Loading...
1g Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MARCH 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Kroskin and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, and Bob Generous A. DISCUSSION OF PUD AMENDMENT, FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVICES. Mayor Jansen asked the staff, city council members and representatives from Fairview Health Services and Steiner Development to introduce themselves. Robin Gaustad with Fairview Health Services clarified items of concern after reading the staff report, such as how land acquisition would be accomplished and short and long term capital available to fund the project. She explained the moratorium on the construction of new hospital beds in the Twin Cities metro area and how that moratorium affected development and property taxes on this property. Fairview Health Services asked that the City Council direct staff to negotiate a "payment in lieu of taxes" arrangement so that they could ~nove towards a closing date on the property. Scott Botcher explained the City's position of extreme concern ~vith'regard to the tax free status of a hospital being placed on this parcel, and how this request i~npacted the stipulation in the PUD. The city Manager recommended that due to the financial situation of the city at this point, he could not reco~nmend approval of a tax exempt entity in this PUD. Todd Gerhardt stated that one of the big questions surrounding this proposal was xvhen the State would lift the moratorium on hospital beds and how that would affect when the hospital portion of the project would be built, and how it related to taxes generated on the parcel. Mayor Jansen brought the issue back to council members for discussion, and thanked the applicants for their hard work with staff over the past 6 months in trying to resolve the tax issues related with this project. She stated the main issue for consideration by the City Council was changing the PUD to remove the tax exempt status from the property. Councilman Ayotte stated he would not be in favor of changing the PUD condition. Councilman Kroskin expressed concerns over the financial health of Fairview and their ability to complete the project. A representative from Fairview Health Services explained the Moody's rating and explained that the financial health of Fairview was one of the best in the Twin Cities. Mayor Jansen stated she was in favor of a hospital coming into the city, but had concerns with placing one on this parcel due to the tax burden that is already being placed on the citizens of Chanhassen by the school districts and county. Councilman Peterson stated that the issue of parity hadn't been discussed yet and that he would be in favor of the staff and applicant discussing how parity might be achieved. Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification from Fred Richter of Steiner Development on the tax implications. Councilman Ayotte stated his concerns with this proposal had nothing to do with Fairview Health City Council Work Session - March 12, 2001 Services, but with the debt situation of the city at the present time. Councihnan Labatt stated he agreed xvith Councilman Ayotte and Scott Botcher and that he xvould defer to the opinion of the professional staff in this case. He would not be in favor of amending the PUD. Mayor Jansen summarized that the City Council would not be in favor of a PUD amendment due to the financial situation of the City, and that it had nothing to do with Fairview Health Services. It would not be appropriate to place a tax exempt entity in this industrial park. Howard Dahlgren, an owner of the property, stated that Fairview and the aity were not that far apart on the value issue and explained the positive economic solution this project would bring to this corner and the city as a whole. He asked if this item should be brought before the public for input. Mayor Jansen stated this xvas a policy decision by the City Council in relation to the tax burden being placed on it's citizens. Scott Botcher asked that the City Council think about what the City's obligation is to the school district and county. B. EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM. Scott Botcher asked that the City Council provide guidance on if what he had proposed is in line with what they wanted to see and asked for clarification on specifics. Councilman Ayotte asked about setting targets for staff to meet. Councihnan Kroskin explained IBM's employee incentive program. Todd Gerhardt asked about job description versus incentives. Mayor Jansen asked how the city could get sustainable savings from an employee incentive program, and asked Councilman Peterson for his input since he has been involved with creating incentive programs. Councihnan Peterson stated it ,,.vas better to create individual incentives rather than having departments competing against each other. He suggested trying the proposed program and tweaking it if problems are found xvith no cap on an award offered. Mayor Jansen stated she would be in favor of setting a cap on an award. Roger Knutson explained the legalities of the City Council approving money spent and exceeding salary caps of employees. The public sector versus private sector. Councilman Peterson and Councihnan Kroskin stated they were in favor of moving forward xvith this program. Scott Botcher stated this item would be discussed at the staff meeting with department heads. C. SIMPLIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT NOTICES TO RESIDENTS. Scott Botcher asked for council's input on a single notification process as opposed to the current notices being handled by the different departments, i.e. planning and park and rec. Mayor Jansen explained that the more citizens are informed of the process, the better the process will be. Councilman Ayotte stated there should be a consistent process and asked about having a point of contact in affected neighborhoods. Kate Aanenson stated that most projects tend to get a point person who staff can provide the information tO. Mayor Jansen stated that she was trying to streamline the process by informing citizens that public hearings would be held at the Planning Commission or Park and Recreation Commission, and not necessarily at the City Council level. Councilman Labatt felt that the City Council members are elected by the citizens and should allow them to speak at the City Council level. Roger Knutson stated that in other cities he works with they prepare inserts for each process, i.e. variance, rezoning, PUD's, etc. and those are enclosed with public notifications. Councihnan Labatt City Council Work Session - March 12, 2001 asked if the city still places signs on properties. Kate Aanenson stated it is still done at the developer's cost, but due to the snow levels, some signs may not be visible. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting ~vas opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Kroskin and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Gerhardt, Bruce DeJong, Todd Hoffman, Teresa Burgess, and Kelley Janes Public Present for General Information: Name Address Deb Lloyd Dave Happe Rod Franks Dave Soliday Bill Coffinan Jean Mancini Bobble Headla Diane Potts Molly Willette Tom Devine Barbara Vernes Kari R. Rich Slagle Frank Mendez Linda Landsman Robert Mortenson Dan Shoemaker Charles Hallau Dan Russ James H. Vernelle Clayton Lee Kaufinan 7301 Laredo Drive 604 Summerfield 8694 Mary Jane CircIe 291 Shoreview Court 600 West 78th Street, #250 820 Santa Vera Drive 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 420 Chan View #201 8201 Main Street 7640 South Shore Drive Resident Resident 7411 Fawn Hill Road 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7329 Frontier Trail 7371 Kurvers Point Road 7380 Kurvers Point Road 115 Choctaw Circle 6791 Brule Circle Americana Bank 422 Santa Fe Circle 300 Hidden Lane PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen' Thank you all for joining us. Tonight under public announcements we ~vere going to present the last ~,o of the Maple Leaf Awards to our Public Safety Commissioners. Unfortunately they were unable to join us this evening due to an illness and a sick child in the family so we will be rescheduling those awards. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 b. Approval of Certificate of Compliance for Bluff Creek Corporate Center, Project 98-13. Approval of Site Plan for 28,821 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse Building; Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition; Eden Trace Corporation. Approval of Site Plan for 26,040 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse Building; Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition; P.O.S. Plus, Inc., The Design Partnership, Ltd. e. Approval of Public Gathering Permit, 1NT Waterski Tournament, June 2-3, Lake Susan Park. f. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 26, 2001 -City Council Minutes dated February 26, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated February 20, 2001 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. · VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON 2001 'DAVE HUFFMAN 5K RUN, KEN GARVIN AND MIKE HOWE. Ken Garvin: Good evening. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Ken Garvin: Thank you Mayor. Thank you City Council for giving us the opportunity to present the Dave Huffman 5K to you once again. IfI could, we are trying to make this an annual event in the City of Chanhassen and the puqoose of our coming before you tonight is to just to keep you apprised of what the race committee has been up to. Last year we had 238 runners, it was a gorgeous day. Dave Huffman's family was present and xve had the Rock-a-Bellies and it was just a beautiful day. It couldn't have been a better day for the event. This year we've got some new developments. We've got Joe Schmidt. He's committed to help us emcee the event as well as talks are currently underway with Debra Jones, who is the PR person at the Minnesota Vikings headquarters and she is working on several different marketing opportunities for us as xvell as player attendance possibilities. This year's event will be September 15th at 9:00 a.m., just like last year, xvith shuttle service to Lake Ann Park starting at approximately 8:00 a.m. Mike Howe: Thanks Mayor Jansen and council members. I'm the park commission rep on the Dave Huffinan Race Committee and ! just, I want to thank you for your support on this and we're excited about it again this year. You've got about 6 months exactly to train. Okay, and I know there's snow on the ground but it's going to be gone soon. As far as the budget, last year we budgeted about $2,500 in the Park and Rec budget. We didn't use any of the money. This year we budgeted $1,000. Other than in- kind services fi'om staf~ xve don't expect to use that either and mostly that's because Ken's employer, Americlnn and Northcott and Lou Fowler came up with a sizeable donation so that's kind of our seed City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 money. We have a lot of entrants and we're pretty much paying our way but we're excited about it and I hope to see you all there. Mayor Jansen: Well that's exciting for your second year and I had the opportunity to volunteer for this one. I certainly don't run but it was, oh it was a wonderful event and I would sure encourage everyone and council, they'll be looking for volunteers to work the event. Otherwise we're going to require you to run. Right? Shouldn't that be one of the requirements? Mike Howe: Absolutely. Councilman Peterson: I won't second that motion. Mayor Jansen: So thank you and we sure appreciate your company stepping forward and putting this event together ~vith us and our commission for working as diligently as you have on this to make it happen so thank you. It's a wonderful event for the community. The recommendation, I gather ~ve need to vote on supporting the use of the in-kind services and public safety staff time and financial assistance that's budgeted. If I could have a motion for approval please. Councihnan Labatt: Move approval. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Jansen: We have a second. Any more conversation? Any discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve and. endorse the Dave Huffman 5K Race and support the use of in-kind services, public safety staff time and financial assistance that has been budgeted in the 2001 Recreation Budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Under visitor presentation it does allow for visitor comments and if anyone in the audience would like to approach the podium and address an issue to the council at this time, please do. State your nmne and address for the record please. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I just want to know ifI'll have time for a public colnment tonight for the Igel subdivision. Mayor Jansen' That issue does not appear under our public hearing time. We will be hearing from the applicant, which is fairly standard, and if you have a neighborhood representative, we could then have a 5 minute presentation at that point. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you, I appreciate it. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who cares to address the council? Good evening. Chuck Gabrielson: Good evening Mayor Jansen. I'm Chuck Gabrielson. I believe most of you are fairly familiar with me. City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And your address please for the record. Chuck Gabrielson: And my address, my permanent address is 2600 Arboretum Boulevard. My temporary address falling medical leave is 400 Santa Fe Trail, both in Chanhassen. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Chuck Gabrielson: And many of you know that I've been an active resident in Chanhassen for the past 20 years. I've been extremely active in the years through activities, volun'teering in churches, schools, community, political, social groups, and the reason I'm coming here tonight is actually with kind of a fairly heavy heart. It's trying to bring some cuhnination in the end to a kind of a process that I've been dealing with, and it was the election of this past year. And many people, besides myself, have felt that the election that we had, we saw this last fall was probably one of the nastiest that we've seen in Chanhassen, and I promise to do my best, even a recent letter to the editor in trying to find answers that were still left questioned. And in finding out answers, which largely some have come within the last xveek or so to me, I also am going to announce this is probably my civic swan song, largely because I won't probably be around for the next election. My doctors tell me that, because of the stage of my cancer and such, I probably have about 3 months left to give. So this will probably also be my last appearance before the City Council and I'm sorry it's of this nature but it's one where I'm going to kind of be passing on the torch. One of the concerns that I have, one of the great concerns that I have is the appearance of what has started to appear to me to be a tremendous quid pro quo from this past election. What I have done is I have put into form a number of questions that I'm going to address, and I've also written them out and I would beg your indulgence since I know this is going to be my last performance before the CiD, Council, if I run slightly over, that you would beg my indulgence since you won't ever have to probably worry about seeing me up here again. It's two separate issues that I xvish to address. The first is the red postcard that was mailed out shortly before this last election. And what I'm going to do is try to be as straight forward as I can in my questioning of the situation. And the questions I have start with questions for Mr. Kroskin. Mayor Jansen: Excuse me Chuck, just so you're. Chuck Gabrielson: I know he can't answer my questions this evening. I know that... Mayor Jansen: Okay, but it's just proper procedure that we don't respond at visitor presentations. Chuck Gabrielson: I'm very well axvare of that. I'm not expecting any responses, but I'm just putting them on the record for potential future response. Mr. Kroskin, is it true that at the time of the past election you were the box holder of P.O. Box 1082 here in Chanhassen, the return address for the red postcard used as a last minute attack against Mancino, Senn and Peterson? Number 2, the name Renee Fry appears as the person signing the recording documents for Citizens for Integrity in Government. The responsible party for the red postcard. Is this the same Renee Fry residing at Forest Lake and practicing law in Roseville who served as your incorporating attorney for your company, Mark Data Systems? Number 3. If these are true, then it appears that great lengths have gone to attempt to cover any direct relationship bet~veen you and the red postcard. The evidence leads me to conclude that you played a major pivotal role in the smear attack against Mancino, Senn and Peterson, and is that true? In addition to looking at that situation I also became intrigued, because during the swift appointment process, as to how a person of mystery all of a sudden got catapulted into a seat on our city council so I decided to do a little digging of my own and I found some very interesting information. I now have a number of questions that I would like to put also on the public record, and I understand that I will not receive a City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 response tonight but I believe the questions deserve answers and soon. With all due respect to the mayor and other city council members, I will direct my questions to Councilman Kroskin and I will give Councihnan Kroskin a list of my questions at the end of my presentation. As a preface, in addition to what I believe are many misleading and inflammatory statements on the red postcard, it states that ethics, character and integrity are important in city government and that we clearly need skilled individuals that live ethical lives and display strong character on the council. And I'm assuming that you stipulate to the notion that this criteria set forth in the red postcard should be generalized to all candidates for City Council, including yourself. First question I have is this. Is it true this past election that you certified your legal voting address as 9821 Deerbrook Drive while being aware that you are no longer the owner of that property, and does that constitute voter fraud? Number 5. Are you a homeowner in Chanhassen today? Nulnber 6. Do you currently pay property taxes on property you own in Chanhassen? Because I have a question Mr. Kroskin who you really are. In a 1998 federal deposition you stated that you hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Math. You stated in your City Council application your highest level of education is a 4 year college, 4 years of college with a major in finance and computer science, and you've stated to others that you graduated fi'om Mankato State. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gabrielson, with all due respect. I realize you must have quite a list of issues and we do have an extensive agenda this evening so out of respect for the issues that are on the remainder of the agenda, since you can't be responded to this evening. Since you do have your questions in writing, if you'd like to submit those at this time. You are at your 5 minutes on the visitor presentation portion of the meeting. Chuck Gabrielson: Well then what I may have to do is come back. And use 5 minutes at a time because I believe that these are very important issues. I understand, that's why I asked for indulgence earlier. Mayor Jansen: And I don't disagree with you but right now if we clock our agenda, we're here until 12:30 so all due respect for the people on the later part of our agenda, we have some major issues that we are trying to get worked through this evening so I would appreciate your understanding. I understand. A number of audience members stated they deferred their 5 minutes of time to Mr. Gabrielson. Audience: You can't dodge these bullets. Ethics. You can't dodge these. People... Mayor Jansen: Excuse me. This is a business ineeting and unfortunately we are going to stick to protocol, and we do have major issues on the agenda. You are more than welcome to come back. Audience: It is a inajor issue. Mayor Jansen: I'm not disputing that and sir, I'm going to ask you to please not interrupt again. I appreciate that. If you'd like to submit your questions, you are certainly welcome to do that. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council at this time? If so, please state your name and address for the record. Steve Berquist: I would gladly give him my 5 minutes. I've simply got a question regarding protocol again. The Pulte project is up. It's not a public hearing. Will you allow public input? Mayor Jansen: If you would like to share your comments with us at this time, you are more than welcome to. We are, as we've discussed previously not holding public hearings on each one of the issues so thank you. City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Steve Berquist: Be right back. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. ! live at 7207 Frontier Trail and I come before you regarding Arboretum Village. For the record this project proposal came before you on the 12th of February. That version had received approval from the planning department, Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Senior and Environmental Commissions, as Well as from all senior staff and it was in keeping with the Highway 5 corridor stud>,, the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Comprehensive Plan. i wish to question the tweaking that this council was so eager to do on this project. One of your concerns was inadequate parkland. The plan that I've seen to resolve this, you've chosen to provide additional acreage in the northeast corner of the project and for' this the City of Chanhassen gives up over a half a million dollar's in park dedication fees. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states on page 49 that we cmq'ently have more parkland than xve need for' our current population. In fact, we have more parkland than we will need when we are fully developed in 2020. The comp plan does indicate additional neighborhood parks will probably be needed to serve new residential areas. This new public park is not needed according to our' own comp plan, which you've all advocated following and enforcing. So I'm confused as to why you've chosen to delete a totlot, which amounts to a neighborhood park, and add a 6 acre public park in a non-public area offofa private street. On November 28th you Madam Mayor', Mr. Kroskin. Mr. and Mrs. Ayotte, Dennis Griswold fi'om Pulte and a Longacres residents were the only people in attendance at a Park and Recreation Commission. At that meeting the Longacres residents expressed concern that the Longacres parks may provide areas of recreation for "these people". Further. she was sure this xvould cause friction. Check the Minutes folks. The statements are in context. So with the new tweaked plan tile citizens of Chanhassen lose a half a million dollar's in park dedication- fees, but we get a publicly owned, publicly maintained park itl a very non-public area off of a private street. It's a beck ora deal. The other neat thing, the land we're losing a halfa million dollars to get, we're going to allow a storm water pond to be built on. This is per' the last drawings. To the best of my knowledge we as a city have never allowed a stoxxn water pond to be built on public parkland before. It's a new t~vist. There was also a desire to keep tile entire stand of trees at the south border of the property. You've accomplished this. This 2 acre additional stand of trees has forced a loss of 18 of the most affordable units and has been instrumental in forcing the adoption of private streets throughout the project. The only non-private street xvill now be West 78th Street. The use of private streets will deter fi'om the affordability of the units insofar as the association fees will now have to cover road maintenance, snoxvplowing, etc, but you know this. The residents will continue to pay their full share of property taxes. Again, when contrasted with your stated goals of providing and ensuring affordability, the change seems very contrary. Which brings me to sustainable affordability. The staff report on page 3 says, this is extremely difficult to do unless there's a commitment fi'om another' agency. This isn't news. Subsidation was never the intent on this project and yet that's what sustainable affordability is, but it sounded good at the time. I'll admit that. While I'm on this subject, I want to refer to item 39 of your conditions of approval. It states, the developer shall work with tile city to accomplish goals for affordable housing. 30% of the ownership housing shall meet criteria established for affordability by the Met Council. Now I want to know when was the public hearing that changed the language of the Livable Community Act. That agreement as I recall says that the overall goal should be 30% of the entire housing stock in the city of Chanhassen. The language of item 39 indicates a change that has not been approved by this council and last time I heard that discussion was going to occur' in April. Further, item 39 states the developer shall also work with the city on affordability mechanisms for income qualifying and maintenance of affordability. I read that and I thought, what does that mean. They're warm, fuzzy words and they're very politically soothing. I think the sentence should be removed. To sum it up, a City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 sustainable affordability is not doable without subsidation, the marketplace should work. Moving on to the gateway in Chanhassen which has now become a pond 11 feet below the roadway. The residents of Arboretum Village now have private streets, coupled with public exposure to the traffic of Highway 5 and 41. Noise, lights and action galore. Plus the pond, according to the staff report, will be difficult to maintain. More of our tax dollars to spend. Lastly, with the changes negotiated by Mayor Jansen and Councilmember Kroskin, why is this a PUD? Don't the net densities and housing types now allow this to be a standard subdivision? I hope you address that within the context of the hearing. I submit that the plan staff report dated for the council meeting of February 12th was superior to today's plan and I submit, I propose that the council reconsider the previous plan and act in a manner that is responsible to the entire community, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I am potentially Pulte's own neighbor, if they get approved, and I want you to 'know how important, and I'm not going to take very much time because I've already been through it. This corner I've seen since 1959. The way it's been. It's very emotional. I'm not going to cry because I already did, about a half an hour ago. I've tried really hard to be a really good person for that comer. Accept this development and I've gone through many changes with them but that's the way it is and I've always tried to support their plan. The plan that I believe Steve is talking about was the February 12th one. I cannot support that for the fact that I have been granted a 10 year interim use permit. ! need protection of that 300 foot ordinance, even though the city attorney does not agree with that. The Mike Lien who is head of Carver County Environmental Services is willing to give his input on this entire situation here with-this 300 foot buffer setback we want to call if. He and I had a conversation today. He did clarify with me that yes indeed, even it's contrary to the city attorney's belief that if I were to purchase, land that's next to a feedlot in the unincorporated parts of Carver County, even though they don't regulate the incorporated cities, okay. I would indeed have to stay 1,000 feet away from that feedlot as a developer coming around it. It's the burden put on the development coming around the feedlot. The reason being is to prevent the noise and smell. The farmer can't ~nove his building so therefore they're putting the burden on the developer. I have tried to you know, say this 300 foot thing which is 60% or whatever it was of 500 feet ifI weren't a commercial operation, is something that I'm going to try to adhere to to the best of my management practices. I absolutely have to have that. When we calculate that Mike Lien said that in Carver County they take 50 animal units per 1,000 foot setback. I have 17 when I'm up and running. Therefore that makes it 340 feet at the same calculation, which means it's one animal unit per 20 feet so therefore we calculate that the same. It comes to 340 feet buffer, okay. Like I said, I'm trying to work this and the city attorney in this situation is wrong. The reason being is that philosophically the reason for that buffer is to limit noise and smell coming from me. Noise and smell comes from both sides. It's like saying I'm pregnant but I'm going to have a baby. They go together. ! need you to understand how serious this is. If I don't get the 300 feet, I'm going to be setting myself up for many nuisance suits and I can't afford to defend myself. But like I said, I do plan on doing the best management practices I possibly can. This is a development that I've supported. I can't support it ifI don't get the 300 feet. I don't know what the answer's going to be but I want you to know how serious this is so thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Sue. Rob Moschet: Good evening Madam Mayor, Honorable Council. My name is Rob Moschet. I reside at 7006 Cheyenne Trail here in the city. I'm here again as a representative of Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church, but I'm speaking at this point in my individual capacity. I think it's unfair, and I'd like to for whatever it's worth, register a protest that the public comment portion of the meeting here tonight is coming before City Council Meeting - March 12, 200t we get a chance to hear fi'om the staff and the report on the changes or the tweaking of the Pulte plan that was to have occurred since the February 12th meeting. Mayor Jansen: Did you have an opportunity to come in and pick up a copy of the staff report by any chance, or no? Rob Moschet: I did not and I have not picked up a copy of the staff report, but I haven't heard from the staff as to their position on that and until it's publicly stated before the council, I don't know that, I mean staff reports are amended all the time. From what I understand however, {he tweaking that has gone on, and as Mr. Berquist has pointed out here before you tonight and in his editorial to the paper, leads me to believe that the February 12th plan was much preferable to what is apparently going to be proposed tonight in that February 12th plan allows for more units that we've labeled affordable. And also did not contain the provision that the streets in the proposed development be privatized. I think that with the privatization of the streets and the loss of the affordable units the new proposal, as I understand it, and if it's actually going to be proposed as stated, is much less preferable than the February 12th proposal and I would go along xvith Mr. Berquist in urging the council to reconsider and to pass the February 12th proposal. I'd also urge the council to open tip the meeting for public comment after we've had a chance to hear the staff presentation. Mayor Jansen: I appreciate your comments, thank you. Peter Prosen: Hi. My name is Peter Prosen. I live at 2701 Longacres Drive in the Longacres · subdivision. I back up to the property/in question, the Pulte Homes and I'm just looking for a justification on, you have a $600,000 deficit in your budget. You're thro~ving away $560,000 in parks money and 18 tax base properties. I don't see how you can justify cutting back lots and taxes xvhen you don't meet your budget as it is. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else? Caring to address the council. Okay. We'll end visitor presentations. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR CENTURY BOULEVARD PROJECT 97-1C; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor and Council. This evening xve are, on February 12th the City Council received the feasibility report. This evening xve're asking the council to approve that feasibility report directing that and recommending that the improvements to Century Boulevard, including watermain, sanitary scx~'cr and storm sewer be constructed and at this time to authorize plans and specifications and we will be going to RFP for selection of a consultant services. Tonight is a public hearing and with that I'I1 answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff at this time councilmen? Okay, thank you Teresa. We will open this then for the public hearing portion of this agenda item. If there's anyone who cares to address the council, if you could approach the podium at this time. Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Any discussion? Any comments? Otherwise I'll look for a motion. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted. Councihnan Labatt: Second. City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: There's a motion and a second. No more discussion? Resolution #2001-12: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the feasibility report and authorized preparation of plans and specifications for Century Boulevard Street & Utility Improvements, Project No. 97-1C. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. CONSIDERATION OF A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (379 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, AND VILLAGE HOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.94 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC~ USES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL; LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41; ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES: A. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. Be SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES INTO 2 ADDITIONS; THE FIRST ADDITION INCLUDES 26 BLOCKS CONTAINING 199 UNITS AND OUTLOTS A-F, AND THE SECOND ADDITION INCLUDES 24 BLOCKS CONTAINING 180 UNITS AND OUTLOTS A-C. Ce SITE PLAN REVIEW OF 32 CLUB HOMES, 105 MANOR HOMES, 82 COACH HOMES, AND 160 VILLAGE HOMES. ' D. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL .54 ACRES OF WETLANDS IN 2 SEPARATE BASINS. Public Present: Name Address Susan McAllister Dan Cook Tom Green Peter Prosen Terrie Wehse Leah Hawke Mike Ryan Mike Zumwinkle Dennis Griswold Mark Guenther Pat J. Connolly Albin Olson Naomi Moe Sherol Howard Rob Moschet Susan Engh, Pastor 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Pemtom Mills Properties 2701 Longacres Drive 2719 Longacres Drive 7444 Moccasin Trail 2595 Southern Court 7250 Hillsdale Court Pulte Homes Pulte Homes 2008 Grand Avenue #306, St. Paul 820 Santa Vera #122 820 Santa Vera Drive 820 Santa Vera Drive 7006 Cheyenne Trail Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church, Excelsior City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mel Kurvers John Getsch 7240 Kurvers Point Road Dogwood Road Kate Aanenson: Thank you. What I'd like to do is just review. I would like to review the changes since the council looked at this one month ago. Just kind of take a summary review of the changes that the developer's made to the project. Just a point of clarification...what's in the staff report, the executive summary. That has the changes in it. I also handed out some language changes and also a letter from Mrs. McAllister, which I'll go through also. So in summary the changes are, the original unit count was 379. It's now 342. Most of those units being absorbed by the introduction ofa 5 acre park in the northern areas of tile project. All of the trees along Highway 5 have now been saved. The developer also introduced a gateway treatment and the affordability. The language on that should be a minimum of 30%. That was the intent. That was my mistake. A minimum percent of 30. Actually with this project now it's still close to 50%, so that was tile intent to a minimum. Because we didn't know what the final numbers were as this was moved. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Kate Aanerlson: Okay. So xvhat I'd like to do, excuse me. You can't see it oil this side but this project still includes all ofOutlot E and F will still be preserved outlot. E and F are the two northern parcels. One on the west side of 4t and then E is the piece that's on the other side, straight north of, right there. Thank you. That's north of the site that's kind of topographically separated. The applicant has also changed the architectural features on the edge of the village units. They're brick. Brick feature on tile edge of these units facing the perimeter of the project. Those will be all brick. Staff did have some recolnmended changes which are reflected in conditions of approval of the staff report. Those conditions are the elimination of the pond on 5 and 41. The reason for that is based on the depth of that pond and xvhere it's draining. When MnDot looked at this pond originally they felt it could all be handled by the pond that's adjacent to Century Boulevard. Also MnDot has 3 or 4 other pipes that are coming into this property on the other side of 41. Kind of mid-way between those two ponds and trying to take this pond's water over to that other, the larger pond on Century. This water over to that pond would cause some problems with existing pipes and drainage. The other concern that we had is based on the grade change, it would be difficult to get in there and access to clean that pond. So what we're recommending, and again that is reflected in the conditions of approval, what we're recommending is that we do some sort of, there is an existing wetland that we want to enhance to do some wetland vegetation, and then add some additional trees. A mix of trees. We believe that would also provide a better buffer to those homes that are right there at the cornel', as far as noise and light attenuation. So again that is reflected in the conditions of approval. There is a 5 acre park to the north. In order to accomplish the 5 acres we're recolnmendi~g that the pond not be included ii1 that total. Again that is reflected in the conditions of approval. And then also the 3 units, the 1 twin home and the 2 other doubles be eliminated from that to give integrity to that pond. I mean that park. That it's a little bit larger and contiguous. Mayor Jansen: And you're relocating them, which is one of the conditions. Kate Aanenson: Right. There would still be 342 units. They would just be located wherever they can put them on the site. Again the overall density would be still 5.7, which is what we were looking at before. The overall net went down because we took the parkland out. You don't get to count that twice for density. So the parkland's taken out so the actual wetland, excuse me, upland is approximately 60 acres. So the overall density is still 5.7 units all acre. The area to the north is 3.6 units an acre, and the units to the south is 8 units all acre. 10 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And Kate, if you could clarify on the north, the maximum number under the zoning would be 4 and they're at 3.6. Kate Aanenson: Correct, so they're under. And the other one would be 8. Mayor Jansen: And they're at 8. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: The other change that the developer made was the private streets, all except for West 78th. Staff believes that the main loop streets as Bob is pointing out, should be just the major loop streets should be public streets and we did recommend that. That is reflected in the conditions of approval. Also, we are recommending access to the McAllister site. That site does need sewer and water. In talking to the City Engineer, we believe that can be accomplished with just, without putting a road there but securing an easement if at some time in the future. Her concern is that she doesn't have a road with security and end up being somexvhere were people would park, but if we could secure an easement on that access, that does provide an opportunity to use that easement to get sewer to the site, because that's where the sexver is coming from. And that does provide an alternative for that property to be developed, and I think that should alleviate her concern about the street being right next to her property. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And Kate, while you're on the streets. The lower loop you mentioned is being recommended to go back to public. Kate Aanenson: That loop, yes. Mayor Jansen: And also the upper loop, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. So we would have a public street to that park. Mayor Jansen: So though it was proposed to us by the developer to be private, staff is suggesting we stay with public. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: The other, as far as the 300 foot separation again, that was addressed by the city attorney. How that works. Currently as this site sits right now, there's a 300 foot separation between the uses. The house, the closest twin home and the McAllister property. Mayor Jansen: So with the 4 located there, just so I'm clear, you're saying that from the end unit it's 300 feet currently from the property. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Approximately, correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. 11 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a change in the conditions of approval. The staff report. We did add a condition regarding architectural standards. The developer at the last meeting provided the materials because we xvere concerned about making sure that we had, at the Planning Commission they recommended that there be a mix of materials and stone and brick. This just tightens that up a little bit in that condition number 9 which ~vould be under motion C would state that no adjacent unit shall have the same front elevation colors or architectural styles with any 4 types of homes. Materials to be consistent with the Arboretum Village elevation materials dated 2-7-01, which is what I attached to you. And this was submitted by the developer last time. We just want to make sure what our expectation was with that. Councilman Labatt: Did'you say number 9 or number 107 Kate Aanenson: It'd be number 10. I handed that out. Cotmcihnan Labatt: Yeah, I just want to make sure, Kate Aanenson: Number 10, correct. Again, all the changes requested by staff are reflected in the staff report so if you were to approve it, it ~vould be with the modifications so when it xvould come back for final plat, those changes would have to be reflected in the plan. I also wanted to state that there are 4 separate motions xvith this. The original staff report is attached, and the reason it is attached is it's got all the background regarding engineering. It also has the Findings of Facts for all the approvals. So that is important, if you are to approve it with the conditions outlined in the staff report with modifications, that you also are approving as referenced in the first motion, those Findings of Fact. And with that I believe I've covered everything and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff from councihnen at this time? Councilman Peterson: Kate, do you have any idea how many, what tile price increase of putting brick on the one bank of units would be? Is that going to bring it up $3,000? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure. You'd have to ask the applicant that, I'm sorry. Councilman Peterson: But you don't think it affects the affordability of them? Kate Aanenson: Not significantly. I think the Planning Commission recommended brick on those too. The exterior and the foundation walls. Councihnan Ayotte: The issue of the traffic light, could you address that. Kate Aanenson: Well we are recommending that they pay a portion of those on a per unit basis, similar to what we've done with other projects. We also will be asking Westwood to do a traffic study with their project so we'll see what tile warrants are. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Kate. The other part of the staff report would have to do with the parkland and a clarification there. Were we are currently, within this project, is a 4.7 acres on that northern peninsula and that northern peninsula was recommended by staff as far as a location for this passive/recreational park area because it would be then contiguous with the primary corridor. We could require 9.8 acres, which is where that $457,000 number comes from so it's an either or land or fees. Currently we're at 4.7 in parkland and at a fee approximately of $250,000 coming back to us still. And Todd and Mr. Griswold have been in discussions over what that number actually is. I listed on our sheets 12 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 that what has been proposed to us, and I'm mentioning this because we'll have Mr. Griswold come up next. I've noted here that what Pulte has proposed is dedicating another couple of parcels to that parkland number in order to reduce those fees further. The discussion on the first two actually are along the two trails, and those are currently covered with easements. Trail easements. The outlot on the north side of the wetland area, which is 3.03 acres is also currently covered with a conservation easement. And what that means is it's not our property. It just means that they can't go in and do further development, correct Kate? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I was just going to add, I didn't point ou[ the other change and that was the trail that was put in along this edge. This trail was also added in. Mayor Jansen: And that mirrors one that you're working on, correct on the other side so it becomes a complete loop then and back down to 78th Street with the development that's on the east side. Thanks for pointing that out. Councihnan Peterson: Another question Madam Mayor. I'm trying to figure out, what you handed out before the meeting on the trails, you've got 120 to 150,000. Does that mean that we pay that or the developer pays that by putting it down here? I'm trying to add up all the numbers. Mayor Jansen: That is what the fees would go to construct. The 120 to 150,000 in construction fees is what the parks and rec director is estimating on those two trails right now, and that number will be then finalized once those construction costs come in. This development is generating 150,000 in fees. Trail fees. Councihnan Ayotte: That's one time without it incurring service. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Councihnan Peterson: But that's more, under the 2-12 plan, February 12th plan, that money would have been paid through the developer, not through those park and trail fees, right? Mayor Jausen: I noted under the original that it was 80,000 on the original for that northern trail, which would have covered construction. That would have come out of the 150,000 in fees. Councihnan Ayotte: That's ~nore trail for the same amount. Mayor Jansen: We've added the eastern trail that is approximately 40 to 70,000 is what the parks and rec director's estimating at this point. Councihnan Peterson: So we're around 325,000 in incremental costs, with the "current plan". Am I reading that right? The 250 on the 4.7 acres and say the 70,000 you said on the eastern trail that wasn't in there before, so approximately 325,000. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Councihnan Kroskin: I don't know if that's incremental cost. Councihnan Peterson: Well it wouldn't have been there if we would have approved the 2-12 plan. 13 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: We would not have had the 4.7 acres and we would not have had that additional trail, correct. Correct. Councilman Peterson: I'll rephrase my 2-12 analysis to. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: So the eastern trail, you're talking about the one along. Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's a new trail. Councilman Labatt: That's new. And Kate, when you and I had met that one day we talked about the need for that trail and why this wouldn't abut up to the end of the cul-de-sac and intersect with the ilmer sidewalks. Kate Aanenson: You'll have to talk to the park and rec director about that. Councihnan Labatt: Okay, Todd. Todd Hoffman: Your question again Steve is whether or not that trail is needed on the east side? Councilman Labatt: Right. The question is right at that park shelter, where it joins up with another . 'sidewalk that goes up along the northern end of tile cul-de-sac and then connects to the inner sidewalk. Why do we have to have that? Two paths. Why wouldn't we just eliminate that eastern path to preserve those trees in the area along there? Mayor Jansen: One's private, one public. Todd Hoffman: Well tile sidewalk, if this is a public street, would be a public sidewalk as well. ;As far as transportation they're a duplication. You can get there either way. As experience they're a completely different experience. So this trail provides a loop of about $40,000 to $60,000 in public investment that, as a council you can decide xvhether that's a value to the city or not and request the developer to leave it on or take it off. It is not in our comprehensive trail plan. It's an addition ~vhich often happens when these individual sites come in. You kind of take a look at any added value that you can gather fi'om the site. The trail on the north side is in the comprehensive trail plan. It's integral to the overall circular loop which will go around this entire wetland area. So this is just an added amenity which is nice and itjust needs a decision whether or not we xvant to invest those public dollars in that loop trail connection. Councihnan Labatt: Okay, but with staffs recommendation for making the looping roads public, that sidewalk would then in essence become public. Todd Hoffinan: As well. Councilman Labatt: Now that would set up during the winter months would be maintained by the individual homeowners? Todd Hofflnan: Correct. And that can be a problem during the winter. During the winter this would be plowed by our maintenance people. Sidewalks in the city routinely are not plowed so. 14 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And the other conversation that we had is that was being added in, was that you've got public that's coming to enjoy the public space and the wetlands and if you're routing them then into the neighborhoods, you're now putting them into a different experience than they're actually there for and you're actually putting them in the neighborhoods instead of keeping them out on public space. Was the difference between those two that we had discussed when we were reviewing it. Councilman Labatt: Okay...the debate had become that this was a public park at the end of a private street. Now with staff's recommendation this would become a public road. Similarly, the little shelter or little park in the Stone Creek neighborhood up at the end of Stone Creek Circle, at the end of the cul-de- sac, I mean that's a neighborhood park but yet that's a public park, correct? Todd Hoffinan' Correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Councihnan Kroskin: Todd, can I ask a question on the trail on the east side, you said the cost to put that ill is. Todd Hoffman: Approximately $40,000 to $60,000 based on lineal foot calculation. Cost estimates are dependent, the actual cost is dependent on what we find in the field for construction conditions. Councilman Ayotte: It's certainly no more than, will it be the high side? Todd Hoffinan: $60,000? _. Councilman Ayotte: 60 would be the high side? Councilman Kroskin' So I think the, Councilman Peterson and I were~ustjotting some numbers on the, and I just want to be clear iii the incremental cost versus the Februat3, 12th plan. You've got $457,000 in fees versus 250 that are dealt there plus the 40 to 60,000 is how we're arriving at the, correct? Councihnan Peterson: Todd you left me before, where'd he go? Kate, I'll ask you and Todd a question. To put you on the spot. I'll put you on the spot first. If you had to vote for one versus the other, would you vote for the February 12th or this one? Mayor Jansen: Actually I don't think that's a. Kate Aanenson: I wouldn't answer it anyways. Mayor Jansen: And we should probably move on to the developer comments at this point. Councilman Ayotte: Nice try though. Mayor Jansen: That puts staff in a really political position unfortunately. Councihnan Peterson: That's why we get paid the big bucks then? 15 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Yeah. That's your decision. Mr. Griswold, if there's anything that you would like to address to the council at this point, you're certainly welcome to come forward and we have surely appreciated your cooperation and hard work with us over the past couple of weeks to meet that list of points that we had reviewed with you in the last meeting. You have certainly been a real partner xvith us on this so thank you. Dennis Grisxvold: Well thank you Mayor and members of the council. Since xve did have that February 12th meeting, we have had a number of meetings, as you know and I just went through and counted them up and I counted 7 meetings with staff and everybody else involved relati~/e to this property so we are taking it very seriously. We do appreciate the fact that, well first of all we appreciate the situation that the city has gone through and we do appreciate with the new council the directives and requests that xve received last time, which were in the form of a firm direction to proceed on our plan. And I understand that 100% of the people cannot agree on one or the other. I think we have two plans that are both excellent plans for the city of Chanhassen so I do think they both would work. I think that the second plan does something that the first one doesn't, and that does give more green space and open space to the site and to the residents. The first plan had more of the site within association ownership. The second plan has more of the green space in public ownership and I think fi'om the public's viewpoint that is a positive direction. The plan represents a fairly complex set of changes that balance the green space and the units and the unit count and profitability on the total community. And community I'm saying Arboretum Village. If you take certain parts of that plan away, the plan starts to fall apart fi'om an economic standpoint and it starts to fall apart from just being a viable plan in a number of regards. And I heard of several items tonight that are eroding away at that plan, and I would like to address those because I am in favor, and I would hope that the council could make a decision tonight on either Plan 1 or Plan 2 or a combination thereof. And I think we've, over the last 17 or 18 months we've looked at the site in every way we can possibly look at it. I think we have some very viable alternatives here and I would hope that the council xvould approve Plan 2 tonight. Now the positive aspects and I xvould like to just comment on 2 or 3 of the items because they have been changed. Number one, the public portion of the plan has been expanded in the form of park dedication and as was mentioned, the plan indicates the greater part of the open space along the northerly wetland through here, along this'area and through here and along the east as park dedication. It also includes the park dedication being that 3 acre parcel on the north side of the wetland area that is up off of the paper in this location here. In addition to that, the plan is dedicating to the city through easement and open space the portion west of Highxvay 4t. That has really been fairly consistent over the last several alternatives. The net affect on the open space then is that per this plan we're showing 16.26 acres of park dedication, and out of that 16.26 acres we're only requesting a credit for a portion of that. And I understand that there's a balancing act going on between dollars dedicated and acres dedicated. I also understand that there's some of the land could be left as easement or open space as part of the corridor. However, I think through park dedication that does not necessarily go against the credit. The city would have the use and the definition of that as park so that we would not be looking in the future of that being changed by any means and it would not have to necessarily go against the park dedication portion. The park dedication that we're required, according to your formula is 9.98 acres so you can see that we're dedicating 6.28 acres in addition to that required amount. Now in addition to that we are, we will be paying the trail fee, which is as I understand roughly $150,000, and in addition to that we would be putting in all of the interior trails that connect to that public system. So the public is not only getting the public portion of the trails that will be within the public land but there's a greater part of the system that will be accommodating not only our future residents but the people who would be coming to see them and other parts of the public. So I think that's a definite plus for the city of Chanhassen and the public in general. The density, as was mentioned, does meet the comp guide plan. 8 per acre on the south and 3.6 on the north. Part of that formula as far as this site working is that I would request that we keep the private drives private. Private drives are built to 16 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 public spec. They're covered by a public easement. They look and function exactly like a public street except the public doesn't have to pay for the maintenance on them. And I think it's a positive that those are kept private. All of the streets that we're talking about are interior loop streets. They're not streets that would be circulating traffic from other subdivisions, other parts of Chanhassen. They're all looped streets within Arboretum Village proper and the public street, West 78th Street, would remain public obviously and that would be the public corridor through the overall community. Now we think that is a very important item in this. We do not feel that that long term maintenance is a detriment to the associations because we do have the population and unit count to justify maintaining streets like that. We do it all the time in other subdivisions where typically there's a publi6 street going through the property and private drives off of that. So it's very common and it's done all the time. Mayor Jansen: So Mr. Griswold, if you don't mind my asking. Dennis Griswold: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Then the net effect on the homeowner association fees that each of these individual units ~vill be impacted with, is that significant or insignificant with the change from public to private? Dennis Griswold: I think it's insignificant. You're talking just probably a few dollars a month to do that. And there again the maintenance is a very long term situation and the maintenance of snow removal and that type of thing is really a small portion of the overall fee because the private factor is doing the individual driveways on those units that back out to the public street. So they have to essentially remove all that snow off the public right-of-way anyxvay and so it's really a small amount that they're dealing with there. _ Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for addressing that. Dennis Griswold: Thank you. The other portions that are important I feel are that the gateway aspect was addressed. It was addressed in a xvay that was suggested by the city and we feel that this particular solution would work well with this development. We are dealing with similar amount of trees and species through...back to this area so it's. Mayor Jansen: So you doubled it up? Dennis Griswold: Well it's the same amount of trees, just moved to a different location back away from the highways. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And the berms are still present, correct? Dennis Griswold: It's all sloped through there. It slopes down to the pond with the tree buffering against the buildings themselves. Now if you look at the older plan, and maybe we have that. I think I addressed that it sloped from the buildings down to the pond with the tree, the vegetation. Mayor Jansen: So in that area it's the natural slope and along the 5 and 41 it's bermed? Isn't there berming Kate? Dennis Griswold: There's berming in other areas but in that particular area it's the building with the slope going down to the pond with the trees between the building and the pond. 17 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that was true of the original plan too then? Dennis Grisxvold: Correct. The difference was that in the original plan, as you can see there are two buildings that come diagonally directly out to that corner and the trees were out closer to that existing wetland right in the corner. As yoU compare that to the adjusted plan, the buildings were split so you have this larger green space at a diagonal to the corner with the pond. Same amount of vegetation. Mayor' Jansen' Okay, thank you. Dennis Griswold: And of course the one major item that council was requesting before was the preservation of the trees along Highway 5, and the way xve did that of course is to make the streets through there a private drive and relocated it to accommodate those trees. So I think that's an excellent solution there. It's a combination of all of those items. It's not just a combination of losing 37 units. It's not a combination of only making the streets private versus public. It's all of those factors combined that really make the plan work. So with that we have enjoyed the council's position direction from the last meeting. A lot of times coming to a council meeting you sort of get direction, but not really and this was very easy to follow. There were 5 points that were given by council through staff which we met with just 2 or 3 days after' that council meeting. The points that were mentioned were work on the park dedication, full compliment of land versus fees is desired. The maintenance of trees along, south of 78th Street, xvhich we've done. The affordability maintenance which we are addressing in terms of what we can as market rate builders. We are willing to work with the public entities who might be interested in that longer term approach. The gateway accent we've accomplished and we feel that we are definitely in compliance xvith the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Highway 5 corridor with the upgrade of the village homes on the ends that face the highway. So with that we would appreciate any questions or comments you have, but we would also very much appreciate your consideration and vote tonight. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. We've certainly enjoyed working with you through this so appreciate all the time you have put in. Thanks. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor? Before we go to council discussion I do have two items I need to bring to the council's attention. The first one is the gateway pond that the developer referred to. We have not received the comments in writing from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. However the council needs to be aware, MnDot does have approval authority on this plat because it is adjacent to a MnDot highway. It's actually adjacent to two of them. Their verbal comments to us are that they do intend to, as a condition of that approval, require that the gatexvay pond, the one that was added between this and the previous proposal, be removed. They do not xvant that pond adjacent to their wetland because of potential interactions between the piping for that pond and their existing piping. So council needs to be aware of that. The second issue I'd like to bring to your attention is the public versus private streets. Engineering and public works are very hesitate to have 342 homes on private streets for two reasons. The first being that we receive all the calls when those streets do not get plowed and as such we are dealing with those property owners anyway. We would prefer to maintain the major loop streets and make sure it is done to ciD, standard, instead of having to deal with people not understanding that they're on a private, not a public street. The second issue is quite often we see these streets come back to us several year's from now when a property owner's association that does not understand proper street maintenance, for' budgetary reasons has put off the preventative maintenance that they should have done on those streets and once they reach a point xvhere they're looking at major reconstruction, they come to the city and ask, beg, plead that we take those streets back as public. We feel it is cost effective and in the cits,'s best interest to take those streets at the beginning, the major loop streets and maintain those to 18 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 our standards rather than end up with those streets at the end or end up with a situation where we cannot help the property owners to bring their streets back up to standard, which is why staff is recommending those major loops, not all the streets but the major loops be public streets instead of private streets. Councilman Ayotte: If they were, may I ask a question? Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Councihnan Ayotte: If they were private they would not go under your road index program and there'd be no way of understanding their life cycle, is that a true statement? Teresa Burgess: They would not be maintained by the city and they would be tracked by the city under our pavement maintenance program. Mayor Jansen: Kate if I could ask a question in reference to the roads, realizing we're talking about the same width of pavement. I'm gathering the concern is the amount of right-of-way that's actually required in the setback because what we're trying to accomplish is being able to have that density available through that right-of-way. Kate Aanenson: That's one point. Also private streets we don't allow parking. If you look at the reconfiguration of the visitor parking, it's not always in convenient places on the revised plan. Again he was trying to accomplish some of the park space. There are some areas that aren't convenient for visitor parking and that tends to be a problem. You can park with the wider on a public street. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I thought I heard that the pavement width is the same width. Did I misunderstand that? When you're saying that on a private street there's more room for parking. Teresa BurgeSs: The city standard for public streets is wider. We Could have a public street that is narrower. That would be allowed. They would need to si~oned no parking. Property owners would need to be informed that this is an area that we will not issue the standard lifting of the no parking during a party. Property owners can come in, there's that policy that says they can come in and request that on certain areas. This is an area that would not be allowed to have those because of the narrow street. Because it's a PUD we can allow that. Councihnan Ayotte: Cannot? Teresa Burgess: We can. The council can authorize them to have the narrower streets. Mayor Jansen: Okay, because it is one of the preservation steps that's suggested, at least in these topographical types of areas. Kate, just a question on Walnut Grove and Mission Hills. What are those interior streets? Are they private or public? Kate Aanenson: There is the main artery through there is a public street. There are private streets in there and that's similar to Mission Hills. The main street, West 86th is a public street, and then there's private streets off of that and that's the same thing we were trying to carry through here. You get a main thread to get people out onto to get out of their development. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I'm trying to figure out how we accommodate of course what Mr. Griswold needs to accomplish with the units. I mean we can, I assume we can leave the plan as, let me ask the question 19 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 instead of assuming. Can we lave the plan as is xvith the units that are in there even if we designate them as public streets? Kate Aanenson: I think you have to do two things, as Teresa indicated. You're going to have to give some relief on the street width, and then allow, which you can in the PUD. The flexibility of the less setback. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again, that was our concern with the no parking. If you've got a narrower driveway so I think we can work through some of those. Parking on one side of the street, I guess we can look at that. But I think betxveen no~v and if it was approved this way, final plat, we can resolve all that. Councilman Ayotte: Do you think there'd be much risk, what's the risk associated with a narrower street? Is there ans-,vay of couching that? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Teresa answer that question. Teresa Burgess: The risk with a narrow street really comes down to there's ilo parking available on that street and there is a compromise position inbetween the 24 that's proposed and the 31 that is the city standard that would allow parking on one side of the street, accomplish the goals that are set forth in here, and we just need to work with the developer to make sure that those standards are met and the 'appropriate signing is put up. Scott Botcher: There's also tile whole theory of traffic cahning as it involves narrowing streets. Tile more residential feel that you bring to a neighborhood. The only other question I have on the streets, or the only statement I have on the streets is I doubt the couple bucks a month on the association fee to have them all private, my guess is from other conversations, it could possibly be 20 to 25 bucks a month in association fees. There's no way they're going to be able to support tile streets in there for a couple bucks a month. And that drives up the question of maintaining affordability. We are not engaging in direct public subsidy from the city of Chanhassen ill this. Obviously we want to encourage participation with HRA and all tile other agencies that are out there, but if maintenance of affordability is an issue, that does, by itself an3~vay, lend you to consider a public street as opposed to a private street. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and it sounds like we can accomplish going to public and not impacting the development as it's been proposed, was what I'm hearing staff say. Kate Aanenson: If we're alloxving the flexibility of the narrower street, yeah. Councihnan Ayotte: Mr. Griswold has a question. Mayor Jansen: Yes Mr. Grisxvold. Dennis Griswold: If we're going that direction I guess I'd like a clarification then. Are we able to density transfer the 6 units involved in the south portion to the north because right now we are even on our density at 8 units per acre south of 78th Street, including the right-of-way. The density transfer would go to the north where we are 12 units shy of our maximum density so I'd like to density transfer those, which is, as I understand it. a feature of a PUD to density transfer within. 20 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Sure. Dennis Griswold: So I would like that clarified, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Kate? Kate Aanenson: The PUD ordinance allows that. Mayor Jansen: Sure. But I guess in what we were just talking about, are you foreseeing that there's going to be an impact that will end up having to shift units? Kate Aanenson: I anticipated that he's looked at that already so, and did I heard you 6 units? Dennis Griswold: 6 units. Kate Aanenson: 6 units. He'll still be under the 4 units an acre with no problem. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Do we have to relocate the 34 and 33 on the eastern road, right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councihnan Labatt: Or is it 32, 33 and 34? Kate Aanenson: Actually it's 6 units. Those blocks. Councilman Labatt: So 32 and 33 and 34. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councihnan Labatt: So you've already got to relocate those 3 in here somewhere. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but they're still staying on the north side so it's just. Mayor Jansen: Yep. If you go to the old plan, on these interior cul-de-sacs, he'd go back to this look in order to bring those units in here. But it'd still be on the north side. Councilman Labatt: I see. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Councihnan Labatt: So am I looking at an old map? Mayor Jansen: No, that's the new one. And then transfer these units, he'd go back to, yeah. Kate Aanenson: And that's one of the major changes. Everything on the north side was a twin and we're saying that some of those interiors may be triples to accomplish that. 21 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Going back to that original. Is that clear? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright. And then the other issue that Mr. Griswold brought up was the park dedication. Todd, if you might address for us the difference betwveen staff's proposal and Mr. Griswold's proposal of taking the current conservation easement properties and making them park dedication. Todd Hoffinan: At the last council meeting when staff took the direction'to seek, or for the applicant to seek a full compliment of park dedication, one of the my hesitancies was that the applicant would come back and give the city land which would have already been preserved under the original plan under a conservation easement. Obviously being responsible for those fees and for that dedication, that park dedication ordinance. We don't want to give up something that we would have already been receiving. So the, let's see go to the new plan. When this was submitted I went through an exercise of identifying this area silnply in a rough attachment, that approximately 7 new acres of property were identified as open space. Let's find where those are. ! can just point those out. And those areas included this rectangular piece of property in this location. The property north of the cul-de-sac with this new property outside of the primary zone, and then half of these trees in this location. This however was not being proposed as public open space. These areas were being proposed as park dedication, public open space. It's not, it's my recommendation not to accept those areas that Dennis talked about, Mr. Griswold. These areas that would have already been preserved under the old plan as park dedication. I'm comfo~rable with those being protected through the conservation easement that's recommended in the staff report. It's used many other places in this city, and in order to accomplish two things. Seeking out to have additional land identified for open space which the council desired, is about splitting the park dedication so we take this 4.7 acres of public dedication which provides good opportunity for the city in the future to respond to additional citizen inquiries in this area. When these people move in and start to establish their community, they may find out that they have additional needs or desires for recreation facilities. Having this public area here would allow the city to react to those inquiries, or those needs of the citizens. So that's a positive. The other half of that is, if that does, if you carry through with that type of a circumstance, retaining half of the fees or 50% of the park dedication fees, or the quarter million, would allow the city to be in the position to invest those dollars in this location. But still preserving the other areas that Mr. Griswold has pointed out as public dedication. In the best of all worlds it would be absolutely wonderful to have public ownership of about a third of this site, but we don't live the best of all worlds. We can't have everything and so this is a compromise that I can support. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff on that? Councilman Labatt: Todd that 4.7 acres up on the north peninsula, in comparison can you tell me another park in the city that's that size? Todd Hoffman: The park just near your home. Councilman Labatt: Sugarbush is about 4.7? Todd Hoffman: About 5 acres. It's about the smallest size that we're interested in maintaining as a public park. We have 27 park sites. We don't want to assume ownership of 40 or 50 tiny, little park sites throughout the city so we attempt to keep them 5 acres or larger. 22 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And it's not in this staff report, however when you were discussing this with the parks and rec commission, in the comprehensive plan noting that the neighborhood parks will be located within a half a mile radius of a neighborhood, so this was fulfilling that need as well, correct? Even though it wasn't identified, there's one that's going in on the east side, but that will be private as part of that Lundgren development. So this is really the closest active park area that this neighborhood would have. Todd Hoffman: Public amenity. Yeah, the private amenity, the comprehensive plan allows for private amenities which three were identified in the original plan to be considered opportunities for recreation. But this is a combination of those two things. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Okay, I think that was everything that Mr. Griswold brought up. Councihnan Ayotte: I need clarification on the MnDot issue. The wetlands again. Could you just. Mayor Jansen: Just so everyone's clear that in the staff report the recommendation on page 14 addresses that issue and it has been revised to, yes. The staff recommendation takes it to the configuration that Ms. Aanenson and Teresa were talking about. Councihnan Ayotte: So this is something nexv that's in here? Mayor Jansen: It's in the conditions. Staff made their recommendations and adjusted the conditions accordingly. Okay. I think that was everything, the two issues that I heard Mr. Griswold bring up. So as we're reviewing this, we need the discussion around, we're kind of inbetween What Mr. Griswold would like to see as far as the fees, and the park dedication number. We're 50/50 at this point between land dedication and the fees that staff is recommending compared to these areas that are covered with the conservation easements and whether council feels that those should be noted or not as park dedication. So if you could address that as that comes around, I would appreciate it. Otherwise it sounds like the road issue could be addressed at the staff level then as this is coming through for final plat. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I do have some modifications to the condition as you get to the point. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. So council, whoever would like to start on comments. Please. Councilman Ayotte: Well the only concern that I had, and I won't address the park issue at this point. I do agree wholeheartedly with the need to make the public streets. I think the thought of a variance to allow the streets to narrow is the right way to go. I'd like to react to some of the comments that were made from the residents. I think the approach approached under 2 is basically something I favor because it one, will reduce so,ne measure of operational expense. It's within the constraints of the PUD obviously. It affects the infrastructure. It improves traffic ability. It enhances quality of life. And for those reasons I favor it. The point made with respect to not generating revenue, the offset is a reduction of operational expense and I believe this council, I won't speak for the entire council. I know we've been working towards it. We're going to do all we can to take care of the revenue issue, but the revenue issue will not be handled by this project alone. Believe me. So this is just a start point. It's lasted too long. It's eaten up too many resources. It must be resolved. I'm going for Option 2 basically with some discussion points on the parkland issue so I just want to make those points. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Further comments? Councilman Labatt: Just a quick question. Did we get Mrs. McAllister's questions answered? 23 City' Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: There was a second part which I didn't address, ifI may. Which was regarding in the conditions of approval, and this is one the Planning Commission added. Mrs. McAllister had. Councilman Labatt: What page is she on? Kate Aanenson: I'm on page 9. Motion A. Number 3. Bottom of the page. Councihnan Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: The intent of the Planning Commission here is that they wanted all parties to be advised of what they're moving next to so what this language says is that both parties should be aware of their neighbors. She was willing to accept the homes and also that the homeowners have to understand that there is a petting fmxn next to them. They have to do a full disclosure, and that was the language that the Planning Commission added. So can number 3 be left in? It doesn't remove the 300 foot separation that's onus on her property. It could be taken out, which is what her recommendation is. It could be left in. It's really kind of put people on notice, unless the CiD' Attorney had something else to add. It's up to you. Mayor Jansen: Anything you'd like to add? Roger Knutson: I believe you got my letter. Mayor Jansen: Yes. Roger Knutson: In the packet. I believe you got my letter, it'.s in the packet. The feedlot ordinance of the county doesn't apply in the City of Chanhassen so, whatever that says doesn't apply here. And as far as interim use permit, it's just like any other setback you have in your oxvn single family home you have a setback fi'om the street and you have a setback from the rear yard and you have a setback fi'om the side yards. Your neighbors don't have to maintain those for you. You have to maintain those. That's xvhat out' ordinance provides. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Councihnan Labatt: No, I'll just make my comments now. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: It has been a long process and as I stated before in the first meeting that I am a resident of this neighborhood to the north of here. Made that cleat' to Mr. Griswold early and in talking to some of my neighbors it's been a long process for you and them and they appreciate what we have in front of us today because it meets their request was bring in your development under the color and letters of the ordinances and the comp plan and the overlay districts so they're happy for that and I appreciate that. Other than that, I'm okay with going to public and allowing a little fudging the road width. Mayor Jansen: Okay. 24 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Labatt: The current plan on parkland and fees, I'm okay with what's proposed. The 4.7 and there seems to be a little misunderstanding or confusion what the fee amount is between the two parties so I don't know how we work that out. And that's all I have. I can support it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I clearly have been struggling with this one for the last few weeks and listening to the last meeting when it was here, and as I was for the previous plan and I really sat through the last few days looking for a compelling reason why I would lil(e the Plan B, for lack of a better term, in front of us better than the previous one. And I'll go through my points as succinctly as possible. I think that the gateway issue has been resolved. I mean I wasn't real overwhelmed with the "new gateway" and I agree with staff's recommendation. I think the berming and the trees would be better. The tree stand is really the area that I do find a better plan under the Plan B. Kate, I've got a question for you. Could we potentially make that passive parkland so the city doesn't own that and transfer it back to the association, similar to what xve did with the Fox property just off of 2127 Is that a possibility? Kate Aanenson: You mean leave it natural? Councihnan Peterson: Yeah. It's trees. I mean it's no different than. Kate Aanenson: Well I think the intent right now is to take it as public property. What it becomes later hasn't been decided yet. I think the intent right now is to take public ownership and looking at Bluff Creek Overlay District, some of the things that the plan envisions, and I think we've had that public dialogue, Todd went through his process is my understanding. Mayor Jansen: But the tree stand that's on Highway 5, that's just staying as. Kate Aanenson' A conservation easement, correct. That's not counted for parkland. Mayor Jansen: No. Councihnan Peterson: It's not at all? Kate Aanenson: No. There's a couple areas. Mayor Jansen: It's still private property. Kate Aanenson: Right. The developer is dedicating 16 acres. There's a couple things happening here. One goes with the PUD to get some of the preservation through the PUD, which we always said the 11 acres on the other side of 41 and the most northerly property is being dedicated for park. But the trees behind the McAllister property and the trees along 5 are just being dedicated through a conservation ease~nent. They're not being dedicated as parkland. Mayor Jansen: So they're just being protected but they're still private property? Kate Aanenson: Correct. In the name of the homeowners association. Mayor Jansen: Yes. Okay. 25 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Peterson: Thank you. The private streets we've addressed. I think that's the most prudent way to move ahead. The real big issue is the parkland on the north side and my biggest concern is that we're putting ourselves in the position of the public buying open space and that's really I think my biggest issue with this plan is that the city will have to write a check per se for $250,000 to $300,000 and that's a big concern. We've spoken as recently as this evening as a group, in a work session about the need to conserve cash and to be fiscally responsible and I don't see a compelling reason for us to purchase parkland for this development, particularly because it's not really a public park. It's really going to be inaccessible. You know essentially it is, it doesn't have a compelling reason in and of itself because it's farmland .... I'm having a hard time looking at that and feeling as though that's the best way to move ahead. We don't have many options left for a development like this and going back in an overall review, this PUD xvorks well with our comprehensive plan as it stands today. It brings in a diversity of housing that we absolutely need and I think that we need to move ahead under kind of a combination of the three. I guess I'm recommending that we let the northern part go and keep the trees and bring it back fi'om private to public streets and keep the gateway as it xvas in the previous plan. And [ guess as a closing comment, you look at item number 39 where we talk about the 30% affordable housing issue. I guess as we make a motion, xvhatever motion we made, I'd like us to either rephrase that so that's... Kate Aanenson: It should say minimum. Mayor Jansen: It should be minimum. · Councihnan Peterson: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And that's consistent with our goals. Councihnan Peterson: And I think xve may want to rephrase it so that we speak directly to, that we would work with Carver County to try to find a sustainable affordable housing. I think that's the only possible way that we can do that versus working with the developer, but I'll leave that for further' discussion to my fellow council people. I don't want to use tax dollars to buy open space and that's my biggest concern with the current plan. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We didn't address it yet and I apologize on the sustainable affordable. I actually have worked with staff a little bit in conversations about the workshop that I had gone to and the discussion that had surrounded around how businesses and faith communities have stepped forward in communities to help provide the sustainable aspect. Mayo Clinic was one of the ones that was quoted as having provided millions in funding to provide housing for their workers, and on a smaller scale there xvas a project in Hutchinson xvhere the businesses stepped up and they say that it occurs more readily in the rural areas where you end up with the business out in these non-population centers if you would, and they're trying to draw workers out. So they're actually building their own housing. We've had the conversation about pulling a program together working with the County during our housing forum then approaching the businesses in the faith communities and Scott had had an opportunity to bounce the idea off of one of our faith organizations and found some interest and I did the same thing and also found some interest out there. So that would be the other way to maintain that. Councilman Peterson: However we deal with it I think we need to make it a little bit more less vague. Mayor Jansen: And I guess we're trying to leave it a little loose in that, and you know having spoken with the developer, I'm just making sure that they're working with us. That was actually a phrase and 26 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 clause that had gone into the Villages on the Ponds PUD. To just make sure that we're all conscience of the fact that the city's working on pulling together this program and we won't be surprising the developer if and when we manage to pull it off if you would, and bring it forward to be a part of the development. So that's one of the options that we're pursuing but it takes a little longer to bring one of those programs together and our housing forum will be in April so that's where our discussion surrounded the issue of actually being able to bring that public. The other point that you addressed on the parkland, and again we didn't discuss this but Mr. Hoffman had mentioned that as they designate neighborhood parks, they don't necessarily development immediately. The land is set aside and then even. tually as the neighborhood develops they co,ne back in and actually then put the park in place. So this would not remain as farm field and it would not remain as open space. We were looking for a chunk of property all in one contiguous area so that it could be a 5 acre park eventually as the neighborhood develops. And the discussion on the roadway had been that it needed to be a public roadway and probably a parking area then at the top, but again that's eventually as we develop that park area the city would be putting in that lot versus it being a responsibility for the developer. So it would be designated as eventually being an active area and being developed into a park. Other comments? Councihnan Kroskin: Well I guess I agree with a lot of my fellow councilmen. Their comments. Again on this park issue, and Mr. Hoffman correct me if I'm incorrect. We're balancing taking 100% fees versus 100% land for the park. So we're not really, we're taking less fees. We're not taking tax dollars and actually purchasing, you know current tax dollars out of fund that's already seeing with the city to purchase this land. It's a trade off. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councihnan Kroskin: Okay. Again, xvith regards to the park I feel this is a nice blend and again I'm . t r . going to go back to the community survey where 70% of our residents use and enjoy their neighborhood parks. I don't feel that it's acceptable or that it's right for us to not provide that amenity to the future residents that will be enjoying this development. As far as the gateway, ! agree with staff's recommendation. I agree with the recommendation on the public streets. I think that staff has done an excellent job in pulling this together. I want to comment Pulte for again rolling up their sleeves and working with our staff to make this what I consider the best possible development that can go in here. That's my comments. I can support it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And thank you for complimenting staff. I didn't mean to overlook you. Kate, you worked very hard with all of us pulling this together and we certainly appreciate all of your efforts and also Mr. Hoffinan, your efforts as we were pulling this together. And not to overlook you Mr. Botcher, you as well. Thank you. Scott Botcher: I've been quiet. Mayor Jansen: Yes you have been quiet. Okay, I'm hearing a general consensus then from council on the roads and staff working with the developer to go to public roads. Kate, you had mentioned that we would have to then change one of the conditions or modify one of the conditions. Kate Aanenson: Yes...for the City Attorney too. As part of the motion for the subdivision, we are looking at changing possibly 6 units. That would change the lots and blocks which are part of Motion B. We're not sure hoxv that's going to lot yield out yet. Roger Knutson: So you can just delete, make it in the form of a concept. This is a preliminary approval. 27 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Kate Aanenson: I'm just saying, there's not a problem if;ve change it under final plat. This comes back. The total number of units isn't going to change. It's going to be the configuration of lots and blocks. Roger Knutson: You should give some indication in the conditions of approval that that's what you're going to do. You don't have to be specific. Kate Aanenson: Okay. As part of that motion with modifications. That would be motion B. Mayor Jansen: That would be motion B. Kate Aanenson: Correct, the very beginning. Mayor Jansen' Page 10. Kate Aanenson: That's the preliminary plat. And the other change I had, in speaking xvith Teresa, just to get the, this would be on page 15. Condition 37. The main loop street south of West 78th Street and the other loop street. It should be, not just the street to the park but both those streets, loop streets north and south of West 78th Street be a public street. They would have a 60 foot right-of-way but we would work to. the city approve design standards and then in parenthesis less than standard pavement width. We want the flexibility to look at that but it's our intent to do less than standard 31, 32 pavement width. Mayor Jansen: So xvith less than standard pavement width. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then while we're on that, 39 should say a minilnum of 30%. And then on 41. that's 6 units. It says lots. It should say Block 33 through 35, with Lots 1 and 2. It'd be a total of 6 units that would have to be removed. Councilman Ayotte: Which point is that? Kate Aanenson: Point 40. Mayor Jansen: Point 40. You're changing lots to, I'm sorry, units? Kate Aanenson: Blocks. Mayor Jansen,: Blocks? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the intent that it includes 6 units. Just to be clear. And then just again for clarification, I handed that one out earlier. On page 17 we added a condition number 10 on design standards. That should reflect all the changes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, I think that reflects everyone's comments. Yeah, so I think we're set unless a council member has anything else. Okay, so we're going to be making four separate, do we need these to be four separation motions? Roger Knutson: They don't need to be four separate 1notions unless you want to do it in that way. I'd point out item number one requires 4 votes. Item number three, excuse me item A requires 4 votes. B, C 28 City~ Coaac~' "Meeting- Marct~ i2, 200i and D require 3 positive votes. So if you combine them together, it will take 4 positive votes to pass the motion. Mayor Jansen: And we can say as modified with the points we just put in. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that, ifI could have a motion please. Councihnan Peterson: I would move that we do four different votes unfortunately, because I would prefer to vote differently on different things so I would make a motion for the first one would be the City Council approve the resolution for a comprehensive land use amendment from lo~v density to residential medium density and medium density to residential as noted in the recommended motion to approve. Mayor Jansen' Okay. Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear there Mayor. That approval is contingent upon the Metropolitan Council sign offso. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Do 1 have a second? Do I have a second? Cotmcillnan Labatt: Can I clarify, are yo~'~ reading right fi'om page 9? Mayor Jansen: Yes. Counciln,.an Peterson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Page 9. Motion A. All this is going to do is approve the, if you'll. Councihnan Labatt: Land use amendment. Mayor Jansen: Yep. If you look on the fi'ont, it's 'ihe comp plap_, amendmer:t to m ,r,. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second please? Councihnan Labatt: I'll second it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, 1 have a second. Any fm'ther discussion from council? Resolution #2001-13: Councilman Peterson moved, Co~Jncilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves the resolution for a Compreheasive Land 'Use Amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and medium densi-ry residential to commercial; and approve the ordinance for a Planned [;nit Development rezoning property.' fi°om Agricultural Estate, A2, and Rural Residential, RR to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R, subject to the foliowing conditions: 1. Contingent upon review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. 29 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Compliance with the Development Standards (site plan dated October 23, 2000, revised February 7, 2001, and revised March 5, 2001.) This resolution shall not entitle the oxvner of any land adjacent to the new development to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a way as to prohibit the development of the nexv planned unit development in accordance with it's approved conditions. And (b) shall not entitle the owner of any land located in the new planned unit developments to seek enforcement of any existing setback requirements in such a wa5, as to prohibit the construction, maintenance and use of any adjacent land of buildings and structures that now are or would be currently allowed by the zoning code as it now exists. 4. Contingent upon the following approvals: a. The subdivision request. b. The site plan review. c. The Wetland Alteration Permit. d. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet. e. The Conditional Use Permit for subdivision in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Why was it so tough to get a second? Scott Botcher: I'm going to become a ventriloquist. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Now B. Could I have a motion please. This is for the subdivision. Councilman Labatt: So moved with modifications. Do you want to lose your voice like I did last week or xvhat? Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second? Councihnan Ayotte: Second. Mayor Jansen: Okay, I have a first and a second. Any discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the CiD, Council approves the preliminary plat dated October 23, 2000, revised February 1, 2001, and March 5, 2001, for the subdivision of 120.93 acres into 2 additions; 1st Addition has 61 blocks including 164 units and Outlots A-F, and the 2nd Addition has 35 blocks including 178 units and Outlots A-B with modifications, subject to the following conditions: Final platting for the commercial area located in Outlot D shall include a site plan review and approval. , Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This shall be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 30 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 o , o . . 9. 10. 11. 12. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. An erosion control plan shall be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be sub~nitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan shall include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in adcordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance xvith the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Manage~nent Plan for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal Water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Stormxvater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development COlltract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge fi'om units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access and/or maintenance of the ponding areas. 31 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. No berthing or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the fi'ontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high xvater level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant shall supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans 'for review and approval. Also, any off-site grading will require temporary easements. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site shall be revised to meet the minimum street grade requirement of 0.75%. Staff also recommends that the cul-de-sac be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minimize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent wetlands. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Boulevard and a full-shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. A cross access agreement will be required at the time of final platting. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Boulevard, Trunk Highv,,ay 41 and Trunk Highway 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted within the public streets cont!ngent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. A 5-foot v,,ide sidewalk shall be added along the south side of the public street in the northwest corner of the site. A Conservation Easement prohibiting any alteration shall be created to preserve Outlots E and F, the stand of trees adjacent to Highway 5, and the significant stands of trees to the north of the McAllister property. The conservation easement shall be dedicated in Phase I. Accessibility shall be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines shall be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy ( a building containing tN'ee or more dwelling units on the same property ) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area shall be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 32 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the building official. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Landscaping and tree preservation: a. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. b. All evergreens used as overstory trees in buffer yard areas shall be increased to a minimum height of 8 feet. The plant schedule on the landscape plan shall be changed to reflect this requirement. c. The minilnum number of shrubs shall be required in buffer yard areas along Highways 5 and 41. Applicant shall work with staffto meet minimum requirements for shrubs along West 78th Street. d. Boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be spaced 55 feet apart. e. All Colorado spruce specified in landscape plans shall be replaced by a new selection of evergreen. f. Revise plant schedule to show seven foot evergreens for understory trees. g. Proposed trail along the eastern property line shall be realigned in order to completely avoid tree #1743 and the majority of it's roots. h. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. i. The applicant shall work with city staff to preserve any or all of the following trees: #1369 (52" oak), #1743 (60" oak), #1742 (48" oak), #2173 (42" oak), and #1881 (36" maple). A walk through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. k. Remove the stormwater pond located at the comer of Highways 5 and 41. A revised landscaping plan shall be sub~nitted. This plan shall include wetland vegetation and appropriate plantings for buffering from the intersection including berming. These plans shall be revised and approved by the City Council at the time of final plat. Before the final plat the restrictive covenants shall be approved by staff. The outlot west of Highway 41 shall be consistently referred to as Outlot F on all plans. jo 33 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 32. To ensure clear communication the applicant shall have all homebuyers sign a disclosure statement that would be part of their restrictive covenants. The statement shall include information about Miss Rosie's Petting Farm, Gateway Group Home and potential future road extension. Signed statements shall be submitted to the City. 33. Staff should consult with DNR regarding the necessity to relocate turkeys. 34. Staff shall prepare a report regarding trees for fees options. 35. Platted right-of-way width for Tanadoona Drive shall be increased to 50 feet. 36. Tile applicant will be responsible (escroxv) for a portion of the cost of the fi~ture traffic signal at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street. 37. Tile main loop streets north and south of West 78th Street and the street accessing the city park in tile no,%east corner shall be a public street. These shall be a 60 foot right-of-way but the city will approve design standards (less than standard pavement width). 