat. 6. The applicant shall incorporate roof alternate C. In addition, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a cap treatment on the north, east and west elevations. 7 Revising landscaping plan to locate all proposed trees outside the Minnegasco easement. Staff and the applicant shall work together to ensure that the landscaping to the north is sufficient to soften the building view from the north. Existing landscaping along West 79th Street will be in conflict with the proposed driveway. These trees will need to be relocated. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. The private utilities shall be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and /or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 11. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement with the city and provide the necessary security to meet the conditions of approval. ' 12. Materials samples shall be submitted to City Council for review and approval. The roof awnings and doors shall be a natural reddish color and not bright red. 13. Backlit awnings shall be prohibited. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: I would also move approval of Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specs for Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, Project No. 95 -22. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #95 -119: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the construction plans and specifications for Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition dated November 6, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates, and the development contract dated November 13, 1995 subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $109,000.00 and pay an administration fee of $10,986.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' CONSENT AGENDA: D. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PHASE 11 OF TH 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD (COULTER BOULEVARD FROM 1600 FT EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD TO EXISTING COULTER BOULEVARD) PROJECT NO 93 -26B Councilman Berquist: Don, on page 3 on your manager's comments. You listed funding commitments for '96 are already starting to mount and this extension would add to that total dollar amount. The question that came to mind is, I want to know about this $10 million bond limit. Where's limit imposed from? 1 Don Ashworth: That comes about in terms of what's referred to as bank qualification and so if you exceed that $10 million, the bonds as they would be sold, do not meet, and again in this bank qualification which means 23 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 that you're taking out a lot of potential bidders on this thing, and as I understand it, it's kind of like the ordinary people that might typically buy bonds of the city of Chanhassen. So now you're solely limiting yourself to more corporate type of people. Councilman Berquist: And therefore a higher interest rate? I Don Ashworth: Right. Councilman Berquist: So it's a self imposed limitation? Don Ashworth: No, it's a federal limitation. So if we were in Alabama, we'd have this same problem. Councilman Berquist: So in other words, you get $10 million a year worth of bonding to go to market to... If you go over $10 million, all of a sudden you've limited your market. Don Ashworth: Correct. And you'll be paying about... Councilman Berquist: Does it affect that bond issue only? Don Ashworth: No. Only the issues that are sold after you reach the $10 million. So if you did this later in the year, so let's say we had 3 bond sales and we had the first two went through at a total of $9.8 million and the third one went through at $5 million. It would only be the $5 million that would pay that premium but the , premium is going to be paid on each and every bond year that those bonds are outstanding. So the 15 %'s going to apply to a 15 basis points which is not 15 %. It's .15. Only, yeah. It would apply each year for that $5 million issue. Councilman Berquist: Okay. So if in fact you were looking at doing a project that would make economic sense. In other words it would promote substantial growth within the tax base if that project were completed, and it wasn't going to be done in the near term by the private sector. Would it make sense to extend your , bonding limits. Pay the premium if you will and get it done so that the tax base can thereby be increased. Don Ashworth: Potentially. You also have to, an additional concern in terms of your overall amount of debt and when is Standard and Poor going to say, okay we're going to look to a decrease in rating for this particular city because now you've moved from a time frame of $10 million per year to now it looks like you're starting to do $15. But you're absolutely right. If the particular sale end of year and we're selling that for 550, you'd be paying 565 and it would add that same 15 basis point on for each year. So it was a good viable project, that's a very small price to take and pay. Except it hurts your overall credit rating. Councilman Berquist: Well the staff, yeah. The staff report makes mention of the four property owners that adjoin being in favor of having that road through. I suspect because they've got some potential clients that would like to make use of that land. So I really wonder if maybe with a $10 million bonding limit that ... hurt '96. I wonder if it would be worth looking at that at the time. I'm in favor. I'm in favor of spending the ' $41,000.00 for the feasibility study. I wanted to bring the broader issue to mind ... other questions. Would it also be practical, public money aside, how soon would something like this be done in the private sector by the people who own the property? Given the pressures of the city of Chanhassen. , Charles Folch: I guess each situation is, can be unique. Have it's own set of circumstances. I do know that this particular phase of the