The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2003 07 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Lundquist COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson STAFF PRF.$ENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Bruce DeJong, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson and Teresa Burgess PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Thank you for coming. Thanks for watching at home. There was one request to the council to delay a couple items on our agenda to later in the meeting, specifically item number 2 and item number 3. To take those items up after, is it after new business? So if there's, because of some scheduling issues. Is there any objection from the council to do that? Okay, very good. We'll do that then. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: At this time I would ask if there are any items that wish to be discussed separately? Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Hello. Mayor Furlong: Hello. Debbie Lloyd: I would like to find out more about the change in the street cleaning policy, item (a). And also to understand what an extension of a 30 foot bluff variance means. Item (h). Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Fine, thank you. We'll be prepared to answer questions on those I assume, Mr. Gerhardt thank you. If there's no objection from the council we'll pull item l(a) and item l(h) to be discussed after item 5 under new business. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager's recommendations: b. Award of Contract for Drilling for Drilling Test Well. City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Co d. g. m, n. Resolution S2003-58: Receive Feasibility Study for Quinn Road Phase II Street and Utility Improvements, Project 03-04. Authorize Temporary Lifting of No Parking on West 78~ Street. Resolution g2003-59: Approval of Renewal of Chanhassen American Legion Club's Gambling Permit, 290 Lake Drive East. Authorize Payment of $50,250 to Fair's Nursery & Landscaping for Tree Replacement in BC7&8. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to Sign the Cooperative Agreement Between the Carver Soil & Water Conservation District and the City Relating to Urban Development Review and Site Inspection Services. Modification of Purchasing Policy to Exclude Payments to Utility Companies. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 23, 2003 -City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated July 23, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated June 17, 2003 Authorize Extended Permit for Placement of a Dumpster in the Street, 7077 Harrison Hill Trail. Resolution g2003-60: Approval of Resolution Supporting a Grant Application to Improve TH 101 South of TH 5 and North of Highway 312. o. Resolution g2003-61: Approval of Change Order No. 8, Chanhassen Library Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. Kate Aanenson: Can I just ask, when were we going to do the consent items. There's an applicant here for one. I just wanted, he didn't understand when you were going to move those to. Mayor Furlong: Well if he's here, yeah. Let's do that before 4. We'll take that up right now if there's no objection from the council, since they're here. From accommodations standpoint. Kate Aanenson: Yes, the applicant was given a variance. Mayor Furlong: Which item is this then? Kate Aanenson: H. Mayor Furlong: Item l(h). We'll take them both now I think. City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 H. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF A 30 FT. BLUFF VARIANCE, 7550 FRONTIER TRAIL, CHARLES STINSON. Kate Aanenson: The applicant was given a variance gets one year. There has to be substantial action within that one year. Mr. Stinson, who is the developer of this property, also is developing the property across the street. This, the terms and conditions of the variance is the same. He's just asking for one year extension. He's working with a home buyer and so he would not meet the timing to get the permit pulled within that timeframe so he's asking for a one year extension. Again the original conditions would still stay in place. So the staff is recommending approval on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any question for staff on this item? Councilman Lundquist: So just to clarify Kate, that this is a variance, Mr. Stinson is a developer, the home builder who didn't have a product that was ready to be sold and now does have a home owner that he's working with on that, and won't be able to complete the construction within the allotted year on the variance, that's why he's asking for an extension. Kate Aanenson: Or start the process. What it says is substantial action and he wouldn't be able to pull the permit so it's just, to be consistent with what our requirements, I think it expires in August. He's just getting an extension. That's what he's asking for. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any other questions? So does that address your question? By affh'mative, thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? If none is there a motion. Councilman Labatt: Move approval. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: All those in favor, is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the extension for a 30 foot bluff variance, 7550 Frontier Trail, Charles Sfinson. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. A. APPROVAL OF REVISED STREET SWEEPING POLICY. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. What we're trying to accomplish here is to clarify the city's goal for street sweeping. We're also meeting a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules that the had an opportunity to go through with Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator about 3-4 months ago. This ordinance matches basically what we're doing today, is to get out early and get up to sweeping the sand that we discharge as a part of our snow maintenance, and getting that off the streets as soon as possible. There is some salt still contained in some of that material and I got a few calls from council members concerned in seeing the street sweeper out and I think it's about March timeframe, and knowing that we'd probably get another snowfall, but we do that to get the sand up and to protect our ponds so they don't fill up with that sand. So basically in summary that's what our ordinance, or this policy says. Mayor Furlong: And this is just an update of a prior policy, just clarification and improving? City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: We didn't have a written policy before. This provides written documentation on how we're going to adhere to this practice and also, as a part of our strategy for the National, NPDES strategy that Lori presented to you that we'd have a written policy. Teresa Burgess: Todd if I could clarify that. We actually did have a written policy. If you look at the ones in the council packets they are, they should have colored writing. What is in color is what has been changed from the original policy, however it's several years old and did not meet the city's needs or our current practices so we're updating it to meet both of those. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: But I don't believe the council's ever seen that policy. Teresa Burgess: This council has never seen that policy. It was adopted several councils ago. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff?. Councilman Ayotte: If we don't pass this, there would give the latitude that we could fill up with silt, add cost, environmentally have a hiccup. Todd Gerhardt: Well again, we have been. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you for that introduction. Todd Gerhardt: We have been following this practice. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, but I'm saying if we don't pass this, we wouldn't be required to follow it and we could have a problem. Todd Gerhardt: We're doing it as a part of the. Kate Aanenson: Best management practices. Teresa Burgess: We would be required to follow it anyway because of the NPDES. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. If there is none, is there any discussion? Heating none, is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: Move approval. Mayor Furlong: Is them a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Heating none without objection we'll call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the Revised Street Sweeping Policy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH A VARIANCE TO DIVIDE 13.16 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS, 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: PAW, CLAWS, & HOOVES. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site located just north of 101/212 intersection. While this is a subdivision that has a little bit of complexity because it has a conditional use on it and the subdivision, I want to clarify in the motion, it's a preliminary subdivision. It would have to come back, there's some things that they need to do so I'll have you modify the motion and I'll go through that with you but it's a preliminary subdivision of the two lots with the variance request. This is the existing property. There's two, it was given a conditional use for pets in this building and a horse barn building. There's a driveway that comes down and services this property. With the subdivision of the two parcels, staff had looked at improving right-of-way to 26 foot wide requirement. The applicant is requesting a variance. Again the other issue that we looked at providing access to the surrounding property. Looking at providing additional right-of-way to these properties to the east. The other concern was the conditional use, that we wanted to clarify that there is an existing conditional use on the property that limits the numbers of horses and cats and dogs so those conditions would still be carded forward with the subdivision, although we're creating the two separate lots. If you go to page 10 and 15 where the conditions start, I apologize page 10 got copied twice. That's where the motions start. Under subdivision it would say approval of a preliminary plat for 2 lots. Again it would have to come back to the City Council, typically those are put at consent if they meet all the conditions of approval. That'd be their direction to come back for a final plat. This item was heard before the Planning Commission on June 17th and the staff and the original proposal looked at whether or not supporting of the variance for the private street, and the 26 foot pavement width. The Planning Commission recommended denial of that. They felt it was appropriate at this time to get that extraction. Again because this is a subdivision, there's fees that are required and expected with this. Looking at the storm water fees, those were reduced down based on the level of development, but the Planning Commission felt that it was important to get that right-of-way put in at this time so the conditions in bold have been modified to reflect that and the variance recommendation, which is on the bottom of page 15. Those of you who have conditions, at the end of page 15 a variance would recommend denial and there' s findings of fact then in the staff report for that variance. So again staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions attached. Again the Planning Commission had us add in what the conditions were for the stable, and for the animal, and those are all shown in bold. The conditions of approval. We also attached the original conditional of approval for your edification, and then the variance denial following the end of the subdivision of the preliminary plat. I'll just show again the larger subdivision of the two lots... while there is wetlands and some steep slopes in the area, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: I have a couple. Mayor Furlong: Please, Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the driveway that's there, the 24 foot wide, the reason that that was 24 rather than 26, was that a condition or a part of the conditional use or was that the code at that time or? Kate Aanenson: The code at that time was a common driveway. Since then the code has changed requiting a variance for the use of a common driveway with two lots being served with City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 one, actually it's all under one lot it was allowed under a conditional use so it's a little bit different and because you're subdividing your lots, that standard would kick into place. Councilman Lundquist: So if this was a, well I guess it wouldn't make sense if it was just a single lot, but because it's two lots, now that they're subdividing, is the reason that the 26 foot is required or? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So it's not that the code has changed since but it's the two lot versus the one when it was originally put in. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And on the previous drawing that you had up there, the 40 foot, I can't remember what condition number that is but the 40 foot easement that we're asking for. Mayor Furlong: Number 4. Councilman Lundquist: Where does that on the map. Kate Aanenson: The additional right-of-way past the, to the property limits. Councilman Lundquist: So that just continues on where the existing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, this is about a 3 acre parcel. Extension of that... Councilman Lundquist: But the thought that if further development came in, you would act to use what's now a private road would serve as a public road into that other, or? Kate Aanenson: We look at that when that property develops... Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff. With regard to that, the easement for a potential future public road. In your report I think someplace I looked at, what is the likelihood that that other property would be able to access off of the existing Highway 169/2127 Do we have any. Kate Aanenson: Probably limited based on the location of 101. If we went back to this map, again the State would have jurisdiction so there is spacing requirements. If you look at the current 101...it may be difficult to get this to come down like this intersection, so again another reason why you'd probably want to work with the property owners together to get a better access point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this time? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening, if you'd like to address the council or raise any issues. Neal Blanchett: Yes I would. City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address, we'd appreciate it. Neal Blanchett: Thank you Mayor and council members. My name's Neal Blanchett. I'm with the Larkin-Hoffman law fm'a in Bloomington. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I represent Paws, Claws and Hooves. I addressed the Planning Commission on this issue. I want to make a couple of points principally tailored towards addressing the conditions of approval. Staff has recommended approval of the subdivision. Planning Commission also recommended approval, so we're not really talking about whether this is an approval or not. We're really talking about the conditions. Before I go into that I do want to talk about the variance. The variance was originally, well the variance comes into play only because of a heighten city standard. In 1996 when Paws, Claws and Hooves was originally approved, it was approved with a 24 foot wide driveway. At that time, according to the staff report, there was a 26 foot requirement but the city staff and the engineer chose to enforce it at 24 feet. They made a determination that for the uses on that site, the kennel and the stable use, the 24 feet was adequate. I want to stress that those are the only uses that are proposed at this time. The kennel and stable uses are proposed to continue. The 24 feet was adequate in 1996. It continues to be adequate today. Looking at what is the standard for the variance? The standard is unusual hardship under the state statute. It's a different standard in the subdivision context than it is in the zoning context. It's only unusual hardship. Here we do have an unusual hardship because although staff has made a determination that this is a commercial use, it is a very low impact commercial use. You only have animal boarding. It's extremely low impact because the nature of the use is that folks come onto the property once, possibly every few days. Drop off an animal for boarding, and come back to pick it up after a period of time. So we think the unusual hardship is met. You'll note in your staff report, staff initially made findings supporting that variance so we'd ask your support for that variance. The stable is an agricultural use. We have chosen not to contest city staff's determination that it's a commercial use but we think that the real low density and the agricultural type use of it again lends itself to support for the variance. And I've got supporting documentation to the extent that you would like to take a look at that, I certainly can present that. Moving on and looking at the conditions. Some of the conditions, as you heard staff talk about, are really an attempt to address what will happen on this property in the future and what will happen on the adjacent properties in the future. To the extent that those conditions address what happens on adjacent property and are an attempt to give access and provide benefit to an adjacent property, we don't believe those conditions are appropriate and we do take issue with them, and I want to talk about that briefly. So we can use the conditions format and I can just walk you through what our concerns are. On the first condition, we talked about splitting of the conditional use permit. We don't have any problem with splitting that. I would propose a simpler condition than staff has proposed which is simply that the conditional use permit condition that apply to the kennel apply to the kennel use on the site. Conditional use permit conditions that apply to the stable continue to apply to the stable use of the site with the caveat, and I believe this is the only change, that the stable, because it is now a smaller site, is reduced the number of horses it can board from 35 animals to 27 animals. That's the only change we've got. Rather than re-state about 4 pages of conditions, I think we ought to just make that simple change than changing the number, and that is clear. If the city needs to enforce those conditional use permit conditions, and it's either the kennel or the stable use in the future, it will be able to do that with a very simple condition rather than re-stating all of those conditions. The second condition talked about extending the common portion of the private street driveway. I've discussed this with staff and our view is that the private street, the private street is the portion of the street where both uses are served. Where the kennel access drive ends or where the kennel access drive joins that street, from that point on onto the stable site, it's really just an access point for the stable and so we believe there's no need to add additional surface where we don't want to add surface. And we ought to only provide paving to the end of the kennel lot or to the kennel access rather as opposed City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 to the kennel lot. The third condition we have no objection. We have discussed that with staff. The fourth condition is the easement requirement and we do have an objection to this. The easement requirement, we do not believe is Constituti'onal. We don't believe it complies with Minnesota law. The Minnesota law on subdivisions states that the city may require dedications to the extent that the city reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for public roadway as a result of the subdivision. We heard staff talk about what the need was for the 40 foot easement. The need is to provide access to adjoining property. Not to provide access to anything new that's going on this property. There is nothing new that's happening on this property so there is no need for additional access. Without that basis that easement requirement is not something that can be imposed at this time. Now we understand from staff that utilities are proposed for the property about 2015 or there about. There will be an opportunity for the city to review that development when utilities come along, development is expected to intensify and there will be an opportunity for the city to impose conditions providing access. But right now it doesn't meet the standard under Minnesota statute. It doesn't meet the Constitutional case law standard which requires again that some impact of development on the site trigger the need for the new easement. This is not related to development on this site. It's related to development on adjacent site. I would propose a condition such that when the site develops in such a way that the city reasonably determines that an easement is necessary, or access to the site, the city be able to take that easement. Failing that the city can certainly take the easement through the use of eminent domain for public purpose. Moving onto the fifth condition. We have no objection to that. Sixth condition, I would simply preface that with if impervious surface is added to the site. Again that relates to impervious surface. We don't believe there's the need to add that if we don't have to, and if you grant the variance tonight we will not be adding impervious surface. Condition number 7 we have no objection. 8, no objection. Number 9, we've talked somewhat about septic service and it's a bit of a reconstruction of historical record but what we believe is that Swedlund Septic, the service company has provided the pumping logs to the city as a matter of course. They haven't broken out Paws, Claws separately but they have submitted the information, so we believe that the city has received that information and what we're really talking about when we talk about new submission, is we're talking about a new format. Talking about calling out the fact that this is Paws, Claws and Hooves in some sort of bold type or something that would give the city more indication. But the pumping logs are sent in as a matter of course. I do want to point out that in 2000 we asked specifically whether or not the site was in compliance. We sent some letters back and forth and we did receive a confirmation back from staff and from the city attorney that there were a couple of items that were not in compliance. These logs were not one of those items so staff reviewed what they had and did not note that as a non-compliant item. For that reason Paws Claws has never considered it a non-compliant item. The tenth condition we would have no objection. On the eleventh condition, park dedication requirement, we also believe that the park dedication is problematic under Minnesota law and again under the Constitutional statute. You've got to have a need that's created by some impact of this subdivision. The size of the lot I think is important here. First of all nothing new is happening on the site. We're not bringing in new employees. We're not bringing in new activities that are going to use the city's parks~ Also the size. We've got a 3 acre lot and a 10 acre lot. It's certainly questionable to me as a matter of common sense, whether a 10 acre lot creates a need to have folks use the public parks, so this is not an urban subdivision or for a suburban type subdivision where we're creating small lots and the need for folks to go off the site and use new parkland. I don't believe there's a need for new parkland. There may be in the future when this lot develops with the intensity that urban services can provide and at that time the city will have the ability to impose that dedication. So we'd ask that that condition be deleted. The twelfth, we have no objection. The thirteenth, again it should be prefaced with if additional construction occurs, the wetland buffer signs should be installed. Again we don't propose anything new to affect the wetlands or the wetland buffers, unless the city's desire to condition City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 the approval on some new construction. Number fourteen, we don't have an objection to having drainage easement over those property. I do want to clarify that the utility easements, the condition mentions utility easements and of course the easements that should be in place over a storm water drainage area are storm water drainage easements, so if it's a storm water utility, we are certainly agreeable to that. Although not necessarily agreeable to other utilities. Number fifteen, we have no objection. Number sixteen, again the storm water fees we raised an objection to this at the Planning Commission. We continue to have it. We don't believe that storm water fees are justified for a couple of reasons. First, there's a storm water pond that Paws, Claws and Hooves was required to construct as a condition of their 1996 approval. That storm water pond was sized to handle Paws Claws runoff. Paws Claws is not in any way connected to the city's storm water system, so requiting them to pay for that system does not seem justified. I would note, we discussed this with staff and they said that the fees were justified based on the city's storm water management plan. We took a look at that plan and I can display for you, I've got a record copy as well. But this is the spot that talks about, this is where it talks about new development and what should be required of new development, and I'd just call your attention to the portion that I've underlined which states that if on-site water quality treatment is not provided by the developer, then the city may require a cash dedication. The City requires cash dedication in this case even though on site water treatment has been provided by the developer. So in light of that, we believe that that condition should be deleted. We think Paws Claws has done what they need to do to treat their storm water. They've created a pond and there's no dispute that the pond is performing at the function that it should be. So I believe that condition should be lifted. The Planning Commission added one condition that was not mentioned by staff, and that was to ask Paws Claws to survey the property to make sure that the city's easement was in the proper location over Paws Claws driveway. That's a very problematic requirement. If I could analogize, it is as if the city is taking a sidewalk over a homeowner's property and they're requiting the homeowner to do a survey to make sure that sidewalk is in the tight place. We don't think that's proper. We think it's unfair. If the city wants to take an easement, again we object to the taking of the easement without any compensation but if the city does want to take an easement, we believe that it is up to the city to survey the property, so we believe that the seventeenth condition should be stricken. One final note on the fees, particularly the storm water and the park fees. We think what that really does is impose such a burden on the property that it almost forces an accelerated development of the property. What we're trying to do here is provide a productive and a beneficial use for the property from now until 2015 when utilities reach the property and that is the intent. Imposing the fairly severe dedication and storm water fees now force it to bear higher development because the cost of development and the value of that lower development will not justify the fees that the city is attempting to impose now. So again I'd ask for your support on the variance, on the subdivision as staff has noted, and for some meaningful consideration of the conditions that we've asked that you delete. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Anderson? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: I guess I'd have one clarification on number 3. I thought what number 3 says, which is, where am I looking here? Maybe I wrote it down wrong. It was with regard to the pavement to the east line of Lot 1. The cross access. I guess I misunderstood your concern about, I wrote down number 2 as a problem. Number 2 was okay? If you'd just clarify your concerns on number 3. Neal BlancheR: On the easement? City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor, I think there's some confusion. Mayor Furlong: It's probably on my part. Roger Knutson: I think part of the confusion is this occurs in many places, but I think the concern he had was with number 2, which is extending the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of Lot 1, which is 2. He had no problem with number 3. Mayor Furlong: But wasn't his concern that the private. Roger Knutson: With number 2. Mayor Furlong: It was with number 2, okay. And your concern with number 3, because Lot 1 abuts 101 correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And it's that lot that the private street will go to the eastern line of Lot 1, which would be the access point of Lot 2. And I thought I heard you say that at that point there shouldn't be. Kate Aanenson: I believe what he's saying, this is the common. This would be a private drive and this is the common portion. You'd want it. Neal BlancheR: Right, the pavement should only extend over the common portion, that is this portion of the driveway that both lots use. Mayor Furlong: Am I the only one, isn't that what number 2 is saying? Councilman Lundquist: The point being that when you're past the access point on the kennel, then it doesn't become a shared anymore. It becomes. Mayor Furlong: The access point to the kennel as opposed to the lot line, okay thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? If there are none, thank you. Appreciate it. Are there follow- up questions to staff?. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: All the points that he made, did you have, did staff have discussion with all of those points with respect to the condition? Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Councilman Ayotte: So all those points you and he have discussed? There's nothing new this evening? Kate Aanenson: No. Again, for number 1, they got lengthy but I think just for clarification the Planning Commission wanted the use of that went with the cats and dogs, those conditions. And then what went with the horse stable went with the horse stable so it became long, but again you have to remember this is our conditions that go forward as a record so we like to make sure that that's clear. This is the conditions that they need to follow for the preliminary plat, also a tracking mechanism. And that was the direction. I think we concur that that's the, if the uses remains the same, that these conditions remain the same. 10 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Neal Blanchett: Right. Kate Aanenson: The concern that we have going to his point, it is zoned BF. There are other uses that could be allowed in that BF district. Once this property is subdivided... When this originally came no storm water permit fees were required because there was no subdivision of the property. So this is the first time we're asking for it. That's the time to do that, at the time of subdivision. Extraction. So the only fees they're paying, there is more than just creating a pond. Again we looked at that as we looked at the calculations that we provided...but we think those are appropriate. It is BF. While the applicant may say it's going to stay that way, we have on control over that in 2 years, 6 months, 5 years that it doesn't get sold and there are other uses that could be used on that BF zoning district, and that's where the Planning Commission struggled and spent a lot of time in their discussion saying, there really isn't a control. And to try to attach it to, at the time somebody else would come in, I'll let the city attorney speak to that, but that would be a very difficult time to try to get those other extractions. Those really go with the subdivision portion of that. Roger Knutson: Although the applicant is saying that there two existing uses on the property and nothing is really going to change with this dividing it, that may be their perspective but the municipal perspective if you will is, we're creating right now there's one lot. We're creating two and so those two lots can be sold off separately, if you approve it, and the uses that are there today may not be there tomorrow and it may be zoned BF today but it may be zoned something else, maybe very intense sometime in the future. But if in the future someone comes in for a building permit, that's all they need. We won't have any opportunity as a condition of a building permit to require someone to put in a street, because that has already been taken care of. This is the opportunity to take care of those issues. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there other questions either for the applicant or for staff?. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, do we have any idea what the design standard on the 24 foot wide road is now? The driveway. Is that to the 9 ton design or is that just similar to what our residential driveway or something? Maybe we don't even know. Kate Aanenson: I think that the condition was that it be built to the 9 ton. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I'm asking what, do you know what it is existing today? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure... Neal Blanchett: The condition was a 7 ton from the '96 report. Kate Aanenson: Okay, so it's 7 ton. Councilman Lundquist: And the storm water, somewhere in this packet I thought I remembered reading one of the staff's responses was that although the applicant built the storm water pond, that that doesn't necessarily guarantee that they treat every drop or whatever you want to call it of storm water on their entire property. Is that's staff' s perspective on why the fees are there? And that those fees are significantly reduced from what the existing ordinance would allow us to charge. 11 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And again we try to look at the current use on it. Councilman Lundquist: Right, and the same with the park dedication, if we went by the current ordinance on a per acre basis or something,' it would be considerably higher than that $20,000 something and then about 5 times what that is? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then the only other, just to have, to get Roger's opinion on some of the legality on how that applies, the statutes apply on the fees. Roger Knutson: We could have an interesting discussion that would go all night if you wanted to go through all the. Councilman Ayotte: Please don't. Roger Knutson: Really I find it interesting. By statute and constitutionally you're allowed to require dedication of a reasonable portion of the property, or an equivalent amount in cash, and I think that is what is being done here. The fact that there are existing uses on there, those could change tomorrow. It's the subdivision that triggers it. From your perspective, our perspective, I look at it as if the land were vacant because the current uses they're there. Tomorrow it could be something else. That could generate these needs. And the percentage we're taking, and frankly after some discussion I believe at the staff level, I believe they're just being charged for really half of what your ordinance would normally call for. We're treating it as one lot. We're giving them a break if you will, the way it is right now. The way it is currently structured, so I think that's fine. As far as the storm water fees, all the property in the city is part of your storm water, Teresa's not here but part of your storm water system. Water leaves the property and it has to be dealt with, and this helps pay for that. They take care of some of it. They have a pond there. Is that a storm water? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Roger Knutson: Is it built to NURP standards? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well that was one of the questions to make sure... Roger Knutson: Is it just a retention pond or is it built to NURP standards? Kate Aanenson: I believe it's built to NURP standards. Roger Knutson: Okay, well then they've done something. The water still leaves the property. And I don't know if you have any system in there for credit but some of these fine points we certainly can take a closer look at between preliminary and final plat. Mayor Furlong: Good, thanks Roger. Okay, other questions for staff. Or for the applicant. Councilman Labatt: Well I was just wondering, the way I understand this, and I kind of wrote down ok marks where they're okay with it. He just wanted to take the ones that their representatives offered a counter point or wanted complete deletion, offer your input as to why what we have is in there. 12 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: For example on a, the first condition. Excuse me, number 1. Councilman Labatt: If you want to go back that far. You know, no. You don't have to...understand your reason for it but two, obviously they have a conflict with. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Again, it goes back to the change in use. Because it is zoned business fringe, there are other uses that could come on there that could be much more intense use of the property. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I guess he's okay with 3, 4. Kate Aanenson: Same thing, it ties back to the standard for that road. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I've got him okay with 5, 6, 7 and 8. 9? Kate Aanenson: I think that's a financial issue that we can certainly try to work out. It's a matter of tracking down the paperwork. Make sure the septic system are being reported. Neal Blanchett: We've asked to provide it for all of their records. We are trying to put that together. We go back 5 years. Kate Aanenson: I'm confident that...some of these things can be resolved. Councilman Labatt: Again I've got him okay with 10. 1 l's been discussed by our attorney. 12 is okay by him. 137 Kate Aanenson: That was just in addition if the requirement was made for the right-of-way that affects the wetland. That was the impact, that they need signage. Councilman Labatt: And then I have him okay on 14, 15. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well again that was just wordsmithing. Again I think we can work some of those out before final plat. Councilman Labatt: Okay. 16 they wanted complete deletion but Roger's handled that. And 17 is the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: Maybe I should clarify that one too. Again, that was just to make sure their driveway's within, I don't think it states...ensure that there's a registered survey done on the driveway to make sure the driveway's centered on the 40 foot easement. Neal Blanchett: There's not a 40 foot easement now on the property so I assume that meant the city's future or the 40 foot easement... Kate Aanenson: No, I think I'll read it just how it says. That it's centered on the 40 foot easement... Neal Blanchett: For clarification, which 40 foot easement? Kate Aanenson: The easement that's on our property. To get into the property. 13 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Does that refer back to number 4? Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Mayor Furlong: That's to the private street? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Roger Knutson: That's your own private street. Neal BlancheR: Centered within the private easement Kate Aanenson: Correct. Neal BlancheR: That both properties can use. Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions at all for staff or for the applicant. If not, thank you. Mr. Anderson, appreciate you being here this evening and we'll bring it back to council at this point for discussion. Any discussion? On this request. Both the preliminary plat for the subdivision or the variance. Councilman Labatt, do you want to start? Councilman Labatt: No I'm, the question I had has been answered. I guess the one question I have that probably can't be answered is what's the trigger for this and why. It's simply a business decision by Paws, Claws and Hooves but that's something that I'm just more curiosity in terms of why...so I think staff has done a good job in putting enough conditions in here to make it work and protect the long term interest on this parcel. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I would echo Councilman Labatt's, although there's a lot of conditions on here and they seem some cumbersome and detailed, I think it's important at this time that we protect, or look out for the interest of the city not knowing what could end up there after a transfer of ownership or who knows what else could happen so it may seem excessive but again things can change in a hurry so I would, I think the staff and the Planning Commission and the applicant have all put in a great deal of time and I'm comfortable with the way they are. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Ayotte, comments? I would I guess just state my concurrence with Councilman Labatt and Lundquist. I think now's the time, as the city attorney identified to us from the city standpoint to make sure that we try to look long term, not just how the current use is. But to look long term and obviously it's the subdivision that's being requested here that's triggering these events. I think I would concur, I think the staff has done a good job. The Planning Commission did a good job and it looks like they've at least tried to accommodate the applicant where they can in some areas and with regard to the fees, particularly those have been reduced I think and if I read the report correctly, that if further subdivision or development takes place, that there will be credits made for fees paid so if I'm not mistaken on that. But it's, I think it seems to be a fair compromise given the property owner's desire to subdivide and the city's interest to look longer term, so is there any other discussion? 14 City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: The last point, Kate if we were to by-pass on condition number 4 that the 40 foot public road and utility easement, is that something that could be, if they decided or if it was subdivided again or something else out there, is that something that we could obtain an easement or something to make that a public utility or road if utilities came in or. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again, this would come back to you for final plat, so I think some of those things we can work on between now and then but yes. Councilman Lundquist: Is that something that staff would consider a show stopper there, that 40 foot easement? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can look at that between now and final plat. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? If not is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: I would move that we approve a preliminary subdivision? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: On 2003-4 SUB for Paws, Claws and Hooves Incorporated, plans prepared by James R. Hill Incorporated dated January 30, 2003 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 17. In the staff report dated June 17th. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Friendly amendment? Mayor Furlong: Why don't you start with the second and then we'll discuss it and if necessary amend. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, would you accept a friendly amendment to remove the 40 foot public road and utility easement, the first sentence on condition 4? And just have that, have the pavement design re-designed to 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to offer an amendment for that? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we do it that way. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Okay, let's discuss that amendment then. Councilman Lundquist. 15 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: That one seems to be, in my mind, a reasonable something now that as Mr. Blanchett was talking through that. Although it's certainly I believe within our abilities to have that road and utility easement now, that it would seem to be more applicable, in my mind, when and if we would come along with the public utilities, public streets, public something there rather than it's there now, even if the uses change on those lots without a further subdivision, there is still in my mind, I guess I'm not seeing, other than the access to the adjacent lot which is something that we can also address in another fashion so that would be the only reason. I think it's reasonable for us to not do that. Either that or have that utility easement with compensation so I would just ask that we have that condition removed for now. Councilman Labatt: This condition number 4, how's it impact 17 then? Kate Aanenson: ...we can look at it now certainly I think between now and final plat. Something that we would look at. Mayor Furlong: And Kate maybe clarify for us, between now and the final plat, what would you, given Councilman Lundquist's concern here. Kate Aanenson: Well if there's any way that we can clarify the use, restriction of the use on the property or whether it's the right-of-way width that's more important than the design of the road at the time. Councilman Lundquist: I didn't think that 17, 17 is a private street easement. Kate Aanenson: Oh sorry. Councilman Lundquist: That's different than 4. 17 is untouched by anything. Roger Knutson: That's my understanding. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So I guess it gets back to, you're proposing deleting that on the preliminary, at this time and staff is saying it's something they can work with between now and the final. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: If you want to take it off, I think it'd be okay. Mayor Furlong: Alright, is there further discussion on the amendment, and the amendment is to strike the first two sentences? Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Mayor Furlong: And I think we still want the second sentence. Roger Knutson: The second sentence you wouldn't need because you're allowing them to encroach on our easement, I think that's how that works. Councilman Lundquist: That's the way I read the... 16 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: That way you're not encroaching. Roger Knutson: Say you would since you wouldn't, there's nothing to encroach on, you can delete the first two sentences. Councilman Lundquist: Delete the first two sentences and just the private street width and the 9 ton design. Mayor Furlong: Right. Councilman Labatt: So 4 then reads, the applicant must revise the private street width to bring into compliance with city code? Pavement design to be redesigned at 9 ton, 26 foot wide street? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Is that how that would read? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is that complete enough for a condition? Kate Aanenson: (Yes) Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion on that proposed amendment for number 4? If there isn't we'll call the question. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to delete the first two sentences in condition number 4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: The amendment prevails so now we'll deal with the motion as amended. Is there any other discussion on the motion as amended? No? Okay. Very good. If there's no other discussion we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for a two lot subdivision (02003-4 SUB) for Paws, Claws and Hooves, Inc., plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated January 30, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The appropriate conditions for the kennel shall apply to Lot 1. The appropriate conditions based on acreage for the horse stable will be applied to Lot 2. Lot 1, Block 1, Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition, if continued to be used for a commercial kennel shall comply with the following conditions: a. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles H. b. Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. c. The proposed chain link fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be sturdy to keep dogs confined. 17 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 d. Accumulation of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well. The applicant is showing a waste water holding tank located 180 feet from a well location; however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such information must be provided. e. All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. g. h. k. m, All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is not present at the subject property. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. · Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain and snow. · If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. · Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition. · The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. · Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors and disease hazards. · Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 50 feet from public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial kennel. The commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. 18 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 n. The commercial kennels shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. o. No outdoor speakers are allowed. p. Only animal carcasses are permitted to be cremated. A temperature monitor must be attached to the crematory. The City may require testing of the ashes. q. The applicant must supply the City with a waste tracking log submitted on a monthly basis. Such log should be signed by the landfill operator where the feces are being disposed of. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the Site Plan Review g96-8 and Variance g96-8. Lot 2, Block 1, Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition, if continued to be used for a commercial stable, shall comply with the following conditions: a. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles l~I. b. Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres and for three horses shall be two acres, and an additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional horse. The site has an area of 10 acres allowing a maximum number of 27 horses. The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electric fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within. d. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects. eo Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to the pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste storage is required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To prevent runoff from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect it from rain and snow, and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any well. g. All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. h. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code. The conunercial stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. 19 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 . . . . . . . . The commercial stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. k. No outdoor speakers are allowed. Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of parking for the remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for additional spaces, the applicant will be required to provide them. Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers attached to them shall be provided. The turnaround shall be approved by the Stable Inspector. All parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as required in the site plan ordinance. m. The applicant shall show the location of hay storage. n. The applicant shall show the area where horses will be allowed to graze and exercise outdoors. The current trail located north of the site does not allow any horses. The applicant shall meet with the City's Stable Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit. O. Spreading of manure on site shall be in conformance with the recommended methods of on-site disposal subject to staff approval. p. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the Site Plan Review g96-8 and Variance g96-8. Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of Lot 1. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded agair~st Lot 1. The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City Code. Pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway. Any additional impervious surface will require storm water management improvements and storm pond sizing calculations be reviewed before final plat approval. Existing storm water runoff rates from the site must be maintained. If any additional impervious surface is added, the developer shall submit before and after hydraulic computations for both the 10 and 100 year rainfall events, existing and proposed drainage area maps, and storm drainage plans verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting MnDot right-of-way will be perpetuated. Submit the results of the annual on-site sewage treatment system monitoring plan as required by the conditions of the on-site plan approved in 1998 for the existing septic system. The monthly reports shall be submitted to city staff prior to City Council consideration. 20 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 10. Submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the easterly lot. 11. Pursuant to city ordinance, the applicant shall pay a $20,160 park dedication fee charged against Lot 1, Block 1 as part of the recording of the final plat. 12. If additional grading in excess of 50 cubic yards is proposed or occurs, all areas meeting the City's definition of a bluff should be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan. 13. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of city staff and pay the city $20 per sign. 14. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing wetlands, buffer areas and storm water ponds. 15. If construction occurs, Type 1TI silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket, or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Because the lots are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal and water systems, the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half acre lot. The total Surface Water Management fees due at the time of final plat recording are $12,179.00. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an additional charge will then be imposed less a credit for the charge previously paid. 17. The applicant shall insure that a registered survey is done on the driveway to insure that the driveway is centered in the 40 foot easement to Lot 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second motion with regard to the variance? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I would recommend that we deny the variance for a private street width to permit the use of an existing 24 foot driveway rather than 26 foot pavement width, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Is there discussion? Or is there a second, excuse me. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there discussion on the motion? If there is none we'll call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to deny the variance for the private street pavement width to permit the use of the existing 24 foot driveway, rather than the required 26 foot pavement width, based upon the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 21 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT. NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND CENTURY BOULEVARD (SOUTH OF WEST 78m STREET): A. PHASE I: REPLAT OF AN OUTLOT INTO 2 LOTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH. COFFEE/SHOP CONVENIENCE/GAS STATION AND STRIP MALL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS WITH VARIANCES: AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU. Be PHASE II: REPLAT OF AN OUTLOT INTO 1 LOT WITH AN AREA OF 1.95 ACRES: SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: The subject site is located at Century Boulevard, just north of Highway 5. Pretty close to the intersection of Highway 41. This development was made possible through the extension of West 78th as it goes towards Highway 41. Just so you put this in context, this is part of the Highway 5 corridor study. When we went back and examined the land uses on this property, originally commercial zoning was recommended for this comer of the intersection of Century Boulevard when we did the Highway 5 corridor study. But as that Pulte project and West 78t~ project went forward, MnDot felt it was better to put the large retention pond over there so the commercial site got moved, and as we worked with the Lundgren development, we had to a lot remnant, and actually as the site developed, there's limited access onto the piece that was the Pulte. So the complexity here in this development is you actually have two PUD's, although they had the same design standards, you have two different underlying development contracts so part of this is to get all that unified. So with that, the applicant, Clearwater Development worked hard to get both properties together, which is always the best way to do the development instead of two separate projects. And through a lot of hard work, Sharmeen A1-Jaff on our staff worked to get a real high quality design. We went through a lot of different iterations and tried to get again they have a nice look from West 78th, and then also the nice view from Century. Kind of three comer intersection and Highway 5. So in looking at the design itself, it's very well conceived. Again this applicant has done other work in town and this was given the neighborhood district zoning. We have two other neighborhood district zonings in the city, and so the PUD contract that was put in place is very similar to those and I'll go through that, how that plays in place. In your staff report, in the actions that are required, and actually there's four motions for your consideration tonight. One is actually do a PUD amendment. Again that's for a, I'm on page 2 of the staff report. That would establish sign criteria which wasn't really clear as a part of the original PUD and also they wanted to add in the PUD an amendment to allow a drive thru. The second is to replat both of those lots. I indicated there's two projects there. To plat both of those lots and actually create three lots on the site. One would be the... This one which would be a little bit smaller, shown as 7,000, there actually would be some at 6,000. This plan, just over 13,000 square feet and then a gas station with a car wash. So there'd be 3 separate lots so there's a subdivision action tonight, a conditional use, again in the BN district a gas station with pumps is a conditional use. And then the final action for you tonight is the site plan review. As you indicated, the applicant worked with the staff to get a development that, to get a high quality development. The one concern that we did have was the yellow on the canopy and the pump itself. We are working with the applicant and I think we can get some resolution on that and there was an issue with the signage on that, but I think internally we can get that issue resolved, but as far as the overall architecture, again there seems to be concurrence. We've reviewed the sign package. The permitted uses, again the PUD said no drive thru. What this 22 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 project contemplates is a drive thru with the gas station there'd be a coffee shop. This is their drive thru in this area here. They've worked really hard internally in the site to screen that so you wouldn't see that from Highway 5 or from West 78~. Again as the applicant will tell you, the staff said from the beginning, they certainly have a right to apply for it but that we wouldn't support it because no other BN district in the city has that. We have other PUD's which we have amended but they weren't the underlying neighborhood business. But they felt it was important and wanted to go forward with that. Again the subdivision, the one building had to be reduced to meet the parking standards for those two restaurants and they've already re-submitted a redesign but I didn't want to confuse you with the staff report that matches this, but they've already taken care of that. We have included conditions of approval for all the actions, and they start on page 20 for the four motions. Again the Planning Commission met on this on June 17th to review it. The main point of discussion again had to do with the drive thru window. The Planning Commission at that time recommended denial of the drive thru window. There was also some discussion on the sidewalk. This blue shows the sidewalk. There's some additional... This shows the access point. There's limited access. Right-in/right-out. There's some discussion right now with MnDot regarding a right-in. We think that can be resolved so we'd just modify the condition and make sure that we get MnDot approval on that. This also is a limited access point restricting again so the two parcels are fled together to make it better. There was a concern, there's a sidewalk on the northern side of West 78th that continues across the whole length of that road, and that there may be people that want to get into the site without going all the way over to the intersection, a control intersection. So the Planning Commission spent some time discussing access to that. I think we're looking at, the engineer recommendation. It may not be exactly in this location. There will be a depression in or a curb cut in the middle of that island to make, so you're actually in the island to make the cross, so you can get partially across. Take a look and then go across. Obviously the best movement would be over here, but these will be all the sidewalks recommended for the project and again, it meets all the impervious surface parameters with those changes with the reduction of the building, and again the applicants are working to do that. The conditional use regarding the pumps, we put standards in place and done findings of fact on that. I have attached the minutes, summary minutes from the Planning Commission too as a part of that. So again if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those and just again a reminder that the conditions of approval start on page 20 and what we did on that, if you turn to page 20, is we highlighted the language regarding, if you wanted to include the PUD amendment you would add the language in bold. Otherwise if you do not want it you'd take the language out in bold. That would clarify where that amendment to the drive thru could take place. Mayor Furlong: That's on page 20 under b? Kate Aanenson: Correct. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Kate I was just looking at the blueprints, especially the Building B driving...page, it's about the fourth one back. The third one. Fourth one. What triggered me here is the size of these trees in the, no. Maybe one more page. You might not have it. Look at this one here. There's no number on it. It's between C-1 and. Todd Gerhardt: It's the elevation plan. Councilman Labatt: A-1. Kate Aanenson: I just have C-1 and A-1. 23 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Okay. Why don't you take this one. Now I lost my page. So when I saw this I thought well those trees are huge. They're not going to be planting 30 foot trees are they? Kate Aanenson: No, not in the beginning, no. Councilman Labatt: So, and then going back to the landscaping on page 18. What's required and what's proposed. They're under the requirements. Correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes, they've already modified a lot. Again we have modified plans already in the office, but because this report reflected, I didn't want to confuse but they are working to make those changes and will. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Maybe you could summarize some of the changes in the modified plan, just if that will save us some questions or the ones that you recall. Kate Aanenson: I think it'd be probably better if they had their person do that. Their landscaping person. I don't know if you want to do that right now, have them go through the revisions. Councilman Labatt: Are they going to be close to their required.9 Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely. And again, this plan also requires that they take that 7,000 square foot building down to 6,000, yeah so there are changes that have to be made. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So will we see those changes in the final or is this it? Kate Aanenson: For a subdivision, if you want it to come back because there are changes with the subdivision. Typically this is a preliminary. It would come back for the final subdivision. If you want to see the landscaping plan we'd be happy to put that as a part of that. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then the sign out by the street is 16 foot. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: How does that compare to Kwik Trip's, realizing this is almost an identical project. Kate Aanenson: They've got a pylon sign too. The code reads if you've got Highway 5 frontage, you can go to 20 feet. And so we try to be consistent with that, and again that's why we wanted the unified set and we asked the applicant to try to acquire both properties so we have one pylon sign identifying the entire center and rest of them would then gets the pylons. Excuse me, the rest of them would get the monument signs. There'd be one pylon sign identifying the site, and that's 16 feet high. And the rest of them would just be the monument signs. And they would also have signage on the building, and that was shown in the architectural profile. Councilman Labatt: Okay, that's all the questions I have for right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff?. City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Quick one Kate. The Clearwater Development, what other properties in the city have they done? Kate Aanenson: Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions? Any at this time? For staff. Kate, on the sidewalks, if you could pull up that picture again. I guess the question I have relates to the proposed sidewalk across West 78th, east of the intersection. Kate Aanenson: This sidewalk. Mayor Furlong: Yes, and they're coming across not at an intersection but really at a driveway access to a road, and I guess it's one of safety and just expectation of drivers. Especially with the intersection right there, I guess I'd appreciate some of, or staff's comments with regard to that location. You're proposing it, I think it's, you know people will cross where they want to cross potentially but I'd like to hear some of your comments. Kate Aanenson: Sure, I'd acquiesce to the city engineer because I didn't want to encourage it, but the city engineer's position was people are going to cross there anyway so we should try to make it as safe as possible. And her recommendation again is that we slide this a little over further and...gives people a chance to get halfway across the street. But she felt that people are going to cross there anyway, try to mark it. Her recommendation was also that we post this, how to get out so people are making that circular movement. Right-in/right-out and directional. Some internal signs, and then a No U-Turn sign which was discussed at the Planning Commission too at the end of Century. That we also put a condition in there that they post those. Mayor Furlong: And with the U-turn sign, that was something that was going to be discussed in terms of need, given the 4 way stop. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again, so with this we would post, you know to get back out on, to try to encourage people that want to get back onto Century to come out at this intersection on West 78th... Mayor Furlong: Okay. And clearly that's the traffic flow to go out that easterly driveway. Easterly egress point. Okay, I guess we'll talk more about that. Kate Aanenson: And I just wanted to add one more thing. I did hand out findings of fact regarding, for the denial of the PUD amendment. Mayor Furlong: One last question on that sidewalk. Is it going to be posted as a pedestrian crossing then? Kate Aanenson: I think we want to ensure it's as safe as possible. If we wanted to leave it open ended because that's not my bailiwick that we get the city engineer's input. There's a correct signage on that that we do. Posted... 25 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. And has the, have the conditions in our report been updated based upon the initial letter from MnDot? Or would we need to make some accommodation for. Kate Aanenson: I believe so. The condition number 34, which is on page 29. And again these kind of go back to some of the ones that the Planning Commission had, and that would be those four. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? No? Is the applicant here or representative? Good evening. Scott Schmitt: Good evening Mayor, members of the council. My name is Scott Schmitt. I'm from Watertown, Minnesota. I'm with Clearwater Development. We're representing actually the buyers of the property. The gist of the conversation at the Planning Commission really centered around the drive thru and both setting a precedent and is it necessary. When we went through the design process on it and when we looked at the users, it was an interesting site to work with because it was, you're on Highway 5 which has a considerable amount of traffic, but yet the site, which would dictate possibly a highway zoning but at the same token you've got an immediate adjacent neighborhood directly to the north side of it, and so when we looked at it, having the Highway 5 frontage and trying to maintain visibility and accommodate traffic in and out quickly, commuter traffic specifically, while also looking at the uses that would probably be there that would cater to the immediate neighborhood, we were trying to be Sensitive to a lot of different things, both from the design perspective, from a traffic flow perspective and you know as you can see from the design, and especially the drawing that sits up here right now, the view from the neighborhood which is effectively coming back in this direction, we've really been sensitive to make sure that all of the intensities, the light, any noise, traffic, headlights, that sort of thing, are all minimized to the neighborhood to the north and the view from the south side of it, from Highway 5 is, which is highway traffic driving by, you do have some windows of visibility into the retail which makes it viable and we tried to make the traffic flows as cohesive as possible coming in off of West 78th and circulating, or coming in off of Century and circulating back out through the other direction. The drive thru is, because we've got this unique situation where you have Highway 5 as well as the neighborhood behind it, we went to great lengths to make sure that the drive thru was not visible to the neighborhood. We have the glass here and it's pretty well shrouded from externally, except for as you're driving up Century Avenue you could see the opening. The exit of the drive thru. Other than that it really appears to be internal to the building and that's what we strove to do. With the intent of your business neighborhood zoning, being catering to the sensitivity of the neighborhood on the north side, so we went architecturally we went to those lengths and you know to spend the extra money to go there. And still cater to the, it's a coffee shop that's going in there and Dunn Brothers would be the operator that would be in there. And they have, the convenience store's an interesting concept in that they have a cyber caf6 in there and the convenience store goes after the higher end demographic, the soccer mom types which is prevalent here in Chanhassen, and the mothers who don't want to get out of their cars and still get the cup of coffee and drive thru and maybe don't want to have a, meet with other parents at the coffee shop. That's what the drive thru's intended to do as well as Highway 5 commuter traffic, to get them in and out so there's a lot of activity going on in there and the drive thru actually, hopefully will eliminate cars being on the site for a long period of time and circulate them through and get them in and out and back on their way to work or wherever they're going, as well as to accommodate the other types who just don't want to get out of their cars and get coffee. Personally I don't mind getting out but, so that's really what we're after with the drive thru, and so when we were, and it's quite frankly it's a lot of the traffic that comes into the Dunn Brothers will use the drive thru and Dunn Brothers is saying they may not be successful if they don't have the drive thru so it's important to them, and so that's why we've gone ahead and staff 26 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 has made it clear that it is not, it's unlikely that it would get approved but because of it's importance and because of the importance that we feel of having Dunn Brothers there, that's why we're asking for an amendment to the PUD to allow the drive thru. And one of the other things that Planning Commission had discussed was, well if we allow a drive thru then we're, you know could be used for anything. The use could change to fast food, whatever that is. Whatever the definition of the fast food is. You know our intent is not to have fast food there so if it' s, if a drive thru's okay and it's associated specifically with a coffee shop, you know our intent is for the coffee shop. It's a tenant specific request so if you all want to limit it to just for coffee shop use, however that could be worded, I'm not sure but to limit it just to a coffee shop, that works for us because it really is the intent to just use it for this tenant. So I'm open to questions if you have any. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Schmitt. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Schmitt, the way I look at this plan and the drive thru as you've got it slated is more like a, it's almost like a garage with an open front end and back end, is that a fair, I want to make sure I'm looking at that. Scott Schmitt: Yes, that's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So it's got walls on both sides of the roadway through there and a roof over the top as well? Scott Schmitt: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That's the only questions I had sir. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah point of clarification if I may. You alluded to the fact, well two points. One, I'd like to know where you found out that we have, we're prevalent with soccer moms, we need to talk about that. You said something about the thru for traffic would be enhanced with the drive thru, could you talk towards that a little bit more. Scott Schmitt: Well if a person has a choice to go through the drive thru. The issue was surrounding congestion on the site, and the Planning Commission had a concern that there was too much activity going on on the site and that the drive thru would actually add to that activity. And my comment to that was, with regard to, depending on who comes in and out, it could actually get traffic off of the site quicker, okay. So there wouldn't be, somebody wouldn't be parking a car and then going in, coming back out, backing out and coming around. They would just simply go into the drive thru and come out the other side. Councilman Ayotte: But that's opinion, that's not a result of some study in the sky that you're privy to? Scott Schmitt: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: Alright. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions at this time for the applicant? I think one of my questions was answered for the applicant and that's the color of the canopy that's going to be worked out 27 City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 before we see the final. Okay. Alright, very good. Good, thank you. Any follow-up questions for staff?. Councilman Lundquist: I have two. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate the, can we put up a drawing of the roads or the streets through that. That one's good, yep. Now where the drive thru is drawn on that one, there's still a, there's a right-in and then they would have to go, okay so they come back that way? Ah. And then they go back out the same way they came in. Mayor Furlong: That would only be a right-out? Councilman Lundquist: Right, so then how do they get out of here? Kate Aanenson: They circulate around. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so you're going to come around this way and then go all the way back around out to West 78th Street? Kate Aanenson: Right. Again, this way, we didn't want to encourage stacking. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Kate Aanenson: So it was elected to go this way. Todd Gerhardt: And we're recommending no U-Turn on Century right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And one of the other things the city engineer mentioned here is that, they did...situations, the access point at Century could be, so it'd be right-in only. That's another a mechanism for control. Councilman Lundquist: So it'd be enter only there or something like that? Kate Aanenson: That's another thing that we could look at between now and final as part of the subdivision so that would force you to come back out. Councilman Lundquist: So that traffic flow would then be out to West 78m Street. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: And then if they want to get back out on 5 they take a left and go back to Century, take another left and then get back out onto 5. And did the city engineer have any concerns over that traffic flow at all or she felt that was the best way to do it? Kate Aanenson: Regarding the drive thru? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: No. 28 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: I mean that's the normal, pretty much the normal, that would be actually the normal traffic flow in and out regardless of whether the drive thru' s there. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: That's how people are going to get in and out of it anyway. Alright. Kate Aanenson: Whether there was parking there or not. They come in and get a cup of coffee. Make the same turn movement. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, with the drive thru there you're going to be coming in off Century, assume you come in from there and actually do a circle and merge back into entering traffic. Traffic coming onto the property to get out on West 78a~. Am I understanding that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Come in this way? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Kate Aanenson: And then you have to circle around, if it was a right-in. If you live on Century and wanted to just go north towards the Arboretum Village, you'd still have to come back out. If we put the right turn in, and that's something that the city engineer said that that's something we could monitor, if there's a problem. There seemed to be some concern with the Planning Commission that the large number of U-tums at the Galpin intersection, and that might be a way to control that. Councilman Lundquist: Going south out of that exit or that drive thru, is that a road going down to the south? Kate Aanenson: Here? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yep, and they could actually get a cup of coffee and go through the car wash. So that would loop right back this way. Councilman Lundquist: Is that possible to direct traffic out of that drive thru as a left turn only and out and around? Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think that's something that we talked about. Working with the applicant to look at signage to get flow. They certainly want positive flow. Councilman Lundquist: I mean it's probably not like you're going to have 150 cars at a time coming through there that will be stacked up. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was one of the concerns that the Planning Commission had. Was there enough parking on the site, and again reducing this, more than likely some of the spaces by the car wash wouldn't be used. There was concern if someone was getting gas and they had, would there be enough parking spaces but the applicant has testimony in there talking about the demographics of who goes in, how long they stay so I think that was kind of resolved itself. As far as adequacy of parking. 29 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then back to the comn~nt that the applicant made about, is it possible to limit the use of that, what's in that shop to a certain type of business or a business in that? Coffee shop only or. Roger Knutson: Yes, it is possible. Councilman Lundquist: Interesting. Kate Aanenson: We could put coffee there and the Planning Commission discussed well does that include pastries or not, and philosophically I think we could, I agree with the city attorney but the problem is, once you have a window, then what? Roger Knutson: I mean one concern would be that if you have a single use building, coffee's big now. I can attest to that personally, but they leave for whatever reason and that structure's there, what happens to it? Councilman Lundquist: And McDonald's fills coffee too right, so what's a definition of a coffee shop? Roger Knutson: If you wanted to go that direction we would do our best to define it between now and final plat. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Could you speak Kate with regard to the drive thru, Mr. Schmitt talked about the desire. Is this site the only site along 5 that's restricted or is it fairly consistent? Kate Aanenson: Consistent, we have another neighborhood business on the Kwik Trip site which is on Galpin and 5 which you know, again if the applicant knows our concern is, once we start diluting that standard. Again we looked at this carefully when we did the Highway 5 corridor study. This may seem innocuous, you know we can regulate coffee only. A certain percentage of pastries and I don't know who's going to enforce that. Some of that stuff is very difficult to enforce so and the concern is that it kind of dilutes it and then it becomes something that we didn't want to have, and certainly it doesn't seem that terrible of an idea but like I said, it becomes something else over time and that was our concern. And they worked really hard to come up with a creative idea. We looked at a lot of different types of canopies and coverage and they worked really hard to come up with something architecturally orientating the building and we've worked really hard to give a nice appearance so it worked really well. If you're going to do it, it's a great approach. Mayor Furlong: Right, that's obvious, yeah. Okay, thank you. Any other follow-up questions for staff or the applicant? If there are none thank you. We'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion on various aspects that have been presented? Councilman Ayotte: One of the things we want to do is retain, sustain, maintain standard, but at the same time in order to ensure businesses to do well, I like the idea of trying out a drive thru. You know I take exception that it'd just be soccer moms that use the dam thing but you know, I like it. Roger Knutson: There are soccer dads. 30 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Councilman Labatt: What about hockey moms? Roger Knutson: There are also hockey dads. Councilman Ayotte: I hope you're happy with yourself. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: My view is it's, let's be wild and crazy and try a drive thru for crying out loud. That's all I've got to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I didn't think I would ever utter the words but I kind of like the idea of that drive thru personally but if the applicant, they've done, it seems like a considerable amount of work. However it does concern me that as we have done in the past, we try to look forward long term to see what could be there and it's a little bit of a sit and consider, I wonder if it's the same, if that were Hardee's or McDonald's or something in there versus Dunn Brothers Coffee, it's a whole different ballgame so I think they've done a nice job on that. I'm just a little bit leery. I wonder if there isn't some kind of clarification that we can put around that to put some limits on, if it's within our possibility to do that, to put some limits on what type of drive thru or what gets served or you know, it seems like a lot of work for a drive thru but, that's where I'm at. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other discussion? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well, I'm just, I'm not completely sold on the drive thru. I like the idea but I guess I'm more concerned about you know, if we can word it in such a way where we're protected with one use and that's it, but I don't know how we're going to be able to do that and make it stand up. If 5 years from now Dunn Brothers goes out and the next thing you know is we have a you know, another drive thru fast food chain or something come in there and say well we're going to go here now and it's not what we wanted, I just don't know if we can, I don't know. But as long as it's preliminary, I'm not afraid to leave something in here and give staff time to work with the applicant and the attorney to come up with something. We still have one more chance to knock it out if we don't like it. So if that made any sense? That's where I am. I'm okay to leave it in there and let's take some more shots at it and then we'll see this back in what, 60 days? Kate Aanenson: Final plat? Yeah, 30. Mayor Furlong: I guess to go off your comments there, what would we expect to change? I mean I'm already seeing a 5 line exception with regard to the proposal if we were to go with a drive thru. I mean it's clear that they've done significant amount of work to come up with what they have so I don't know... Kate Aanenson: Right, we talked about it architecturally but just internally some of the ideas you'd have to approach is limiting the square footage. Limiting the product, it says no fast food so would you make except for and then qualify that further? That's something we'd have to work out and try to take a stab at if you feel comfortable limiting it that way. 31 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess my thoughts are, you know there's spot zoning and when we get into this isn't a zoning issue but it is a use issue and I guess in terms of fairness I'd like to see if one business has an opportunity for a level of service, then other businesses should to and either we're going to allow drive thru's in this area, along Highway 5 or we're not. And I guess from my standpoint, it's my understanding that other people have inquired of staff as to locating a restaurant. Perhaps, I don't know if coffee shops are part of it but locating businesses there along this corridor with drive thru's and haven't pursued it this far so one could argue that they've pushed it this far so they get the fight to be there. But I think either we're going to allow that as a business from a competitive standpoint for all businesses along this area or not so I guess at this point I would be hesitant to go forward, even on the preliminary level indicating that we would approve a drive thru. So I guess that's my thought on the drive thru. While there's a certain significant other watching at home this evening, I may not be welcomed back because while she isn't a soccer mom, she likes her drive thru coffee. You know I think we've got to look long term and try to be consistent with what we've done from a planning standpoint along the entire corridor. Councilman Labatt: ...you're starting to sway me, and that's okay. Mayor Furlong: I'm sitting down, go ahead. Councilman Labatt: Going back to the Kwik Trip property. Councilman Ayotte: Which property? Councilman Labatt: Kwik Trip, with the vacant lot to the south... Potentially we could, and if we allow a drive thru here, potentially we could end up with one there. Kate Aanenson: You could get a request again, that would take an amendment and, I'm trying to get the city attorney's attention. Technically it would take a legislative decision for you to change the other PUD on Kwik Trip same as this. Just for clarification, again it says small to medium size restaurant so, and no drive thru. So does this qualify as a small-medium restaurant or qualify as, and that's what's not further refined, but the slope that we're moving down is that drive thru, and what if the gas station went away and it became even bigger, and that was kind of the staff's version...we don't want to go that path. But certainly we have time between now and... Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess the other concern that I have is with regard to location of that sidewalk and maybe this is something that is appropriately addressed between the preliminary and the final and specifically I don't know if the public safety department or sheriff's department has been asked about that from a safety standpoint, especially since that's the egress point where all the traffic flow is expected to leave the property, and there is a controlled intersection or 4 way stop intersection just right down the road. You're not going to stop people from doing what they want to do but the question is should we encourage it at a point that might not be safe so I'd be interested in their comments back with regard to that location of the sidewalk. Councilman Ayotte: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: So I guess other than that my other comments are, even though we focused on a couple issues here, this looks like a wonderful addition to our city. It's clear that a lot of work has been done from an architectural standpoint. A look and I commend everybody involved in doing that. This will be a very nice addition and certainly serve not only the residents in that 32 City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 neighborhood but as that industrial park develops across Highway 5, with other businesses, it will be a very nice addition to the city so with that, those are my comments. I guess at this time I'll ask if there are any other comments. Roger Knutson: Mayor if I could just make a point of clarification. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Roger Knutson: Kate, if they want to consider the coffee shop, and I'm not suggesting you do or don't, but they would have to probably table 1 and 4. Kate Aanenson: Well what I was going to recommend is under site plan, make it a condition of the site plan that these items come back. Because it's only preliminary site plan. Roger Knutson: It's only preliminary site plan but. Kate Aanenson: Preliminary subdivision, excuse me. So make it a condition of the subdivision that these items come back. Roger Knutson: So you've be basically tabling 1 and. Kate Aanenson: I'm going in the same direction. Roger Knutson: You're not taking final action on 1 and 4. Kate Aanenson: Right, because you're only technically seeing the subdivision, because that's a preliminary plat, but if you want to see these other items I was just going to recommend you add a condition subject to final approval of these other items as a part of the subdivision. Roger Knutson: Right and so then you'd. Kate Aanenson: See them all back. Roger Knutson: So you'd be tabling the others. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Roger Knutson: If that's what you want to do. Mayor Furlong: I'm glad the two of you understand that. Councilman Lundquist: Back to the Mayor's point Kate, wasn't there the PUD's that are on the south side of 5 on Century, wasn't there a couple of requests for uses in there with drive thru's that we have. Kate Aanenson: That is an industrial park. Again, this one is a neighborhood business district. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, different zoning. 33 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and the same with Villages on the Pond regarding Culver's. Different zone. This is the only one that the underlying use is neighborhood business. But that doesn't mean people won't come back and ask for request... Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, sure. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger, when you were talking about, or Kate when you were talking about, I assume that was, well one it was dealing with the sidewalk issue. Kate Aanenson: Technically the only one you would see back would be the preliminary plat. If you moved on the other ones, then it'd be done. We're both talking about a mechanism that tables the one. You'd ask for an extension from the applicant, would be one way to do it. Roger Knutson: Right, we would do that. I noticed the 60 days... Again without putting words, if you wanted to move approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions and then in the same motion, or said by separate motion, table consideration of items with the others 1, 3 and 4 until, and then consider them with your final plat. Mayor Furlong: And what page are you on Roger? Roger Knutson: Blue page. Second page. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Roger Knutson: So it'd be approving 2 subject to conditions and tabling 1, 3 and 4 until we bring it back with the final plat. Mayor Furlong: And is there any benefit to approving 2 if we're tabling 1, 3 and 4? Only so we don't have to deal with it again. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm saying the same thing Roger said. If you want to turn to page 24, you would approve the preliminary plat of the subdivision and then make condition number 5 as a part of that. You want to see back as part of the subdivision, could you say it that way 1 through 4? Roger Knutson: You're really, then you have separate items here so I just wanted to make it clear we're tabling them, and we're not taking action. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: And the reason, if you're going that direction, to approve the preliminary plat, you have to do, that's a two step process. You can't get to step two until you finish step one. Step one is preliminary so if you approve that then they come back with the final. Kate Aanenson: You could do preliminary and final at the same time. Mayor Furlong: 2 is the preliminary plat. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, with that. 34 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: I guess my question was to them if we could do preliminary and final at the same time and then we'd just handle the whole thing. Mayor Furlong: We want to approve something. Okay, alright. How about, I'm sorry. Scott Schmitt: The intent is to get preliminary and final plat approval so we can close at the end of this month so. Kate Aanenson: So he wants to get final approval by the end of July. Mayor Furlong: Okay. This is preliminary only was the expectation that final would come at our next meeting? Scott Schmitt: Final's coming at your next...which is when? Councilman Labatt: 24th. Mayor Furlong: Two weeks from tonight. Roger Knutson: So the only thing we'd need to do, not that it's a small task, in the next 2 weeks we work out, find out what a coffee shop is for you. Try to define that. We can do that as well in a week as we can a month so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, more than likely it probably wouldn't happen within 2 weeks. Mayor Furlong: If we weren't going to go forward with the drive thru aspect, and the only issue was the feedback on the sidewalks, would we need to go through the tabling as well? Kate Aanenson: No, because the sidewalks...subdivision. Roger Knutson: You could approve the preliminary plat subject to review of the sidewalk issue. That would be fine, you wouldn't need to table it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: And is it possible to do the final and, preliminary and final in the same night 2 weeks fi'om now? Kate Aanenson: You've done that before. It's just order of...to make sure they've got all these conditions met. That's what I'm saying, I don't think it will happen within 2 weeks but they've been working on it so maybe it could. Roger Knutson: I think it will. Scott Schmitt: I think it will. We don't have a choice. Councilman Lundquist: And even if we said that we would approve everything we had here tonight, it's only preliminary. They'd still, in order to close at the end of the month, they've still got to get the final done anyway. 35 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Right, but you don't want to approve those other 3 without subdivision. It kind of all goes together. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but this is, they're going to be ready to go preliminary and final in 2 weeks regardless of what, if we table it tonight they're going to be ready to go in 2 weeks to close or if we say no on the drive thru and just approve it as is, they're still going to come back in 2 weeks with a final request anyway, so same the amount of work's going to have to happen... define the coffee shop. Councilman Ayotte: That's why, why not go forward with the option of coming up with a definition? Mayor Furlong: I'm ready for a motion. Councilman Lundquist: I'd move that we table 1 through 4 until our next meeting to allow for clarification of the coffee shop and for review of the sidewalks, and other outstanding issues. Mayor Furlong: For clarification you're tabling items 1, 2, 3, and 4? Is your motion? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, from the proposal. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on that motion? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I'm just wondering, why we're not, why we wouldn't want to do number 2 tonight. On page 24, approving the preliminary. Councilman Ayotte: Because it doesn't make any difference at the end. Councilman Lundquist: If this plat wouldn't go through anyway, then why would you replat the whole thing if this development doesn't go through. Then there's no need to take the other actions. It's kind of all a packaged deal. Is that a fair assessment? Councilman Labatt: Do you guys understand what? Scott Schmitt: Yeah. I see your point but if we don't, if the whole thing doesn't work, deal's off, you don't have a final plat anyway. Councilman Labatt: So make sure you're leaving tonight and you're not wondering what we just did up here. Okay. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. Hopefully we're... Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 36 City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Just for clarity, they're not scheduled on for the 28a'. If they want to get it on the 28~, there's other that are people involved in making that happen so I just want to make sure if we're making it contingent on the 28th, it may not be til the second one. It's not scheduled. Mayor Furlong: When you say it may not be until the second one. Todd Gerhardt: First meeting in August. Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Todd Gerhardt: It's either going to be the 28th or the first meeting in August. Mayor Furlong: My sense here is, I didn't, the motion didn't specify a specific time that it would be brought back. Kate Aanenson: I heard 2 weeks. Councilman Lundquist: I did. I tabled it til the next meeting. Kate Aanenson: That's what I heard. I just wanted to make sure that. Councilman Labatt: You have a closing on this property at the end of the month. Scott Schmitt: To be honest with you I think there was a mistake made, and either, probably by me that it was supposed to be final and preliminary plat tonight. That's what it was supposed to be. Somehow it didn't.., closing on the 30~ so if we could be heard the 28th. Councilman Labatt: Preliminary and final. Scott Schmitt: Preliminary and final. Kate Aanenson: I don't want to tell you more than you need to know but there's a lot of storm water calc's. A lot of other detailed information. I'm not sure we've got all of that yet and I'm not sure we can have it in 2 weeks. Just to be...I just want to give ourselves another 2 weeks. Mayor Furlong: We've had a motion made and seconded that included a return at our next meeting. Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: What I'm hearing from staff is that, staff may not be able to do that, is that. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure we have all the information on that. If we do. Councilman Lundquist: But if we can't get it in 2 weeks, then. Kate Aanenson: Right, we put it on the next one. Roger Knutson: As I understand it the bali's really in their court. To get the information that Kate needs so they're desperate so they'll have to get it there. 37 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: And those are all for final anyway. We don't need any of that stuff for preliminary, right? Kate Aanenson: They're going for final plat. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but my motion is to table everything here that's all preliminary and you don't need any of those calc's and all of that thing for final anyway so the motion would be to table all the preliminary stuff, agreed. If we can't get the calc's done, we don't get the calc's done, but you don't need any of that for preliminary anyway, correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So then the motion still would apply accurately to the preliminary stuff. We just may not be able to get the preliminary and final done in 2 weeks which that final doesn't matter anyway as far as this motion is concerned. Roger Knutson: Agreed. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: You're just going to take the action that they requested tonight, is what Brian said. Mayor Furlong: As a final, okay. Any other discussion on the motion to table items 1, 2, 3 and 4. Councilman Ayotte: No. Councilman Labatt: None. Mayor Furlong: Heating none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council table Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development Amendment for Clearwater Development to the next City Council meeting to allow for clarification of the coffee shop, review of the sidewalks, and other outstanding issues. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: At this point we'll return back to our items delayed from earlier in the meeting to our public heatings. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES PROJECT, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS: Ae PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE AN ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF PHM/ CHANHASSEN, INC. Bruce DeJong: What we're here tonight for is a public hearing on issuing some revenue bonds for Presbyterian Homes Minnesota for their senior housing, elderly housing development. What we're doing in relation to this is we are merely providing our good name and tax exempt status to 38 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 allow the developer access to lower cost capital for the project. We're doing that through a joint powers agreement with the City of Victoria, which allows both us and Victoria to issue bank qualified bonds which will allow them some lower interest rate than they could normally get. These bonds are not going to be an obligation of the City of Chanhassen. They won't be an obligation of the City of Victoria. We're just merely a pass through conduit, much like industrial development bonds. What we're going to be doing is simply providing the developer a method of financing that allows them to get the project done and include some of the affordability issues that we would like to have them include. There's one, actually two items on the resolution that I'd like to address that are requested changes. When this was originally put together it was anticipated that we would be issuing the equipment certificates and that we would be issuing some type of street reconstruction bonds. Since we've postponed doing any street reconstruction for this year, the only debt that we will be issuing is the $630,000 worth of equipment certificates that are coming up on the next item so I would ask that, the fifth paragraph down. Whereas the City has issued or expects to issue during calendar year 2003, change the 2,195,000 to 630,000. And then the, in resolution number two we would change that the City hereby designates, instead of 7,805,000, that would be up to $9,370,000 which is the remainder of our 10 million dollars worth of bank qualification, which gives them the maximum flexibility and the lowest total financing cost for the project available. Now the reason that we're doing this with Victoria is because we would only be able to issue the $9,370,000 on our own. With combining this as a joint powers with the City of Victoria being the issuing agent, that allows them access to Victoria's bank qualification also. There's going to be a grand total of approximately 27 million dollars of financing for this so Victoria will be issuing two separate bond issues. One, which is the joint powers which is bank qualified, and then a separate piece which would not be bank qualified. And the reason that Victoria is getting involved in this, the incentive for them is that they will be receiving a modest fee for doing this. So with that I'd ask that you open the public heating. Accept whatever input we get from the public. Close the public hearing and then adopt the resolution. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff prior to the public hearing? If there are none, I will at this time open the public hearing as an opportunity for anybody to come forward who wishes to address this issue before the council. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen: I sent an e-mail to you and to the staff and I thank Justin Miller for replying this afternoon to that e-mail with several questions. The first question was, the fact that this is an optional thing for Chan to do. It's not required I guess is my understanding. The State doesn't require it but we can go ahead with this affordable housing issue. The second question was, I, as a citizen, am I going to be impacted by this other than maybe being a customer of this place sometime. Is it going to come out of our local, metro or state taxes? There's a pool of money here and the implication is that subsidized housing is necessary to, when you talk about affordable housing, some portion of this pool of money is going to come from somewhere other than the people that are renting, and my question was, does that affect me as a citizen as far as a tax being imposed on me. And then the other, last question was pretty much the $25,000 feet being paid to Victoria, what's the source of that money I guess. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any staff reply to those specific questions before we hear from other residents. 39 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Bruce DeJong: Well the impact on the citizenry is really negligible. If you look at it from the standpoint of how the TIF statute is structured and that is, the but for test, which means without the assistance of the city this project would never be built so there would not be any tax gains by developing this project so I don't think that from that standpoint you can say that there is an impact or reduction in taxes that would otherwise be paid on the property. So I don't think that the monies coming directly out of the pockets of the citizens of Chanhassen. And the $25,000 fee to the City of Victoria is coming from the developer and that is a small portion of the amount of money they expect to save through this financing mechanism. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We're still in a public hearing if there's anybody else that would like to come forward at this time. Seeing none we'll close the public hearing. We' 11 bring it back to council for comments and discussion. Any discussion? Or other questions, certainly. Councilman Lundquist: Bruce, just for clarification. Would it be fair to say that this, the increment returned to the developer could be looked at as a subsidy. However it's still, there's a portion of that revenue that's going to be in the city coffers that wouldn't have been there if this project never went in the first place, so although we might not reap for the first 6 or 8 years on this, all of the tax benefit, we're going to get something rather than nothing. Is that a laymen's? Todd Gerhardt: I would say what you're doing with the increment generated from the project is subsidizing the rents for 20 percent of the units. That's what that increment is being used for. And you're not just getting it for 8 years. You're getting it for 20 years. Councilman Lundquist: But we're returning a portion of it for 8 years, right? Todd Gerhardt: We're returning 6 years of 90 percent of the increment generated from this project. 50 percent for years 7 and 8, and the city retaining 10 percent for administrative fees. There's no question that if this project was to stand alone as a market rate, those taxes would go back to each of the... Councilman Lundquist: ...be there if we didn't aid them with the increment return to them on the affordability piece it wouldn't be there in the first place? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Which is the but for test. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Councilman Lundquist: And so we're getting 10 percent tax revenue off of this for 1 through 6. 50 percent 7 and 8, and then from 8 til forever we get 100 percent. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. If that's the council's decision. Councilman Lundquist: Assuming we... Todd Gerhardt: Decertify the district. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions or discussion? 40 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Just the one question that Mr. Paulsen asked earlier, number 4. I'll read it. So the City of Chanhassen, who picks up the slack if the borrowers aren't able to re-pay the full amount? I know that you responded in here but I think it's worthy of. Bruce DeJong: Yes. ff the project does not meet it's obligations and falls into default, then the only recourse that the bond holders have is to foreclose on the property. And attempt to extract it directly through a forced sale or some type of bankruptcy action. There is no direct access to the City of Chanhassen because we're not even issuing the bonds so we are completely shielded and that's in, as one of the qualifications of the resolution. Number 3, it says in no event shall the bonds ever be payable from or charged upon any funds of the city. The city is not subject to any liability thereon. No owners of the bonds shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the State to pay for any of the bonds or interest. So I think that's fairy clear that we are not liable in any way on these bonds. Strictly from the revenues of the project. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, I'd just like to add one point. The same language is in Victoria's resolution. They would not have any obligation. Councilman Labatt: Do you know the status of that resolution there? Todd Gerhardt: I believe there's no problem. They're going to move ahead with it. Mayor Furlong: My understanding is that it passed. Todd Gerhardt: It did pass. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: I had an opportunity to speak to Mayor Bond from Victoria today and I guess I'd like to expand upon the benefit that Victoria receives is I think, well financially there may be a fee here for issuing. He expressed also the benefit, the intangible benefit of supporting this development here in Chanhassen. They have residents that may benefit from the use of this assisted living facility as well. I think when we're talking about the bonds and the reason, we're kind of blending a few things here from a justification between the TIF issue and such, and the mayor was, did indicate that they clearly thought that having this type of facility nearby was a benefit to their city beyond just the fee that they are receiving as the issuing agency so I guess I'd like to expand upon that, the financial components. With that is there other, any other discussion with regard to the recommended motion? Okay, I guess a clarification. They're going to be addressing it. It was my understanding in talking to him that they had dealt with it. Maybe they were going to delay or somehow tabled it or something but this is something that he said he knew that they were aware of and that they were moving forward with it so. So maybe just a timing issue but I did not sense from him any hesitation on their part. On the bonding. Is there any other discussion? Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I would add for the council, we will be looking at that same language that Victoria has so they can get that nominal fee that if we ever in the position, that somebody needs our bonding authority so we can get that same nominal fee. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? 41 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Can I just ask a quick question on that. If Victoria, so they're issuing and we're not, so we're not getting the 25K? Todd Gerhardt: Right. Councilman Labatt: So is there a fee that we could reasonably charge to the developer for assisting them? Todd Gerhardt: I'd have to defer to Mark or Roger. Roger Knutson: For bonding yes. Councilman Labatt: But we're not bonding. Roger Knutson: No. Todd Gerhardt: Mark, can you go up to the podium and answer that question. We are kind of a second issuer on this and is there a mechanism that we can charge a fee in the future? Mark Ruff: Well everything's negotiable I think is answer number one. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. I think the, you know clearly as a part of the joint powers, if Victoria wanted to increase their fee and share part of that fee with you, you could certainly do that. I think the idea though and the reason the city attorney answered it is, the fee is, you know we can't charge developer impact fees here in Minnesota. Usually we have to have some reason for that and as an administrative charge and oversight charge that that fee is usually associated with because you're the issuer so I think that's probably the reason the city attorney answered it the way he did. You know less basis for it than other. Roger Knutson: I also wasn't aware we were on the bonds. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there other discussion or questions on this issue? With regard to adopting the resolution as presented. If not, is there a motion? Roger Knutson: Mayor, have you opened the public heating? Mayor Furlong: We had the public hearing and closed it I believe. Roger Knutson: I missed it. Mayor Furlong: That's when Mr. Paulsen came up. Councilman Labatt: I would move that we approve the attached resolution dated July 14t~. Councilman Lundquist: With the changes to the numbers as Bruce stated with the 630K and the 9.37? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 42 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Resolution S2003-62: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the resolution giving approval to the issuance of tax exempt loan revenue obligations and authorizing execution of a joint powers and allocation agreement relating to bank qualification of such revenue obligations as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Be AMEND CITY CODE FOR INCOME LIMITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TIF DISTRICT No. 8. Justin Miller: Associated with this is a code amendment requirement. The state Auditor has interpreted the TIF statutes in terms of affordability for housing districts, that there needs to be ordinances adopted by the city relating to those projects. The ordinance code amendment that is before you tonight exactly mirrors the requirements that are in the TIF agreement that is up for your approval during the EDA meeting. Basically what it says is that 20 percent of the units in the development must be available to residents that are no more than 50 percent of the median income level for the metro area. An additional 50 percent must be available to people who have no more than 110 percent of the median income. 10 percent are reserved for those that have no more than 150 percent of the median income and then 20 percent, there would be no income limitations. We have discussed this with the developer of the project and they're fine with these requirements. This is specific to TIF District 8, which entails Presbyterian Homes. In fact Presbyterian Homes is the entire TIF district so this project, or this amendment pertains only to Presbyterian Homes. And this ordinance would extend or would go through the life of the TIF district whenever we decided to decertify it so staff would ask that, this is a public hearing. The council open the public hearing, receive any comments and then approve the proposed code amendment. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff?. Councilman Ayotte: If I may Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Ayotte: This is pretty boiler plate then in terms of the numbers. Justin Miller: Yes. We have found that, or Ehlers and Associates has recommended that we do a tiered system like this so that all 100 percent of the units, there is some sort of restriction along with it. And so I would say it's fairly boiler plate, yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: You said this, these rates go for the life of the TIF district which I think we just said was 8 years in the previous resolution, correct? Justin Miller: That's as long as our requirements are with the current project. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So in 8 years if I'm in the units that, no more than 50 percent of the median income, the TIF district gets decertified, does that open me up to having my rent doubled basically? 43 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 Justin Miller: Not on that section because we've also put in the TIF agreement that the 20 percent of the units must stay at the 50 percent level for 20 years. Now the rest of the units you might be able to see, they would I believe be available to. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that bottom 20, or not bottom 20 but that 20 stays at the, that 50 percent median income. No more than 50 percent. That stays for 20 years. Justin Miller: That's right. Councilman Lundquist: The rest of the 80 percent they can basically after we decertify the thing, they can do anything they want with it. Justin Miller: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then the thoughts were then that the developer collects enough on that increment basically to make up for 20 years of affordability. Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?. I have one. Just a point of clarification. Does TIF district 8 exist yet or is that what the EDA is going to do? Justin Miller: It does exist. Mayor Furlong: It does exist, okay. Thank you. And to Councilman Lundquist's question, and this speaks back to the increment but they're all interrelated. The 8 years of tax increment financing. When that expires does that require us to decertify the TIF at that point? Justin Miller: I believe the way it's written is, affordable housing districts, you can use the increment for affordable housing anywhere in the city. So at the end of those 8 years, if there are projects that we still want to use the increment generated to further affordable housing purposes within the city, we could keep the district as a TIF district and I believe, I can't remember exactly what the duration limit is for affordable housing. I think it's 20 years. Mayor Furlong: But we're not required to decertify at that point. Justin Miller: Or prior to. Mayor Furlong: To answer Councilman Lundquist's request. These requirements for affordability would remain in place as long as that TIF district is in place or as amended by a future council. Justin Miller: That's right. Mayor Furlong: Is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other questions for staff at this time? This is a public heating so at this point I will open up the public heating for residents or others to speak to the council on this issue. City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm really green in this area but I think I have a couple questions that might make sense. Does the State Auditor actually, is this a suggestion or has this been passed into law by the state, these affordable housing goals? Mayor Furlong: Why don't we address the questions to the council and then, if you have a couple questions, let's go through your questions and then we'll just deal with them together. Debbie Lloyd: ...so that's one question. The other is in respect to affordable housing. Are you not giving up some tax basis then when you designate a certain percentage as affordable because you would have lower thresholds of income on these units? Are you not giving up city and county tax revenue? Now let's see, and did these measures of affordability help us get to our affordable housing measurements that we wanted to get to and passed a couple years ago under Linda Jansen. Would that help us meet those goals and objectives and I thought those goals and objectives were tied to trying to get affordable housing more for in line for workers in Chanhassen, so I'd like to know how this relates to all of that in terms of goals for our city. And I think that's it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, good. We'll keep the public hearing open just in case. Does staff want to address some of those issues? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, I'd like to invite Mark Ruff from Ehlers and Associates to answer those questions. Mark's very familiar with the project and knows tax increment financing inside and out. Mark Ruff'. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'Ve always said that you're a much healthier person the less you know about tax increment. In response to the questions, first of all this provision on the layers of affordability is not something that is new to law but it has been the subject of a lawsuit in Minneapolis. There's a, if you look on 35W as you drive north, just past Mississippi River, there's a new housing development next to the Metalmatic which is a big metal grinding facility and Metalmatic sued the City of Minneapolis over some assistance provided for that. One of the areas of the lawsuit was, we have affordable housing districts that require that 20 percent be very strict affordability and then the question is, if in a rental housing development does the rest of the 80 percent of the units have any restrictions or do they need to have some restrictions, and the state auditor has interpreted to say that there should be some restrictions but those restrictions are really up to the local municipalities to pass according to their own legislation or their own ordinances, and so that's the purpose so Justin is right. This language that you have before you is pretty common but you have the discretion yourself to set those, and we did have several conversations with the developers as to what levels that they are comfortable with. The second question, I've forgotten already so help me out. Justin Miller: Loss, does this lower the tax receipt. Mark Ruff: Oh, lower the tax receipts for the city and the county. That's a good question. It used to be up until 2 years ago that affordable housing units had a different tax rate than market value. Or market rate housing. That is no longer tree since the 2001 legislative property tax reform. All units, whether they're affordable or not are taxed at the same class rate so it does not affect the tax revenues generally by a special tax class. And the third question in terms of meeting the affordable housing goals, I guess I would defer to staff. I'm assuming it does but that would be for staff. Mayor Furlong: Could somebody address that, rather than just nodding heads. 45 City Council Meeting- July 14, 2003 Justin Miller: Sure. It would help aChieve our goals and Kate probably address those more specifically. Kate Aanenson: Again, part of the goals of the Villages on the Ponds was to provide some affordable and we set not only specific goals for this project but city wide, that this does work towards meeting those goals. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Keep the public heating or do you want to address? Councilman Lundquist: There was another part of that question that responded, that asked about the affordability of the, of city, of workers versus retiring. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: I don't believe our goals are set that specific. There may have been some interpretation of that but if you look at the housing policy it says provide housing for all income levels and typically our score sheet, we're with the Met Council regarded their threshold for affordability based on housing units and rental. The percentage of household income so again it's a broader issue then just those goals. Mayor Furlong: Okay. The public hearing is still open if there are other residents or individuals that would like to speak to the council at this time regarding this matter. If there are none we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion on the items? Okay. Alright, I think we've heard some answers and I appreciate the questions that were raised at both public hearings because there's a lot of things moving around here, but to the extent on the financial side, I guess the one thing I take a little comfort in, especially because this is going to be generally senior housing from an assisted living standpoint. There may be other individuals that are not seniors. People living on more limited incomes, you know this will help them afford the rent and it's going to help the developer charge rents that will help the seniors in our city and the surrounding cities so I think there's some advantage to that. With regard to the, in a sense the TIF district and the deferral of the city receiving taxes, until such time as we get through the 6 years and then the 8 years, I go back to comments made. If we didn't do this would the development go forward anyway and my sense is, from my discussions and that it would not so from that standpoint I think this is clearly a benefit to the city. It's going to mean that to get it done, to benefit residents and to meet housing goals, we're going to have to wait a little bit to get taxes but I don't think from a cost standpoint there so those are some comments. Appreciate the questions though and the responses from staff. Any other discussion on this matter? If there's none is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to adopt the attached code, or the code as proposed by staff within the tax increment financial district number 8. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Heating none we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adopt the city code amendment relating to income limits for housing developments within Tax Increment Finance District g8. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 toO. 46 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 AWARD OF BIDS: EOUIPMENT CERTIFICATE BOND SALE. SERIES 2003. Bruce DeJong: Tonight we're at the culmination of a fairly long process that started last year when you put together the capital improvement program, and identified equipment that we wished to purchase during this year. At that time you identified that the financing source for that equipment would be capital equipment certificates, so in April you authorized staff to work with Ehlers to issue bonds for that equipment and they've gone through the process. We had a couple of amendments that reduced the amount of the sale because some items did not qualify, but tonight we're here asking for your authority to issue $630,000 worth of bonds and Ehlers held the bond sale today and while we did not receive a lot of bids, we did get a fairly aggressive bid for our bonds and I'll let Mark Ruff from Ehlers present that bid tabulation and explain to you how that interest rate fits into the general scheme of interest rates at this time. Mark Ruff: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. A couple of things because some of you are newer to the process of issuance of debt. I'll just go through the typical process that evolves. As Bruce mentioned, back in April you did authorize us to move forward with the sale of these bonds. For the sale of bonds we do involve a special legal counsel known as a bond counsel or a bond approving attorney. That firm for the City of Chanhassen is Briggs and Morgan and in reviewing a list of what are eligible costs and what aren't is something that we do with bond counsel. In addition there was some legislative changes this year that actually increase the number of types of items that we could finance, especially computer related items. That just concluded in May from the legislative session. So that first step is to review with bond attorney that we've gone through the proper procedures. The second step is to put together the official statement, and I think you all received a copy of the document in the mail. It's your disclosure document that's required by the FCC to really lay out the facts and figures about who is the City of Chanhassen and what's been your market value growth, what's your outstanding debt, what's some of your history or the financials, as well as your current financial situation. Normally what we do is take that document, and as long as the city's budget and previous audit and spend time with a rating agency. The city is currently rated by Standard and Poor's. Because this is a small issue and very short term, we don't have a lot of interest costs and so the benefits of a rating, obviously you have to pay for a rating and that rating costs anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 depending on the size of issue. The benefits of rating, and especially in these lower interest rate environments are not always worth, or are sometimes the cost of that rating are greater than the benefits, and I think we saw that in today's sale and I'll outline that so that was the reason that we did not receive a rating, and also part of the reason we didn't receive as many bids because when you're selling non-rated, it tends to be not as big of a market. What we do is national, I should say about the official statement. Part of the reason we sent it to you is, it's really the city's official statement. It's not our's, and while we don't expect you to read word for word the document, I mean it's generally just good to have staff and council review it. We make mistakes once in a while, we appreciate input from people if something's not clear. It's a preliminary official statement. It's not final until after the bond sale and within 7 days the underwriter's required to send it to the people who bought these bonds. So it is a preliminary official statement up until a week after the sale. The bond attorney does put together a resolution. You have a copy of the resolution. Has a lot of blanks in it partly because we don't know who the winning bidder is and all the other associated facts at the time of the preparation of the resolution that we had to go over that in detail. We circulate the official statement really nationally, and it's not uncommon for us in the past to receive bids for the City of Chanhassen from Florida and California, New York, although predominantly in Minnesota because the double tax exemption, you economically get Minnesota bids winning the auction. It is a closed bid auction meaning that we receive bids either through telephone calls to our offices, mailed notices, 47 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003 faxed notices or internet bidding as well. The bids are calculated, and if you look at the bid tabulation sheet, on really two basis. Number one is, underwriters obviously charge a fee to sell these bonds, and then they turn around and sell to the public at an interest rate that sometimes is different than what they're charging the City and so if you look at the bid tabulation, today we did receive two bids. The winning bid was United Bankers Bank. The interest rates, and the re- offering yields are the same, meaning that what we're paying on interest is the same as what the investors are getting. The price is what is they're giving us at the day of closing, which would be August 12th I think on this particular bond issue. Price being the difference between $630,000 bond issue paramount, and the 626 so they're receiving a little less than $4,000 fee. You can see the second bidder actually wasn't going to charge us any fee. In fact they were going to give us an extra $255. They were going to sell what's called premium bonds, meaning they're giving us more than what the par amount is. But their interest rates were higher, and so we do what's called a true interest rate calculation. It's really a present value calculation that says when you add up the higher fees but lower interest rates versus no fee and higher interest rates, who's got the best deal for the city and that comes out to be United Bankers Bank at 2.2758 percent, so that's the rationale behind all this. Between now and closing we'll have documents that we'll have the city sign but by and large it's pretty much just the paperwork much like a closing on a home mortgage. We do receive a deposit from the winning bidder and so they actually deposit funds with us so if for some reason they can't perform between now and closing, we get to keep that deposit. But quite frankly in my 15 years I've never had anybody not perform on a closing. I've had a few times where it's been delayed by a few days but we've never had anybody not perform. So that's the process of a bond sale and the one that we followed today. Obviously with interest rates as low as they are, we're happy to get a debt that's 5 years at 2 % percent. It is about 60 basis points less than what we had projected when we went through with staff on sizing this issue, and I think overall we would certainly recommend that the city pass the resolution awarding the bid to United Bankers Bank. I'd be happy to answer any questions or Bruce, if I missed anything, any comments that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? No? Okay. Thank you sir. Appreciate your efforts. Is there any discussion? Bring it to council for discussion. Okay, hearing none is there a motion to accept the bid for the bonds from United Bankers Bank as recommended. Councilman Labatt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: So moved? Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll call the question. Resolution 02003-63: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council accept the bid for the Equipment Certificates Bond Sale, Series 2003A from United Bankers Bank. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4to0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman Ayotte: I know everyone's tired and it's been a long...a couple of things. One, thank you to the staff, both public safety and engineering worked together and Mayor and 48 City Council Meeting -July 14, 2003 council, I want you folks to know that the lights are coming back on, some portion of them. City street lights. That came up in Neighborhood Watch. I just want to make that as a point of interest. Another thing, just so I can make it as a matter of public record. There was an article in the Metro State paper on Sunday. Missile site clean-up sought is the title by Kevin Diaz. Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent. He told a portion of the story. More of the story is that Chanhassen, the City of Chanhassen took the lead with a consortium of cities to help mitigate risk to the community. I'd like to single out Mr. Gerhardt for taking that lead role to work with Congressman Klein's office to secure some funding. The story is not finished as yet. There will be more to come very, very shortly. The most important point I was going to comment on the 4m of July parade but I'll do that via e-mail. Tomorrow morning Mr. and Mrs. Hergott are burying their son, the first Minnesota soldier killed in Iraq. We busy ourselves often times with activity and forget that we have our children, our sons and brothers fighting in a conflict overseas to free a people and I want to make it a point of making sure that we all remember the sacrifices Mr. and Mrs. Hergott from Shakopee will be burying their son tomorrow at 10:00. He was a PFC with the Third Infantry Division who has been in the country now for 10 months. They just got the word today that the Third Infantry will continue to stay for an undisclosed period of time so they're not coming home, so when you get home say a prayer and remember our soldiers. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion under council presentations? I guess I would just like to say this is the first council meeting we've had since our July 3'~ and July 4t~ festivities and I have heard nothing but very positive comments from people with regard to how that was done so I appreciate and I want to express our appreciation to the staff and as importantly to all the volunteers and residents that participated not only in the parade, and I think Councilman Ayotte speaking to your point earlier, the theme of honoring our veterans was very appropriate and while it was a lot of fun and it brought the city together and the residents together, we are also trying to keep in mind that there are a lot of people that we need to thank and appreciate for having the opportunity to have a parade down our streets and the freedoms we enjoy so, as much as it's some that we honored, it was also a lot of fun and I wanted to recognize and make sure people were aware that all their efforts really did pay off for a very enjoyable time within the city SO. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 49