38. Access to the McAllister parcel in the northwest comer shall be provided to the parcel through the extension of a public street which terminates at the property line. Sanitary sewer shall also be extended to the property line. .39. Tile developer shall work with the city to accomplish city goals for housing including tile provision of"affordable housing" a minilnunl of 30% of the ownership housing shall meet the criteria established for affordability by the Metropolitan Council. Tile developer shall also work with the City on affordability mechanisms for'Income Qualifying and Maintenance of Affordability. 40. Blocks 33-35, Lots 1 and 2 (6 units) of Phase I shall be relocated north of West 78th Street. All units along the perimeter of the development north of West 78th Street shall be twin homes. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4to 1. Mayor Jansen' Can I have a motion please for item C, site plan review. Can I have a motion please? Councihnan Labatt: So moved. Mayor Jansen: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Councilman Kroskin: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan Review #99-21 for 20 club homes, 98 manor homes, 68 coach homes, 164 village homes, as shown in revised plans dated February 1, 2001 and March 5, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tile development must COlnply with the Arboretum Village Development Design Standards. 34 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 2. The open space north of the shortened cul-de-sac (approximately 5 acres) be preserved as park dedication excluding land in the primary corridor and the stormwater pond. The area along the eastern edge of the development shall not be dedicated for park land, 3. The remaining park dedication requirement be collected in cash. 4. Pulte Homes shall construct the north and east wetland trail as public amenities with reimbursement from the city's trail dedication fund. All necessary public easements required to accommodate these trails shall be dedicated to the city. 5. Full trail dedication fees be collected. 6. All remaining open space areas be protected by a conservation easement. 7. The Planning Commission recommends that the following design standards be incorporated in the development: a. Include vinyl shakes as an acceptable material on all home styles. b. Prohibit shiplap siding. c. Specify that all buildings use UL Class A asphalt/fiberglass shingle, 230 pounds or better. d, Specify that all foundation walls be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. e. Specify that central air conditioning shall be included in the base price of all homes per the EAW noise abatement recommendation. f. Specify the percent of brick for each building style. 8. Commercial design standards shall prohibit standing seam siding as a curtain wall. 9. The applicant shall consider providing benches in the totlot area. 10. No adjacent unit shall have the same front elevation colors or architectural styles with any 4 types of homes. Materials to be consistent with the Arboretum Village elevation materials dated 2-7-01. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4tol. Mayor Jansen: Motion D is the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill .54 acres of wetlands in two separate basins. Can I have a motion please? Councilman Labatt: So moved. Mayor Jansen: I have a motion. Can I have a second? Councilman Kroskin: Second. 35 City' Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman_ Labatt moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded that the City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4 to fill .54 acres of wetlands in two separate basins as per plans revised FebruaD, 1, 2001, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall resolve the encroachment of the following structures into the wetland buffer setback: Phase I: Outlot A, 1/2 Com~t Basketball Phase II: I Outlot A, Lot 12. / . 10. !1. 12. The applicant shall provide an invert elevation for the proposed storm sewer inlet on the upstream side of Drainageway 1 to ensure that wetland loss will not occur due to excessive drainage of the drainageway and to ensure that the drainageway will not become wetter. Wetland buffers of 0-20 feet w-ith a minimum average width of l 0 feet shall be provided around Basins B and C. Wetland mitigation areas must be constrncted prior to wetland impacts occurring. Wetland mitigation mt;st occur in a mar_,ner that is consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall provide proof of property ownership for Outlot F, as well as a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall st;bruit a wetland banking application. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to al} areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no beffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Tile applicant shall re-seed all,,' d~sturoed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetlav, d soil conditions. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. The wetland easement shall be dedicated as a part of Phase I. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide vegetative barriers to define buffer edges. The applicant xvill install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of CiW staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. NURP ponds shall be constructed/expanded in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1. 36 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 13. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are $192,363.50. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporatT pond areas. 14. The applicant shall modify the wetland replacement plan to accotnmodate the proposed realigntnent of Tanadoona Drive. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate that no unintentional wetland impact will occur when Pond 2 is excavated adjacent to the existing wetland. 16. The applicant shall provide stotwn water quality and quantity calculations for Ponds I and 2. 17. The applicant shall contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding the proposed location of Pond 2 to ensure compliance with MnDot standards and requirements. 18. The applicant shall provide access to Pond 2 for maintenance purposes. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4tol. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to make it cleat' to evers, one. When you pass those motions, you pass the Findings of Fact along with them as I understood it. They were incorporated in your motion. Mayor Jansen: Yes, thank you. And with the modifications. Councihnan Peterson: And Madam Mayor, just for clarification. My nay votes were, as I discussed in my review of, I believe we had a better plan previously and less cost to the city. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Do I have a motion E? Do we have to do the EAW or is that not a motion? Kate Aanenson: That's not a motion. There were just all the issues... Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that, we're done with agenda item 4. Thank you. 5 minutes break and we'll be back. APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR BC-7 AND BC-8 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, PROJECT 00-01. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. This project would normally be on the consent agenda. However we did not feel it was fair to ask the council to vote on this item until after the discussion on the Pulte development. So this evening we are asking for approval of plans and specifications, authorization to bid for the project. In addition the council is requested to authorize easement and right-of-way negotiation and approve the attached resolution authorizing condemnation. And if I may Madam Mayor, Roger how many votes do we need to approve that resolution? 37 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Roger Knutson: Is there a petition on this? Teresa Burgess: It's acondemnation. Roger Knutson: If it's a condemnation, it's just a simple majority. Teresa Burgess: Simple majority. Okay. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff'?. Could I have a motion please? Councilman Ayotte: ! ~nake the motion to pass the, to approve the plans and specifications for BC-7 and 8 improvement and authorize advertisement for bids, Project 00-01. Mayor Jansen: And a second please? Coul~cihnan Kroskin: Second. Resolution #2001-14: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for BC-7 and BC-8 Improvement Project and authorize advertisement for bids, Project No. 00-01. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I do need a second motion. We need authorization to acquire right-of- way and easements, and if the council xvould approve the resolution approving, or authorizing condemnation. The second half of that motion. .. Councihnan Ayotte: Why don't you turn the set point down on the thermostat. I'm dying in here. Scott Botcher: Why don't we open the door. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. So I need a motion to approve resolution authorizing condemnation of easements for public purposes. Councihnan Peterson: So moved. Teresa Burgess: I also need authorization to negotiation for right-of-way and easements, otherwise I can't go make offers. Mayor Jansen: Okay, what she said. Councihnan Kroskin: Second. What she said. Councilman Ayotte: So move and then second. Mayor Jansen: So I've got a motion. Councilman Peterson: I made the motion. Councilman Kroskin: He made the motion. 38 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: From Councilman Peterson. A second from Councilman Kroskin. Resolution #2001-15: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to approve the Resolution Authorizing Condemnation of Easements for Public Purposes and authorizing the City Engineer to negotiate for right-of-way and easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES oF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 53 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 40UTLOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 3,360 SO. FT. OF A WETLAND; LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, ASHLING MEADOWS; LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. This is a 3 part review. The first part is to rezone tile property from Rural Residential, which is really a homing category to RSF, which is single family residential which is consistent zoning with tile land use designation of the prope~W of low density residential. Second part is preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property into 53 lots. The only issue we had on that was the 53rd lot, the one that would be adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. We don't believe this is a viable lot and we're recommending that that be deleted fi'om the plat. The developer has shown some concurrence in that. And finally the wetland alteration permit is required. They're providing a turn lane into tile development oil Galpin Boulevard. This impacts the wetland immediately adjacent to the roadxvay and so they're impacting 3,000, approximately 3,000 square feet. They would have to develop a replacement plan for that but they have adequate area to do that adjacent to the wetlands. Staff is recommending approval of the development.proposal subject to the conditions of our staff repo~t. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Councilman Ayotte: I did have a question. I'm afl'aid Teresa may have to be the one to answer but let me see if you know it Bob. In this area we've got a high water table I xvould suspect. We have the concerns for runoff and those sorts of issues that are probably a little bit more severe than other areas, would that be a, or is that a non-issue? Bob Generous: The applicant is providing storm water ponding for tile development so they should more than adequately address those. Councilman Ayotte: More than adequate. Kate Aanenson: Co~Tect. Plus they have to provide storm water calculations and demonstrate how they're going to manage that. Councihnan Ayotte: I didn't hear you. Kate Aanenson: They also have to provide storm water calculations and demonstrate that their ponds and that their plan accommodates that. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff. 39 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councihnan Labatt: The existing homes on there, are they going to be removed? Destroyed? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes. Yes. Councilman Labatt: The entrance to Topaz Drive, can you tell me, I mean the driveway's between the Scott's Landscaping the next house out, where about's does that fall in relation to where this drive is? Kate Aanenson: That wetland, it's just north of that wetland. This is the ~xisting...where the driveway is right now. It's pretty close. David Hinners: Do you know where the Kuder driveway is? That's the one that's immediately north, or excuse me, south of the Scott's Landscaping. It's approximately there. Councihnan Labatt: Okay. David Hilmers: The final alignment is basically on the north side of the Kuder's driveway. Councihnan Labatt: Okay. Councilman Ayotte: And one other question. Bob had said the 53rd lot is a no go and what was going to happen to the 53''d lot? Mayor Jansen: I believe it's already been dropped from the recommendation, CO~Tect? The conditions of approval. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The staff is recommending that they be eliminated. The Planning Commission also concurred that it should be eliminated. Mayor Jansen: So if we approve the recommendation as is, it's out. Okay. Any other questions for staff?. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. At this point we're really just having the applicants come up. If you have any additional information that you want to share as far as any expert, I don't want to say expert witness but if there's any issues that you want to address other than what we have in the staff report. David Hinners: My name is David Hinners. I'm with Lundgren Brothers. Tonight with me is Bob Molstad with Sathre-Berquist and Mark Anderson, also with Lundgren Brothers. Don't have anything really to add to the report. I think it was very well written by staff. I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for being here tonight. With that I'll bring it back to council. Any comments on the staff report? Motion please. Councilman Ayotte: I make a motion to approve the request ofrezoning of the 40 acres as stated in the document. Mayor Jansen: Can we do the Wetland Alteration Permit at the same time? Bob Generous: You can do them all. 40 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Do the whole tiling, okay. For rezoning of approximately 40 acres of property from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, Preliminary Plat request for 53 single family lots and 4 outlots and a wetland alteration permit to fill 3,360 feet of a wetland located on the east side of Galpin just south of Lake Lucy Road, Ashling Meadows for Lundgren Brothers. Mayor Jansen: And a second please. Councihnan Peterson: Second. Mayor Jansen: Any further discussion? Councilnmn Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Rezoning #00-5 to rezone 40 acres of property zoned RiX, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family foL- Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated Received December 15, 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #00-15 foL' Ashling Meadows for 52 lots and fouL' outlots as shown on the plans dated December 12, 2000, stamped received March 12, 2001, subject to the following conditions: '1. . . . . The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-5. The proposed drainage sxvale in the backyard of Lot 44 shall be moved closer to tile rear lot line. This will minimize tile amount of drainage easement required. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The proposed drainage area in the southeast corner of the site shall be routed to the southwest pond and adjacent wetland instead of to the northerly pond. This will better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan, Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional information and revisions are necessary. Staffwill work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also 41 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. be required on the construction plans. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. Prior to construction commencing, each of the existing wells and septic tanks will be required to be capped and/or removed per state health codes. Sanitary sewer for this development shall be designed to serve the neighboring properties to the east. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to establish a sufficient sewer depth to serve tile neighboring properties. Tile property has not been previously assessed for sewer and water hookup and connection charges. As per city ordinance, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 and $1,723, respectively. In addition, since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sexver interceptor charge of $1,011 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 will be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges will be waived contingent on the developer installing.the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted within the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the City and that the configuration be acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. The applicant should be aware that the maximum allowable street grade is 7%. Areas with a street grade greater than 7% should be revised to meet the criteria. Existing driveway entrances to the site off of Galpin Boulevard shall be removed. Lot 53 shall be deleted and Outlot C be expanded to include the northeast comer of the site. Increase the amount of platted right-of-way from the centerline of Galpin Boulevard to 50 feet in width. Likewise, increase the amount of right-of-way from the centerline of Lake Lucy Road to 40 feet in width 42 City Council Meeting - March 12,2001 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show the proposed sanitary sewer pipe size and ensure that all of the sewer manholes are a minimum of 10 feet deep. Also, add an additional sanitary manhole along Topaz Drive at Station 3+00. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the existing 18-inch culvert that enters the site in the northwest cornet'. Also, show all proposed easements and add a legend. Submit streets names to the Building Department for reviexv prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall apply fox' and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Carver County and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge fi'om homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffet' or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge and shall be removed upon completion of adjacent construction. Lot lines shall not extend into wetland-basins. Prior to going to City Council, the applicant shall submit the revised plat that shows lot lines do not extend into wetland basins and the recalculated lot areas. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the CiW's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Based on the proposed developed area of 35.25 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $28,200 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $69,795. The applicant will be credited fox' water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff fi'om the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant xvill not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,995. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 323 trees to be planted. Minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings shall be met. 43 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 31. 32. 33. b. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in buffer yard and rear yard areas. do Tree preservation fence shall be install at the edge of the grading limits on lots 20-23, 27- 28, block 1 prior to any construction. According to tree preservation plans dated 11/30/00, all ti'ees on Lot 23, block 1 shall be preserved by the developer/builder. Any trees removed on lots 20-23, 27-28 in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of2:1 diameter inches. Building Department conditions: ao Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Fire Marshal conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant ~vill be required. It is to be located on Topaz Drive approximately 150 feet east of the intersection ofGalpin Blvd and Topaz Drive. b. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. c. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. d. The proposed street names meet approval with the Chanhassen Fire Department. e. Fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. This protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. f. Sub,nit radius turns and dimensions for the cul-de-sacs with center islands to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal to approve. If the cul-de-sacs are to have islands, "no parking in cul-de-sac" signs will be required. Park and Recreation conditions: a. Full park fees be collected in lieu of land dedication. bo The applicant provide the necessary trail easement or outlot and construct an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail connector from Topaz Drive north to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Trail fee credit shall be granted in consideration for this condition. 44 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 The City Engineer's office shall ensure that the 8 ft. wide bituminous trail connector is located far enough away from Galpin Boulevard to ensure that a future turn-lane or widening of the road can be accommodated. 34. The lot depth for Lot 46 shall be adjusted to maintain 125 feet. 35. Outlot B shall be replatted as a lot prior to issuance of a building permit." 36. Dead end streets shall be posted with signs that say this street may be extended in the future. 37. The applicant shall consider including benches in the totlot areas. 38. To ensure clear communication tile applicant shall have each home buyer sign a disclosure statement. The statement shall include information about future upgrading of Oalpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Information about wetland buffers and the disclosure statement shall also include a plan that clearly shows the home placement, the area available for future deck, porch or patio and all setback lines. 39. Tile applicant should be aware that retaining walls greater than 4 feet require a separate building permit. 40. Prior to final plat-ting, the location and elevation of Emerald Lane may need to be adjusted both to the south and lower in elevation to coordinate with the development of the easterly property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. _ . Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit//00-5 for Ashling Meadows as shown on the plans dated received December 15, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). Eight copies of a wetland replacement plan shall be submit-ted to tile Ci~.' for review, comment and approval by the City and other agencies prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacelnent Wetland. The City s hall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. . The wetland mitigation area shall be constructed prior to wetland impact occurring and shall meet the City's buffer strip and structure setback requirements. . The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE~ DAVID IGEL: 45 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKE SHORE WIDTH REOUIREMENT. B~ REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Jerry & Jan Paulsen Deb & Dick Lloyd Elnily Paulsen Ron & Ann Kleve Dan Huseth Dana Muller Arlis Bovy Fred Cuneo 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Resident 7307 Laredo Drive 7332 Frontier Trail 500 Highland Drive 7339 Frontier Trail 7335 Frontier Trail Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. This item actually has m,o proposals before you. One is a subdivision with a variance fi'om the shoreland width requirements. City ordinance requires 90 feet. The applicant has 15 feet, or 75 feet, sorry, of lakeshore for each property. That's the plan that shows up on the left. As part of this development staff would recommend that the city take a conservation easement over the treed area in the western part of the site that's outlined in green in the §taff plan. The other alternative is a straight subdivision that stacks the two lots. There would be one lakeshore lot and one non-lakeshore lot: Both of the alternatives are accesSed via a private street system. On the ilrst one, on the plans that you have the applicant has shown the buildable areas for the plan and they've incorporated a 60 x 60 foot building pad. The staff lot subdivision we believe complied with the ordinance requirements. We had recommended approval of the subdivision with the variance because of the additional preservation of the trees and character of the neighborhood. However we need to make a decision on which one we should approve. The applicant has stated that if one of the developments is approved, they'll withdraw the other application. Councilman Ayotte: Say that again please. Bob Generous: If the City Council approves one of the subdivision proposals, they will withdraw the other application. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this point? Okay. We have allotted 5 minutes, if the applicants would like to come up and address the council. I would simply encourage everyone who's here tonight, I realize that this has been a somewhat emotional issue at best. If we can just keep our comments focused on the issue at hand would be much appreciated. Thank you. David Igel: Thank you Mayor Jansen and council members. My name's David Igel. I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane. I hope I don't take up the whole 5 minutes this evening. We've been through this for SOlne time. It's been over a year since we've been at it. It's been a very emotionally charged issue and I'd like to just kind of get down to kind of the essentials to it. I wanted to thank you for taking the time. We do have the two separate subdivisions in front of you. The side by side is our, I guess division of 46 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 preference and it's what we started with over a year ago. The reason we do have the two and I hope I don't come across as being disrespectful but I think it's important to note that we've been put in this position by a failure of staff to clearly identify the proper ordinances in this case and have really put us all, the council, myself, my family, my neighbors and the neighbors at the lake in this position. I want to give you a brief history. We found the lot September 3rd. We met shortly after with Mr. Generous. Discussed the different ordinances and what could be potentially done with the property. We then had it surveyed. Met back. Mr. Generous confi~wned that two lake lots weren't possible with the existing house so we decided ~ve would remove the existing house. He then confirmed with us that that xvould be possible because the lake lot, the lakeshore requirements were 75 feet. We consequently bought the house. We spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the yard. There was 20 years of dead trees and brush I think we've just in the time we spent last spring made it better. Made it through the first Planning Commission. Within 2 days before xve were to go before the City Council for what we expected final approval of the side by side lot, Mr. Generous called and told us that there had been a misinterpretation of the shoreland ordinance in terms of tile width and if you've ever been punched as hard by someone could in the gut, that's about what it felt like. There's been a lot of things that have been discussed in terms of who we are and what are plans are. My wife and I want to live on Lotus Lake. It's a beautiful lake. We like Chanhassen. We've got an 18 month old son. We've got two neighbors that have agreed to purchase the other lot who we're bringing with tis from Strawberry Lane. That's all that this thing started off as and that's all that we had hoped that it xvould end in. We're now put in the position to where we've got massive amount of money relative to our standards invested in it and we are forced to have to do something to, at the very least cut our losses. The only real option that looks like without having to be granted a variance is the front to back split, which is not our preference but it is 'certainly something that we would accept if the council decides to do that.' I do think the side by side is the best decision. I think it has less impact on the neighbors. I think it has less impact on the community. I'm a Coast Guard licensed pilot with a 100 ton masters license. My wife is an enviromnental attorney. We are professionally sworn and have a personal interest itl maintaining the quality of any body of xvater, and that goes beyond Lotus Lake. I do think again a key point of this is the reason we're here and put in this position is through a failure of staff to properly expand, expound on, explain and be clear with the ordinances and it's unfortunate that that's where we are, but I think that there needs to be some accountability with that. But whatever you do decide to do, we will be accepting. We've tried to be very flexible in working with the neighborhood and working with the city. We will still be flexible if anything is asked of us and would be willing to look at anything. We just ask that you make the right decisions. Sometimes the right decision isn't always the easiest and just appreciate you giving me the time to talk with you and be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. I did tell the neighbors that if they had a representative who wanted to speak for a brief 5 minute period, that would be ~vonderful. Again, if we could just keep it to the issue and we certainly all acknowledge and have read the minutes from the Planning Commission. We know all of the angst that exist around this issue so we certainly can appreciate it. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Thanks. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. Staff would like you to believe tonight that you don't have a choice regarding the Igel subdivision but you do have a choice. Your choice is to do the right thing and abide by the code. The Igel's purchased a beautiful piece of property on Lotus Lake. They are bright people. They were well aware of the risks associated with their investment. They had been informed by the selling realtor that the land may not be subdividable. Staff it appears has done everything in it's power to put forth the notion that subdividing on the lake is justifiable because subdividing the other way meets code. We are here to prove that wrong. The facts are that the Igel's need variances for both lots. As a City Council you have the power to deny this request. Or at a 47 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 minimum tonight that all applicable codes be applied to both proposals. Only then can you assure yourselves and our community that you are doing the right thing. This is the foundation of authority in Chanhassen. This is the code book which we're supposed to apply. Just going to leaf through a couple things. You received my letters. The rules of construction and definition. In the construction of this code, and of all ordinances, the rules and definitions set out in this section shall be observed unless construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the council. Generally all general provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in this code shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the City Council may be fully carried out. In the interpretation and application of any provision as this code, they shall be held to the minimu'm requirements adopted. Where any provisions of the code impose greater restrictions upon the subject matter then the general provision imposed by the code, the provision imposing the greatest restriction shall be deemed to be controlling. There's some key words in here. Must. When you look at your ordinance it says look at this must. Must be construed to be mandatory. Non technical and technical words. Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Shall. The word shall be should be construed to be mandatory. Street. Right there on page 3. Street. The word street means a ~vay, public or private for the conveyance principally of vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, avenue, parkway, road, alley, lane, thoroughfare, expressway, highway, place or however otherwise designated. Street. It's amazing how this word has been manipulated. Shared driveway. Common portion of the driveway. Cross access easement. Private driveway. Private drive. Private street. Driveway access easement. The simple facts are, for the subdivision to be legal it must have 30 feet of frontage on a street, public or private. The common section or in legal terms, the serbiant tenament must be paved to a width of 20 feet. The uncommon section doesn't have this requirement but it must be located within the easement of 30 feet. This is known as the right-of-way provided again in legal terms in the dominant tenament. This is a classic case of right-of-way whereby an owner agreed to .allow a neighbor to cross his land in order to allow the neighbor to reach his own land. It lives in perpetuity. The only place in our code which provides 'for this access is in Section 18-57, Streets and under Section O, Private Streets. But boy can staff confuse us on this. Getting back to our. - Mayor Jansen: Deb, please. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Getting back to our ordinances. When the City Council have past in their wisdom and in conjunction with our City Attorney, Roger Knutson, devised our city ordinances they had to ensure that the ordinances were, reasonably certain in their terms and set forth objective standards to provide adequate notice of what is required. Must be consistent with the Minnesota Constitution and Statutes. Must not limit or deny any common law or constitutional rights. Must not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade and must be reasonable. So, when Mr. Knutson helped to draft these ordinances back in 1988, and all ordinances since then, he had to be assured they passed all conditions just mentioned. A sound understanding of the law was required. The ordinance book is a public record. It is evidence in court. Actions by the council which are administrative in nature are subject to judicial scrutiny and will be set aside if arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Therefore we have compiled a set of findings to provide for the council in support of the code and it's applicability to the Igel subdivision. We have two lists of stack of findings. For the two lakeshore lot proposals, which we view as negative toward the community of Chanhassen. In the stacked lot proposal, the one up, one down proposal, which we construe to be negative towards well. If you have any questions about any of these items, the application of each code for each inconsistent application is listed. The Minnesota State Statute, if it applies, is listed. There are DNR regulations that are controlled here. Shoreland regulations. And I don't blow how I'm doing on my time. Mayor Jansen: I need you to wrap pretty quick. 