The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2004 08 23 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Justin Miller, Bob Generous, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Lloyd Janet Paulsen Dan Keefe 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Planning Commission PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody that's here this evening and those watching at home. Appreciate you joining us. At this time I would ask if there are any additions or changes to the agenda as it was published. If not, that agenda that was published will be the agenda we follow this evening. There are no public announcements, formal public announcements this evening. I would like to remind everyone that this coming Thursday, the 26th of August is Chanhassen Day at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. All Chanhassen residents will be admitted for free that day and there are programs starting in the morning and activities throughout the day so we announced at our last meeting and certainly would encourage people if they have any questions they can look at last week's Chanhassen Villager for information about it or contact City Hall. So that's this coming Thursday. Todd Gerhardt: May I just add, it starts at 10:00 a.m. Free wands and free Centennial books for the first 500 people. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Watering wands that would be. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: The consent agenda. These items will be considered as a single motion. If there's a desire for separate discussion on any particular item, that item can be removed City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 from the consent agenda for separate discussion so at this point I would ask if there's any desire to remove any items from the consent agenda for separate discussion. Andrew Hiscox: I'd like to. Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the microphone please and just. Andrew Hiscox: If you could move item (h) for discussion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. From a timing standpoint, I guess what's the length sir. If you could state your name and address for the record. Andrew Hiscox: Andrew Hiscox, 7500 Erie Avenue. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And do you have a question or discussion item. How long do you think the issue. Andrew Hiscox: I've been talking to the staff today and I just found out about this last week because we didn't get any notice of this, even though we live within 500 feet I think but. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Should we bring it, can we bring it up. When would make sense given your understanding of the length of time of our discussion. Okay. Why don't we, I guess my preference would be, since we do have some other people here for some public hearings, if we can bring it up at the end of new business. Andrew Hiscox: That's fine. Mayor Furlong: Item number 5. We'll bring (h) down to there unless there's objection. Hearing none. Thank you. Any other items wish to be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve consent agenda, all items listed excluding item (h)? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 3,2004 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated July 27, 2004 b. Resolution #2004-57: Call for Public Hearing for 2005 MUSA Feasibility Study, Project 04-05. c. Approve Street Name Change of Pauly Drive to Market Street, LUR File 03-17. 2 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 d. Resolution #2004-58: Accept Street and Storm Sewer Improvements for Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition, Project 02-07. e. Approve Renewal of License Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for Chanhassen Disposal Site. f. Approve Street Name Change of Golden Glow Court to Golden Court, Project 03- 10. J. Approval of Release of Tree Preservation Easement, Lot 1, Block 1 Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition, 7210 Gunflint Trail. k. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for the Placement of a BoardwalkIDock across an Ag/Urban Wetland to Provide Access to Lake Lucy; 6745 Lakeway Drive, Matthew and Suzanne Woods. I. Resolution #2004-59: Accept Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in Vasserman Ridge, Project 02-10. m. Resolution #2004-60: Authorization for Fund Transfers. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATES. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening. I brought Deputy Keith Walgrave with me this evening to introduce to the City Council. Keith has been with the Carver County Sheriff s office since 1991 and works day shift in the city. Keith's had a variety of responsibilities since he's been with the sheriffs office. He's been a corporal, a canine handler with a puppy named Titan who is now retired who was a very good dog. He was also one of the first crime scene technicians with the county when we started that program. He was also with the Certeam for a period of time so he's had a variety of different responsibilities since he's been with us. Keith has always been one of the highest ticket writers that we've had in the county, and is very motivated, conscientious and passionate about what he does, and does a very good job with that. I've had many complimentary remarks from city staff referencing the job Keith does and the passion and commitment that he shows to the citizens of Chanhassen and that's important. I'm very glad that Keith works in Chanhassen. I don't know Keith, if you have any questions for Keith at all. Keith Walgraves: First of all I just want to say, I appreciate working in this city. I think it's an honor. It's a growing city. Some of the guys on the west end don't have a desire to work in Chanhassen because it's too urban and too busy but this is what I like. I mean this is what I wanted to do since I was a small child. I grew up next to a state trooper so I kind of envied this guy and what he did, but now in Chanhassen, it's very busy. There 3 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 are many, many days that you don't get your breaks in. You're going from one call to another and inbetween calls, I like to hit the traffic problems because I know that's a number one concern that we have within the city so there's a couple areas that I do target quite a bit. Councilman Ayotte: Don't say what they are. Don't say what they are. Keith Walgraves: Exactly. So I think it's an honor to work in the city. I remember in 1991 when Byerly's was a farm and they tore the farm down and started building. It was before Target even got here and Market Square so I've watched the city grow and I think it's a great city not only to live in but to work in as well. Mayor Furlong: Great. Any questions? Very good. Deputy, thank you. Appreciate your servIce. Sgt. Jim Olson: I invited Keith to talk earlier today. Again he normally works day shift then he got tied up in a search warrant that the drug task force was doing and I was kind of sweating what time he was going to get here, but he made it on time so that's a good thing. I'd like to next move to the Sheriff s monthly report. Total calls for service were up by 101 for the month compared to last year, and then for the year they're up by 252. Criminal calls however were up just by 1 for the month and they're down by 76 for the year so that's a good thing from the criminal aspect of it. We did have a pretty good jump in thefts from vehicles last month. Weare working on that and there are a few things that we're working on putting the plate or trying to solve some of those. In fact I'm going out to another jurisdiction tomorrow where they've recovered some property, some of which was taken from car calls of Chanhassen so we hope to solve a few more of these shortly. Animal calls were up by 20 for the month. Medicals were up by 12. Miscellaneous non-criminal was up by 36. Suspicious activity was up by 39. And I think some of that is attributable to the thefts from vehicles also. I think that's somewhat tied in. Traffic stops was down by 37 for the month compared to last year. However we have had a bit of an increased presence in neighborhoods due to thefts. And citations were 156 for the month of July. Any questions at all in reference to numbers for the month? Councilman Peterson: Do you think there's a correlation between citations being issued, being a little bit lower than average and calls for service being up? When calls for service go up, do citations normally go down? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Deputies are busy taking calls, taking reports, things like that, then they don't have as much time to spend on traffic so yeah, I think there is a correlation. Councilman Ayotte: With the vehicle break in's that we had in a couple of neighborhoods, it seems like there was a blitz on our neighborhoods and they broke into a number of cars. Am I right in that? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. 4 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Councilman Ayotte: In a concentrated area? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Is it an anomaly or is it something that people are doing consistently wrong in their neighborhoods? Or is it gang related that they, that a gang has moved in or group has moved in to get into a neighborhood and break into the vehicles? Sgt. Jim Olson: I don't think it's gang related in the technical gang verbiage at all. You know a number of these have been from vehicles that are unlocked. They're going into unlocked vehicles. Open garage doors. They're going into vehicles where the garage doors are open. Vehicles are in the garages. We've had a number that were not thefts but people, you know somebody went into their cars and rifled through looking for things. I mean technically it's not a theft but we've had a number of those also. There haven't been a lot of damage to vehicles from people breaking into the cars themselves. It's been from unlocked vehicles, and I was actually going to talk about that a little bit in a couple minutes but I can't impress enough on people that they need to lock their cars. They need to take valuables out of their cars. If their car was in the driveway, take your garage door opener out of it. Bring it inside the house. That's a quick and easy access for people to open up a garage door. Most people who use garage doors to get into their houses, they don't lock their inside door, so all of a sudden the garage door opens up and they've got access into the house by the garage door opener so you know, take the garage door openers out. I can't impress that enough on people. We've had a large number of that. When this, you know when it comes to a point where this is not fruitful anymore for people, they're not getting anything, you know the doors are locked. They can't get in their cars, but they're not getting anything so I can't impress that enough for people. Any other questions on numbers at all? Councilman Ayotte: On the CSO report, are you going to hit that? Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure, I certainly can. Councilman Ayotte: How do you have animals at large 3 and impound 6? Were they rabbits? Sgt. Jim Olson: My guess is we get a call that there are animals that are running around, which would be animal at large versus an impound where they've got an animal that's contained. Mayor Furlong: There's still 3 out there. Sgt. Jim Olson: But we're looking hard so. Anything else on the CSO highlights? Okay. I just want to talk about a couple of recent cases that we've had. You referenced the Eisensen court case. All of the parties have been interviewed and the case is going to the County Attorney's office for charging so that case is pretty well wrapped up. And there will be some charges coming out of that. We recovered some stolen shot guns from a 5 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 residence in Chanhassen that were taken from a storage facility in Chanhassen. Or not a storage facility but a garage type of facility in Chanhassen, and there was one arrest that was made and then some charges that are pending from that. I'd also like to commend Detective Dan Kavo for some work he did on a case in 2002. There was some vending machines that were broken into at a business at Chanhassen and Dan is our, kind of our CSI guy. He's our crime scene, our head crime scene technician. Dan pulled some finger prints off of a couple of vending machines and was able to pin them to a person who was booked into our jail in January of2003. Because of his work, that party was just, has just plead guilty in the past month or so to a multiple thefts from businesses around, not only in the county but also around the entire metro area and he's looking at a 22 month sentence. He did a very nice job with that. And Dan is one of the better crime scene people that is in the area. He does a great job. We're lucky to have him. National Night Out and Safety Camp were both well attended and very successful. We had about 25 neighborhoods that participated in National Night Out and there was over 100 kids that were in Safety Camp. Kids, I was at both of them. Kids had a good time at Safety Camp and also the presenters and team leaders also had a good time working with the kids. Miracles for Mitch Triathlon was yesterday. They were expecting over 300 kids to participate. I did not see a final number but that also seemed to go very well. We're going to have a personnel change in the city. We're losing Ross Gullickson, Deputy Ross Gullickson to the City of Norwood/Y oung America. He is becoming their town cop. Ross lives out in Norwood/Young America and he will be a loss to the city and N orwood/Y oung America will be very happy to have him. We'll be getting Deputy Nate Mueller in place of Ross and Deputy Mueller has quite a bit of experience with McLeod County Sheriff s office. Has been... and working here for a bit now and Nate will also do a very good job here, so I look forward to having Nate come in. Anything else for sheriff s office at all? Mayor Furlong: Any other questions of Sergeant Olson? Very good, thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Have a good evening. Mayor Furlong: Next report is from the fire department. Chief Geske's here this evening. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. I guess I'll start out with, their calls are up. Our's are continuing to be down so it's working real well. In the last week I guess we did have an up swing of calls. We've been a little bit busier. We did have one house fire that was, came in as a structure fire about a week ago here and that was a ceiling fan that had over heated in the bathroom and people in the household that recognized it I guess and they extinguished it so that was good. We did have a couple arson, or we did have an arsonist burn down a couple of our Satellites in the park, but that was the first one this year. It seems to happen occasionally. We do have those in the park. Not much left to find, do much investigation on those. We have prosecuted some people in the past on that but not much left on that one. We've provided mutual aid to both Eden Prairie and Victoria since the last update that I've had. Started some dialogue with Eden Prairie Fire Department with the upcoming Settlers Ridge development. That is an area that we 6 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 actually have to go through Eden Prairie to provide fire service for so if there's something that we could set up automatic aid with them possibly until in the future we do get a south station that we can respond to in a quicker manner so working with them on starting some dialogue there. Starting to plan for our open house and fire prevention week in October and we also did participate in the National Night Out and Miracles of Mitch Triathlon here also in the last week so. Mayor Furlong: Great, good. Any questions? I've got just one. I noticed it was put up there, if we can get that put up on a bulletin board. Just real quick question, if you could pan out a little bit. Chief Gregg Geske: You're not going to ask me what that look on my face was. Mayor Furlong: No, I'm just wondering if you can tell the council here which two boys are having the most fun. Chief Gregg Geske: Actually they're my two sons so, in the picture. Hopefully you can tell which ones are my sons but. And Larry actually took that picture and we were having fun with them and asked who's kids they were and found out they were mine so, but I think they had fun and we have a lot of people that had a lot of fun at the open house so we look forward to it and I think a lot of the fire fighters have fun at it too. We have a lot of fire fighters actually take time off during the fire prevention week to do the classes for the kids too so that's a great time and a time when we can get to meet people and a lot more fun time. Mayor Furlong: And remind us of the dates of the open house. That's in October? Chief Gregg Geske: Yes, it's actually the second week in October. It is in the Connection so you can take a look at the dates in the Connection there. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Good. Thank you Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO THE RURAL SERVICE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address George & Rick Dorsey Lori Day Doug & Michael Eckhoff Linda & Colin Rust Charles Thiss 1551 Lyman Boulevard 8229 Stone Creek Drive 7495 Saratoga Drive 8017 Cheyenne Spur 4090 Greenwood Circle 7 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mitch Anderson Al Klingelhutz Gail Degler 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 1630 Lyman Boulevard Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. The City is divided into urban and rural service districts for taxing purposes. Those properties that are colored on the map in dark shading are currently classified as rural service district. What this means is that for city, local taxes they're taxed at 75 percent of the rate of other properties within the community. Back in October we amended the ordinance that dealt with the 75 percent benefiting rate. At that time the council was uninformed and not ready to act on the actual list of properties that were in there. Now we're bringing this forward. Back in 1995 the city did put together a task force that acted in an advisory role for keeping, or for listing properties in the rural service district. They reviewed the list and at that time made the recommendation of the properties that are contained for resolution 1. Staff s reading of the ordinance requires that properties that are served or could be served by urban services really should not be listed in the rural service district and we created a second list that took out properties that were serviceable by these services. However in reviewing the whole rural service district we did an analysis of what the impacts were on the individual properties in the city at large for the taxing differential. The total differences are approximately $9,200 on all the property. Some changes in taxing under, in this year would have been $20 or less. Others were slightly higher. Based on the amount of staff time that are provided for this and the fact that many of these properties are in fact provided with urban type services, even though they're not fully developed, we would recommend that the entire list be removed and we no longer have a rural service district. I did send this staff report out to the task force members. A couple of them are here. Willard Johnson was going out of town. He did contact me and said that he would still go with their original recommendation that they maintain those properties. I had one property owner came in, Mrs. Bentz and she did provide a letter. She would like to keep her rural service designation. I have the one property owner that called me and said $21. Do I have to show up so that was the difference between what the designation did for his taxes and what the change would have done. The real difference in this is under the state and county guidelines. When they're classified as agricultural, the taxable value is lower than the assessed value and so that's really the big change that you see in that. So with that, staff is recommending approval of resolution number 3. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: Just to make it clear for me. Even though it would be insignificant in terms of tax at the city level, by changing this it could have an adverse affect on people at a county and state level. Is that what you said? Bob Generous: No. The County would still have the agricultural definition how they classify properties. They looked at use of properties in determining valuation. They would still be able to have the green acres program which relates to deferred assessments and keeping property values. 8 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Councilman Ayotte: So what we do tonight has no affect on the agricultural status. Bob Generous: Right. It doesn't change that. We're not changing the zoning or the land use on the property. We're just changing the rural and urban service designations. Mayor Furlong: Other questions from council? I guess point of clarification. Mr. Generous, you said these properties receive city services. Now there are some city services from my standpoint that I understand that are provided through the general fund which are provided by property taxes. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Police services, fire protection, parks, those types of things. And there are other services such as sewer and water that are provided outside of property taxes that are paid for through our enterprise funds or through fees. Everybody that's on city water gets a utility bill once a quarter. So this designation has nothing to do with the sewer and water economics of that because that's handled separately. This is strictly dealing with policing, fire protection, those types of services. Is that correct? Bob Generous: ... administrative. Mayor Furlong: Those that are funded through the general fund. Bob Generous: Right. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And of the $9,000 or $9,200 which is the difference that this provides to all these properties, if I' m reading it correctly on page 4 of your report, of that $9,000 the task force was already recommending $2,000 come out. Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Staff was recommending an additional $1,100 but now staff is saying you know, really the net is after you look at the task force, it's $7,000 difference for all these properties. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? This will be a public hearing and so we'll, let me open up the public hearing at this time. Receive comments. I see there are members from the task force here. I'm sure there are other interested parties that would like to come forward and discuss this so at this point I'll open up the public hearing, unless there are any other questions for staff beforehand. Seeing none, why don't we do that. I invite anybody to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address and address the council on this matter. Thank you. 9 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Gail Degler: I'm Gail Degler, 1630 Lyman Boulevard and a member of that task force. As a member of the task force we did review these properties and obviously the properties that we kept on the list are agricultural type properties. I think you have to understand why this rural service district was set up in the beginning. This was set up when the City ofChanhassen was in the process of annexing Chanhassen township. At that point negotiations went back and forth between the city and the township and one of the things that the city put in the charter you might say to get the agreement from the township, to get the votes you might say to be annexed to the city, was this rural service tax benefit. Obviously over the years I think it's worked as well as it could be. You do have the right, but just because you have the right to take that agreement away doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. This like I say was an agreement that was set up to get the township votes to be annexed to the city, and now after the township is dissolved you know I think you see where I'm coming from. I don't think it's the right thing to completely eliminate it. I think it should be revised as the task force has done and maybe even some of the additions that the staff has recommended. We do feel that agricultural properties do not need, do not require the same city services such as police protection and fire protection. Basic ag land is not going to have as many calls, as much need for those type of services as your residential, typical city lot would have. And also some of these parcels, I'd say all these parcels that have a residence on, each parcel is already paying a tax, a storm water tax that they receive no benefit from. That storm water tax was set up for city curb and gutter. Storm water treatment ponds. These agricultural areas do not have those so we are already being taxed for services that we do not currently utilize. Staff recommended or staff commented that it would be probably cost, or the benefit for the tax, the land owner would be approximately $20. Obviously $20 is not a lot of money but I think the good will that the city would be showing to those property owners is worth $20. Ijust want to clarify Al Klingelhutz was on the task force. When it came to voting for these, he did abstain from voting for his parcel obviously. I just wanted to clarify that. I would recommend that you stick with the task force recommendation and call the task force back, maybe on a yearly basis. Obviously the city is changing rapidly. Some of these parcels are coming out on a regular basis, as we all know. One of the parcels that I have just to comment on, the William and Vicky Goerr's parcel. Staff recommends taking that out because they are admittedly in the line, the MUSA line, but they cannot be served at this point unless they themselves would put in a lift station. Or the city would allow them to tunnel across Lyman Boulevard and hook up to the lift station. It's just a parcel and that's the reason it was left in ag at that point because it could not be served when the rest of the surrounding parcels were put into the, were developed I should say. So I don't want to ramble any more but I would recommend that you go along with the task force recommendation and call the task force back on a yearly basis to update the parcels. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question of clarification. Mr. Degler mentioned this was part of when the township was annexed. What year was that? Todd Gerhardt: It was about 40 years ago AI? Al Klingelhutz: Yeah. It was 1957-58. Something like that. 10 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: '57-58. Okay, thank you. If anybody else would like to come forward. Al Klingelhutz: Good evening Mayor, council people. I live on 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and if you drive by the farm, it's all planted in corn. I think the information you got from you is 7 and 6,800 acres that was being in the urban service but there's 10 acres of commercial property that is planted in corn too. Until Highway 212 is built, I don't think we're going to have much demand for commercial property along the interchange there... maybe somebody will want to come in and put some commercial in there. But prior to that time I don't think there's, I haven't had a call on my commercial property. I've had several calls on the stuff that's zoned residential but not a call on the commercial and I think the reason for that is that the traffic in that area, which has grown, doesn't warrant commercial property at this time. I did not vote on my parcel when we had our committee meeting. We did eliminate quite a few parcels of land that were under proposed development. Were before the city for development purposes. I hear a lot of talk from residents that speak to me and I think one thing that's really helped what a lot of people are thinking, and they're saying let's hold up a little on development and this is one way of being able to do it. If you're going to start taxing the rural people that still grow crops higher than previously, we're going to start looking more at developing that property immediately or as soon as possible. I think this is one way to slow it down a little bit. At least you keep some open land closer into the community here in downtown Chanhassen and the surrounding area. A lot of people this is, why doesn't the city buy your corner with the buildings and keep it as a historical site. Eden Prairie and a lot of communities has done that but I haven't even suggested it but these are things that people tell me. My son has the corn stand down there and I get down there quite a bit and they say hey, we don't want to see that piece ofland developed. One of the reasons we moved out here was open and you could see cattle in the farm yard and all these things but I think we'd make a mistake if we took the people out of the, and the MUSA area that are actually farming yet and growing the crops that they're supposed to be growing, to be in the rural service district, that the city would be making a mistake in doing that. It isn't a lot of money the city is gaining and it isn't much money that the farm land is gaining, but it's a little bit of incentives to still stay rural. And I think a lot of this land, and I can see developers coming out here and buying a piece of land and that's why the committee is in force because we go through every piece of land when we, we describe which land should stay in and which should stay out. And if it' s in the process of being developed, it's taken out immediately. But until that time it's rented out to different farmers and they're growing the crops on it that are supposed to be growing on it to be in the rural urban service district. Let's get back to what Gail came to. I know, and I was on the township board at the time and I got a lot of heat from a lot of farmers. Hey, we don't want to go into the City of Chanhassen. Our taxes will double. And when we came up with this idea, we got most of the votes from the farmers. I went to a lot of meetings with the farm people and tried to convince them that their taxes weren't going to be increased much. We do pay taxes on any bond issue that's passed and taxed. The fire department has a bond issue passed in the village of Chanhassen, we even accepted that they take that on as part of the rural taxes because we do need fire protections for our buildings. And how much protection does a cornfield need for fire or police? I think we probably had 11 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 one call at my place last year when one of the young ladies living in the house on the farm started a bon fire with a 40 miles an hour wind, and they did get down there and took control of it in a very short time. They weren't down there very long. I think that's the only time I've ever called, had the police or fire department come and assist on anything on my property. And I was very lucky they did because it was taking off pretty fast with a 40 miles an hour wind. It was going pretty strong but it didn't take them long to take care of it. Thank you fire department. They did a good job. They even had the big water truck down there and it leaked a lot of water and they got stuck. But I really believe it's something if you feel that you want to keep some open land in Chanhassen for an extended period of time, that you should keep it on the rural urban taxing district and not even eliminate the one in the MUSA line. If you've got any questions I'll be willing to answer them for you. But it took quite an effort at the time of the merger to convince these farmers that hey, it's going to be alright. We're establishing a rural urban taxing district. You won't be paying for any bond issues that are passed. We're accepting to help pay for any bond issue that the, or at least I called it at that time. There was only about 220 people here at that time. But the bond issue that they had passed for the fire station and some of the fire equipment at that time. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Any questions ofMr. Klingelhutz? Not at this time. Okay, thank you. Anybody else that would like to come forward at this time for the public hearing, please do so. Ifnobody's interested in talking, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Let's close the public hearing then and bring it back to council for comments or if there are additional questions. Councilman Lundquist: A couple of questions Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, Bob, the, just for clarification in the memo, the staff memo that we have. The first group of properties that includes the Westwood Community Church and those, those are properties that the task force recommended removing? Bob Generous: Be removed, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And the second group that's there is the ones that as a staff. Bob Generous: Were added to. Councilman Lundquist: Would add to that list, okay. And so anything that's not on those two lists, what's on the back of that first page then, staff s recommendation is to take obviously all of these out but then resolution 2 is to take the only thing that would be left would be these first properties minus these 2 lists right? Bob Generous: Correct. 12 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And of the ones that would be left with either resolution 1 or 2, any idea how many of those are actually being farmed by the actual property owners and not being rented out for revenue purposes? Al Klingelhutz: There's nobody left. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, there aren't? Al Klingelhutz: There isn't too many left. The only piece I can think of is the piece that the school bought... Mayor Furlong: I think Mr. Degler who spoke, Gail we know of one. Councilman Lundquist: You farm your's right? Gail Degler: I would say my father and mother are still actively involved in the operations. There's a lot of other pieces on that first, on that list that I farm, so it's hard for me to say that the owner. Obviously the owner's not farming because that's part of my operation. Without those parcels, my operation is not... Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: That's it for questions. Mayor Furlong: At this point. Thoughts, comments? Councilman Ayotte: Just the basic points are, that people are still farming the land and even though an individual who owns one piece may be farming another, the land is still farmed. Is that correct? Alright. And it was the deal that was struck in 1958 to trade off the township to bring the city along. That is right now a covenant as a result of what exists today, right? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Point of clarification, because we've talked about this a couple times over the last year so, the properties that staff was recommending to come out, even though the task force thought that they should stay in, those are properties within the municipal service area. They're technically within the line of services being provided. Bob Generous: With sewer actually available for them. It may not be to the house but it would be adjacent to the property. 13 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: For development to occur. It's there and available. And I didn't see it in this staff report. My recollection is in prior staff reports is that part of the ordinance or criteria that was put in place for what would qualify as rural service included, excluding properties within that area and is that what staff followed in terms of identifying their list? Bob Generous: That's correct. That's how we came up with the second set of properties to remove those that, oh let's see. The rural service district shall include only such on private lands which may not be contiguous to another, as in the judgment of the council at the time of adoption of the ordinance, are rural in character and not developed for commercial industrial urban purposes. And then rural in character specifically does not include properties served by public sewer and water. So that was in the ordinance... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Or comments. I guess no questions, discussion. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I think Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Degler and Mr. Klingelhutz clearly have articulated the historical need and a rationale for what the rural service district did years ago and I guess we discussed at the last work session the questions that I have and the concerns that I've got are the overall intent was to incent those owners of that land to let that land remain rural. And my sense is that the dollars that we're talking about, the $20 or 50 or the $100 per land owner certainly doesn't incent them now to keep it in a rural status. The program has it seems to me has run it's course because $100 or even $500 to the worth of that land owner isn't going to induce the, from my perspective, to stay rural. So then I look at the cost of us as a city staff to administer that program on a yearly basis is more than the value we're giving back to our citizens, so it's costing us more than we're giving back to our citizens, so there's a disconnect there for me that every year we let staff go through this and we get volunteers that go through us and that's costing us more than the $7,000 value that's going to our citizens so essentially, you know and I don't know whether the word subsidized. Are we subsidizing those individuals in some form or fashion? I guess we probably are. So my perspective is it's run it's course. It's costing us, costing the city money and the intent previously was to induce people to keep it rural, and I just can't fathom that happening anymore so I understand the original intent but I think that original intent has now run it's course. Unless I'm missing something again. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I think you know Councilman Peterson has and will always be a champion of dollars and cents and I hear his point. I like looking at the green. I like to see the green last until 212 comes through. And even though it isn't, the valuation to me isn't the tax part of things but some of the points that these two gentlemen mentioned did strike to me the common sense. I do like to see the area and I do think the farming is still going on and point in fact, if farming's going on, it equals rural. Therefore I'm going to go with number 1. 14 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: Well we talked about this at our work session. The concept of all of the administrative time that goes into this certainly was a big thing and it's kind of where I was kind of at the all or nothing again as we look at the incentive to stay rural, the intent of this. It turns out that there's probably only 1 or 2 or maybe 3 of these that are actually being farmed by the property owners, although there's still farming going on. That then becomes essentially a revenue source for those people who are renting out their land and probably the, if we were to take all these out of there, the bad thing probably Mr. Degler for you it's your rent just goes up by a few thousand dollars because you cannot bear the brunt of those. I would suspect those property owners would just pass that along to you. So certainly I think it makes sense if there's developments you know Westwood Community Church and Pulte Homes and some of these things that their's either have been developed or are going to be developed in the real near future so certainly we ought to remove those along with the task force and I think then the question in my mind is, is it worth the time and staff time and effort and all the other taxpayer money that we put into those versus just taking the developed ones out so it troubles me a little bit that the incentive there for the rural pieces is really, other than Mr. Degler, these people are more renting their land and probably a lot waiting for development to come through and for a lot of things to happen than they are just staying rural so I don't know where I fall on it yet but be interested to hear other comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well, Councilman Ayotte please. Councilman Ayotte: It's a vote this year and as we go down the road getting closer to 212, then that evolution will happen. Rather than take a risk of making a vote that could potentially adversely affect someone, the thing that we are certain of is that we have had a deal some years ago and a task force of residents that we entrusted to come up with a recommendation. They know the agricultural aspects of things better than I do so I don't want to second guess that. That's why I favor number 1. Maybe I would favor number 2 next time out. Of course I can say that because I'm not running again, but I think next time out you could re-visit that again so I feel very comfortable in knowing it's a conservative position that will not have an adverse affect and that the position for number 2 could occur again next year, so that's why I'm taking that conservative view. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts when this first came up, we started talking about this. I heard arguments on both sides of the development equation. It sounds like we heard this evening that by having this rural service district we are delaying development. Others I heard from, most notable city staff that wants, one of the reasons that the criteria of utility service area, once that is extended is that the city makes an investment into main lines and that we need to encourage development at that point to get the city's investment back. Both of those I thought had equally valid points and then we asked for and started looking at what the dollars were and at this point it came up that the dollars, and I think to Councilman Peterson's point, from a dollar standpoint I find it hard to believe that a property owner wouldn't develop because of a few hundred dollars a year in property taxes. Likewise I find it hard to believe that keeping somebody, you 15 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 know taking this away would cause somebody to develop which is the opposite side of that argument. You know has the city changed since 1957-58? Absolutely. You know we're 23,000 and it's a different city today. Has it run it's course as Councilman Peterson suggested? Yeah, it likely has. I guess from a time standpoint and E standpoint, it would be to eliminate the rural service. It's run it's course. It found it's objective in terms of delaying development in some areas. For those properties that the task force identified, I think that's a clear issue that they should come out. I can easily see staff s recommendation as well once the property has services to it. Taking it out, even if the use is the same as rural and it's being farmed. Again I go back to the economics. Are we encouraging development or discouraging development and I think the fact is now we're not doing either. It's a non-issue. So I'm willing to listen to the advice of the council. At the same time I don't think we should spend a lot of, if the decision of this council tonight is not to eliminate it in it's entirety, then I would hope that future councils would not spend any time on it because it isn't economically worth anything either to the taxpayers involved, they're most directly affected, but clearly to the staff, for the council. As such I believe that at least the second option, and even the third proposal which staff is recommending this evening, makes some sense. Why keep us doing things at the city level if there isn't an economic benefit for doing that and here there's a, I think there's the economics just don't justify spending a lot of time on this so with that I think there's the, with Councilman Peterson's statement, has it run it's course? Yeah, I think it has but this isn't something we should all, I mean this shouldn't be a controversial issue just because the dollars aren't there. It's not worth it so I don't see us, I think we should be able to find some sentiment, some conclusion that we can all agree on, realizing that the affect of our decision tonight is not materially significant from an economic standpoint, nor is it materially significant in terms of future development, whether that occurs or does not occur from a development standpoint. Councilman Ayotte: May I? Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Ayotte: To me it's a holding action. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry? Councilman Ayotte: To me it's a holding action. Rather than eliminate it all together, since we're in evolution, since 212's coming down the road one of these days, since when a piece of property becomes a candidate for development, it comes off the list anyways. That's why I don't see there's a lot of risk. That's why I was favoring number 1. Now if I have to waiver in order to make sure we do not delete all the properties from the rural district, that's fine but I'm just saying that there was a reason for it in 1958. There is still farming going on in 2004 and for that reason I don't think it's a dollars and cents decision. It's not simply, look at all the time staff spends on concentrating on one particular resident's concern over an issue, it's not an economic decision for Mr. Gerhardt to throw his resources to resolve the concerns of one resident because one resident is as important as 10 residents. As 100 residents. As 1,000 residents. So I'm 16 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 concerned about these residents that are involved with this rural service area and for that reason I don't think we should summarily delete, get rid of the district at this point. We can look at that down the road because we do have time. 212 isn't here yet. Mayor Furlong: Any thoughts? Other thoughts? Comments? If there is none, is there a motion? We've got I guess 3 options in front of us. To summarize we could accept the task force recommendation. Accept their recommendation and modify it with the addition of properties first recommended by staff or as staff is recommending this evening is a resolution just deleting all properties or eliminating the program. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd move that we adopt the resolution deleting all properties from the residential service district, so Option 3. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Hearing none, that motion will die for lack of a second. Is there another motion? Councilman Ayotte: I'll give it a shot. I so move to adopt the rural service task force recommended that the properties in the rural service district, Option number 1. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? That motion dies for lack of a second. Councilman Ayotte: Well how about a friendly amendment of some sort? Mayor Furlong: How about a motion for number 2? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve staff motion number 2. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that? Resolution #2004-61: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve resolution number 2 adopting the modified list of properties in the rural service district prepared by staff based on the exclusion of properties with sewer and water available. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/OFFICE MUL TI- TENANT BUILDING: LOT 1. BLOCK 4. V ASSERMAN RIDGE: CPV DEVELOPMENT CO: CRAIG ALSHOUSE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The application before you tonight is for site plan review and an amendment to allow an office building in a PUD park. The proposed office building is 12,000 square feet. Back in July of2003 the City Council approved a project 17 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 that at that time was under one ownership and I just want to review this. There's been some concerns that the Planning Commission had. Under one ownership this part of the project is under construction right now. This is Century Boulevard... access point coming in. The gas station. . . car wash and then a strip center. That is under construction to date. This property was a separate ownership. Actually Lundgren Brothers who was doing the Vasserman Ridge, had that piece of property. The applicant back then a year ago had proposed two restaurants on the site. They were unable to close on that property and so it was back out on the market so the application you have today refers to this specific project. The Planning Commission had some concerns about a crosswalk and when this project came through, the recommendation for a crosswalk was at Century Boulevard. There was a request to put a sidewalk but there wasn't unanimous consensus on and as that moved forward to the City Council, the planning staff had recommended against it at the mid-block location and as it went to the City Council the city engineer at the time, different city engineer at the time, had recommended that that go through. There isn't a signal there and a mid-walk crossing is sometimes dangerous. At that time it was approved. It is under construction so when this project came forward the Planning Commission wanted to revisit that issue but it's really on the other side of the project and that crosswalk, though it may not be paved, the median dip is in place and it's all striped so that's, those are the other sides so it wasn't a part of this discussion. The staff spent a lot of time discussing the proposed amendments to the shape of the building. It's L shaped. Little bit larger. The two restaurants as proposed. While the parking configuration for a restaurant would be significantly greater, the office building would have a different parking demand. What we were concerned on, and the applicant's again, we're looking throughout the city to try and office space. They wanted to be at this end of the city. This is part of Edina Realty and some of the services that they offered. The Planning Commission struggled a little bit in looking at well you have 3 uses in one building, how that works out. We also wanted to see some retail so they did leave 3,000 square feet out for retail. The other concern that we had is as the center came in, it was one unit architecturally and as they proposed the development they matched, if you go out there today to see the existing, this building will mimic the other buildings that are out there so it looks like one unified center, which again was our goal. Again the Planning Commission was concerned because originally restaurants were going in. We wanted some of that synergy with the hotel. . . trying to find a location that met their needs and this site became available. We did spend a lot of time discussing whether or not amending but this specific PUD seemed appropriate. But in working through the design, I think we got all of our issues resolved and it's specifically that they added the retail component to it too. Again the Planning Commission was concerned about the fact that there is one entrance but 3 separate uses because that was part of our issue too. All in one but there are 3 different uses going on within that, not just the realty itself. So with that they did increase the... There was another condition that went back to the Planning Commission with tying this sidewalk in. Whether or not we amend the sidewalk. We didn't want to encourage anybody walking through the car wash across that way. We believe there's adequate circulation around the entire site. That was the staff s opinion. So with that, this did go to the Planning Commission on August 3rd. The Planning Commission did recommend 3 to 1. Again their one concern was specific to some of the 18 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 points that I brought out regarding the uses, but with that we are recommending approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Seeing none, is the applicant here this evening. Any issues you'd like to bring before the council? Steve Lanak: I'm Steve Lanak with DSGW Architects. We were the master planning the site and we were the architects for the building that we're speaking of that's construction now and also this building. Craig Alshouse is here with me. He's the developer of the property and Lori Day who's the manager of the Chanhassen office of Edina Realty. We're very pleased to be working on this project. Mr. Alshouse is a first class developer and is intending to build this for Edina Realty and also maintain it in his personal portfolio so he will be owning this building in addition to developing it. And we think it's just a very, very fine project. We're very proud to be part of it and as I say, architecturally we master plan the site and we feel very good about the incorporation of this Edina Realty building into our project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Just for clarification, you're involved on both sites correct? You're working on the one that's under development right now as well as this one that's being proposed? Steve Lanak: Yes, we designed the current retail building that's under construction right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not we'll bring it back to council for comments and discussion. Any thoughts? Seems fairly straight forward. Good design. The issue with the sidewalks, I think general concurrence, being concurrent with the majority of the Planning Commission as well as staff so, with that, where do our motions start? What page? Councilman Lundquist: Page 11. Mayor Furlong: Page 11 is our motion. Councilman Lundquist: I move that the City Council approve site plan review with conditions, revised landscape plans dated and received August 12, 2004 with conditions, what are we on now Kate? Mayor Furlong: 25. Councilman Lundquist: 1 through 25? Minus the ones that have been deleted. Mayor Furlong: In the staff report. Councilman Lundquist: 3 through 25 in the staff report? 19 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: Does that sound right? Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Or it has not been seconded. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Second's been made. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve site plan review (2004-25 SPR) for the construction of a multi- tenant building, Century Plaza Building "C" as shown in the plans received July 2, 2004, and revised landscape plans dated received August 12,2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. All roof top equipment shall be screened. 2. The trash enclosure shall be built with the same type of materials used on the buildings. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. 4. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 5. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 6. Add the following City detail plates to the plans: 3101, 3104, 5201, 5214, 5232 and 5234. 7. On the Grading Plan: a. Show all storm sewer rims and invert elevations. b. Revise the FES invert elevation to match the pond NWL. c. Show the existing topography of the site along the east side, including the existing pond and the pond NWL and HWL. d. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations 8. The retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a permit from the Building Department must be obtained for its construction. An approved safety fence will also be required along the top of the wall. 9. Revise the sidewalk elevations off the northwesterly corner of the building to avoid draining stormwater toward the building. 10. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the lot. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water-main. 20 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. 11. Revise the grading in the southwesterly corner of the site to show the correct 980 contour line. 12. Revise the width of the parking stalls to 9-feet wide, as per City Code. 13. On the utility plan: a. Show the existing and the proposed sanitary manholes rIm and invert elevations. 14. A 15-foot wide clear zone must be maintained in back of the curb along West 78th Street. 15. The proposed berm's slope must not exceed 2% within the 60-foot sight triangle of the intersection. 16. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Excel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Copy enclosed. b. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1991. Copy enclosed. c. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. d. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. e. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. f. The two fire hydrants shown on the plan will need to be relocated. Hydrant number one on the north end of the building is to be moved northwest to the parking lot island and hydrant number two shown on the west side of the building 21 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 can be eliminated and relocated on the island across from the main door. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact relocation. 17. Building Official conditions: a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a building permit and the plans must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. d. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. e. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 18. The applicant shall revise the plans to maintain a minimum of 10 feet parking setback along the northeast corner. 19. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remam open when the area Steeper than 3: 1 7 days IS not actively being worked. ) 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 14 days Flatter than 10: 1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 20. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 22. The monument sIgn facing West 78th Street shall be removed. 22 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 23. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM l(H). FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION: SUBDIVISION OF 2.61 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TH STREET. CHARLES R. STINSON. Mayor Furlong: At this time we'll move to item number 1 (h) which was asked to be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion. At this point, is it Mr. Hitchcock? Would you like to, I'm sorry. Andrew Hiscox: Frontier 2 is, well you guys know, it's a development that's an extension of an existing Frontier 1 I guess you call it. I got notified of this last Friday because I guess the mailings go out to 500 feet within the you know, the distance from the property and it turns out that I'm probably 510 feet away. I live next door to the Frontier Trail association which is adjacent to this property as well. In '94 there was a surface water management program adopted by the city. In '96 Frontier 1 was approved. Recommended approved and what was interesting was that they, according to Bonestroo, is that the name of the consultant? The City approved the development and let them develop the property where the holding ponds for those SWMP would have been, which is kind of interesting. It's like, how could that have happened, but it did. In fact there's a report from the consultant's Bonestroo to Lori Haak, and I'll read it to you real quick. During examination it became apparent that the development of Frontier was constructed after the preparation of the SWMP and the location of the two cells that were to be located the furthest upstream. The conflicts posed by these homes and associated utilities will not allow construction of the two upstream cells as proposed in the SWMP. So we missed an opportunity there but you know it's happened. It's history and that's the way it goes. What's interesting is after that, well I guess the first question is why would that have happened and do we want to dwell on that or not. I guess probably not. When they did approve the Frontier 1, they said the only water treatment that was necessary, or storm water improvements was a driveway culvert. So they let them build houses where the ponds are supposed to be for water treatment. They then said you only need a culvert to treat the water, and that in the very near future, by the way the developer was Ted Delancey. He did contribute money to the SWMP budget in lieu of putting ponds in, which was recommended by staff. Then they stated that in the very near future the city will be proposing a storm water quantity/quality pond downstream from this development. That was 8 years ago. Still hasn't been done. Since Frontier 1 went in, I live next door to the property. I've lived there 15 years. The amount of runoff has probably quadrupled. Mainly in my opinion from the type of houses they built and the way they built them. They're flat roofed. There's a lot of flat surfaces. The water then bounces into the creek and literally in a storm, like the storm that happened Memorial Day this year, we had 3 foot, 3 foot by 16 feet of water running to the creek into the lake. 23 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 In my humble opinion this is doing a lot of detriment to Lotus Lake water quality. And when I saw the Frontier 2 was up for approval, I thought you know maybe it's time for the city to step back and take a look and say look, as part of this maybe we have an opportunity to fix some of this and I do understand that there is a ponding scheme in the development. The problem I have is that the developer was part of the development on Frontier 1. The city was supposed to take care of this. They said they'd do it in the near future and if 8 years is the near future, I guess I'd hate to see what happens with the green space as we go forward. My point being is that I'd like to have the city staff take another look at this and say, how do we solve this water quality problem, because it is significant. I've lived on the lake for a long time. The clarity has dropped dramatically and I've got an idea that says that if we just work with Frontier 1, Frontier 2 and the Frontier Trail Association, there's a way to come up with a plan that would solve the problem. Again in June Bonestroo has come back and done some I guess I would call them renderings of different plans that are possible, but I guess I'd like to see that implemented before you approve the subdivision just on an adjunct basis. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification. That last point there, what was recommended and by whom and when? Andrew Hiscox: Bonestroo's got a memo to Lori Haak dated June ih or renderings of what they say can be done. The problem you get into is that they're going, they have an easement and they're trying to get Frontier Trail Association to put up all the land for the ponds. They don't want to do that, so there's a negotiation that needs to happen. I think it's only fair that if you look at Frontier 1, 2 and Frontier Trail together, there's a way to come up with a plan that would make some sense and it would be workable for all the people. I don't think that's happened yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Andrew Hiscox: That's it. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions? If not, staff, some comments? Thoughts. Remarks. Kate Aanenson: I just want to go through what's required of Frontier 1 because that's the item that's before you tonight and if there is a tie in. Excuse me, Frontier 2. Thank you. And if there's a tie in then I'll let you draw that conclusion. Frontier Trail 2 is two large lots located on Frontier Trail. The lots in blue. It's approximately, so 5 lots on a field of 2 1Iz acres. This little lot right here, the city owns and there is an existing storm water wear structure that's pretty old. Probably put in in the sixties that's not functioning. So in looking at this entire project... This is Frontier Trail again. These are the 5 lots. And this is the lot that the city owns that we're recommending providing additional storm water capacity. Again that right now is really kind of just a dip and so this project is very steep falling off. We're recommending. . . to reduce the velocity on that, so this proj ect is picking up more than just this. In can back out here, I know it's going to be a little hard to see. See if I can get Justin. As identified in the storm water management plan, this 24 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 entire area outlined in yellow is Lotus Lake area, and I'll pinpoint where we are. The storm drainage area is actually 133 acres. It's subdivided into different, 3 different districts so the area that this pond on Frontier 2 is actually taking up 12 acres, so it's providing more storm water than is required on this, and most of that actually goes back up towards Erie, and there was other subdivisions. There have been other subdivisions on the lake that are adding to this. It's not just Mr. Stinson's development. Other subdivisions, including this applicant here is also, or gentleman here is also, there's been other splits up there that are impacting that. It's a very highly desirable lake and we've seen a lot of development on Frontier in the last 2 years. So this is an older area that we've identified in the storm water management plan to put ponding in. Just north of our lift station on Frontier Trail, when that subdivision went in, we put a two cell pond there. Going back to the original Frontier Trail, haven't spent a lot of time, the Water Resource Coordinator did dig up the commission approval and gave them to Mr. Hiscox to kind of review those, but at that time the storm water management plan was pretty new. It was the recommendation that that's where the ponds would go. That's where most of the creek philosophy and I know it's hard to see this with the arrow but most of the runoff is actually coming through that creek towards the beachlot. That's the best place to get it. Everything else is maximized. To put it on this lot with the heavily sloped area is not going to solve the problem where this is a smaller drainage area than that whole 133 acres. Maybe I can just share with you what the recommendation was. The reason this is, probably was found out is Mr. Hiscox's neighbor was at the meeting that Lori had and we've been working on the designs to solve this problem over the summer months. There was a meeting of 4 residents of the association beachlot where they're looking at the pond. Four different designs were offered up. One being as you can see here, this is the beachlot itself. This is what seemed to have the most legs as far as moving forward. That would be along Frontier Trail. Increasing the capacity there. And then as you move towards the beachlot. Yes, we have to negotiate where' s the beachlot association to advance this project, but that's the situation as we are trying to solve that bigger problem. Again this is solving some of that 133 acres but there's also land up Santa Fe, all that also that we will continue to look at where we see opportunities. When Paul's doing the reconstruction project or whatever, that we can see where we can partner and provide those opportunities to capture additional water. So if you have any questions on 1 or 2 or where is this going, I'd be happy to answer that. Mayor Furlong: While you described it well, I'm guessing there's some questions so. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Going back to the situation of8 years ago. We were supposed to do something to provide some measure of relief and something did not happen as yet. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: So to look at that separately from number 2, what should or could be done with respect to number 1 and why wasn't it done? 25 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Kate Aanenson: I can't answer that for sure. The original recommendation that the engineering department had, and I believe that the tie in was that we just recently adopted the storm water management plan. It identified this area, and again it's the same consultant, Bonestroo, who had recommended based on, again this is Lori's and my assumption that based on that's where most the water is coming down through that creek area, that that would be the best place to put the pond. Again based on drainage patterns and where the water's coming, not just from this area but from the larger 13 3 acre basin that we're trying to provide to capture. Councilman Ayotte: So for number 1 you gave me an I don't know, which is an acceptable. Kate Aanenson: No, I didn't say that. I said there's 133 acres. Mr. Stinson's portion is just a small piece of that. We were trying to combine his. Councilman Ayotte: That's number 2. Kate Aanenson: Number 1. We were to combine his piece with the larger to capture more of the treatment. The quantity and the quality of a larger area. So while we take that all the time when we do storm water, sometimes the first person in gives us money. The second person builds the pond. Sometimes it's vice versa. That's why we have a storm water management plan. We decide where the appropriate place. Not every property puts a pond in. We'd have ponds all over... Councilman Ayotte: Well I understand that. Kate Aanenson: Right, so the decision was made to make this a larger pond in this area. Not just for Mr. Stinson's piece, but he's contributing to a larger pond. Councilman Ayotte: To make a larger pond to satisfy the concern that was... Kate Aanenson: For this whole 100 acre. Councilman Ayotte: With number 1. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And Lori's been working on that over the summer and I think that's how this meeting got communicated with the neighbors. That meeting was held this week with the neighbors to advance a plan to see if we can get some consensus to continue to work on that. Councilman Ayotte: Can I ask another question? 26 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: Bonestroo. Did we have another issue with runoff involving Bonestroo a couple of months ago? Would you refresh my memory? Kate Aanenson: I don't know anything about that. And I don't know if that was a strictly engineering recommendation that worked in conjunction with them modeling it. We'd have to go back and Lori just communicated the ultimate recommendation of approval, as far as I've heard dialogue. We'd have to go back and rephrase that. Todd Gerhardt: It's not unusual for a development to pay their SWMP fees in lieu of building a pond. What we're trying to get away from more and more is to have these small little ponds throughout the community. We're trying to regionalize the ponds. Less maintenance. It also slows the velocity of that water down. So you know if they, if the comments were correct, if they did make their payment, that was in lieu of dedicating the land for a storm water pond. That follows in line with everything else we did with the Medical Arts building right at the corner of Highway 5 and Powers. They did not have to build a pond on site. They expanded the pond down in Lake Susan. That acts as a regional treatment area for approximately 160 acres of that drainage area. So right now we're trying to fit, I think we had a series of 4 ponds on the beachlot. That has been redesigned down to 2 larger ones. 2 or 3 depending on how you consider the layout. I think Kate did show the current layout. You know we need to meet with the homeowners association more on this. There is some dramatic tree loss associated with this pond on the beachlot, and I don't know how we get around that. I think we need to sit down and bring Bonestroo and Paul's group in and talk about capacity of these ponds. Can he go smaller? Is that going to affect the quality of that water. We need to do some additional research on that but from this subdivision process there's no capabilities that I'm aware of on this land to put additional ponding. As a matter of fact, we're improving it by having them take the old pond and fixing that up to handle the additional 12 acres upstream for on this development. So we are improving the water quality in that area. But we definitely need more time to meet with the neighborhood and I'll get involved with Lori and bring Paul and Kate in and those and figure out a solution. Councilman Ayotte: I think too, saw the graphics we have to understand all that's going on plus make decisions, fall short. Just to really, not only in terms of getting with the community and coming up with a better way of doing business for the runoff. That's true and then also giving us the tools to see the impact of what's been recommended. I mean it's hard to follow. Todd Gerhardt: Well, and you want a functional system. Something that is going to improve the water quality. You know putting several smaller ponds in with lower capacity isn't going to take the nutrients and the debris out of there so why invest that money into a system that isn't going to improve that water quality I think is where Lori's going. But the neighborhood also has a concern on the tree loss. I mean you're talking about a fully treed, mature treed beachlot here and to see some of those 100 year old 27 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 maples go down is going to be difficult so we need to find a plan that works both with the neighborhood and improving the quality of that water. Mayor Furlong: Kate, with regard to this Frontier 2. And the improvement to the existing, call it a pond. It's a city owned lot. That's not functioning right now, is that a fair statement? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So by what's proposed for this subdivision or the developer will do, we're at least going to improve water quality off the 12 acres. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Again this is a little over 2 1Iz so he's treating a 12 acre site so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And with the bigger ponds that are being proposed on the association lot, if that's the direction we're going, is that covering the rest of the 13 3 acres? Kate Aanenson: No. No. Mayor Furlong: There's other storm water management throughout the other areas, so we're not just treating 12 out of 133 acres. Kate Aanenson: No. There are some other ones but again you have to break it down in those sub districts. A lot of that's actually way up on Santa Fe and that area that's draining all the way down. Coming back towards the lake. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And okay. Those are my questions. I'll have some thoughts. Any other questions for staff at this point? No? Okay, thank you. Comments or discussions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: I think it's safe to say that. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. If you could state your name and address for the microphone. Steve Gowen: Name is Steve Gowen. I'm at. Mayor Furlong: Pull the microphone over. Steve Gowen: I'm at 7341 Frontier Trail. I'm not part of the association that you're working with. I'm a member of the lake association and I just want to point out to you guys my major comment is I think is I'm glad to see the work that's going on. The planning, the effort that's going into it. I guess my comment is I'd like to see more action moving forward and actually happening before we start continuing development of land. That's my major topic... In other words, 8 years is too long. Okay? And we get, you 28 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 know I'm afraid that we're going to get promised that we're going to fix this drainage pond up and then they're going to build houses and then they're going to say no we won't. And we'll get into a big court battle about it. I don't know what will happen but I'd like to see the orders switch around where we fix the things, put in the holding ponds then okay the development. Let me give you some history, a little bit of history about Lotus Lake. Again I'm a homeowner on Lotus Lake and I've been plotting kind oflake levels. This is lake levels for last kind of 10 years of Lotus Lake. Mayor Furlong: If you want to put that down on the, so we can see it. Steve Gowen: It's the lake levels of Lotus Lake and I'm sorry I don't have more copies for you all but basically you see here is that red line is what's called ordinary high level. And it is ordinary. We get the ordinary high levels about once a year. . . every year, the last 13 years we've hit it maybe 11 out of 13. What I didn't put on here was the 100 year flood plain level and we've crossed the 100 year flood plain level for Lotus Lake 4 times in the last 11 years. So that means that over the next 400 years we should not hit this level again. Okay. Isn't that what that means? That's kind of what 100 year flood levels means every 100 years we're going to have them once every 100 years so. The last 10 years we've hit it 4 times so... all the drainage off the land we've affected with the development the amount of water going into the lake. We have affected our water coming off. The issue is the. . . water that goes into the lake now and is not treated on it's way in, okay. Plus the fact that we've got a lot of homeowners putting their chemicals on the lake. So it's really important that you care about the water quality of Lotus Lake, that we need to see action on solving the water quality before we allow more development. Or let development occur and not fix the problem. I'd rather see us fix the problem and let development go. It's either.. . little different than what we normally would see. Because we haven't had development. When we said we were going to fix it, we didn't. Now it's 8 years later and we have a worst problem. That's my comment is that there is a lot more water going in that's affected the water quality of Lotus Lake tremendously. . . and we haven't done much about it. And I think we should help by saying no to development until we see more action and more plans. I'm not saying just more plans but... actually doing it. Okay, that's my comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments? Any response from staff s standpoint? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I just want to point out, yeah I understand their concern about development on the lake but with each subdivision we put on the lake, whether it's Big Woods, the one just north of the lift station or this one, they've all provided storm water capacity well beyond their own development to solve the problem. Again this proposed development is solving a 12 acre problem. So we're pecking away at that larger problem. So it's, if this development doesn't advance, there's still a 12 acre problem that we, you know is out there that's going to continue to go that same direction so. Roger Knutson: Mayor, general comment. As far as just saying no to development, we have an ordinance and the question before you is do they comply with the requirements of our ordinance. 29 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Councilman Ayotte: We can't penalize this for the bigger problem but there is a bigger problem and what I'm hearing residents say. See I'm not running again so what the hell. But we have the same issue on another lake that I won't mention right now but the residents have to push the issue of this and meet with staff to get resolution to the overall plan. I'm not going to vote this down because I want, it isn't this guy's problem and to Kate's point, it's helping a little bit but to take a holistic view of things when the residents get together to take a holistic view and bring it to the city staff and council, not with an event like this but with the intent of getting together to resolve the problem on a larger issue. Go ahead Mayor, take it away. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. In can have the floor. Any comments or thoughts? Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Peterson: I don't have a choice. I mean I think that the presentation tonight is valid because I think it reinforces that there's an ongoing and continuing issue that we need to keep focused on. I think staff diligently has been doing that. What didn't happen 8 years ago, you know that's a little disturbing. I know we've got ordinances in there that we've, that now we can penalize if they don't do their pond. There's hold back's and other things that we have done and will do to make sure those things happen so we just got to keep focused on it. It's not getting better by itself. Councilman Lundquist: I would echo. I think there's really 2 issues going on. One is the existing issue and the other one is this development and they're really not related except in the fact that I think this development probably helps the overall issue because you're actually are going to be doing some treatment and treatment of more than just the 10 acres that we're developing, so but again, I thank the two gentlemen for your comments because it's, that's the things that we need to hear about as well and they need to keep coming up because probably it's still falls that the squeaky wheel gets the grease so as long as you keep bringing it up, it's a good thing but I think it's time to move ahead with this item and get the development and get that storm water treatment on those 12 1Iz acres. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And seconding the comments, storm water in this area, and I've, not right now please. Andrew Hiscox: I'm just waiting. Mayor Furlong: Okay, I think we're going to be done before but the issue here is storm water and water quality on Lotus Lake is something that I've heard time again from residents on Lotus Lake and the surrounding area. Whether they're on the lake or not. What I see here, and what... and so I think while there's an ordinance and we're certainly going to follow that, I think this is part of the solution. It's not part of the problem. What happened 8 years ago, and again the SWMP, our storm water management plan went in in '94. That was 10 years ago. A lot of the development in this city occurred, especially in this part of our city, prior to 10 years ago and so is there a catch up? Sure, but at least 30 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 we're catching up and we're making progress incrementally each and every time. As Ms. Aanenson said with regard to the recent developments that have gone in around Lotus Lake, we've increased the storm water management or the quantity of water managed by our ponds in our system each and every time to try to incrementally catch back up. So in this particular case, not only do I think Councilman Peterson's point, we don't have any choice. I think this is a good choice to have to go forward because we are going to improve some. And incrementally is how we're going to get it done. Staff has been aware of this problem I know, because these are issues that came up from my standpoint a year and a half ago that they've been working on this and I think to their credit, they don't always get us involved in things until it makes sense to get us involved, because they're pretty smart people and they can get things done and working with the neighbors and the people involved so from my standpoint, I think this is a good project to go forward on. Storm water management is an issue throughout the city. It's something that we dealt with in terms of pond sharing, this, what's the one we just approved? Century Plaza. That's another parcel that's sharing a pond that was over sized before so that's just part of the way it works and you pick up opportunities where you can. I see this as an opportunity so from that standpoint I think this council should go forward here. I encourage the staff to continue to work with the association. Continue to pursue the storm water management plan in this area. That's how we're going to clean up the water on Lotus Lake and just manage it throughout the process so from that standpoint sir I'd like to keep the council moving on this if we can so. Andrew Hiscox: I just have one quick comment. The infrastructure that we're talking about has not been touched for 40 years. You wrote your own plan in '94. You violated it in '96. 8 years later you've done nothing. Zero to solve this problem and you continue development. This same developer developed a lot across the street. He tore down the vegetation and I'm not trying to pick on him. I want more houses being built. I just think you need to look at the infrastructure before you go forward and if this one gets passed, that's the way it goes. Mayor Furlong: Sir thank you but the points that were just made is that this is an improvement. This is an improvement and other properties as they subdivide, either contribute dollars to the storm water management plan for future pond development or they build in excess capacity and so I think to your point, development will occur. What we need to do is incrementally recapture from a storm water quality standpoint and incrementally improve our storm water, especially in this area. Not letting these developments go forward that give us an opportunity to improve the water quality I think is a mistake. Does that mean that we stop working on the issue with the Frontier Association? No, we keep working on those and we look for opportunities to do that so we appreciate your comments and know that they're not, that we've heard them. That we need to improve the water quality and storm water quality. I think this is one way that we can get that done. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve item l(h)(I) and l(h)(2), the motions as set forth in the council packet. 31 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Frontier Second Addition; subdivision of 2.61 acres into 5 single family lots located at the northeast intersection of Frontier Trail and West 77th Street, Charles R. Stinson: 1) Preliminary and Final Plat Approval. 2) Approval of Development and Construction Plans & Specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: And thank you gentlemen, seriously. That completes our items of new business this evening. We'll move forward to council presentations. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Just a quick comment. I was out at the kids triathlon sponsored by the Miracles for Mitch Foundation yesterday and Lake Ann Park was just packed with young children that were getting ready to swim, bike and run and all for the purpose of helping out sick kids. Kids with cancer and it was great to see. They estimated they had about 300 participants there. I was told that Edina, which has a children triathlon, has been running it for a number of years a couple weeks ago had 340 children participate and this was 300 for the first time they did it so congratulations to the foundation and to all those involved for the great job of marketing and getting people involved. It was a really fun event to be a part of. Todd Gerhardt: There was a nice article in the Tribune today about it. Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any other presentations from council? Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: I met with Southwest Coalition Group on Highway 5 upgrade. This is our coalition group, Chaska, Waconia, Victoria, Carver. Their efforts in the past have been to push Highway 212. Now their main goal is to continue to see Highway 5 upgraded out to Waconia. As MnDot is moving ahead and upgrading their 10 year plans, this is not included in those 10 year plans at this point. Paul and his staff will be working hard with Carver County Engineer, Chaska Engineer, Waconia and Victoria to try to get Highway 5 upgrade into that 10 year plan. There will be several meetings between now and I think September 10th when the coalition meets again to put a case together for those improvements. We're looking particular in seeing Highway 5 upgraded to 4 lanes to Victoria and also a signal at Minnewashta Parkway. I think the coalition has agreed that 32 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 this is their top priority and will be putting all their energies towards that in the next 6 months. Other than that, again Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum this Thursday at 10:00 and pick up those free watering wands and Centennial books. That's all I have. Todd Gerhardt: Good, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Gerhardt, any updates on the Original Mattress Factory sign? Todd Gerhardt: Kate, do you want to update him on your nice letter that you received? Kate Aanenson: Yes. We did send the owner a letter and we received a letter back from the owner of the Original Mattress Factory and it was his intention that the site be, he leased that site with the intention that he could be seen from Highway 5. We didn't have the same intention and our, the number of complaints we got, we decided that it was obnoxious in the fact that it's glaring too much, which our ordinance does state, so he has agreed to adjust the lighting on the neon so it should be toned down, and hopefully that should be rectified here this week. Just got that letter Friday. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor. Paul, could you update the council on the downtown mill and overlay project. Sidewalks are in. Curbs have been fixed or replaced where they have sagged. Loop protectors have been put in. Paul Oehme: Loop protectors are in. We are currently working restoration on the side. It took place in back of the curb. Also the signal mast arm will be painted here in the next week or so and then milling should start the following week and we're anticipating conclusion by the end of September sometime. Mayor Furlong: Will the roads be closed while they're milling and doing the overlay? Paul Oehme: No. Roads will be open to the general public. There will be definitely some inconvenience when the milling operation, the... operations is taking place but traffic will be re-channelized. Mayor Furlong: So people will still be able to get to their businesses and others will keep track. . . okay. Councilman Peterson: A couple questions. Paul, one is your's. It looks as though we started a weeding program on some of the islands. I know that they were working on Powers and 5 for a couple days. I don't know who's project that was but is that something we're going to do across the downtown area or not? It looked like a heck of an undertaking because they were at it for 2 days. Todd Gerhardt: Paul's been out for a week and I think we had a discussion at our staff meeting that something we need to potentially gear up. Weeds overall in the community and so you saw somebody starting? 33 City Council Meeting - August 23,2004 Councilman Peterson: Two guys were out there for 2 days on the center island south of 5 on Powers. And they were both weed killing from a chemical standpoint and a weed whacker and a hand scraper getting the weeds out so. Todd Gerhardt: I'll have to send you, provide an update in your next admin section on what's going on there. Councilman Peterson: It obviously needed it. It looks horrible around town since 4th of July. My second question, any update on where we're at with the library contractor and that dispute of pay minus etc, etc. What's the current status? Todd Gerhardt: We're still in discussions. We sent an offer letter over to them. As a part of the stair construction, there's a heat mat located in the stairs which is to assist in snow melt. That was not operational this past winter. We've offered to accept the stairs in the condition they're in and we can decide if we want to replace it or upgrade or leave it as is. We estimate that anywhere to 15 to 20,000 dollars and that we would make our final payment to them for change orders, I think it's 10 and 11 of20,000 is our offer and we have not heard back from them. So that's where we're at. That offer was made approximately 3 weeks ago. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay, thank you. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34