Loading...
1g Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:35 p.m, COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Matt Saam, Kelly Janes, Mike Wegler, Harold Brose, Steve Ten'ell, and Bruce DeJong 2003 BUDGET: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS. Kate Aanenson gave a power point presentation for the Community Development department which includes building inspection, environmental and planning.. _Co. iJ~.cilman.Ayotte asked about land acquisition funding for the Seminary Fen. Councilman Peterson asked about cash outlay for the Senior Commission, Teresa Burgess gave a power point presentation on the Public Works department, which includes engineering, streets, utilities and shop. She stressed the importance of the pavement management plan and the need for additional employees. Councilman Ayotte asked if there was adequate funding available for compliance with NPDES. There was discussion about the installation and operation of the flow meters in the city. Councilman Peterson asked what criteria this city council, and future councils should use in establishing the number of new employees to be added. He also stated he wanted additional information showing trends, i.e. 2002 versus 2003 data, and a summary of significant increases. Councilman Ayotte asked what could be done to increase revenue sources. CAPITALPLAN. Bruce DeJong explained the handouts he passed out. There was discussion on how to prioritize the list, overall versus specific items. Mayor Jansen requested a site visit to see all of the city's vehicles. The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m. for the regular City Council meeting. The City Council reconvened at 9:25 p.m. to continue discussion on the capital plan. There was discussion over leasing versus buying a new copying machine. Councilman Peterson asked for further information on the request of $165,000 for financial software. Councilman Ayotte suggested the council give staff a target and let them come back with suggested cuts. There was discussion over different options to fund the capital plan. There appeared to be council consensus on levying for capital equipment in the future. The consensus of the council was that the figure of $1.2 million was too high, and asked,staff to come up with a substantially lower dollar amount. Bruce DeJong went over the projects by funding as outlined in his reports and suggested possible cuts from this year's budget. There was discussion over playground equipment replacement and City Council Work Session - October 28, 2002 road and trail improvements. Mayor Jansen stated there was a need to do more with less, so those requests should come out of the park dedication fees for now and use the general fund to replace equipment. Todd Hoffman stated there were ten wooded play structures in the city that need to be replaced to comply with safety standards, which amounts to approximately $500,000. Councilman Peterson asked about the City Center Commons, City Center Park expenditures. He asked about the water treatment facility request of $3.5 million in 2003. Teresa Burgess explained that was the cost of buying land and design. Mayor Jansen felt it was more realistic to put some dollars in 2003 and some in 2004. Councilman Peterson felt the money should be put in 2004, stating the council does not want to give the perception that a decision has already been made regarding the water treatment plant. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager erepa~:~l--by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Bruce DeJong, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, and Kelley Janes PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Chase Carroll Bryant J0h-hson Pam Latanision Bob & Jan Crees Dan & Dave Marsh Steven Lillehaug Janet Paulsen 8801 Wedgemer~_Dr~e. Victoria 2051 Timberwood Drive 7656 South Shore Drive 890 Nez Perce Court Planning Commission 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Thank you for joining us this evening. We ran a little bit late this, coming down. Our apologies. We were working on our capital improvement plan with some additional staff that had come in to work specifically with us on that so we wanted to take advantage of that time the best we could. Let's see, we have no public announcements. Though with I guess the heavy weight of what did occur in the State last week, I feel as though it may be appropriate to just mention our sympathies for what occurred with the Wellstone's and what the state is now going through. Certainly it has added a heavy weight to the elections and we certainly feel for the families and it, I think we're in an interesting time to actually see how the process plays through as to how they go about replacing him but, I believe there's a memorial tomorrow. A memorial service but I don't have the specifics of that but thought it was certainly appropriate to. Councilman Labatt: William's Arena, University of Minnesota campus. Todd Gerhardt: 6:30. Councilman Labatt: 6:30. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay, so then moving on. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ao Adopt the 2001 Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices as the Standard for All Traffic Control in the City of Chanhassen. City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Approve Amendment to the Development Contract for Knob Hill 2nd Addition, Project 02-06. Resolution g2002-93: Approval of a Resolution for the Final Plat of the Villages on the Ponds 8~ Addition, VOPI, LLC. Approve Modification to the Personnel Policy Concerning Family and Medical Leave Act. go Approval of Purchase Agreement Extension, Infinity of Chanhassen, Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. h. Approval of BillS. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 14, 2002 - City Council Minutes dated October 14, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 24, 2002 j° Resolution g2002-94: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study to Consider Construction of a Cul-de-sac at Kiowa Trail. k. Resolution g2002-95: Approval of Change Order No. 3, Chanhassen Library Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON COUNTY FUNDING CHANHASSEN LIBRARY, COMMISSIONER JOHN SIEGFRIED. FOR THE' Mayor Jansen: Moving on under visitor presentations, we have one scheduled presentation. Is an update on County funding for the Chanhassen Library. We have Commissioner John Siegfried with us here this evening. Welcome John. John Siegfried: Well welcome Madam Mayor and members of the Council. I thought it was appropriate for me to just come before the Chanhassen City Council and get the first person perspective on the issue as it relates to funding for the Chanhassen library. There has been a lot of rhetoric from various sources saying this and that and wanting to make the issue into a more complex situation than it actually has to, but to simplify it. Yes, the County Board of Commissioners will support full funding for the chanhassen library and it will be along the lines of committing to staffing for X number of hours. I believe it's 60 hours and then outfitting the building appropriately and so forth, and hopefully everybody realizes that that equipping and outfitting doesn't mean that every bookshelf that will be in that facility for the anticipated 20 year need will be in there from day one. But we'll make every effort to equip and have as good of a collection of materials as we possibly can. The process is not very well understood by a lot of people as to how the County goes about it's business 'as 'far as determining what the appropriate expenditures are, but what we do of course is initially have budget hearings. Those occur in summer, July, June timeframe. Different department heads talk to two commissioners that are assigned to that particular department. Various...back and forth occurs. The County Administrator listens, determines which areas are completely supported. Which ones maybe need 2 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 to be modified and so forth ultimately makes your recommendation to the County Board for consideration for our adoption of the preliminary levy, and that occurs in September. And that preliminary levy of course is maximum amount of dollars that will be levied for taxes payable in '03, and the whole situation started getting somewhat complex at that point based on the fact that there was a strong insistence on having a guarantee of full funding for the Chanhassen library during that process of setting that preliminary levy. And ultimately the maximum levy that was supported basically was the same levy that was moved numerous times to provide the funding for the entire county's needs next year with the deletion of the specific reference to the Chanhassen library, and logic behind that of course is that there wasn't majority agreement to give any specific preferential treatment or funding guarantee to any specific department. That basically was premature and not appropriate to single out any one department, even one that is fully supported by the citizens of Chanhassen and I'm fully aware of the referendum and the wide amount of support that the Chanhassen library has received through funding referendum from the citizens of Chanhassen. However, after the preliminary levy is set, then the administrator tries to determine, because typically that preliminary levy is significantly less than what his recommendation is, so he has to try to sort it out between what he had hoped the Board would do for a maximum levy and what actually occurred so then he has to go through another process. Make determinations as to what his recommendations are for reductions for funding for '03, so after he went through that task and analysis, and based on a lot of effort from the Friends of the Library in Chanhassen and a lot of support from different individuals that really were concemed about the funding for the Chanhassen library, the administrator did ultimately recommend that full funding occur. And that decision was right in the same, or his recommendation was fight in the same timeframe basically that we had a County Board candidate forum and at that time I gave my assurance, that was my intent anyway that Chan library would have full funding, but some took that to mean that if I didn't just say the words I fully guarantee that the Chanhassen library will have every dollar that the library board would appreciate having, that meant that my support was suspect and questioned so. And there were some other information pieces that came out. One editorial in the local paper that was very inaccurate as far as the conclusions that the writer did arrive at, and also there was some inaccurate information that was published in an article specifically on the Chanhassen library so with that said, the funding will be available for the facility when you do have it up and completed and I just looked at it a little bit tonight. I see it is coming along nicely, but it has quite a way to go so as far as completion I'm sure it's still probably a late spring of next year project would be my guess. So there will be an article commentary coming out by me presumably in Chaska and Chanhassen papers this week. Presumably there will be a letter that will be from the Chaska Library Friends of the Chanhassen Library, or I mean the Carver County Library Board, Friends of the Chanhassen Library that will give some additional clarification of this issue and with my letter hopefully, and with me appearing before you, you will, the word will be out that yes, there will be funding, full funding for this Chanhassen library. And just because a full guarantee isn't given for something, but still adequate support based on financial considerations is the promise that, if you don't utter the words full funding guarantee, that still does not mean that, or that does not mean that you're renigging on promises that were made so. Therefore, go forward with the anticipation that Carver County Board of Commissioners will provide the resources to adequately get the operation of your library underway when you get the facility completed so, those are the extent of my remarks Madam Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Appreciate your coming and sharing with us that information. I guess I just have one question. When you're saying full funding, I'm assuming that that is indicating that you're approving the funding that was requested by the Library Board. Is that what you're referring to as full funding, is funding their request? 3 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 John Siegfried: That is correct, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, just so we, I think we all have the same understanding then which is terrific. So you're anticipating that there will be no changes as you move forward and get into your final approvals, which we all understand of course is in December once you get to your final approvals of your budgets. John Siegfried: Well again, based on the administrator's recommendation, looking at all the various county departments and doing his magic, his recommending full funding as requested by the Library Board for the Chanhassen Library. So that is my story and I'm sticking to it. Mayor Jansen: I appreciate it. Any questions or comments for John? Councilman Boyle: No, that was the only question I had so, that's good. Mayor Jansen: Alright. And we're anticipating the construction being complete late spring, correct? Or early summer. Todd Gerhardt: End of May, June. In there, depending on weather. Mayor Jansen: We've had a few rain delays, as you can imagine, unfortunately. John Siegfried: I saw that you had one change order for de-watering and a few things like that so. Mayor Jansen: Few complications. John Siegfried: Tough construction season, no doubt about it. We've had the same issues with some of our road projects so. Mayor Jansen: You can understand. John Siegfried: We have empathy for you. Mayor Jansen: Well thanks for coming this evening. We appreciate it. John Siegfried: You're welcome· Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Moving on with visitor presentations. If there is anyone in the audience that has an issue of city business that you'd like to bring to the council's attention at this time, you're welcome to approach the podium and address the council. Seeing no one, I will close visitor presentations and we'll move on to our next agenda item. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: Sergeant Dave Potts. Oh, John Wolff is going to go first. Our Fire Department. John Wolff: We did a little switch. Mayor Jansen: Good evening Chief. 4 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 John Wolff.' Good evening. It's great to be here. Just wanted to give you a brief report on Fire Prevention Week. It was October 6th through the 13th. This is a kind of an annual focus that we put on fire prevention and we primly address our programs towards the school children that go to school here in Chanhassen. We reached 1,900 students during that week. About 1,200 actually in person, and another 700 through some programs that we do. We have a coloring contest and a poster contest, but addressing kindergarten through fifth grade. We reached 1,900 students. It was approximately 225 man hours, or person hours. And we had about 35 volunteer members from the fire department that took time off that week to do the fire ed program so we're very pleased with the continued support we get from our membership during this important week. We culminated the week with our Open House, which I saw many of you also attend and appreciate your attendance there. We had approximately 2,000 residents from our city attend that day and that was about a 4 hour session on Sunday, the 13~ so a very successful week for the, for Fire Prevention Week. Just a couple of other items just wanted to update you on. The 800 megahertz conversion for the fire department radios is underway. We've purchased our radios, and all the fire departments in the county have purchased their radios and we're currently programming the radios for the new system, and we're in also going to start rolling out a training program so that when either at the end of this year, or early next year when we roll over from the VHF system to the 800 system, we'll be ready for that. And so we're kind of busy with that at this point and kind of working out the training and programming. Calls continue to be down this year relative to last year. We're down approximately 15 percent. This is primarily driven by a very, very slow or low first quarter activity. We've been pretty much on target since the first quarter, but year to date approximately 15 percent down. And we've lost approximately 5 fire fighters over the past 3 months resulting from retirements. We lost 2 fire fighters. One to another fire department. A full time fire department, and one to a full time paramedic position which we're kind of out of the area and we had one other transfer so. We kind of had enjoyed about an 18 month period without a lot of turnover. Normally we see this kind of turnover, approximately 5 to 10 a year on our 45 person squad, so we're anticipating the need for a class in the following year, so that's something we'll start gearing up for shortly so. I'll take any questions if there are any. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Council, any questions for John? Councilman Ayotte: Hi John. On the 800 system that we have, that will give us commonality, we can interface with Hennepin County and so on. Which ones can we not, through our joint powers agreement communicate with? Do we have anybody that, even with the 800 system we cannot communicate with through our joint powers agreement? John Wolff: Well you have to almost look at where we are currently, and today we have a system that allows us to communicate with fn'e departments in the county, and we have the ability to communicate with any fire department through the statewide fire channel, which is also currently in the VHF block. We're going to a system which will continue to have the statewide band, which is a mutual aid channel that all fire departments in the state have access to, but in addition to that we're picking up probably a dozen other mutual aid channels which allows you to kind of target which departments will work on which channel, if you have a multiple unit operation. We need to work out connectivity with Eden Prairie because they have a unique system. We need to work out connectivity with Bloomington. We're going to have connectivity with almost every other fire department with this new system. Everyone's kind of anticipated that there will be some unique situations so there's a lot of planning that's gone into place. Councilman Ayotte: How about Minnetonka? 5 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 John Wolff: To set up the connectivities, and that's another department that chose not to go on the 800 so we'll have to, we'll pick them up on statewide but we may also choose to find another channel. Councilman Ayotte: Well the only reason why I'm concerned, is that you should be too because we're on the border of Minnetonka, but so is there a concern where we need to address connectivity and an order of merit with certain communities to enhance the safety? John Wolff.' That planning process is underway and it has been underway for a period of time. I don't have any concerns about our ability to communicate, because there already is a band that sits there or channel that sits there and we look towards having a specific one for the Minnetonka connection. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thanks. John Wolff: You bet. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for John? Okay. Thanks for coming this evening. Appreciate it. And Sergeant Dave Potts. Good evening. Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, Council members. I too am not an expert in the 800 megahertz radio system, but you heard me make comments on it before and I would just add to what John's response was that there are constant upgrades and even though the system is brand new, they're always looking for ways to increase the connectivity between the surrounding agencies. We just added a whole other, we have three zones in our system each having I0 or 12 talk groups or channels. We now have a fourth zone, adding about 10 more talk groups or channels that goes directly with every agency that surrounds Carver County, and I assume they're looking at all those'angles, not just with law enforcement but with fire and emergency medical as well, and that's one of'the pluses to this new system is the ability to connect and to cross patch with our new system and the old VI-IF system that some. agencies still have, or agencies that have 800 megahertz systems that are not directly linked with our's. They develop links with those systems for that communication link so, it's pretty incredible and it seems to be always increasing in it's capacities so, just a comment on that. From my part of it this evening, on my memo to the council, items 1 through 4 are the usual attachments. The sheriff's office area report. The citation list. Community Service Officer info and Crime Prevention Specialist info. Any comments or questions on those items? Mayor Jansen: Council? Councilman Labatt: On the area report Dave, a couple things that stuck out for me, just from my experience. In looking at, how many, first, how many deputies do we have working Chan? How many, I mean there are 8, I0 or 12 deputies? Sgt. Dave Potts: There's 10 deputies to cover the Chan contract. Councilman Labatt: And 11 including you, right? Sgt. Dave Potts: Correct. City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Labatt: Okay. Just give me a minute. Couple things that have stuck out that I want to bring to your attention that I'm concerned about is, on the area report, under citations issued. August and September experienced over a 50 percent drop in productivity. Sgt. Dave Potts: I noticed that myself and when you look at the summer months, generally we have a large increase with water patrol and park patrol being out and about in the city, and then when you get into the winter months you generally have the snow bird parking, or the winter parking violations that can tend to be a really large increase. What I've noticed over the course of time is just kind of a, there seems to be an average of roughly 100 citations in a month. Councilman Labatt: Well I see that the low is 94 in April. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, and I noticed both August and September. Councilman Labatt: August is usually a busy month. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, August and September both being low. I haven't completely checked into that. What I noticed is there weren't a lot of citations outside of traffic on the list, and that citation list generally includes all citations, whether it be a citation for theft or a citation for speeding or you know, any other kind of a crime where an actual citation is issued versus somebody arrested or formally charged by the County Attorney's office. Councilman Labatt: Right. Sgt. Dave Potts: So it led me to wonder, was there perhaps a glitch in the record system in not capturing some of that, or were the numbers actually down? Councilman Labatt: You can look into that then and see if, I'll keep going on with my points of concern here. So that was number one. Number two is looking at the citation listing by beat, obviously the 200 badge numbers are the part-timers, correct? Sgt. Dave Potts: Correct. Councilman Labatt: 763 is our CSO? Sgt. Dave Potts: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And the 800 are the deputies assigned to Chan? Sgt. Dave Potts: Right. Councilman Labatt: I'm wondering what happened to the other 2 or 3 of them that are on the list that have no citations listed for their month of September. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, there would have been, according you know if everything is correct, then there would have been no citations for the officers not on the list for that month. Councilman Labatt: Right. For those officers that worked this month, the 11 officers that work, including yourself, they should all have some sort of productivity over this month of issuing one ticket maybe, or a dozen. Correct? City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Sgt. Dave Potts: Well we don't have any quotas. Councilman Labatt: I'm well aware of that but we have, I think as a contract, I have a minimum expectation of what I expect out of the deputies, and quite frankly to work the full time job for a month and not issue one ticket I think is wrong. Sgt. Dave Potts: Well that's an issue that we can discuss further. Councilman Labatt: And there's for the month of August there are deputies missing from this list too that I know work Chan, and they're missing again and I'm just wondering what's going on there is my question. I want to bring it up to you as a city councilor that I have expectations, so those are my only two points. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: I think that something needs to be looked at here, and if it's a computer glitch, it's a glitch but. Mayor Jansen: If you could get back to us on that, we'd appreciate it. Sgt. Dave Potts: Will do. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions on the reports? Councilman Ayotte: Remember the, and I don't know if I'm, is it the CrimNet? Sgt. Dave Potts: CrimNet, correct. Councilman Ayotte: CrimNet. Is there any way that we could, because we're going to be the beta site or the test bed for that application, as I understand it right? Sgt. Dave Potts: Correct. One site. Councilman Ayotte: Is there anything that we can do to get, as this goes on, an update on what the status is and the progress of the test bed and whether it's a good thing or not such a good thing, and it's evolution? I think it's pretty exciting that one, we've been selected. But two, and I don't want to wait a year to hear more about it. I'd like to hear if there's maybe on a quarterly basis or something that we could do to get a status report on it's progression. Sgt. Dave Potts: That's something I can inquire about. I don't know if they have anything scheduled as far as ongoing releases or how that's going, but it's certainly something I can look into. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sgt. Dave Potts: Anything else on those? Okay. Under miscellaneous items. There was an attachment titled job well done under there which was simply re-printed from the sheriff's office internal newsletter that was 3 different letters received from citizens regarding incidents or personnel related to Chanhassen. The first one was a well known search for a mission woman in 8 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Chanhassen hem, written by family members thanking everyone involved for their efforts in the recovery there. Had a rather unusual thank you letter from a young girl, or a juvenile female who was stopped for a traffic violation by Deputy Eric Kittleson in Chanhassen who sent a thank you letter. Somebody getting stopped for a traffic violation, you don't often see thank you letters but complimenting him on his professionalism demeanor and she had her car taken away and she was grounded by her parents after the officer contacted them. Councilman Ayotte: That was not my daughter incidentally. Sgt. Dave Potts: And a letter regarding Chanhassen Detective Roger Roach, our primary Chanhassen investigator who happens also to be our lead arson investigator for the sheriff's office. Recognized for his assistance at a state arson investigation class, so there's just some nice things to receive from time to time. Under community events, you have the Chan Fire Open House. We had the Chan school resource officer Dave Solinsky present up there as well as representatives from our water patrol them with the water patrol boat and vehicle up there. And of course Beth Hoiseth with crime prevention information on hand as well. And just this past Friday the 25th at the first and hopefully annual Chanhassen Senior Citizens Safety Seminar. A day long event with safety topics for seniors in our community. This was a joint operation between the City of Chanhassen and the City of Victoria, sponsored in part by Chanhassen American Legion Post 580 and the Victoria Lions Club. The day started out at 9:00 a.m. Went to roughly 3:00 p.m., with topics on just a law enforcement overview. How law enfomement works in Carver County and Chanhassen, as well as some crime prevention information. Chanhassen Fire did a class and demonstration on tim prevention. Victoria Fire did fire safety and extinguisher training, allowing the participants to actually use a tim extinguisher in putting out an actual tim. The Attomey General's office had consumer education administrator Ben Welle talk about frauds and scams, particularly those affecting senior citizens. We also had Don Banya who is a mouth artist and inspirational speaker who happens also to be a quadriplegic from a motorcycle accident many years ago spoke to the group as kind of a side from the safety topics that we were coveting that day. But very well received. Ben Falk, a Ridgeview Medical Center paramedic talked about emergency medicine and medical calls. The capabilities of paramedics and emergency rooms ih our area. A lot of good comments...fill out critique forms and got just overwhelming number of positive comments and people saying they would like to see this happen on a regular basis, that type of thing so, sounds like we started something good there. Kind of an outgrowth of the child safety camp that the city hosts every year so be looking to do those probably on an annual basis. Mayor Jansen: Great, and Sergeant did you say how many people actually attended? Sgt. Dave Potts: We had 50 sign up. I think there were a few, about 45 participants altogether so we felt real good for our first year having a pretty good number of people participate in that. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Great, great. Sgt. Dave Potts: Regarding crime, I've been in front of the council before talking about car prowlers in the city and of course this is not unique to Chanhassen. However I do have some good news as it relates to theft from parked vehicles and theft from vehicles inside garages. Recently we had a vehicle stolen from the city of Chanhassen. The car prowlers were looking for something to steal and found the vehicle keys under the seat, so decided to take the whole vehicle. That vehicle was recovered later in the morning out near Waconia where another vehicle was stolen. That vehicle from Waconia later recovered in the city of Waconia. However that very night deputies responded to a citizen report of some suspicious activity late at night around a 9 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 parked car in the neighborhood. The only description they had was a red pick-up truck and deputies responding to the neighborhood found 5 red pick-up trucks parked throughout the neighborhood, but in this case Deputy Keith Walgrave was the officer responding, noted the license plate numbers of those parked pick-up trucks and within a short time one of those was seen leaving the area of that neighborhood. A stop was made on that vehicle which contained 5 young people, along with some property stolen out of a different vehicle in that neighborhood. One of the occupants also had an automobile key in their pocket that happened to be the key for the stolen Waconia vehicle, which of course is a link to the Chanhassen stolen which brings it all right back home here to Chanhassen. In another case, South Lake Police which covers the cities of Shorewood, Excelsior, and surrounding communities over there, have been experiencing similar problems with car prowls in their city. One of their officers was out on a stakeout recently and just by luck or happenstance, a little skill all mixed in together, interrupted kids breaking into a vehicle. Was able to catch one of them, which in turn resulted in capturing all three of them. Some further investigation and search warrants recovered $2,000 to $3,000 worth of property stolen out of probably 100 different vehicles. And that investigation is currently ongoing but again there was a link with the property that was recovered, a credit card from a Victoria theft incident and mode of operation of this group very similar to some incidents we've had in the Chanhassen area so looks like some cooperation between our investigation and South Lake investigation has apprehended two different groups of car prowlers. May or may not end up resulting in charges against these people for the crime specific to Chanhassen, depending on what they're able to come up with but we believe, or firmly believe that it's two of the groups that have been in the Chanhassen area so real nice to make that nab. But it's commonly the way it goes. A little piece of citizen input, a little police skill and a little bit of luck, all kind of thrown into the mix where we get a break on these types of cases and they have been aggravating so it' s nice that We have something along those lines. Mayor Jansen: That would be some good news, if it helps to curb the activity we've had here in Chan. Sgt. Dave Potts: Very good news. And the last item I had for council was just something we have coming up in November. November 14~ doing recognition for our neighborhood watch coordinators. They're all being invited down to the sheriff's office where Chanhassen Crime Prevention is going to supply a little dinner and we're going to provide a tour of our new dispatch center and the sheriff's office crime lab. It's kind of a way to recognize our neighborhood watch coordinators efforts and involvement with the program, so for any of them who might be watching the broadcast, get signed up so. But that's all I had for council this evening. Any other comments or questions? Mayor Jansen: Great. Any questions or comments for Dave? Councilman Ayotte: I'll send an e-mail. Somebody had some vandalism in the area. We're starting to see some, at least neighborhoods I drove through and I'll deal with you one on one on that. Where vandalism's starting to crop up...mailbox smashing and so. Mayor Jansen: Okay, Anything else? Councilman Labatt: No more. Mayor Jansen: Alright, thank you. Appreciate your report. Sgt. Dave Potts: Thank you. 10 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINOUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members. What we do on an annual basis is certify those delinquent water and sewer bills due the city to the property taxes for the following year. What we have in town is about 7,000 utility accounts in total and we have about 2 percent of them that are delinquent for more than 3 months. So what you're seeing is a list of all of those. All the individuals have been notified. If it is a rental property, the owners have also been notified that the utility payment has not been paid by the renters and that it will be assessed against the property tax if not paid in full by December Ist. So that's kind of the timeframe as we go through and certify right now. And then we make a final certification to Carver County removing any of those folks who have paid their bills or made some type of a payment arrangement with us during the course of... I think what you're seeing right now is, we typically have about this number of delinquent accounts, but the average dollar value is going up. It's probably an indication of people getting a little bit farther behind on the bills that is probably an indication of a little bit the economic climate that we're starting to see. So I apologize, I do not have a resolution in here. I should have had that but I'm not certain if anyone is here tonight to actually speak at the public hearing. We did offer an opportunity for people on the list to sign up and present a case. We have not heard back that anyone will, but I recommend that you hold the public hearing and adopt the certification after this. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Then I'll open this up for the public hearing, if there is anyone who would like to address the council on this agenda item, step forward to the podium at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Any discussion or we will craft a motion. I'll call for a motion then. Councilman Ayotte: I think I'm going to make Bruce make the motion. Councilman Labatt: I'll move that we certify the delinquent water and sewer accounts and forward them down to the county for processing. Councilman Boyle: And do what? Councilman Labatt: They get assessed onto their. Bruce DeJong: Yeah we forward them to the. Councilman Labatt: To the County. They get assessed on their tax bill. Mayor Jansen: Okay, do I have a second? Councilman Boyle: Second. Mayor Jansen: Is that all you need in a motion then Bruce? Okay. Resolution g2002-96: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council adopt the Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 11 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 UPDATE ON ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT, DEANNA BUNKELMAN. Public Present: Name Deanna Bunkelman Ed Kling Linda Scott Amy O' Shea Mayor Jansen: Todd Hoffman: Address 4191 Red Oak Lane 4169 Red Oak Lane 4031 Kings Road 7475 Crocus Court I don't know if we have a staff report or we just go straight to Deanna. Unless there's any questions on the staff report, I simply prepared a time line of the city's involvement in Roundhouse Park since it's acquisition. If you want to ask any questions. Beyond that ! think we should go directly to the report. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We did have several documents that were here at our places when we came down this evening so we have not had an opportunity to read through these, but why don't I, if council's comfortable, I'll go ahead and open this up and have Deanna come up and address this, unless you have any questions for staff at this point. Councilman Ayotte: Just the one. How much have we expended of the amount that we, I think it was. Councilman Peterson: 40. Councilman Ayott~ So we have, there's been no other expenditure beyond that 40K? Councilman Peterson: No, we haven't spent 40. Councilman Ayotte: The allocation was 40K. Has there been any expenditure? Todd Hoffman: It's right around the $15,000 mark for the professional services that the city has paid for to date. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. There's nothing been going on. Todd Hoffman: For 12 to 18 months. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Anything else? Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Is Deanna here this evening? Hi. Deanna Bunkelman: Yeah, I apologize for not getting those documents to you sooner. But what I plan to do is. 12 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Oh Deanna, just for the record, if you could state your name and address. Deanna Bunkelman: Oh sorry. Deanna Bunkelman, 4191 Red Oak Lane. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Deanna Bunkelman: What I plan to do, I left everyone with two documents. The round house renovation planning document, which you first saw in November of 2001, and throughout it you'll see all of the underlines are updates to that. And then you'll have another document called round house expenses and donations, and what I plan to do is just give you highlights of what all of those underscores are throughout the document. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Deanna Bunkelman: So we're here to give you an update on what we've been up to this past year in regards to the round house. It's been quite a roller coaster of a year. We've had upswings and down swings and at times we were to the point of almost giving up. In December we received the contract from the city which had several variations from the conversations that I had with the City Attorney and Todd Hoffman. Those being the completion date of October, 2002, because our original plan says dated October, 2003. So I pretty much assumed that was a typo and I made Todd aware of that. Also there was a new clause that we needed to raise $25,000 of funds or in kind materials to be raised prior to any work commencing on the site, and those funds needed to be raised by March, which to us was not really feasible given the turn in the economy. Other members of the task force were also very concerned about the clause of being held harmless. That's where we were actually going to be the contractors if we had started a non-profit. At this point we were still in the process of filing to be a non-profit, but it had not yet been finalized. So then over the next several months we contacted insurance agents, lawyers, state agencies, and other non-profit groups to get advice on how to proceed because of that harmless clause, and the message was pretty unanimous from all of them that it did not make sense for us to set up a non- profit for a short term project such as this, and that we should pursue other sponsorship. So then we contacted the Minnesota and Carver County Historical Societies to see if we could gain sponsorship there. We worked with them for several months in the spring and early summer with the conclusion that the structure is not historical since it had been moved from it's original place. We continued looking for ideas for sponsorship and did very limited fund raising at that point. We were pursuing several large donors, one being a large corporation with history with the railroads, but once we learned the tree history of the structure, we no longer went, pursued that company any longer, because we were trying to tie the history that we believed about the structure to the company because the company had a long history with the railroads. But then Mr. Chuck Lane, who is the son of Ben Lane. He's the one that actually helped put the structure in place in 1947. He called me over the summer because he was up visiting for, he comes up every summer and he saw our flyer on the structure and he was actually, he gave me an update that the structure was actually a suspended water tower for the town of Woodlake, Minnesota which is west of here. It was never a water tower along the railroad. So we're finally truly learning the true history of what the structure is about. Chuck plans to send pictures and more information and he also has an article from the Minneapolis paper which features the buildings, so we're waiting to receive that information from him. We also started to rethink how the building should be renovated to lower the cost of the renovation and some of the main decisions around that are, not to do any plumbing at this point or put a restroom in. That's always something that can be done at a future state if need be. Not to install the upper row of windows under the roof line, which I know Todd had brought up a while ago that there's a lot of cost with that, and there is, and we, to keep this more economical don't feel like that's needed. We also 13 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 would like to keep the second floor to lower the cost of renovating and also make the building more usable. At this point community education art classes are being planned and we already have an instructor who's interested. He was reviewing the building. He was inside and when we went up to the second level he was quite amazed when he looked out at Lake Minnewashta from the second floor and he just found how inspiring it could be for art classes. The second floor would be locked at the bottom of the staircase except for community ed type classes or other pre- determined needs for safety and supervision reasons because I know there are concerns with a two story building and having a staircase. Another decision was not to build a basement. It was re-checked and it's in good, sound condition so would remain and we thought it could be used for storage such as picnic tables, but it would not be heated. A few other key decisions. The building would remain locked except when in use as a warming house under supervision or being used for community ed classes or rented for personal use, and the upper level would be locked as I said, except for specified classes. We also had some thoughts about starting a tradition called Roundhouse Days, and would plan that around when Chuck Lane would be in town, just so that he could be there to talk about the history. And it would also be considered a fund raiser event with pony rides and games and prizes, food, potentially a silent auction. Our recommendation on a liability safety plan would be that the city would contract for all the larger, higher risk items such as the asbestos lead paint removal, which was part of the contract. Roofing, electrical, the removal and disposal of the roof, the leveling of the first floor and any other items deemed to be too high risk for volunteers. All volunteers that would be on site we would need to sign a liability waiver similar to many other volunteer activities such as Habitat for Humanity. At that time the volunteers, or at the time the volunteers are in place, we would assume a city employee may need to be present, which could either be volunteer or pay time. And we already have some of that cost in our expenses if you look at our expenses and donations to date. The expenses and donations is a document that I gave you, and we'd have to discuss. You can see there's some pretty wide ranges on some of those costs, so it'd have to be determined how to move forward. For example the asbestos and lead paint removal. They can actually stabilize the outside of the building at the lower cost, and what that means is they have special paint that they paint over, and then you would just paint it the nicer looking color than what they would put on. The higher cost would be, they would actually remove everything and have the natural wood show. So that's just an example of what some of the differences and the high end, low end costs are. So depending on the decisions on some of those ranges. If you look at the donations that we've raised to date, we've almost raised half the funds for the restoration. And there's also many untapped opportunities for us to receive more in kind material contributions. We have a lot of those listed as potential on our expense donations document. And then I just had, if the decision is to continue our efforts I'd like to suggest that we schedule ongoing updates to the city via bi- monthly meetings with the city manager and Todd so more timely updates are given. I know Todd and I have been trying to get an update scheduled and to you guys since July, so it took us almost 3 months to get on the schedule and give you guys an update. You'll find other miscellaneous updates like I said through the documents and they're highlighted with underscore text. And again I apologize for not getting that to you sooner so I have my e-mail address and my phone number on the document so you can feel free to read that, and update me or ask me any questions that you need after, you know if you have further questions. And then I also, Ed Kling and Jan Carlson are here so I don't know if there's an opportunity to, I don't know if they have any additional things to say but, otherwise I'm open to questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions for Deanna? Councilman Ayotte: After you, and you went a little fast for me. I'm hearing impaired so you may have said this and I may not have heard you. With some of the changes that you're talking towards, does that reduce the usable square footage? 14 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Deanna Bunkelman: No. It would actually give us more usable square footage. Councilman Ayotte: So it would be more usable. So what's. Deanna Bunkelman: Yeah. Excuse me, the original plans were to remove the second floor and it's not because it's not structurally sound. What they were planning to do is remove the second floor and then put the big row of windows around the top to make it more aesthetically pleasing. So our suggestion is to keep the second floor and you're going to have more usable, yeah. Councilman Ayotte: So what would be about the cost per square foot then? What's your square footage going to be based on your plan now? Usable square footage. Deanna Bunkelman: I guess I didn't calculate it down to the square footage. I was concentrating more on the different expenses. Councilman Ayotte: Could you take a guess at that at some point Todd and maybe give us a heads up down the road. I don't want to tie up people's time but we ought to equate cost per square foot based on what you're projecting. The other question is, when you say a donation between $2,500 and $5,000, is that because you've got building material you're not sure of what the value is but you're putting it between $2,500 and $5,000? Is that? Deanna Bunkelman: That's because some of the building material will be donation and others will be at cost, and depending on what building materials we're requesting, they'll either go all the way up to $5,000 and cap it. Councilman Ayotte: But you do have the donation in hand? Deanna Bunkelman: Exactly. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Is there, and I don't remember because it's been a while, do we have an environmental base line for this building in place? Councilman Peterson: What's that mean? Councilman Ayotte: Well when you have a building, you've got to do an EBS, Environmental Baseline Survey, so you benchmark where the environmental concerns are. Do we have an EBS in place and with the time that's gone on, has that been altered and do we have to re-issue another one? Todd Gerhardt: Todd, do we have a professional document from Braun or any professional assessment firm? Todd Hoffman: We have an assessment of the asbestos and the lead base paint. Councilman Ayotte: I understand that, and over time if, sometimes they have to be re-certified. Do we have a concern for that? Todd Hoffman: I'll check. I don't believe so. Councilman Ayotte: That's something we should check. 15 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. Because I do have that document and I don't know if it's... Councilman Ayotte: I understand but over time an EBS can go kitty whompus, as a technical term. Kitty whompus. I don't know how to spell it. And I didn't catch it, is this a historical site or no? You said something about historical and I didn't. Deanna Bunkelman: The Minnesota Historical Society does not consider it a historical site as far as, because it's been moved from it's original structure. As we're learning more about the current history, I don't know what, our History Chair isn't here tonight so I'm not sure. As we learn more if it will. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So my only concern is that we're around the same cost per square foot discussions we were earlier. It sounds like you're to the better probably now since you've got more square footage, and whether or not we have an EBS issue and that the donations are solid. It's just that they're dependent on which direction we go. Deanna Bunkelman: Right. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Deanna? No? Okay. Thank you. Do you want to hear from the other project volunteers? Do you have anything you'd like to share, you're welcome to come forward to the podium. Ed Kling: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Ed Kling: Good evening Mayor Jansen and Council members. My name's Ed Kling. I live at 4169 Red Oak Lane. I guess Deanna did a really good job of explaining where we've been with the project over the last year and probably the biggest thing that I can see as just looking at the project and what has transpired over the last year. We've had probably the most eventful year that any of us have experienced in our lives, at least for myself. Undoubtedly. You know and with the economic changes, we've had to re-evaluate the program or project and adapt to that so that's why we've eliminated some of the different elements to the project. The windows on the top and over the year we've noticed that through these economic downturns and hard times, there have been, there is still quite a bit of positive attitude towards the round house and through the year we were looking at, you know adapting to the different changes that we had to, with some of the considerations for building and some of the considerations for the city. And one of the things that we were looking at was raising money, and so we focused on getting like kind materials raised, but we didn't really focus a lot of cash because the economic, you know when we're going to go out and look for cash, we're going to look for cash. We're going to ask for donations, and that's the type of thing, I've been in sales all my life. It's the kind of deal where it's a one call close. You go and you ask for cash and you get the cash. If you ask 2-3 times, you know it's not going to work. So that's one thing we haven't really focused on is that is getting money raised. We will look at like kind materials and we've been able to accommodate the $25,000 minimum that the city is looking for. Since this time over the last year we've had probably 5 or 6 families move in to this White Oak, I think it's an extension of White Oak Lane which is just adjacent to the park. It' s on the other side of the park. Actually it' s right on the north side of the park, and a lot of these families that have moved in have asked about the, you know they've seen the building and they've wondered what is happening with the building and we've told them and these are 16 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 through neighborhood block parties and these types of functions. And these people have said that they're very interested in the project and that they would, you know we kind of joke about it. Would you like to donate some cash towards it and they said that they have. So that's one more option that we have, and starting from the baseline of the like kind of $25,000 contributions in materials and labor, we still have a very optimistic outlook towards the project and that would be to get cash to help drive the project forward so looking at it from that aspect, we're very optimistic as to the completion of the project, and I guess that's all I had to add. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for Ed? Okay. Councilman Peterson: I think this may be the only question that we've talked about at the last council meeting is, is this has extended longer than any of us, yourselves and ourselves included, than we would have wanted it to. I mean would you guys feel comfortable with us setting a deadline that if it's, if you don't have substantial completion done by X date that we all walk away friends? I mean there's a point where we're going to have to say we have to do something and make a decision. I don't know whether that's tonight or not but. Ed Kling: Right. Well we want to see the project move forward. Obviously if we're going to be involved in it we don't want to, you know we've got our lives to live too and we want to see this thing be completed. I think the thing that we're looking at is, is it a doable project? What do we need to do the project? The city has been really good as far as helping us outline and helping us with being motivated to have a plan and getting a plan in place and we've done that and we've done a very good job I feel as far as where we're at. The last year has thrown us a tremendous curve ball, and we're still coming out with a lot of interest and what we want to do is we want to see the project get completed. I think what we need to do is continue on with what we're doing as far as getting the steps that we need to get in place and we've got a lot of things in place right now. I don't think there's anything stopping us with getting this project completed. Giving us a deadline, can we get it done? Anybody that's been involved with construction knows that deadlines are very tough to meet. When I had my house built in Chanhassen they said they'd have it done in 3 months. We had it done in 6 months and we spent 6 months with my wife's parents. It was a long 6 months. But we got it done and we're in and we're glad that we're here. And so that's what I'm saying. We can get the project done and we're much more optimistic now than we were because we scaled the project back. It's going to take less time because we have less construction to do on the project. We're basically going to just renovate what we have and we're not going into any elaborate renovation so that's going to help us get the project done sooner so as far as getting the project done by a specific date, I don't know if that's going to really accomplish anything other than allowing us to be, allowing that to be a pre-cursor to even going ahead with the project. I know we can get the project done because it's been pared back and it's much more manageable at this point. And we can do the project so without any other encumbrances, you know I say that we go ahead with the project and that we will get it done. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councilman Ayotte: Just something that you said that triggered another thought and going back to something, Deanna's comments. No plumbing is what's been decided. Ed Kling: Right. Councilman Ayotte: Will the change in the team, the committee view of things require us to do something in addition at that site? Additional latrines, restrooms, whatever, on site. Does that cause us to go by the change then? Okay, I just wanted to ask. 17 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Ed Kling: That doesn't mean that we wouldn't want to at some point try to raise funds for that, and that's I think something that I think we would like to see. But we're doing what we can to make the project work right now so we're being realistic. At this point. Thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this issue? Mayor Jansen: I actually was out in this neighborhood this weekend and the solid message that is being communicated by everyone who has to look at this, every time they drive in and out of the neighborhood is do something. They've been waiting for, you know I'm being quoted 6 years. We've certainly been evaluating it this time through what has become almost 2 years. So I guess what I am looking for throughout, through this process here tonight is a drop dead date where something has to occur at least to the exterior of this building so that it's not sitting there as an eyesore for all of these residents to have to have the reminder that we've yet to do anything and if anything it's representing to them a lack of concern and appreciation for their quality of life in the, you know they're seeing it as de-valuing their homes, having this sitting there untouched. So as we go through our discussions, wherever we're going to end up here tonight, I am assuming we are way too late to try to address the exterior of this building this year, but we need a definite date early spring I would say that the exterior of the building would need to have something done for the sake of the residents. I think we are being remiss to let it sit there any longer the way that it looks and compromising their appreciation of the city and what we can do for them. But with that I'll look to council then for comments on where we are currently. We obviously have a change in the scope of the project. Oh, let me ask. Todd, did you have an opportunity to take a look at the planning document and the changes then? Todd Gerhardt: This is the first chance I've had to look at the document. Roger hasn't seen it. I think she just handed this out tonight so we've not seen it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. 'So you would need an opportunity to then go through this as well as our conversations around the contract signing, correct? Were we waiting for something back? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think Deanna has outlined in her planning document here some of the modifications she'd want to see in the renovation contracts, and Todd, Roger and myself need to go through that and make a recommendation to the council for modifying it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So keep that in mind as we're having our conversations. Council, comments. Councilman Ayotte: The exterior. Mayor Jansen: If you wouldn't mind for the sake of the audience. Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm tired. The exterior does have a potential safety issue because of the asbestos so the capsulation is something not only from the aesthetic standpoint but also I would suspect safety wise, but since we don't have the EBS close in and we're not tracking it, which concerns me, we should be aware of whether or not there'd further degradation. I'd agree with the Mayor that we probably need to put a suspense date on the exterior just from a standpoint of not only the aesthetics but also the safety so I'd go with that. I don't, I would look for staff recommendation and input after I've had a chance to take a look see as to whether or not there is in fact a safety issue, and if there is in fact a safety issue that would accelerate the need to address the exterior in due course. The good news is is that if we make it 18 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 aesthetically pleasing and curb any health and welfare issue, and it does buy time to deal with the balance of what has to happen so maybe it could be looked at as a two phase program, but again I think the thing that drives it is whether or not we do have a further degradation of the paint chips and you know if they're airborne, it's a bigger concern so we have to do something about it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Just one point of clarification on that. If we do go ahead and try to shore up the painting of this facility, we're basically going to end up spending approximately $25,000 and I think if you make that kind of investment, you're going to have to remove the lead paint and capture it and then paint the facility. Secure some kind of roof on the structure so you don't see the rain or anything impede the paint. We're going to spend that money and the question would be demolition would probably be out of the question then after making that kind of investment in it. Councilman Ayotte: That's why we need the staff to take a look see at it. What's in that expense? You've got 6 to 10K then on the asbestos lead paint removal. Oh that's not paint, that's just removing it. Right? Mayor Jansen: Correct, and didn't I understand that you can in fact paint over it to seal it? Is that what you're quoting? Todd Gerhardt: That is one option that is available. Not reading the report to see in detail what their recommendation was, but that worked on another project that we had. Councilman Boyle: And is that where you're getting a figure of $25,000 Todd? Todd Gerhardt: I'm going off the contract, which is the balance of the $25,000 after payment of asbestos and lead paint removal will be paid to the contractor so I was assuming painting, lead removal, asbestos removal was in the figure of about $25,000. Councilman Ayotte: There's a Chanhassen salute you know. We've got to find out what the facts are before we can even go forward on it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah this is tough. I mean we've sat here, like you said, almost for 2 years. We set deadlines for ourselves to tear it down or build it up and I think we've been creative and we've asked the citizens for help and they've done a diligent job but yet nothing is still been done. And it doesn't look like it will be done until at the earliest spring, probable summer-fall of next year so you've got another year of potential waiting and without any ability to get a guarantee out of it. So as much as I hate to say it, I think last time I sat here I said let's, I need to see progress and I've seen progress on paper, but that's it and I guess my intent was to see physical building progress by now so I'll throw out the first tough point of saying I think it's time we put it to bed and use the funds for other areas of the park. Whether it' s a shelter or whatever, but let's get the park and the whole neighborhood a park that they can use you know in the spring and I'd recommend we demolish it now. Councilman Ayotte: I disagree with Craig on this point. I think we need to get more deliberate information on whether or not we have a contamination issue. The asbestos. It's been so long. You know we have a time line that we don't recognize it. I see this as a potential for building 19 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Well that's where it was here, estimates have ranged from a low of 10 or 20,000 to paint and roof the exterior. But those were just estimates. Todd Hoffman: Board up the windows. Obviously there are variances, in what people will accept. A painted building with boarded up windows and a roof, new roof, may not be pleasing to all residents. They may say you've invested your city's money and we still don't like what we're looking at. Therein lies, there's something I've said all the way along is this is one of those projects that is either all or nothing, and the all has come down. The committee has said we're not going to do the windows at the roof line. We're not going to do some of those other things, but it still takes windows and a usable product I think you have to have a sense of pride that the community is going to enjoy. Mayor Jansen: Well I'm looking at the donation list and windows were one of the issues that they do have addressed under donations, correct Deanna? Councilman Ayotte: Except for the top. Deanna Bunkelman: For the stainglass. I know that the other windows are...do have a cost of those from 2 to 7,000... Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Hoffman: And there's a time line in the larger packet on pages 7 and 8 that has been proposed. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Take a crack at it Steve. Councilman Labatt: Well, I'm just going to ask a few questions. Todd, shoot me a ballpark price on a park shelter which is open sided on posts with a roof. Approximately 30 by 60 feet. On a concrete slab. Todd Hoffman: The last 3 we've built were at Power Hill, Meadow Green and North Lotus. They range from 25 to 45,000 each. Councilman Labatt: So if we took the money we have on hand right now, demolish the building and put one of those up, would we be better serving the l)atrons of that park? Todd Hoffman: Not for me to say. Mayor Jansen: That was one of the conversations that we had. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, we've been down that path before. Councilman Labatt: Well I know and I was just relaying the concerns from the comments I've heard from some neighbors over there that why don't you just build a shelter. I mean you know. Maybe we don't need to go that big but. Mayor Jansen: And that's do you re-name the park once you no longer have a round house? Councilman Labatt: No, you just make it round. 22 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Yeah, you make the shelter round. Mayor Jansen: You make the pavilion round. Councilman Peterson: And again I've seen those. I mean those are. Councilman Labatt: They have one over at Lone Lake Park I think in Minnetonka. They have a round one. I'm hearing you Bob and Gary on your points but I'm also hearing Craig, believe it or not. I just wonder if the family wants to go to the park on a Sunday afternoon, you know put together a quick spare of the moment 3 or 4 family outing, they wouldn't be able to get into that building to use it. But if you had an open sided one with some grills they would so. Councilman Ayotte: But even with the issue of cost, I'm still not certain that we have, I'm always leery of a demolition cost when you have any sort of asbestos inside. So you know. Mayor Jansen: There will be costs involved with the demolition definitely. Yeah. Councilman Ayotte: And painting it, and what you're suggesting with, maybe we can talk them into building one of those things...with the round house, but this is building community a little bit. You know we've got folks that are getting together, and I understand it's an eyesore. I understand there's people that want it down, but you do have members in that community that are pushing forward. Taking too damn long, but they've got donations. They've in good faith have done it as volunteers. Councilman Labatt: Well I'm just throwing it out. Councilman Boyle: Well it would definitely cost us more I think to demolish than build a shelter. It'd be more than $40,000 I'm sure. Todd Hoffman: Demolition costs are, the demolition cost of the, taking it to the landfill because it is a hazardous product so costs there. Councilman Boyle: It'd be expensive right? Mayor Jansen: This is again, it's been one of our more difficult issues to actually kick around, and I agree that had we managed to get something accomplished by now. Had we been able to get the exterior taken care of, I don't think I would feel the sense of urgency that I am on behalf of the neighbors in the area. They need to see something happen and they need something definite committed to. I think tonight if we just say we're going to do some more review and in 60 days come back and talk about this again, it's what they've continuously heard all along. I guess I don't have a problem with trying to at least maintain the exterior to have it stand there as, I don't know if it's necessarily historic. You can't really call it historic but I think it does have some value. Some value in the community. I don't want to make the significant investment that we need to make to really bring it up to what these neighbors would like to have it function as, but I'm feeling willing to give them that opportunity if at the same time we can address the exterior and make sure that we at least get that taken care of. I'm hearing they're being committed. That the windows would in fact be addressed. If we're painting the outside at the same time they're moving forward with the windows and all of their work and I'd like to see some heads nodding if you think that would work. To be able to coordinate the two efforts. If what we're trying to do is accomplish making it less of an eyesore, and you're with us on that, it City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 seems like we can come up with a win/win. If we're painting as you're doing windows as an example. Councilman Peterson: You know I don't disagree with that thought process but if you recall one of the last times we had a conversation about it, those, the windows at the top of the building were a pretty substantial part of the design to make that building more inviting to go into. Because without that you've got a small building that is going to be very dark inside. It's not going to be very inviting so what we've got presented tonight, that was one of the reasons that I've kind of changed my mind saying let's act on this is because they've taken out those windows for cost reasons. They haven't been able to fund them. Now you take those windows out of them, that's not a very inviting building. It's not going to be because there's not going to be a lot of windows and a lot of brightness in there. In the summer time, to Steve' s point, nobody' s going to want to go in there. And if we use it as a warming house, the cost of heating a two story warming house is going to be large. Very large. So the utility value in the winter time is mitigated and now you're mitigating the utility value in the summer time. So now you've got a building that looks good from the outside without any practical value inside. My other two cents worth. Councilman Ayotte: I know how I'm going to vote. I want to paint it and roof it. And then I want to put a date on you guys. Mayor Jansen: If you want to take a crack at a motion we can see if we have any kind of a consensus. Councilman Ayotte: Contingent upon staff's input and a determination on the environmental condition of the building I move that we authorize staff to paint the exterior of the building and roof that building and integrate into that project the proper integration of windows as donated by the committee. Councilman Boyle: Do you want to put a time line on that? Councilman Ayotte: With initiation of the work beginning, based on seasonal opportunity, as early as we can in the springtime, with the completion date for the exterior of the building and the windows, mid-summer. September. Councilman Peterson: The other way. Councilman Ayotte: Well then go this way for crying out loud. Mayor Jansen: If you can paint it by May. Councilman Ayotte: Fine, May. Councilman Boyle: June 1st. Mayor Jansen: So then June 1st as a deadline on it. Councilman Boyle: Is that okay? Councilman Ayotte: Alright, alright. Yeah, fine. City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Boyle: Good. Mayor Jansen: Okay, do I have a second. Then we can discuss the motion. Councilman Boyle: I'll second that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Discussion of the motion. Councilman Peterson: I don't understand the window concept. I mean they've said that they've taken out the upper windows because they couldn't fund it. So you're saying as a requirement, or not relevant? Councilman Ayotte: No, no. I'm saying that the windows that they want to introduce, what has to be integrated with the paint project because you've got to address the windows. Mayor Jansen: The regular windows that are there now versus boarding them up. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Jansen: So they would be replacing those. Councilman Ayotte: Replacing those windows. Councilman Peterson: And how do you react to my comment that the utility value of the building is being mitigated. Councilman Ayotte: I think it is. I agree with that. I think. Councilman Peterson: Then why would we want to spend money on it if we know that the utility value is being marginal on it? Councilman Ayotte: Because I think there's also additional gain in terms of building community and I think it's a start point and I think it's a good thing for people to give to the community. I think there's intrinsic value of what's going on and I'm hoping to see other projects like this percolate up from this activity. This is a learning experience and maybe some other things can emanate from this thing so I'm not looking at just the tower. I'm looking at opportunities beyond just the tower, and this is a start point. So I see intrinsic value in this beyond simply the tower. I'm not downplaying your tower, but this is building community as far as I'm concerned because eventually I'm going to be talking about auxiliary police departments and volunteer police and other things too, so this is just the start point for other bigger and better things to emanate from such a project. Mayor Jansen: I don't remember exactly how you worded it, but you made this contingent upon an environmental review by staff of some sort. Are they coming back to us then with some costs involved in actually. Councilman Ayotte: No, no. Just make sure that what we're doing is environmentally correct. That there is an encapsulation gain as a result of what we're doing. To make sure that whatever we are doing is within the constraints and parameters established by the environmental baseline survey. Make sure we're not doing something inappropriate, that's all. 25 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: And would you be willing to maybe state that if it does go considerably beyond, if it goes beyond our budget, that that comes back to us, for us to take a look at. Just, and I'm thinking over the next short period. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Not next spring. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, so if we see an unforeseen cost, we'd better visit it, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Just so we're re-revisiting it. Councilman Labatt: What in your motion takes care of the inside tile that contains asbestos? Or are we just dealing with the outside for now? We're not going to worry about the inside? Councilman Ayotte: I'm not worrying about the inside at this point. We're buying time to deal with the exterior and to stop the further degradation, take care of the roof and so forth, and let Phase II deal with the interior which is I would suspect the committee's actions to take care of. Councilman Boyle: Todd, do you think it would be wise to take care of the asbestos at the same time we're doing the paint? The lead paint or getting rid of the le~d paint. Mayor Jansen: The interior. Councilman Boyle: The interior portion of the asbestos. Todd Hoffman: It's removal of some tile and two different contracts. Councilman Boyle: Okay. So it could be a Phase II situation? Todd Hoffman: Yeah, and it's a minor, minor issue on the interior. I could take them up tomorrow without license and, but it's simply a. Councilman Ayotte: Don't say that in front of everybody. Todd Hoffman: I won't, but you could. Councilman Labatt: So we have 40 budgeted. We're already spent 15, right? We have 25 left. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And what if Bob's motion exceeds 25? Mayor Jansen: That's what we just added. Councilman Ayotte: They bring back to council and we have to re-visit it. Mayor Jansen: That's what we were just talk about. That they need to bring it back. If it ends up being more than that. Councilman Ayotte: You're still update over the police report, aren't you? 26 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Labatt: Steamed, yeah. Boy you know, I just, I go back to Craig's comments. The utility of this and okay. Mayor Jansen: And I don't know that I'm necessarily focused on trying to get the maximum utility that we had originally talked about. That's where I'm at the point of, if we're leaving this standing in the neighborhood, and the exterior is appealing, and we've got the volunteers working on the interior, they're going to get that to the level that they can. I don't know that I necessarily think that this is ever going to be a warming house. I see it more maybe for these art classes and not a functional building in the winter. If only because of the cost of the utilities that would be involved but I mean they're not doing the plumbing any longer. Base board heating was on here. Councilman Labatt: I just look at. Councilman Peterson: They won't have any classes in there in July or August on the second floor, I' 11 tell you that too. Councilman Labatt: I just look at the recurring expense. You know we're, Bob? Councilman Ayotte: Don't start with me Labatt. Councilman Labatt: You're always worrying about. Councilman Ayotte: You got your damn Christmas tree lights, now let's deal with this thing okay. Councilman Labatt: Oh okay. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Boyle: Y6u just made another good point. You're right, they wouldn't be on the second floor because there's not going to be any windows on the second floor. Correct? Todd Hoffman: There's windows on the second floor. The existing windows are boarded up, that would be replaced. Councilman Boyle: Oh, it will be replaced. So okay. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, it's the regular windows. It just won't have the sky light windows. I don't remember where that picture was. Councilman Ayotte: This is going to be a challenge for the community to take what we've done and bring it to a standard that will make it functional. Give them a chance. What we're doing is we're curbing the issues on the outside and making it pretty and safe. And there's going to be other gains that we're going to have after this is done. This is the first of many windows. Mayor Jansen: Okay Deanna and Ed, you've heard how we've crafted the motion. Are you feeling comfortable that you're volunteer group would be able to coordinate...prepared to come in and start addressing the windows and moving your project forward. Because I would say that' s part of it. 27 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Why is it I think that this more complicated project's going to be easier to review than the round house. Kate Aanenson: I'm going to try and make it so. Mayor Jansen: Staff report please. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Just a brief summary of the request. Town and Country Homes is requesting to rezone the subject site, 88 acres of property into 540 dwelling units. The property is guided in the 2005 MUSA area as either industrial or medium density. They're requesting a medium density which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Just for your knowledge, the applicant has given an extended review date which expires on October 30a', two days from now so the council does need to make a decision or ask for an extension. To kind of frame up how we got to this point. In looking at this larger area, can I just have you back that out just a little bit Nann. The entire subject property of the 2005 MUSA area is a little bit hard to see 212 in here. It's approximately 800 acres. In looking at this project you have to look at the larger pieces of the project, of that MUSA area. Again, just to kind of go through when we did the comprehensive plan and as it was adopted, we included in there in the capital improvement plan, a staging area and the way to be fiscally responsible to how we're going to provide municipal services to each area in increments and how fast the city could absorb that. This area in blue was the 2000 area which is pretty much complete with the Pulte Homes, Vasserman Ridge, Westwood Church and then the greater area which would be the Carver Park and the Arboretum so most of that's been developed. Just a few parcels left. So this would be the next area that we'd be concentrating. Again going back and looking at the 2005, or the 2000 MUSA area, we began a lot of the environmental study on that, specifically the frontage road which we undertook the study of with MnDot, 3 to 4 years, actually 5 years ahead of the advancing of that project, so we anticipate the same sort of things happening on this. There seemed to be some concern from the Planning Commission and some of the neighbors about timing. We did hold a neighborhood meeting with the property owners brick on June 26t~ to inform them of the process. The City Engineer and myself held that meeting to talk about what's going to happen as this project moves forward, in assessments and the like. So with that, I want to talk a little bit more specifically about the MUSA, the guiding of the property itself. In looking at this property, when we did the Bluff Creek Overlay District and adopted that standards, we looked at the Bluff Creek itself. Looked at it a couple different ways which we could acquire that property. One was to actually do an outright acquisition, which we looked at with the park and trail referendum, and tried to look at some different costs. At that time it was determined that probably the best way to acquire that property was on a case by case basis as they came in. Make the evaluation. Which parts we wanted to acquire and do that through a negotiation which we have been successful on numerous parcels up and down the creek so far. Most recently the Pulte Home project. Even Vasserman Ridge or Kwik Trip, which we got some property adjacent to the creek. So we anticipate that same sort of process with this. So the tool that we need to make that happen is the PUD where you can do density transfers. So that was-the recommendation from the staff. Again, looking specifically at the Pulte piece which is right here, the PUD. There's a real nice wooded area to the north and the south of that that we want to maintain. We had walked the property back in June with the applicant. With that, in order to service this property we need again to look at the entire area. The city does have a lift station up here. We need to look at doing, providing municipal service and then road access. With the creek running through the project, it's imperative that we study the minimum creek crossings and the expense of those services. So part of the issue that the Planning Commission and the council needs to address is the development of the PUD and then the assessment. This project itself is required to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet based on the number of units, but the staff is recommending, as did the 3O City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Planning Commission, that we do an Area Wide Assessment, which would include the whole 800 acres. And the property owners are aware of that so we would look at the entire piece and we think that makes the most sense. With that, I'll talk a little bit specifically about the project itself. The Planning Commission was a little concerned about the concept itself. I laid out in the staff report what's required for concept but you have to keep in mind that we need to frame up some issues first. Where the roads are going to go. Where the sewer's going to go and with that will evolve the trails, the buffer and transition so we tried to incorporate that into the project itself. So as I indicated, on June 26m we had a neighborhood meeting with the property owners to kind of explain to them what was happening in this area, and then on June 23rd the park commission did look at this specific site and they kind of took a bigger approach and said we need, we're park deficient in this 2005 MUSA area and they want to study that. That would be something that we would include in the area wide review. It may end up on this parcel. It may end up on another parcel in that larger MUSA area and that again would be studied. Then on August 6th the Planning Commission held a meeting, public heating on this project and tabled it for a number of requests that they had. Between that August 6~ and the October 15~ meeting the staff held two work sessions, so first one was to discuss the comprehensive plan and kind of step back. How do we get to these land use recommendations. There was concern about tax capacity and some of those issues. And the second meeting we actually took a tour, we looked at some of Town and Country's other projects in the southwest metro, and then we also looked at just other multi use, bigger projects in Chaska and how they manage those. Again, the staff has worked on this scale projects before. Lake Susan, and this is the same sort of process. Villages on the Pond that we're taking through the environmental process. So really the two actions tonight that we're looking for is to give the conceptual PUD would also require the area wide assessment, so I'd like to just take a minute and kind of walk through. The Planning Commission I included in here a list of conditions, or concerns they felt that may have not been addressed. Specifically the school site. Notification of the Chaska residents. There's some here tonight. We did notify them. They have been included on the list. As a general rule we don't re-notice of a City Council meeting. We always do at the Planning Commission they were notified of this meeting on the 28~ at that Planning Commission meeting. But I believe most of those have been addressed. Certainly we know the school district is looking at a site. The applicants know the school district's looking at a site. That' s all part of the mix. And if you look specifically on page 2, on the executive smmmry of the staff report, we kind of broke down things that go into the area wide scoping and things that would go into the PUD. So if we take a minute and just kind of look at the area wide, we know this area, public facility, school, parks, utilities, and possibly a fire station. We need to look at this again the greater 800 acres. Environmental features need to be looked at and specifically Bluff Creek. The wetlands buffer and the Planning Commission again wanted to be specific and talk about open space and trees. And the transportation system, traffic and the ongoing consideration studies in the report specifically the design and construction of 312 and Powers Boulevard and how that all ties in. Traffic is an issue of the residents specifically in the Chaska area and the upgrade of Audubon. Again utilities, sewer and water and storm sewer. In addition the area wide needs to look at potential for the school site was mentioned, fire station, water tower, creek crossing, collector road systems, and then the Planning Commission asked, added the fiscal impact study. Now the staff had addressed that previously and included in the different reports. The staff's opinion, that's been addressed and there's a note on that and I'll leave it up to you if you want to discuss that further. So that's the one area that needs to be scoped. The area wide. Again the property owners are aware of that. And the second component that you're giving a consideration to tonight is the concept PUD, and this is really the marching orders. While it has no standings, for them to come back and specifically address their project. Now they've indicated in these green areas, if we can go to that for a second. That these will be the open space and that's where the staff concurred there's some beautiful wetlands, slopes, steep areas with some significant stands of trees. The Planning Commission was concerned about the 31 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 density. It is guided for 8 units an acre, and how it's going to fit on there is a lot of it's product driven. The applicants have stated that it will be all owner occupied, and we've asked them specifically to look at some product. They've talked, named some products out here. It may change over time but we've asked them to specifically come back with a specific housing plan that the Planning Commission and the council working with the staff can look at. Again, looking at some of the needs that may not be met in this community already. And I think there's concurrence on that. The Planning Commission also wanted to make sure that the following items were addressed, landscaping, entrance, streetscape, buffering transitions between existing uses and proposed uses in the future, and natural areas. Also, possibly considering some support commercial in this area. Again the staff indicated that that may be something that we'd look at in that greater 200 acres, looking at where it may be most appropriate based on collector streets and the like. Connecting neighborhoods, sidewalks and trails, again looking again, not just to this project but connecting those to the rest of the area. Mass transit, how that plays into this. Architecture detail, design standards, and then preservation of the natural features, and then again the housing plan, and I touched on that in the staff report itself. What our city goals are and looking at, not only affordability, but again the diversity and the housing types and styles. Again, the process that we see, if the City Council was to give conceptual approval, while that has no standing is that we would begin a process to go out in RFP to get the area wide review. Meet with those neighbors, the property owners in this 2005 MUSA area because there will be pending assessments based on that. The applicants themselves will also have to pay for that environmental document, and then work through that process and this entire planning process is going to take a couple years. There's no intent to advance the 2005 MUSA area but the intent is to do the study work so that is in place because we also are tying that into our capital improvements plan too. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. l~ayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for kate at this time? Councilman Peterson: Kate, my biggest concern is you're losing 40 acres of industrial, and I know the Planning Commission discussed that and you kind of brought it up in the fiscal impact but, you know one of the things that, and you've always kind of taught me is if we're going to rezone it, we've got to replace it. Have you thought about where we can get those 40 acres back? Or if we could. Kate Aanenson: Well I'll speak to that in the, what we put in the comprehensive plan. We look at this area, this 80 acres, we looked at the threshold that it could be used as either 40 acres residential or 40 acres industrial. I think the harder one to address is when it's already in the MUSA and when there's development around it. It makes it more difficult because it's not as palatable to put it somewhere else. And I did give you a percentage breakdown of what that percentage was, and I think too in looking at this area, as it shakes out, you know it's going to help us bring where the best areas for some of these uses are. We did, when we put this land use together we did meet with all the neighborhoods. Again going back in time when this was all unguided. We did meet with the neighbors as part of the Bluff Creek to kind of come up with a plan as I talked about in the work session. Some plans were advanced that were pretty well defined but we said they were maybe too refined at that point for us to get a handle on so'we're kind of stepping back and I think in the fact that, with the area wide assessment we have an opportunity to maybe make some other decisions. The conceptual review, while we want to take a good faith effort that we're moving down the same path with the applicant, if something is disclosed that gives us reason to reconsider, I think we certainly have that opportunity. If something significant that comes up that says you know we really need to reconsider that thought and move some things around, then that's the way it's going to be. I think we're all moving in this process in good faith. That we're trying to make good planning decisions. 32 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: One of the things that, I'm kind of like a broken record when I talk any kind of rezoning I talk about a compelling reason to do that. In not having, you know this is conceptual obviously but not having seen the type and uniqueness of the structures going in, you know and it's kind of hard to do that in conceptual but that's going to be one of the, when we ultimately make a decision on rezoning, if we're going to rezone, then you want those buildings to be very architecturally interesting and different. What our community doesn't already have. And I assume you went through that with the applicant and. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's a good question. Actually that's why we did the tour. We looked at some of their other product. I think it was communicated back to them what the expectation level for the City of Chanhassen. I think they have a clear understanding that we're looking for something different. And it's kind of a chicken and egg. I think if we said this is what we want now, we're waiting as we move forward, as we get closer to those dates and look at the landforms to say what's the responsible land use and the clustering and the buffering and the transition, then kind of put those framework issues and then come back with a product. I think just for everybody's edification, the one thing we did want to do is walk the property and say, what are the sensitive areas and what's unique about this property right here. But certainly where are the collector roads going to go? What are those transitions going to be? Where does the park come in? What if the school looks at something? There's a lot of question marks out there but we're saying might change the whole dynamics and they're aware that it's kind of a fluid thing for the next little bit. Mayor Jansen: And Roger, if you might address the issue of our level of discretion. Of course Councilman Peterson is using a term rezoning and this property, it's my understanding is guided as medium density or industrial, correct? Roger Knutson: That's office/industrial, residential medium density and park and open space. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: You're not being asked obviously to rezone any property tonight. This is not like a preliminary plat where to take the first step you know you've got to take the second step, you're already committed. This doesn't really commit you to take the second step. What this does is says, does it make sense to go forward and explore this? For the developer and from our perspective, the staff spends a lot of time, potentially several years of time exploring this and working it. If the council says no, this PUD concept for this property just doesn't make sense. If you already know that, then it's best to say it now and be done with it so no one, the developer doesn't waste his time and the planning staff doesn't waste it's time, but this is not a commitment. You have tremendous discretion. Mayor Jansen: And were we to not go forward with the PUD, and this exact same proposal were to come in for this project, what would our level of discretion be to decline it? Roger Knutson: Well you're required to make your comp plan and your zoning ordinance consistent, and at some point if they brought this, and I haven't examined these plans. If they brought it in under a conventional zoning, I don't know if you could do that. Or close to it. And they met all the requirements, then you don't, you lose some discretion. Again I've not analyzed this, ! don't know how close this is to a conventional zoning district to have or not have. I guess Kate can answer that. 33 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Kate Aanenson: Well there's a couple complexities. One, there's no municipal services to the site yet, and we need to look through that. The area wide assessment. If that was available and they came in under the straight zoning, then we lose the opportunity to preserve some of the values that we've attributed with the Bluff Creek and the density transfers and architectural standards, which you can put in the PUD zone, which is more specific as design and product type. Whereas the straight residential medium density district wouldn't provide that. So I think that's where the Planning Commission felt that the PUD was probably the better way to go. Another question that came up is because it did show the parks and open space on some of that property. We have to compensate for that. That was shown as an area that we would like to acquire but we either have to buy it or do a density transfer to acquire it. We're not just taking it. Roger Knutson: You'd like dedication I think. Mayor Jansen: All very similar to what we did on the Pulte project. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yes. Mayor Jansen: And this is exactly the type, well other than the fact that it is looser because there hasn't been a study done in that area. We're getting involved even earlier in the look see at this and even earlier in the guiding of it, but I wonder if to the point that Mr. Peterson was addressing, if we're looking to potentially recoup these industrial acres, if that isn't something that we do prior to an application coming in for potentially some of the other property within the 2005 MUSA. Is that an option? To address that concern. Kate Aanenson: Well, that's an interesting question and I think that's what the Planning Commission struggled with too and all the property owners are not going to go forward until someone takes that first leap of faith and says I'm ready to go. And so once that process starts, and everybody else is on board, so if this project goes away, then we wait for somebody else to kind of initiate that as we start our process because in this situation, you've got to have somebody that's motivated to start the process. We're kind of leveraging some of our dollars and the assessments back on the assessment documents which is pretty detailed when we start looking at all those Occurrence of expenses of sewer and water. When you've got somebody that's ready to go, it makes it more palatable for everybody else to kind of start making some decisions, and 2005 is in planning sense, where we're looking at all of this, is a short window. Mayor Jansen: Sure. But as a part of that area wide review we could potentially come up with where we could pick up, actually be an area that becomes. Kate Aanenson: And we may discover some other uses, exactly. Whether it's public works or a school site or all those things, that's why I was trying to say to Craig too is what comes into the mix and we kind of re-examine some of those earlier decisions as things solidify because there's a lot of things out there that are floating right now and as those start to land, you're right. Exactly. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because right now on this property it's an either/or. We might want to eliminate the or on another piece if that' s palatable, if we look at it. Kate Aanenson: Right. Or the school says we're willing to buy the property, they're willing to sell and something completely different happens. Right. That's a possibility too. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then changes in the tax formulas have certainly reduced that benefit of the industrial over the medium from the study that you included in the report, correct Mr. City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Gerhardt? I mean you're showing it to be pretty much a wash if not in favor of the medium density, as far as the taxes collected. And then it just gets down to the cost of services that I know in the report you said you can't really quantify those. So it was discussed at length. Absolutely. And it is something that we should look at. It's been an issue that actually the government affairs committee has raised as far as the 212 corridor, is should we be looking at more office zoning down in that corridor, but then you get down to having to do your comp plan changes and some pretty extensive discussions, but we can certainly go down those avenues. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I mean the reason why I raised the industrial aspect of it is, you know as you look at that area, there probably isn't a better area to put industrial than that area because of the proximity to Chaska' s industrial group. Just a lay person, semi-lay person looking at it and going, where are you going to replace it? You probably could replace it but you couldn't replace it in a better spot probably. Mayor Jansen: Other than maybe elsewhere in that same corridor. Councilman Peterson: Potentially but that same corridor, again the other parts of it, you're butting up against Chaska then you're residential right where it is is primarily industrial on the opposite side of the. Kate Aanenson: Actually it's residential. Mayor Jansen: It's residential. Kate Aanenson: Some of those neighbors were concerned about that that spoke from Chaska. Councilman Labatt: Right across the road is that Autumn Woods, isn't it? Kate Aanenson: It's residential. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, so that office industrial is farther north? Mayor Jansen: It's as you move further north, yep. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It gets low density in this second phase. It's just the, that's how we came up with the industrial across from the Degler piece is that this was, so they were concerned about that transition, and that's something that we'd be looking at too is the area wide. Looking at the traffic. Where the traffic movement is and it also ties in the timing with 212. I mean how much capacity can this handle with the infrastructure that's in place and that whole timing so, and that goes back to what the Mayor was saying. It may be some things move around a little bit as we look at that more closely. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff? Councilman Boyle: I have none. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Now typically we don't repeat the public hearing. I don't know if the applicant is here this evening. If there's anything new that you would like to add from what was discussed at the Planning Commission. You're certainly welcome to do that, but normally we can just go from the minutes that we have. But whatever you're comfortable with. 35 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Richard Palmiter: Good evening. My name is Richard Palmiter with Town and Country Homes and I always like to speak about favored projects, and this certainly is one of them. I just want to almost say this is almost like a reversal. Usually we make the presentations and the developer shows what we would like to have happen in your city. This case it's almost reverse. Where we're asking the city to say take a look at what we have and give us ideas and staff has done that very comprehensively in the staff report which we concur with. And so we have now a pretty good list of things that we know we would have to do in order to perform if we want to come back to you with a PUD application, and it's very extensive. But it's a good checklist. It's the thing that we can use in which to come forward with. We know, I've heard very clear architecture is very solid. It needs to be something that you are looking, and a variety of other things. The park areas, the open areas, the protection of that, so we know what we need to do to come back and we'll be back in just like 2 years from now so, but you blink twice and we'll be back here in that time so. Again, this is different and we really appreciate your time and the efforts that you and the staff has made to go over our project. So I'm here to answer any questions for you tonight. Mayor Jansen: Okay, any questions for Richard? Councilman Boyle: I have none. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Appreciate all the time that you've spent working with staff and the couple commission meetings, and I believe you did a neighborhood meeting as well so appreciate your getting all that input. Councilman Boyle: I'd like to make a motion. Mayor Jansen: Hold on. Councilman Peterson: You got a hot date tonight or what? Mayor Jansen: I just had a couple of things. And I guess in realizing that now is the time for us to address any of the big picture issues. One of the things that ! noted as I was reading through the potential for children in this area, potential of 114 school children, one of the things that we looked at in the Pulte project were the totlots within the project and play areas. Some common areas so that at least the kids have somewhere to go within that complex and we're of course not the experts on the playgrounds and Park and Rec would be able to come up with that, but I didn't see that addressed within the PUD look see as far as any specifically common areas or possible totlots within the complex or playgrounds. And then one term that comes to mind I guess frequently looking at some of the townhome developments, is monotonous. And if we can avoid monotony within the project, it of course goes to all the elements that you've put in here within your design standards as far as materials, architectural details and variety, but just trying to do some of those more unique things that you can within the complex and not to mean that you just vary the tone of the brown that's on the outside of the building I guess is one of the things that I would consider important in coming back with this. And as we go to make a motion, I would really go with staff's suggestion that we delete the fiscal tax study. I think those numbers were provided from staff and that Mr. Gerhardt really did a very extensive job of providing some numbers and a good look at the tax information and we all know that with the legislature making annual changes at this point to tax rates, that it could be very different, a look see when the project ends up coming in and that should be probably addressed at that time if it's a consideration for the council 2 years from now when that comes in. Those would be my only comments. Council, anything else to add? Any other discussion? 36 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Councilman Labatt: Nope. Mayor Jansen: Then I'll call for a motion. Councilman Boyle: I'd like to make a motion. I was going to hesitate just long enough. That the City Council approves a concept PUD with the conditions 1 through 8. Linda, you made a comment on the fiscal tax study, of eliminating it? Mayor Jansen: Deleting (f). Deleting l(f). Councilman Boyle: Okay. With deletion of l(f). And adding that common areas and playgrounds be considered and avoiding any monotony in the aesthetics. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilman Boyle: You're welcome. Anything else? Mayor Jansen: I don't think so. Councilman Boyle: Okay. There lies my motion. Mayor Jansen: And if I could have a second please. Councilman Ayotte: I'll second that. Mayor Jansen: All those in favor, or discussion of the motion? Councilman Peterson: Yeah if we could. I guess I'd still like to, just for the fact that I'd like staff to have it in the forefront of their mind as to, as we approve this, realizing we're conceptually approving moving 40 acres out of industrial. I'd like to put an additional condition in there that as this area, the whole, that MUSA area is rolled in, that we look at replacing that 40 acres with appropriate industrial space. Mayor Jansen: That that be reviewed? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Do you accept that friendly amendment? Councilman Boyle: I accept that friendly amendment? Mayor Jansen: And does the second, second the friendly amendment? Councilman Ayotte: Sure. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve the Conceptual PUD of 88.5 acres of property for 540 residential units for Town and Country Homes, subject to the following conditions: 37 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 The applicant shall contribute to the preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR) in lieu of an EAW for the 2005 MUSA area. The AUAR shall study the following issues: ao Public facilities-school, park, utilities, fire station. Environmental features-Bluff Creek Overlay District, Wetlands/bluffs, Open space and trees. Transportation system-traffic/road plan and the ongoing considerations of the existing studies and reports, the design and construction of Highway 312 and Powers Boulevard. Utilities-Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer. In addition, the AUAR shall address the following issues: Potential school sites, fire station, water tower, and creek crossing. Collector road systems as well as traffic, infrastructure requirements: sewer, water, storm sewer, and natural resources including wetlands, trees, and slopes. A medium density PUD shall be created with the following items addressed: landscaping (entrance, streetscape, and buffering transitions, uses and density), possible support commercial, neighborhood connections (trails and sidewalks), design standards (materials, architectural details and variety), transit (slip off lanes), public access to park areas, preservation of natural features (bluffs, wetland, trees), housing plan (range of product and price). The applicant shall petition the City for city services (sewer, water, etc.). The applicant shall develop a housing diversity plan. All wetlands on site shall be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked by city staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more detailed plans for this site. The applicant shall keep the goals for the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in mind as a plan is developed for the site and work with staff to achieve these goals for this property: Preserve and manage the high-quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak woodlands to extend the high quality system of the Gorge Region; Restore impaired ecosystems to their natural conditions; and Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek corridor. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek primary and secondary zone boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site. The Building and Fire Marshal comments shall be incorporated into the next level of review. Common areas and playgrounds be considered in the PUD. 38 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 10. The developer shall avoid monotony in aesthetics of architecture. 11. As the AUAR for the 2005 study area is done, look at how the city is going to replace the 40 acres of industrial land. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: It is a beautiful area of our community and we certainly look forward to eventually seeing your project come in, and we appreciate your spending the time that you have with us to go over some of the points that we would like to see addressed in that area, so good luck to you and thank you. Richard Palmiter: Thank you very much. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Jansen: Is there anything from council for reports? Councilman Boyle: Nothing interesting. Mayor Jansen: Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gerhardt, anything under Administrative Presentations? Todd Gerhardt: Did you bring your calendar? I'd like to re-schedule that debt study and TIF update, if we could include that as a part of our special meeting on the 7th. It's going to make for a long afternoon but. Mayor Jansen: What time were you needing us all? Didn't we say 1:007 Todd Gerhardt: 1:00 on the 7th. Councilman Peterson: I thought we said lunch. Mayor Jansen: I guess noon. Todd Gerhardt: We can do that. Councilman Labatt: What's for lunch? Todd Gerhardt: What do you want? We'll do something for lunch. Councilman Boyle: 7t~ is a Thursday, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: The 7th is a Thursday. Councilman Ayotte: Two days after election day. 39 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Mayor Jansen: One of the things that I do want to make sure that we're focused on as we're going to be doing that debt study and taking a look at it and I don't remember how many council people were present when we approved the preliminary levy. Were there just 3 of us? Councilman Labatt: I was gone, I know that. Councilman Boyle: I think there were 3. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page as to the numbers that we're trying to crunch before we get down to that final levy approval. And at the work session and during the council meeting we had discussed taking dollars out of the debt levy in order to reduce the amount of increase. We removed $200,000 that evening. However, during our work session conversation what we had targeted was $380,000, so we did still leave the challenge on the table, and we were hoping that through the debt study we would establish how much more we would be able to use in cash reserves potentially to reduce the levy that additional dollar amount, and our target goal then would have been to get our increase down to more like 7 percent. My pie in the sky number that I was looking to see if we could remove, and Mr. Gerhardt is aware of this as we have one debt issue that is $700,000 for this year's levy, and a million two for next year' s, and my question to staff had been, can we look at retiring those two chunks this year versus waiting and what would that savings be. So that is part of what that review is that we'll be getting back on the 7t~, just so everyone's prepared to what we're trying to look at and accomplish. Were we able to do that larger number, it would bring the levy increase down to a 3 percent for this year. Councilman Ayotte: From? Mayor Jansen: From, if we get the additional. Councilman Peterson: On the limit of 10. Mayor Jansen: 180 out of there, it pulls out down to 7. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, one of the key things we need to look at is the debt associated with the general fund, and also the debt associated with the TIF district and so it's pretty significant. I haven't seen the final numbers on it but should have them to you that Friday before the 7th. Try to get you the packet out early so you can go through it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Appreciate it. So it is a bit of a challenge as to what they're trying to pull together as far as these numbers so that we have a good idea of what is going to happen with the TIF debt. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and I'd like to come out of there with a game plan on how we're going to deal with the TIF issues in the future. There's going to be a couple of recommendations in there. Maybe some special legislation this year and things like that. Councilman Ayotte: There was some correspondence to that, on that TIF. Are you going to address that? Correspondence they addressed TIF, I thought. Councilman Labatt: I think that was last time. That was last week. Councilman Ayotte: Oh. I thought there was more information on the legislation. 40 City Council Meeting - October 28, 2002 Justin Miller: I think it might have been included in the...priorities for this coming. Councilman Ayotte: Oh okay. So nothing new. Justin Miller: No. Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry. Todd Gerhardt: Under legislative policies. Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Todd Gerhardt: That's always an issue for them. Mayor Jansen: Okay, so if there isn't anything else, once we adjourn we are going to go back into conversations on our capital plan, since we didn't get that completed before the meeting so if I could have a motion to adjourn. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to adjgurn the meeting. All voted in favor and the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 41 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRF.~ENT: Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Steven Lillehaug, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Jason Angell, Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet'Paulsen 7305 Lared0 Dri'V~ Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REOUIRED DRIVEWAY GRADE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6690 DEERWOOD DRIVE, TIMOTHY TILLOTSON. Public Present: Name Address Mike Wegler 6680 Deerwood Drive Darin Gachne 6670 Deerwood Drive Elaine Otterdahl 6715 Nez Perce Drive Gary Otterdahl 6691 Deerwood Drive Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Uli, why don't you go ahead. Sacchet: One quick question. The staff report states that the builder is the same person as the owner. Can you just confirm that? Saam: I believe that's correct. I guess the owner can speak to that when he comes up. Timothy Tillotson: ...the coordinatoi', he was supposed to have made sure everything was right. Blackowiak: Right, we'll have you come up to the microphone when we finish with staff. LuAnn? Sidney: Question about why this came before Planning Commission and why it isn't just an enforcement issue. Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Saam: Maybe Kate can add something to this but we tell people when we deal with them on a day to day basis, if they want to appeal a ruling per se of city staff, that they have to take it to the Planning Commission and then onto City Council. In essence if they want a variance from our ruling, and Kate I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. There's two things that can occur when there's an enforcement issue. You have the right to appeal a decision of administrative officer. That would mean he'd have to appeal the interpretation of the 10 percent or the enfOrcement of l0 percent. Or the right to ask for a variance or relief from the ordinance under Chapter 18 and 20, the Planning Commission enforces those. So that's the criteria in Chapter 18. That's why it's before you. He' s seeking relief from that request. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, any questions of staff?. Lillehaug: Yes. So obviously there is further coordination before the driveway was graded Class V aiid p~ved as far as the non-conformance goes? Or wasit'stri¢fly°rll~ was-their building permit and then after the fact it was found that it was steeper? Saam: Maybe the owner can add something but the way it usually works is that we don't see anything that's constructed until as-built survey is submitted to us. Unless the owner would call with a question on you know, how should I be building this or what not, but if you're asking if we're out there in the field verifying the grades before it's paved or anything like that, no. No, we don't do that. We tell them up front what it's got to be. They show us on paper how they're going to build it. We approve that. And then at the end, the final check is the as-built survey, just to verify that drainage concerns and issues like driveway grades are all as per the approved plan. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich? No? I have one quick question, kind of adding onto Steve's question. So when then, in that process, does the Certificate of Occupancy get issued? Is that before or after you look at the as-built survey? Saam: There's two ways you can do it. Prior to the CO being issued an as-built survey has to be given, submitted to the City. If because maybe it's in the winter so the surveyor's can't get out there with the snow, they have the option of giving us a $1,500 escrow as security to say well give me my CO. I'll pay you this money and then after the snow melts or whatever, I'll come back with the as-built survey. Then we give them back the money. Blackowiak: So in this case, I'm assuming we did not get the money. There was no snow on the ground. Saam: I believe that's correct, and again the owner can talk to that but yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, so then even knowing that the driveway was not up to code, we still issued a Certificate of Occupancy? ' Saam: That I'm not sure of, and did you get the CO? Okay, so did you pay the $1,5007 Okay. So he submitted the as-built survey. We reviewed it. We found that it was in error, so we said to 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 get your CO you either have to correct the driveway or give us the $1,500 and then we'll get it all worked out after. Do you follow that? Blackowiak: Yes. Saam: Okay. So we got both in this case. In lieu of doing the corrections he wanted to come through council... Blackowiak: Right, he just escrowed the $1,500. Saam: Yeah, he just gave us the $1,500. Yes. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay. LuAnn, another question? Sidney: Yes. Let's say we were to say well the driveway can stay as is. Can the drainage issues be corrected given the current state of the driveway? Saam: I think they could be corrected. We would have to work with him and maybe whoever his surveyor is to come up with something acceptable to get the drainage to go towards the street. One, just let me point out one of the conditions in the staff report. While it's mentioned in the verbiage on page 3, it says if the variance is granted, if you choose to do this, the applicant must submit a contour plan and drainage plan to show that there are no adverse affects to the neighboring properties. So that' s one of the things we do want to make sure we address. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Tim Tillotson: Tim Tillotson, 6690 Deerwood Drive. I brought a couple of pictures just to let you see what it looks like now. Can you see that? That's from the street. Bottom side of the street there's a real steep hill there. Deerwood's real steep. This is from the top side. As far as the drainage issue goes, I've already talked to the guy who asphalted my driveway who wasn't supposed to asphalt it until after I had gotten the as-built survey back, but I showed up one day and he had already had it asphalted. He said he can run a berm along this edge of the driveway and, 6 inch berm and that will take everything out to the street. And if the driveway isn't approved, this is about my only other alternative because my gas and electric run up the center of the driveway underneath it. To turn the driveway 60 feet up, or 50 feet up from the property line out to this point, and I don't know if you can see the survey, the height numbers. Here and here. And there's one right here, it's 1008. That would bring it right at 10 percent. It would be 60 feet and it's 6 feet drop. And that's about where the driveway would come out. But to have to tear the whole thing up and tear up the gas and electric would be very expensive. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Rich, start at this end. Slagle: I don't. Blackowiak: No? Steve. Lillehaug: Yes I do. Why, is there a reason why the driveway is, was built higher, at a higher elevation than what it was planned? Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Tim Tillotson: Because the asphalt guy showed up before I got my as-built survey back, and tarred it while I wasn't there. And I showed up, he had the driveway tarred and asked him why he tarred it. He was supposed to call me because I was waiting for my as-built survey to come back to see where the elevations were to see if I needed to move anything. Lillehaug: Okay, so you knowingly didn't raise the elevation of your house pad, your driveway or anything? Tim Tillotson: No. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: LuAnn? No? Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. So you actually have an alternative solution which seems to be possibly better also. Would it be an improvement for? Tim Tillotson: No. It would just be moving the driveway. Sacchet: So for you it'd be about the same. It seems like it would be better because it's flatter basically. Tim Tillotson: Yeah, you can see off that picture that I showed you, it's very flat there. I mean the ground is almost at a 10 percent, almost right at 10 percent grade right there. Sacchet: Now with the asphalt guy having done that asphalting without your ordering it, you should have some recot/rse with him, don't you? Tim Tillotson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Oh sure. Slagle: Quick question for staff, if I may.. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Slagle: Your thoughts on that Matt, any issues? Saam: On the driveway realignment? Slagle: Yeah. Saam: No. If it complies with 10 percent, we're fine with that. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing, so anyone liking to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mike Wegler: Mike Wegler. I own the property at 6680 Deerwood. The house directly affected by the drainage coming off the driveway. That' s my biggest issue is the water running there right now, and it needs to be corrected. If that's taken care of I don't have any problem. He really should change the bottom...plan basically at 10 percent slope. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Darin Gachne: I'm Darin Gachne. I live at 6670 Deerwood Drive, so I'm one house down. I do have some problems with the whole thing. Frankly I don't believe Mr. Tillotson when he says that the asphalt guy came too soon. It appears clear to me from his written application that he knew of the 10 percent grade and chose to disregard it. This isn't the first time that this type of thing has happened on this property or Mr. Tillotson seems to be okay with disregarding the rules. And I feel like we need to take a stand and say look. You need to play by the rules just like anybody else. I don't own the property directly behind me. Mrs. Otterdahl does but there's a huge stack of logs that are sitting back there that were from the property that he cleared. It wasn't his property and he was told not to push them there. He did it anyway. The whole, this whole house being built there from the get go has been an issue. I feel like we need to hold Mr. Tillotson accountable for the rules, whether he buried his, you know cable whatever underneath his driveway. All this is very convenient but I'm sorry but there are rules and we need to adhere to them. And I think that is all that I have. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Elaine Otterdahl: Mrs. Albert Otterdahl. I've lived in the area for over 50 years. Never run into anything like this before. I didn't realize what was going on down in that property until one morning last October, around the first of November, a big semi, I never such trucks coming down those roads that, they're not made for it. And they made big ruts in my property and stuff. Well I didn't have time to take care of it that morning so when I come home I saw it and I called the sheriff's department and they came out, and he said oh you do have damage. In the meantime somebody was working a tractor or grader or down there where Mr. Tillotson lives. So the officer went down and he says I'I1 go down and talk to him. He says if he come up and apologize and fix it, will that be alright? Well they come walking up and of course I was still irritated, and he said calm down and he said yes, they would take care of the ruts and that, which they never did. And then a comment was made by this gentleman, he says oh. He said, I'm not building this place, but the gentleman that is knows the gentleman that lives in the little doll house, which is my son. And he gave him a half a lot. I said what? Half a lot. Those lots down there are mine. So I hired surveyors and they came out in November to have it surveyed...503,504, 506 and he had 501 and 502, which is 40 feet...driveway. And I'd like to know how he can cut in on my property. They pulled out the surveying stakes and I had to call my surveyor on New Year's Eve and wanted to know what the laws were, and I got a letter which he states the laws of destroying the stakes. And also I went down and I took pictures. Wanted to know why they have black, how do I put this so you can see it? Blackowiak: Jason, can you give her a hand? Elaine Otterdahl: Up on this? 5 Planning Commission Meeting -October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Yeah, there's a camera kind of right above the table so. Elaine Otterdahl: Okay. Can you see right here is the black plastic that's supposed to be at the end of the lot. And it should have been over here .... and I was told that that's where the engineers told them to put it. There, instead of here. So I feel that they were driving, they have to make a big turn to get up in their driveway. I think if you were out there and you saw it, you can see where they have to drive up in there. And they have cut into the property. Left those roots from that big oak tree sticking out. And that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Matt, can you clarify generally when you put up some type of an erosion fencing, which that was an erosion fencing, does it have to be on the subject property or do you generally put it on neighbors property? Saam: No. It has to be on the subject property, and I do have the actual survey that we marked up. I guess I could bring it up there but we dash it in right on his property. So yes, it's got to be on their own property. Blackowiak: So it's supposed to have been on his property? Saam: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this issue? Gary Otterdahl: My name is Gary Otterdahl. I live at 6691 Deerwood Drive. My only concern is the big oak tree there that he hasn't filled in around and the rgots are sticking out. The thing is probably going to fall over on my house. I mean it's, he never filled in like he was supposed to. To mow that, now it's just a big divit there so that's only my concern. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, kind of a last chance. Anyone else who'd like to speak, come on up. Otherwise I will close the public hearing and hear comments from commissioners. Slagle: I've got a big question Madam Chair. Would the suggestion by the applicant to move his driveway off to the right, if you will, would that be another application for a variance or is that something that we can deny this request and approve, if we so decide, that change? I mean we don't have the specifics of the change. Blackowiak: I'm guessing that if it was within code, 10 percent grade, there would not be anything for us to review. Am I correct? Okay. Saam: Yeah, I would think you'd have to deny this. Slagle: So just deny this and let you guys do your... Blackowiak: Administratively, okay. Okay. Lillehaug: Can I ask one more question? Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: Are we okay with the side yard setbacks on a driveway? Or isn't there any for a center lot like that? Planning Commission Meeting -October 15, 2002 Saam: Well that was touched on earlier this year Kate. I don't think, and Kate correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there are setbacks for a driveway. I think the only issue was if it was in the easement, then we could require an encroachment agreement. Was that right Kate? Aanenson: I can't remember off the top of my head. If you do choose to deny this, then that gives him an opportunity to seek relief by moving it somewhere else and he'd have to meet whatever those standards are in place, so we would resolve that. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Well, let's move to comments. Uli, why don't I start with you. Sacchet: Well this is pretty simple. I live by a principle that is do what you have agreed to do. The applicant has agreed to do this driveway in a certain way with a certain grade. He was aware of the rules. Whether he did it intentionally or not, doesn't even really matter. I think this variance needs to be denied. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with staff's assessment for the request for the variance. The hardship appears to be self created. The applicant has created his own hardship by not constructing the driveway per the approved building permit, and to allow this variance would allow an improperly constructed driveway to exist which I don't agree with. So ! believe this should be denied. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I concur with fellow commissioners. I do not accept the justification for a hardship, based on the owner's claim due to no fault of their own. The owner is responsible for all action on his property, just as well as I am, so I do not support this variance. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Nothing else to add. Blackowiak: Okay. And I agree with my fellow commissioners. It's not just his property that's affected. It' s everyone else in the neighborhood. Whether directly or indirectly so I certainly would agree with my fellow commissioners and deny this request for a variance. I would however ask staff, Matt specifically to meet with the neighbors, and I'd like you to go out and take a look at the oak tree issue. The roots and the tree and kind of see what can be done to kind of clean that up a little bit because I don't want to have any further problems, if indeed the driveway's moved or however that gets resolved. Fine, but I want the neighbors to make sure that they're getting some satisfaction out of this as well, and that we make sure that that oak tree is protected. Sacchet: Madam Mayor? Madam Chair. Blackowiak: No, Chair. Thank you. Sacchet: We won't go there. I would want to add also the drainage issue. I think the drainage issue, the tree and the drainage issue need to be looked at, but that's something. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a separate issue but yes, please take care of it. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: Madam Chair, one last thing for Matt. Maybe you can take a look at those logs or whatever that issue was. Saam: Yeah, that's... Slagle: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright. So could I get a motion? Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the request for Variance #2002-14 for a maximum of 23.8 percent driveway grade on the property located at 6690 Deerwood Drive based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for Variance g2002-14 for a maximum of 23.8 percent driveway grade on the property located at 6690 Deerwood Drive based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THER EOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE C~)NSTRUCTION OF A 14 FOOT FENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6610 POINTE LAKE LUCY, ROBERT AND DAWN BREZA. Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: No questions. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: I've got one Jason that, that agreement, the encroachment agreement with engineering department with respect to the drainage and utility easement. Is there a minimum distance from the lot line that a fence, you were saying 2 inches? Angell: Yeah, 2 inches. Through city code it has to be on your property. The fence must be constructed on your property unless you sign an agreement with the neighboring property giving you permission to build on the lot line. Slagle: And so if I understood your comments, the fence, the retaining wall, the sod, basically everything was done about the same time. Angell: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting -October 15, 2002 Slagle: Let's see. And regardless of what action we take tonight, it is staff's impression that this restitution of replacements and what not and sand play area getting out of there, that's going to be done anyway regardless of what we decide tonight. Aanenson: Correct. Let me just preface that a little bit. Because we're doing a conditional use for the height of the fence, that's what you're addressing tonight. You can add conditions to mitigate the impacts. So I'm looking at that, we didn't want to just ignore the others because we just want to make it clear that that's still in violation of city ordinance if you were to attach conditions for mitigation. That m~ay be an opportunity to mitigate that, but we just want to let you know that they're still, we're still tracking that issue. Blackowiak: Okay, so tonight is just fence height? Aanenson: Correct. But we're giving the background on the other issues that are still tracking to put the owner on notice and to let you know that there's other issues out there. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn? Oh, sorry. Slagle: Still one question left. I was out at the property today. Spoke at some point with the applicant and I don't know if we can get a picture Jason of one of your photos of the back yard. Maybe just seeing it from the house towards, for everybody to see. Let's just go with, well the bottom right hand side. Yeah, there. To the right would be of course the fence going along Lake Lucy. Has the forester been out and determined whether or not, what I would call evergreens, white pines, blue spruces, can be grown along that area to provide some type of barrier. Have we? Angell: She believes that with the amount of vegetation that has been removed that adequate sunlight would be able to get into that area to allow plants to grow. Slagle: Okay. No further questions. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: A question for staff. Do we have any examples of a 14 foot high fence in Chanhassen in a residential area? Angell: The only fence that would be of similar size, and it's not even quite 14 feet, was approved several years ago for the construction of a chain link fence around a large energy tower with barbed wire fence so it was really, it wasn't for a residential district. Sidney: Okay. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. First of all, the conditional use permit is needed for any height fence or just if it's more than 6 feet? Angell: Anything that exceeds the requirements of the ordinance of 6 i/2 feet. Sacchet: So if it's, what happens if it's 6 foot? Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Angell: Then they would just need to sign an encroachment agreement and work with staff through those. Sacchet: Encroachment agree, okay. Angell: And still do restitution and stuff. Sacchet: So our decision is just whether it can be more than 6 ½ feet tail. And staff report says there was communication, quite a bit of communication with the applicant and one specific communication was a letter to the homeowners stating that restitution would be required and lining out what that would be. Has there been a response to that letter? Angell: To my knowledge I do not have any written responses in the folder. The applicant at that time was working with the forester and one of the engineering staff. Sacchet: Well we can ask the applicant. I assume the applicant is here. Okay, that's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Robert Breza: Hi. Robert Breza, 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy. To answer your question specifically regarding restitution, we agree with the conditions set forth in the memorandum and agree to all that. So that. Sacchei: ~'hat's good. Robert Breza: Really quickly, this is kind of a side view of what our property looks like, and what we're proposing is to try to have a 6 Va foot fence that is above the road line. There's a significant change in grade that is affected on the property and I'll have a couple pictures here to demonstrate that a little-bit more in effect. So what we're trying to do is to work with the city to reach an agreement where we can get an approved fence height to not exceed 6 V2 feet above the road. Because of the grade change that requires a high degree of variance, I think the fence would probably be 12 to 13 feet. We put in 14 because we were erring on the side of caution in case it's a few inches over, or whatever. I'm approximately, I'm 5' 11". This is the upper north end of the fence, so you can see it' s well within the city limit. This kind of gives you an idea of how the grade and this is basically a 6 Va foot fence today and how it's underneath the grade of the road, which is the purpose or the reason we're asking for 6 Va feet above the road line. This is basically what you see when you look from the road into our back yard. There's a trampoline set there, three season porch and such. So pretty plain view I guess. And then here's pretty much the last ! guess picture as far as the vegetation here, it does hide the fence at least during the summer quite nicely. In speaking with the forester specifically, to try to create more of a barrier that would exist between the road and a 6 V2 foot fence sight line, probably not much would grow there nor do I think the city would agree to plant additional plantings there. If they would, we would comply with that as well. So that's basicaily the argument for a 6 Va foot fence. I would argue that people can peer directly into the back yard, and today given what we've seen in the news with kidnappings of children and stuff, and we've found it somewhat disturbing and hopefully you find it supportive to at least have a 6 ½ foot fence above the road. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners. Do you have any questions of the applicant? Uli, go ahead. 10 Planning Commission Meeting -October 15, 2002 Sacchet: Did you consider having a vegetative buffer? Robert Breza: We did. The canopy, let me know you. We did talk with one specific tree person. The only one I called, and it was brought up by Rich today, whether we could. There's two large oak trees that would prevent trees from growing in the canopy. In addition, you can kind of see there are some trees there already today, which do not provide an adequate buffer today, but would restrict the tree from growing. Blackowiak: Uli, any more questions for the applicant? Sacchet: I had another one but I don't remember it right now. Blackowiak: Okay, we'll come back to you, if you remember. LuAnn. Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I do. Do you agree with the fact that you were well informed by city staff of the existing easements, setbacks, fence height requirements, etc that affects your property? Robert Breza: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? Slagle: I don't believe so. No questions. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one quick question. As I went by today, it appeared that on the north side of the property, if you have your 6 V2 foot fence, that the topography is such that if you sit on the outside of the fence, it would be 6 V2 feet. I mean you're not standing above the fence at all. Are you? In other words, if you're standing beside the fence, would it be 6 V2 feet tall? Robert Breza: In most areas I would say it's 6 V2 feet or less. You know just depending on the grade. We tried to keep the top straight and then drop it down straight. Drop it down. Blackowiak: Right. It was kind of terraced it looked like. Robert Breza: So depending on you know whether you're standing here and it's 6 feet. Maybe here it's 6 V2 feet or 7 feet, and that was part of the reason why we asked for 14 feet. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, there's one thing I'm still a little bit straggling with. From reading the staff report it seemed that you must have been fairly well aware that there was a drainage easement, a tree conservation easement, that there was a fence ordinance, and also a height ordinance. There's actually four things involved. What I don't understand is, how you could have gone and built a fence, built retaining walls, cut the trees, put in sod, put in a play area, when you knew that all these restrictions were actually in place. 11 Planning Commission Meeting -October 15, 2002 Robert Breza: Well I would say the restrictions weren't in place for the boulder wall. A permit's not required for any wall that's greater than 4 feet. Sacchet: Along a collector street, there's no fence allowed according to the ordinance. Robert Breza: I'm sorry. Sacchet: According to the ordinance there's no fence permitted in the landscape buffer along a collector street. According to the staff report it seemed like these things were explained to you beforehand. Robert Breza: Your point about the fence is correct. Your point about sod, retaining walls I would say is incorrect. Sacchet: Can you explain? Robert Breza: Well the retaining walls were put in within the tree, without any restrictions. They're not impending on any buffer zone. Sacchet: They're not in the tree preservation zone? Robert Breza: Correct. They're along the tree preservation line. And they're less. Sacchet: Okay. Well if they're not in the preservation zone, then it's not an issue. Robert Breza: Correct. And they're less than 4 feet. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, retaining walls. Robert Breza: And the sod, the question, the I think where the forester is talking about the sand play area is in the upper north comer, which was full of buckthom, which we were told we could remove, which we did. We then put down fabric and put pea gravel over the top of it. We were unaware that we couldn't put ground cover down. We were unaware that we couldn't change the slope, couldn't change the grade, which we did not do. We were unaware that we could not put ground cover down. So that was our mistake. But that was never communicated to us. So the spirit of communicating with staff and going around the staff is purely related to the fence. Sacchet: So you did work around the staff with the fence. Robert Breza: I started out the project myself. I started out less than 6 feet which was in the upper northwest comer. I drew a line and got carried away. Sacchet: Appreciate your honesty. Blackowiak: Thank you. I don't think we have any more questions. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Robert Breza: No thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 record. Okay seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, I'd like comments. LuAnn, would you like to start? Sidney: Sum. I guess this is a little bit different. We're dealing with the conditional use permit, and we have different findings that we have to discuss and agree with. I guess the thing that I noticed here and I think is of gmat importance is that this conditional use permit should be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. And I think I certainly agree with staff' s finding that the construction of this type of fence, this height fence is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and is not consistent with our zoning ordinances. And the natural resources section of the comprehensive plan really promotes plantings rather than this type of fence be constructed. Also I believe the project has stated in the staff report, is not aesthetically compatible with the area. If we allow this fence to be of such great height, we may be setting a precedence which we don't want to continue in the city. I would vote for denial. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I would second your comments LuAnn. I do believe that this is a very beautiful neighborhood. It' s a very beautiful house. I understand your fears about what' s happening in the world nowadays, but then on the other hand this house was next to the road before and them are like four aspects of ordinance that are violated than what this fence represents and as LuAnn pointed out, the most significant one is the comprehensive plan which promotes plantings along collector roads and preservation of such areas. It' s a violation of zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan in that sense. The elimination of the natural buffer is unfortunate. On the other hand it seems like there's a benefit involved in that it actually allows you to plant some trees that will give you better buffer like evergreens, so I'm going to vote to deny this conditional use permit. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich. Anything to add? Slagle: No, other than this. As I mentioned, I had a chance to meet with the applicants and I want to add that ! think their honesty, their sincerity is commendable and I would say that their desires for this, for a solution is certainly evident as Mr. Sacchet said. Understandable given what's happening. I'm going to vote to deny it, but I am going to strongly recommend looking at the foliage as well as a fence. I do believe there is the ability to put a fence in there, as well as having foliage to the south of the fence. That's all. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I have just a few things to add. I'm very sensitive to the needs and your desires to protect your family. Definitely 100 percent, I have family as well as many other people do and safety is of utmost importance. I'm definitely not sensitive to the fact that we're having an after the fact conditional use permit before us hem tonight. I'm disappointed in the non-compliance with the city staff direction as well as the existing city ordinance. The fence as it stands fight now, it exceeds the height restriction by more than 200 percent, or at least 200 percent. There aren't any special extenuating circumstances that differ from the rest of the community that reasonably persuade me to approve this. The property as I see it is relatively well buffered from Lake Lucy Road by the trees. Much mom than a lot of people's properties are. For this, I do not support this variance as requested. Or, not the variance, the conditional use permit. I also would like to add that if we were to support this, I believe there would be just a proliferation of after the facts variances, conditional use permits and I don't think that's the way we want to head here. Thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 . Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I don't have much more to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners. Again, it's after the fact and we certainly don't want to start seeing 14 foot fences around every neighborhood in Chanhassen. That's just not the way we want to go. I too am rather disappointed in the fact that trees were taken out within the conservation easement and we've got a lot of other issues going on as well. I would strongly hope that the city would pursue the re-vegetation and that we could look into those other issues as well. With that I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit #2002-6 to construct a 14 foot high fence on the property located at 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy and the applicant is hereby made aware that they are in violation of Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1019(c) and that the City will be enforcing the conservation easement and pursuing re-vegetation based upon the Findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit g2002-6 to construct a 14 foot high fence on the property located at 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy and the applicant is hereby made aware that they are in violation of Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1019(c) and that the City will be enforcing the conservation easement and pursuing re-vegetation based upon the Findings in the staff report. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of~5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST OF TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES FOR A CONCEPTUAL PUD OF 88.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR 540 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF pIONEER TRAIL. THE CONCEPT REVIEW PURPOSE IS TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF REVIEW. Public Present: Name Address Connie & George St. Martin Barbara & Richard Palmiter Krista Flemming Mark & Jen Johnson Char Jeurissen Jeffrey Fox Jeff & Susan Lundgren Jill & Mitch Anderson Mark Johnson 9231 Audubon Road 4916 Kingsdale Drive, Bloomington Town & Country Homes 9715 Audubon Road 9715 Audubon Road 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior 2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska 2905 Butternut Drive, Chaska Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Any questions of staff?. Slagle: I can start. Let's see here. A couple of things Kate. Going back to your comment of the time line. Now the last time we saw this, I'm going to say was in August? Aanenson: August 6m. Slagle: Okay. And at that point there was a tabling. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: And we then had how many days? Aanenson: They gave us a letter for like an extra 30 days, and they gave us another letter. Slagle: Okay. So we've had a total of 60 of an extension in essence? Aanenson: Correct, yes. Slagle: Okay. And the applicant was deemed complete by you, or your staff on what date? I'm just trying to understand where we are. Aanenson: Well the application date that was signed was July. So the 120 days would have been up closer to that first part, in August. So we're way past that. Again, they need to make some decision. We need to make some decision if we're going to go down that path so. Slagle: Now, just help me out here. The one thing that, in some sense it's almost if we had a work session it's easier to ask these questions but we've done the tour. We've discussed amongst ourselves the just education behind the PUD' s. Now on page 2 we talk about in Section 20-517 in the Code, what needs to be provided in order to approve the conceptual PUD. Am I correct? tanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. And so when I look at A and I go I through 6, I sort of have some and I don't have some. Aanenson: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. And all I'm wondering as a commissioner who's really approaching their fh'st one, from your perspective is it okay to in essence approve a conceptual PUD when in essence the things that we state, we don't have all of it? Aanenson: Correct. Now. Slagle: And the answer might be yes, and I'd like to know why. Aanenson: That's a good question, and part of the, it's onerous on part of the city's obligation to provide some of the answers to the questions. We need to decide where we want the collector street to go. And when you're looking at that, we need to step back and look at all the properties and say where's the appropriate location to give them direction. Certainly when 2005 becomes available, they'd like to be able to develop. We need to make some decisions to help them. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 They've indicated they would like to be working with us so when 2005 comes and not magically is going to happen at that time. We have to also put some other things in place. Right. So part of it is back to us. What they need to show us is that really do you feel comfortable moving forward with the medium density, and again it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you feel strongly about the industrial when it goes to the City Council, and we'd have to put some findings together at the City Council if they also chose to go with the industrial. Slagle: Okay, and let me ask you this. This document that we have here, and I apologize for not keeping everything I had from the first meeting in August. How much different is this than what was. Aanenson: It's the exact same. Slagle: That's what I thought. So what has the applicant done since we last got together? I mean have they brought anything other? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: No. They're waiting for direction from you, and from us and from the staff to tell them, that's what the purpose of this is. As we move through this process, and we tell them, one of the things that we need to brainstorm about, is talked about is you know respecting the natural features. Some of those transitions. Some of those trails. Again, we put those in the staff report under the PUD. What our expectations were. Slagle: Where I'm coming from on this question is, is on our tour in the Shakopee I believe it was, there was discussion with one of the representatives about, at least I had a discussion just about common areas and my beliefs and what not on that, and I guess I was just thinking that there would be some movement, if you will, towards perhaps, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I didn't think there was enough. Again you know. Aanenson: It's a good question, and I guess what I'm saying is, it's very fluid. They can show you a buffer but until we say definitively this is where, what we're trying to reconcile right now is where this collector road should be. Until we know that, that's kind of the framework issue that they go back and then respond to that design. So we need to give them criteria on what's to come back with their design. If that makes sense. Kind of a chicken and an egg. Slagle: Sure. Aanenson: So, the guiding principle we stated already is that these two are certainly issues that we've already stated that are very significant, and that's the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. We've already said we want to transfer the density. At least that's what the staff's indicated. We want to cluster the density based on using a PUD. That's a given. Some of the other things yet we still have to flush out, is working with the park department. They may not want the regional park here. They may want some access. We've agreed and we've talked about that, that we want access to these features. That there's a community park, maybe it belongs not necessarily on this piece, somewhere else. Maybe it ties into this piece, but there's some other decisions we need to make so we can give them better specific direction. So kind of marching down this path, coming back between the applicant, the bigger picture and working back with you over the next couple years. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Slagle: Sure. One last question. There were, there had been some comments, or there was some comments about the style of the product that we viewed. Has that been conveyed to the applicant? Aanenson: Yes. And also the condition was in here that they come back with, develop a specific plan that meets your expectations and I think if you want to add some specific things that you want to look at, that would be appropriate but that's one of the things that they need to come back with. Slagle: Sure. And is your view that the applicant tonight is at least prepared to talk about those concerns? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay, great. Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Steve, any questions? Of staff. Lillehaug: Sure. What happened to all the conditions from the previous report? Aanenson: Well I think they were way too specific for this level of detail, and I think that confused everybody. Lillehaug: Yep. Can you briefly explain and summarize the comparable text summary that you provided in that? Not in depth. Maybe just the generalization of the outcome. Aanenson: Yeah, and this was done by the City Manager actually, looking at kind of comparing it. If you had approximate acreage size and there' s a summary sheet on the last page of that attachment. That looked at approximate acreage. I believe it was 10 acres. If you took 10 acres of multi-family, 10 acres of industrial, 10 acres of single family, what would produce the most tax. And the multi-family came out pretty equal to the industrial. Or slightly ahead. That was the purpose of that, because that came out in the exercise. And the other thing we said we couldn't equate back out was some of the service costs, and we had that discussion too, so. Just to clarify, because you brought up that point Rich. I want to make sure you understand in condition number 2, when we talked about, and this is on page 9. The medium density shall be created with the following items being addressed, and this was kind of some of our brainstorming that we talked about. That they include landscaping entrances, streetscape and buffering. They would look at possible support commercial. These are your things from last time. Including trails and sidewalks. They come up with design standards, specific material, architecture, details and variety. That they include transit through there. Working with Southwest Metro. That they provide public access to the parks, preservation of natural features and a housing plan. Again those were the comments that kind of, I think kind of were the salient points that we wanted. Again generic, but to give them some marching orders on what our expectations, what the next level of review. Slagle: And I think, if I may. I think the key is just the understanding of expectations. Aanenson: Absolutely. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Slagle: Because we don't want the applicant to go further down the path if our expectations are going to be such that, or your's as staff, that they can't meet it. Aanenson: Can't meet it, agreed. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Agreed. And that's the purpose of this concept level, absolutely. Slagle: That's it. Blackowiak: No other questions? Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: I guess question about rezoning to start. I guess on the staff report you discuss that in the comprehensive plan this property was given two land use alternatives. Residential or industrial. Now we're going to be losing a certain amount of industrial and I'm wondering how that may or may not impact the city in the future in other parcels. Aanenson: Right. Well that was the purpose of putting in that, the one we just talked about. That exercise has come up, kind of give a tax comparison based on kind of equal acreage, so. Whether multi-family would be producing the same amount of industrial. Tax base of say industrial. And again that's based on today's dollars, today's tax rates. Sidney: Okay. And let's see. I guess I'll wait with my other comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a bunch of questions. Rich, you had a good question about this list of what is the 6 elements on the bottom of page 2. I actually was under the impression that those 6 things would be things that still would be worked on. But the way it reads indeed it seems like it says these are the things that should be in place to give a general concept plan. So we have little bit of a disconnect here, because we have a list of things that should be in place for the general concept plan, but it would appear that a fair amount of these things can't really be put in place til the AUAR is done. Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: So but for the AUAR, say that real fast 5 times. For that to be done we need to give the concept plan, yes or no? Aanenson: I guess I would compare it somewhat like we did with Lake Susan. Again, we had someone that came forward that wants to do development, because if no one's going to do any development, the city is going to. Slagle: What's the cost of one of those? Aanenson: There's a traffic component, sewer and water. Slagle: I mean total. Ballpark. Sacchet: How many hundred? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002 Aanenson: 250, half a million, depending on the amount of acres. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: But this is similar to what we did with Lake Susan. Again, because of the scale of this, and they're not going to lock into the design, we said we want to see something different. I think we've all agreed, and we've communicated that. That our expectation is something a little bit different than what's shown on there. As we move to defining those framework issues, we're going to come back and articulate more about the design, and that's one of the conditions. And I think that goes back to Rich's point. That they understand what, that we've got higher expectations, and that they understand or are willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Then to follow-up on LuAnn's comment about the industrial versus the medium density. It says or. So either or is fine as far as that's concerned. However, in the city plan we had it 50/50. So if we made this all residential, do we basically have that much less industrial? I believe that's actually in the land use amendment as attached. Aanenson: No. Let me just clarify that. Sacchet: Please. Aanenson: The 50/50 was just for calculating certain expectations for housing. So when we did a population projection we made a certain assumption. It doesn't say anything to do with the... We had to make certain assumptions to put together a capital improvement plan, which is part of the comprehensive plan. So certain assumptions were made. So it could go either way, so we took a 50/50 on all of them, and it kind of all came out in the wash. Sacchet: Just hypothetical... Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So we're not really losing in terms of our goal for the city? It doesn't really impact that because that was a general estimate and if it tilts a little bit here, it tilts the other way and then other place, and in the end it comes out, it's a wash. Is that what you're saying? Aanenson: It could be, sure. Sacchet: Ideally. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Ideally. But now, the land use amendment is not related to that you just said. Aanenson: Well again you had to make, we had to make certain assumptions on the land use recommendations in order to accomplish the comprehensive plan. For example the, like I explained before, up on 5 and 41, it was guided low industrial. Westwood Church took all 60 acres out and made it institutional. A school could go in here. A community park, so while we make certain expectations, all kinds of things that could affect the density but we have to make certain assumptions and we will, even with the area wide, you always want to shoot for the 19 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 outside, worst case scenario in looking at population numbers and densities so you can manage your traffic and that sort of thing. Sacchet: Okay, thank you Kate. Then there is the aspect, the possibility of a school site, that we're kind of referring to the school board. How do they get tied into this? I mean how do they know about it? Is there somebody who actually. Aanenson: Yes, there's a dialogue. Sacchet: ...there's a liaison? Aanenson: Yes. There's developers willing to work with that, and there's a couple of different approaches. In the comprehensive plan that was done in 1991, a site was identified as a potential school site and that was the Bluff Creek Elementary site. As it turned out, the city bought that through their TIF district. Now, other examples of working together is you could do density transfer, other acquisitions. There' s other things that are out there trying to land on some of this property so, whether it's on this particular site that's coming in now, or we look at the whole 100 acres. That's again the reason why we want to look at the area wide. Where's the collector streets? Where's the appropriate place to land it based on transportation. Based on the creek. Some of the outdoor needs that the school would require, so another reason to look at that in a holistic sort of thing, so I think this applicant or any other site, we have to kind of work as a team to make that happen. And the school's aware of that. Sacchet: They are aware of it? Okay. That answers the question. In terms of the density transfer. One of the driving forces behind this PUD idea is that it allows us to have the density transfer and therefore preserve the sensitive natural areas. Now according to the staff report there are 64 units or 8.8 acres that could be developable in the area that is considered Bluff Creek, primary or secondary. Now, do we have any idea at this point where that density will be transferred to or be shifting? If we make the whole thing medium density, effectively it would make certain parts of it possibly high density. Aanenson: Correct, and that's the same situation... Sacchet: Do we know anything yet more that would be done or is that premature? Aanenson: Yeah, and that comes back to when they put together that specific plan. You know where do you want to see those transitions? Do you want more density close to a collector road? Further from a collector road? Adjacent to transit. How do you want to make those transitions and that was some of the discussion that you all voiced before, and I think that's something that we need to communicate. Where's the appropriate place to land those back on the site? And that's a discussion we need to direct. First of all it all needs to be delineated. They haven't done that yet, so we get a better idea where those features are. Is this an opportunity to, where we'll put low density and maximize that or is it something that will give more people an opportunity to put higher density? That's an exercise we're going to work on with the applicant, giving them direction. Sacchet: So basically that's not really a discussion point at this stage quite yet. Aanenson: Right. And that's why I'm saying if you tell them this is exactly where it's going to be, they haven't delineated the wetlands. We haven't decided where all that's going to land.