48 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Debbie Lloyd: Okay. And also provided with a handout is a letter from a former councilman who served on Chanhassen council from 1986 to 1990. Talking about private streets. And we've, as you know we've delved into the history of the private streets. We were trying to balance the long term interest of the city ~vith the reasonable desire of property owners to develop the economic value of their property. I believe the council was concerned about protecting the city's ability to support future development by providing space for a transition fi'om private streets to public streets. Providing room for related utilities and protecting the lot size and characteristics of future development within the city. Mayor Jansen: Deb I do need you to wrap please. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you for listening. For all the time and efforts you've helped us through this past year. It's hard to wrap up a year in 5 minutes, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. Let me just say, I mean obviously we realize and we're sensitive to what a long, drawn out issue this has been. In fact I'll share with you that I don't think I'm alone sitting up here tonight having probably lost more sleep over trying to figure out what to do with this one than Pulte. And when you go around shaking your head saying, it's a lot split. It's significant in that it is in an established neighborhood and we are all sensitive to that. We're unfortunately in a position where our ordinances maybe don't provide us the full extent of the relief that we'd like them to provide us as fat' as being able to address the situation. I don't know that in the past that there's been the political will to necessarily open these up and take a look at it. I'll share with you that later on our agenda we will be addressing those ordinances in order to be able to suggest that they need to be looked at and given some scrutiny. And potential revision so I certainly can relate to the angst that everyone's gone through on both sides. You know there's some really difficult, difficult circumstances here. Bringing this back to council. As staff said on the subdivision proposal for the two lakeshore lots, we do have findings of fact in the report to deny. On the second division of the front to back, that isn't a proposal that we're being advised that we have the latitude or the ability to deny it. Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification Mayor. On the fl'ont/back we do not have the authoriU, to deny? Mayor Jansen: We don't have the ordinances in place, the language is not cleat' enough. Scott Botcher: I might suggest you let Roger address that. Mayor Jansen: If you'd like to on the record, you certainly could. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think I've written plenty about the subject but I will just say, one of the things that may frustrate people fi'om time to time is the courts when they read our ordinances construe them strictly against regulation and strictly for doing what the property owner wanted to do xvith their property and so as we're interpreting ordinance, we have to apply that same rule that the courts apply. As far as going into the substantive, I don't think that would be appropriate right now. You have my opinions on the subject. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councihnan Ayotte: May I ask a question about the water service? 49 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Councihnan Ayotte: On water service to be extended to Lot 1 in page 4 of the staff report, what are the adversities during construction with respect to, if we have to extend the water service? Bob Generous: The impacts to the trees, it doesn't follow the current alignment. That was the only concern. Councilman Ayotte: They didn't state it black and white so. Bob Generous: It was staff's opinion that with the extension of the water service they should follow the driveway alignment rather than at one time they were showing it going through that wooded area in the western part of the property. Mayor Jansen: Was that your question? Councihnan Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councihnan Ayotte: Page 10, there was a comment Teresa about engineering will ensure there will be no increase in runoff. Could you kind of, are you familiar with that? Teresa Burgess: Let me find the comment real quick to make sure I'm answering the right question. Councilman Ayotte: We'll it was talking about, I'm sure Kate wrote that and put you on the blame line that you would make sure there wouldn't be any additional runoff during. Teresa Burgess: What she's referring to is that bet~veen the single lot and the two lots, they could build a larger home if they were to stay on the single lot because they would still be restricted to the 25% impervious. The developer, or in this case the Igel's would be required to submit stormwater calculations showing that they have not increased the runoff to the lake. Mayor Jansen: Was that the extent of your questions? Councihnan Ayotte: That will take care of it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other direct questions for staff at this point? Okay. This is a tough one councilmen. I am going to toss something out, just for discussion as this goes around the table. I'm not suggesting that it's something that we do but I think with the numerous new members on the council who may not be aware of this as an option, I do at least want to throw it out as a possibility. On the side by side, because it is a variance request, were council to consider granting the variance for that request, you can apply conditions to that in granting it. I did pose the question to Mr. Knutson as far as applying this same sort of restriction on the side of the houses we did on the Carver Beach property recently. It could arguably be, would you like to address what you and I talked about, just so I'm saying it correct. I don't mean to put you on the spot but just so I'm saying it cmTectly. Roger Knutson: The discussion you and I had was on the issue of limiting the size or the height of the house. And whether you could do that and I said you could do that in a reasonable manner for the 50 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 variance, regarding the variance because a variance relates to lot width and the size and the height of the house. There's a nexus there between those into issues. If you want to maintain open space or open feeling or the sort of thing you would gain if the lot were larger or wider. Mayor Jansen: And keep it more consistent xvith the neighborhood that way. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Jansen: And in doing that also the setbacks on the homes in the e~isting neighborhood, they're a little bit more restrictive, not a lot more restrictive but could we also then apply the existing setbacks fi'Oln that neighborhood? Roger IQ~utson: As far as lakeshore setback you're talking about? Mayor Jansen: These xvere fi'om the side yard setbacks. Roger Knutson' That would seem reasonable, yes. Councilman Ayotte: So are you saying that the 60 x 60 pad would be made smaller so it'd be less intrusive to the setback? Is that what. Roger Knutson' Well I don't think anyone, very few people build a 60 x 60, there are very fexv 60 x 60 homes. Councihnan Ayotte: Well but. Roger Knutson: What you can do is you can tighten down and say for example, I'm hesitating because I don't want to put ideas in your head. That's for you to decide but for example, if you decided because of the vistas you didn't want a 2 or 3 story home, you wanted a single story home, or you decided you wanted to maintain certain setbacks you could say the house, the footprint of the house may not exceed and then I'll let you fill in the blank. Or must maintain an extra large setback from the side yards of, fill in the blank. Mayor Jansen' That's why my thought had gone to maintaining the existing setbacks that are in the neighborhood so that the size and the setback of the homes would be consistent with the existing developments. Councilman Ayotte: So the existing setbacks would drive it's integration? Mayor Jansen: Yes. But what Roger's also saying is that if you wanted to go so far as to limit the footprint of the house, that you can only push so far on the reasonableness of the requirements that you've put on this. Councilman Ayotte: How do you couch what is reasonable given that there's a certain point where you don't want to pack guidance too terribly much but at the same time you've got to satisfy the neighborhood. How do you find that balance? Roger Knutson: That is councilman why you make the large salary you do. 51 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: That's why what I went to in looking at the neighborhood was the larger setbacks. Roger Knutson: I mean for an example, and I was being facetious there hopefully. The ordinance requires 90 foot of width. They only have 75. So for example if you wanted to increase the setbacks by 15 feet, that would be one approach to things. But there are many ways you can accomplish what you're trying to do. Councilman Ayotte: One of the confusing points on the side by side, what's appealing about it is you have about 69, 70 some percent of the canopy remains versus the front ba~k, and how to, but you combine both to retaining that canopy is something also that's got to be thrown in there. Mayor Jansen: That's why I thought if that was one of the things council was struggling with, that you should at least be aware of this option. Now I'll also make you aware that I did share that alternative xvith the neighbors, at least the two that have been so involved in this project, and their preference is to stay with the fi'ont to back. No~v what I've struggled with all weekend, continuing to drive by the property, is it just seems to impact the entire neighborhood more to pop a home in the middle of that big stand of trees versus moving two down by the lakeshore. But I am so adamantly opposed, and there's my struggle. I am so adamantly opposed to wanting to put two lakeshore homes on this property that it's a real struggle, even knowing that that is probably a good alternative. So I probably just complicated that a little bit for everybody but now you're at least aware. Councihnan Ayotte: Let's talk it out a little bit more, because this is really important to everybody in the 1'OOl13. Councihnan Kroskin: Is that what we're doing, is we're having a discussion of?. Mayor Jansen: Yes. If you don't mind if we can, this is a tough one. Councihnan Ayotte: The erosion is-less intrusive xvith the side by side, I think. Is that true? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Teresa. Teresa Burgess: The erosion? You're referring to during the construction? The erosion during construction? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Teresa Burgess: The builder's required to mitigate any erosion and we do look at the erosion control plan. Because there's less tree removal, there would certainly be less potential for erosion into the lake. You're not removing that natural vegetation. It acts as a filter, but the city would require adequate erosion control methods. Councilman Ayotte: I understand that but you have a more optimum fight against erosion if you keep 70% of the trees versus going to 46%. Teresa Burgess: Existing vegetation certainly has a much better chance of doing that than man made alternatives. 52 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Could we impose, if we went with the fi'ont back more measures or not? Do we have to just keep with the minimum? Mayor Jansen: The fi'ont to back does not require a variance so that one we have no control over. Councilman Ayotte: No control, okay. Mayor Jansen: And hence my concern. That one will pass. That one can happen. And I did notice that staff does have the tree conservation easement now reflected on the side l~y side plan. Now the only thing that caught my eye on the side by side plan is the driveway, it seems from the grade of that property that you would lose more trees than is necessarily indicated on there. Councilman Ayotte: On a side by side? Mayor Jansen: On the side by side. Because the way the roadway is, actually I don't know if you have one of the plans. Teresa Burgess: ...shows tree canopy. Councihnan I<h'oskin: She can have mine. Mayor Jansen: On the one that crosses over to the far side. It just seems to come extremely close to a lot 'of the trees that are indicated as lost. Is there any way to shift that driveway to have less impact? Teresa Burgess: When they come in with their actual building permit they are required to meet the city's ordinance on driveway grade and so sometimes that does dictate where the driveway must go because they have to meet that driveway grade. We do alloxv some shifting to accommodate and they would actually come in xvith an actual building plan for each of these projects for their building permit and we would look at the driveway at that time. But this is looking already at those grades and those trees probably, we would look at it again at the time of building permit but we probably would have to take the trees. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if the tree preservation is a big part of your consideration, which is xvhat I was hearing you say, that the driveway could impact more of that then is currently reflected. Councihnan Ayotte: On the side by side. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Councilman Kroskin: But which plan affects the tree canopy the most? Teresa Burgess: I believe the front back does. And certainly we could, if they do the side by side, we could add a condition that they do proper management to minimize tree impacts. That requires some additional construction work when they're out there. Instead of just going through and ripping to put in the driveway, they would need to first properly treat those roots. We may be able to save some of the trees that are relatively close to the driveway. Councihnan Ayotte: Could we impose a requirement to introduce more trees for those that are taken down? 53 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Teresa Burgess: I'm not able to answer that question. Roger Knutson: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: Roger said yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Does anyone else care to jump in? Councihnan Peterson: It's probably easier for me to jump in only because I've already voted on it. AS I offered to somebody earlier today, I think I've spent more time on this project and Pulte than I have any other project in the last 7 years of giving service to the city of Chanhassen. You ~know I believe that we need to follow the ordinance and it's, I voted for the one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore lot in the Planning Cmnmission and I really haven't seen anything since that vote that provides substantial more facts that would sway that decision. You know I'm concerned about the trees, but I'm more concerned about following the ordinance and that's really the xvay I felt a few months ago and that's probably the way I feel tonight. But I will say, as I did say I think in the Planning Commission, I think that as a - compliment to the citizens that are here tonight, many of which have been to multiple meetings: Whether it be council or commission, I think we are a better city because of this project and we're going.to-do things differently as we go forxvard, both from a commission standpoint, from a council standpoint, from a staff standpoint. And I know tl!at doesn't make anybody, probably but me and maybe hopefully you guys feel better but I do think that we are going to function better as we move ahead. So thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councihnan Kroskin: Well I too have, I can't believe the amount of time I've spent looking at this situation and I agree. It's not just a lot split. I certainly, as I looked at the decision in front of us I personally am not going to feel good about either decision that I'm going to vote, whichever way I'm going to vote tonight. I commend the neighborhood for their very professional and polite interaction with myself, and the documentation information that they've provided and the opportunity to sit down and speak with them. And I also want to thank the Igel's for their professional conduct towards myself and the professional way in which they have provided their information. I'm still thinking about it. Mayor Jansen: Anything to add Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: It's a tough one. When you've got one that you really can't say no to but it has a greater impact. And you have Option A, and Option A is the two lakeshore that has a lesser impact on the abutting neighbors, but yet xve have to fudge on a variance and on the lakeshore width but we can impose restrictions as we did in Carver Beach to the footprint and the size of the building, I think we have to take a look at that. A serious look. Are the neighbors, I mean I talked to Mr. Paulsen out in the hall during the break and tried to figure out which way, or pin down to we have to say yes to Option B. The stacked. Would A be better? His concern was that we're looking at the quality of the lake and mitigating the affects on the lake and still preferred the stack, ifI quoted you correctly Mr. Paulsen. But 54 CID,' Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 I just wonder with the fact that xve can control the building pad and the height of the building, I wonder if you guys as neighbors are willing to take a look at that option and go... Mayor Jansen: Hey, I was looking for that too. Councihnan Labatt: Okay. I mean I'm just looking for some direction you know. Mayor Jansen: Unless you've changed 3,out' mind. Councilman Labatt: I can't remember the name of the neighborhood down south on 101 that xve gave them a little 5 minute recess to group together and think about what they wanted to do and come back to us. Which neighbor was it? Kate Aanenson: March Glen. Councilman Labatt: March Glen. I just wonder if we could give that to them. Mayor Jansen: I don't know that this would get resolved by doing that. I literally told them on Friday, so they would have the weekend to be able to mull it over and share and at this point they're fi'ont to back. Councilman Labatt: Okay, Mayor Jansen: And I guess, okay. And I didn't mean to throw out a complicator and actually as I think about it, I think I would have more difficulty knowing that I granted a variance than causing the front to back. And that's where I guess I'm feeling as though we're here to execute ordinance. I don't think it's the right, not that it isn't the right thing to do. I don't know that it's the best thing to do. Councilman Ayotte: It is not. Mayor Jansen: To go with the fl'ont to back. Councihnan Ayotte: It's not the best thing to do for resale, for all those reasons, for canopy but the ordinance does dictate front to back. I've gone this way up and down, sideways, and. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Roger, let me ask you one more legal question. It has been pointed out to both yourself and us now again leading into tonight's meeting that within our ordinances there's a requirement for the 30 tbot easement on a private street, and I know that you know we're dealing with some issues with this but a 30 foot easement and a 20 foot setback. Is that anything that we would be able to put on the front to back as a condition? Is that not a fair question for tonight? Roger Knutson: Kate, did you xvant to say it and I'll think about it. Kate Aanenson: Well I was going to say that's the one that we originally interpreted to need a variance so was your question is could you put a condition on a plat that met ordinance? Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Roger Knutson: You can't impose it, but since you don't have a variance here you lack the flexibility to impose the kind of conditions you could if you had a variance. So you don't have that kind of flexibility. 55 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: And so the 30 foot easement and the 20 foot setback don't apply to this property? Is that the interpretation? Bob Generous: It applies for the common portion. Roger Knutson: It's where they split that it doesn't. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Roger Knutson: It's no longer a private street at that point, it's a driveway. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright. Council, any more discussion? Are we ready to call for a motion? Why don't we start with 7(a). The side by side. Request for a variance from the lakeshore width requirement. Do I have a motion? Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion for denial of request for preliminary plat with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to subdivide 1.1 acre of lakeshore into 2 single family lots. Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second? I'll make the second. Any more discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Mayor Jansen seconded that the City Council deny the request for preliminary plat to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots with a variance fi'om the lake shore width requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to O. Mayor Jansen: And the motion carries 5-0 to deny the variance for the 2 lakeshore lots. Variance from the width requirement. Moving onto (b). Request for the preliminat3/plat approval to subdivide the 1.1 acres into a fi'out to back. Do I have a motion please? Councihnan Ayotte: I make a motion to approve. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councihnan Peterson: Second. Mayor Jansen: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, revised April 20, 2000, and revised August 4, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. 2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. 56 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and txvo shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit fol' a home in this development. The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $872.00. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,158.20. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility specifications. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staffto review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. The applicant and staff shall work together in deterlnining the paths foi' the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 1 from Laredo Lane to the prope~W line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services to Lot 1. The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water hook-up fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted fi'om the xvatermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer line that encroach upon the lots. The typical 5 foot and 10 foot wide side, fi'ont and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 2. The developer shall be responsible fol' all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, park and trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 57 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 14. All driveways shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7 ton axle weight design. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is' no increased runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveway. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to clarify the record. Since you approved the one, I believe the applicant has indicated the one requiring a variance has been withdrawn. Is that correct? Okay. Mayor Jansen: Do we need to do ansrthing else then? Roger Knutson: No, as long as it's been withdrawn, thaf's fine. Otherwise we'd have to draw up findings on that but if it's been withdrawn, that's not necessary. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. I don't think they get any harder than that. CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. Teresa Burgess: On February 26th the City Council discussed the meter replacement program as proposed by staff. Council had requested additional information and. requested that the project be brought back for continued discussion this evening, which we are doing: What staff is recommending is that xve use the funds allocated for the 2001-2002 of drilling of Well 9 to jump start the program. We would then use the funds that are captured from the replaced meters to continue the program, or if once we've done that first half million we are astounded by the results we would then re-discuss the project at a later date. But at this time that is our proposal to use the funds for the jump start and then to use the captured funds from the replaced meters to continue the program. It becomes a self sustaining program. We did do a couple of things to answer some council questions. The first thing we did is we surveyed local utility departments and as you can see most of the local utility departments have gone to radio read or a combination thereof. And we've surveyed our local, Victoria, Hopkins, Eden Prairie, Chaska, Minnetonka, Edina and then Chanhassen is the bottom one that you see listed there. We currently have 7 employees, one of which has been on medical leave since November of last year. Looking at the staffing need, if we do nothing to change our system except add units we are looking at needing to add another worker to be able to continue our meter reading in a timely manner in the manner we're doing them now. That was one portion of the project. And in doing that we looked at how much time is required to do our meter read program. Currently we use one week, using 4 employees full time to read 33.3% or 1/3 of the city. Right now that cost is $4,307 per month, or approximately $51,600 per year. That's approximately one full time equivalent. Please keep in mind when you're looking at those numbers we did not include, we used an average salary for calculating those numbers. We did not include our water utility superintendent because he does not do meter reads. We cun'ently use our assistant superintendent to do meter reads just because we do not have staff to eliminate him. Dropping him out of the picture we lower that dollar amount but we're not able to do that right now. Just to make sure we were comparing apples to apples we did not adjust the numbers for the hourly rate, even though our assistant utility 58 CiD' Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 superintendent xvould no longer do ineter reads. To look at the 4 hours that would be required to do the entire city, we're looking at a cost per month of approximately $108 or a yearly cost of $1,300 to do the entire ciD7 once per month. The additional, and I just wanted to point out real quick for tile council, ~ve added 322 units tonight. It's that quick and that doesn't include, that's just Arboretum Village. That doesn't include Ashling Meadows or the Igel Addition that we just approved. Those are additional meter reads that will have to be done by our staff and so it's that quick that they can come up and all of a sudden we've got these added onto our system. We looked at two things also for looking at the cost. We looked at spreading them out and you can see that Bruce has done an analysis of our cash flow. The one that we have in here is assuming in the first place that we are postponing Well 8 including the meter replacement and assuming that meter replacement, he has assumed that we will not be adding a meter reader position to the city to accommodate the additional meter reads. He'll be able to do them with radio reads. The second option is a review, not replacing the, going ahead and putting in Well 9 but not putting in the new meters and the ne~v radios and in that case he has assumed the need to hire an additional ~vorker to do meter reads. Bruce is here this evening so I'll let him address any questions on the financing rather than try to struggle my way through it. I did want to point out for the council this, today the ciD, did do a meter change out, and I won't give the address because we don't want to do that, to publicize it too much, but xve did a meter change out today. The difference between the meter in the house and the box on the outside of the house was 462,000 gallons. That was lost revenue to the city. Over the life of that meter and so that is exactly tile type of problem that we are proposing to correct. If there's any questions I'd be happy to tO' to answer those. Councihnan Ayotte: Are we still on TV? Can I undo my tie? Scott Botcher: She's the dress code enforcer. Mayor Jansen: Sons,, go ahead. Councilman Peterson: Teresa, excuse me. In that specific instance, do we have any idea how old that meter was and how much that would have saved us? Scott Botcher: Bruce, why don't you come up. Teresa Burgess: This is tile actual lneter that was pulled out. Do we know how old this meter is Kelley? Councih-nan Peterson: Mark that as Evidence A. Teresa Burgess: We don't know the exact age of it. Because it is this type of reader, it is one of our older models. Councihnan Labatt: You're looking at 1970's. Scott Botcher: How much is 462,000 gallons? How much money? Kelley Janes' ...about $3.90...water and sewer. Councihnan Ayotte: Did one of your guys change it out? Kelley Janes: Yes, about 3:00 today he brought it in. 59 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: And about how long did it take? Kelley Janes: Approximately, that one was strictly a change out, I would say about a half hour to 45 minutes. Mayor Jansen: If I might jump in, I think where we left this the last time was more discussion around hoxv we go about financing the project versus it being a discussion of necessity. So as I understand it this evening, what staff is looking for is an approval to take the project out to bid, correct? Teresa Burgess: If we are approved to use those funds we'd like to take it out to bid, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Go ahead. Scott Botcher: I think now's a good time, and not to belabor it and beat a dead horse but Bruce and I and the Mayor, and Teresa all inet today around lunchtime about, and actually Bruce I'll let you start. Kind of go through some of the funding issues. Linda raised some good questions electronically this morning. I guess I'd like you to address the fund balance issue within the water fund. Maybe a brief discussion on how the enterprise fund is segregated from general funds and then some of that reimbursement resolution stuff we talked about. Bruce DeJong: .Well there's a couple of things that are important to note when you look at this. The analysis that I put in here is not a set plan. It does not commit the city to any particular bonding or to any particular operating decisions regarding revenues or expenditures. It's just taking the status, quo to give you an indication of the magnitude and direction of the change if we were-to replace the meters of the city. I did another analysis this morning that showed using only the $65,000 in 200 l'and $480,000 in 2002 for postponing Well No. 9 that shows that at the end of 2005, given the same constraints that we have here and taking approximately 43% of the savings because, of the $545,000 is about 43% of the total cost of replacing all the meters and putting in new readers. So doing that it shows that there's a positive change of almost $690,000 over the course of the next 4 ½ years. That really is a tremendous savings in this kind of a business. Now when I talked to the mayor about it, and the city manager and the city engineer is that we certainly can have a discussion about what the fund balance is in the enterprise fund. That is a separate fund run as a business on it's own and perhaps we're not making the best decisions as far as having that much cash on hand in that fund. Certainly we don't have to bond for everything. We can finance this out of the proceeds but the amount of work contemplated in the capital improvement program is such that sometime during the course of this 5 year period you will have to bond for some of those improvements. Scott Botcher: The question was raised this morning about our financial situation. Our debt study. Those types of issues that we talked about and Bruce and I you know have lived and breathed this since we got here but the debt issue and the financial issues that we face, our general fund and our TIF issues, they're not our enterprise funds quite frankly. And as I mentioned to Linda, every year the audit comes out and as you did this year, the auditor said there's no necessary change in the rate structure. In other words, the rate that we're currently charging our customers are adequate to support operations and adequate to support the debt. Now if debt were to be issued in some way, shape or form, it would be revenue debt. In other words the revenue of the utility ~vould support the debt service and it would be scheduled as such so there's no general fund tax levy impact and there's no negative impact on, in terms of our other debt or balloon issues. It's a segregated entity within the city. 60 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Bruce DeJong: And as we discussed earlier in our general fund discussions, if you move some tilings out and issue equipment certificates for them you can have an 18 month period where you can refund that money to yourself through a debt issue. So if you decide to go ahead with this project or with an additional phase beyond the $545,000, we have that 18 month look back window that we can reimburse ourselves for that. Then we could issue debt if you decide to assume a different course of action. Councihnan Ayotte: Now you really cannot adjust fee until we get an accurate depiction of what we're doing. Mayor Jansen: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: So if you cannot adjust fee, can you incrementally introduce the upgrade and go ahead and finance it and then adjust the fees as you go? Teresa Burgess: What we can do is once we have a reasonable number of the meters replaced we should start to see what the impact of that is. Right now we have an estimate but we would have actual real data to go oil. And then we can do, initiate a rate study and have one done to look at. Addressing the issues of the upcoming CIP issues. The water treatment plant. The upcoming water towers. I do want to stress to the council, and we're recommending postponing as well. We really can't go beyond 2 years. We're going to have to do that well that's scheduled in 2003. So we are looking at this as we feel that this is more important because we have to address the revenue issues to make sure vee're healthy to address the water treatment. Tile towers, the wells that are upcoming and though we can't do, we've been advised we cannot do a rate study that would be accurate without having tile meter change out at least started so that we can see what tile impact is. Mayor Jansen: So tonight staff is just looking for our approval of using tile well funds towards the meter replacement and being able to take this out to bid. Correct? Scott Botcher: Yeah, I think fi'om my o~vn perspective, and I'm not even sure we need to go that far, unless Bruce tells me otherwise. I think the request tonight is to seek approval to solicit bids for the provision of these goods and services. The financing decision is important but that is not necessarily a part of tonight's issue because as Bruce said, I think there's a fair question. And when we did our financial policy we never really addressed, and primarily you two because you guys weren't part of that but we talked general fund and we talked TIF and we talked investment policy. Remember all that? We never really spoke a lot about what's an adequate cash balance with an enterprise fund. Probably because they're both okay and fi'ankly with everything else on our plate we just, we looked at it. We didn't won'> about it and then finally because we know our rate structure needs to be tied to operational costs as xvell as debt service costs and that linkage has to be there otherwise your auditor will get on you to fix it and so there's always generally a relationship there. But his question's a good one. How much cash is enough in an enterprise fund that is looking at towers, wells and treatment plants? Councilman Ayotte: You really don't know until you put the RFP out to see. Mayor Jansen: Well no we'll discuss that as a policy. Scott Botcher: That's a whole other day. Mayor Jansen: Completely different policy issue, yeah okay. 61 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Scott Botcher: So just to clarify with, simply tonight just can we go to bid and see what the market brings us. Mayor Jansen: Can I have a motion please? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Jansen: I have a motion and a second? Councilman Kroskin: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to authorize staff to advertise for bids for a city wide meter replacement program. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. DISCUSSION OF CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S WORK PLAN. Mayor Jansen: If council doesn't mind, maybe we jump over 10, the discussion of the City Council retreat to do the discussion of the Carver County Sheriff's work plan. We have Deputy Potts here to work xvith us on that so why don't we accommodate his schedule. Councihnan Ayotte: I guess if it's okay with Sgt. Potts. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yes it is. Mayor Jansen: He's already at the podium, I think it's okay. Scott Botcher: We learned today that Bud was unable to make it tonight. He had some conflicts so, which I didn't know until today but. Sgt. Dave Ports: One of an officer's least favorite calls in the world is a domestic dispute and I couldn't help but...those domestic calls. Watching council struggle with being between a rock and a hard place so I can identify with what you folks went through with some of those issues earlier. And I'd also like to thank you for on my month to month times in fi'ont of the council, putting me on early. I hope this is one of those rare exceptions. Scott Botcher: That's what you learn about government Dave. Basically what we have here, not to interrupt but we'll get this thing going. Is that the council had established, and has established a deadline, a self imposed deadline admittedly March 31 for the adoption of the work plan on an annual basis. That was communicated both to Dave and Bud and included in the packet is the work plan from 2000. A memo from Dave, and you guys can read this yourselves. And then I guess what I would consider more ora draft outline of the work plan 2001, and I think what we're looking for tonight is a couple things. First of all are the categories within the work plan acceptable? Do you want to add some? Do you want to delete some? And again, starting from the top, conceptually what's the framework. Within the framework what kind of bullet points do you wish to have included as performance measures and again like the incentive plan they can be tangible. They can be intangible. And then I guess beyond that we've got the categories, anything else that's new or different or responsive from the council to the contractor that we need to include in the work plan because our goal is to get this in final form so it can be before you next time, and then at the same time the final addendum to the contract which 62 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 contemplates the work plan which is consistent xvith the motion will then also be before you. So those are our goals. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I thinkjust to frame this up for our new council members, I don't know if you're familiar with the recentality of Sgt. Pot-ts actually being stationed here with Chanhassen. The 2000 xvork plan was the first work plan and developed by Sgt. Potts and Mr. Botcher as they both came on at about the same time, correct? Sgt. Dave Potts: Actually the primary architect of the work plan was the Sheriff. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sgt. Dave Potts: He brought the xvork plan. It xvas his idea. In fact it's something he's instituting throughout the entire sheriff's office. The different divisions in the sheriff's office. Last year was our first taste of it here in Chanhassen. This year it's been expanded to the rest of the sheriff's office. And so for the rest of the sheriff's office this is the first year doing something like this... Mayor Jansen: So this is only our second annual. Sgt. Dave Ports: The sheriff left it up to me to take, to come up with a draft for 2001 and since I didn't write the first one, you know putting some things and thoughts into my own words so you'll see some differences between the 2000 plan and 2001. I'm certainly open to suggestions and concerns of the council on that but at this point in time the draft contains some things that I wanted to put in there. Some things that the sheriff and perhaps Scott Botcher wanted to put in there and now we're looking for council, as my memo stated, as our community representatives and our community leaders you are out there talking to the public. You have your own ideas and you have tile public at large ideas of law enforcement in Chanhassen. So we're looking for some of that input to perhaps include in black and white on this work plan document. And I don't know with all your other issues hoxv much time council has had to consider this and to think about some issues that they'd like to put in there. If you have some ideas or some discussion tonight, that's fine. Otherwise we just need to get this wrapped up in the neat' future so we can bring the final version before council on the 26th. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Scott Botcher: And understand that you retain the right, working with the sheriff, to really go back and flush out or amend your work plan midstream if you like. In other words you can pick it up in August and say you know geez, this didn't work very well or this is a great idea for the fall. Let's make this amendment. Obviously in conjunction with the county because you can't make a change in November and say by December 31 you have to do x. I mean we really always have to take a long te~vn vision here. Many years down the road but we do it in one year increments so Dave's right. We do like, we would like to get at least one draft of this tied together but if you have issues that you want us to expound upon in the future and become more detailed. I kmow one of the things that I had an interest in, and I'll just share it with the council, was to get, and what's here is fine but I like to have some more, and I'm using a Bob word, quantifiable data in here. In terms of... in the past year, and quite honestly the softxvare that the county used just couldn't do it. Couldn't do it. And Bud has gone through an install and we have new software at the county and so some of those numbers that actually track issues of, what's the average stop time for this type of activity. What's the response time for this? How many of these? Before that was very, very painful to get, or impossible to get. With the new software we're going to be able to get 63 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 that sort of stuff. And again, as we said last year, start building that baseline to go. Is that an accurate statement? S~. Dave Potts: Well and that might bring us to the very first thing under the heading of contract administration. Law enforcement records and reports. That's one area that's going to be changing throughout this year with the new software that's going into place and the training that goes along with that and finding out what we can do with it. What it can track you know. What it can print out on an ongoing basis and what kind of reports we can generate. Councihnan Ayotte: One of the questions and desires that I had, tracking a lot with Scott, I've talked xvith more than one deputy on this issue just to get a feel for myself. A point of frustration is conviction rate, or lack thereof. You guys bust your butts to, it takes a lot of time with DWI, DUI, 3 to 4 hours. You're ~naking head way to reduce that process time and then they go in, if you get them into court then there's a question of conviction and whether or not all the efforts that you do pay off. So what can we do on the other end of the continuum to take a look at our Carver County court systems to make sure that conviction rates are starting to tally. Going back to what Scott was saying with the data but what mechanism could we have to evaluate the success of the court system to demonstrate if the activities that say you guys are doing are paying off. Scott Botcher: Elect different judges. I'm very serious. I'm very serious. You elect different judges. I mean they run unopposed half the time. Elect different judges. Mayor Jansen: And we're actually venturing off the work plan though because that's monitoring a completely different. Scott Botcher: That's a judicial process. Mayor Jansen: Organization so if we could maybe stick with this it Would be appreciated. Councilman Ayotte: Sure it will be appreciated but Sgt. Potts, can we have a discussion about that because I really think that that's where we're going to make our money. S=ot. Dave Potts: Well I just had a discussion along this last week and I was just trying to recall who that was xvith, but there was a discussion about the enormity of the job to follow from call point to conviction point and track the whole system versus tracking what does the sheriffs office do alone or what does the judiciary do alone. Mayor Jansen: ... issues that we have talked about since last year and now the sheriff has requested it, probably 2 years in a row, the community involvement participation part of the original work plan. I know I would like to see that part of it come together as far as a group and you can see in the original work plan there was multiple different options thrown out. Whether it was the focus work group or task forces or contract oversight committee. Do you have a feel now for yourself as to what type of a group you would feel the most comfortable and could give you the most effective information that you might need? Whether it's a commission per se again or this contract oversight committee was definitely probably given the most serious consideration previously. Sgt. Dave Potts: Personally the citizen group that I deal with is the City Council. And I don't see a need for a specific commission that meets on a regular basis. The sheriff threw out the idea of perhaps more ora single focus work group that's brought together from time to time to deal with one issue or another. 64 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 My concern xvith something ongoing is keeping the group busy with whatever their work would be and for me personally I would need direction from the city manager, from the sheriff and from this council as to what they xvould envision for that type of a group. And kind of give me some guidance and steering that way. Councihnan Ayotte: How about a task force to measure the success our judges have on convictions? What do you think? Scott Botcher: Yeah, yeah. My understanding is that Bud still supports the idea of coming up with a citizen task force that would meet on like a quarterly basis. Dave's question we have discussed in my office. Okay, so we do this. We have to give them some sort of direction. Some sort of task to continue to do. One, to keep them interested and two, to keep them on task. And so my guess is when Bud comes here in 2 weeks lie's still going to be supportive of it unless lie's changed his mind, which tie obviously c all. S~. Dave Ports: And tie had mentioned to me that the City of Monticello contracts xvith the sheriff's office up there and they have some type of a citizen group and so tie suggested that I look into that and see how their's is run and get some ideas that way. And perhaps that's the guidance I'm looking for from council. If this, some type of citizen group is of interest and you'd like me, as representative from the sheriff's office to pursue this, that could be the piece that goes into the work plan as some direction to me to took at these and come back with some ideas for the council to consider. · Mayor Jansen: Okay. I know just speaking for myself I would be interested in pursuing what would be the best arrangement and maybe letting staff work that out as to making a recommendation as to what would be the best set-up for getting that kind of input. The other part that I also liked that was listed under this section was the evaluator conduct a community survey on community attitudes for policing for 2001, and we are of course trying to pull together our general community survey at this point but I don't know hoxv in depth we necessarily would be able to go into what we might want to know about the policing services fi'om our residents. Scott, do you have any idea as to xvhether we would end up needing to do a separate evaluation or do you suppose we could work in enough questions into the general. Scott Botcher: I don't know yet. How's that? I'I1 have to see what the questions come back like. What the cue looks like and if it's a bigger deal than anything else, it may have more questions but my guess is that it will probably have some but not as many as some would like and probably more than others. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So maybe just be aware that we are pulling that survey together and addressing some questions there. If there are things that you'd want to bring forward to out' attention to make sure we' re addressing. S~. Dave Potts: And in reference to that survey, and the mention of a survey was directly fi'om the sheriff. He obtained some software. He mentioned it to both Scott and I from what was it, the Department of Justice or something along those lines, of doing a law enforcement colnmunity survey. And so that's where, you know after we had received this software and before it was put down on paper here, that's where that idea had come from originally. Scott Botcher: Yeah, the issues of the survey, any survey is not driven because of the existence of any software. It's driven from methodology and what it is you want to ask and whatever the results are, they need to be incorporated within the softxvare at the county, that can be done but obviously we're interested in more results but, we can meet, maybe time together. 65 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then probably for recentality sake, the second bullet point underneath that was the establishing a community crime fund for crime prevention activities and rewards for information on crimes. I know that Sheriff Olson had mentioned that possibility of needing some sort of a reward situation with what happened at the Legion recently so he re-raised that as an issue as to whether it was as a community we should be addressing as far as having some sort of a reward fund set up. And I have no idea what that means as far as executing it. Sgt. Dave Potts: Well and that was something that I was under the impression that as a sheriff's office they had something like that. I don't know who has operated it in the past or how it's actually worked. Scott Botcher: At the city level my guess is that it would be a general fund issue. My personal experience in the past when I was in Delafield with my own police department, whenever they needed something I simply wrote them a check and had a little line that I took it out of and we made sure that it didn't appear as succinctly as the bills as it might otherwise because we didn't want to have in there, ~noney for drug buy at 12, I mean really you don't. So that's how we've handled it. It's really not difficult to do. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So maybe that's just a conversation as to whether that's something we would even need to address. Scott Botcher: Well and you guys will just need to fund it as part of your. My gut tells me that it's just something that you extend to the county and you make it a general fund. Withdrawn out of the fund balance whenever you need it because I wouldn't necessarily support levying for it. For the amount of money. It's really generally not a lot of money from year to year. . Sgt. Dave Potts: I wouldn't think so. -. Councihnan Labatt: But then again I think...sherifFs idea, in previous employments both Bud and I worked together at Minnetonka and they had a crime prevention fund there. It was donated to by area businesses and a board, if I remember and don't quote me or hold me to this but the money was paid out by their crime prevention group that was overseen by 3 to 5 business leaders that determined the value of the work. The reward be paid and the value of information versus the money. Ail that stuff so. Mayor Jansen: So it might actually be something to address with like the Chamber or. Councilman Labatt: I don't think that Minnetonka used city funds for it. I think it was donations from X and Y Z business and this and that that wanted. Scott Botcher: We used, any forfeiture money? Would you guys comes off of that and give us some to put into a crime prevention fund? Sgt. Dave Potts: I don't know. Councilman Labatt: There's certain guidelines with forfeiture money. Scott Botcher: Alternative revenue sources Steve. 66 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councihnan Labatt: I know but, the only questions I had. Again I had you know a commission advisory board under community involvement participation but I don't know if that's just maybe a wordsmithing or a little bit of how my background sways me on things here but under the law enforcement operations on page 2, under the 2001 draft, traffic enforcement. Growth in Chanhassen has brought increased traffic and increased concern for traffic safety. Next followed by ongoing enforcement. I think that ongoing is a minimum that you expect. I'd like to see that changed to increased enforcement to, and not even, I'm not even talking a quota or anything. I'm not even going down that road but I think there's a minimum level of acceptable output or whatever you want to describe it as but when you begin to outweigh the number of traffic editions added in 2000 and compare that to '99 and see what we had in comparison for increased/decreased and now look at that as 2000 what, you know. Maybe set a goal or whatever you want to call it for 2001 but that's all I wanted put on. And then I did not see in here anything on the compliance checks. I saw it in the 2000 work plan but it was dropped from 2001. Sgt. Dave Pot[s: Compliance checks are something that's conducted by a separate division xvithin the sheriff's office so I thought for the purposes of our work plan, that really wasn't the place for it. And last year when it ,,vas put in there, the idea was, the sheriff's office was going to accomplish one county wide but the city xvas looking at two and funding that second one and putting that into the work plan and that's how it originally got there. My latest conversation with the sheriff is they are wanting to conduct two county wide and that has to be done by the end of June, I think the fiscal year for that program is July to June and so I think they're kind of under the gun to get their two done. And then the next year would begin July 1st and they probably would then continue with that program and unless the city saw a greater need for that, then I don't know that it would necessarily need to be in the work plan. Councihnan Labatt: So once we get oil track then, theoretically we could have one, they're going off of a July to June fiscal year. We could theoretically have one in the second half of 2000 again. Sgt. Dave Pot[s: That's tile way I'm reading it, yeah. Councilman Labatt: Or second half of 2001 and then another one in 2002, the first half. Sgt. Dave Potts: That's the way I'm reading it as well. Councihnan Labatt: We could have 3 this year then, theoretically. Sgt. Dave Pot[s: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Good. I'm okay... Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councilman Ayotte: One other question. Is there, Sgt. Ports, is there any grantmenship effort, Paul Schnell used to write proposals and grants and so forth once upon a time. I know when he left you didn't fill that function. Do you think there's going to be? Sgt. Dave Potts: Well yeah, and Paul was our lead person when it came to grants but not the only person. One of the investigators, Bill Bennett has always been our grant writer for the Safe and Sober Program. That is wide spread throughout the state. And some of the other grants that have been written by other people and that is the same with this liquor compliance program is somebody else, Lieutenant Hubie 67 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Widmer in charge of the investigative unit is also in charge of getting the liquor program up and running. So that's one of his assignments at this time. Councilman Ayotte: Is that imbedded in the other programs then, the grant money activity or should we see if we should promote that and should we possibly look at some of the safety folks that Scott has on staff for grantmenships to try to generate, formalize it? Is it appropriate to consider formalizing grantmenship or is it imbedded in the other programs? Sgt. Dave Potts: I'm not sure I'm following the question other than to sa3) that I know as opportunities and grants present themselves, currently the sheriff's office doesn't say oh. Grant goes to this person. They're looking for what is the grant about and the person from the division that would be involved in that type of activity picking up the ball and taking it. Councihnan Ayotte: So it's not formalized, it's just as it comes we go at it? Sgt. Dave Potts: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Councihnan Ayotte: No. No ma'am. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other comments? Councihnan Peterson: I just had one quick comment. I think the plan in and of itselfI think is thorough and meets the needs. The only thing we'd maybe consider doing is integrating in there, you know the sheriff's office if they can do some PR for itself. The sheriff's office does some tremendous projects in various things I think we're kind of silent to and I haven't got an idea about how to do that. Whether, and I may be mnbarrassing myself, that we already focused that in the news bulletin but if we don't, somehow I think we need to integrate that in. Versus the, you know how many people were stopped in the newspaper every other week. S~. Dave Potts: Some of those kind of things, along the lines of public relation efforts, I think have just been beyond the scope of what our new sheriff has had time to deal with over his first 2 years in office. You know a lot of challenges. A lot of things coming up. A lot of issues to deal with. Not only organizing the sheriff's office the way he sees fit so I think that's just down the road a piece, but just knowing the sheriff I can't say we've spoken on this topic but I believe I can safely speak for the sheriff and say that that would be one of his priorities just as soon as time allows. Mayor Jansen: And on some of the projects that Sgt. Potts and Beth Hoiseth have launched, there's been a great deal of exposure given to them when possible in the city newsletter, as well as the Villager covering like Project Leadfoot. Neighborhood Night Out. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, the National Night Out. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, so there's been some of that at least community based. Trying to make sure that we're giving thegn as much exposure as possible. Any other comments? Scott Botcher: Put it in final fmxn and bring it back next time. Can you make sure Bud's here next time? The next council meeting. 68 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Sgt. Dave Potts: Yes, you bet. And anything that comes up that you can get to Scott or myself that you feel you'd like to see included in the plans before that time, please let us 'know. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. Okay. Why don't xve stay ~vith the Plannin'g Commission ordinance review. PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE REVIEW. Mayor Jansen: Kate, I don't kmow if you want to speak to that just briefly. Kate Aanenson' I'm not really sure, I'm assuming that this came out of the work session, or excuse me the last Planning Commission meeting where we ;vent through. They always put this on their agenda and they wanted to get some prioritization and I guess what they're looking for is council's direction on that. Some of the stuff is ordinance. Some of it's not but it's my understanding you're looking at ordinance stuff. We have been working on the glitch ordinance. We're taking it one at a time. Mayor Jansen: Well some of the notes that I took as in fact it was Deb Kind at the last Planning Commission meeting that had raised this and asked the commission if they would be willing to put priorities on some of these so they could rank them timing wise. I had written down that the ones they discussed that evening were the flag lot amendment, the design standards, existing neighborhood standards, fertilizer ordinance, and then Deb added to the list wetland exclusion fi'om lot calculation, a lakeshore setback standardization and I'm not quite sure what she was talking about there. Kate Aanenson: That's where we have the setback if one house is in the older areas of town they're set back maybe 150 feet and we have a thing where you have to average it and it's sometimes very onerous to try to apply that. So we'd go back and re-examine that to see if it's xvorking. How it's xvorked. I'm just going to put that under a glitch ordinance because it's an ordinance that's in route. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So you're going to put that under glitch and. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, taking it one at a time... Mayor Jansen: Okay. That was one of the ones that she was just suggesting maybe they wanted to get to a little sooner than possibly the others. And then what I noted was the private street ordinance, since that's come up to at least have them review that. Those were the ones that they mentioned. And as a part of the design standards, staff noted that this had become before the City Council a while back. We were looking at updating the Highway 5 to include building material percentage, and I noted that separately because that seems like something we could probably move forward on rather quick. And then also then what we were discussing was taking that Highway 5 corridor ordinance and reflecting it into some of our basic ordinances and I know the ones that I look at that are somewhat without enforcement capabilities on some of the projects. The office industrial is pretty broad at this point and the commercial. So I had listed those two as possibilities to move to the top of that stack as far as looking at them, because when we were talking as a council last year, it might have been '99 even about looking at these design 69 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 standards, it was to look at overlaying similar requirements on architectural detail and building materials over the entire community so that we had more control over those issues. Councilman Ayotte: Is it given what vacant land exists, can we anticipate, based on what vacant land exists, a ~nore specific order of merit? Question 1. Question 2. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the first question. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. If we've got vacant land. Mayor Jansen: That's why I'm looking at these. That's why I have these listed. I ~know exactly what you're saying. And yes, that's why they're here. Councilman Ayotte: I understand that's xvhy they're there but can we be more specific as to insuring that before we have to deal with another Igel property scenario, that that ordinance is addressed prior to be exposed to that sort of situation. How can that be couched? How can we? Mayor Jansen: Kate, did you hand me the only copies of the? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I handed you like 10 of them. Mayor Jansen: Bummer. Okay, I'll see ifI can find it here real quick. We had the conversation, I had the conversation with Roger knowing we were going to be talking about this tonight, about putting a building ~noratorium on subdivision. So'that we can quick turn this back to the Planning Commission and nothing coming up can come before we get the ordinance addressed, and Roger's recommendation Was to implelnent that and that that would be the best answer. Councilman Ayotte: Good. Mayor Jansen: So I'm not recommending it on these other issues. Councilman Ayotte: I hear you. Mayor Jansen: But that one I thought because it impacts our existing neighborhoods would be the most important, unless Kate you've got any broader direction for us. Kate Aaneuson: I didn't really take a look at it. I saw it at 4:30. I made you copies. Roger sent it over I think at 4:25. It has some implications. We have other projects in the works so I have to see what, for example. We've got someone that wants to split a duplex. It's in an existing neighborhood. It's very emotional to them. It's got two garages on one side. It's not pretty but it's very important to them. So not everything unfortunately fits the perfect model. So I guess I need to see what, and Roger knows. He drafted it, what exactly those subdivisions on any like industrial. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Jansen: Please. I don't know what I did with the copies. Roger Knutson: Just to go over what I, it's a draft ordinance and it was just based upon a short conversation with the mayor. This is a temporary moratorium to allow you to study the issue better 70 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 integrating, as I say new subdivisions into existing neighborhoods. What this ordinance would do if adopted, it would temporarily prohibit approval of any subdivision, residential subdivision within t,000 feet of an existing single family home. And it would remain in effect, I suggested and many of these are subject to your change. All of them are actually, until December 1, 2001. So it'd only apply to residents in residential subdivisions and it would only apply to those within 1,000 feet of an existing single family home. Scott Botcher: I'm sort of like Kate, I saw this at 5:00 and moratorium is not a word you throw around at the municipal level without I think more thought and discussion than seeing it at 5:00. It smells to me like, and having not studied it, there's some nuances to this that I'm going to need to understand before I can respond. Mayor Jansen: I'm not suggesting that we necessarily do this tonight but if we can have some conversation around it. What we would like to avoid having occur obviously. Scott Botcher: But no matter what rule you pass, in any part of our code, you're going to have bugaboos. I don't know how else to explain it. I mean we have our comprehensive. Councilman Labatt: You handle everything differently. Scott Botcher: I mean our comprehensive plan was just approved what, 2 years ago? 'Councihnan Ayotte: What xvas approved 2 years ago? Scott Botcher: The comp plan was approved 2 years ago. Is that right Kate? It pre-dates me. 2 ½-3 years ago. And I just don't want to get in tile position of~vhenever we have, and I'm not saying this is tile case but I'I1 just say it so I'll feel better. I don't want to have, wi!eh we have a really tough issue, to come up with the solution that says well geez we'd better stop everything and look at all the rules. It must be the rules that are somehow lacking. And whenever people use the moratorium, that's sort of the feeling that I get. That somehow there's a rule fix that we could have done, and certainly there are technical applications we can apply but I'm not comfortable that you're going to find them all. And I'm real, I always move with extreme caution when I see the moratorium word. Mayor Jansen: Absolutely and obviously I'm not doing this in a knee jerk reaction to any single issue. Every time one of these things has come along I have not seen a good, okay I have to phrase this carefully. I have not seen an application of the flag lot ordinance used in an instance that I would have supported and I think there are some issues around it that I want to be sure we have stopped and evaluated because it does seem as though our subdivisions are coming into our neighborhoods and we have not addressed these ordinances and how it's actually impacting us. That's where I like the fact that they were also looking at this existing neighborhood standards. So that we're more so making sure that what we're doing is fitting in with the neighborhoods. Scott Botcher: And if that's the concern then I would recommend you have a moratorium on the utilization of flag lots then. Again, I've just seen it so, but these are just off the top of my head. Councihnan Ayotte: The thing that I noticed tonight and over the weekend, I almost missed the Soprano's because of this. Scott Botcher: I hear it's going downhill ans-,vay Bob. 71 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Ah, just the last two but the problem that we have is that all the resources that council has put into reacting to the fact that there may have been some ambiguity in an ordinance or two, and look at what the staff has had to go through. You've worked your butt off on trying to debug or I have another term that I can't use. Scott Botcher: I know the one you're thinking of. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, to deal with this issue so it's also at least considering it, what we can do to give staff time to evaluate. We may come back and say the ordinance as they read is fine but at least to have a formal review to come to that conclusion. Scott Botcher: And that's okay. I'm just again, is a moratorium the way to do that. Councilman Ayotte: I don't lmow. That's what we want you guys to go back and. Mayor Jansen: However this ends up being executed, we don't want to have come before us over the next 60 days or however it takes, how long it takes to get this through, we don't want to see a flag lot, private streets, and something inconsistent with neighborhood standards come into the system. Scott Botcher: And what does that, just because I'm a dummy. What does that mean? What are neighborhood standards? I mean seriously. I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm just. Mayor Jansen: They've got it on here consider an ordinance that would require an average lot. size and building height based on existing neighborhoods. So again they're looking at addressing issues that are affecting. '_ Scott Botcher: Right, okay. And that's what I thought and then I go back to Steve's comment when he said there's a lot of interpretation and he's right. I'm just saying, I'm not sayingWe shouldn't talk about it but you can write whatever rule you want to and Steve may look at it and say it means x and Bob may see it and xvell it's x + y. I'm just cautioning. Mayor Jansen' Roger would you like to maybe touch on the fact that this did partly stem fi'om your and I conversation when you said, I mean the language could be addressed. Roger Knutson: First, most of the stuff in here, not all of this but 90% of what I have drafted can be changed. There are a few things the statute say we've got to do but for the most part this is my best effort this afternoon to put something together. Mayor Jansen: At a template. Roger Knutson: Right. I also mentioned to you that for most things involving, or for things involving zoning I will say we have 60 or 120 days, if we take the extra 60 to process an application. For subdivisions we have 120 days to approve. So if something comes in here today and you take, maximum time allowed by law to process at 120 days. If you change the rules in that 120 day period, while the application is pending, the new rule change applies to that application. But my concern with that as I expressed to you is that if someone spends a substantial amount of money preparing plans based on your current ordinance, they will be mightily annoyed at you if you change the rules at the 11th hour so to speak. Which is your right, but it creates some friction when you do that. So this approach doesn't have 72 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 that. It has other disadvantages. There's pros and cons to everything but that was my concern with that approach. Councilman Peterson: To help mitigate that we could have staff work with the individual applicant that may be affected by the potential change, at least give them a head's up. Roger Knutson: Yeah, that would be very helpful. Councilman Kroskin: ...proceed at your own risk. Roger Knutson: Yeah, if you gave them a head's up and I would even put that maybe in a letter to them, if you're going to do that saying, okay. You've applied for what looks like a flag lot. You have...wasting your time and money and energy. That's another approach. Councihnan Kroskin: I personally, I don't like this temporary ordinance. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Then let's take a look at the ones that xve were discussing and put some timeframes on these. One of the things that one of the Planning Commissioners brought up was just at least giving a rough idea of expectations as to getting some of these back and Kate had mentioned to the Planning Commission that they're coming into a little bit slower time. Not to say that there aren't other things on the burners at this point that they're working on but there may be an opportunity for staff to be able to bring some of these through the system.. Councihnan Ayotte: I wouldn't be comfortable putting suspense dates on. I think I'd go back to Scott and ask Scott v,,'ith his staffto target. Scott Botcher: Well and I think that's sort of what Linda's saying. Councilman Ayotte: Well then why didn't you say that? Scott Botcher: Well no, I think that's what she said. Mayor Jansen: Okay, on the flag lot amendment what t would like to suggest, and let's just go ahead with these and correct me if anybody disagrees. The flag lot amendment, if we could bring it through the Planning Commission in the month of April for council to review in May. I was looking April-May. Scott Botcher: Kate, doable? Kate Aanenson: I'm just writing them down. Scott Botcher: That's not what I asked you. Kate Aanenson: My plate's full. I'll see what we can do. We're coming into a slow period but I'm also doing the housing forum and. Scott Botcher: I know. Is this something that if we had Roger draft the ordinance on the flag lot. Kate Aanenson: We've done some of the background research on this. Sharmin's done some of the private street. We've drafted a preliminary one on that. 73 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: It's been drafted for a while if I'm not mistaken. I mean some of these have been kind of sitting out there. Kate Aanenson: But we cannot get consensus. Scott Botcher: From? Kate Aanenson: From Planning Commission. From Council. Those are ihe kinds of ideas. Roger Knutson: On the time line, just so I'm, Kate your not having public hearings on the amendments are you? You're just, or are you? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Scott Botcher: You have to don't you? Roger Knutson: Yes you do. You do but I didn't know whether you were just having a discussion down there. You're having public hearing, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we've had work sessions on this. Mayor Jansen: Work sessions or public hearings? Kate Aanenson: Work sessions on some of them. Councilman Peterson: I think we had a public hearing on the flag lot. Kate Aanenson: I thought we did, yeah. Scott Botcher: Is that ready to come up? Councihnan Peterson: We sent it back to staff to work with. Scott Botcher: Well and Kate's right. Mayor Jansen: On so,ne of those I'd like to yank them up here then. If they're just sitting. Scott Botcher: And if Roger says that the public hearing that was held suffices, then you could do that. You've got the whole issue, are you reaching down and taking, you know that whole commission, council relationship thing. Roger Knutson: You might want to consider directing, if that's how you feel about it, to the Planning Commission to tell them we want you to give us your recommendation on these issues and we want them here by now and if you can't reach a consensus, pass them up without a recommendation. If that's what you want to do. Scott Botcher: That's been done before. 74 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Yeah, let's do that. And you knoxv, Kate I'm not meaning to add to your burden, just realizing as you ~vere discussing with the Planning Commission the potential of doing this and you had called off your two big projects. I'm assuming that you've got your other staff people as well that work on these sorts of things so not wanting to over burden. But if you then were to take Deb's list and prioritize, again I'd go down to the existing neighborhood standards, whatever it is that they're looking at doing there. Again that April-May period with the private streets. I mean those aren't, at least the flag lot and the private streets I'm not seeing as a huge ordinance amendment so I'm just not seeing it as a huge time commitment as far as research and so forth. Anyone else have any other comments? It did not make it onto the agenda but we xvere going to discuss the City Council lialson appointments. After we had met with the Planning Commission on Monday evening, I came down. They asked me to come down for the Tuesday Planning Commission meeting and we discussed the whole concept at length again, and there seemed to be some general consensus around let's give this a try. Let's work it through. We can certainly work through the issues and make this the positive step forward that I think it can be as far as communication. So with that we've got the Senior Commission who wanted to know who and could they be at their next meeting. Environmental Commission was about the same reaction. Parks and Rec certainly seemed amicable to making this arrangement work. So with that, I don't know if xve have any volunteers at this point. I would like to serve as the council liaison on the Planning Commission. Would be my only request. Councilman Ayotte: Not me. Councilman Labatt: Not me. Mayor Jansen' Not you on the Planning Commission? Or not you on. C°uncihnan Ayotte: Planning Commission. Mayor Jansen' Okay. No, I would like to serve that role so. Councihnan Peterson: Have we thought about length of time or rotating these things? Mayor Jansen' Looking at an annual, we could certainly discuss whether all of you would be more comfortable with a 6 month rotation. I guess it depends on your schedules. Whether you like to get into the routine. Councihnan Ayotte: Did vce finalize whether or not it's going to be, there was a discussion point that someone recommended that there would be some meetings that would not necessitate a liaison representation. Some that xvould really require a lot of involvement. Solne that just require sitting. Did that get resolved? Mayor Jansen: I brought that up with the Planning Commission again, and actually when I came over on Tuesday night they had one of those just meetings that as a liaison I probably would have considered not coming over for. And in the course of our discussion they talked it through and said in fact it had been a good meeting to have me sitting in the audience because they started talking about that whole ordinance discussion and they wanted to engage a conversation with the council so at least then I was able to bring it up the very next meeting and get it on our agenda. So to their point, but you could certainly use your own judgment. You know if there's one of those evenings where you just absolutely can't get there. You'll know the real important evenings, and again you're just simply there to provide guidance if they do hit a policy discussion that needs a little council input. It would not be participating in their actual 75 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 discussions on any of the commissions or getting involved in any of their projects. It's more just for input. Councihnan Peterson: I think given the fact that we're 5 people and we've got 4 commissions, and I think there is value in us rotating around to get a feel for all of them as to what's going on. I think 6 months is reasonable. A year sounds like a lot for, if truly part of the goal is us being educated and working as a liaison, we rotate around every 6 months. Mayor Jansen: Do you like that idea? And we can certainly work it as w~ go too. Councihnan Labatt: I've got so many things on the plate right now that, ! mean obviously there are some commissions that meet less than other ones and I'd rather assign myself to one of those if I have to. Councihnan Peterson: The seniors requested you as the least... Councilman Kroskin: Because you can pack heat. Councihnan Labatt: They're a pretty rowdy =oroup. They meet during the day on Fridays so that would be a hit or miss thing with my schedule April through October now. Councilman Peterson: It'd be what? Councihnan Labatt: It'd be hit or miss with. Mayor Jansen: Steve's working days now. Councihnan Labatt: I'm working days now so, but.. . Mayor Jansen: You had said possibly parks and rec. Councilman Labatt: Parks and rec would be a commission I'd have some interest and I have no interest in going to the Planning Commission. Councihnan Kroskin: Do you want to rephrase that maybe? Councilman Labatt: I speak the truth. Councilman Peterson: Yeah please. Councihnan Labatt: I mean God bless them. Mayor Jansen: Because of the time commitment. Councilman Labatt: God bless the commissions. That is a heck of a time commitment. I just have no interest in giving up that much more time. I've got 3 kids and a wife at home to take care of too. Councihnan Kroskin: Well with my schedule, the seniors meet. Mayor Jansen: Friday mornings. 76 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councihnan Kroskin: At 10:00 a.m.? Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Councihnan Kroskin: It's once a month, correct? Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Councihnan Kroskin: I can probably make that work. On the seniors. When does the environmental meet? Anyone -1.mow? Scott Botcher: 7:00 p.m. Councilman Labatt: Tuesdays. Scott Botcher: 7:30? 6:30? 7:30, okay. Mayor Jansen: I don't have the schedules with me tonight. Councilman Peterson: Pm1 of my rationale is I am probably doing a lot of traveling in the next 4 months so if' I rotate, this would be a rotate off period that would be best for me. Councilman Kroskin: Yeah, I am going to be doing traveling overseas as well for business so it's, I'll do my best. Councilman Labatt: Well why don't Mark and I take a joint, the senior commission. I think we Can handle it, the 2 of us can handle them. Councilman Peterson: I was the one who said I was traveling first. Councihnan Labatt: I mean. Mayor Jansen: Betxveen Parks and Rec and Seniors, both of you. Is that what you're talking about? Councihnan Kroskin: I think Craig was hinting that he needs to be off the rotation for the next few months. Councihnan Labatt: Or the fifth person that's off, that we use that as the go to person as a fill in person if someone's traveling. Mayor Jansen: And if there is a big meeting and I just can't imagine on these commissions, of course I'll need someone that I can call if there's a big Planning Commission meeting and I can't make it. So I'll rely on you guys for that back up but otherwise it'd just be Parks and Rec that might have like a public hearing or something that you'd cover. That leaves Environment. Councilman Ayotte: Anything you say Mayor. I'm here to serve. Sign me up. Mayor Jansen: So you're Senior. Environmental. Parks and Rec. You're Environmental. 77 City Council Meeting - March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Me? Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Thank you gentlemen. I do appreciate it. Councilman Labatt: So this is a 6 month basis and we rotate? Mayor Jansen: We'll talk about it. Councilman Kroskin: And Craig's on call then. Councilman Labatt: And if Craig can't do it then Linda does it. Scott Botcher: We'll get you kicked off. I do want to go back to the, and I know the memo was very brief but the brief part of the memo that I wrote on the whole liaison thing is that this is an opportunity also for you to consider not doing some things that you currently do in terms of work before...council. I mean there are certain site plan approval things that frankly are not earth shattering and as you integrate yourself into a liaison relationship, not right away but fairly soon, you're going to want to consider what you can identify that you want these filter groups to do for you. That may not be worth your time in terms of making policy. Mayor Jansen: I think we need a little more experience on the council before that conversation: Scott Botcher: Oh yep, absolutely. Mayor Jansen' You had mentioned wanting to do a conceptual review with council on the bowling alley. . situation. Scott Botcher: %vo things. Well I've got two things I guess. One is the cable. I gave you 4 copies of cable TV ~nemos I think is what they are. Bottom line is, and I can paraphrase it in like two sentences. The venture capital market has dried up. There ain't no more money. That's two sentences so, Everest and Wide Open West, neither one at this point will be coming into the City of Chanhassen. The Wide Open West process will be stopped, and we had established some hearings and that sort of stuff. Everest Communications has declined to execute the franchise agreement for which we had approved, and Melissa, I think you picked up some of those. There are 2 what's there are memos from Brian Grogan and one I think is a memo from a cable TV official. I can't remember which one. Bowling alley. We have some dates coming up on the bowling alley. I am, and as is Todd, are moving ahead with the assumption that the EDA/Council wants us to consider moving ahead on the track identified at the last EDA meeting, and that is that your interest in the property is still there. And if it is then we will act appropriately. I mentioned to the mayor I don't want to come back here March 26th having set in motion certain things to prommelgate the acquisition of that property and then have you all look at me and say you big dope, what were you doing? We're still on that track, correct? Councihnan Ayotte: Here's my reaction to it. I think we ought to acquire it. I think we should do everything we can to mitigate. Mayor Jansen: We don't need the detail. It's just whether or not he should be continuing to take action. 78 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Well take action but I don't want him to be so concerned about making a buck as he should be concerned about getting control of that area for downtown development. Mayor Jansen: That's an EDA issue. Scott Botcher: I want to just communicate to my employer that if I take a specific action consistent with what I believe your policy direction is, then I'm going to come back here and find myself strapped to the flag pole back here so, bow's that? That's what I'm saying. So if that's okay, that's what we'll do. Mayor Jansen: So are xve giving Scott direction to continue? Okay. Steve, same? Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Mark, did you weigh in? Councihnan Kroskin: I'm fine. Mayor Jansen: He should continue, okay. On the retreat. The discussion of the Ci~ Council retreat. I know it's gotten late. If you would like I could e-mail you the dates that Kent Ecklund had available and what it will be is a discussion over probably Saturdays but he gave us a few dates to work with in the month we're trying to get it done in the month of April assuming that March ,,',,as probably bad because o£which spot't? Hockey? Scott Botcher: Well March was just coming quickly and I said Steve's going to be at the State High School Hockey Tournament. Not knowing you're going to be sick. Mayor Jansen' So, why don't I e-mail that to everyone. Councihnan Peterson' We talked about it in conceptual in the last meeting, did we talk about it in more depth? We picked a person? Mayor Jansen: Kent Ecklund who has worked xvith the city on the strategic plan in the past would be coming in to work with us in probably a combination of council. You know working together. Those sorts of conceptual things and partly strategic. So at least we're all sure xve're focused on the same strategic plan, big picture issues and then there would need to be a follow-up discussion of that. We know v,,e can't cover either one of those in 2 hours but thought it would probably be best to touch on both of them. Councihnan Peterson: Sounds good. Mayor Jansen' Okay. Anything else? Councilman Labatt: Where's the retreat going to be at? Location? Scott Botcher: We don't know >,et. We're having trouble getting our own rec center for the housing fOl'Ulrl. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Kroskin seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. 79 City Council Meeting- March 12, 2001 Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 80 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 6, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Rich Slagl¢ STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 220 WEST 78TM STREET, JACK AND PAULA ATKINS. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions? Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, 2 questions. Actually 3. Your drawing that you have up right now, you say the green is the current stoop. So ~ve really are not coming out further than the stoop already xvas coming out? . Hoium: No. We would somehow have to come out an additional half a foot where the ~een is just to meet building code requirements. The concrete stoop, the addition and the entryway wouldn't come out any further. Sacchet: Okay, so we're not really coming out further except it's going to be more massive. Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: That's what I want to clarify. Then in the report I had two questions. On page 3 in the middle you say there are you other alternatives available to the applicant and then you continue and say there are no alternatix c locations to construct an addition that would not also require a variance. Which one is it? Hoium: Kind of a typo. There's a typo. There are no alternatives. Basically that there's no other place on this lot to add an addition that would not require a variance. Sacchet: So there really are no alternatives. That the no is missing? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: I just want to make sure about that. Hoium: That is correct. Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 Sacchet: And then on the bottom of that page, that Table 2. Variances fox' Old Town. I just want to clarify that I understand this correctly. It sounds like those 3 variances you're giving were actually given to like...garage but much more massive. Hoium: Yes. Actually one was to construct a home. Sacchet: One was for a home, okay. So we, okay. I want to make sure I've got that straight. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions fox' staff?. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have one clarification. If the east elevation, which is where the location, the addition is being proposed, if that was actually a side yard instead of being a front yard, would we be looking fora variance or would it just be a half foot? Or xvhat would it? Hoium: If this was actually side yard it would be a 10 foot setback so a variance would not be required because it actually, actually wait. Blackowiak: It might even be a foot and a half now. Before I think it would have been just a half foot. Hoium: It's 9, it encroaches what, 9 feet so yeah. A foot. Foot and a half. Blackowiak: Okay. So just, it's more of a problem of having two fl'ont yards as opposed to a fl'ont and a side yard, is how I always look at it. Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Conrad: Sure. So the rationale for the variance is what? Hoium: This lot was platted back in 1987, prior to when the current ordinance and it's standards were adopted and this creates a hardship to fit a home of current size and standard. The ordinance requires 9,600 or approximately square foot for a rambler home. This, it would be difficult to fit this on a lot and in current subdivisions a 60 x 60 foot building pad is required. This would not fit on the lot. Conrad: But it's there. Hoium: But it's there and this is cun'ently, and also there are several homes in this area that encroach into the setback and actually. Conrad: So there's a precedent is ~vhat you're saying but what is the rationale, and I understand that but what is the rationale? They have a reasonable use to the prope~y. Hoium: They do have a reasonable use. Jack Atkins: Are you wondering what my hardship is? Conrad: That might help but I'll let staff take care of that, yeah. So is it the hardship that there's water seepage? \Vhat are we concerned about to allow the variance? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Hoimn: According to the ordinance, a hardship is when the owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site. That is defined by the majority of comparable properties within this 500 feet of this property. Other properties do encroach. They do have this entryway which is an attractive feature I guess but, there's something. Basically I'm comparing it to the properties in the neighborhood. Conrad: And it's not exceeding what they have done already in the neighborhood? And it is an attractive addition. Hoium: It is going to add to the neighborhood. Conrad: So it does add something, so. Hoium: There's homes with porches. Conrad: Yeah, you always need that hook to say why are you doing that? Any~vay so, and there's nobody here in attendance that is disputing this. If somebody was here disputing that, xvhat would you sa3'? If you had neighbors here. Would we be concerned? Or would we still feel that... Hoium: I xvould still feel the same xvay. Conrad: That's all Mr. Chair. Burton: Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? Could you please stand up to the microphone and state your name and address please. Jack Atkins: Jack Atkins, 220 West 78th Street. I've got a lot of data here I guess. Rather than put a presentation on, I guess I could show you a couple of plan views if you'd like to see those. If you have any specific questions you'd like to ask me about this. Burton: Any questions for the applicant? I guess I'll ask. The hardships are basically detailed in your letter of the 9th, correct? When you're talking about water seepage in the basement and conflict between doorways and kitchen entry problems and weather problems. Those are the hardships that you're facing? Jack Atkins: Yes. Burton: And that's what you're trying to remedy with this request? Jack Atkins: That's correct. Burton: Okay. Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have one question for the applicant. How do you feel about having to make the stoop bigger? Like instead of, ! think you asked originally for a smaller and the city's position is that according to the ordinance it needs a 3 foot stoop? Jack Atkins: Right. Yeah, I don't have any, my intent would be here to extend the stoop out and re-pour the steps further out so we have 36 inches required. Sacchet: So you don't have a problem with that? Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Jack Atkins: No I don't. Sacchet: It's to your advantage mostly? Jack Atkins: Possibly. 11night turn the steps and go the other xvay or something. I haven't thought about it but yes, it's not significant. I had to pour cement in there anyway. It's part of the project so. Sacchet: That's the only question I have. Jack Atkins: Okay. Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Kind' Mr. Chair, I do have one question of staff. The stoop currently is really what the setback should be measured fi'om, so it's really not 14 feet. Hoium: The stoop is 9 feet fi'om the property line. So it does encroach further than 14 feet but the house sits back. And yeah, they are 21 feet. Kind: And our ordinance says that you need to include stoops in setbacks. Hoium: They're a structure. Kind: They're a structure. Hoium: Yes. Kind: So the setback is really less, it's 9 feet. And basically what Mr. Atkins is asking for is another foot and a half'?. From what it currently is. Hoium: Yes. It's currently a non-conforming structure since it doesn't meet the 30 feet. It is the 21 feet, and the ordinance does say that setback is measured fi'om a structure to property line. And that is 9 feet. Kind: So this request is for 1 ½ more feet? Hoium' lhc3"re adding another half foot. Kind' Half a foot. And the right-of-xvay you said is xvider here than in a typical, modern subdivision. Was there a reason for that? Hoium: The right-of-way, including the street and the curbs is 66 feet in this neighborhood. Usually it's 60 feet, and that means there's usually a 10 foot betwveen the curb and the property line. This has 14 feet between the curb and'the property line. It's a little bit larger than in subdivisions that have been created. Kind' So even though right now that stoop is only 9 feet off the property line, the perceived distance is 9 feet plus 14 feet. Hoium: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 Kind: And when I drove by today it just looks quite normal really. In fact I think it's the same distance from the street as my house so I just want to clarify that, thank you. Burton: Motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Any discussion? Sacchet: Yeah, I can make some comments. In looking at the findings I certainly believe that literal enforce~nent of the ordinance xvould create undue hardship on this circumstance. I do think that other properties within the same zoning are, they're much more encroachment variances. I don't think this is based just to increase the value of the property and I don't think it's a self created issue since it goes back into, more than 100 years ago. I don't think it's detrimental to the public welfare and ! think it doesn't impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and therefore I conclude you should grant this variance. Burton: Any other comments? Kind' I agree with Uli. Burton: I agree ~vith Uli also. I think that the applicant has shown a hardship and met the variance requirements and this seems to make a lot of sense. It kind of makes the entry into Chanhassen a little nicer in that part of town. Can I have a motion please. Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission approves the request for 21 ½ foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 14 square foot addition and a 35 square foot entryway overhang based upon the plans received February 9, 2001 and subject to the following condition. The landing outside the door shall be a minimum of 36 inches deep as required by building code. Conrad: I'd second that. Burton: Any discussion? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 21 ½ foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 14 square foot addition and a 35 square foot entryway overhang based upon the plans dated received February 9, 2001, and subject to the following condition: I. The landing outside the door shall be a minimum of 36 inches deep as required by building code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 18, SUBDMSION ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 m. Be U. DIVISION 2, SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT, SEC. 20-1301, 20-1302 AND 20-1304. SEC. 20-109 AND 20-505, TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. SEC. 20-508, PUD TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. 1) SEC. 20-94, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL AND SEC. 18-62, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL. 2) SEC. 20-94, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL. Aanenson: Based on your recommendation, these xvere broken down into separate motions. The first one is the sign ordinance. There are specifically four that relate to the sign ordinance. The first being agricultural district. Again we've allowed some uses. Amended the code to allow uses in the agricultural district. The first one provides a lnechanism that they can have a low profile sign. I don't knoxv if you wanted to go through all these or. Burton: I think it might make sense just to take them one by one and go down as we go. Aanenson: Okay, so that would be the first one. So the motion xvoutd be. that first one. Non-residential sign uses. One monument sign shall be permitted. We could do it one by one. Burton' Well xve'll get to comment too. Aanenson: I was going to say, this is a public hearing so I don't knoxv how you want to do that. Kind: I think we should do them one by one. Aanenson: Okay, that's fine. Burton: Yeah. Aanenson: So that xvould be the first one. The motion would be to allow one sign, 24 square feet. Again in the agricultural district, not exceeding 5 feet in height. Burton: Anybody have questions fox' staff on this one? Kind: I have just one question. Does this affect Rain, Snow or Shine? Are they A27 Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So this, so would this allow them to have a different kind of sign than what we approved earlier? Aanenson: No. As part of their Interim Use Permit? No. Burton: Other questions for staff?. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Blaekowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Would anyone like to address the commission on this matter? Okay. Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Discussion. Okay if not, can I have a motion? Blackowiak: I'I1 move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment of Section 20-1301, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Sub. 3. Burton: Is there a second? Sacchet: I'll second. Burton: Any discussion? Kind: Discussion, just kind ora point of order here. You just said Sub. 3 so you don't want to talk about 2 and 3 below there? The other sections? Blackowiak: We're literally doing them one at a time. We're literally doing them one at a time. Literally. Kind: I thought a, b. Blackowiak: No, I think one at a time. I understood each section was going to be. Kind: Okay. See~ns like a long way to go but, we can do it that way. Sacchet: Would it make...recommendation, could we make the public hearing for the group though. I mean otherwise this is going to be a lot of. Aanenson: Well you can open them all up with the sign. If anyone has a question on the sign. That xvould take public hearing on the sign issues. Kind: That's what I think. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd prefer that. Aanenson: We can do it on the next one. Burton: Okay. Is there more than one motion in this? Kind: The motion was for the whole deal. For all the below there. Blackowiak: It's not for each section individually? I'm sorry. Burton: I think you should make each, one page. Blackowiak: Okay I thought you, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking specifically each section. Aanenson: That's what I thought too. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Well at least somebody. Aanenson: Well can I go back and, because Ijust explained to you the non-res, the agricultural one. The other one is the business highway one. Pylon signs. This sign may identify the name of the center and there's a typo. Of instead of or. If that's clear. Section 1303. Section 20-1304, industrial office parks. We're talking about ground, loxv profile signs. It needs to be clarified that not every tenant receives a monument sign but it's based on identifying the center so to clarify that vve say shall be permitted for each street fl'ontage, not individual tenant because otherwise it's for example Market Square there'd be a sign every 10 feet. The intent is they get a wall sign and then, the monument sign identifies the center. So that clarifies that and that's 20-1304, number 2. And number 3 would be each business would get a wall sign and that's depending on their fi'ontage. That business and that's how we've used that again at Villages on the Pond and Market Square. Also the Byerly's is set up the same xvay. They have a p>4on sign and individual tenant so with that, ...industrial. Where that falls in. The ground profile sign also appears in the office park section which is 1304 so. Kind: Mi'. Chair? We had a motion and a second. Do we need to withdraw that? Burton: Yes, and what I was going to say is we kind of opened up briefly for public hearing but if anybody wants to comment again, we can give you another chance here on this one. Okay. So then I guess we could. Blackowiak: So what I will do is I xvill withdraw my first motion and then I will make another motion, which incorporates all three sections. So I will recommend that the Planning Commission approve ordinance amendment as follows: Division 2. Signs Allowed in Specific Districts by Permit, and this is per staff report deal ing with Sections 20-1301 (3); 20-1303: 20-1304(2) and (3). Kind: Second. Burton: Any additional discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission reco~nmends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT. Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and residential districts. (3) Non-residential uses. Only one (1) monument sign may be permitted on the site. The total sign area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet in height. Sec. 20-13-1. Highway, general business districts and central business districts. (1) Pylon business sign .... This sign may identify the name of the center or the major tenants. Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs. (2) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per site for each street frontage. Such sign shall not exceed... Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 (3) Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table... All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Kate, do you want to go to the next one? Aanenson: Sure. The next one is typo's. The first one, 20-109 would be on instead of of. And Section 20-505, require general standards. Or instead of for. They're pretty self explanatory regarding applications of general standards so. Burton: Are there questions? Kind: I do have a question. Last time we saw the visitor packet, there was also a duplicate in Section 20- 732 where it talked about business, central business district. Businesses that were allowed and I was wondering xvhy that was. Aanenson: As a typo? Kind: Yeah, as a typo. They were listed txvice. I'm sorry Kate, do you have your ordinance book? Aanenson: Yeah, it probably didn't get noticed so. Kind: So it wasn't deliberately left off. We'll catch it next time? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: Have you got the number? Aanenson: 20-732, right? Kind: Yeah. And what it was, just so you'll know. I'll just quick whip it out. It was page 1225 of the code book, and as my commissioners know I carry this everywhere ! go. Aanenson: It was a use that was duplicated. Correct? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: I know which one. Kind: You know what it is? Okay. We'll catch that next time. Burton: May ! have a motion to open it up for a public hearing on this? Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody want to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Any additional discussion? Can I have a motion please? Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Section 20-109 and Section 20-505(0 as stated in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Sec. 20-109 Applications. ... shall be made to the city planner on forms... Sec. 20-505(0 Require General Standards ... 50 feet from Raih'oad lines or collector or arterial streets... All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Aanenson: Okay the next one is regarding Section 20-508, minimum lot size in a PUD. Here again it's an instance where the two sentences clearly contradict each other and the one is that the minimum lot size should not be less than 5,000 square feet. The next sentence says there is no minimum lot size. We have not been l'equMl~g a minimum lot size but if you go into the R districts, there are districts that, uses that allow you to go smaller so you're being punitive in the PUD and it wasn't the intent so the staffs recommendation is that the minimum lot size be taken out. Burton: Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So Ijust want to be really clear and understand this completely. You're saying that instead of specifying the minimum size, the minimum size is implied by the density specification? Aanenson: Con'ect. That's ho~v it's been. Sacchet: And in addition, what I'm reading here, excuse me, is that this actually has been approved at some poit~t bt~t for some reason wasn't anchored into the zoning ordinance. Aanenson: The way it's been used, if you look at the R-12 district, it allows lots smaller than that. It's never been used that way. It wasn't used this way on Walnut Grove, North Bay. It's never been used as a minimum lot size of 5,000. The way it's been used is that there is no minimum lot size as long as you don't exceed the density standards. That's how it's been used. Sacchet: Okay. That's my question. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Getting back to Uli's question though, the way I read the staff report is that, at the bottom of that page that in 1995 the council and Planning Commission at that time recommended 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 approval and tile language, let's see. Unfortunately in the codification of the code the change was made incorrectly. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So this was intended to be done years ago. I just wanted to clarify that. Burton: Any other questions? Conrad: The only thing I would say Mr. Chair is that I think when this goes to council, you should put tile, there should be some background or some support. Aanenson: For the 19957 Conrad: Yeah. Burton: May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: May I have a motion.. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move tile Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows. Section 20-508. Minimum lot size in PUD, (b) per the staff report dated February 28, 2000. Conrad: Second. Burton: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Sec. 20-508 Minimum Lot Size in PI3D (b). There shall be no minimum lot size, however in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Aanenson: I'll turn the next one over to Matt but I just wanted to make a point of clarification. Revisions to Chapter 7 do not require a public hearing before this body but we just wanted to include that in this report so you could see how we're carrying these forward together. You have public hearings on Chapter 18 and 20 so we just wanted to show you, in Chapter 7 there are some requirements as far as building standards that follow through. Burton: Is there a public hearing at some point on this? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 Aanenson: It will go to the City Council for the change. I don't believe it requires a public hearing but it goes to them. I will let Matt go through the changes and then I'll handle the next one but this is engineering initiated. So what you're acting on tonight would just be the chapters that you would have jurisdiction over but I just included that for your edification so you could see how the two meet together. Burton: I'm a little lost. Kind: Mr. Chair? I think Kate's talking about 2(d), number 2. Do you want to do 2(d) number 1 first? Aanenson: I'm sorry. Jumping ahead. I'm sorry, okay. Okay, 2(d), number 1. I'll handle that one. 20- 94, grading and erosion control. This was something that we talked about a number of years ago regarding topsoil replacement. How do we ensure growth is established and so comparing what other cities are doing, under construction all disturbed areas, we xvant 4 inches of topsoil put back on and that's, we've talked about xvhat can xve do for preservation ofvcater so we're not sprinkling as often and ensuring good growth so the recommendation was to require 4 inches of topsoil to go in and that would be something we'd be reviewing as far as inspections and then in the letter of credit to make sure that that's in place. So with that then I'd also, in that same one, 18-62. It falls in two places. One, under Chapter 20 and the other would be under design standards of subdivision regs so it falls in two places. Burton: Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yeah txvo questions. Why 4 inches? Aanenson: That was the recommendation. Looking at other cities fi'om engineering...Again we look at this under an individual basis as projects come itl. Some people are able, some developers are able to spread good soil itl a lot of circumstances and some of you may be aware of this. If you build a home or know people that have, they end up with clay and end up hauling their own in. Or don't do it and they're, just put sod on top and then they end up watering and watering and watering so we're trying to get away from that and that's kind of exasperated the need for additional sprinkling so that's what we're trying to curb. Sacchet: And 4 inches seems to be. Aanenson: That seems to be tile recommendations, correct. Sacchet: Okay. Topsoil. Is that specific enough? I mean I'm amazed sometimes xvhen I see builders... topsoil. Saam: Mt'. Chair, Planning Commissioners. I know where you're coming frorn. You ask for 4. You might get 3 inches of black dirt. You might get 2. You know they call topsoil basically anything on top to spread a little black dirt around so. Sacchet: Whatever's on top... Saam: Yeah, exactly. What we mean is the black dirt. The nutrient rich soil to allo~v the grass, your plantings to grow in. Sacchet: So would it then be better to maybe even say black dirt. I mean I'm trying. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 Aanenson: Or add a definition of topsoil. Saran: That would be a good idea. Sacchet: Yeah. I think we need something a little bit more. Saam: Can this be approved and then we add the definition before it goes to council? Aanenson: Sure. Burton: Any other questions? May I have a motion to open up the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. BulXon: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: May I have a motion? Sacchet: Well, since I brought up this topsoil thing I'd move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as defined in this staff report dated February 28th for Article II, Administration and Enforcement Division 5, Section 20-94 and Chapter 18, Subdivisions, Article III, Design Standards, Section 18-62 and would like to ask that the definition of topsoil be added. Conrad: Second. - Burton: lt's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment, including a definition for topsoil, as follows: ARTICLE II. Administration and Enforcement Division 5 Sec 20-94. Grading and Erosion Control. (c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling shall be pcrmitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark ofa ~vaterbody unless specifically approved by the city. Ail disturbed areas shall be replaced with a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. CHAPTER 18 SUBDIVISIONS ARTICLE IH. Design Standards Sec. 18-62 Erosion and Sediment Control. (a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least potential for soil erosion. Four (4) inches of topsoil shall be replaced on all disturbed areas. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay noxv Kate, this is the one that... Aanenson: I'm sorry, and I'll let Matt handle that. Burton: Go ahead Matt. Saam: Well, simply what staff is asking for is some room, or leniency in {l~e amount of cash escrow that we can ask for on building permits and/or developments. Every site is different. Some are bigger than others. Some have more natural features than others that we'd like to protect. That's the impetus for the raising of the cash escrow fee. It's simply every site is different. I'll be happy to take any questions if you have specific questions on any of the Chapter, well I guess we can't talk about Chapter 7 issues but Chapter 20 is only the grading and erosion control so. Burton: Any questions for staffon this? Uli, it looks like you have a question. Sacchet: Chapter 197 Aanenson: Well 7-19. Sacchet: So we're not talking about 7-197 AallellSOll: No. Saam: It's only 20. Aanenson: It's only' 20, correct. So that'd be the last page of the report. Conrad: At your discretion, Matt. What guides that? Aren't there ratios or should there be a grid or some formula? Saam: I'I1 give you an example. Size of the site. We simply take the lineal footage of the site that we xvould need silt fence over and as a figure for silt fence, a buck 50 a foot. You come up with an amount. That's one example. As I said, if there's other environmental features, a steep slope might want an erosion control blanket over that. And we have costs for those sorts of things. So the amount we come up with is thc total of those costs. In essence the cost the city would be charged if we had to go in there. If somebody skipped town and we had to go in there and restore the site. That's what we're looking at. Conrad: Very site specific then? Saam: Exactly. Pretty much for every new lot 500 is fine, but there are a few. Conrad: So what will a developer say about that? How will they know what they might have to contribute? Would they walk into your office and say are there standards for silt fences at $1.50 a foot or can they just walk in and you say this is, these are the 12 criteria or the 12 things we look at and here's the cost per unit? Saam: From a development standpoint, the number we get for erosion control escroxv, that number 14 Planning Com~nission Meeting- March 6, 2001 comes from the developer's engineer. It goes into our development contract. This is typically for builders. Sometimes the builder is the developer of each lot. Aanenson: Yeah, can I just comment on that? That's where the rug comes in. If you have individual builders, each individual lot's posting their own escrow. What we do to builders that are developers, it's a different scenario. That's where the 5,000 came in. We came up with that number quite a few years ago and depending on the scale, and if they've had a lot of permits out at once. For example, some builders ~nay have 10 active lots or as Matt's saying, if they're doing quite, a bit of for example, this is for erosion. This is separate than the other line of credit we have in place. I think Matt explained that. But for example when you've got a townhouse builder or somebody that has a large scale project going, where there is a steep slope or some other things, $5,000, if there's a heavy rainfall and we have to get out there and manage it, that's not going to cover it and we've had a few instances. And what we came up with that is when we originally came up with the erosion control ordinance we looked at the circumstances, you know each person is required $500 for that. But then we said well for the builder may or may not work so we tried to say how many active permits should they normally have and we came up xvith that $5,000. What we're saying is that in some circumstance it's just not enough so we want some flexibility. To make sure we're protecting the city's interest. In most cases it probably is but there's a few that we've had some problems with. Just because they've had a lot of things going. It's the $5,000 isn't enough. Burton: So you're saying if they have multiple sites, the most they could have escrowed is $5,0007 In the past. Aanenson: Right, in tile past. Burton: But you're striking that and saying each site can be greater than 500. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: So there would really be ilo ceiling at all. Saran: Exactly. Aanenson: That's how the 10 crone up. 5 times the 10 lots. That's 500 but we've had builders that have more than 10 lots going. Or acreage larger that would cover that. That lineal foot number. And that's how that came about. 5,000 and 10. Or 500, excuse me. Kind: Mr. Chair. I'm uncomfortable with not having a top, and I'm wondering if Matt could make a recom~nendation as to what would be the most that there would be. I mean is the sky's the limit here or? Saam: We could pick anything I guess. 10 grand. 15 grand. I guess if the ceiling issue is a problem, we could recommend something. But every site is different. As Kate said, if somebody has a ton of building permits out, you know 500 times 15 is more than the 5,000 so. Kind: My concern is I want a developer to have a quantifiable way of knowing what the price tag's going to be and the way it's written right now it's pretty squishy. And I'm just a little uncomfortable with that. I understand that there's no site's the same so. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Aanenson: If you're looking at a ceiling, I guess what I'd like to do is come back. Bet~veen the two departments, sit down. Look at xvhere some of the problems were. See, I just don't want to throw' a number out. Is it 15? Is that enough? And maybe talk about some other objects. Again I'm trying to project on some of the other larger projects that we may be having coming in. Try to get a gauge of how much acreage or...and we can come back with some other examples. Kind: I'm sorry Mr. Chair. A ceiling may not be the solution. It might be more of a table that the developer could refer to with the linear foot versus silt fences and ,`,,,hat kinds of things that they can refer to so they have some way of gauging what their costs are going to be to develop something in our city. Sacchet: It seems like one balance point that I see itl this is that if we would have a ceiling per lot, because right now we're saying that tile escrow amount, ,,,,,hat we're proposing is the escrow amount can be greater than 500. Is that per lot, isn't it? Or how does this apply? Conrad: That's per building. Saam: Pet' building permit isn't it Kate? I believe so. Sacchet: Building permit is pretty much for one structure, right? Saam: Correct. Sacchet: So please help me through this because if... understand this if there comes a whole development, and there will be $500 for every building. Let's say this is a subdivision and there are 50 houses so it's 50 times 500. But now' then that puts a ceiling on already that way, but then what we're dealing with, what I hear you say i_s that in some cases the 500 is not sufficient pet' lot. So if we would say well, is 1,000 sufficient? So we could say it could be more than 500 but maybe not exceeding $1,000 per lot? Then that ~vay we keep the proportion to the size of the development. I don't know whether that is constructive but. Saam: I guess that's something that we should probably talk about and maybe come back because just as I read this before it did say the maximum any individual builder can have is 5,000. It didn't say per lot or get into any of that so that's an issue we should talk about and probably come back. Blackowiak: And I have just a couple things to clear up. An escrow amount gets returned to the builder upon completion so I think that we need to understand that it's not a fee that we're charging the builder. So I don't think we need to talk specifically about ceilings. If an escrow amount is just to protect the city in the result of a catastrophic event that the builder does not fix. So as long as the builder fixes, if there's something happening, as long as they fix it, it really shouldn't matter what that escrow amount is. Because they'll get it back. The escrow amount is kind of like the city's insurance policy so they don't have to be out of pocket for anything so I don't think that a ceiling per se is that necessary because we don't want to put a ceiling on it. We don't want to say okay, you only have to pay $10,000 and xvhat if something happens and a hill slides away and it costs the city $100,000 to clean it up? The city does not want to be paying $90,000 out of their pocket. I certainly as a taxpayer don't want to be paying $90,000 to clean up somebody else's mess. Burton: I guess the concern that I'd have though is if you come in with a huge project like with 50 lots, you don't have any idea what your total escrow would be coming into it. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Blackowiak: But you would know prior to your, when you got your plans you would know your escrow amount, wouldn't you? Isn't that part of the plan process? Saran: Yeah. They could estimate how much erosion control fencing, manning will I need here, but ultimately it rests on how we come up with the figure. Sacchet: I'm hearing more to Alison, it's an escrow and probably get it back but I think in terms of how is this being perceived from the builder's viewpoint. I think it'd be perceived much more favorably if it's... Blackowiak: Well I like the idea of quantifying and saying x amount of dollars per linear feet. You know this is what you're paying for in a sense. But I don't feel that we need to have a ceiling and I think that might hurt the city in the long run by limiting the amount of money, the recourse the city has to having to go back and fix up any potential problem. Saam: If we would, ifI could just interject. If we would come up with say a per lineal foot amount as you've been talking about, that's something we'd have to update then every few years because silt fence today is going to be of course more expensive in 5 years or whatever so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, do we xvant an absolute amount? Do ~ve want to just reference the current, you have to have standards. Saam: The per foot amount, you're saying? Conrad: Yeah, you have your standards. You know what it is. You come up with it evm3, year. I don't knoxv that I want to put hard dollars in an ordinance. Saam: Yeah, I really wouldn't ~vant to but if you want us to we will. Conrad: We want to make sure that the ordinance references a standard someplace or a guide someplace so it's not a surprise. Saam: Current market values. Conrad: Yeah, so you've got to solve that for us. I don't even care if it's $500 if it references the standard that the city has. Another document but maybe you should bring that back and think about it. Dollars toda3 doesn't help in 3 years or5 years. Aanenson: That's why we're here right now. Kind: Mr. Chair, just to clear up my point. Alison brought up a good point and that the escrow money is returned but I think still for a developer that is perceived as an up front cost and they'd need to know what their cost of doing business is so I think we've given good direction and staff can come back. Burton: I agree so, do we have to table this then? Is that proper? Aanenson: Do you want to hold the public hearing now? You can do that. Kind: Just Section 20, xvhich is. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Blackowiak: But maybe we want to opeI1 a public hearing. Burton: Yeah, let's open a public hearing. Blackowiak: I was going to say, when we get the revised. Burton: Well maybe they have some extra comments... Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address tile Planning Commission on this matter? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Can I have a motion? Blackowiak: Yeah I move that the Planning Commission table the recommended revision to City Code Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staff to incorporate comments made by the Planning Commission and return to us with a new revision. Burton: Is there a second? Sacchet: Second. Bm~ton: Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the recommended revision to City Code Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staff to incorporate comments made by the Planning Commission and return with a new revision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more comment oil that. I noticed on the staff report that number (c) ~vas included in our previous motion. So when you come back to us really we only need to look at 20-94(a). Is that right? Just a staff report note. NEW BUSINESS. Burton: That concludes the public hearings. Kate is there any new business? Aanenson: Yes. The library has been, the task force has been meeting. I was wondering if anyone on the Planning Commission was interested in attending, just to give you an update. They have met once ah'eady and they were meeting this Saturday at 9:00. I believe that's here is anyone on the Planning Commission was interested in attending. They will be presenting to you, the Planning Commission on the 20th, the consultant. Kind of what they're doing. Where they're at. Just give you a head's up. So if anyone was interested in being a liaison. I believe someone from the Park and Rec Commission has been attending and I believe Todd will also be at that meeting so. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Kind: What was the date and time again? Aanenson: That would be the l0th. This Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and I believe that's here in this building. So if anybody's interested in attending that. Burton: I'm actually interested but I don't think I can that day. Aanenson: So I can report back. And then also then on the 20th, which is our next, March 20th, the next regular ~neeting, we will conclude hopefully this item we just heard. There's one variance so then there will be a presentation made by MS&R. Kind of where they're at to date. Again let you know how that. So so~neone can go, if they want to just let me know. Not that I would probably attend just to make sure there's someone there. Told you what else was on the 20th. Pulte was tabled and that's going back on the 12th. Monday night. Revisions so hopefully we'll get some concurrence and that will be approved. Your next, there isn't a lot coming forward as far as projects so that first meeting in April, it'd probably be some more glitch things through the process. We do not have any large subdivisions or commercial projects coming forward. So if there is some, we're working on some of those other things that ~ve put in our xvork tasks so we'll be bringing some of those forth so we'll let you know on that. That's all I have. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 20, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Kate alluded to the ongoing items that were in our packet tonight. The Planning Commission update purple sheet and I was wondering if this group should take a minute to prioritize what we'd like staff to work on and maybe run it by the City Council before staff invests any time. Make sure that these are things that are worthy of being worked on. And I have some ideas that I'll suggest and you guys let me know what you think. I would like to see the flag lot amendment, the design standards and the existing neighborhood standards, what we've been referring to as the blending ordinance brought to the front burner. And then also we had talked about lakeshore setbacks. Taking a look at how we can address it in our ordinance. What you do if neighboring properties are way far back, like 1,000 feet back because our ordinance doesn't really work in that situation. And another one to clarify in our ordinance that lot sizes can include only upland. Wetland cannot be used to calculate lot sizes and make sure that that's clear in our ordinance. One idea was to basically revise the definition of lot area, because it talks about how lakes are excluded and rivers are excluded, but it does not mention wetland so make just a simple addition of that word. Which is on page 1,149 in the ordinance book. Those are my priorities and I'm interested in what everybody else thinks. Sacchet: I certainly think that the planning will work. It's very high priority. And that's come up repeatedly in the last couple months and I would expect it's going to continue coming up more as the city is more built up. You're going to have more to deal with context issues and it's going to be an important element so I would think for me that's a top priority. Burton: Anybody else? I guess I don't disagree with the ones that Deb mentioned. I'd particularly like to see the design standards moved up and also if we can, I'd like to see the fertilizer ordinance be brought through before the spring. Aanenson: I think we might have a draft of that if we can do, if there's a light agenda. We're pretty close to having that done. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Burton: And otherwise I don't have anything to add. Conrad: Mr. Chair, based on their time line Kate, you're working on all of these. Aanenson: Yes. They're all in different stages, correct. Conrad: So when you give us a time line and it says xvinter 2001, is that now? Aanenson: The flag lot one is pretty much done. We have to discuss it. We haven't, yeah. What we're xvaiting fox' is an agenda date. Just so you know, I'm also working on the housing forum. I'm also working on the library and trying to finish up Pulte so. Kind: So don't put too many things on the front burner. Aanenson: Well what I'm saying is that when there's a break in the window, like I'm saying right now there's a development break which is a very unusual because this is typically our busiest time. You know that. It's when we have our latest meetings so this is the time to do some of the longer range things so that's great if that works out. Burton: Yeah, that'd be great. Sacchet: Just to clariS, Ladd's question. So now is winter 2001. Next winter is 2002? Aanensoll: Correct, Sacchet: I juSt want to be real clear. Aanenson: Yes, Sharmin's doing the flag lot one and that's pretty close to being done, correct. And Lori just about has the other one done. The design standards is, we've had a lot of discussion on that. It's gelled so. Kind: Mr. Chair, my concern is that ~ve have seen a lot of these things on this update for many, many meetings. In fact the flag lot amendment used to say fall 2000 and they just get pushed back and I guess I would like to see some more clear priority put on them and direct staff to check these off with City Council as to whether staff time should be invested on them and to request to see them in our two meetings l't'o~ now on our Planning Commission agenda or put some sort of specific goal down. I just make up that day but. Slagle: Mr. Chair, would there be any wisdom to putting months as a guide for a time frame? October, obviously being able to adjust it xvhen need be but. Burton: I think Kate you can address that but it seems that maybe, I think that would be tough because you don't know what's in the pipeline on other matters. Aanenson: Exactly. I mean if someone's in the process I have 60 days to address it. That's my priority. And that's what drives a lot of this. So we finished the comprehensive plan rezonings. The ones that were in conflict. So we're done with that. The glitch ordinance, you decided to break it down in bite size pieces. I had that, in my opinion, done. We struggled with that at the Planning Commission so 20 Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001 we're breaking it into bite size pieces so yeah, we can put months on it. That's fine but again that's development driven. Burton: I guess my personal opinion, I think it's fine but the seasonal, and I think you've got the direction that we want to have it prioritized and have it run by the council. Keep it moving. I think that's our goal. Any other ongoing items? Chairman Burton adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 MEETING Chai~wvoman Lash called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Jay Karlovich, Rod Franks, David Moes, Jim Manders. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Commission Howe moved Commissioner Karlovich seconded to approve the January 9, 2001 agenda as presented. All voted in favor. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Susan McAllister spoke to the Commission concerning open space, wildlife and tree presentation through the use of a PUD. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of December 12, 2000 were approved as presented. NEW BUSINESS: Request for rezoning of approximately 40 acres of property zoned Rural Residential to Residential Single Family and preliminary plat request for 53 single family lots and 4 outlots and a wetland alteration permit to fill 3,360 sq. ft. of a wetland, located on the east side of Galpin Boulevard just south of Lake Lucy Road, Lundgren Bros., Ashling Meadows. Commission members discussed with the applicant the proposed private recreation amenity area. The amenity site will be professionally managed. Homeowners will control the activities at the site through decisions made at association meetings. Possible amenities include a pool and bathhouse, gazebo, parking lot, basketball facility, tennis court, playground, and seating areas. Pheasant Hill Park, a public property is located within the park service area of this development. Upon conclusion of discussion, the Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council. 1. Full park fees be collected in lieu of land dedication. 2. The applicant provide the necessary trail easement or outlot and construct an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail connector from Topaz Drive north to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. Full trail fee credit shall be granted in consideration for this condition. 3. That appropriate accommodations for a future right turn land at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road be made. This motion was made by Commissioner Franks, seconded by Commissioner Moes and all voted in favor. OLD BUSINESS: Rezoning request from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a land use plan amendment from low density to medium density residential and commercial office to medium density and office industrial to commercial, and preliminary plat subdivision of 120.93 acres, wetland alteration pe~unit, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and recommendation and review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a mixed housing development (383 units) consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental town homes on 89.5 acres and 2.9 acres of commercial uses and on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Pulte Homes, Arboretum Village. This review marked the 3rd time the Commission had discussed the Arboretum Village proposal. Concerns of the Commission included the application of the Bluff Creek overlay, preservation of the outlots through stringent conservation easements, the provision and access to appropriate recreation sites, trailway construction and preservation of open space. Commissioners debated the merits of the private tot lot amenities versus the taking ora public park site. The conclusion of the majority of Commissioners was that the application struck a balance between development, open space preservation and recreation needs. Upon finishing their discussion and taking public comment, Commissioner Moes recommended the following conditions of approval for Arboretum Village. d. Full park and trail dedication fees be collected. Dedication of the north wetland trail aligmnent as a trail easement. Putte Homes shall construct the north wetland trail as a public amenity with reimbursement from the trail's dedication fund. All tot lots shall have a lninimum capacity of 40 children. Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, the Basins 3 and 5 be preserved in perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these places remain intact. The motion passed on a 5-2 vote. Receipt of Bids, Roundhouse Park Pavilion Renovation The second bid opening resulted in four bids--$119,372; $124,800; $131,000; and $183,060. The low bidder was Mcon Construction of Hanover, Mi~mesota. The low bid is 50% over the project budget but was considered a fair price for the work outlined in the contract. Conm~issioner Franks moved to recommend the City Council authorize a budget amendment increasing the Roundhouse project costs to no more than $125,000 using park dedication funds; and award the Roundhouse Pavilion Renovation Project to Mcon Construction in the amount of $119,372. Commissioner Berg seconded the motion and all voted in favor. The Commission reviewed possible locations that would accommodate a YMCA. With the understanding that the City Council is working on the development of a community survey, the Commission chose to limit speculation about the idea of building a YMCA. Instead, a motion was unanimously approved recommending the City Council include questions about a YMCA in the survey. The meeting was adjourned.