project, it's been known. It's been a year and a half now since we dropped that 24 � 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 second half from the original project proposal and that was my suggestion at that time to these 3 or 4 property owners. Get together. Get your ducks in line. If you need it sooner than what the city can provide it on, then you need to get together and maybe look at putting this in privately. And over the span of a year and a half, for whatever reason, they haven't necessarily discussed that with me but they have been able to all come to the table, get together and be able to put a package together that they can all agree upon in terms of financing and so forth. So there's been about a year and a half where this has been considered in terms of doing it on their own but again when you're dealing with 3 or 4 property owners trying to get them all to come to the table and agree upon things can be a little challenging. I would guess if it was one single property owner that ... the whole area, they might consider doing it themselves. Councilman Berquist: So it's possibly not as gung ho an area as they would have us believe? Charles Folch: Well, I guess if you ask them they're gung ho but I guess if you ask them to take the risk of up- fronting things, maybe they're not. But I guess all I can say is they have a certain amount of time here to consider doing this and the pieces haven't come together yet to do something like that. Councilman Berquist: When was the last, how long ago did they approach you on this? Charles Folch: In terms of petitioning? Councilman Berquist: Yes. Charles Folch: You'll see the latest, the most recent petitions have been included as attachments in your staff report. Early petitions have come in as early as like 19, late 1992, early '93 they began talking to us about doing the improvements out there. And again, the original feasibility study did include this portion of the project but it was dropped at the time that we ordered plans and specs. Or I should say, it wasn't necessarily dropped. It was basically delayed until, at that point in time we were waiting for development to the south to kind of complete it's process and get it's ducks in line so the timing just wasn't right to do the second phase back in the early 1993, or early 1994 I should say. When we let the contract. Councilman Berquist: Did the school have anything to do with the urging the continuation of this? Charles Folch: Really this segment of the project, outside of providing secondary access to route buses in and out of the school, there is some benefit there but none of the school officials have contacted me to necessarily encourage or discourage the project. Councilman Berquist: Well I don't know what to do with it. Does anybody have any questions regarding this besides me? Councilman Senn: Well I was going to pull it too but I don't have a problem with the feasibility study as an action in itself. My comments really related more to, given the fact that we're bumping up against our $10 million limit, I think we ought to sit down and set the priorities and not necessarily just say that this is going ahead and spending $2.2 million of a very limited resource at this point when my own thought is if the private market were demanding this... would be building this road and I don't think the market's demanding it so the owners aren't building a road but if we're willing to go in and do it for them, I guess if I were in their position, I'd be happy to accept it, and such so, I'd really like to again, no problems with going ahead with the feasibility 25 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 study but I'd really like to see the Council prioritize a number of things. Not just these projects but a number of other things. Councilman Berquist: Does this, does the scope of this at all fall within the economic development district that's out there? Charles Folch: This project does fall within the economic district that has been created out there. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Well I would move approval of the feasibility study and we can go from there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Resolution #95 -120: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the Preparation of Feasibility Study for Phase II of TH 5 South Frontage Road (Coulter Boulevard from 1600 ft. East of Galpin Boulevard to existing Coulter Boulevard), Pmject No. 93 -26B. All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously. F. APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS. Councilman Senn: I see the new survey did bring back that a number of cities do require escrows. I really, you know given the fact that we're talking about January coming on us fairly quickly, I'd rather see us really deal with the issue and set it in place once rather than set the ordinance in place now and amend it in 2 months. Plus standing by itself, quite frankly I'm not in agreement with the $100.00. If you take what we charge in this city for a lot of different building fees, and the amount of work that involves and compare it to $100.00 for this and the amount of work that's involved, I think the concept is a little ludicrous myself but. So that's why I pulled it. I'd like to see us just kind of set it aside and get the whole thing together so we have the entire framework of charges in place before we. Mayor Chmiel: What are you looking at Mark? Councilman Senn: Basically if you take the $100.00 fee on itself and adopt that at this point, that's what goes into place and if you don't put an escrow and a requirement that city staff time, etc, be reimbursed out of that escrow, you're effectively creating a fee at this point in the ordinance for $100.00. And like I say, I'm not in agreement with that. I'd rather see us set a fee and an escrow amount which is really the trend in terms of what the other cities are doing to recover the true costs of preparation of these amendments. Councilman Berquist: Well in my opinion. Oh, go ahead. Councilman Mason: You started. I'll go next. Go ahead. Councilman Berquist: In my opinion the complexity generated by an escrow account isn't worth it. I would rather see an increase in the application fee and get it set. Want to see about $200.00? You want to see :$500.00? 1 26 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm saying. I mean we haven't discussed that. I mean we got a first survey that was in error. We now have a second survey which came back and said that here's the way it is really being done. First one was wrong. Now what I'd like to do is look at that issue and Steve, I'm not saying escrows has to be the way to go but I think $100.00 is not the way to go. Councilman Mason: I guess I would concur with Steve. My only concern is I heard a number of cities and the trend, and Mark I see 7 cities listed here and unless I'm reading this wrong, I see 2 cities that do anything other ' than the application fee so I just think we need to. Councilman Senn: Two of those listed. L� 1 Councilman Mason: Right, right. Two of those listed. I don't see that as a number. So I just think we need to be clear here. Councilman Senn: Well we did go from 0 to 2, right? Councilman Mason: $100.00 does seem a little small to me but I concur with Steve about the escrow. I think that would be a major headache. Councilman Berquist: How was the $100.00 arrived at in discussion... Arbitrary number? Bob Generous: Basically. Just enough to cover advertising costs basically. Councilman Mason: So that doesn't cover any of your staff time then? Bob Generous: Well about maybe 2 hours. Councilman Senn: And then no publication costs, yeah. Councilman Berquist: Did anybody, did you ask why the dollar amounts were the way they were? Bob Generous: Not that I'm aware of. Councilman Berquist: Shakopee for instance. Well $100.00 is cheap. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's set it at $250.00. Councilman Berquist: You want to go $250.00. We're bidding on it. Well, I don't disagree. I'm inclined to go with, to mirror our sister city in Shakopee. Councilman Senn: As Mike points out two of them have escrows and then it's also interesting to point out that two of them who don't have escrows have fees of $1,000.00 and $500.00 which is quite a considerable difference over what we're suggesting. Councilwoman Dockendorf: $500.00 is fine. Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with $500.00. 27 Mayor Chmiel: Under x number of dollars, what the minimum? $25,000.00 before it goes out to bids? Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Unfortunately Diane Desotelle couldn't be here tonight but I did speak with her this afternoon and it was estimated or assumed, if you will, that the design services would be under that $25,000.00 ceiling and therefore Diane picked consultants who have performed on these types of ' projects with the city in the past and solicited verbal quotes to complete the work. So we did not go through a formal selection process with these types of projects. Councilman Senn: But you don't have to go through, I mean you don't have to go through a formal selection process. I mean in (g) we called 3 consultants and asked them to give us numbers. I mean that's not a formal bid process. Why don't we do the same thing on (h) and (i)? And what you just said about consultants being used that have been used by the city before, the one on (h) has never been used by the city before. It's a new one. Charles Folch: Well they have been consulted on on expertise on some areas before. It may not have been a , specific construction project but I know Diane has had a lot of contact with that consultant in the past getting the information and getting expertise on certain things so there has been contact, client customer relationship previously established with this consultant. The other project which we did go through and solicit quotes if you , will, is going to be a larger project and we knew that, we anticipated that one would be above the $25,000.00 ceiling. A judgment call was made to just solicit or just select a consultant and solicit quotes. As you can see, 28 F7 I City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean it's unfortunate that it's arbitrary like this but I mean, you know we can't cover staff time. Councilman Mason: I'd dare say the other fees are probably... , Mayor Chmiel: Right, I think with all the things that we have to go through and to really make up for staffs time, we have to make this a payable kind of situation so it's not costing the city any money. And I agree with that $500.00 as well. Is there a second? ' Councilman Berquist: I'll second it. Councilman Mason: To $500.00? Mayor Chmiel: $500.00. Resolution #95 -121: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution establishing fees for zoning ordinance text amendments at $500.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' H. APPROVE CONSULTANT SERVICES (MONTGOMERY WATSON) FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT ON CURRY FARMS AND THE CHRISTMAS LAKE CREEK Councilman Senn: On (h) and (i) I was trying to find out earlier today and did not get the information back. Were these phone bids from a single consultant or did we get numbers from two different consultants? As I understand it on (g) we did. That's why I did not pull (g) but my understanding so far on (h) and (i) was we simply called a consultant, got a number and awarded the contract which... Mayor Chmiel: Under x number of dollars, what the minimum? $25,000.00 before it goes out to bids? Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Unfortunately Diane Desotelle couldn't be here tonight but I did speak with her this afternoon and it was estimated or assumed, if you will, that the design services would be under that $25,000.00 ceiling and therefore Diane picked consultants who have performed on these types of ' projects with the city in the past and solicited verbal quotes to complete the work. So we did not go through a formal selection process with these types of projects. Councilman Senn: But you don't have to go through, I mean you don't have to go through a formal selection process. I mean in (g) we called 3 consultants and asked them to give us numbers. I mean that's not a formal bid process. Why don't we do the same thing on (h) and (i)? And what you just said about consultants being used that have been used by the city before, the one on (h) has never been used by the city before. It's a new one. Charles Folch: Well they have been consulted on on expertise on some areas before. It may not have been a , specific construction project but I know Diane has had a lot of contact with that consultant in the past getting the information and getting expertise on certain things so there has been contact, client customer relationship previously established with this consultant. The other project which we did go through and solicit quotes if you , will, is going to be a larger project and we knew that, we anticipated that one would be above the $25,000.00 ceiling. A judgment call was made to just solicit or just select a consultant and solicit quotes. As you can see, 28 F7 I f� r— i 1� City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 the cost factors for both projects, the design fees are relatively about the same. Being in the $19,000.00- $20,000.00 range. I would anticipate that both actual contract costs for each project are going to run about the same also. So you're talking relatively even dollars apples to apples with both proposals. I don't know that we would have necessarily gained anything. I guess as Diane mentioned also, I think she did speak with a couple of the Council members. It does take some staff time and it does take some consultant time, if you will, to put together proposals on these types of things and if we know that there's consultants that are familiar with this area or have performed in the city before, they certainly have an advantage of knowing the city's practices, policies, their system and such and I guess it's a judgment call but we think we're going to gain something by soliciting from more than one small type of project and is it really worth our time? Is it worth their time you know to save, are we going to gain that much? On a larger project, yes. When we've got a much higher design fee anticipated, certainly we'd want to keep everything on a very competitive level to make sure we get the best ... for the city, best consultant for the city. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Don, I honestly don't think that on two $20,000.00 projects that we can't spend the time to make three phone calls and get some two page proposals. On the City Hall expansion, the deal that we did earlier, we didn't do that either the first time and we had a $60,000.00 number from KKE. We went through a simple request for proposals which resulted in two pages of paper from each submission and it dropped the cost to $43,000.00 because all of a sudden they were competing against somebody for the job rather than just simply being handed the job. Here's two 20's right together that's, you know I mean I know it's under the 25 magic number but it just seems to me we can do a little extra work to make sure that we're getting the best price. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I talked with Diane this afternoon about all three of these bids and was concerned that we were, actually I talked about the Bonestroo quote because I was most concerned. First of all I didn't realize they did that kind of work and second of all, I was concerned about their expertise. And I think Diane really, she's very conscientious of who's capable of doing this kind of work and although I can't disagree with you Mark, on just the theory of competition drives down prices, I think the fact that we have worked with these consultants before, whether on a formal basis or on a small time basis, there is significant advantage to having worked, not only in the city but with Diane directly and I guess I would support these recommendations. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I too did have discussions with her on some, although I was not quite sure of Montgomery Watson. I would like to see staff get information from that respective person to find out what cities they did work in and the kinds of work that was completed to their satisfaction or whatever. But I guess I don't see any given problems but I'd like to do a little more ground work on this. Charles Folch: We certainly can provide references in the Administrative Section of the next Council if you'd like on Montgomery Watson. Councilman Senn: I asked Kate that earlier today and she was going to request that because she has no information either. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's one of the things that I mentioned to her. Roger Knutson: Mayor? 29 J City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Roger Knutson: I am somewhat familiar with ... enough to tell you I know they represent many watershed , management organizations in the—and I know they also represent another watershed management organization in ... Hennepin County. Those are the two I'm the most familiar with. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussion, is there a motion for (h) and (i)? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will move them both. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I will second them both. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve consultant services (Montgomery Watson) for Surface Water Management Project on Curry Farms and the Christmas Lake Creek All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve consultant services (BRW) for , Storm Water Management Project on Holly Lane. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. J APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT. , Councilman Senn: The resolution on the Livable Communities Act. I understand the time line and the need to , affectively get the resolution in but in sending the resolution in we're affectively buying off on the total. I know we have a staff letter back that gives us I guess some level of comfort. I'm not quite sure what it is in relationship to actually having to meet those goals. But I thought it might be real appropriate for us in relationship to the resolution, to additionally comment on the Met Council who we're doing the resolution for, to loosen some of their, I don't know if you'd call it facts or figures or whatever which would make it easier for us under open market conditions to achieve the goals that they wanted to achieve. That that type of a comment might be appropriate... talking to Kate. , Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Kevin Joyce: Would you take comments from the public on this issue? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. If you'll limit it to 5 minutes. Kevin Joyce: I'll limit it to 2. , Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I Kevin Joyce: My name is Kevin Joyce. I live at 2042 Brinker Street and I'm not going to get into the philosophy of this legislation, which I feel is in essence is extortion but we won't get into that. I think... dictates a question of our community here and I'm glad that Mark kind of set this aside here for a little bit of discussion. I just like it's government at it's worst. We're setting goals in essence saying that we're not going to 30 [I IJ City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 meet. I mean it's fluff. I don't see the purpose. And I mean I see from the last Council meeting here, I had a ' lot of questions. You know what happens when you start something like the Oak Ponds thing where you started at affordable housing and for the rental and whatever, and market prices dictated that it goes up... for the rent controls at all. Write new ordinances. Are you going to say that Chanhassen's not going to allow $300,000.00 houses anymore? That is as discriminatory as not allowing low income housing. If you start listing densities, are you going to be forced to ... certain areas. I just think there's a lot of open endedness in this thing and that concerns me. So I just wanted to put some input and say that I'd like to see some citizen involvement in these things. I think you're between a rock and a hard place. I'm not saying that Chanhassen has any fault in this whatsoever. Okay. Please understand that. But I'm very concerned with the way this is going and I'd like to get some citizen involvement. Whether it's task force ... thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. There probably is some thoughts that there is extortion to this but this was brought up by one legislator who kept pounding the bush all the way through on this for many, many years and because of that they came up with the conclusion as to some of the requirements that they're going to put on this. And ' that's only because of the fact that, as he had wanted more stringent regulations than basically was there. So a lot of this has sort of leveled off a little bit. But at the same point the Livable Communities Act is something that we are almost tied in, have to be tied into. But there should be some limitations that we're looking to have come back from the Metropolitan Council in lieu of some of the percentages that they indicated that we should ' be going. We're asking them for a letter to make that less stringent. Kevin Joyce: My concern is resolving this thing before, it's like the cart before the horse is my feeling. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. But there is many things that this ties into that if you want to extend your MUSA line, you don't do that. If you want to get Highway 5 completed from County Road 17 to TH 41, you don't get those ' appropriations. There's a lot of things that can really affect the city so I think it's, I don't, I feel that bringing up to having a committee of citizens on this, I think it really is a Council decision that we have to come up with. As much as I like to see committees within the city, but this is something that we have to tussle with and come up with a conclusion. ' Roger Knutson: Mayor if I could just point out what the resolution, what the resolution before you tonight, you're not agreeing on goals. All you're doing is essentially agreeing to sit down and negotiate. This keeps that door open. This doesn't say that you're going to agree to them. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's exactly right. So with that, any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: I'd be curious to know if Mark had any input into what type of amendment were you contemplating inserting? Did you have any wordage picked out? ' Councilman Senn: Well essentially if you take the last paragraph that says, now therefore be it resolved that the City of Chanhassen hereby elects to participate in the local housing incentive program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1996, and I would add, and urges the Metropolitan Council ' to loosen it's restrictions which are, and maybe there's better wording but, causing or basically inflating the land prices by controlling the supply of land in Chanhassen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what you're trying to get at is that they are in effect inflating land prices by holding back on the MUSA line. k 31 � City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Councilman Senn: Well that's a fact. So why not comment on it and make that part of a resolution which keeps us I think out of the position of just simply kind of getting backed into this corner and kind of city, it's your problem to go meet these goals. I mean it's like all your problem. That's what's been happening up in Maple Grove. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm just concerned that's a real... Mayor Chmiel: Well Maple Grove was ... anything when it all started so, in fact I brought back their complete agreement with Met Council, which I acquired from the city of Maple Grove and they, in talking in discussions with their planner, they gave me a copy of that and said make sure that you don't fall into the same problem as we had fallen into. And staff has gone over that and it's some of the things that Kate has pulled out during the process of reviewing this and I think that we should be more favorable than what most other cities make their commitments prior to that. Councilman Berquist: So are you saying you're amenable to language akin to what Mark was talking about? Mayor Chmiel: Well, if we put in a language as such, I don't want it to be too stringent nor do I want it to be wishy washy. I want it to, I want to see language incorporated in there that still does give us some protection as we had discussed previously with some of those percentages. But with this particular, we're still not there. This is just purely, as Roger indicated, not committing us to anything right now other than the fact that we're going to participate in it. Councilman Senn: But it is our first chance to comment. Mayor Chmiel: True. Councilman Senn: And I would be perfectly happy with letting Kate take this as a guide and let her draft it. She's in total agreement with the concept so she could come up with some language that would probably do both. This is just a real quick. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as it was a neutral statement. Councilman Senn: Well it's pretty neutral. It's just urging them to look at it. I mean that's all I'm asking them to do. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, yeah. And that's fine. . Councilman Senn: I mean there's a lot more non neutral ways to put this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to move that? ...Okay, would you like to make that as a motion? Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Mason: Second. 32 I ' I I LJ I 11 1 P 1 L n City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Resolution #95 -122: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution for the Livable Communities Act amended by staff to incorporate the statements of Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. COMPOST SITE UPDATE. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is really we're requesting some Council direction. First affirmation of the continuation of the recycling program for yard waste. And secondly, direction as to the preferred alternative for either expansion or continuation of the program within this community. The compost site at the Bandimere Park has proved very popular over the last few years and it's expanded use. However, that soon will be developing as a community park and we'll no longer have that facility. Staff looked at possibly four different alternatives that we can look at for continuing the residential yard waste program. One is to look at providing a facility down in our industrial park near the public works building on the cul -de -sac just to the north of there. Another one is to work with the Chaska, Victoria and Carver County in trying to develop a common site that may not be in the community for composting for residential, residents of each of their communities. Possibly at the Arboretum but we were looking at one site in Victoria. A third alternative is to have the city purchase additional property some place in the community and develop a program there. And finally a fourth one is to have a city wide collection program with their public works program and as I said, we'd like to have some direction from Council on how you'd like us to proceed with the yard waste program. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. I had some discussion with John this afternoon or this morning in regards to some of this and I don't see us at this time going out acquiring some additional properties. I would like us to try to work out an agreement with the indications of the University Landscape Arboretum with Chaska, Victoria, as well as Chanhassen and come up with one specific location. In fact I'd like to even contact the Department head of the Arboretum to see if his discussions with some of his employees have indicated a location of the site right on Arboretum property. And I think by combining it, the cost would be just that much less all the way around. So at least from the position that I look at it, I'd like to see us explore that option with all four to come up with a conclusion for a site location. And that site location could possibly be at the Arboretum site. Steve. Councilman Berquist: Well I don't have a lot of good ideas for you. If staff had to choose a site for the composting program, what would be the ideal choice as far as staff? Bob Generous: Well I think the combined facility at the Arboretum will reduce a lot of the administrative time that we'd have to put into it if that was the facility that was... Councilman Berquist: In the event that that's not feasible, then? Bob Generous: The park place. Down in the industrial park. Because the city does do a lot of it's own chipping and we use that facility heavily. The parks program and public works. Councilman Berquist: Frankly, I understand what the Mayor is saying but from a practical point of view, I think it's going to be much easier to do something long term down there and to get it done than ... rather than spin wheels and try and put some agreement together with another authority. That would be my. 33 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One thing I should have added in. The University has also looked at someone who would like to take those supplies of those chips from them. So there'd be a good outlet for them ... to be moved rather than contained on site. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I want the chips. Councilman Mason: You want them all? Councilman Senn: You can come over to my yard tomorrow. I have a pile sitting there that's 6 feet high and about 12 feet wide. You can take as many as you want. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll be there. No, I think that's a fantastic service for the community to offer free wood chips. Councilman Senn: I also have unlimited firewood... so I mean take firewood and wood chips at the same time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm going to take you up on that Mark. Councilman Senn: Wish you would. Mayor Chmiel: So long as it isn't more than $5.00. Mike. Councilman Mason: I feel like I'm kind of in the middle between you and Steve. I know there are hassles working with other groups in the area. I do think however that any time we do that we are solidifying any relationships we have and I think that's good. So I'd like to see what Victoria, Chaska and the Arboretum have to say about that but I don't want to get involved in a long drawn out process for an agreement either. I think that... so if we can come up with something fairly easy with those communities and the Arboretum, I'd like to see that pursued. But if that turns into an headache, no. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: On the surface I would say your Option B looks like the best. To combine the facilities but what I'd like to see is I'd like to see the cost prepared on each option. Both set up and ongoing costs so as we get into more detailed discussion we understand cost ramifications of the ongoing operation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess you have direction. Bob Generous: Yes sir, thank you. B. NLC CONFERENCE, CLOSING EVENT, CITY MANAGER Don Ashworth: For those attending the NLC conference, I thought this would be the easiest way for me to get down what event you would like to take and look at. The Mayor's just handed me his. Councilman Berquist: What are his? L n L 34 1 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Don Ashworth: North Central Avenue, number 1. Phoenix's Best Jazz, number 2 and Country Western ' Headliner number 3. But I don't know, is it really necessary to have everyone attend the same events if you have different? ' Councilman Mason: Not according to Councilman Berquist it isn't. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. What's Brooks and Dunn? Is that like a magic show or what? ' Councilman Berquist: Country western. Councilwoman Dockendorf: X that one off. ' Councilman Senn: Very popular one by the way. Don Ashworth: So if you're not aware this evening what it is you would like to do, if you would take and call me and tell me your preferences. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can tell you right now Don. 2, 1, 5. ' Don Ashworth: Number 2 is first. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Number 1 is second and number 5 last. Don Ashworth: Okay. Mark or Steve? ' Councilman Berquist: You don't know what the Corona Ranch is by chance? It sounds like a good time but I'm kind of curious as to where it's at. ' Councilman Senn: Steve, it's right by the Corona Beer factory. I was going to ask Berquist if he knows Phoenix but. ' Councilman Berquist: I'll take number 2... Don Ashworth: Okay, and that's it? You don't want any others? ' Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I don't want any others. Don Ashworth: Okay, Mark? ' Councilman Senn: I had down the Corona. ' Don Ashworth: Did you want to do a second and third? Councilman Senn: I'd just as soon not. Don Ashworth: Okay next item was the Livable Communities Act, organized collection. We just picked, oh I guess number 1 was this official depository thing. We handled that the other night deciding not to take and do 35 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 that and so I did put in your packet though a copy of the RFP as it was delivered to the banks so we will go through the interview process on Friday. Oh, and as an update, the other interview process was completed and the existing agency of record was selected by the committee. To act as our agent of record for insurance purposes, Cindy Dollop. Livable Communities Act. Bob tells me that we have to do that prior to December 15th. Bob Generous: Correct. Don Ashworth: So we've got a big time problem. Councilman Mason: We sure do. Don Ashworth: We only have one Council meeting in December. We have the. Councilman Senn: What about next Monday? We don't have anything, do we? I didn't have anything down at least. Councilman Berquist: I have work session with a question mark. Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to do something on budget that night. Don Ashworth: And Mike had mentioned that he has a problem with the 20th. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I've got conferences with my third grade parents that night. I won't be there. That's until 8:00 or 8:30. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can do it. Councilman Senn: So should we do budget and Livable Communities that night? Don Ashworth: Sure. I'll provide an update as to where we stand on the budget and hopefully the last $90,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: 5:30? Don Ashworth: 5:30's fine and I'm assuming you want food. Then the organized collection one could actualy go to the January 29th or February 5th. I don't see a real pressing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd just as soon not do the 5th. Don Ashworth: Okay. So would you like January 29th? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. A girl only turns 21 once. Mayor Chmiel: I thought it was 18. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjoumed at 9:35 p.m 36 City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995 Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager F I� 1 Prepared by Nann Opheim 37 I