Loading...
1981 07 27 I I I SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 27~ 1981 Acting Mayor Neveaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton was absent. WETLANDS DISCUSSION: John Nicolay~ President of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association, presented a petition signed by some of the members asking that the city consider a wetlands ordinance that would appropriately protect the wetlands surrounding the lakes. Grady Mann, formerly of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, discussed basic conservation philosophies and principles to guide sound long-term priorities for development of new Minnesota regulations or programs. 1. Wetlands preserved and undisturbed will remain as "land insurance" tracts for the future. If a wetland has an agricultural capability, that capability will be preserved under natural conditions. 2. Redirect thinking on wetlands to the wetland complex and to zones of varying densities rather than to isolated areas. TOe landowner, alone, cannot provide this broader perspective; that broader perspective and reason for regulation has to be supplied by resource agencies. 3. Minor changes in a wetland complex can affect 100 percent of the utility of that complex for certain wildlife species. 4. The economic penalty for an error in the direction of overprotection can always be corrected, while the damage from resource abuse may be irreparable. 5. The function of government relative to wetlands and their public values should be to define, assess, and protect values in the overriding public interest. Far too many agencies see their role as one of increasing the economic well-being of a few at the expense of those same public values. This kind of mission is outdated (Harmon, 1976). Decisions on controversial areas should rest on protecting public values in the overriding public interest. 6. Recognize that Minnesotans value independence -- but we cannot maintain that independence without careful and sound natural resource management. That management demands renewed individual stewardship; and if stewardship is lacking, stricter controls and regulations to protect the broader public interests. The Acting Mayor read a letter from Mayor Hamilton regarding the wetlands issue. The City Attorney's office will review the legal implications of whether the city can establish a moratorium, the time period a moratorium could exist and the affects of a moratorium on existing developments. Councilman Geving moved to table action until August 10, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. at which time a full staff report will be presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE Acting Mayor Neveaux called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Ave. So., Bloomington Jim Engler, 8100 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie. Bill McRostie, Bloomberg Companies Helen Nemitz, 533 W. 78th Street Conrad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne Scott Martin gave the presentation. Under consideration is the expansion of Tax Increment District #2. The Planning Commission has reviewed the plan and recommended approval as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin recommended that the Council continue the hearing to August 3 because of some late information Council Meeting July 27, 1981 -2- received from county auditor's office changed the cash flow models. Councilman Geving - At what point would the ten year limitation start? Scott Martin - It starts with the receipt of the first tax increment proceeds. We will receive our first proceeds next year. Councilman Geving - This would end then in 1989. Scott Martin - Right. I The hearing was opened for comments from those in attendance. Councilman Geving - I was surprised to see that you used an 8% inflation factor which it hasn't been for some time and also a 10.8% interest rate. Is that realistic? Scott Martin - It's hard to say. We are talking about a bond issue next August. 10.8% interest rate was used as a result of the recommendation back in the end of June when the feasibility was done. Councilman Geving - Let's say we had to go 12.2 or 11.5, what would happen to your model? Scott Martin - We will rely more heavily on special assessments by the developers to pay for the cost of the improvements. It would just mean the ratio of special assessments to tax increment for retirement of the general obligation bonds would be higher. We are using the best information we have which is what the intent of the developer indicated to staff when the initial plan was developed and there has been no indication that it has changed. Don Ashworth - There is a little different philosophy in terms of an economic development district versus what we have gone through with the tax increment district and that is that the full scope of any proposed improvements need to be shown at this particular time. Whether or not we ever complete any or all portions of those are really going to depend upon actual improvements that go into the ground. This really represents the most idealistic type of thing that could occur. I would recommend that in considering any type of an adoption of this that it becomes very clear that the city will not carry out any portion of any of these improvements until the buildings are physically in the ground to assure that any of these improvements can be paid for. I think that there is necessity for that drainage ditch but even at that to assure that that cost can be paid for we have to see that CPT actually is going in the ground. Councilman Geving - I am going across the road. I am concerned about Park One. Don Ashworth - I still maintain the same philosophy. It could very well be that you could have pressure and agree to putting the roads in on the north side of the road but I am saying that that should only be done if there then is a letter of credit to back up the whole cost of those improvements. I Councilman Horn - In light of the Highway 101 issue, would it be at all reasonable to include that as a part of this project? Scott Martin - That was before the Council on the 22nd in terms of the feasibility study. It would seem very obvious except for the improvements shown here and not really relying on the special assessments, there is no way we could carry that project out of here. To reconstruct that intersection as per the feasibility study of June 22 was $600,000. I Councilwoman Swenson - If we are going to extend 184th Street, I just don't see any necessity for the realignment. I I I Council Meeting July 27, 1981 -3- Councilwoman Swenson - The extension of 184th Street north from Highway 5, we has just one whale of a go around on that as to why we would spend the money to put a road from no place to no place. Acting Mayor Neveaux - It will go from Highway 5 to the railroad tracks and end in a cul-de-sac. It will serve the industrial park. Even Lyman Lumber doesn't have adequate access to their property without l84th Street. To have them go way down to Dakota, pull a hairpin turn to get back onto Highway 5 is not good planning. It was not meant to serve beyond that. Bill Monk - Representatives of CPT are here. They are very concerned with the listing shown under number 3 on page 22, storm drainage improvements along their west property line and I just point it out and note that they have to meet with the watershed again soon and are here tonight to see what the Council is going to do with that item. Peter Beck - We are indeed kind of caught in a bind between the city and the watershed district. As Mr. Ashworth points out, the city doesn't want to commit to making improvements until the buildings are in the ground and the watershed district is telling us that we can't get a permit from them until the city is committed to improve the drainage ditch. We are hoping we can accommodate the watershed district and we are here tonight to seek a little bit of your help to that end. What we really need is some kind of an indication from the Council that that ditch will be improved. We have petitioned the City to make improvements. We will pay our share. As the Council knows and staff well knows, we are trying very hard to get this building in the ground and if a delay at the watershed district would defeat all of the hard work that we have put in, city staff, in seeking approval through the City. We are not sure precisely what the district is going to require. We had a preliminary meeting with them and they seemed to indicate they wanted some kind of commitment from the City or from us to make permanent improvements. Acting Mayor Neveaux - Have they given you plans or direction as to what are permanent improvements? Peter Beck - No they have not. They said they want that subject addressed, so we, in fact just before I came here I was with the district's engineers presenting some plans that we had commissioned to make improvements in that ditch and if we can get a permit no other way from the district we will commit then to make those improvements. The problem is they may not be consistent with the improvements that are eventually recommended to you. We are not planning to pipe water through there. It is not necessary to solve the problem on our side. It may be further downstream so piping all the way through may be the ultimate answer. In which case we spent a lot of money for nothing. Acting Mayor Neveaux - Our relationship with the watershed district in regard to drainage in pipes is somewhat strained. They insist that they be piped and we have said that we don't believe that they necessarily have to be. You are caught in the middle. Councilman Geving - From what I have read on this they seem to want the assurances that that project will be taken care of but how we are going to do it, no one knows at this time. We can't hold up CPT for any great length of time but I think we can assure the watershed people that that's going to be resolved. Don Ashworth - What you (Peter Beck) are saying is that you would like to see a motion or resolution from the City Council stating that they are aware of the ditch problem, they are fully supportive of corrective measures, that they are currently reviewing an economic development district as a means to correct that. If that does not come about that some other form of payment will occur to assure that that improvement is completed. Council Meeting July 27, 1981 -4- Peter Beck - We fully appreciate this city's cooperation. I am just trying to work with you to resolve our problem at the watershed district I and I think that a resolution along those lines, we don't want to lock this council in to any particular method of resolving the problem, but given that the council has recognized that that problem exists and if the decision has been made to correct that, a resolution advising the watershed that we can take to the watershed district and say the City Council is going to correct the problem. They have one plan, if that doesn't work out for other reasons this drainage ditch will be improved. Acting Mayor Neveaux - Can they tell us what an acceptable plan for the improvements will be? Bill Monk - The City will propose the plan and then submit it to the watershed for their approval. Acting Mayor Neveaux - And that's a plan based on this $100,000 figure. What I am concerned about is that they are going to say the only thing they are going to accept is something that's going to cost $500,000 which is what they did in Carver Beach. Bill Monk - The $100,000 figure is my estimate for piping almost the entire length. Peter Beck - I don't think even the watershed district expects this Council to commit to any particular way of resolving the problem. I think that they are just looking for an acknowledgement from this Council that the problem is going to be addressed. Councilman Geving - I have one other point I would like to make. On page 23 I want to again reiterate my feelings on this. I am going to request that this page be amended and that the page will specifically indicate that there will be no advalorem tax levied to be used to support this project. All proceeds, differences or discrepancies will be covered by special assessments. I think that is what is necessary here. I Councilman Horn moved by Councilman Geving. Councilwoman Swenson, carried. to continue the hearing to August 3, 1981. Motion seconded The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: Councilman Geving moved to direct staff to amend the second paragraph, page 22 by adding that no advalorem tax levy to be used to support this project. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to direct staff to prepare a letter to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board of Managers for inclusion in the August 3 consent agenda. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. HIGHWAYS 5 AND 101 ALTERNATE CONCEPT INTERSECTION PLANS: Scott Martin reviewed I the alternatives as presented on July 20. Councilman Geving moved that a letter be sent to the county highway department and the railroad indicating the city's interest in their plans and are opposed to any signalization at any expense to the city or any change to the present signalization plan. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting July 27, 1981 -5- DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RESET AWARD OF BIDS DATE: The following persons were present: Bob Sander, B. C. Burdick, Frank Beddor, Jerome Carlson, Bill McRostie, Dick Pearson, Larry Buchheit, Dan Herbst, and Bernie Hanson. RESOLUTION #81-24: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $4,715,000 general obligation tax increment bonds of 1981 Series A and the readvertisement for bids on August 13, 1981, at 7:30p.m:~ Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Former Councilman Dick Pearson was present asking if the Council would appoint a Council member to this committee. Councilman Horn moved to appoint Councilman Geving as the City's representative on the Waste Management Committee. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried. HANUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Council members briefly discussed the permit and decided to invite Mr. Hanus to appear before the Council. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager