Loading...
1i. City Council Minutes Dated September 11, 1995 (2)1 1ti 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ME MG ' SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCUA00WERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, and Councilwoman Dockendorf 1 COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles ' Folch, John Rask, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda 1 amended to delete item 8, City Hall Expansion, per Councilman Berquist's request until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appmve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #95 -89: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for McGlynn Addition, Project No. 95 -16. g. City Council Minutes dated August 28, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995 1 h. Approval of Bills. i. Approve One Day Beer License Request, Septemberfest Celebration, September 23, Chanhassen Lions 1 Club. j. Resolution #95 -90: Set Public Hearing Date, Sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds, Control Products. 1 k. Accept Donation from Chanhassen Lions Club for Emergency Rescue Equipment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I also wanted to address item (e) and we'll put that down as item number 13. 1 Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor? We do have a consultant representing that item on the agenda tonight. If you want to address it now, as long as they're here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't want to. Councilman Senn: It depends on, are we paying him? Charles Folch: By the hour. City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Trail issues that were, yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I remember discussing the line inline. It had to do with the surface. Councilman Senn: It had to do with maintenance. Long term maintenance costs. It had to do with the ability to maintain a sheet of ice. I mean there were tons of reasons. I mean we got a whole list of reasons why it had to be concrete because the concrete was going to be much more costly than the asphalt and we were looking at using up a big chunk, or at least a part of the contingency as a result of that. And now like I say, this is kind of really a 180 degree turn back again so I was wondering what's changed or what happens one way or the other. That was one question. I guess if anyone can't answer it, I'll go on. Second question was, from a standpoint, I understand Todd and a lot of his staff are very busy but at the same time on a project like this, total construction's $150,000.00. An additional $30,000.00 for engineering and construction coordination just, I mean I understand construction and there's complicated construction and to me there's kind of simple, slam dunk construction. I mean this seems to me like very simple slam dunk type of construction. I don't think we should be looking at $30,000.00 in fees to build a $150,000.00 worth of asphalt and boards and a few lights, etc. So that was the second question. Why $30,000.00? Jon Horn: Okay. I guess in response to that. The way our proposal is set up it's on an hourly basis. Like you ' said there is difficult construction and easy construction and ... project goes fairly well, hopefully we wouldn't be billing you for the full amount. That's a not to exceed amount. Not to exceed amount was just established... with the budget and the improvements but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the final cost will be if the project moves forward. I guess it all depends upon how active we need to be during construction. If you get a good contractor, there isn't a whole lot of problems during construction, we'll be looking... better than that. On the other hand, if you get a bad contractor with a lot of complications... Councilman Senn: My last question was for Don Ashworth. Several meetings ago we talked about you coming back to us with a good picture of where we sat in relationship to the contingencies on this project and that hasn't kind of come back yet. So I mean I was kind of wondering where this fits overall in relationship to that ' contingencies and financial issues. Again, this kind of goes back to point number 1 which I raised because I thought we had okayed part of a contingency going for that concrete or whatever previous so I mean. Don Ashworth: And you were correct. I apologize. I guess Hoffman and I didn't communicate as to then who ' was actually going to write up that response. But even with this item, I talked to him again today and that will put that project over the budget, meaning this particular expenditure. And what I said to him was, I need to, which we're in the process of doing, finalizing that update on that tax increment stuff with Dave MacGillivrary. I asked that a separate, that this item be bid as two items so there should be a bid for North Lotus Lake, which North Lotus Lake there's not a problem with but the community center, there could be a problem. Well, it will go over the budget. The next question then would be, is there sufficient increment to pay that additional amount and does the Council wish to use it in that fashion, recognizing the recommendations of Park and Rec. The problem we have is that, oh I'm sorry. Yeah, bids are to be taken the 21st for presentation to the City Council on the 25th. Jon Horn: Correct. Don Ashworth: And so we will know 2 weeks from tonight what those bids are and what monies are available. Councilman Senn: Am I correct that the plans and specifications are done? City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 was proposing a shortened curve for that alignment. Staff was recommending that they provide one that met ' State Aid standards for a 35 mph. And the third was resolving the ponding issues for this plat as well as the surrounding land. The applicant was able to work out an agreement with the abutting property owner to shift the roadway alignment into the project over to the eastern property line and with that we were able to reduce the amount of wetland fill on the site. They have provided ponding area on the north side of the Lyman Boulevard, which is sufficient for this development. We're still working to see if we can size it sufficiently for a regional pond for that area. The roadway alignment, I believe staff is recommending that I go back to the city's original alignment. This is a modification to that. It would, I believe, meet the standards but we want to push it ' forward. The final issue that they had was a Park and Recreation Commission recommendation that the city require dedication of the land on Lake Riley for parkland. From a technical standpoint staff believes we either worked out or are close to working out all the issues involved in this plat and we are therefore recommending ' approval. The Planning Commission requested that we look at infrastructure adequacy in this area and there is a memo from the City Attorney addressing that but we believe with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard, we will have adequate capacity to handle this. This project is below the guidelines established as part of the comprehensive plan. However, it meets some other housing goals that we have in providing diversity to our ' housing type as well as, while it doesn't strictly meet the affordable housing criteria for Chanhassen if they meet their range of $120,000.00 to $160,000.00, it would be relatively affordable. With that staff is recommending approval of the preliminary planned unit development and the first reading of the rezoning with the wetland setback as shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions of Bob at this time? I don't see any. Would the developer like ' to come forward and please state your name and your address and who you're representing. Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, Don Jensen, Land Development Manager for the Rottlund Company, 2681 Long Lake Road, Roseville, 55113. We're here tonight to bring forward the preliminary plat, which essentially took all of ' the recommendations of the concept approval that were granted this project by the Planning Commission and Council and the Parks Commission. We have tonight a number of additional graphics that were not available at our last Council presentation, both on the architecture side, landscaping as well as site planning. I have on an ' easel up in front of me the current site plan that was just on the overhead that staff presented on the easel in front of me. There's a board in front of me of building material selections, color palate. Hopefully you can see that. If you like, I can pick it up on the easel as we go. We have renderings that describe common open space and our entry treatments that we have for the housing types. I also have a couple of perspectives of our cottages, which is our one level housing type that we have, which is at the lowest portion, or the main entry point of the development. That's the furthest along in our research and development. Just a couple of minor items in our staff summary that I'd like to get at. Most of these are Minutes that I did not get a chance to approve. They're really very minor. We were talking about in a couple of cases is that this project... research and development and that's farther in there. I believe it's on page, it's toward the end of our Planning Commission meetings... here and then on page 41, what we were looking at, in case you're looking back on the ' Planning Commission meeting, and the reply at the bottom of the page in the Minutes talk about a tree area and I believe I was describing it as a trade area. I'll get at that with my presentation if you like. We concur with all the bold face conditions of approval in the Planning Commission recommendations, as well as what staff has put in. As staff noted, we still have an issue regarding parks. Our counsel can reply to that a little bit later this evening. The plans that we have prepared for you took all of the drainage concerns that we were able to accomplish by Pioneer Engineering. We've also worked with addition engineering from RLK who have been consulting with Lakeview Hills Apartments. They are to the east of this development and we share the drainage ' basins and a number of our common boundaries in this particular site plan design. Our goal this evening is to explain any facet of this development that remains unclear from our preliminary presentations that you as City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 We just have a discussion about how it's going to be obtained for use by the city of Chanhassen. That leads us to the conditions 31 and 32 in the staff report as to public dedication. Full park fees, which we believe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150% of typical park fees for a neighborhood. We're looking for a little bit of a clarification then tonight and our counsel could talk to that if need be later. That's in the Minutes that we have from the concept plan approval on June 26th on page 32. The Mayor had asked the Parks Director what was going on with the lakefront. The reply discusses an acquisition, which we're comfortable with. Having either a combination of fees and acquisition of land and fees. But the conditions of approval that are recommended or are attached in this report, talk about dedication and that's a concept that we would like to get cleared up tonight. That really concludes the short portion of our presentation tonight. I don't need a long portion if you're comfortable with our plans are presented in your packets. If you have particular questions. In summary we have a very similar development proposal from what was here at the concept level and I can detail any of the particular components, private play area, the lake frontage in more detail. The housing products that we have around the perimeter. Any of the additional conditions of approval. Our counsel from Barney ... and Steffen is here tonight that is with us in real estate matters and their most pressing reason to be here tonight is our park dedication issue. Other than that we are more than willing to answer your questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. There are a lot of different things that have been brought up. One of the things Charles with this lift station. Some of that could be done differently than what was presumed previously. Charles Folch: Actually the, what will change, we've actually done an evaluation of the pipe sizes and due to the difference in reduction in density, it really isn't going to affect the change in pipe size that much. Where we will experience a cost savings is probably a lowering of one or two steps in the horsepower rating of a pump that we would need for the lift station so there will be some potential cost savings. I would say anywhere from maybe $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 with slightly smaller pumps. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is it all single phase with a particular area or is there three phases? Charles Folch: No, it's three phase. ■ Mayor Chmiel: Colleen? Kate Aanenson: I just have one quick comment. Mr. Jensen indicated that based on the land of the beachlot, ' he felt like you're giving approval to show that you look favorably upon the beachlot. We indicated in the staff report it requires a separate conditional use and there is some clouded issues as far as Lakeview Hills Apartments and we're not saying that we won't look at it. We just don't want to prejudice us. That's a whole separate issue and we want to make sure it's clear that approving this plan in no way gives approval to the beachlot. That's a separate permitting. It's not a condition but it is addressed in the staff report so we wanted to make sure that was clear. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you, I noticed we were still in the preliminary stage but I see that you brought some building materials. Do you have any facade drawings of the different types? ' Don Jensen: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern is that we do have some variation. City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 density, which is a valid concern. Where else do we put that? People have already made decisions on their homes based on what's around them and where do we put that so as Bob indicated, we really don't have a choice before we bring in addition areas inside the MUSA. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It is a good transition between... You're looking at marketing these between $120 and $160? Don Jensen: That's correct. Based on the square footages that you have, you're still looking at approximately somewhere between $75.00 and $100.00 finished square footage prices at a retail level based on what the different... so right now, given the information we understand about the Lyman Boulevard project and all the other factors, looking at this development, that's where we're believing we would like to market this. Kind of ■ where we think there's a strong nitch. Start getting about that price point... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: Well Colleen asked some of mine. Don, could you just talk a little bit about what's going to go on in the private play area? Don Jensen: Certainly. The sketch that I have up in front of me, which has the aerial photo of the overall area down on the far left side close to Kate describes, and I'll hold this up just above the big one for the moment. This is a blow up of this particular area here on the main concept plans which shows our overstory trees. We have our village series of homes, which is two story. This overall street steps up approximately a foot and a half each dwelling unit. We're substantial higher here. This is our high point in the whole development. Again we're stepping down and these dwelling units all step down almost two feet apiece and they're spaced a little bit farther apart and as this street goes down, that's what's happening. There's a landform so. In general, in plan it's not very well described but I guess as an overview that's what's occurring. If you drop down to this particular sketch here. What happens based on that triangular space, which was outlined in our minutes about .65 acres so it's approximately 2/3 of an acre large and that is keeping kind of a private space and measuring it, for discussion purposes, of about 10 or 15 feet for each dwelling unit. Roughly in line with what we have on this planting concept here and also immediately behind this particular walkway that's shown on this sketch here. Likewise that same line occurs in our cottages series on this side. What you have, because these buildings are stepped, is essentially an upper plate, which is this area. What we're looking at there is that this area be set aside, we believe a program should be more adult uses. It could be a very active gardening area. It could be an active flower gardening area. It could just be an open space for sitting, remembering that this is a fairly high point, approximately 40 feet above Lake Riley. It'd be a very nice viewing area. Could have benches. You might even find that the mix of people in this neighborhood would like a private volleyball area. It would be big enough for instance to accomplish that. As these structures are stepping down, what we have is, on the grading plan in your packets, a little spill or a ridge that falls down or cascades down is how I describe it. Previously it would be similar to what you have in the upper tier parking to your lower tier parking. You have probably not quite as severe a grade change as that example but that's what's occurring in this center planting area. So you have a smaller pocket that's at a lower tier that we described as being possible for a totlot area, if in fact that's what the mix of residents desires. We offered it to the Planning Commission that we were concerned about having a mandate to fund a play structures in here that these people would then be paying insurance costs on. You know as the Council looking at your budget what liability insurance coverage is for parks and play areas. We want to be careful that these people were very willing to step into that insurance 2 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, I would like to double check. In your packets that you received all of the drawings. ' You have a reduction. I have them on a board but did not end up in my packet so what I'll do is hold up a plain blueprint. Mayor Chmiel: I was sort of looking for that rendition as to what you have for the on slab ones with the single. You don't have anything as such, other than what's in blueprints? Don Jensen: No I don't. Not tonight. What I have in front of you, which should be reduced on the packet are our two story product. The elevations are down at the lower portion of this particular drawing and our floor plans. These are going from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 square feet of total finished space. You can see that the elevations were slightly different for each particular floor plan similar to how we were having the elevations constructed for the cottages. The entry points were again set back from the garage front and the use of windows above the garage, to use in this case there's an example of garages that are for two cars but they are a single garage door configurations. There's some variation going on. That would replicated in this as well as I believe the cottages. The cottages plan, which wasn't illustrated in front of you. You have to look at the plan for them also has several that are turned 90 degrees and I can show you that on our plans where we have. Those are in very fixed locations and have reasons for that option happening. For example we have two units that are side by side in this location. This one, if you look closely actually has the garage doors access from the side rather than from head on and that was important for us one, because we had the street curving away. But two, it reduces any type of conflict movement where Lakeview Hills Apartments is now accessing the public street. If it were a head on garage, it'd be backing up in essence out right next to probably one of our highest conflict movements of the whole subdivision. We also have options as we fan the streets of possibly this unit or this unit to go to the side load. And this dwelling over down through here at the end is a side load so of the 26, we've probably got 4 or 5 that are the side load configuration representing about 15 %. We don't have that option with this particular building type. Mr. Mayor, was this blueprint that I'm holding up at least adequate enough for the moment? Mayor Chmiel: Right now, yeah. I believe you wanted to discuss regarding Park and Recreation as we have within our Minutes on page 17. Did you have some discussion that you wanted to do a little more on that? Don Jensen: Jeff, do you have? Jeff Johnson: Thank you Don. Members of the Council, my name is Jeff Johnson. I'm a partner... office. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about a number of legal issues but what our position is that what the conditions of the plat as they relate to the park dedication of full park dedication fees paid per unit as well as the dedication of land itself along the lakefront is unfair. That is asking for too much. Is there a substantial reason why the city needs the lakefront property because of this development? Well if someone argues that there is, as you can see the proposal doesn't ask for a building site or anything to be put on that portion of the property, so we could just make that a private dedication to the homeowners association, if this plat really is what is driving the need for that additional park space so, we're looking at it as it's a city wide effort. It's the need for a trail and we understand that and that's perfectly legitimate in our mind that the city would want something like that. But to charge park dedication fee on every unit, as well as require a dedication really seems to be over, stepping over the bounds as an extraction from the developer and it's that what we want to consider, or this Council to consider. I don't think that we're saying that we're opposed to having that lakefront area as a park. But if you take it as a park, if you require dedication, there should be some credit given back for park dedication fees that the individual units would be responsible to pay. The other issue that I'd ask is, are we being treated differently than any other developer within the city. 11 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Councilman Senn: Begging Council's indulgence for a minute. I had a dumb idea. You know and I don't think it's something that we necessarily have to resolve tonight because it's just something that off the top of the head is, as we were going through some of this, but here we have a product that starts at $120,000.00. That's a new kind of product that we haven't seen in a long time and you look at the project, I think the project really looks good in relationship to the product that it's delivering. At the same time, that $120,000.00 range really made me start thinking a lot because if you look at all the affordable housing issues, the maximum limit under affordable housing is $115,000.00. You know, what's the old expression? We talk the talk, we walk the walk as it relates to affordable housing all the time but here we are another situation where instead of trying to take things off, we're trying to add things on which is going to push that $120,000.00 or necessitate them to try to sell these units for closer to $160,000.00 rather than $120,000.00. Is there any, I mean would Council be, I mean I'd love to explore the option, if nothing else explore it. You know you've got 76 units here. 76 units at $120,000.00 plus. What if we made it 71 units at $120,000.00 plus and got 5 units dispersed through here at $95,000.00 and forget the park dedication fees. And we've accomplished 5 affordable housing units under well, for a distance under the maximum but at the same time it helps us meet some of the goals we've talked about in the past because if affordable housing is going to work, it's going to be dispersed. I mean here you've got 5 out of 76 units. It's single family, which was another key point. It allows it to be the same style because we require the developer to build it to $120,000.00 and sell it for $95,000.00, which makes it fit with the rest of the neighborhood. But that's where you know, where it's a trade -off between us getting maybe park dedication fees and I don't know. It just seems to me that if we don't take the -time to try to have that discussion, we could really be missing the boat here and we're so close here, we ought to take advantage of it I think. And if it, this is preliminary but you know, spend a couple weeks doing that I think could really have some merit. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that staff could have discussions with and I'm sure they're not able to give any answers right now. Councilman Senn: No, and I'm not asking for them. Mayor Chmiel: Right. But it's a concept. It's an idea and I'd like to know what the pros and cons to those specific issues would be as well. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree. It's really, it's off the top of the head so I mean it may be a terribly bad idea. It's I'd like we should look at. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's something that we can come up with. Councilman Senn: I mean I'm curious. Would you have an objection to that? Don Jensen: You know I think right now what we're trying to do is make sure that we've got a binding approval at our preliminary plat and that we don't have any conditions in there that we're sitting on our knees here begging for forgiveness on a few months from now. Councilman Senn: But to you it's a financial trade -off, correct? Don Jensen: You know those things certainly seem reasonable for us to explore as a company. Our goal is to try to deliver housing where people seem to have a nitch that's not being built and this is one of them... extremely difficult to deliver at market rate without any kind of subsidy housing at, falling within the Met Council guidelines of affordability. Usually it's some give and take. 13 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Roger Knutson: I'm always happy. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Senn: I did already. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve preliminary approval of PUD #95 -1: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)(plans dated 4/17/95, revised 5/4/95 and 7/17/95, prepared by Pioneer Engineering), approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and associated right- of-way; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero lot line homes on 19.95 acres; a variance for wetland setbacks for Lots 12 -16, Block 1 and Lots 16 -19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown on the plans; and a wetland alteration permit for North Bay , subject to the following conditions: 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9 -1. ' 2. Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3 as an outlot. Lot 57, Block I and Lot 21, Block 2 are unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space. 3. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings, provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2; increase the number of evergreens to a minimum of 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by ordinance; and incorporate additional evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor. 4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory installation of the landscaping. 5. Revise grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East. 8. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their construction. 9. The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary sediment basins, Type III erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site restoration. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 10. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and 15 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction ' and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 22. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. The applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary easements for grading outside the plat. All site grading must be completed prior to street construction. 23. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be relocated in conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to vacate the existing utility easement once the line has been relocated. ' 24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the first phase of Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project 93 -32B and MnDot approval of the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall also dedicate the required 80 foot wide right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard prior to the finalization of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and horizontal alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to City and MnDot -State Aid approval. 25. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading with seed and disc - mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored in accordance with the wetland restoration/alteration permit. 26. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes: a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A. b. Provide outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman Boulevard to the wetland ' mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and from the mitigation area to Wetland Basin A. c. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all wetlands and mitigation areas. d. Provide a temporary sediment basin on Lot 57, Block I in or near the proposed irrigation house between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1. e. All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the streets are paved and the site fully revegetated. t f. Revise grading plan to ascertain most appropriate method for conveying stormwater across Lots 4 through 31, Block 1. ' g. Add catch basins on new driveway access to apartments. h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets. i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west property line. ' 17 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 38. The applicant will work with staff to consider the Klingelhutz right -of -way alignment proposal for Lake ' Riley Road East. All voted in favor and the motion carried',unanimously. INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST FO "AFTER THE FACT" GRADING /EARTHWORK FOR 36,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL SOUT14 OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD; HOLASEK GREENHOU E. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why don't we just move it? 1 Councilman Senn: Move approval. Kate Aanenson: I'll go ahead and cover it. This is an after the fact violation of grading on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed it and recommended approval, except that they requested that we look at the ' city's cost and attorney fees involved and! double fee. They wanted that spelled out, which Dave has in his staff report. But as it turns out, Mr. Holasek went ahead and got some, had the availability of getting some dirt and graded the site without approval based on the timeliness... We did look at it based on the fact that there is a wetland in there. We did have some issues with that, but it appeared that it was exempt so that was our biggest concern and we wanted the site re- established and making sure that it wouldn't cause a problem in the future so we did add conditions of approval, which we are recommending and we did add again, number 3 which the Planning Commission wanted us to address. Excuse me, number 5. Attorney fees. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is Mr. Holasek here? Is there anything that you wish to address in regard to this? 1 Mr. Holasek: No, I don't. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Bring itl back to Council. Councilman Senn: Move approval as per staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman N`iason seconded to approve Interim Use Permit #95 -3 for Holasek Greenhouses for the material that has been hauled in as shown on the plans prepared by William Engelhardt & Associates dated May 31, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall pay a grading ermit fee in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Appendix 70 -13, based on the amount of eartdi work hauled into the site (36,000 cubic yards). The applicant shall be responsible for a grading permit fee of $319.50. 2. The applicant shall complete and resubmit the signed Wetland Conservation Act certificate of exemption. ' 3. The interim use permit shall expir on October 15, 1995. All disturbed areas as a result of the filling shall be reseeded and mulched or employed in crops. The applicant shall supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $2,500.00 to guarantee restoration and compliance with conditions of this permit. 19 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: We're aware of the fact, and again I was trying to get back to Orlin's office. We saw a number ' of property owners come in where the increase was 4% to 5 %, according to Orlin. We had others who came in and said that they had an addition, they had this, they had whatever but the general increase for those neighborhoods that were re- evaluated was 5% or less. ' Councilman Senn: You mean this past year? Don Ashworth: This past year. ' Councilman Senn: When he was here for the hearing I thought he said 6% to 8 %. Don Ashworth: No, and I could re- verify that. I'm just cautious of setting it at that 5% lower figure right now and then finding out that wasn't really correct and we didn't really fully understand the additional costs associated with the community center or you know, whatever else may come up during the budgetary process and then our hands are tied. I do know costs associated with debt will be up significantly more in 1996. But other general operating costs I'm not sure of at this point. Councilman Senn: Well is there a number inbetween that we can come up with that effectively when these notices would go out would show no net change rather than increases again? I mean that's the problem. I mean you send it out the maximum and it shows the tax increase and the phone starts ringing and everybody believes that's what it's going to be all the way up to the point that they come in here. - Councilwoman Dockendorf: On the other hand you tie your hands if you set it at some number less. Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm saying. I mean is there some kind of a safer number inbetween that would effectively cause no net increase? I mean here you're saying 5% decrease. You know hey. Don Ashworth: Well if, oh I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Don Ashworth: If all properties within the community saw a 5% increase, then sending out a notice that they could show a 5% decrease would in fact have their taxes neutral. It would stay exactly where it is. The problem is, let's make the assumption that Orlin is correct and that 1/4 of the total community was in fact re- evaluated. That's every 4 years they're supposed to take and carry out the evaluation process for each ' neighborhood. When you would do your 5% reduction, all neighborhoods would benefit from that reduction. Those that were not re- evaluated. So the net effect back to the city is, since that increase did not occur to all of them. Only to let's say 1/3 or 1/4 of those, as far as our revenues are concerned, we would only see... The average affect would be like a reduction of 1% for all neighborhoods. 1.25 and whereas the 1/4 of the neighborhoods that truly were increased by 5% would actually have a 3.75% increase. Do you follow me on that? ' Councilman Mason: A question. Can we set the public hearing date tonight and adopt the maximum proposed levy 2 weeks from tonight? I Don Ashworth: No. It has to be returned by 21 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 takes into account the recommendation of the Chamber, along with some additional criteria specified by staff. Again, all of these outdoor sales events would require a temporary permit which would be issued administratively. Temporary sales is currently listed in the CBD, BF, BG, BH and BN districts. As you're aware, this requires a $400.00 application fee, a public hearing in front of Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff is of the opinion that we could look at some of these administratively in certain districts, and those districts being the CBD, BF, BG, BH, BN and OI districts. These districts would be changed to allow for an administrative permit. In an attempt to address some of the aesthetics concerned, we set standards for the use of mobile equipment, lighting and other related items. Because it involves administrative permit, we tried to clearly spell out what the criteria would be for each one of these. That's why the ordinance is kind of lengthy. We thought it is needed to put the standards and requirements right in there so that everybody knows what's expected of them. And we added a purpose and finding section to the ordinance to try to clearly identify what the intent of this ordinance is. That we're looking to promote things like sidewalk sales, Christmas tree sales, and similar events that kind of help to evoke a community spirit or get people out of their cars walking around downtown. Obviously we spent a lot of time in creating a downtown that's pedestrian friendly. We feel that if done properly, and in moderation, that these type of special sales events done outside can add a lot of flavor to the community. With that we are recommending approval of the ordinance. On August 16th the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed ordinance. The Commission did recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. Members of the Chamber of Commerce are also present at this meeting and spoke in favor of the ordinance. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone have any questions of John? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, a couple. Is there any fee associated with this permit? John Rask: There would be, yes. It has not been set. We'd look into what it would cost to administrate it and base the fee on that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Did you look at any specific length of time? John Rask: Yes we did. We did break it down to the sidewalk sales we limited to, well Christmas trees and produce sales we limited to 60 days per calendar year, and no more than 3 activities per year. Things like, oh if somebody wants to do non - profit type sale. A hamburger sale outside of Festival or something along that line or just a fairly minimal sidewalk sale, we put a timeframe of 15 days per year with a maximum of a 3 day display period. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: I don't have any questions at this time. I know this has come up before and I think this looks like a lot of thought's gone into it and I think as long as we maintain some control over it, I'd like to see it. I know Excelsior does this kind of stuff and there are people just crawling on the sidewalks. So I think it's certainly worth a try. Mayor Chmiel: Yep, agreed. Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: No questions. I have some comments if we're going to come back to that. 23 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. ' Mayor Chmiel: Mike? ' Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll call a question. Is there a motion? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move the first reading to the City Code regarding seasonal and temporary sales. ' Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first leading of the amendment ' to the City Code regarding Seasonal/Temporary Sales. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor? I'd just point out for next time. Although this is first reading, it passed on a simple majority. The next reading requires... Mayor Chmiel: Right, 4/5. Thank you. Okay, we're about as close to 9:00 as we're going to get. I'd like to go ' back to item number 5. PRELB19NARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 6.55 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS A ND VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 18 -57(0) WHICH AL UP TO 4 LOTS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY RIDGE ROAD NORTH OF PLEASANT VIEW R OAD JAMES AND KAREN MEYERS. ' Public Present: Name Address ' S. Rosenberg 6175 Ridge Road Carl Zinn 5820 Ridge Road Hank & Sharon Graef Ridge Road Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Road Irene Joseph 6290 Ridge Road Deanne Schilling 6280 Ridge Road Dean Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road Jim & Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The applicant's proposing to subdivide 6.24 acres ' into 4 lots. The subdivision will create 4 lots from the existing 2. In conjunction with the subdivision, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.57 which states there shall be no more than 4 homes on a private street. The application as submitted does not provide any dedicated right -of -way or improvements to the ' existing street. The four lots average approximately 1.56 acres and range in size from 47,000 square feet to approximately 97,000 square feet. All lots meet the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the ' 25 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Carl Zinn: Sure. Regarding the recommendations. I'll take some of the easy ones first. One is the pool. The ' requirement to put a fence around the pool prior to the recording of the final plat. The Meyers are building a home across the street. They're staying in the area. They're building a home on Christmas Lake. Their home has been sold. The pool is going to be closed down here shortly and the new owner is going to be putting up a fence. There is an ordinance that covers that. It would be in violation and so we would like to take the final file, the final plat without that fence having been constructed. We agree to apply for a permit and will escrow, will get a bid and will escrow some money and if we could have that changed, that would be helpful. The next item has to deal with the tree preservation. Mayor Chmiel: John, maybe we could put that as item number 18. ' John Rask: Okay. Carl Zinn: It's already on there. ' Kate Aanenson: It's number 10. We'd just modify that. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, yes. ' Carl Zinn: The other one deals with, and I ... tree preservation. Councilman Mason: Page 8. Tree conservation area. Carl Zinn: Tree conservation area. After looking at the proposed building plat and walking the lot and seeing where the trees were, we've been real sensitive to where the trees are and where we want to keep them at. We ' think that the 200 feet is overly restrictive and we'd like a little more leeway in where we build the place. We think we can actually save some major trees, and there aren't very many major trees where this most west part of that tree preservation area anyway. That 200 feet so we'd like to have that reduced to 150 feet. I think the ' Lot 3, the one to the north is 135 feet. And when you go through it, it's kind of a brushy area and the way we would like to put a pad in there, having it that deep would preclude having a front yard at all. We really wouldn't probably save some trees actually in the rear of the lot. So that'd be an item that we'd like to have looked at. And then the tough item is the road and there's two issues on the road. One being the widening of ' it. We had all the neighbors here at the Planning Commission. I think the reason that they're not here is that even though the Planning Commission is an advisory, they're relying somewhat on the fact that they felt that this was a country setting and that to apply urban standards here is ... so there are a number of neighbors here and I think I'll let them speak to the widening of the road issue. It deals primarily with saving trees and saving the country ambience of the terrific neighborhood. One that's enjoyed by a lot of people from all over the city. There's people from Fox Chase and people from all over that spend a lot of time walking around that lake and ' across that road. That's one issue. The other issue is the turn around and whether or not, what are the safety issues. You know I don't know much about fire fighting but it seems to me that the problem is a turn around which sort of by definition means the fire engine's already there and the real problem is getting the fire engine out of there. And the road is a through road. It was closed a long time ago to pedestrian type traffic. The reason for the closure was safety. Everybody was, it was the shortcut to high school is what it ended up being. And so everybody from Fox Chase used to be my front yard. I grew up next to Cunningham's in Doc Thompson's house and we all, all the people from Carver Beach and all the people in the Minnetonka school system, that's the way we went to school and so, much to my chagrin, all of a sudden one day I couldn't get to high school that way. Had to go all the way around. And that's the reason it was cut off but even today. Even r 27 II City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 feel like there will be enough car traffic or vehicle traffic to make that much difference. However, I do see ' every day large numbers of people using Ridge Road to walk, bike, take their children, their dogs, any kind of recreation around Christmas Lake using Ridge Road. It's a beautiful road. Running, jogging, whatever. And I feel like widening it, taking the trees out would destroy that and I think also the City of Chanhassen should ' realize that in a sense we're providing sort of a recreation area for the city with a private road. You all really don't put anything in to maintaining it. Our Ridge Road Homeowners Association does that and I think it would be a real pity to see it disturbed and I'd really like you to seriously consider leaving the road as it is. I'm all in favor of safety but I do feel that it wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience to. Just like the garbage ' trucks do. Thank you. Patsy Whiteman: I'm Patsy Whiteman at 825 Pleasant View Road. I just had a question about the width of the ' road. Are all the roads, all the public roads in Chanhassen 20 feet wide? I'd like to know what Horseshoe Curve is or the road out to Tanadoona. Are those all 20 feet wide? ' Mayor Chmiel: Charles, can you address that specific question? Charles Folch: Well since oh geez, probably since the middle 80's when the private driveway ordinance went into effect, any existing situations or any newly constructed private driveways have been constructed to meet ' that standard. You do have roads within the city that are older roads. You've got roads in Carver Beach that probably, a few of them that are probably very narrow. They do exist. I guess they're not great situations. If we ever have an improvement project or something like that, we tend to buy and take care of those problems at ' that time. Fortunately most of the ones that we do have, they're fully developed. There won't be any additional intensity put on those roads and so they're kind of left at status quo until there really becomes a problem or a need from the residents that live there but, so. ' Patsy Whiteman: What is the width of the start of Ridge Road? I mean it's different at the end than it is at the beginning. ' Charles Folch: Yeah. As I understand it, I believe it varies as much a 4 or 5 feet in difference along the width anywhere from 16 and I think it even gets as narrow as 12 feet in some places. ' Patsy Whiteman: So it only gets really narrow at the end point where which would be serving, if I've done it correctly, would only be serving about 3 or 4 homes. One of those would be our cabin, which is a seasonal use and if I'm picturing it right, the road is much wider at the beginning. It only narrows up by the Price's would be the most narrow part, which would be a very difficult part to widen. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? ' Steve Rosenberg: My name is Steve Rosenberg. I'm at 6175 Ridge Road. I am the parcel that abuts the Meyer property. I am in Hennepin County on the Shorewood side. The current gate that is on Ridge Road is predominantly, or 90% on my property. The turn around that is mentioned several times by the planning department is my property. We support the Meyer property proposal on two basis. One, that the gate and road ' be left alone in it's current state. Possibly upgrading the gate for a safer gate but now widening the road. And number two, that there be a restricted covenant on the building pad because of the narrowness of the Parcel number one. It's 100 feet to 135 feet and we'll place a home between the Meyer's pool and my property line, which is very narrow. We support that as is. But any changes to the road or a turn around on the Chanhassen side would impact my property. All too often we hear in these meetings, both on the Shorewood side and on ' 29 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 edge of the road on this east side and the reason for it was, when Bob Niles built this home he pastured horses all down through here and they had this all stomped down, grazed down except right up along the fence line where the trees grew and if you've been up there again, it's beautiful trees. Maples and pine and there's hackberry and basswood. Now some of those trees I'm kind of proud of because I watered those back in the 70's with permission of the Nile's that lived here and then Dr. Meyer after he moved in. So again, that doesn't make them sacred but it makes them darn precious to some of us who have been there. As far as widening the road, it would be extremely difficult and again hopefully some of you have been up there, or most of you, and where Jack Fess lives, right down here at the beginning of Ridge Road, his driveway starts on a steep incline up to his house and again then the trees take over across up through here. My home, with the edge of the basement right here, is only 25 feet from the existing road and I've learned here just a couple years ago, it's only 15 feet from my property line. The road actually veered over into this area when it was just a trail so that there wasn't much attention paid. The Price's home is right here. The bedroom of this home is 15 feet from the edge of the road. Directly across from there is the Andrew Meyer's building, which is another 15 feet on the other side. So the practicality of widening that road any is slim. It'd be a major, major disruption and cost to somebody to make that possible and a tremendous inconvenience. So I think again you have to look at the practical side of it. Again the request is only for 2 additional lots. This is a lot now and of course this is so we're actually asking for 2 additional lots which I really don't think appreciably change the safety factor, the access or the fire factor, whatever. There has been two, I think reasonable requests which we should have maybe thought of before by the Planning Commission, and that's to have a more viable gate up here rather than a heavy chain across here. To have an approved, a highway approved break away gate, plus trimming back some of the brush that has grown up quite a bit around here and it's a little hard to see around here. Obviously you don't want the fire trucks or anybody else's trucks to have to go through brush that's sticking out and possibly scratching those vehicles. One other point which, well I have it ... interested in. This has all been so serious. Somebody asked me the other day, he said you've lived there all those years and it's a small neighborhood and private road, he says have you been very exclusive up there and I said no. We actually have, right on that Ridge Road there, we have an Anglo Saxon Protestant family still living there and that's our token family that we've tried to keep there through these years. And if there's any interest in seeing them, they're available for viewing but because of the demand, it's by appointment only. So we've got all kinds of neighbors up there. Gray ones. We've got a great small neighborhood and we enjoy it. It's kind of primitive but we like it that way. Just one last point that I think might have some impact for you. When all this was done, those first homes were built, when we built up there, again it was a dirt road. A trail and part of it was Carver County and so really nobody paid any attention to where we built, and we didn't care because on a dirt road that far from Minneapolis, who in the hell was going to come out there and build alongside us anyway. So we felt this was going to our's, the way it was for a long time to come. Well 30 years ago Chanhassen annexed that area because we were only Carver County up until that time. And again I said, everybody did what they wanted to do and did their thing and so the homes that are causing the problem were built then. Before this was part of Chanhassen so I think that that might have some, I realize you can't grandfather every dumb thing that we all did years ago but it's something to consider. The road is narrow. It's suitable. It's acting, it serves a lot of people. As was mentioned before, we have all kinds of visitors going up and down the road and they enjoy it as much as we do. So we didn't oppose the annexation at that time. We felt it to be good to be part of Chanhassen and I say, little did I know what was going to happen to the tax situation, which isn't all of Chanhassen's problem because I did read my statement and know what the school assessment does but so I guess from a practical basis, to make much change in that area really would be crippled to us so hopefully we don't have to maim the neighborhood in order to protect it, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Dean. Is there anybody else? 31 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 link out of the chain and open it and get through if we have to. We'd be comfortable with that in lieu of the turn around. The turn around that's on the Shorewood side would not accommodate a fire truck so we're better off with a thru street. The draw back is it's not on any city maps. It's not on any city Chanhassen maps so our guys don't know what's beyond there. Where it turns around. How far it goes or what's even beyond that point ' so that's where we're at a little disadvantage but I think with the proper gate, more importantly the property width, we can live with that without a cul -de -sac turn around. So that's one item I'm okay with. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark Littfin: Another issue would be the trees that are hanging over the road and I talked to Mr. Meyers. You did talk about trimming them back and the concern is, we did drive a truck up there last week and the concern ' is breaking off radio antennas, lights, scratching the paint. Paint jobs are spendy when you try to keep the trucks up and looking nice and keep them from rusting from scratches so the trimming the trees was something that I think can be accomplished without any big problems. ' Mayor Chmiel: Trimming of trees up and down that road would be, what areas are you talking and how would we get the permission from the adjacent property owners to allow us or allow them to do that kind of trimming? ' Mark Littfin: Possibly something, I don't know if it's something that the city could do. I mean the city has a pretty good handle on trimming trees. The ones they have to trim to accommodate snowplows and school buses and equipment. I mean we could use public works Director as a guy to say cut them back. so far or walk the street and take a look and cut them back so far but I think we can come to something on that. And the height is certainly a big thing because the trucks are 12 feet high, 10 feet high so some of them we could drive under... Dean Wetzel: Mr. Mayor? We have a road commissioner, 1 don't know if you've met Jack Fess or not and he would be glad to work with you. He coordinates the work we have to go on the road, etc. and come up with a program if there's someone from your department to come up and guide us, and we'll do it because we're used to taking care of this road and paying for it and with your guidance, we'll get done what you want done and ' then let you approve or disapprove that when it's done. Mark Littfin: That'd be fine. t Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark Littfin: The other issue is with access with the road width and getting access. I've been out there on ' three separate occasions. Whether I caught it on a good day or bad day. The first time I went up with Sharmin and the Blazer and somebody had just either sealcoated a driveway or put a new driveway in and it was at the entrance and the vehicles parking on Ridge Road present a problem, which we found out twice. The first time we would have gotten through with great difficulty. The second time when I saw Mr. Meyers, there was a lawn service crew totally blocking the road so if we would have had a fire up beyond that point, I doubt if we would have gotten through at a reasonable time so I've got some real problems with any kind of parking on that road the way it is right now. 12 foot width is just not going to accommodate a car where cars park plus equipment getting up there so, but they also did comment that they would, they would put up no parking signs or fire lane signs, something along that line. The other issue is the width and I recognize and the fire code recognizes that there are, there were and are situations that exist before the city did have a fire code and we're not going to change those. What we look at with new homes coming in, I had addressed in the packet to the Planning Commission that we already have 7 or 8 homes that were existing. With the new homes, let's not make the 33 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve preliminary and final plat and the variance from Section 18 -57(o) permitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private street for Subdivision #95 -16, Meyer's 2nd Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions: 1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to issuance of building permits on the lots. ' 2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction of the new houses. The applicant will be charged 1 $20.00 per sign. A qualified wetland biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the existence or non - existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site. 3. The proposed single family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969.00 and $5,240.00 respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording. 4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and staked or restored with wood fiber blanket. ' 5. The grading plan shall include the following items: a. Erosion control fencing. b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway grade and minimize tree removal and grading. c. Access Lot I from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal. d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right -of -way easement over the westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private right -of -way and not maintained by the city. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road. 7. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide and install the necessary traffic signs. 8. A tree conservation area shall be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a driveway which does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade and for tree protection. 9. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary demolition permits. 35 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 each nicked another $5.00 per player for an annual parking permit. That generates about $4,700.00 in revenues of that $16,000.00. In addition, many company picnics are sponsored at Lake Ann Park and again they're nicked for either more often a $2.00 daily permit for each of their guests. But they either pay that in a couple of ways. They present a business card or a pass at the gate. Those are collected by the gate attendant and then our staff bills the company for the individual receipts. Or they ask their guest to pay that as they come in through the park, and that collects again in 1995 approximately $6,000.00 of that $16,000.00. So we have a total of close to $11,000.00 of this $16,000.00 which is just really being collected through other means or other avenues than actual just cars coming in to park to go to the swimming beach or use other areas. At least one of the original reasonings behind the fee program, which I find most plausible is that, at the time that the lifeguards were furnished at Lake Ann, they figured you know we need to pay those costs. That lifeguard contract was up to about $18,000.00 a year through Minnetonka Community Services and here we have net revenues of approximately $6,000.00 - $5,500.00 so we're not recouping. We're about a third of the way there to recoup those costs so if that was the reason the job isn't getting done, but nevertheless you will have net revenues of about $6,000.00 at Lake Ann Park this year through this program. Interestingly, net revenues per day are about $5,800.00 and if you break that out per hour that the gate guard sits at that gate shack, you earn ' about $6.00 per hour. You have a manager's comment as well, which I also heard from City Council members in this regard that during the audit process, with the reduction in federal and state aids, city's are encouraged to keep their user fees up. User fee levels up, both in dollar revenues and in the amount of user fees. User fee ' programs, so this recommendation comes perhaps in an untimely moment. Nevertheless, I bring you the recommendation of the Park Commission to abandon Lake Ann parking permits. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Councilman Senn: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I hate this annual discussion, but nevertheless I'm standing with what I've said in prior years. This is more hassle than it's worth. You know. What I hear from people, or not so much that, well first of all they're annoyed with, and I think it's unfair but it's the, they don't anticipate it. I mean they drive up and they don't expect to pay a fee and that's what really annoys them. They don't have the extra cash or whatever but anyway I guess in a nutshell it's just not worth the hassle. I'm not certain that a roving park ranger expense will make it through the budget process but for $5,500.00, let's find it somewhere else. And now for an opposing point of view. Councilman Mason: You've got it. I personally, well no. I don't think we should change it. I understand all the reasons for letting people in free, and I think that's all fine and well. We're talking, you know I look at the manager's comment and I happen to agree with it. I remember when I first started cross country skiing at county parks which was back in the mid 70's, and I think a park sticker was a buck and you didn't have to have a license to ski. Well, I certainly hit the roof when I had to get a cross country ski license but by god, I buy ' one every year, you know to use the trails. The trails are maintained and it may be only recouping a small part of what it costs to run that park but I think that's a revenue stream, albeit small. I have not had one person, and that includes my wife when she took the kids to swimming. I didn't even know we could get in free if we had ' kids taking swimming lessons. We paid the permit anyway. No one's ever said one thing good or bad to me about it. I'm in favor of maintaining the fees. ' 37 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we don't break it out for the daily pass, whether that's resident or non - resident? Do you have a feel for that? Todd Hoffman: No I don't. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not I'll call the question. All those in favor. Councilman Senn: No. We don't' even have a motion on the table yet. Do we? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Oh I thought, I'm sorry. I thought you made a motion. Councilman Mason: No, but I'd be happy to. I'll make the motion that we retain the Lake Ann entrance fees and I'd suggest that we continue to search new ways to obtain revenue from Lake Ann Park. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? If not, I'll second it. ' Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to retain the Lake Ann Park entrance fees for 1996. Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition. The motion was tied with a 2 to 2 vote. - Mayor Chmiel: That mean it's going to go back to Council at the next meeting on the 25th. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEE POLICIES CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER- Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Chanhassen Recreation Center officially opened, along with Bluff Creek Elementary School on Tuesday, September 5th of this month. The center is experiencing a trial opening if you will. An open house effective through the 24th of this month. We took ownership of the building 2 months late... contracts so all furnishings are not available. All the equipment isn't there and so we couldn't offer the complete product at the posted price until we had the building fully outfitted. But in the meantime we're still working through policies of operation and one which has certainly received a lot of attention on the administrative level is who's going to be charged what to use the particular components of the building. The City Council has authorized policies relating to the rental of the meeting spaces within the community center, or the recreation center. However, in regard to user fees for what is called the punch card system, exercise with options program, there are still some outstanding questions which we would like the City Council to answer for us. Specifically, how would you like to charge resident, excuse me. How would you like to charge employees of the city of Chanhassen. Those people who work within the city of Chanhassen and how would you like to handle employees of the City of Chanhassen itself. Obviously one of the main inquiries comes from school teachers who happen to be teaching at that particular building. They think it's very convenient but we also have how many employees within this city that work here, 10,000- 12,000 jobs. However many jobs we have within the community. Those folks are wondering what basis they're going to be charged for using the building so we have a very functional center, from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on nearly 7 days per week so we can cater to those alternate shift people. When they get off work in the morning from any one of our industrial buildings. They can come over and participate in recreation. But are they going to be charged, if they live outside the community, at a non - resident rate or are they going to be charged as a resident of Chanhassen, since they do work here? And then the other question is, how would you like to handle the 39 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Have we had any discussion with corporate people in regards to this? ■ Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Chmiel: To see maybe what their thoughts might be at all in regard to maybe subsidizing or things of that particular nature. This fitness thing that Colleen mentioned, that's true within a lot of larger corporations whereby they will provide some dollars for that. Physically fit employees are worth more than those who are not. It's the same thing that we go through the process with our firemen by providing the downstairs of the fire department to exercise and get in shape. That to me makes some sense. I don't know if you feel that that's something that should be discussed with some of the, few of the corporate members in the community to see what they might even think. They are part of Chanhassen. They are a part of the community. A lot of them ' who own their businesses and live here. I shouldn't say a lot but a good share. I think maybe it should just be, to invite them to sit down and just talk about it and see what happens. Mark. Councilman Senn: I think we, well we have a facility with a limited capacity. I guess we haven't really defined that capacity yet. That's what bothers me. I'm not sure that even, you know. I think that's something we're going to have to seek out and find I'm not sure whether we have them pay a resident or anon- resident fee is really going to make a whole lot of difference there because if I'm reading the proposal right here, you're ' basically talking 50 cents difference per visit. Or less. And stuff. In my mind it ought to be very clear. If there's a resident rate, there's a non - resident rate. And if the difference is 50 cents, so be it. There should be a difference. As far as city employees go, I don't think it should be part of this fee policy period. I think it ' should be part of our employee benefits policy that it's included as a resident fee so then we don't have to bastardize the policy. And it seems to me otherwise we keep the policy, at least to start with, very simple, which treats it as resident and non - resident and with that minor difference, let's view it as a learning experience and see where things go from there but I think there needs to be a delineation between residents and non- residents and I really don't think we should start out coming out of the hopper so to speak with saying this group's different than that group, because I think it's going to cause a great deal of confusion and I think it's going to inundate us with requests from some people to be treated like other people and everything else. So that would be my recommendation at least to start with. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess you've got some direction. We can wait for those changes. Todd Hoffman: Would you like to make that a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll make mine a motion. See if it gets a second. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. Well you're talking about a 50 cents differential to come out of the current employee benefit budget of the city. Councilman Senn: No, what I'm saying is don't even mention city employees in here. What we do is we put it in the city personnel benefits package that they are included, no matter what the fee is, as a resident fee. Okay, period. So I mean they're paying a resident fee regardless of where they live and that's part of the employment contract or whatever with the city. Beyond that, we have residents. We have non - residents. We have two fees. They're 50 cents difference, at least to start with and I assume we're going to be re- examining that annually. Let's start with that and beyond that there should be no delineation between groups or of groups. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, second. 41 I City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any questions of Todd? Any discussion? Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: No, I have a couple points I'd like to raise if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: You know I agree 100% that we should buy it from the State. I think from their, for the time being, I don't know. I really question the rush and wonder why we just don't hold it. You know ' effectively doing this, you know it seems to me normally this is part of an overall negotiation and development package. That they're trying to negotiate some things and we're trying to negotiate some things and that's part of the process and we end up with a final package. I mean here it seems to me we're giving something away up front. Well I'll say more than giving away. I mean we're basically going to put, what is that, about 70 some thousand dollars in their pocket instantly overnight. I mean what they're selling their property for is $1.00 a square foot more than what we're paying the State for it. And more than they're going to buy it from us for. So I mean to me we're giving them something. I mean it's a dollar a square foot. That's significant. $70 some thousand dollars. Why shouldn't that be part of a development negotiation as it relates to the development of that parcel. Why should it not be part of the negotiation as it relates to furnishing the right -of -way there and everything else. I mean it just seems to me we're kind of rushing this. Putting the cart before the horse but again, I agree we ought to acquire it because then I think we're in the control position. And then I think we ought to hang tight and wait. It's going to happen pretty soon. I mean DataServ's got some plans of their own. There's plans on the property further on the northern edge. At this point I mean when they come exactly come ' in with something solid, you know it may be a little while. Just a thought. Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, and I don't disagree with it but, $75,000.00 and they turn around and pay us $75,000.00 back and we get the easements from them, which normally costs us something to buy anyway. By having them acquire those properties with their proposed expansions that they may be looking at, I'd rather see taxing dollars come back to us rather than sitting around holding it for periods of time as well. Councilman Senn: Well except we wouldn't normally acquire that under a development proposal from them in terms of those easements. Not necessarily. I mean again that's part of the negotiation on what happens. And like I say, we're going to pay $75,000.00 for it and they're going to pay us $75,000.00 but they're turning ' around and selling it to another party instantly for $1.00 more a square foot. Todd Gerhardt: If I may add the one point to this is that DataSery or future owners may not want to purchase that for above the $75,000.00 mark too. They may, it's kind of a good will gesture that we are trading property ' here so that we may finish Dell Road into a safe condition and they may just sit there and say, we control it and continue to keep the property off the tax rolls and try to buy it down almost where we'd almost just give it to them. So in this way it's a win /win situation that we break even. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I was looking at really. Any other discussion? Is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we would approve the purchase agreement with DataServ. Councilman Mason: I will second it. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the purchase agreement to purchase property from MnDot for $75,000.00 (See Attachment #2) and then resell the property to DataSery for 43 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Kate Aanenson: 35% to 37 %. And again we have, you look at Lakeview Hills and some of the older apartments that are in town here, and then when we look at senior housing again that's more market rate but some of those are subsidized and those are issues that are adding to it. Life cycle housing. Again, single family, we're at 19 %. The benchmark is 95% to 37 %. Life cycle again is just providing diversity of single family. Again, a lot of our's is the single family detached. They look at twin homes. Some of the other types of mixes, and again looking at when this information was provided and we, most recently, even the one tonight that you looked at, the Rottlund product, we've seen quite a few different mixes on that. Owner renter mix. 15 %. Again our goal needs to be somewhere between 25% and 33 %. So that would be an area we'd have to improve on. And as far as density, we're really in pretty good shape. If you look at the single family as 1.5. If you look at what we use for assessing sewer projects, it's actually 1.75 -1.9. That's our general standard so we're going to get clarification on that. I think actually we're meeting the goal on that. And also on multi - family, our density again is really pretty much at the target on that. So really it's the mix and then the rental and there's a lot of other issues that we can't deal with as far as rental and I think the Met Council's aware of that. So what we'll be doing is putting together a list of goals for your review to look at things that we can do. Again I'm not sure that we need to change a lot of things in our comprehensive plan. I think we can do documentation. Some of the things that we've already been doing, such as subsidizing through HRA, the senior housing project. A lot of those things go towards it. Credits. Just so you're aware. Again we have to put something together by November and we have to designate a certain dollar amount. We don't have to spend that dollar amount in 1996 but we do have to spend it by 1997 and what we have to allocate towards housing is $50,000.00 and that's the amount that they're giving us that we have to budget and demonstrate that we're going to use it. Again, it doesn't have to be spent in 1996 but it has to be shown in 1997. We can also do clustering, which we can work with Carver County, HRA and some other jurisdictions to provide that and since we do have the HRA, there are other opportunities to provide that. So really this is for your information. We just want to let you know what the requirement is and what we'll be bringing back and if you had specific directions of things you wanted us to be looking at or consider, I'd be happy to take that input. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, have you had an opportunity to review the thing that I received from Maple Grove in regard to the same process that they've gone through with Met Council? ' Kate Aanenson: Yes, and as a matter of fact during the. Mayor Chmiel: And in some of the things that they've indicated was that they were probably a little too quick ' to move on. Hopefully we're going to make sure that we're not going to put ourselves in that position as to what they have. ' Kate Aanenson: Right. Again I think we're in pretty good shape. If you look at Mission Hills. They have 200 units down there that are under, that are in the $90,000.00. They're all under $115,000.00 and there's maybe less than 3% to 5% that are over the $115,000.00 and that's 200 units right in there so I think we are moving in the right direction. Again it's market forces. Once we get the commercial developments or the multi - family took place. The other products that we've just approved, the other projects just to the east of the elementary school which are also multi - family. A lot of those things are adding to it. It's the larger lot developments that affect the density so. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any questions of Kate? Thanks. B. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REVIEW VERBATIM MINUTES POLICY PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOIL 45 U City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 Councilman Mason: I would move we change from verbatim to summary minutes and that we keep audio tapes for a year to date. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the Paris and Recreation Commission change from verbatim Minutes to summary Minutes and keep the audio tapes of the meetings for a year to date. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. SET WORK SESSION DATE COURT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEDDOR ETAL EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE. Don Ashworth: This item ha appeared at the City Council twice. I had anticipated that we would have a settlement. Now I'm fearful that it's been so long since you've discussed this item with the City Attorney that you may all be a little vague as to kind of what we had actually agreed to. So accordingly I would like to, and Roger tells me, he thinks that we will be getting into a final form by the 25th and I'd like to use that as a closed work session to just have Tom Scott go back through the major points of that settlement and we could easily do it in about half hour, 45 minutes. I don't think the points have changed any but I think the Council should be quite aware of what those area in advance to the item being publicly presented probably than their first meeting in October so that all of a sudden the people come to the microphone and say, well we don't like this aspect or that we've heard about and you're not sitting there saying oh gee, I can't remember. Councilman Senn: So when are you suggesting? Don Ashworth: Either 6:45 or 7:00 on September 25th. Councilman Senn. Yeah, if we have a Board of Adjustments then I'll miss it. Mayor Chmiel: Just make sure you don't. Councilman Senn: Do you want to wager that one again? Councilman Mason: 6:45 or 7:00? Mayor Chmiel: 6:45 just in case. Councilman Senn: 6:45 so we have 45 minutes. Mayor Chmiel: Has anybody received any calls on this? Councilman Senn: Yes. Several letters too. Now 18th, do we have anything the 18th then or not? Mayor Chmiel: No. Don Ashworth: I don't know about a budget work session. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have anything down. 1 47 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1995 the final plat. We just feel like there needs to be closure on it so we just want to make sure that you're in concurrence with that and are aware of that so when he comes before you. Hopefully we can get it resolved. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Motion for adjournment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carved. The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 49