The URL can be used to link to this page

1u. Authorize Purchase of Auxiliary Pump for Booster Station 1 , i,/.4.0 . II 4_ , CITY OF ........................... , , ; ,i ,,.„ . 1 CHANHASSEN . _, . ,. .::: , I .:. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator IMEMORANDUM Endorsert— . Modifier TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rejected 1 Date 3-to'f o FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer Date Submitted to Commission 1 DATE: March 5, 1990 Date Submitted to Got nc1t SUBJ: Authorize Purchase of Auxiliary Pump for Booster Station 3 -11-17 a File No. PW209 II The booster station is located on the west side of Galpin Boulevard at Lake Lucy 1 Road. The purpose of the station is to hydraulically boost the water from the low service pressure zone up to the Murray Hill elevated tank. The booster station has been operating with one pump,"-which during periods of outage has placed us in a marginal position to deliver water to the high-pressure portion IIof the water distribution system. The booster station was constructed with an additional canister to accommodate a :second pump and, as such, the 1990 budget was prepared with a budget item for acquisition of an additional auxiliary pump II for the station. Staff has solicited quotations fran suppliers for purchasing the additional 1 booster pump. The quotations are attached to this staff report. The low quote was received from Layne Minnesota Company at a cost of $9,400. This does not include discharge pipe modifications which the City is currently designing as a part of the well addition to Well No. 3. I The following tabulation presents the quotes as received: I Layne Minnesota Company , $9,400 :: Keys Well :Drilling any. `_,$9,755 - E.H. Renner & Sons $9,974 1 The $20,000 budgeted~for this item includes the cost for tischarge pipe modifications in the booster station. It1is therefore recar ended that the City Council approve the purchase of the auxiliary pump for the water booster station Ion Galpin Boulevard and that the award be given to Layne Minnesota Company at a cost of $9,400. 1 ktm Attachment: Quotations (3) 1 c: Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent II III LAYN E MINNESOTA • WATER WELLS • WATER TREATMENT • PUMPS • DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS company �,�(,� 3147 CALIFORNIA ST. NE iT 0 _ i _ _ 0 I�' I MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 uu u►� (612) 781-9553 DATE FEBRUARY 12 ,19 90 II TO: MR JERRY BOUCHER UTIL SUPT REFERENCE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN BOX 147 I 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I SPECTION N QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE SEIFICACTIO BOOSTER STATION SUBMERSIBLE BOOSTER AS PER YOUR INQUIRY: II1 EA JACUZZI 12LC 2 STAGE 1000 GPM @ -90' MB 80% EFFICIENCY, 28.4 BHP I1 EA 30 HP, 1750 RPM, 460 VOLT, PLEUGER SUBMERSIBLE MOTOR & CABLE 1 EA 8" FLANGED SUBMERSIBLE DISCHARGE HEAD TO FIT FLANGED 16" SUCTION BARREL IIYOUR COST INCLUDING FREIGHT TO JOBSITE $8,700.00 II INSTALLATION OF PUMP IN VACANT BARREL, ELECTRICAL HOOKUP AND MODIFICATIONS. DISCHARGE PIPE MODIFICATIONS NOT INCLUDED YOUR COST $700.00 Ii 9'We._ o1-A I Ifl.�..:;:i v:rt.) I FEB 1.41990 CITY of CHANHASSEN I TERMS NET 30 DAYS See standar• • •I ions o sa -= - • everse side. SHIPMEN 1 TO 2 WEEKS PRICE$ AS INDICATED ABOVE ' SHIPPING DETAILS F.O.B. JOBSITE LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY Please sign and return copy when approved. By 42pAarLBER/IACCEPTED FOR THE PURCHASER 19 Title SALES & TEC CAL SERVICE BY TITLE Page 1 of 1 • • 4 r r,,..40 s = T WATER PRODUCERS ~X�% • Telephones:646-7871 FAX # 413 North Lexington Parkway 646-7872 (612) 641-0216 Saint Paul,Minnesota 55104 February 20, 1990 , City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 117 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 , Subject: New shallow set submersible pump project Dear Mr. Boucher; We are pleased to quote the following: 1. 1 - 30 H.P. i60v 3 PH 1750 R.P.M. Pleuger submersible pump for the conditions of 1000 G.P.M. at 90' TDH. The pump is furnished with an internal splice and 25' of #8/3 flat cable. Pump delivery, 8 weeks from order date $8,372.00 2. Surface plate, discharge ell etc. $ 66+.00 , 3. Labor and rig to install. $ 520.00 Project total $9,556.00 , fl Freight estimate $ 199.00 a1 );•O Quotation is good for 60 days. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to quote you. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me at 64+6-7871. Very truly yours, ' Keys Well Drilling Company J`� Stan Krafka ' Sales Engineer SJK/aw ' I Optu,Iux1tu ' x.554 WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENERATIONS Il' 1111fl8fl118r8 $oDs 15688 JARVIS STREET N.W./ELK RIVER, MN 55330/(612)4274100 INCORPORATED FAX (612)427-0533 IPROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 474-2086 FEBRUARY 7, 1990 STREET JOB NAME I 690 COULTER DRIVE, PO BOX 147 3179-90 BOOSTER PROPOSAL CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE IATTN: JERRY BOUCHER We hereby submit specifications and estimates for NEW BOOSTER PUMP IAMERICAN 12M70 2 STAGE BOWL ASSEMBLY 1 EACH 700 GPM @ 120' T.D.H. IHITACHI 30HP SUBMERSIBLE MOTOR 230/60/3 ICABLE FROM PUMP TO CONTROL BOX 8" X 10' (.279 WALL) DROP PIPE II8" Z 8" SURFACE DISCHARGE ELBOW WITH GASKET LUMP SUM $9,974.00 I / 9,= ieP7x- ' !!DELIVERY I : �; I ADD $600 FOR 4 WEEK DELIVERY t^ta........, . GOZDE OHAliHASSEBi I Iiltir f rupnBP hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: AS QUOTED ABOVE dollars($ ) Payment to be made as follows: • As M d .,/,/ I All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike Ale/ ' manner according to standard practices.Any alteration or deviation from above specifca Authorized / i tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders,and will become an Signature .LLB•/ I. extra charge over and above the estimate.All agreements contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond twr control.Owner to carry fire,tornado and other necessary insurance. �l•,, •This propo .- may be Our workers arc fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days. s Ari rptanrr of f rnpn5at—The above prices, specifications Iand conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified.Payment will be made as outlined above. ` Date of Acceptance: Signature / CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Bost, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson Boy t, PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Gary Warren, Jim Chaffee, Elliott Knetsch and Roger Knutson, City Attorneys Mayor Chmiel wished Councilwoman Dimler a happy birthday. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Councilman Workman wanted to move items 6(a) to 1.3 under Unfinished Business and to discuss Metro Waste Control Advisory Commission and a resolution proposal to the legislature; Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the drug awareness program and National Earth Day. All ' voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recatetendations: ► e. Accept Proposal for Official Mapping of TH 101 Between Entrance and Proposed TH 212. f. Approve Agreement for Deposit of Securities in Lieu of Retainage, Northdale Construction. g. Review Specifications for Public Works Equipment, Authorize Advertising for Bids. h. Approve Plans and Specifications for Public Works Auxiliary Storage Building, Phase II, Authorize Advertising for Bids. i. Resolution #90-22: Approve Contract Amendment No. 1, North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project. k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated February 12, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1990 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 13, 1990 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 8, 1990 m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Beachlots, Final Reading. n. Extension to Preliminary Plat Deadline for Laurent and Peterson All voted in favor and the motion carried. I/ 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor CI-r iel picked a name for the recycling prize of I $200.00. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FINAL READING AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Councilman Boyt: This is the it about private driveways and there's a couple things I'd like us to consider. It's quite possible that somebody will put in a private driveway to access 4 houses, that at some point we'll want to make a public street. I'd like to see us under Section (0) (1) . On the first page of the ordinance. It talks about if use of the private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards and then we go through a 7 ton road. 20 feet wide. Maximum 10% grade. I'd like to see us add that the City would have an easement of standard city proportions for a roadway easement. They build their private driveway but if at some point in the future we needed that land, we wouldn't have to buy it. The City would already have the ability to build a road there. Councilman Workr an: You're saying change nothing? Add. Councilman Boyt: Add that the City would acquire a standard road width easement. Councilman Workman: Wouldn't that kind of defeat, I mean basically it wouldn't be that kind of roar there would there on a flag? Paul Krauss: Councilman Workman, I guess I would agree with your opinion on 1 that. There is no intent to use this type of option unless we've already determined that a public road won't be needed in the future. If we think that a public road would be needed in the future, we wouldn't go the private drive route. In addition, when we're looking at 50 or 60 foot wide rights-of-ways, that's oftentimes difficult if not impossible to develop in these situations and that's one of the reasons why we might look at a private drive. ' Councilman Boyt: Now Tarp this isn't a flag lot. We're talking here strictly about private drives. We've had 2 of them in the last 3 years where people have come in and said I'm developing this piece of property and I'm just going to put a house back in there and I want a private drive. I just don't think it's good planning. We haven't set up any special conditions as we have with flag lots and so I think we're really inviting people to come in and develop their land with private driveways and that that could prove to be a problem for us with future planning. Paul Krauss: Again, I would go back to the standards that we did propose under 1 Section (o) where the first one says that the prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. If we thought that it was feasible or appropriate to construct a public street, that is the route we would propose that you go. We wouldn't use this option. Councilman Boyt: If you would change prevailing developing pattern to something that had to do with the geography, what I think you're saying in development - pattern is if the guy next to me has got a private drive, then I ought to be able to have a private drive. You haven't got, as with flag lots, we've got all I 2 1 ICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 kinds o f things in there about the geographic re qu irements that make it ' necessary to have a flag lot. Here we don't have any of that. Paul Krauss: That language could be changed. It wasn't meant to infer that if your neighbor has one, that you would be entitled to one but rather that because of the location of existing hares and property lines, it was impossible to put 1 in a public street. We could certainly add language to the topography. That appears elsewhere in the ordinance anyway. ' Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be acceptable. Councilman Boyt: Sure. As long as we're putting in something that says this is ' truly a special situation. I'd like to see in item (2) on the second page where it says private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed as needed. I think they should be subject to the same street cleaning regulations that a city street would have. In other words, within 24 hours of a snow storm they should be cleared. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we just struck the as needed and left it private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed. Councilman Boyt: Okay. So long as we've got it in the record that our intent ' is that they match city standards. So those were the changes. I would move approval of item 1(a) with the two changes being that we include language to specify that it has to be a unique geographic situation and that we amend item (2) , Section 1. There's so many item 2's on there. The one on page 2. Mayor Chmiel: Page 2, item 2. Councilman Boyt: So at the end of the first sentence would stop at plowed. Private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed. Then it would continue with the rest of that paragraph. Now I do have another question ' here seeing that. Covenants, I think in our experience are hardly worth the paper they're written on. What kind of enforcement actions can the City take if they choose not to plow their street because that is a public safety hazard? How? They can't get the fire truck back there. ' Councilman Johnson: If there's 4 houses on it. Councilman Boyt: So we need sane stronger language. The City can't enforce covenants. ' Paul Krauss: That's true. Possibly, I'd leave it up to the City Attorney but I've seen ordinances drafted whereby the City would have the right to request that the plowing and maintenance be done and if it's not done, to order it done and assess the properties for the work. Councilman Workman: Under what situation would somebody not plow their road so they couldn't get in with their regular compact car that a fire engine couldn't? ' Councilman Boyt: I think you're looking at road maintenance issues. You're looking at cost issues. You're looking at things that are fairly easy to put off and you may even want to. If you don't want any traffic down your road, you may choose to let your road deteriorate to the point where you can stand it but 3 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 nobody else will be tempted to drive down there. I would like to think this ' I would never, we'd never need to enforce this. I'm just saying now's a chance to put into our language something that indicates that the road has to be in good condition and it has to be plowed within 24 hours. It's the same thing we , require of ourselves. Mayor Chrael: Paul? Same additional language I think probably could be worked out between you and our attorney to come up with something and I guess in a may that does have some meat to it. The only reason I say that is that the accessibility of going in and out and if no one does create a probler, and it is private property but still we have to have the accessibility of emergency vehicles in that area could cause a problem. Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, if I live on that neck lot my Chevette, I don't plow and my Chevette can't get through, I'm not going to get through but the fire engine probably still could get through. I just can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't plow it to where I couldn't or my 3 other neighbors couldn't get through and that would create a public safety hazard. I just don't know how much we want to put on. I don't know how enforceable it's going to be anyway but. Councilman Johnson: What if you don't live there and you're responsible for plowing? If you're the developer and you've got the 4 lots up there and you've sold 3 of then but 1 of them hasn't been sold. You're still responsible for plowing it. You live off in Plymouth or someplace. Councilman Workman: I'd say that's buyer beware. Gary Warren: I think it's appropriate for the City Attorney to draft up some language that would address the fact that perhaps if the City found it necessary, either from a snow access standpoint or a maintenance access or ' whatever where we had to exercise our forces to accomplish this on an interim basis, emergency basis or whatever, that the City would have the right to assess the property owners for the actions. Similarily I would be interested as to whether there shouldn't be some condition in there and maybe it addresses Councilman Boyt's concern that if for whatever reason a city street came to be built in this area, maybe a hard thing to envision but if it could be, that the owners would not have any right to credits or anything else by the fact that they already have a private drive. That they would have to encounter assessments for the improvements as they would without it. Councilman Johnson: It'd be like Teton Lane. Private drive that's almost a public street. Gary Warren: It's obviously the reason why we don't like to see too many 1 private drives because we have to rely on covenants and the homeowners associations which depending on the homeowners can be either good or bad. Mayor Chaiel: That's probably a good recommendation. Councilman Johnson: The more we see added to this, the more it sounds like this should be tabled to where we see the specific language is written up versus saying please write up a language and this is a second reading. It's final without us ever even seeing what's written up. 4 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I 2 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the final reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment dealing with lot frontage and access by private driveway and the sunnary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ' Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail: Honorable Mayor and the City Council members. On February 6, 1990 there was a public information meeting for the residents of Frontier Trail who would be affected by the proposed reconstruction of the road. The preliminary plans which were shown to us that evening included a ' sidewalk on the north side of the street. Several people at the meeting objected to the sidewalk so I decided to make a survey which I'm presenting to you tonight in the form of a petition showing an overwhelming majority against ' any sidewalk on any side of the street. On the north side there are 26 homes. 2 are vacant. Of the remaining 24 homes, 4 homes are for the sidewalk and 20 are against it. These 20 homes are represented by 38 signatures. On the south ' side there are 22 homes. 4 of them are for a sidewalk and 18 homes are against it. These 18 homes are represented by 34 signatures. In terms of total percentages for the north and south sides combined, there are 17% for and 83% against any sidewalk. Many of the people are angry that a sidewalk is even being considered. Several told me they specifically moved to Chanhassen to get away from sidewalks. Many are disturbed about the landscaping which would be altered and they don't want it moved or altered. Some of the trees and shrubs are so large that they cannot be moved. Nobody wants to be responsible for keeping their sidewalk clean of ice and snow or dog feces to say nothing of the legal liability in case of accidents on their properties. Many comments were ' made about the relatively small number of people who would use a sidewalk which starts nowhere and ends nowhere. Some residents are upset about people being able to look into their living rooms because their homes are very close to the street. Some of them are even lower than the street and a sidewalk would bring ' the walkers 10 feet closer to their homes. I also received numerous comments concerning the fact that people would rather wait with the reconstruction of the road until public funds becomes available as suggested by me last year. Several ' people brought up the subject of assessment if the project should proceed. I'll take the opportunity to remind you of the petition presented to you on December 18th which showed a large majority of the affected residents favoring the front footage method of assessment. We understand that the construction plans will come before you for approval in the very near future. We respectfully request that you listen to the overwhelming majority of the residents as indicated by this petition and give serious consideration to the elimination of the sidewalk ' entirely from the project. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation at this time? CITY CODE AMENDMENT LIMITING THE SALE OF TOBACCO FROM BEHIND THE COUNTER ONLY. Mayor Chmiel: We have had several presentations done by store owners within the city. Hopefully if you have something new to add, we'll be more than happy to listen to that. We do have the Council Minutes from that particular time so at N 5 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 this time I will open the meeting and those wishing to make a presentation, step I forward to the microphone. Please state your name and your address and who you may or may not be representing. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Before they do that, I'd like to mention that due to quite a few different factors that are in our staff report and other things, that there's a very large likelihood that this will be tabled tonight. I Mayor Chn Biel: That's very likely, yes. Councilman Johnson: And I think that in that light I think it'd be fair for the , people to know that this will come up again. As fax as I know, it probably will be tabled but we also would like to, you took the effort to come here. If you'd like to say something, we are going to listen to you tonight too. I haven't ' decided completely whether I want to say anything about the actual issue tonight or not or wait until the next meeting. Mayor Chmiel: If we do table this, this will probably be tabled until March 1 12th. Is there anyone who wishes to. Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor if I can speak. My name is Jim Larkin and I'm with the , firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren and I'm here on behalf of my client the Minnesota Grocer's Association which a number of their members have come here tonight to address the problem that is before them. I'd like to say at the outset that it is the intent and desire of my client to work with the City on this matter because it is a serious matter but they are very concerned that they become a scapegoat for what may be well intention in motives but through an ordinance which imposes an undue burden upon business in this city. With me tonight is the President of the Minnesota Grocer's Association, Mr. Joe Hoyland who is a former high school teacher and a high school coach and is quite conversant with the group of people towards wham I understand this ordinance is directed. My understanding of the purpose of the ordinance is that it is to prevent minors from stealing cigarettes. That is the declared purpose and the issues to which Mr. Hoyland and those who have come to be with hhi , and I would urge them to be brief and I would urge the Council to listen to them tonight because they have come and in some cases may not be able to come back on the 12th. The first issue that they would like to address is is there in fact a problem with theft ny minors in the City of Chanhassen from merchants. Secondly, what would be the cost of the proposed requirements. Thirdly, whether the requirement is appropriate to the assumed problem. Again, Mr. Mayor I would like to introduce Mr. Hoyland and let him at least discuss with you what he has to present. Thank you. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, merbers of the City Council. It's a pleasure to be able to cope before you and perhaps discuss sane of our concerns about your proposed ordinance. As Mr. Larkin indicated, I have been a high school teacher, coach. Also directed plays and things of that nature so I've seen the high school scene from a variety of different roles and positions. Some of the things that really concern me about your ordinance is that one thing is that you're really going after store merchants within the city of Chanhassen and you're really not going after the kids and placing some responsibility on the , kids. One thing that we always placed on our student athletes and student performers was the fact that there are certain rules and regulations that you must follow if you're going to participate in various activities. Let's take 6 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 football for example. I was a high school football coach. We said that if you smoke or drink, you're off the team. We placed clear and very demonstrable penalties for students who actually violated some of the rules. There were many others but certainly the most important one that's germane to this is if a student was caught in the possession of tobacco products or smoking, actually smoking, they had some real choices that they could make. Personal choices. If they chose to do that, here's what's going to happen. Unfortunately with your proposed ordinance, what you're doing is you're placing a severe burden on our retailers. The convenience store operators in this city and to my knowledge ' you're really doing nothing to address the problem or to address the whole issue of adolescence and smoking. I want to clarify that the Minnesota Grocer's Association and retailers in this state who sell tobacco products are sworn by the laws of the State of Minnesota which say that they must not sell to minors. ' We've instructed our retail members, both supermarket and convenience stores to abide by the law and they've indicated to us that that is their intention and they have gone about displaying in their stores, particularly at the checkouts signs which say that if you're a minor, don't expect to be sold tobacco products. I know that some of these signs, many of these signs are here in Chanhassen. Now what they've done and then what the legislature did this past ' spring is they passed a law which placed a gross misdemeanor on clerks who sell tobacco products. Now what they did is they sent a clear message that if you're caught selling, you're going to receive a higher penalty. In fact it's a higher penalty than selling alcohol to a minor. But I guess the important thing is that the message has been sent. Unfortunately, the action that you are proposing to take in the city of Chanhassen is going to severely restrict a retailer's right to merchandise their store and frankly that's a pure violation of the freedom to be able to do what they feel is their God given right as a retailer. Unfortunately, as I address the whole issue of minors, I think one thing that you as a City Council should be doing is to be placing restrictions on children and children particularly who choose to purchase or to steal cigarettes. Frankly the greater issue is dealing with kids who may verbalize and say that they are stealing. That is a far greater...going to cost and it's going to cost the consumers of Chanhassen. Unfortunately what you're going to do is you're going to, if in fact you do pass this ordinance, you're going to place then in a competitive disadvantage because frankly I know kids and you know kids and if they're going to get tobacco products, they're going to go ' where they can get them. If they have to go to Eden Prairie. If they have to go to Minnetonka or Wayzata, they'll go. They are mobile people. They're also very savy people and frankly anything that you do in Chanhassen, being you're close to many other communities is going to have little effect frankly on the 1 ability, if in fact they are stealing cigarettes, it's going to have little impact on that. The whole issue of store design comes to, particularly in a convenience store type setting, service versus self service. One of the things ' that a convenience store does well is provide convenient ways in which their customers can get in and out quick. Another thing is if you tie up the front end of a convenient store, frankly you cause a great deal of other constraints. Same of the other retailers this evening will talk about that. There's a situation of drive offs. If the clerk is particularly being tied down by having to deal with a lot of different front end types of activities, there's a greater potential for people to drive off from their gas stations. That's just one of many things that kind of trickles down as an affect of having to be bothered in a sense, if they so choose, to have to wait on their customers and it certainly ties down and adds to the time that's involved in the whole transaction. I'd like to address one other quick thing and that's the issue of the supermarkets. 7 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ,. I'm aware that there are no supermarkets in Chanhassen at this time but I am aware that a supermarket is coming to this community. What you're going to do, if you bring this one step further is that you are going to cause a supermarket operator to develop a central customer service type area and essentially what that means for the customer is that they have to shop twice within a given store. They have to make their purchase for the regular grocery its and then they have to go to a separate counter and make a separate purchase. I don't know if you have studied supermarket flow, traffic flows and shopping patterns but I think you're going to create a terrible constraint and as I mentioned before, if customers are offended by this type of thing, they can easily go to other communities. Frankly for any kind of community to address this kind of an issue this way creates terrible constraints and I think it has a real negative affect on the consumers in your community. I'll finish by saying that I think there's a real opportunity for you as city council members to work with retailers. Frankly, we look at this whole issue and we're surprised that you're approaching it in this manner. Frankly we're surprised because we haven't seen that there's a shoplifting problem of tobacco products by minors. Frankly we haven't seen that there's a significant problem of shoplifting of tobacco products in the city of Chanhassen. Consequently, we have what you're comporting as a problem, you have not shown us factual data. You haven't shown any kind of documented evidence that there is a problem. In fact it's a solution looking for a problem. That might sound humerous but in fact that is really the situation. Our industry is as interested in prohibiting minors from buying and using tobacco products as you are. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to try to work together. Tobacco products, whether we like it or not, are legal substances which can be purchased in the United States, including Chanhassen and I think we tried an experiment back in the 30's, 20's and 30's with prohibiting alcohol and we found that that didn't work. The real secret to this whole solution to creating smoking sensation is to teach people of the negative affects of tobacco use and if that's your goal, then I would urge that you work with us. Work with the State Health Department. In fact I serve on Commissioner Ashton's Health Promotion Task Force. There are a lot of other different ways that we can work to send the message that tobacco use is harmful to your health, particularly for minors. I think we stand ready to work with any of you at any time to address the specific concerns that you may have here in Chanhassen. With that in mind, there are a number of retailers that have expressed interest to ms that they'd like to have an opportunity to say a few words and if I could be so bold as to call on them and they will make a few convents on their part. I want to point out that some of these people are people that are actually managing and working in Chanhassen and some of these people are corporate people who are fram the companies and can tell you a little bit about how their company operates. I think that might lend some perspective to actually how they're approaching the sale of tobacco products to minors. The 11 first person I'd like to call on... Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, before the grocers institute takes over this meeting and conducts this meeting, could we ask you a few questions? I mean we're not going to let you get away here real quick here. Continuously you have said that we need to do something about minors. That we have to control the minors. Axe you saying that the court system, the juvenile court system is inadequate and that the prosecution through the juvenile courts, that this council has something better than that that we can do? Give us just a suggestion. Three or four times you've said that we should be doing something to prosecute these minors. What? 8 r 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: I think for starters you can enact some ordinances which put some penalties on students. That's one thing. Councilman Johnson: So they can't be on the football team? Joe Hoyland: No. I think the schools can adequately handle that. I would talk one about financial penalties. For starters, we already have shoplifting laws in the State of Minnesota so that's what we have. We also have some difficulties that you cannot publically proclaim who these kids are. I mean they are protected. Their anonymity is there. So what can you do from a local level? You can require that any student or any minor that is caught buying tobacco products has to go through a program that talks about the disadvantages ' of using tobacco products much like an alcohol abuse type program. I'm not that familiar with these programs but perhaps that's something you can do on a local basis. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask our Attorney, can we do that on a local basis? ' Elliott Knetsch: There's nothing on the books right now either on the State level or on the City level. There is maybe a somewhat analogous State Statute dealing with possession of a small amount of marijuana which specifically ' authorizes the court to put offenders into a drug awareness or treatment program depending on their level. How their habit is. Analogizing from that and given that the State has left the door open for cities to regulate in this area, I'd say that we probably could look at that. We could move in that direction in addition to the State law penalties that already exist. Wye already have shoplifting laws. I think any judge would probably be within his rights to take someone who has stolen cigarettes and put the in that kind of a program without having a city ordinance on that. That's just a matter of making the judges and the prosecutors aware that that's something that you're interested in. Councilman Johnson: We could have an ordinance that advises the prosecutor, the ' County Prosecutor and the judge to do something like that but we could not force the judge to do anything he doesn't want to do. ' Elliott Knetsch: You cannot force the judge but you, I think you could have an ordinance that would make that an option of a penalty. It could be a fine. It could be this education program. You could lay out the possible penalties. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if the parents pay the penalties, it's no fine to the kid but I do like your idea on that and if that is, I think we ought to move that, if that is legally feasible, we ought to move that way to do that. Councilman Boyt: I'd disagree with that. I think you want to control the point of sale. IICouncilman Johnson: Well you've got to do that too. Councilman Boyt: It's like controlling 5 versus controlling 1,000. We're much better off to control 5. Joe Hoyland: Councilmen, you are already controlling. 9 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Mayor Ch!tiel: If you'd like to interrupt, please direct it back to the Chair. Joe Hoyland: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoyt. You're already doing that. State law requires or actually places severe penalties on clerks who sell to minors so I think a gross misdemeanor, up to $3,000.00 in financial penalties plus a year in jail or something of that nature as the most extreme penalty, that sends a pretty clear message at the point of sale. Without having to actually get into the store and say well you can't have it here. You can have it here. I think you're already addressing that. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I would be willing to help you in any way that I can. I think what you're doing here, if you can take your ideas because you're clearly ahead of a lot of other communities, take it to the State Health Department. Take it to the Anti-Smoking groups and propose that. I think it's very important that we make a statement to young people and make a statement as public policy makers. On the local basis as well as the State basis that it is wrong and here are penalties that you will suffer. I'm not conversant in legal terms as to what we can do and what we can't do but these are a couple of ideas. Another thing that came to mind and this is something again that would have to be done on the State level but one of the things that kids cherish dearly is mobility. They work very hard to get their license and it's very possible, if it is a priority of this community and of this state that we send a clear message, then let's work to take away kid's drivers license if they're caught perhaps after a certain period of time with tobacco products. They do that with alcohol and sane people say that tobacco is worse than alcohol so send the clear message. Mayor Chmiel: The only given problem with that is that you may have 10 year olds and 11 year olds and 12 year olds that don't have driver's licenses so that presents a given problem. Joe Hoyland: Clearly Mr. Mayor and members of the Council you're concerned about a very grave problem and we share that concern. For kids using tobacco products, having been a teacher, peer pressure is probably the greatest obstacle that you're going to have to try to overcome. I'm not sure how any of us overcame peer pressure but that to me is one of the greatest jobs you've got to tackle and I'm not sure, I don't have the answers on that but that seems to be one of the prime sources, particularly in the 10-11 year olds. And it is tragic that young people like that are using tobacco products. , Councilwoman Dirtier: Mr. Mayor, I have a few comments. I guess to start off with I guess I'd like to say that I think we have a responsibility to protect our kids and I don't want to see our kids criminalized. And you have indicated several times here that you didn't think that there was a problem and I want to tell you again that there is a problem. I am not going to say that my children steal cigarettes but I have 4 teenagers and they have lots of friends and they cane over frequently and I overhear conversations that they don't think I'm hearing and I'm not going to give you any names or turn anybody in but I want you to know that they do do it and even the owner of Brooke's was here last time indicating that he inventoried every day and that he loses or has at least 1 carton per week unaccounted for. So we may think that that's a small number but it is happening and that was only one store so. I agree that we shouldn't maybe have put too many restrictions on retailers but I would like to know how much revenue do the retailers lost from the tobacco industry and how much do they pay to put their displays in the stores? If we wouldn't allow this, what revenue would you lose? 10 1 / City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Dimler. I'd have to let the retailers address that question and I think they've heard that and they'll be prepared to answer that question. However, I'm not sure that they're being paid a certain amount to place it in a particular position has a whole lot of relevance to the subject here. You're talking about restricting merchandising of a product. The ' fact that you're talking about placement in a store has no... Councilwoman Dimler: Well I beg to differ with you because I think it's the tobacco industry that's behind this. ' Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman. Behind what? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Behind this opposition. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman. I stand here because clearly you're going into a retail store and you are dictating merchandising policy. I don't care if it's peanut butter or cereal or milk. You are dictating merchandising policy. That's something that is very near and dear to our people. Whether it's tobacco products. Whether it's candy. This the first step. We do not ' want to have any public body dictating merchandising policy. In fact Federal statutes uphold that. I think you can honor that. You're talking about on a very select basis, restraint of trade and you have to be aware of the grounds that you're getting into. It's a whole new area. Councilwoman Dimler: Well is it true then that the tobacco industry does indeed pay the retailer to put the display in? , Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman. That may be the case with some retailers. It may not be the case with other retailers. I don't think we can say blank, cold, hard fact yes they do. I would say it depends on the type of retailer. A supermarket, big high volume supermarket operator who has a considerable share of the market, it's no different than being the prime time leader in a prime time television show. They can get more money for a particular ad because they have demonstrated that they have a greater following. No difference. ' Mayor Chmiel: Joe, I'd just like to clarify one thing. You're saying all the responsibility should be back on the kids. Maybe it should but I think this City Council is that part of watching and knowing what we feel is right within ' our community. From the aspects of public health and safety of those individuals, I think we're charged with that as well and I think that's what we're looking at from that aspect. Unless someone else has something else. ' Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple questions. When we have these people speak to us, there's a couple things I'd like them to address. Do you prosecute people that you find with cigarettes and have stolen them, from you? Then the ' other one is, do you have sane plan on how you're going to control or better control the sale of cigarettes? I'm not interested in what's been called criminalizing our youth. I think that the bigger problems is the police won't pick them up anyway but we have control over how these things are going to be, or could have or how they're going to be distributed. I have a question for you specifically. Did your organization lobby one way or another on the changed State penalty for sale of cigarettes to minors? 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Boyt. We were unaware that that particular legislation was even happening. We were as surprised as any. Had we known about it, we certainly would have had some opinions. Frankly it has been enacted. We were the only organization in the State to actively develop flyers and posters that could go at the check stands. In fact, probably the State proponent of anti-smoking, Jeanne Wiggum called us and praised us for our actions. Clearly we got that message out sooner than anybody else and certainly before the effective date of that new law. Councilman Boyt: Okay. My final comment is, I'm glad we're talking about this , issue. It's taken a lot of time but it's probably a good one to hear both sides on. From my standpoint and I think some of the other people on the Council, I'm not particuarly interested in entering into a test case to see if this is legal I but I am very interested in seeing the store owners become more involved in controlling the sale of cigarettes. Thank you. That's all I've got. Mayor C oriel: Jay? , Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up slightly on what you were saying. I believe this is not trying to restrict merchandising. This is to define what we believe responsible merchandising is in this city and whether we believe the tobacco industry is targeting youth and people near the age of 18 or below or whatever that is. Kind of side issues and all on this thing but what is the responsible way to market this product. It's a product that's supposed to be restricted to certain classes of people, i.e. those people 18 years old or older and therefore I think that it's sale should be somewhat restrictive. Not set out just like candy or pop. The other, are you familiar with Tom Thumb and their policy? I was, this weekend at a Tom Thumb store in Prior Lake and they meet this ordinance today. Right now. As is. I asked their manager, I said wow. He says that's our policy. When he said our policy, that could have been his store policy or that may be Tom Thumb corporate. I haven't been to look at any other Tam Thumbs to see if that was that way. I went to a PDQ today. PDQ was extremely close to meeting this. They have no sales. I don't see it being that, they need a little plastic shield around their display on the counter so that it can't be reached from the front but other than that, they were in compliance with this ordinance as is. We're talking almost no cost. Here are two responsible merchandisers that are doing it. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. I'd like to address those because you're right. I spoke with Wally Pettit who happens to be the owner of 190 some I Tam Thumbs in the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin and I asked him what his practice was on this and he said that they in fact do put all of their tobacco products behind the counter and I'm not sure if they're talking about every single thing including chewing tobacco and that type of thing. I'm not sure but he just said tobacco, cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: In Prior Lake, the chewing tobacco and the pipe tobacco and , all that stuff are behind the counter. Joe Hoyland: The reason that he stated that they do that is because of security. Their own internal policies. With 190 stores, he can't be out at every store watching them. As a consequence, they simply say from a security, from a loss prevention standpoint, we're just going to do this. Now they made I 12 1 ,City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 that decision voluntarily. Councilman Johnson: So there must be same shoplifting of tobacco going on if 190 stores have made that decision. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilman. I think what you've got is you've got a large chain doing business in this state and they're not being forced to do that. They're making a clear decision on their own to enter into that type of decision. They've got sane constraints because they can't be at every store. ' Now some other people that speak here tonight are in the same situation have the same number of stores and they could probably address why they have certain policies and why they have different ones. One thing that I would offer and ' this may be an alternative for you. Without having to go to the form of having an ordinance and potentially having a test case, why not go to the retailers and say, we think we've got a problem with tobacco getting into the hands of minors. Would you consider on a voluntary basis embarking on this project with us and try to reason with people. From our standpoint you'd be setting up some kind of a situation where you'd say we're going to work together to address what we think is a problem without going the step of having to enact a public policy ' that may have sane negative ramifications. For us and potentially for you. Councilman Johnson: Well I'd like to publically congratulate Toms Thumb on their ' responsible merchandising. And what was the gentleman's name? Joe Hoyland: Wally Pettit. ' Councilman Johnson: Wally Pettit. Thank you Wally. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, could I make sane comments? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tan. Councilman Workman: I guess I want to ask Jim Larkin a quick question. Jim, does your firm and maybe this is, does your firm represent any tobacco industry or groups? Jim Larkin: No. We represent the Grocer's Association but do not represent any ' tobacco industry or the tobacco companies. Councilman Workman: Isn't your law firm representing the tobacco? Jim Larkin: We may have done some work at the legislature. Councilman Workman: Aren't they currently working at the legislature to get ' through some legislation that would disable our current vending machine ordinance? Jim Larkin: They may be involved in the vending machine ordinance. I just don't know and I'm not trying to be cute. I'll find out for you and let you know by tomorrow but we have 85 lawyers and I don't keep a book on what every one of then does. 11 13 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Councilman Workman: Well I guess they are I Jim Larkin: Alright. If you have that information. Councilman Workman: Well yeah. I want to emphasize a little bit Ursula's comments that and I have some, I have probably 3 realms of tobacco information but that in fact the tobacco lobby is very good. They will tell you they are very good and they are very good in getting your law firm which is very good. Everything is very good about that. The problem we have is and cigarettes are not very good and I don't think Joe Hoyland will tell us that he thinks cigarettes are good or any retailer thinks cigarettes are good or anybody thinks cigarettes are good or that they're promoting them to their own children or their grandchildren or whoever so we've got kind of a contradiction here of profits and dollars versus what we know something is not good and it is bad but we're making so dog gone much money and we have to continue to sell these things. The statistics that I picked up from Joel on Friday were that 15% to 20% of the sales at a convenience store are based on cigarettes. It's an awful lot of money for this City Council to be potentially with or denying it. That's I guess a bit of information for the public who's wondering why all the fuss is. If we're going to rearrange a couple of counters, why is there such a fuss? Because it's a pretty sacred cow I think. Might not the grocers and this is going to you know, warrant two more comments. One, really what is the theft of one carton of cigarettes per store per week to a corporation. It's really nothing. That is really nothing and so what is really nothing to that corporation could very well be an awful lot to a small bunch of city council people out here in the pucker brush. But my only other comment and I'll keep it to that is, might not the Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to lead the campaign to say we're not interested in selling these products? They really can't be compared to most any other product that's sold in the store. Joe, you talked about completely changing the entire inside of a huge grocery store around tobacco products. That sounds so drastic that it does tell me that obviously the dollar's there and the tobacco industry has plenty left to do that. Wouldn't the Minnesota Grocer's Association be the perfect group of people to say yeah, we do believe that cigarettes are a terrible product or a terrible habit and maybe we should be making some, and I believe in compromising. Obviously Joe we talked about that. I'm just getting over my carton a week habit. Wouldn't they be the perfect group of people to say look at us. We're going to do something about this. Jim Larkin: I'd like to respond specifically to that and let me, and Joe can respond to it too if he'd like to but I think if you want to say to them, help us. Take the position that cigarettes are not good for minors and should not be sold to them, I think that's perfectly appropriate. I think that's what Joe has said to you but where I get, and this is perhaps a philosophical argument and you asked does our firm represent people in the tobacco industry. I also happen to believe in due process and that's a commitment I took an oath to when I became a lawyer. Over my unduly long life at this point because I've been at council meetings where I've been threatened with close to hanging and so forth. Not here. I think it's easy to find a quick fix to a solution and then go home and say gee we did good but it doesn't always work that way. I'd remind you that in 1900 the American Medical Association was criticizing those who wanted I to restrict cocaine. There's an article in this week's Financial World that talks about one of the worse addictions in society, and there are studies on this, is gambling and yet you have the State of Minnesota and this is an article I 14 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 that evaluates that, sponsoring that. So if you're looking for a whipping boy, the grocers are convenient and you can say we did this and aren't we good but I 11 suggest that the grocers are here and want to work with you to find a solution. I think that's an appropriate position for them. I haven't heard and I have read the transcript and where does theft of cigarettes come from and I started ' thinking about this. You know the easiest place to steal cigarettes is if your parents smoke. If your parents don't smoke and you've got a crowd of 10 people and the statistics are that 3 out of 10 people smoke, you can steal them from the neighbors parents and what restrictions do you have on that? Or what do you try to do to that? Again, I can go on and on about it... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) ' Councilwoman Dimler: ...distinction that we're making and I'm saying that you, if you're representing the Grocer's Association, you can't say, you know it's illegal to sell to minors and here's what we're going to do to help that cause and that's all that we're asking you to do. We're not going to stop cigarette sales to adults. ' Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman, we have done that. We have publicized the State Law which states that it is against the law to sell to minors. We have put placards together. We have provided them for our members. I stand 11 ready to ask what more we can do. Councilman Johnson: Did you do that before or after it became a gross misdemeanor? Joe Hoyland: Certainly Mr. Mayor, Councilman Johnson. Certainly when the penalty for the clerk was raised to a point where it got their attention and ' there was a great deal of opportunity for publicity for that type of situation. We have always demonstrated to our members that it's against the law. Our et hers will come before you and say it is against the law and they uphold the law of Minnesota. Frankly we didn't take out an ad campaign to declare that but ' there are a lot of laws on the books in Minnesota and a lot of laws on the books in Chanhassen and frankly we did not have the need to draw attention to any particular law above any other. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do is just move on to have those people who are present who want to make their presentation. I would like to try and limit that to possibly about 5 minutes per each and I think we can probably do it because we heard from some of these people before. ' Joe Hoyland: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The first person I'd like to call on is Len Fillmeyer from SuperAmerica. Len Fillmeyer: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Len Fillmeyer from Super ' America office in Bloomington and everything I was going to say has already been said and discussed but I would like to answer a couple of questions that I don't think was answered and talk a little bit about what, be it Super America. The fact that we say again has been said many times, we don't have a problem selling cigarettes. We think we do a real good job and I think we talked about what are we doing to prevent that. I think we're doing just about everything in our power and I think in many of our stores, our clerks even take an extra step. Instead of guessing ages kind of everybody that looks under 25, card them so I 15 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 think we're doing everything we can to prevent the sale of cigarettes to minors and we're going to continue doing that. But a couple of questions that were asked or discussed here was the fact of selling cigarettes or having cigarette displays on a floor. Do we get paid money by the cigarette companies for doing that and the answer is yes. Yes we do. We get paid for putting displays of Pepsi on the floor. We get paid for putting Coke on the floor. We get paid for putting Pizza's on the floor. Displaying oil. We get paid for putting many things on the floor and openly displaying those its because that's where they sell. The public today really demands that of us. That we are what we are, convenience store and they come to us for that reason. They don't want to be hassled in anything. We get the average customer somewhere between 5 and 6 minutes so it isn't like they're going to shop our store and they have a lot of time so it's important to us that we have these cigarettes on the floor. Number one, they would never fit in our checkout. Number one. We choose to market them on the floor in full view of our people and in many cases there is already a security rack there and we don't lose, I mean I stand here and say we never lost a pack of cigarettes or a carton of cigarettes to minors, we're not that naive. We have and we probably still will lose a pack of cigarettes here and there. It doesn't matter, things we have behind the counter we lose as well. I mean we're in that industry but our overall numbers are very, what we consider, very manageable and if we have a problem with cigarettes as every store and SuperAmerica, they're not on the floor. Some stores they're definitely behind the counter and for all kinds of reasons. We say again, when we have in our possession here tonight again a tape, a training tape that we use. A real tape that shows the theft of cigarettes that our people all see and all live by. Not one teenager is on there. That's not by choice. We didn't cut that out. It just never showed up on there so our question is, we don't know what more we can do. We have no way we can put cigarettes in a counter without some massive reconstruction of many of our stores. And I would like to answer any questions you have as far as marketing cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: In my original proposal on this I had a remotely controlled device. You have your large displays at SuperAmerica of carton cigarettes where that could be basically locked and then remotely unlocked to allow a customer to grab his carton of cigarettes under the view and the control of the store employee. Does that give you much heartburn? Len Fillmeyer: Councilman Johnson, we have some of those and there are some of those out there. There are buzzers out there on same carton racks of cigarettes that buzz when a carton of cigarettes is pulled out of there. We don't understand the need for it number one. I mean we think we can control our business to the degree that if we had a problem, we're going to be the first ones to change that and jump in with both feet and get the controls we need in order to because cigarettes in a car►pany like ours are not a high margin item. It isn't like cigarettes are the best thing we do so it isn't like you can lose a lot of cigarettes and still make money. Councilman Johnson: How many? I mean what level of theft of cigarettes would I turn you on? If you have, say you do a thousand cartons a week and you lose 10 cartons, would you be upset by a 1% loss? 1 Len Fillneyer: We don't have 1% loss there? We don't have 1% loss. In cigarettes it's probably, not probably. Between cigarettes and beer, the most 16 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 two controlled items we sell, we know every shift if we lost a pack or 2 of cigarettes. We know every shift. We count cigarettes in the stores every shift every day so there is no other itar, in the store other than beer that we have those kind of controls on. We know what's happening in cigarettes. Councilman Johnson: Okay. On your counter displays. The counter displays were designed with a clear to where the people could see the displays and the employee had straight access to them, what's the difference? Len Fillmeyer: I'm not sure I understand that there is any difference. We do have same cigarettes on the counter in full view of our employees right in front of our cashiers. Now the only way somebody could steal those cigarettes is if ' they grab then and run. Councilman Johnson: Or you've got, in the case of TH 7/41 store, you've got 2 cash registers. Cigarettes on one and the employee on the other. ' Len Fillmeyer: That can happen. ' Councilman Johnson: It's a little hard to see unless you can transplant the eyes to the back of the head. Len Fillmeyer: But again, we're not losing them. I mean we don't understand the problem. We don't understand why we're doing this because it's a great, for competitive reasons we lose all our competitiveness with our competition right across the street. Councilman Johnson: I think part of it is what I said before. The message we are giving to the children by having these large displays of cigarettes at the same place they buy their candy is that cigarettes are good and we want to make a different message to the children. ' Len Fillmeyer: Again, I say that's not the issue. Councilman Johnson: Sure it is. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Fillmeyer, I thank you for answering my questions about the industry, tobacco industry paying for the displays. I wonder if you would be willing to give me an amount as to what would be the loss in revenue if our ordinance indeed would disallow these types of displays? Len Fillmeyer: I don't have those ntribers in front of me but it's dramatic. Councilwoman Dimler: Is it? Is it more than or the same as or less than the other items that you mentioned? Pizzas or whatever. 1 Len Fillmeyer: As we said, that's been brought out here several times. In the sales of a convenience store, somewhere from 16% on up of your business is tobacco products so if you took those off the floor as Pepsi, if you took it off the floor, or candy for that matter, the sales on that product go right down the tube. The public wants them on the floor. Councilwoman Dimler: You're losing the sales but also you get paid for just ' putting up the display whether you sell them or not? 1 17 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Len Fillmeyer: If we didn't have therm on the floor, there would be no display money. No, there would not be any money. Councilwoman Dimler: There is display money though... Len Fillmeyer: ...for mass displays. ' Councilwoman Dimler: And if you put them behind the counter there's no display money? Len Fillmeyer: That's right. Councilwoman Dialer: And it's a substantial amount you say? Len Fillmeyer: A substantial. Councilwoman Dimler: More so than pizzas? 1 Len Fillmeyer: Dramatic. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Does that display money, does that include the large groups of cartons? When you have the 20 foot row of cartons, is that considered a mass display and you're paid to have that? Len Fillmeyer: Yes it is. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I was thinking mostly those small displays on the counter that other... Len Fillmeyer: Well small displays pay small dollars. Councilman Johnson: You're saying there's bigger dollars in the big carton display? Len Fillmeyer: Sure there is. i Mayor Cl-viel: Alright are there any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose some way of moving the meeting along. Can we refer this to the Public Safety Commission or in same way, I envision that we're going to be on this issue for another half hour. I Mayor Camiel: Being that we have each of these people here Bill, I think we'll adhere to that 5 minutes and hopefully they may be able to finish it a lot quicker. Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and Councilmerbers, a couple of key points and one is that the Minnesota Unfair Sales Act requires retailers to mark up cigarettes and I tobacco products 8% above their actual cost. Bear that in mind. Second is that Minnesota has the highest excise tax on tobacco products in the United States. I believe the current number is about 38 cents per pack. Consequently the price I 18 1 / 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ! . is up. The next speaker that I'd like to call up is Colleen Lapell and she's also from SuperAmerica. ' Colleen Lapell: Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Colleen Lapell. I'm a SuperAmerica area manager. Our store on 7 and 41 reports directly to me. ' Two weeks ago I was here and addressed this Council with 3 points on interest which tonight I am going to reconfirm those. Last week I showed you our signage package which I have again with me here tonight. This signage package can be ' found in all of our SuperAmerica stores. Today I counted 16 signs in my store in Chanhassen posted on the sales floor and also back in our break rooms. These signs are used as a tool of reinforcement not only to our cashiers but as well as to our customers that SA wants only the legal sale. Our training manual is ' gone through with each brand new employee. Inside this book are laws for selling tobacco, company rules and regulations and techniques the trainer can use with the new employee as far as role playing. What he or she will cane across selling tobacco products. Two weeks ago I mentioned a video tape that is an actual footage of customers stealing cigarettes. I have that with me here tonight. Leonard Fillmeyer also made mention of this tape tonight. Again, not ' one of the customers stealing cigarettes is a minor. We use this tape to show our new cashiers and employees what to watch out for to safeguard against theft. SuperAmerica is committed to the legal sale of tobacco. We are constantly following up and checking our stores for compliance. Thank you very much. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Jeff Steel, also at SuperAmerica. Jeff Steel: Mayor, City Council members. As I mentioned 2 weeks ago that my store did not and still does not have an inventory control problem on tobacco products. one of the tools we use to control inventory on tobacco products is doing a complete inventory twice a day, once per shift. By doing this if we ' were to have a problem, corrective action could be taken immediately. SA has a bonus program available to it's store managers. To qualify for a bonus, inventory control is essential. A carton of cigarettes is one of the most ' expensive single items in my store. For me to allow tobacco theft would be taking money out of my own pocket. If cigarette theft was a problem in my store, I would be locking them up myself but it is not a problem and I do not ' wish to lock them up. There would be no reason for a customer to buy a carton of cigarettes from my store. I would lose the promotions from the tobacco company so my customers would go elsewhere to save the money on their cigarette purchases. Example, right across the street to Driskill's Super Value and ' Snyder's Drug that has the cigarettes both not only packages that we do not have out in the open mostly except the small promotion on the counter, but also their cartons that are right out in the open and will continue to receive the ' promotional allowances from the tobacco company that you will deny me with this ordinance. Thank you. ' Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Doug Coffee, also at SuperAmerica. Doug Coffee: Mayor, Council people. My name is Doug Coffee. I work at the SuperAmerica. I manage the store on 212 at the intersection of 169. Jeff and ' Colleen have already talked about the signage and training which we also use. Currently my cartons of cigarettes are behind my counter due to the physical { size and design of my store. There is however the possibility that my store would be redesigned or rebuilt someday and at that point I feel it should be up to the retailers to decide where they merchandise their products. We have a 19 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 display of cigarettes on our checkout counter and since I've been at this store we have not had a shoplifting problem at all. Whether it be cigarettes or any other merchandise. Thank you. Joe Howland: Next speaker is Lloyd Lenin, Holiday Station Stores. Lloyd Lenin: Mayor, Council members. I'm just going to touch briefly on our corporate policy and we do enforce the State law very dramatically. The penalty in fact, an employee does sell cigarettes illegally to a minor, he is responsible for the fine. We will not cover him on that. He is also, can face suspension or termination but the responsibility of the fine is going to be his and we do not compensate him for that. Our training program when people are hired covers alcohol and cigarettes very thoroughly. We have than wear badges to the fact that we check ID for cigarettes and liquor, or beer I should say. It also takes the pressure off of our cashiers that they, the customer knows he's going to be checked. We do have the pack displays at the checkout also. We have the carton displays on the counter. We have also put video in many of our stores. Much of that is for robbery deterrent but also it is at the checkout. The manager can review those,which he does everyday and that way he can observe also if sales are being made to minors by the other crew members. Space in our checkouts, as Len stated in their type of arrangement also, we do not have room in our checkouts for the carton displays. We enforce, I'm being redundant, very emphatically the policies as far as selling any type of tobacco to minors. Joe Hoyland: The next speaker is Jeff Hogrud of Holiday Station Stores also. Jeff Hogrud: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Jeff Hogrud. I represent the Holiday in Chanhassen here and from what I have seen, I've worked here 4 months, from what I have seen you have fine kids here. We do not have a problem with cigarette theft or other theft at our store. Our employees are trained to check ID's. They are trained and aware of the consequences if they sell to minors. They know they are responsible for the fine and could lose their job. We have cameras that focus on the tills and the cigarettes. Again, we do not have a cigarette problem at the Chanhassen Holiday. Joe Hoyland: We're moving right along. Dennis Carlson, Brooke Superettes. Dennis Carlson: My name is Dennis Carlson. I'm Director of Operations for Brooke Food Markets. Excuse my cold. I had other things prepared. I know you want to keep this brief. I'll just say as a merJDer of Brooke's Food Markets, we feel we are very responsible member of the community of Chanhassen in which we do business. We are not, it is not a part of our company to try to violate laws or do something against the law. However we feel it is necessary for us to be able to operate in a manner which we can be competitive with other people in our industry. By taking away displays, you're taking away part of our competitive edge or part of just meeting our competition. Yes, cigarettes are a valuable portion of our business. They account for a lot of dollars in sales. I feel by taking the displays away, not only are you giving us an unfair advantage but you're cutting our revenues by taking away the impulse items that adult customers should have the option of purchasing. If not just a pack of cigarettes, it might be a pack of cigarettes with a deck of playing cards. It gives them an option so it's not just brand conscience, there is a promotion available with them. From there I just would like to answer a couple of 20 1 / ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 questions that were brought up regarding theft and I believe Mr. Boyt, yours was one of then, regarding our policy of theft of any product in our store, we'll prosecute. Whether it's a candy bar, a pack of cigarettes or a can of pop. That is our policy and we adhere to it and I can bring numbers and I can't even give you the numbers but it's large. But I can say very honestly, in my 15 ' years with Brooke's Food Markets I don't remember prosecuting a minor for theft of cigarettes. But I will for candy and I will for pop. ' Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that you haven't caught a minor stealing cigarettes in your carreer? Lloyd Lenin: I have not. No, I have not sir. Councilman Boyt: And your stores haven't? ' Lloyd Lenin: I'm not going to say that. I'm saying to my knowledge, I cannot remember catching a minor stealing cigarettes. Pop, candy, tremendous. But we do prosecute. If we do prosecute, we will prosecute. That is just our company ' policy. You were talking about display payments. Yes, there are display payments but I know for a fact our company last year between Coke and Pepsi, their payments were higher than they were from the tobacco companies so we are in business to make a profit. Are there any questions? ' Mayor Ch iel: I guess not. Thank's Dennis. Councilman Johnson: I have one wall one. Most of your displays are counter displays. You don't have the large carton display that SuperAmerica has. Lloyd Lenin: No we don't. Most of them, we do have a small carton display on ' the floor. We have a temporary display for promotional items and then we have counter displays. ' Councilman Johnson: On the counter displays, would you lose your display value if a clear plastic shield was placed in front of that display to where it was still probably displayed? It's still visible to the customer. They can still say hey, grab me a pack of whatever. Lloyd Lenin: Very definitely we would. Other things we've tried behind the counter that way, people don't ask for them. I don't know why. They don't want to bother the clerk. Whatever it might be. Whenever you take that self service advantage away, people will not ask. ' Councilman Johnson: So you think the tobacco industry will take that money away from you then? Lloyd Lenin: I believe it's very possible. I can't speak for that. Councilman Johnson: How long have these displays been around like this? ' Lloyd Lenin: I've been in the business 15 years, since I've been in the business. Councilman Johnson: That's what I thought. The carton displays seem, to be something new. ' 21 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Joe Hoyland: The last speaker is Mike Young, also of Brooke's Food Markets. Councilman Johnson: Before Mike gets started, does he want to change anything he said last titre? Make any corrections to his... Mike Young: Well actually I do Jay since I know you were in my store. ' Councilman Johnson: Every day. , Mike Young: I see you. I hope my people are polite too. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. I get along. In fact they've got sane real good ' things to say about you. Mike Young: Well, back to the issue. Actually a point of fact. When I said, 11 at the last meeting I stated that my displays were within 3 1/2 feet. Okay, at the time I measured, my Camel, my temporary display was empty and I forgot it so you were correct. I was mistaken. It is farther away than I thought it was but it is still within clear view of my cashiers as my cashier illustrated to you when you were in Thursday. Councilman Johnson: She could see through the rack of magazines and see the bottom of that display. Mike Young: Which is pretty good considering that display was slightly out of position and should have been forward more than it was. Councilman Johnson: And it is forward now. Mike Young: Yeah. It's where it should have been to start with. It got moved 11 when the floor was cleaned. Councilman Johnson: Right. Mike Young: Okay. I did want to address your visit last Thursday. My cashier called me right after you left saying that a councilmenber had been in. That he was very derrogatory toward me which does not particularly offend me anyway. I've had lots of people be derrogatory to me. But it left her quite upset and that's a condition I don't want to see happen. Right now we have a difference of opinion. Okay? It's obvious to all of us here. The retailers want to keep their displays. They want to do business in their way. The Council wants to correct a problem that's serious and I mean I agree. I have two small children. It's a definite concern. It's a concern for me as a parent. I can understand your concern. I also understand our concern. We're in business. We're trying to be competitive. We're trying to survive. We are willing to work with you. Now what it seemed to me from talking to my cashier was that this issue was caring down to a personal issue between yourself and myself which left her upset. I can't afford that type of activity going on in my store. It upsets my cashier. It reduces their efficiency plus I had several, two customers comment to me on it. That they were not pleased with it happening and didn't know what I! was going on. Consequently, on that same night, not particularly related, but about a half hour after you left two young boys came into my store with a note saying please sell my son such and such brand of cigarettes. Whatever it was. 22 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 My cashier who's very good, told then forget it. There's no way. You're not 18. You're not getting anything. I don't care if you've got a note from God ' and she didn't give it to then. The kids proceeded to press her and when she told them that she would be happy to call the police and have the picked up for trying to buy cigarettes illegally, they informed her that someone had sent than ' in and given them $5.00 a piece to try this. Now, I don't know what's going on there and to be perfectly honest I don't care but it illustrates to me very well that my cashiers are very conscientious about keeping an eye on the kids. Watching than to make sure that they ID everyone. I mean occasionally like ' when Mx. Johnson was in, he saw my cashier did not ID someone he was questionable about. Because that person comes in my store every day and has been ID'd 10 or 12 times, she knows this person. Knows that they are of the legal age. Went to school with this particular person. As for the statement that we lose a carton of cigarettes a week, I stated every 2 weeks but I won't split hairs on that. But I used to work for Montgomery Wards and they invest a ' lot of money into research and their research shows that 80% of all theft is employee related so that would take us down to 1 pack a week. And 1 pack a week i from your 4 convenience stores that you have in town doesn't amount to much cigarettes. Thanks for your time. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Exactly 5 minutes Mike. ' Joe Hoyland: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. I appreciate the courtesy that you have extended to the retailers in the city and to myself. I remain available and willing to work with you in anyway that we can to address ' the problems that you're facing specifically here in Chanhassen and I'm sure that the situation here is no different than any other city around the State. Thank you. 11 Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to move that we table this item because Mr. Larkin who's representing Minnesota Grocer's Association is not going to be able to make it on the 12th. I'd like to move that we table it to March 26th. ' Councilman Workman: I would second that. Jim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, I can change it but I'm supposed to be in North Carolina on the 26th but in that case I represented Medtronics Distributor and he doesn't ' sell tobacco honest but I think I can move that one around if it's a matter of some urgency to the Council. Through Mr. Highland we will again make representatives of that group available to cooperate with anybody from the City ' who the City would want to designate to determine first of all the extent of the problem of minor theft here. I think it goes without saying, and it's already been said, that they have an inducement to stop any kind of theft. Now I happened to look the other day and see how much a pack of cigarettes cost. I mean the last time I rammeaber looking at the price it was about a buck or less and now it's over $2.00 I think. ' Mayor Chmiel: It is. Some $2.25 and some $2.50 depending upon where you're looking. ' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the City Code Amendment limiting the sale of tobacco from behind the counter only until March 26, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 23 ,City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD (EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here wishing to address this issue other than.. . Councilman Workman: It was my understanding that the applicant wanted this tabled? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but I was just wondering if there was anyone else ' here who wanted to discuss this who came in specifically for it. If there's no one here to discuss this specific item, we can honor i.t being tabled until the next Council meeting because the fact that the people are out. Mr. Laughinghouse would you like to please... Kurt Laughinghouse: Kurt Laughinghouse Mr. Mayor representing the Brandts. The ' first thing I want to say is I appreciate the extra effort that the city staff exerted at my request to get this thing on the agenda tonight and I thought I was organized and I wasn't and some of the people that I thought could be here tonight could not be so that's what happened. We did make an effort to find the people and the neighbors who might be address it and I think apparently we've got everybody turned away so with your agreement we'd like to go to the 12th. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the preliminary plat for Peter and Deanna Brandt at the applicant's request until March 12, 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: Might I suggest for tree preservation we save this packet. I It's humongous. Mayor Chmiel: That's one long branch. Let's save the information that we have I so we don't have to redo it. COMPOSITION OF THE HRA, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. ' Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to and I brought this up two times now. Basically to get City Council input, I have received an awful lot of public input concerning and justifying whether or not in fact it might not be a bad idea for the Chanhassen City Council to in fact become the HRA or an economic development commission effectively handling both tasks. The City Manager's corrent is in our packet. This would be something of a process that would take, it looks like maybe, a couple several years to do potentially but I'm interested in hearing maybe from what the Council might think. What the public might think. What the City Manager might think and take it away. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, I'd like an explanation from you from the legality aspect. Does the Council have the authority to disban the HRA? Roger Knutson: No. First I can say that under State Statute there's an HRA in every single city in the state of Minnesota. That's by Statute. Each and every HRA in the state of Minnesota is not organized and operating but it's there. 24 11 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 You can't disban it. 11 Councilman Workman: How might, could the City Council be called the HRA? Roger Knutson: No you can't. ' Councilman Workman: Could we be called an economic development commission? How would that affect our HRA districts? Our TIF districts? ' Roger Knutson: You asked a couple of questions. Can the City be the HRA? No. The Councilmembers could all be the HRA commissioners and the terms of the BRA cormissioners can coincide with the Council term so if you're not on the Council ' you can't be on the HRA. You're still two legally separate and distinct entities. Councilwoman Dimler: So the same body can say okay now we're meeting as the HRA and we're meeting as the Council? Roger Knutson: I work in some cities where that happens. ' Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question Roger. If we were to ask each of the members that are existing on the HRA if they would take the position to ' resigning, how can that be accomplished? Roger Knutson: You just spelled it out. Ask. Yes you certainly can. I mean you could, in whatever form you wanted to present it to them. Say we think we want, if that's what your desire, but the City Council members should act as the HRA commissioners and you could ask for their resignation to implement that and then you could pass an ordinance. You'd have to amend one of your ordinances ' that would basically say from now on all HRA commissioners shall be city council members. ' Councilman Johnson: But if they don't want to resign, they don't have to? Roger Knutson: Right. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess to back up some of this. All of us in one way, form or another campaigned as elected officials on the premise of accountability. Some people feel a little more comfortable with having the ' ability to some of the decisions that are made by an elected official rather than a commission that's appointed and that's where this cams from to me. I'm a Council appointed member of the HRA and I don't see that kind of accountability as a problem for myself personally. I guess I'm not sure what we as a city would lose by doing this. Again, I'll emphasize that I don't have a problem with any of the members of the HRA personally as far as their task, etc. but there is and has been ever since I've been on this City Council, a public which ' has asked for the potential for that to happen and that's why I'm bringing it up. ' Councilman Johnson: When we first, when Bill and I first got assigned here, there were 2 members of the Council on the HRA. Then that slowly, well because of terms changing and whatever, it ended up with none eventually and now it's back to one. I'd like to see it maintained at 2. This Council and all of us on it have a lot of responsibilities beyond just this body in that I'm on the 25 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 recycling committee. The Council assigned me to Southwest Metro Transit Committee. The Carver_ County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. There's only so much of us to go around. I attend Planning Commission meetings when I can and Park and Rec when I can and all these different meetings. I personally feel that I'm spreading myself pretty darn thin for the citizens as is and while I'd like to attend more HRA meetings, they're at the same time as the bus commission I believe, or is that Public Safety? Anyway, I've got conflicts with, I couldn't do it if I had to or things like that. I think that we do need more presence on that and that should be Council appointments of at least 2 members of the Council should be assigned to the HRA. I almost feel that each commission should have a Council representative on it but that gets pretty tough too. As I said, there's only so many of us and there's only so many hours in the day. We're all professionals and have our other jobs to do and have our families to do plus working for the City. Councilman Workman: You don't see that accountability factor at all? I mean the HRA takes care of an awful lot of expenditures. Councilman Johnson: That's why I'd like to see at least 2 members of the City Council on the HRA. A lot of the stuff the HRA does, does end up back here. They can say they want the streets this way but we have to approve the construction. Any public works that's done, we have to approve the construction. We can get to a point and say no. You're not going to run that sewer there. That would eliminate the hotel or something. Councilman Workman: The point that I'm trying to get at quickly is that then what we have is a situation where people, councilmbers included, end up saying to themselves, well I think I made that decision or well the HRA made that decision I think or I made but I'm not sure so it's like the downtown shrubbery episode was one where I wasn't sure where the decision was made. Then the City Council talked about it and we kind of got a subcommittee to talk about it and Bill and I and Don talked about it with the Arboretum experts and then it went to Public Safety and then it went to Planning Commission and then it went back to HRA. Wb never saw it again. I have no idea what it is sitting at right now. Maybe I don't need to care but people are telling me about downtown and everything else like that and that's where I'm saying that I'm not interested in having that excuse to say, I don't know, you know. Councilman Johnson: That's why I'd like to have at least 2 members of the Council on there to where they're reporting back to us. , Councilman Workman: I'm saying Jay though that all members of the City Council should be accountable. Not just me or you. Councilman Johnson: Well I don't have to worry about it because nobody's term expires before my term on the HRA. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? Having watched the HRA, City Council trade off responsibility for things for 3 years, I think the time is right. The public is confused. I don't think we do a good job of communicating to then. I don't know that very many of then, care who's responsible so much as they see it and they either like it or they don't like it and then they start looking around for somebody. Then it's been me and it will probably continue to be. I think all of us would agree that there's a real advantage in having as many people as we 1 26 1 / ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ' . can involved in city government. This is one chance to get them involved.city g g The drawback is as Jay said, maybe we do vote on these things but when you've got everybody getting a vote in, there's nobody responsible. I agree that the issue's so complicated. It's like is it going to be the apartment building? Is it the hotel we're going to talk about here in a few minutes? If we can't get some clear lines of responsibilty drawn up, I see no other alternative than the Council taking the job because that eliminates any questions about who's responsible. I think if we can get that drawn up then the issue, well somewhere along the lines we've got to get more public input into what's happening downtown. And on the one hand Tom was talking and I agree with him that we need responsibility. On the other hand, I think the way the HRA has gotten themselves into trouble is by being political and I think they've been very political. I don't need to get into specifics but I'm not sure we correct that problem. We become accountable but by the very nature of it, it's awfully hard for us to not be political. iCouncilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to comment on that and that is, yes. It might be political but I know that all of us here get voted in by the public, not by the developers mostly or by, you understand what I'm saying? Councilman Boyt: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So yeah, we want to be accountable to the people that vote us in. If that's what you call political, that's the way it should be. I find that I get calls, people say I don't like the way this turned out and that turned out and I find myself having to say, you know I know that we looked at that but I can't remember exactly what we decided or who made the final decision. I just don't like to do that and I point at that and they point at us and we point at Public Safety and nothing ever gets resolved and I think that's ' one way that we can say the buck stops here. We're responsible and we're also, we're responsible because when we want those people to vote again and we want than to vote for us, we can say here's the decisions I made. ' Councilman Johnson: One of those was appointing the members to the HRA. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Only the ones that cane up that are expired. Right now I've only had say in 1. Councilman Boyt: Well there was, I need to nit pick that. Mayor Chmiel: That's immaterial. I think the accountability portion is something that we really have to look at. I've had several people approach me on ' this and indicate their concerns. Sure, from a political standpoint you can say well yeah. I really didn't care one way or the other. I shouldn't say care one way or the other. We really didn't make that decision. The HRA did. That's an easy way to push things off. I think if you're going to be consistent, as we ' have within this Council, to take reign as to what's happening within the city, I think that that portion of the HRA should probably go back to the City Council. Not that I have any ill feelings towards any of those people on the HRA. I appreciate all the time that they did put in and they do work hard at it and I thank than for it but yet it comes back to the question, who is responsible for making those decisions. I don't think the right people are there to accept that responsibility. So I guess that's my basic comment. 27 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Johnson: My point that I was trying to make is the HRA is a focused group. They focus only on redevelopment. The small part. They can put all their energy into that. We're a very diverse group. We have to look at Dogwood Lane and downtown and Skunk Hollow and everyplace else which dillutes our effectiveness and our abilities. We need good strong commissions and other people to help us with these decisions. The HRA is where that starts getting away becuase that's the one body that's allowed to make their own decisions. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Boyt: They've got more money than we do too. Councilwoman Dimler: That way we could control the tax money, that's right. And as far as, I appreciate Jay's concerns about being on too many commissions and too many meetings but I wonder if Roger could address how Councils that are also operate as the HRA, how they do that. I've seen where they just at the same meeting will say okay now we convene as the ditch board or whatever, you know. Could we not do that? Roger Knutson: I've worked with lots of groups but not the ditch boards. You I spelled it out. Typically they meet in the same evening. Like if you meet at 7:30, it'd start at 6:30 but that depends upon the load of work... Councilman Johnson: The City of Minneapolis is their own HRA. The Minneapolis City Council. Of course their staff doesn't like that a whole lot but that's a different story. Councilman Boyt: They're paid $18,000.00 a year too. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this portion of it? Clayton Johnson: I didn't even know this was on tonight to be discussed but I think you might be interested because I've spent a lot of time in the last 3 1/2 years. Mayor Chmiel: Just please state your name and address. ' Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson with the Bloomberg Companies. I've spent a lot of time this last 3 1/2 years in the downtown redevelopment effort and I think that several of the comments are very germane. One is that we, you know and most of those efforts are behind us so I don't think that I have any selfish interest here but I think it takes a tremendous amount of time and the HRA has put in a tremendous amount of time and we needed their attention. I can't imagine coming into a meeting like tonight and carpeting on the agenda with the concerns that we've gone through on the HRA. Now that's one point. The second point is that there is a frustration on our part of the lack of coordination. It's very important to have 2 council members or whatever on the HRA because we don't like to have to tell the story 3 and 4 times but I guess I would take that a step further. I would say that it would be equally important to have the I! Planning Commission represented on the HRA because when we take these issues to the Planning Commission, we're starting all over again. There's no continuity. I think you care back, I mean I understand the thing about accountability and I understand the comments that you get from the public but I think you do have 28 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 11 , that final responsibility when it comes to funding these projects. timber, one. Number two, I think you're here to set policy. You can't possibly run ' everything and that would be the concern that I would have. Particularly in the amount of time and the amount of effort that we've spent in these last 3 years. I think going forward maybe it's a totally different issue because the size of ' the projects and the frequency of the projects is going to greatly diminish. Okay? Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, could I respond? ' Mayor Ch'iel: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: I think one of the things that has been frustrating to me is that you know Mr. Johnson indicated that we are responsible for spending the dollars and that's exactly one of the things that does frustrate me is that I don't have any say in how that money is spent. Never once have we been asked do ' we want this project. We have just been told this is the project that has been approved by the HRA and we're just asked to review the plans and make convents onto the plans. We have no say in which project gets in and which project gets ' out and that is one of my major concerns is that we do pick projects that can be financially successful so the taxpayer does not end up sitting here having to carry the ball when the business goes broke. They can't make it because the project that was chosen was not feasible. Councilman Boyt: I can't think of a project that we haven't voted on though that we couldn't have stopped. Can you think of anything that Council could not have stopped? Councilman Johnson: We could have required brick roof on the apartments if we ' wanted to stop the apartments. We could stop them at the site plan. Councilwoman Dimler: I've never heard the Council say I don't want this project. It's always we've considered what they've brought before us. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think the Council's opposed. Councilwoman Dimler: The HRA makes the decision as to which projects are accepted. ' Councilman Boyt: Can you think of anything in the downtown that we didn't vote on? Councilwoman Dimler: Did you see all the applicants for Market Square or Crossroads? Mayor Chmiel: A few things were before our time though. ' Councilwoman Dimler: They were all already chosen and we were just asked to review the site plan. That's it and that type of thing but we were not, we had no say in who got into those projects. The BRA did that. Councilman Boyt: I rem rber some of us sitting in on that meeting that night with the HRA but we could have stopped it. We have the veto power over most of what they do. 1 29 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I've never seen it exercised. Councilman Johnson: It hasn't been necessary. Councilman Boyt: It hasn't been for lack of trying by some of us to get some of this stuff killed but I'm just saying, when it comes to responsibility, I think it rests right here. Mayor Chmaiel: Sure it does. ' Councilman Boyt: Because we do have that opportunity. Councilwoman Dimler: Well if I have the responsibility, I'd like to have a say in which projects go. Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with that. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'll support you for a member of the HRA. Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll support you. And you and you. Mayor Ch!iel: Any other further discussion? What position? Would you like to I come up to the microphone please? Mike Klingelhutz: Mr. Mayor, Council people. I wrote Mr. Chmiel a letter addressing my concerns and do you think I should read it? Councilman Boyt: We all got a copy. Mike Klingelhutz: In addition to that, to my letter, if you look around you and look at the world today, people don't want the communist central committee making their decisions for them. They want democratically elected officials. ' Look at Nicaragua, East Europe. They're more comfortable having elected officials making decisions. I'm not trying to say that the HRA is communist or anything like that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what it sounded like. Mayor Chmaiel: No, we understand. We have your letter Mike. Thank you. ' Frank Kurvers: My name is Frank Kurvers and I have a little bit to say about what I see happening here in our community. I guess I think that the residents and the people of this city deserve better than what I see at the present time as far as construction of buildings. When you've got an HRA, you've got the money. You're taking it all away from the taxpayers. I think you should give them something in return that's lasting. Brick and mortar. Not just wood construction and then pile than all in one big pile. I think you need open space just like the Planning Commission wants. The Park and Rec wants. We want all those things and I think and I support the Council taking over the HRA. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Anyone else? This is the kind of input we like to have? , 30 1 7 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Where is this going to go? Councilman Hoyt: Yeah, where are we going with this? Somebody make a motion. Councilman Workman: Can we make a motion? ' Mayor Chmiel: To move in a direction. Councilman Workman: I mean it was on the Council presentations. Do I need to do anything special now that we've brought it back, do I need to do anything special? ' Don Ashworth: Yes. It's my error that the item did not get published on the regular agenda again. I anticipated that the attorney's office would take more time than literally a one week period of time to do his research so it was not published. The Council can still act. You can overturn your own rules by basically a four-fifths vote. If I'm hearing the Council though, or at least our legal counsel, you're not really in a position to totally eliminate the HRA. You do have an appointment that is coming up in May. Chairman Whitehill's ' appointment if I remember correctly is up for reappointment within the next 30 to 60 day timeframe so that one will be coming back to you. And you could ask for resignations from the HRA basically informing then of the discussion that ' occurred here this evening. Currently the Council does act as the governing board for 2 out of 3 districts. You do have 3 districts and 2 of those are economic development districts and City Council, not the HRA, is the sole decision making group associated with those other two districts so when we approached Hennepin County, that was solely City Council. Never went to HRA. When we've talked about McGlynn, it's been solely City Council, not HRA. If I hear some of the concerns, it deals with the HRA's decision as to who to select ' for developer for the downtown. Who to select as a developer on 79th Street and those are roles that are set over to the HRA. I think that in that process, maybe if staff would have perceived that the Council wanted to take a more ' active role, we could have established work sessions wherein your input was put into that process. I guess in retrospect I'm trying to think of how we might have better coordinated the work of the Council and the HRA in each of those 1 areas. Councilman Johnson: If the Council wants the input, they're the most informed citizens in this city. They know about every meeting and everything that's ' going on. They can put their input. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, could I make a comment to that? I didn't know until ' tonight, and I've been on the Council for over a year, that Council was in charge of 2 out of the 3 districts as you just indicated. Why wasn't I informed of that when we came on the Council? Why is there not a better communication system that says to the Council members, this and this and this and this is what 1 you're responsible for? I had no idea. No idea. So you're saying to me that McGlynn was approved, that was a solely Council made decision? ' Don Ashworth: The Council was the body that basically drew up the development plan for that. Adopted it and since that point in time implemented it. I do not believe that Councilwoman Dimler was on the Council at the point in time ' that those decisions were made by the City Council so for example, the establishment... 1 31 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but I would have liked to have been informed as to here's what you're taking over. Here's what you're responsible I for. Councilman Workman: Don, you and I have talked a little bit about it and the role of the HRA is becoming more and more a diminished role. I certainly do not find my duties with the HRA to be so encumbering or all encompassing that I have a problem. Well, I take that back, as Todd Gerhardt would tell you because the meeting gets switched around and then I have other things going on planned but really the packet is not that large. It's really not that big of a deal. Councilman Johnson: It used to go to 11:00 at night. ' Councilman Workman: Yeah, I understand wanting to keep as many people as possible involved. I just feel that it's time that the City and the Council take it upon themselves. We know most of these details anyway. Let's take all of the responsibility and take the rest and clean up the rest to...That people think that they smell a rat sometimes, whether they do or not. It might be coming from a neighboring community. But you know, there's a perception when you have and you can tell people hey, you know I'm a city councilmember and geez, we've got a budget of 5 1/2 million. Wow. You know. I think it just about quadruples when you throw the HRA in there or whatever it is and so it is a very, very big responsibility and not one to be taken lightly and I certianly don't and I've just heard it enough times that that's why I pitched the proposal that we take the complete responsibility from here on out with what's going. on and I think we can accomplish the same things and do the same things without I/ much problem. If we tack therm onto our regular council meetings, I don't see that as being... Councilwoman Dimler: A problem. Councilman Johnson: There's no urgency either so why don't we move this to next Council meeting. Get it published in the newspaper and the citizens can be informed of this discussion we're having rather than just a few people be informed of this discussion so that we might be able to garner most citizen input. Was the HRA informed that this discussion was on the agenda today? I don't see any of their representatives here saying one way or another. I think it's unfair for us to make a decision tonight without it being placed on the, published in the newspaper. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I do want to say that I heard Tom clearly state twice that he wanted it to be on the regular agenda after he made a council presentation and twice it was not published on the regular agenda. Councilman Johnson: Well there's a good reason for that that Don had in there was when the regular agenda gets published, which is what? The Monday before? I Mayor Chmiel: The Friday before. Councilman Johnson: So it was over a week ago on Friday when that had to go to , the newspapers to get published. At that time he didn't think that the attorney was going to be ready for it so it didn't get on the agenda because he could not put it on the agenda and then come back and say well we're going to drop it off 32 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 the agenda because we don't think it's ready. Now that wouldn't be responsible on his part to do that either. Councilwoman Dimler: Perhaps but we could have tabled it at that point you know. ' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if people came in for it and then we table it. That's not good either. Frank Kurvers: I have one question. I don't know if it's real pertinent but I think it is pertinent when you talk about economics and money. As far as the sac charges and buying down certain things, when a business comes in here, do you people know that that's going on? ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Kurvers: Do you know exactly how much money is used and everything? Councilman Boyt: Eventually. ' Frank Kurvers: For a business? Mayor Chmiel: It takes time but sometimes it's done after the fact. Councilman Johnson: We know the estimates. Frank Kurvers: Okay, you know the estimates but are you part of the negotiation of doing that? Councilman Boyt: No. Frank Kurvers: That's a mistake. That's a real mistake. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I was trying to get at. Frank Kurvers: Real mistake. Councilman Johnson: I move we table this until the next council meeting so it can be adequately published. 11 Councilwoman Dimler: But do put it on the next council agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Also I think we should have sane indication in the paper as well notifying the public of the fact... Councilwoman Dimler: It would be a public hearing? ' Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think it has to be a public hearing but an informational kind of item for the public. Don Ashworth: I might suggest that we have some form of a worksession with the HRA to allow the Council and HRA to discuss some of these issues. In fact I think that we're at a juncture in terms of a couple of things are happening. One, at the legislature where if the Amber-Reichcod amendment is in fact 33 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 approved, this entire discussion is going to really mean nothing because they're going to insert a new board that will represent the school representatived, county and city that basically will sit over top of City Council. If HRA, City Council and the new board basically will make all decisions associated with HRA. Councilwoman Dirnler: Can't the City Council still be this HRA and then have that board? , Don Ashworth: This bill would set one county representative. One school representative. One city and if you wanted to delegate a me tber from the HRA or if you wanted one from the City Council, that would be your perogative. Mayor Chmiel: I think Ursula's question was if the City Council being the City Council and the City Council also being the HRA. Councilman Johnson: It still would be possible. Councilwoman Dimler: Sure. We could still do what we're planning to do and have this new board above us. Don Ashworth: Oh. Yes. We're also at a juncture with the HRA in terms of kind I of reviewing a number of the projects and again recognizing that the legislature is in the process of acting, again a beautiful time to have a work session. Talk about things such as the Redi-Mix facility. Some of the other developments that are occurring and the potential for where the Council is coming from and should the City Council take over those functions or should they stay with HRA or however you want to proceed in that direction. Mayor Chmiel: Let's get this then on the next agenda. Councilwoman Dimler: If you have that work session I'd just like to say have it 1 after the 8th of March. Councilman Workman: I guess the one quick convent about a work session. I I don't know that it's going to accomplish where I'n, at and where I feel about this in that I'm operating basically on a very real public perception here. I don't think a work session's going to take care of that. That's the accountability perception. We can have all the work sessions we want and that's not going to take care of that so it's going to change my mind on that. That particular issue. I don't mean to step on toes or grab power. Mayor Chmiel: Let's get this on the March 12th agenda for discussion. Let's move onto the next item of business. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED, 620 FOXHILL DRIVE, JAMES MCALLISTER. ' Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to come up here and just indicate what the conclusions were reached on item 2 which is a rear yard setback variance request for construction of a shed at 620 Foxhill Drive, James McAllister. Willard Johnson: We held over, he indicated he probably could buy approximately 2 foot from his neighbor so we tabled it and gave him a 90 day extension to, he I 34 I City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then he has to I� _ � � come before the board again and we'll make a decision at that time. We would hope he can buy 2 feet. Mayor Chmiel: So the action for us to do is just table this? ' Willard Johnson: Just table any action until we get a response within 90 days. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the rear yard i setback variance request for James McAllister at 620 Foxhill Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. iVARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. Paul Krauss: Mx. Mayor, the applicant requested an extension because of ' pollution from a leaking gasoline tank apparently from an adjoining property that's preventing him from building. He wanted an extension that was valid for a year past the date the PCA says the site's cleaned up. The Board was ' uncomfortable with that since we had no idea when that was going to occur and agreed to a 1 year extension with the possibility of further extensions if the problem's not resolved in the next 12 months. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? Councilman Boyt: I know you just mentioned this but we do have to modify the variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is not a conforming use? ' Paul Krauss: Oh, I need to clarify that. Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property. ' Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this problem I had heard about the leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine. ' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the variance extension request for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Councilman Johnson: What were we voting on? Mayor Chmiel: Exactly what Paul said. Councilman Boyt: An extension. Councilman Johnson: Oh. It was passed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals unanimously. Did we need to vote too? 35 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. 1 Councilman Boyt: We did or didn't? Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have needed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the board approved it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll withdraw it. Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't matter. Mayor Chmiel: It's alright. We like to do it twice. REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HEMMINGER, HUTT CONSTRUCTION. Paul Krauss: As the City Council is aware, the developers for Hospitality Suites proposed some changes to the site plan that staff felt were sufficiently substantial that it took the proposal back to the City Council for action last December. The Council determined that the revised roof line and roofing materials were acceptable but insisted that a canopy over the main entrance be provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had been proposed. You did however indicate that if anymore changes were proposed, since the project seemed to be in something of a state of flux, or if any of those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go back to the Planning Ca/mission through channels for an amendment site plan. And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being requested. Again, the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning Commission contingent upon some issues that have to be resolved between the applicant and the City Engineer. Staff raised issues regarding preservation of a landscaped courtyard to the east of the building and a related issue providing minimum building separation to meet building code requirements. Staff is recorr ending approval of the revised plans and that recomirendation has been supported by the Planning Commission. Staff is continuing to recormend approval of the amended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the original approval and resolves issues that have been raised. As to the deletion of the 12 feet of the building, we really did feel it's not going to be visible. Unless you know where to look, you won't know that that section of building's going to be absent. It's not taken out of the residential rooms itself. It's taken out of the lobby/pool area and we really don't think it's going to be visible or disruptive to the architecture of the building. As I eluded to ' earlier, there's still a remaining concern concerning the drive under canopy. We're recommending that condition 4 be corrected to read the final canopy plans be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicants demonstrating that there is sufficient room to manuever buses. We'd also like to add a 5th condition if we could to the effect that all other conditions of the original approval remain in effect. We neglected to do that earlier assuming that it was the case but it doesn't hurt to state it. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this? 36 1 ICity Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Boyt: I have a question. It might help and might shorten things up too. My question is where did the 12 feet go? I know what it came off of but where did it go? David Hat ringer: My name is David Hemminger. I represent D.W. Hutt Consultants. Along with me are Clayton Johnson and John Rice who represent Bloomberg Companies and Mr. Bloomberg who is 1/4 owner of the Country Hospitality Suites. I represent the other owners. I guess Mr. Boyt, why don't you clarify your question to me first. What do you mean, where did the other 12 feet go? Councilman Boyt: I'm gathering that the building is shorter by 12 feet so where 11 did the 12 feet go? Where is it showing up on the property because when I see the distance between your building and the existing buildings, it doesn't seen to be 12 feet wider there so I ask where did the 12 feet go? David Henninger: Well the 12 feet was taken off the east side of the lobby. Councilman Boyt: I know on the building. I mean on the lot. Where did the 12 feet show up? Do you understand what I'm looking for? We took 12 feet out of the building. It was on the main floor so I expect that 12 feet to show up someplace outside. No? David Hemminger_: No. It's a larger grassy area between Bloomberg's property line and the edge of the motel at the courtyard. Councilman Boyt: Well but the courtyard was, wasn't it 25 feet and then it got smaller when we took the 12 feet off? Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that Councilman Boyt. The courtyard that r you originally reviewed was a landscaped illustration on a site plan. The platting came along after the fact and kind of chopped off where that courtyard was supposed to be. Staff had a concern when that was done in that we wanted it protected but the size of the courtyard really didn't changed. What changed is the property line if that helps to resolve the confusion or I don't know if I added more. We want to make sure that we have the proper building separation and that we have a sufficiently large courtyard remaining. When you first reviewed that there was no property line to gauge it against. It was just a site plan that was submitted to you. 11 Councilman Boyt: So you're saying that when we were first measuring, we were measuring this property and the adjoining property and counted it all as one piece? Paul Krauss: Yes. Councilman Boyt: And the courtyard was 25 feet then? Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Boyt: And now the courtyard is 36 feet? David He minger: 25 feet. 37 , City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 I/ Mayor Chmiel: No, it's 25 to 30 feet. It was approved on the plan as 30 feet. I/ Councilman Johnson: The 25 feet, is that on the south side or is that on the east side? There's 2 sides to this courtyard. David Hern,inger: On the east side. Councilman Boyt: Now that's the side we took the pool off of right? Part of the pool. David Ha► ginger: Right. Councilman Johnson: There's 37 feet between those 2 buildings on this drawing. I Paul Krauss: That's right now but the building that's east of the hotel is being torn down. And what we're trying to protect is that there's a 25 foot wide courtyard into the future as that property is redeveloped. Councilman Johnson: Right now there's only 16 foot 8 to the property line? Paul Krauss: Right. 11 David He minger: That's right. Councilman Johnson: Or is that a sewer line or something? David He minger: That's the property line. Councilman Johnson: So you need covenants into the next person's property. Paul Krauss: He needs to protect that portion across the line, yes. 1 Councilman Johnson: So they can build another building later on at 25 feet over, right up against the easement? Paul Krauss: We expect there to, yes. David Hemminger: And that would meet the setback requirements for your code. Councilman Boyt: So what you're telling me is that with the pool extension, you can't meet the setback? David Hemminger_: No, that's not what I'm telling you at all. We could meet the setbacks and we did meet the setbacks. Councilman Boyt: But we've got this 25 feet which was required but then we don't have it. We only have 12 feet. I Paul Krauss: The 25 feet Councilman Boyt was not a setback that was required. It's in the CBD district and there were no setbacks implied. When the plat came through last November, we alerted the developer to the fact that there's going to be a problem, because you had illustrated a landscape area and fire access and stuff that is now on the adjoining property because of where you elected to put the property line. So it's kind of a self made problem and the way to fix it 38 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 was to preserve it through an easement. Councilman Boyt: So we have 0 setback in the sidelot? Paul Krauss: Theoretically you could but again, we have these elements on the site plan that we wanted to preserve and we also had building and fire code ' issues. The fire exits for the pool would actually have required that you cross over onto the adjoining property to exit that building. Councilman Johnson: So we're trying to get the easements to make sure that doesn't happen? Paul Krauss: That it's going to be allowed to be protected into the future. tCouncilman Johnson: The owner on the east is also part owner of this? Paul Krauss: At this point in time. Councilman Johnson: At this point in time so it should be fairly easy to get that easement. 11 Paul Krauss: Well it's turned out to be rather complicated with we're all working together. Councilman Johnson: Did you get sane lawyers involved or something? Paul Krauss: Two of them, yes. Councilman Boyt: The issue for me is we're bouncing this around a little bit up here but the issue for me is not whether or not you can shorten your building ' up. You've gone through the necessary procedure. You went to Planning Commission. Before I didn't like it because you were cutting all those procedures out and you were coming to us and saying make it smaller and I think some of us had just sort of had enough of this changing everything right here at the last minute. Well, you stopped. You went through the procedures so I'm inclined to say make your building any size you want as long as you go through the procedures. My problem is just, I'm trying to figure out, as I keep saying, where did all this land go that was there and wasn't there and maybe that's where the lawyer has to get involved but I still don't understand. Roger Knutson: Do you have more green space now? Paul Krauss: No, you won't have any more green space. What it affects is the L building that Bloomberg Companies would be allowed to build in the future. The 12 feet that's being removed from this building is allowing that building to be 12 feet larger. That space inbetween is fixed. Councilman Workman: This building is 12 feet shorter? Paul Krauss: The hotel is proposed to be 12 feet shorter, yes. Councilman Workman: In the pool area? Paul Krauss: Yes. 39 i City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 I David Hertminger: Can I go a step further here? Maybe I can answer your question. When we moved that building back 12 feet away from the property line, they could set their building right on the property line. Then we would have a conflict with the UBC Code as far as our setback from our building to their building. So by maintaining an easement of 25 feet inbetween the buildings, we had the proper setbacks to meet the Code as far as the building fire ratings would be and it protects the City in that the City is named in the easement also so that nobody can incringe in that area while it's approved. Councilman Boyt: So what you're telling me is you couldn't build the building 1 as you planned to build it because there wasn't enough room? David Herrminger: No. That has nothing to do with it. i Paul Krauss: Well there's an element of truth to that. Because of where the property line was placed, we could not allow this building to be constructed , unless we protected an easement on the adjoining property sufficient to provide a minimum building separation of 25 feet. Councilman Boyt: I think we're saying the same thing. I David Hemminger: Okay, yes. Councilman Boyt: That's all I had. Thanks. Councilman Workman: I thought this was because the franchise company had a problem with the big pool area. David He minger: Okay, that's why we took the 12 feet off. That's true. That's why we took the 12 feet off. We're not disputing that. The only thing that came up is we wanted to establish a protected courtyard area and also the City asked that of us and so we came back with the mutual agreement that on a 25 foot, because that met the Code and that was originally what the blueprints were showing was a 25 foot courtyard between the properties. Councilwoman Dialer: Do we have any idea yet what that future building will be that's going to be 12? Did you want to say something? That building that's going to be bigger as a result. What is that going to be? I guess I really would like to know, making the pool smaller is for a worth while cause. I David He finger: Okay. We made the pool room smaller to meet our franchisees request. Also to meet the criteria that we weren't manning the pool on a 24 hour basis with staff. That it was not totally in view all the time. That's why we took the 12 feet off. Taking the 12 feet off the hotel has nothing to do with any other building being built next to it or anything else. There's no correlation there whatsoever. Mayor Chmiel: I have a specific question relating to the, once you get the buildings permit. Are you aware of the letter or memorandum that was written by Steve Kirchman, our building official, regarding the canopy structure and the bus routing as it relates to the canopy structure that has been resolved to the city satisfaction? Saying that in some areas it wasn't quite high enough. That you'd have to comply with those particular requirements. Have you seen that I 40 1 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 particular merorandum? David Hemminger: No I haven't. The only thing I can state to that is the architect shows the 13'6" elevation but I have not seen that particular memorandum at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think what I'd like to make sure is that the owner and the architect both get copies of this so they know what our building officials are thinking. David Hencinger: Okay, fine. ' Gary Warren: If I could take a minute, I'd like to just to praise the Council I guess in the spirit of last minute changes. I think the bus routing and such is an important element here. We've been working with the developer trying to get 11 it defined and we still need to get some further resolution but I did want to show you some inpacts on the curb cut and the routing that I think Council should be aware of as far as the use of the facility. This floor plan is in your packet but don't try looking for it. The packet is thick enough... 1 basically it showed the original concept that we had been working from with the developer as far as this being the entranceway and a canopy area and you'll note there's no median support here proposed in the canopy at this time. Further evaluations by the developer and he can speak to I guess the rationale and the difficulties that they ran into in trying to accommodate that necessitated from their perspective the inclusion of this median support area in here for the canopy structure. Basically what that does is segregates actual, the driver's perception here into a 2 lane configuration. Each of these lanes being approximately 14 feet wide and the median being 4 feet wide. An enlargement of that area, with color. We asked BRW, who's designing the site perimeter efforts here, to take a look at 45 foot turning templets for a typical bus and again we need to get further definition from the developer on the anticipated magnitude of the buses and such but basically applying templets to this, a westbound bus ' can enter the site along this green corridor. These are the wheel lines basically and make a delivery at the front of the Country Suites at this location and then can proceed to either make an eastbound or westbound movement. There's no problem with the westbound buses entering. The problems that we've been looking at has been the eastbound bus which is the blue line here because he has to make a tight hook into this lane of traffic. Again, here's the median. Makes his drop here. Cannot negotiate this radius to get back out through this access. As to continue then to exit the site by proceeding through this, the parking area basically. I'll go back to this one. We basically proceed through this way to get out. Now depending on the magnitude of the buses and numbers and such, that may not be a problem. Brief conversation that Clayton and I have had, they're not that concerned but there are impacts that we wanted to make you aware of. One is that in order to make these access ' movements, these areas in yellow which are existing radius' that were built as a part of the Phase I of the downtown, need to be modified to get the 36 foot curb cut out here and provide a 30 foot radius on these curbs so that these movements can be negotiated. You can see the conflict points in here. Similarly, there's a potential for at least one parking space to be deleted from this area. This one I think could be saved but in order some buffer from this support extension on the canopy, that will probably go and we can figure that appropriately to get the radius' . And then we haven't had an opportunity to put the templets on on this outlot segment but I think also these two different areas in yellow here 41 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ' may need to be modified because, just an eyeball look at them would make this movement difficult with the centerline along here for a bus to negotiate without clipping off these corners. So those are impacts to the site plan. We're interested, schedules of developers and mine haven't allowed us to get together to finally resolve the magnitude of the buses but it was, I think the additional bue deliveries to the site was something that was added from the original concept as well so we then applied or had BRW put the templets on here to get that highlighted. Modifications that would be done to these existing radius' , except with the, I guess included in the City's public improvement project or could be included and then assessed back to the property as we are intending for the other side. ..I think it's important to understand we're bringing buses into a congested area. There are some modifications that I think are necessary to accommodate that. Part of it is dictated by the fact that this median is being placed here to support the canopy structure which definitely segregates into two travel lanes. If that median weren't there, the bus from the westbound could enter the site, or I'm sorry eastbound, and pull up against this curb line to drop and then could make the movement out but I'm not I guess upset about the fact that the median is there. I think it's more knowing that buses probably will be leaving the site through the parking areas down to basically the bowling alley entrance area which may necessitate some changes also. , Councilman Johnson: Gary, are you assuming buses will stay to the right of that median? I've ridden in a lot of buses and bus drivers, some of than tend to believe they own the road. Whichever lane they want to be in. Gary Warren: Are you talking about here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. They may just pull up to that front door and the left side of that median anyway. Gary Warren: They may but I think they're going to have a very difficult time 1 trying to make this cut across that center island. I'm not going to argue with a bus anymore than you would. Councilman Workman: Gary, are you saying to scrap it? Scrap the canopy? Gary Warren: No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just trying to, as a part of this process because of the way it's come together, to say we have a use here that was not part of the original understandings that I know for the site as far as buses. We do want to get defined from the developer the intentions. How many buses? How often? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's my question. Gary Warren: We think they can be accommodated in here but obviously if you bring 10 buses...unless he chose to do a zig zag routine but I would imagine that these are going to be pretty popular parking spots with their access here so typically you could figure that they're going to be full. But he cannot make a 45 foot... Councilman Workman: You're assuming that he's going to hug that inside corner I just as you said he might do that at the front door. I 42 11 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Gary Warren: If he tries to do this, then he would have a better chance of making it. It's still a tight call. ' Councilman Workman: Or if you went way wide to the west. Carling out of there. You said he could make it wide here. I'm just talking about being wide... Mayor Chmiel: Gary I guess I still have a concer. How many buses are we talking about? ' Gary Warren: I don't know... David Hemminger: I don't have that answer for you tonight Mr. Mayor. Clayton Johnson: I can speak from experience at the Dinner Theatre. Councilman Johnson: It's not going to be 10 a day. Clayton Johnson: The maximum number of buses at the Dinner Theatre would be 10 on a Wednesday. The hotel would love to see 1 or 2 of those but we've reviewed Gary's plan and the only concern we have is that the buses be able to exit out Market Blvd.. That's a very acceptable plan. If there are any curb cuts that need to be modified or any obviously, that would be our expense but that exit method would be acceptable. Councilman Boyt: While you're up there Clayton, maybe you can tell us about any financial assistance the City is contributing to this project. Are we doing anything? Clayton Johnson: Nothing other than the typical special assessment write down that all of the projects in the tax increment district have been eligible fox. 11 Mayor Chmiel: I'd still like to get some numbers on those buses as to how many you think you might have even though Clayton has indicated that he'd more than I/ welcome 1 or 2. I think where I see it coming from, I don't expect to see 10 buses there. Each bus holds 42? I/ David Hemminger: 47. Mayor Chmiel: That would fill up the hotel rather quickly. I don't think you're going to do that. David Henninger: I don't think so. 1/ Councilman Johnson: Five buses would be 200 people. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else have any specific questions? Councilman Johnson: Mr. Klingelhutz had his hand up. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, would you like to cane up. Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz again and if you guys were the HRA committee, you would know what the typical assessment write down would be in dollars that he was referring to. 43 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. I Councilman Boyt: But what he's talking about there is capture tax money and that's what an HRA district has to offer. My interest was, are we doing what we I did for the apartment building which was subsidize it with $600,000.00 or something to that effect which I think gives us a lot more leverage to come in and demand things than it does when we're giving just a standard absorption of the utilities and that sort of thing. It's kind of two different issues. Whether we're talking about the apartment building or something that's more of an owner financed. Councilman Workman: Isn't the number approximately 650? Don Ashworth: No, no. No. What you're looking to is the 3 years of tax increment generated off of a site. In this particular instance, they actually will generate greater increment over the 3 year period of time. So in other words, specials off of the site will not equal what the 3 years would produce. It's close to it and I think that again when you start looking at relative size and say 3 years of increment, that's a lot different number for a Rosemount than it is for... Councilman Workman: I think the question may be that I'm leaning towards is and what the public would want to know is, how much isn't this project paying to take care of things? In other words, not what the net result will be to the City and the net result down the road would be that the City would get it's money back. Right? I'm saying, what is this project getting? Maybe that's your question. What is this project getting that, they didn't have to take care of the demolition of the building. Preparation of the property. Utilities. Etc.. What's the net gain to the project and the builders of the project that they did not have to that they are going to be paid through the tax increments. Isn't that number here 650? Don Ashworth: There'd be a higher number associated with the HRA's acquisition of the woodframe structure from Bloomberg Companies and the amount paid there was exactly what Bloomberg Companies had paid from Gary Kirt. They and the HRA is paying for the demolition of that building. They're selling back to the hotel people the underlying land at it's fair market value so hypothetically whether they build there or build on the highway, they have really the same cost basis. So I mean are you talking about, see I don't see where Bloomberg really gained out of the transaction because they paid Gary Kirt and if I remember correctly, do you want the numbers? I Councilman Workman: Well no. You don't need to go into details. I think that was just some of the questions that were, I mean tax increment money is being used here. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Workman: And somebody's gaining from that. Don Ashworth: Bloomberg Companies is not. They're basically being repaid exactly what they paid Gary Kirt. Somebody is gaining from the standpoint that the building is being removed and is being, that removal is being paid for but from a developer's standpoint, they're looking at coming in and purchasing just I 44 11 / City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 the raw land on which they're going to build their structure. That's really what an HRA is all about. I don't know if I answered your question or not. 11 Councilman Johnson: The other thing, they're getting assistance on is paying off special assessments that wouldn't be at other properties but is unique to downtown and that again is what the HRA is about is to make the downtown property competitive with other property even though it's got these higher costs because of the new storm sewer. The new streets and all that other stuff that's been put into there. Those are going to be paid off through the special assessment reduction program that everybody gets. I think we ought to just move on with this. I move approval with the 5 conditions. The 4 stated here and the 5th one from Paul was the other conditions from the previous site plan review are still in effect other than as modified by these 4 conditions. Mayor Chciel: There's a motion on the floor with Jay's recommendation accepting staff recommendations of 5 items and incorporate the previous ones that were, are there duplications of anything in incorporating the previous ones? Paul Krauss: I don't believe so. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Excuse re. What is the 5th one? Councilman Johnson: That the site plan review, conditions of the previous site plan are still in effect on this site plan. ' Councilman Workman: Okay, and that would include that the final decision of the canopy provides sufficient room for manuevering buses in that? Councilman Johnson: That's number 4 here. Councilman Workman: That our engineering staff will be approving that or disapproving that? Is that what we're saying? Gary Warren: That's what was recommended by Paul in the condition. I/ Councilman Workman: So whether there's a canopy there or not is up to our staff? What kind of a canopy? 11 Councilman Hoyt: There's going to be a canopy. It's how high... Mayor Chmael: It's the height. Making sure there are proper clearances. ' Councilman Johnson: Gary's risking his job on that. 11 Councilman Workman: Alright. I'll second it. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the amended Site Plan #89-2 for Country Hospitality Suites with the following conditions: } 1. Provision of the satisfactory easement protecting courtyard areas located at the east and southeast sides of the building. 45 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 y 2. The mzn3.mum courtyard dimension located east of the building shall be 25 feet. 3. The roof material shall be heavy grade Timberline-type shingles of a cedar or earth tone. 4. The final canopy plans shall be approved by the City Engineer contingent ' upon the applicant demonstrating sufficient room for maneuvering of buses. 5. All other conditions of the previously approved site plan remain in effect. i All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: I've got a question. Why aren't these plans sealed? There's a place for an engineering seal on here but no engineer signed these? There's a surveyor signed the front page. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, when we receive those, normally they have a PE on those right? But they're drawn just according to... David Hamtinger: Axe you talking on just a site plan? Councilman Johnson: Anything coming before us. Mayor Cmiel: ...has to have their PE on then, basically. Whether that's mechanical, electrical... David H winger: I guess that's just something the architect overlooked. He sent than directly from his office to here and I did not review then before that time. Mayor Chiiel: Yeah, and I didn't see anything marked on here that said draft. I Councilman Johnson: Well actually some pages are sealed and some pages aren't. Gary Warren: They should be sealed by the appropriate engineer. I Councilman Johnson: 2.1 is sealed but the sheet 104 from BRW isn't. Councilman Boyt: Does it make a difference? David Herminger: Does it make a difference because otherwise we can resubmit sealed plans. Councilman Johnson: Oh no, no. Gary Warren: Well our records should show sealed plans. Councilman Johnson: Is this BRW one added? I Gary Warren: BRW is a site plan and that's being done separately. That's just for reference. 46 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO BH DISTRICT TO ALLOW BANKS WITH DRIVE-THRU WINDOWS, FIRST READING. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimrler seconded approving the First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the BH District allowing banks with drive thru windows. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN R-16 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 11 FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: During recent discussions regarding proposed revisions to City ' parking regulations, the City Council directed staff to prepare an R-16 residential district. The reason for this direction was the belief that the existing R-12 district did not provide sufficient density to allow for most types of high density housing that are typically experienced in suburban areas around us. The district was to require 1 enclosed parking stall per dwelling which was to be located in an underground garage. There was also some discussion about potentially raising the allowance for hard surface coverage ' from 35% that was allowedin the R-12 district. Staff indicated a belief that it was overly restrictive particularly since it's computed on the net density after wetlands, public streets and park dedications are excluded from the computation. Staff drafted the R-16 district and presented it to the Planning Commission. As proposed it would allow up to 50% hard surface coverage while requiring increased setbacks well beyond the R-12 district standards which we believe are { conm enusary with the intensity of development that would be experienced. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance but revised staff's proposed height limitations. We have proposed a limitations up to about 50 feet. Above that would require an increased setback. The Planning Commission felt more comfortable with a straight 40 foot height limitation consistent with the existing R-12 district. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that City Council approve the first reading of the draft ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this? Councilman Workman: I'd move first reading. Councilman Boyt: I can get us started on a little discussion. I'd second that. Why do we need feet? Why not just say 3 stories? 1 Paul Krauss: If you feel more comfortable with that. That's the language that's in the R-12 district. ' Councilman Boyt: It just occurs to me that 40 feet, 45 feet. If what we're trying to say here is I guess that we want 3 story buildings. I'm a little uncomfortable with specifying the feet. The other thing is, maybe you recall 1 offhand, what are we counting when we count covered surface? Paul Krauss: We're counting all impervious surfaces. Sidewalks. Parking areas. The building footprint. Councilman Boyt: You don't count the roads? I 47 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Paul Krauss: Public streets would be taken out but access drives, private access drives would be counted, yes. Councilman Boyt: Somehow I look at what we have across from the elementary school and I think about 35% coverage and I'm not sure if, in fact I'm reasonably confident that if I went out there and measured the green area, I'd be far short of 65% of the total land area out there. Councilman Workman: Where? Councilman Boyt: Across from the elementary school. The apartments over there. I If you work in verse direction, instead of measuring the building and parking lots and the garages, if you go out there and measure the green space and say is this 70%, 65% of the total area? I don't think so so I'm just wondering what are we counting. Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt. I don't know that I can address that specific item. I wasn't here when that was approved and don't know it well enough to convent. The definition of lot coverage is that that lot coverage means that that portion or percentage of the lot that's covered by impervious surfaces period. I know how we calculate it now and we would calculate all impervious surfaces. Councilman Boyt: Okay, well. I guess maybe we can meet and talk about that in 1 private without tying up time of the Council. The bigger issue is, I don't think we need this at all. I think that is somebody, I agree with the comments made that night that we need the opportunity to build at a higher density than we currently have but what I see us doing here is creating something that in all likelihood, the next move is going to be well let's zone it somewhere. I'm quite concerned that we have nothing in here that the City is getting out of this. We're giving people higher density and I have a sense that we're not getting anything. The City doesn't get anymore out of this than they get out of an R-12. It's not that the City ought to have it's, ought to be getting something out of everything. It's that, if this came in as a PUD, I could see us looking for park space. I could see us looking for maybe some amenities in the building but when it comes in, when we zone it ahead of time this way, you lose that ability. I'm relunctant to see us case in and the next logical step would be to map this somewhere. I'd like to see us not...approve it. I guess I'd like to see us not put it anywhere until a developer came in and said here's the reason you should change my R-12 zoning to R-16 or whatever and then we look at that and we make some sort of arrangements to do that if it's approved. Mayor Chmiel: We don't have an R-16 then to go to. Councilman Boyt: Now it'd have to come in as a PUD and I don't see what this gives us that a PUD wouldn't. So then I ask, why do we need it? Councilman Workman: Are you saying we get more from a PUD? I Mayor Chmiel: You're saying we get more from a PUD and the same thing out of an R-12 as what you're getting with the R-16. Councilman Workman: A PUD is different from an R-12. 48 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Well a PUD is anything but somebody comes in and they say... Mayor C1i iel: Condition more things on it. Councilman Boyt: Right. We can take each one of that individually and I would see if we passed this, that we shouldn't zone it anywhere but we should, either 11 we pass this and not zone it anywhere or we use a PUD process so that whenever something comes in this dense, we have the ability to treat it as a unique entity and say does it fit what we want or not. It's a thought. I don't know exactly how to work it out. Councilman Johnson: You could almost say the R-16's are only allowed within PUD districts. So we could set R-16 basic standards and if somebody wants an R-16, they've got to apply for a PUD. Mayor Chmiel: Paul? ' Paul Krauss: There's a couple of responses to that. The way our PUD ordinance is set up right now is basically once you enter into a PUD, you're throwing out all the other standards so there's nothing to reflect back onto. You create it as you go along. Possibly the more Important, I think the PUD warrants sane reassessment for that reason. But I would not propose that the City Council unilaterally rezone anything to R-16. I think it's something that you should have on the map and hold in your back pocket and when somebody comes in and presents a plan that you're supportive of that requires this density that's in an area that's guided for high density use in the comprehensive plan, you can say fine. We'll rezone it at that time. I would not recommend approval of anybody saying I've got this great lot out there. It's in a high density district. I don't know who's going to develop it but why don't you rezone it for me. I would recommend that you deny that. Councilman Johnson: So we'd stick R-16 on this map under the legend. Paul Krauss: It would be in the key. Councilman Johnson: But that's it? Paul Krauss: Right. Mayor Ckv iel: Right. Strictly on the legend but no specific location. 11 Councilman Johnson: I think we need the flexibility of the R-16. Why you say it may not provide any lower cost housing, it provides the opportunity that somebody could cane in and design some slightly more affordable. As I say, we'll never get what Minneapolis or somebody else, one of the real urban areas considers affordable housing. Something under $400.00 a month or whatever. We'll probably never see that in this town even with an R-16. It's going to be a very nice R-16 but it might not be as expensive as if we had to build it R-12. Mayor Craniel: Okay. Any other further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Just one other thing. Since this is the first reading, I would suggest that you consider taking hone occupation out of the permitted uses in the R-16. 1 49 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: Home occupation in the R-16. Councilman Johnson: I don't know. I Councilman Boyt: Well I'm personally not for home occupations in an apartment buildings. I Councilman Workman: What's a home occupation? Councilman Boyt: Well there's a whole list of then,. I don't have mine. ' Mayor Chmiel: You can have so many vehicles. Councilman Boyt: Right and one non-related employee. ■ Councilman Johnson: It's what I'm about to set up in a couple weeks. Councilman Boyt: In your area, you have the right to do that. I'm saying we're creating a new zone and I would encourage us to at least think about not putting home occupations in there. I Councilman Johnson: Are they allowed in R-12? Paul Krauss: I believe so, yes. I Mayor Chmiel: That would be consistent. Councilman Workman: Well I'll tell you what folks. Up in the twin homes in Chaparall, they're currently going through a big fight right now because somewhere in their convenants in the Chaparall Homeowner's Association in the Twins, they're telling people they can't run daycare out of their homes. It's turning into a big battle. I'm not going to stick my nose into this particular problem but you start to tell people they can't do that and this woman is single or divorced or a widow and that's her only income and they're telling her she can't do that anymore. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying you couldn't sell Mary Kay out of your I house? Councilman Boyt: Actually in our development you can't. I Councilman Workman: So I'd be very careful about what we discuss. Somebody's livelihood could be at stake. I Councilman Johnson: I mean there are sane people who don't have a regular office. They work out of wherever they live. Whether they sell insurance or whatever. Carpeting. Whatever. They have no office per se. ' Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a new zone. It doesn't exist. That's not taking anybody in something and moving them, out of it. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I don't know. If we're going to be consistent with the R-12, it should be consistent with the R-16. 50 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Workman: People move in and they don't know that. Councilwoman Disler: That's true and it's likely to be low income people are going to move in there and they're going to need a home occupation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have this as a first reading anyway in looking at it. My suggestion is that we keep moving on with this. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create an R-16 High Density Residential District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: WEST 78TH STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. Councilman Workman: West 78th is a question that has also been raised in pretty much, some of the same breath with HRA and who's to blame and everything else like that. It's not so much what the heck are you going to do with that downtown down there? Now the building appears closer. Whether that's right or wrong remains to be seen. I guess I'd like to, and I don't have my darn memo now because I jumped ahead but I'd like to, I don't know. Don, you mro kind of went into traffic studies and everything else like that. We do have some other things going on that I don't know that we need to discuss here now about eventual traffic patterns and everything else. TH 101. All I'm conveying with ,. this item right now is that people are frustrated with downtown. I brought in the little bit of information that the State Highway Patrol brought up. Not the Carver County Sheriff's, that a car got stalled on West 78th and then vehicles ' did have to go up on the curb to go around. I came out of Market Blvd. just this week, over the weekend, and a front end loader Bobcat, a rather large one. I believe it was the City that was being used to clear sidewalks or something. I ' don't know what it was. It went out Market and took a left to go west and I couldn't get around it. It was moving very, very slow. It was moving as fast as it could. Traffic was building behind me but it was over on the curb and just kind of hobbling along. But some of those concerns that frustrate people. I bring it up because they frustrate people. They frustrate me somewhat. If we need in fact to look at the implications of further development downtown. If in fact we have a roadway system that's adequate. That's safe. I've had sufficient feedback from people to say that they're telling me it's not and how t much we need to work. Are we going to tear down all of downtown? Again, I'm in no way suggesting that today but what I'm saying is, find out maybe what is going to be our eventuality here and what we can do to make it more comfortable 11 for people to come into town and go through town to do business, etc.. I'd like to see that discussion on a future agenda item like that means a whole lot. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Like March 12th right? Councilman Boyt: Why don't you refer it to Public Safety? 11 51 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Councilman Workman: That'd be an idea too. Maybe Public Safety, maybe have I their police officers on Public Safety could study that. It's definitely a problem. I'm definitely getting feedback from it and people are mad about it. I'm thus duly transferring their frustration to City staff. I Jim Chaffee: There's a deputy on right now who would love to come down and talk to you about that. , Councilman Workman: Well have him swing by the house. HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. ' Councilman Workman: Heritage Park Apartments. Gary, you went into some detail on why this all happened. My question is, and I'm going to relate this to the hotel and this is why the hotel has been getting scrutinized so much because we put so much effort, HRA, City Council and money in tax increment dollars, etc. and what happens is it starts getting built and everybody goes, did we approve that or what happened there? That's why I'm a little leery about is the canopy going to be there on the hotel or wasn't or isn't, how's it going to look? We approve one thing and we get another. What is our recourse against this? We're not going to tear down the apartment building. What is our recourse to developers who do contrary to what we approve? Gary Warren: The City Attorney has advised me on a number of occasions that we have the ability to make then put it back the way it was supposed to be. Councilman Johnson: That's not reasonable. Gary Warren: Well I'm just telling you and Roger please correct me if I'm misspeaking here. Roger Knutson: Theoretical possibility. We all know it is not practical. Councilman Johnson: Did we approve the blueprints? The building plans? I Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Not we the City Council but we the staff. Building 1 inspectors when the actual plans came in and those plans had the building now higher than it was approved on the site plan? Gary Warren: These plans have a very tainted past as fax as that. The developer in a meeting we had tried to protray the picture here that we had one submittal and everything was complete and bang, it was approved and that was not the case and that's part of the problem that we've lived with on a lot of these projects is that, and you're even seeing it here with Country Suites is that whether it's the necessary process or what I don't know but we are constantly plagued, staff is, by changing plans. By revisions. Modifications. Improvements in a lot of cases. It's not all bad, to the point where we almost don't know what...the developer who went into basically was making a utility connection out there to Chan View and we had specifically a condition of approval that required him to submit a separate utility plan to the City Engineering department for approval prior to commencing with it. Well, that was never done and with the way things went, it wasn't until after that we caught up I 52 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 with the fact that he was connecting to Chan View and we had not yet had a chance to address the fact that we wanted the storm sewer to go down into the other part of the city storm sewer system which we did rectify at a later date by extending in fact the change order on the north side parking lot. One of the elements of that was the City extended storm sewer to intercept and we modified ' their storm sewer charges as a result of that. It is a sorted past and this 1'8" difference, there were some changes that went on in the shuffle there that I'm not totally clear on just how it all went down. ' Councilman Workman: When we're standing out in these neighbors yards on Chan View talking about a fence that didn't quite work out and now that fence apparently is 8 inches shorter than they were promised and some of these little ' things that you're standing in their yard and they're pointing up at that thing and it is overshadowed and they're going, we don't ever remember that it was proposed to be that high. Well, they were right by 2 feet. It doesn't sound like a lot out of a project and everything else but they were right and it ' starts to get a little embarrassing and I'm not blaming engineering and everything else. It's a complicated business but 2 feet is way off. I mean that's way off. I thought construction was more of a precision art or did somebody purposely try to deceive us? Gary Warren: I don't mean to imply that it was a mistake in the field. It's built deliberately at the elevation that it is. The plans, and Steve Kirchman in checking through the plan submittals on this after the fact, there was a plan that came in that showed a 2 foot difference in elevation from the previous set that they actually shrunk to 1'8" by taking out 1 block course of block in the 11 basement for the parking garage and that's how it came to 1'8" instead of 2' but that was kind of a plan submittal to Steve in the building department that was pretty harmlessly submitted and there was no big fanfare about hey, you guys we decided we've got to raise the building 2 feet. It was only in looking back that we really found that that was the case. Councilman Johnson: Was that noted under revisions? Gary Warren: I don't recall. You mean on the revision block on the plans? Councilman Johnson: In the revision block on the plans, when you make a fundamental change like that, whatever engineer signed that plan, without that on there, I think maybe the Board of Engineering examiners should be informed of ' this. Paul Krauss: Typically you don't get that kind of a notice and they hand you a ' sheet with a packet of 30 or 40 sheets in it as a guessing game. Catch me if you can basically. Councilman Workman: And then the developers are all in here telling us to trust ' them. I don't know, I'm not going to beat this point into the ground. I'm just saying, we are, the hook is out there. Do this hotel. Do this. Do that and they snag us and then boy, it's never we're going to do better. We're going to improve this. We're going to put brick on now rather than plywood from Plywood ' Minnesota. It's never an improvement. It's always you know. We need to start asking for the Crystal Palace so that we get something half decent. You know Mr. Kurver's has a point. We got to start building some quality buildings that are going to last a long time so our great grand children will see it and it 53 N City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 will be falling apart. I Councilman Boyt: For what it's worth, we tried. I tried to get brick on that building since we were paying over half a million dollars in subsidy to that building and I couldn't get it. I think this is a really good discussion. The Planning Commission has tried a few times to get same kind of construction standard for exteriors. A number of communities around here have it. We don't to speak of. I think Eden Prairie has a brick or better. Paul Krauss: Bloomington does. , Councilman Boyt: Bloomington has a brick. We could do this kind of stuff if we just lay it out ahead of time. I Councilman Workman: The plain and simple fact and it's been my thread through this whole council meeting tonight. I apologize for boring everybody but is that I kind of feel like we're getting took in so many cases and that's why I load up the Council presentations. We're getting took. We took ourselves on West 78th maybe. I don't know. Or whoever was on the Council but we got to start, that's the whole HRA argument. Stop getting took and led down this golden path and then all of a sudden, we have so much invested and we're doing such a good job to help somebody do a good job but on the other side, they're kind of trying to get by as cheaply as possible and they're business people and we just kind of, oh, okay. Okay. Okay. We agree is down and then the next thing you know we've got something that's a little bit not what we wanted. Mayor Chmael: I think what we're going to have to do is start sticking to your I guns. Say this is what we want. Councilman Johnson: Especially on these blueprints, insist upon a written list I/ of all revisions on new submittals. They make a submittal to correct the landscaping and within that submittal they've raised the building 2 feet and don't bother mentioning it, it'd be very difficult for staff to catch that. The submittal on the West 78th Street set of blueprints for all that work was over 50 pages long of blueprints. Each Council member didn't get it to review it. We had to care up to City Hall here instead of giving everybody 50 pages of blueprints and review then. I reviewed those things and I never noticed that the darn old city hall was crooked in going through there. I massed that completely. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may just real quickly. There's a procedural 1 issue in here as well that I would hope that we learn from and that is that we spend a lot of time in terms of the design for that entire facility and it includes the HRA and what it would look like and I think if I showed you the original set of plans and how the architecture was established for that where literally the building moved on around it, had some real character to it. Those had all been approved. Were literally down to the timeframe of issuing permits I and the developer came back in front of just the City Council saying well, this really isn't economical for us to do it in this fashion and they showed what would be the, I'll call it the plain Jane model that you have out there today and we approved it. I would hope that we learned from those types of mistakes too in terms of not allowing someone to literally cane in in the last minute and make those types of changes. I know Bill did fight for the brick issue but as important to me was they changed the entire architecture of that structure. It 54 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 was very dramatic and it would have made a major change as that project affected neighboring properties. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably covered the subject quite well. Councilman Workman: Can I continue on my other two items quickly before you do or do you want me to take a break? ' Mayor Chmiel: What other two items? Councilman Workman: My Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and my resolution. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Go ahead. ' Councilman Workman: Ursula and I today spent most of the day down at the State Capital lobbying the legislators and speaking to a press conference of the tobacco free 2000 group which was very well attended by the Press, both ' nationally and locally, to keep the legislators mits off of our vending ban. They see it as kind of a fix it to take care of everybody and they want to pre-empt what we've done and kind of water it down to where Jay wants it. I ' think we did a real good job of saying no. Please leave our, number one leave it alone. We think it's a good idea. Number two, don't take away our right as a city to dictate what we want to do in our community because we think we can do a better job than the legislature can but I was presented with a draft resolution basically saying that, I won't read it to everybody but I'd hope that we could have it in our packet next meeting to send along, and that might be too late. Councilwoman Dimler: That's too late. They're going to consider it on the 9th wasn't it? ' Don Ashworth: We have a special meeting on March 5th. Councilman Workman: Maybe for March 5th. Just a resolution saying, let us continue with the powers that we have as a City Council to make these decisions. If you want to read the resolution, I won't read it through. March 5th, maybe we can pitch it. ' Mayor Chmiel: March 6th. Councilman Johnson: Or we can waive our things and do it today. I haven't read it yet. Councilman Workman: Would you like me to read it? Councilman Boyt: It's after 11:00 and we've still got plenty of agenda items. ' Mayor Chmiel: Let's move it on. Councilman Workman: Well I think it's something that's important that I don't want to... Councilman Johnson: Let's get it on the March 6th agenda. I 55 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Workman: This is something that can be delivered to legislators and I will do it personally. Councilwoman Dimler: It might end up on their agenda before March 6th. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well just read what you have. Councilman Workman: Okay, quickly. The Council, the City of Chanhassen ' considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 currently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature contains a clause that would pre-empt local government from controlling the placement of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the common Council urges the legislature to reject a pre-emption clause and allow the City to join many other cities currently considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending machines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. Pretty straight forward. Mayor Chmiel: What you're going to have to do is waive it first. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to waive the Rules of Council Procedure to vote on a Council Presentation item. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #90-23: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to 1 approve the following resolution: The City of Chanhassen considers tobacco vending machines within the City to be it's responsibility as part of their basic authority to enact health and safety ordinances for it's citizens. House File 2042 and Senate File 1923 currently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature contains a clause that would 11 pre-empt local government from controlling the placement of tobacco vending machines. Resolve that the common Council urges the legislature to reject a pre-emption clause and allow the City to join many other cities currently considering restrictions and the location of tobacco vending machines to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: What I hope to do then is get this to every member of the commerce catnittees in both the House and the Senate. Thank you. Lastly, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, I think maybe all of you saw it. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has got a new little committee. General Advisory Committee. I contacted Don Ashworth and the City Planner about what maybe that's all about. Something that the City would be interested in having somebody on it. You've all got the information sheet on it. Councilman Johnson: I filled it out already. I Councilman Workman: Ch, you want to be on it then? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. !I 56 City Council Meeting - February 26; 1990 Councilman Workman: Okay. I thought you didn't have enough time and the HRA would give you a problem and now you want to get on... Councilman Johnson: That also goes right along with what I've done the last 15 years. ' Councilman Workman: Well what I've done is I've also filled it out and maybe we can compete one another. I've talked to Gloria Veerling. She's our representative on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. I've talked to 1 Marcy Waritz and Dirk DeVries about it a little bit so they know that my intentions are there and we can talk about it later. Councilman Johnson: I was about to talk to them too but I haven't had time. Councilman Boyt: Where do you guys find the time? ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, next item on the agenda is the updated drug awareness program which we did discuss the last time. But in detail I'd like from Jim, do you have it available there? I asked Jim to, he and I worked together to cane up with proposals as to what we should have in this particular commission. Specifically why tomorrow we're also presenting this at the Chamber of Commerce along with Margie Karjalehti with, you've got to be kidding, on that specific item. Why don't you take it away and just go over it Jim. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, meters of the Council. You may remember that we did discuss this at the last Council meeting only briefly. Just to give you a little history behind it. We look at a 3 pronged approach from a public safety standpoint in drug enforcement, drug awareness type of situations. First prong 11 ago course is enforcement. The City got involved in that approximately 2 years ago with the joining of the joint task force, Southwest Metro Joint Drug Task Force. That was the enforcement arm of it. Part of that triad if you will then became prevention and you may renerber that, I think it was in October we had ' the Cities Fight Back Against Drug Week. That was considered part of the prevention approach. Mayor Chmiel's been very instrumental in pushing us forward in the prevention area. This is part of that, the second prong of this ' 3 prong approach and again in the prevention area. What we are proposing is a task force made up of 6 to 8 junior and senior high students. One public safety representative. One city attorney representative. Two council rarbers. A county representative and that would be somebody, we're looking at from say l community services chemical dependency. We're looking at a county sheriff representative. A school district representative. A Chamber of Commerce representative. One or both local legislators. In addition to, we are looking at members of clergy. This is right now in the planning stages. Mayor Chmiel: And also the media. Jim Chaffee: And the media, right. Since we have 2 of them sitting over there. It will be a joint effort for this group to get together and we've talked about possibly on a quarterly basis to be a guiding force for us in the 1 community and specifically us in public safety. Directing us to what the problems are. What they see as solutions possibly to helping us prevent the situation we are now enforcing. Just to briefly expound on the treatment approach which is the third prong of the 3 prong area. If you remember the 57 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 r President in his State of the Union address and the Governor in his State of the ,11 State address, address the drug issue. Basically that address covered the treatment. Monies have not been freed up as of yet from Ms. Mavey for that area but we are looking to possibly get some monies available for us in treatment. Once that is available, we'll have this 3 prong approach and hopefully be able to make a dent in the drug probler, in the community. Right now it's just open for discussion to see if anybody has any comments or questions or concerns regarding this. As Mayor Chmiel said, tomorrow we're presenting this to the Chamber of Commerce and then on March 6th we are meeting with members of the clergy in the community to go over sane of these issues. , Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? None? Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we not put the City Attorney on there unless he's going to work for free. Mayor Chmiel: He might do that. I Councilman Boyt: We don't have him on our other commissions or task force or whatever. ' Councilman Workman: Could it be a city, a person in the city who's an attorney who would want to. I Mayor Chmiel: That could be also. Councilman Johnson: It could be the County Attorney. That's where the prosecution comes from. Mayor Chmiel: We could have one person serve two different functions. , Jim Chaffee: I think it was a typographical error. It should have been one attorney from the city. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I think where it says Chamber of Commerce representative. What you're really talking about is a local business representative who may or may not be in the Chamber of Commerce? , Jim Chaffee: Correct. Councilman Boyt: And somewhere in here and I know it's a rather lengthy , document but before the task force is formed, what I'd like to have them do is came up with 2 or 3 or 4 objectives. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly what will be done. But I think that particular committee should be the people to come up with that. Councilman Boyt: Or somebody but very early on before the thing becomes official we should have some objectives so we know what we're approving. Mayor Chmiel: The next thing that I had too was, and I'm going to discuss it rather briefly. April 22nd is going to be National Earth Day and that I would like to see us do something to enhance the City and see if we can get people in planting trees or very possibly to acquiring seedlings. If we can get bare root I 58 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 and look at maybe getting that to see if we can get out to the community. Don Ashworth: I just happen to be reading on that. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Then maybe we can discuss it next Council meeting. Councilman Johnson: I think the recycling committee wants to do something for Earth Day too but right now we're rather busy on just trying to get the containers out. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: At the last meeting of the Board of Adjustments, staff became aware of the fact that members are annually appointed and that we have not reappointed them thus far. I must apologize for the emission was mine. I've since spoken to Willard Johnson and Carol Watson. They're here tonight. They ' have indicated a desire to be re-appointed. We did not advertise for the position but we're not aware of anybody waiting in the wings looking to get on the board. I guess we're seeking your input tonight. If you wish us to advertise, we certainly will. Otherwise we do have two members willing to serve. Mayor Chmiel: And I appreciate the two members that we have but I think to again be consistent with what we've done, I think we should go through the advertising process. Just go and see if there's anyone else out there. I doubt whether we're going to find anyone but I think we should go through that ' process. Councilman Boyt: I think that when we do this, and I'd like to see us be ' consistent with all our ccx fissions when we do this, we should as part of the advertisement, indicate that the encumbants are seeking re-appointment. We used to do that in the past. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a little technicality. I had this resolution and it said for commission vacancies. Is the Board a commission? Is the Board of Adjustments considered a commission? tCouncilman Boyt: Probably not. Councilman Johnson: It's under a different set of rules. ' Mayor Chmiel: You might have a good point. ' Councilman Johnson: It's zoning. Councilman Workman: I'd like to approve these guys tonight. Councilwoman Dimler: It wouldn't be a lack of consistency. Councilman Boyt: But you're talking about the spirit of what you put into place. Although I think what I hear, and I would certainly join that, we're 59 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 , going to vote to reappoint these people. The spirit of what we were saying is I we want all these things to be open and out in the public. Personally I don't think we should be choosing whether it's the HRA or the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or our regular commissions. Everything ought to be the same. I Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that this resolution did not cover the Board or the HRA...? I Councilman Johnson: That hasn't been passed yet either has it? Councilman Boyt: Yeah it has. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you like to address that Roger? Are they considered differently and under different rules? Roger Knutson: As the resolution? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Roger Knutson: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is not a commission. It's maybe the wrong choice of words. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I agree with Bill. The spirit of it is I appointments. The HRA is not a commission either. We'd be saying that we're not going to advertise HRA. I Councilwoman Dimler: 'That's right though we aren't. Councilman Johnson: If it's not the council, we'd certainly want to advertise I the HRA. We haven't in the past because it's been Council. Mayor Chmiel: I think we should just go through the mechanics as I said originally and indicate in there that 2 existing board members are running for their position as well. Councilman Workman: Maybe with a brief description of what the Board of , Adjustments does. Councilman Johnson: Yes. And what qualifications we'll be looking for. I Experience in zoning matters. Mayor Chmiel: Can you condense that to small? Advertising rates are very minimal but. Councilman Johnson: This is not a board that you can afford to bring somebody on that doesn't know anything about zoning or city ordinances or anything. Councilman Workman: I think a description of what they do would deter people. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Paul do you have it? ' I 60 , City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Paul Krauss: Yes. Under the understanding though that the members can continue to serve until we... ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I thought the ordinance basically said no. ICouncilman Boyt: Well get the ad in the paper. They don't have one coming up anyway do they? Councilwoman Dimler: We're just complying with the spirit of the ordinance, or the resolution. ' APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE STUDY COMMITTEE, PUBLIC SAFETY. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, on December 4, 1989 the Public Safety presented a proposal to Council recommending the establishment of a police study committee. At that time Council approved the concept with some revisions and quite frankly with some reservations. Since that time we advertised for two citizens at large to be appointed to this committee as directed by Council which is one of the revisions that they requested on December 4th. We have received only 2 applications after advertising twice for the positions. While looking at this, I started having second thoughts especially after reading some of the comments of the Council Minutes for that night. Consequently, it's my recommendation that we re-evaluate the need for a police study committee and make recommendations to you at the Council meeting on March 12, 1990. Part of my reasons behind that, and just part of them, is that our crime rate is down. Things are in harmony with the Sheriff's Department, the State Patrol and the Public Safety Commission at this time. We are a tool of the City and the ' citizens at large. We do what you want us to do. If you are comfortable with what we're doing, and I think you are at this time, then we are comfortable. I am not in a position now or do I think I'm going to be in the near future, to make any recommendations of local police department. As a matter of fact, again with the comfort level the way it is right now, the crime rate down, I think somebody's doing something right. We are. The Sheriff's Department. State Patrol. I certainly will look at alternatives within the contract system, itself, i.e. maybe an added deputy for 1991 but again this will be done through the efforts of Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry and Sheriff Al Wallin. I will propose an expansion of the contract if I see a need. Again, I think you might have even read in the local edition of the Villager, our crime rate is down. Our population is up. Somebody's doing something right. Basically I presented this as a discussion item for tonight with a full report to be brought back to Council again on March 12, 1990. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Jim. Councilman Johnson: Sounds logical. Don Ashworth: Did the Council act then on the committee? Maybe I missed that. Mayor Chmiel: No. It's going to be brought up on March 12th's agenda. Don Ashworth: So it goes back onto March 12th? Okay. 61 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: W i as t p ublished? Councilwoman Diarler: No. We don't have to publish it. I Don Ashworth: This, as it appears here in front of you was published to the best of my knowledge. I Councilman Johnson: So we could take action? Don Ashworth: You could take action if you wanted. I Mayor Chmiel: Jim mentioned March 12th so let's go with that. 1 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW, SET DATE FOR FINALIZING BOARD ACTION, CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: We've already set the first meeting for the Board of Adjustments to occur for May 15th. I think we had a special time on that. I really do not think that you're going to have that many people in on either the 15th or the 28th. I think last year we had a number of people in on the initial session but by the time we got into the last meeting, the assessor had met with most of the people and I think you were down to just the 2, 3, 5 people who attended. Accordingly, I think that we could take care of the second meeting as a part of our regular Council agenda. I would look to May 28th but in doing that, I would like to be able to work with the Mayor to determine whether or not an early start was necessary or not. I won't know for another 30 days how big that agenda will be for May 28th and if possible, we should be able just to start it at 7:30 and be able to take care of all of our business including the Board. But if necessary, I'd like to work with Don and potentially set 6:30 or 7:00 if it appears as though an early start is necessary. Councilman Johnson: Are we meeting the 28th? I thought that was, because that's Memorial Day. I thought we had modified the month of May to first and third? Councilman Boyt: No, one of them is right at the end of the money. I Mayor Chmiel: The 28th is Memorial Day. How about Tuesday the 29th? Councilwrxr►an Dimler: We already moved it to another date. Don Ashworth: I'll report to the City Council Tuesday what night you picked out and verify with the Assessor if that night's okay with him. DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. I Paul Krauss: On several occasions in the past... Mayor Chmiel: Is this brief Paul? Paul Krauss: I think the discussion with it might be rather lengthy. 62 1 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: I thought there was a lot of thought put into this and I appreciate your going through it. Paul Krauss: We're putting this on basically I should add as an informational item to get some direction from Council. It's not a matter that we've discussed ' with the Board of Adjustments. I mentioned it to them tonight and they're interested in it obviously and they're here. Nor have we discussed at the Planning Commission some of the changes we're proposing would affect them as well. Basically we're bringing it to you and if you tell us you don't want us to proceed with it, we'll drop it but it appeared to us in the past that there was some desire to have some flexibility on it in the variance procedure that is not now allowed. Working with the City Attorney we felt that that could be offered while still keeping with the intent of the variance procedure and not violating it. There's been a lot of discussion about State enabling legislation changing how we conduct ourselves with variances and it may in fact do that but ' it's not clear to us at this point what it's going to do or when it's going to do it. That enabling act is kicked around now for almost 3 years and it still isn't adopted and in the short session this year, it's probably not likely to ' either. What we propose that you look is revised language for the hardship criteria. The other thing that we propose that you look at is amending the procedures in terms of who reviews variances and when. We find that for normal ' variances, the one's we had on tonight. The home setback, the shed setback... one or two variances. I think it ultimately came down to one variance for a road grade but that was a variance the Planning Commission and City Council considered in the context of the subdivision. If you just take the variance out of context and put it before the Board of Adjustments, I don't know that you're giving that project a fair shake. There may be other things that you considered in developing that recoimendation. Also, there's the matter of time and how we ' bounce a developer back and forth or an individual back and forth for that matter. In the case of Vineland Forest, it went through the Planning Commission. There were no variances there. It went to the City Council. It ' got bounced back because we were looking at roads. A variance materialized. At that point we have to tell the developer, well the City Council likes it but we'll have to get the Board of Adjustment to approve it so it goes back on one of their agendas. Frankly the process is not unworkable but it's a little clunky and other communities have found ways to work around it and we propose one of those ways of doing that. And again we're just throwing this out for discussion purposes and we'll take our cue from you on this. .. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Roger., what is the status of the variance thing that we discussed sane time ago with some of ' the State changes that were going to be? Roger Knutson: It's part of the rewriting of the entire land use laws. The current draft, it sits in the legislature today would not allow flexibility. That was in an earlier draft that has been now put aside. Now that's just going to hearing, will be going to hearing. It hasn't gone to hearing yet and how it finally works it's way out is anyone's guess. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone lobbying for the previous, for the earlier one? Roger Knutson: Yes. Me. 1 63 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's why I was asking the question. .11 Paul Krauss: There's also a number of communities lobbying against it for various reasons. Roger Knutson: The only content I have made, acting as a private individual, is that I like to see cities have the discretion to set standards that they think is subject to their community. Not that I think the standards for variances should be tough or weak or anything else. Just a courtesy to City Council to set those standards. There are others who say, and I've argued at length about it, that there's a real need for State uniformity on this issue. My response to that has been, anyone who has gone to more than one city council and seen how various city councils handle variances has realized that there is no state consistency now anyway. Except some city councils like to play by the rules and a more liberal interpretation of it. Councilman Johnson: And after the next election, that changes too. , Councilman Boyt: I'd like to mention a couple things if I might. Some difficulties I see with this. First, in your description Paul of the process, that's exactly what we're doing today. What you're proposing. Everything doesn't go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Paul Krauss: That's true but I'll leave it to Roger, the way the ordinance is ' structured right now, it probably should. Councilman Boyt: Okay, but it doesn't. So what you're proposing is to bring this in line with what we're actually doing? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Councilman Boyt: Which makes sense. Boy, the desire to have some kind of reasonable flexibility, that's very tempting. What I find though in some of your comments here. Reasonable use is further defined as use cam►only made by other properties in the district. Mayor Chiel: What page are you on Bill? ' Councilman Boyt: That's page 3, the second line fran the top. The question that I had was, what if the surrounding properties all have non-conforming uses which in fact our ordinances say that non-conforming uses can't be perpetuated if they burn down or whatever. Are we really gaining flexibility there? Councilman Johnson: It certainly would have helped us clean up Carver Beach. 1 Paul Krauss: The variance would not apply to the use of the property. It would apply to standards applied to that property. Carver Beach is a good case in ' point. If everybody is on a 7,000 square foot lot, you make the new person to come in to have a 15,000 square foot lot or do you take those 7,000 square foot lots into consideration? I think the way these are structured it would encourage you to take that into consideration. Councilman Boyt: Well there's the advantage. I think of the Lake Riley situation that we just extended here. There certainly is an advantage to say 64 1 ' City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 well nobody on either side of the sky has side setbacks either so we're really putting this house into one that fits. And it would be nice to have someway to do that. I'm just real concerned that what we end up doing is creating, is we can't fix a problem. ' Councilman Johnson: It makes it worse. Councilman Boyt: So that's one issue that I'd sure like you to look at before we pursue this a whole lot further. Then under your proposed point A at the ' bottom of page 3, literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means the property cannot be put to reasonable use. Well, to me that means anything can fit in there because you then go on to say ' reasonable use because of size, physical surrounding, shape or topography. Tell me something you left out? We're really saying, if I can't do what I want to do with my piece of property, then I can do it because this says I can. Undue hardship. Is it undue hardship if I can't have my deck? ' Mayor Chmiel: Might be. Councilman Boyt: Well it isn't currently. Paul Krauss: No, but I think this allows you to, you've got exercise this with ' great caution. When we had that variance and I forget who the applicant was on Lake Riley, you and I had a long discussion about what was a reasonable use of the property. In the staff report I had recommended that it be approved because 1 it was reasonable to think that they should have a 3 bedroom house with a deck same as other people had on adjoining lots. I remember Councilman Boyt that you had some concerns with that theory and there was another method found to approve it but I think that this wording would allow us to take those things into ' consideration. If you think a reasonable use of a lot is not the bare minimum's 900 square foot residence that satisfies building code but is rather what the normal Chanhassen resident probably has a right to expect to live in. This would allow you the latitude to approve those sorts of variances. Councilman Boyt: Well somewhere in here, there's two things that happened with a variance at least. one of them is that we allow somebody to make reasonable t use of their property. The other one is, we protect surrounding property owners by giving them the protection of our zoning laws. All I'm saying is that we've got enough problems with our current interpretation of our variance ordinance. ' To now come in and say, any undue hardship for any of these reasons, I maintain that the way A is written right now, anything can pass. Councilman Johnson: I don't like the last sentence of A. Reasonable use is a use compionly made by other properties in the district. Again, look at Carver Beach. That says we're just going to perpetuate those non-complying things. Commonly the sheds are up against the property line so the one we're talking ' about today, under this would say that's fine. In Carver Beach there are no setbacks. 1 Mayor th iel: Yeah, but at that time Jay when they had those right at the property line, it was permitted. Councilman Johnson: Is it but it's now non-conforming so a new guy could come in and ask to put it right at the property line today where what we should be 1 65 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 working towards is, when somebody's shed's burned down, you don't rebuild it t within the setback. Kind of a crazy thing to think now but you don't perpetuate the non-conforming. , Councilman Workman: But in that situation Jay, it would take 200 years before people could all have their sheds off the property line. Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah. Councilman Workman: So why fight that? Why worry about it? ' Councilman Johnson: If you never start, it will never get there. If you start, you've got to take the first step of every journey and this is a journey towards bringing Carver Beach into compliance. You and I will not be alive when Carver Beach comes into compliance. Nobody will be. If we have a nuclear disaster and it clears out Carver Beach and gets replatted. Councilman Workman: Down on Lake Riley. Skinny little lots. Are they ever going to be in conformance? Councilman Johnson: Probably not. 1 Councilman Workman: In 400 years? Not unless all the houses burn down and they combine the lots. Councilman Johnson: But we need to keep bringing them up... Councilman Workman: I'm not defending this thing to the hilt but we need some 11 discussion on it and maybe tonight's not the night. Mayor Chmiel: I think what we have to do is have a reasonable way to try to 1 help and assist people put in some of their basic needs that they want to improve on their particular lot. Councilman Johnson: It has to be an improvement over. In a non-conforming district, which I think we can call several parts of this town as non-conforming districts. The majority of the houses in the district are non-conforming... any 1 variance has to be an improvement over the general district. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul put a lot of thought into this and I really, as I mentioned before, I commend him for it. Maybe some things that are not perfect in here but nonetheless there's been a lot of thought. Willard Johnson: We've been working in the Carver Beach a number of years. I'll I go along with Jay. We've been trying to make this hold to the city setbacks and I agree with Jay. We aren't going to get the 100% down there in Carver Beach but we're working at the places that are gradually coming in and I guess I think we can do it pretty good with what we've got. Councilman Johnson: I've seen improvement in the little time that I've been here. Willard Johnson: You'll get one like we got down there in Lake Riley occasionally but I feel we're doing pretty good with what we've got and you're 1 66 1 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 1 just going to have to work each one individually. That's from my experience being on the Board. I realize some of these people have got a hard situation but we get a 7,000 foot lot, sometimes we tell them hey meet city setbacks and by golly they do it. It cleans up an area. Because we had a guy, that guy that we've been fighting these last 2 meetings because everything goes in Carver Beach. That isn't the truth. I realize somebody throws up a shed without the ' City catching it and you're going to have that anyplace in the city. I can show you a lot and I wish the Council would all go and look at it. It's just down from me in the $350,000.00 bracket. I called City Hall on it. We've got a loophole in our own ordinance. My neighbor has discussed it and his cousin ' builds down behind the Catholic Church in Excelsior or Shorewood or whatever it is. Councilman Johnson: St. John's. Willard Johnson: Yeah, behind St. John's. He says, look at that lot right on ' Apple Road or Yosemite. That house is built right on the creek. I told him about it and he said well go around and look where the driveway goes in. That driveway is one car width going in so I called City Hall and they says well it borders on two streets. I wish the Council would all go and look at that one. It's a pie shaped lot and where he drives in, which I would consider his front on the cul-de-sac, can barely get in so no way in the world reach the part on Yosemite. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that is a loophole in our ordinance. Willard Johnson: Where the creek is, you can't fill the creek. So I guess what I'm saying is hey, he don't have the frontage on the cul-de-sac so I hope you can clean up your ordinances on your developments. ' Councilman Johnson: In this case, on the side there is street frontage. This is before Paul's time and he's sitting there looking. On the side that this lot actually has street frontage, so it has street frontage. It's got 90 foot of ' street frontage. It's non-accessible because there's a 40 foot deep creek there. Paul Krauss: There's a situation similiar to that in Timberwood. ...private driveway because the public platted road isn't built and you can't access it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I think I argued for both of those. I know I argued on the one over there by. Mayor C oriel: Sams direction I think Paul is looking for from us. Paul Krauss: I'd like to know if you want us to pursue it? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I want you to pursue it. Mayor C1-viel: Yeah. I'd like to see it pursued. At least that's my opinion. Councilman Boyt: Sure pointed out same areas that I think are real problem areas with it. I 67 City Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think it's going to be too loose with some of this 1 stuff. Councilwoman Dimler: We might want to tighten some up but we do want to give some more breathing room. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 I I I 11 1 I I 68 11