Loading...
CC Minutes 1999 05 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Scott Botcher, Todd Gerhardt, Anita Benson, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson and Charles Folch APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the amended as follows: addition of item 1 (1) under the Consent Agenda, Set for Public Hearing on Development District Plan #4-1 for July 26, 1999 and direct staff to develop a plan for that district. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO WILLARD JOHNSON AND CAROL WATSON, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS. Mayor Mancino: Next on the agenda is a presentation of the Maple Leaf Awards and that goes for those who have volunteered their time and service to the city and we have two of those awards tonight. One is to Willard Johnson and one is to Carol Watson and we as a City Council come forward and we'd like to present these awards to both of you. The Mayor and City Council presented Maple Leaf Awards to Willard Johnson for 29 years of service to the City and Carol Watson for 16 years of service to the City. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #99-41: Award of Bid for 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2. b. Resolution #99-42: Award of Bid for Mobile Generator, PW016GGG. Resolution #99-43: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for Stone Creek Drive Street & Utility Improvements, Project 98-15. i. Approval of Bills. Approve City Council Minutes: Work Session Minutes dated April 5, 1999 Work Session Minutes dated May 10, 1999 City Council Minutes dated May 10, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes dated May 5, 1999 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 27, 1999 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 k. Approval of Amended Environmental Commission Bylaws. Resolution #99-44: Set for Public Hearing on Development District Plan #4-1 for July 26, 1999 and direct staff to develop a plan for that district All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT, OUTLOT C, BRENDEN POND & OUTLOT A, BRENDEN POND 2N~. Anita Benson: The City has received a request from the developer of Brenden Pond, Gestach-Paulson Construction to vacate the unused portion of the drainage and utility easements over Outlot C, Brenden Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition. The request stems from the replatting of Brenden Pond and Brenden Pond 2nd Addition into Brenden Pond 3rd Addition. In conjunction with the platting of Brenden Pond 3rd Addition, the wetland area on Block 2 was determined to be less than the original delineation. Thus the existing underlying drainage and utility easements expanded further than necessary into Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Brenden Pond 3rd Addition. In addition the existing easements may impede the buildable area of the lots. The recorded plat of Brenden Pond 3rd Addition reflects the drainage and utility easements necessary for maintaining the existing storm water pond and wetland. The drainage and utility easements dedicated with Brenden Pond 3rd Addition are being preserved in their entirety and not subject to vacation with this request. Staff has received a written comment from Minnegasco not objecting to the vacation and at the time of the staff report was written, only two other inquiries were received and I'm not aware of any additional ones since the report was written. All the easements that were, that are being vacated were dedicated through the platting process at no cost to the city and the developer is paying for the cost of recording of the legal work that needs to be taken care of to vacate the easements. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff'? This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council for this public hearing, please do so. And if you could state your name and address. Steve Kerkvliet: Hi, my name is Steve Kerkvliet, 2201 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen. Before I make my comments, could I... comments as far as what takes place with the vacation of easements. Mayor Mancino: Sure. Anita, can you answer that? Anita Benson: What takes place is the existing drainage and utility easement which is on record with the county that was previously dedicated, the vacation would null and void that so it would take that encumbrance off of the property. Steve Kerkvliet: Does that include the distance between homes or the distance that was normally set aside between what was designated as wetland and the rear part of the lot? Anita Benson: No, that does not affect site plats in any way. Steve Kerkvliet: Okay. It's unfortunate that the neighbor that's directly affected, Erin Radon, has been stuck in traffic and can't get here. She's got all the original paperwork and information with regards to this City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 plot and what has been promised over the past months, if not longer by the builder and there are substantial objections to this request. Part of it may be due to not fully understanding but there is severe concern of the home perhaps being placed closer to the Radon home. Also how the wetland is affected in the back side of the lot and also the amount of distance increase between the curve to the front of the home and how it would affect the appearance of the rest of the neighborhood. Being different than the rest of the houses. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Steve, is she on her way here right now? Steve Kerkvliet: She was supposed to be here at 6:30. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Why don't we just table it for a little bit and do you have a problem with that Anita? Okay. We'll just go ahead to the next and when she comes in, we'll fit it in appropriately. Okay? Thank you. REQUEST TO CONDUCT AQUATIC NEEDS ANALYSIS, THOMAS R. SCHAFFER, 6501 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE. Thomas Schaffer: Hello Mayor and Council members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here. I am Thomas R. Schaffer. I do reside at 6501 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen. I'm a 12 year resident of Chanhassen. And what I did was I went to the Park and Recreation Commission and asked them if it would be proper or okay to conduct an aquatics needs survey of the community and I got their recommendation and they said I have to go up to council and pose the question to you. And basically what I'm asking for follows your strategic plan under quality, amenities, action steps, institute a process for determining the need of future public facilities. That's all I'm trying to do is conduct a survey to see if there's any interest in an aquatic facility of some type. Indoor. Outdoor. Small. Big. Aquatic park. Water park. Swimming pool. Just to see if there's interest in the community or not and ask the question of how it would be paid for if they'd be interested, if the citizens would be interested in paying for such a facility. And that's really the only request I have. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions for Thomas on this from council members? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: No questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any comments? Councilman Senn: Todd, when's our next, well I guess a question for Todd ifI could. When's our next joint meeting with Park and Rec? Todd Hoffman: Coming up June 7th. Councilman Senn: That's pretty soon, isn't it? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: It seems to me that it makes sense to kind of put it on the agenda for that joint meeting because I mean we do have kind of an established set of priorities at this point. If we are going to do a survey, maybe the survey can make a broader context rather than just this one issue and that's something we could maybe talk about collectively with them on the 7th since it's not too far away and see where we go City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 from there. I didn't, at least in reading the Parks minutes, I didn't get a real good feeling for what they really thought about it or felt about it in relationship to displacing existing priorities or anything else so I think it's just a good way to throw it into kind of a work session and talk about it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. That would certainly work. Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: I really echo the same comments. Wondering if by addressing just the aquatics, if we're raising the expectation that we're about to move forward on an aquatics program so I wondered if we're too focused on one piece of it. If we should be looking at a broader survey for other facilities. Because I did go back to the Parks and Rec survey that was done for the referendum and it was equal numbers in support or opposition to indoor or outdoor swimming facilities and I realize that that's not what the referendum was about. But it certainly didn't excite me to think that we should be moving forward aggressively on this until we really get a weighting of all the different activities and put it in there with what else would they want in a community center. What are the other facilities that we're missing and rank them in terms of priorities. Mayor Mancino: So put it much more comprehensively and in context with each other. Councilwoman Jansen: Exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I concur exactly. Don't need to add any more. It should be a more encompassing decision. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I'm in agreement. I'd like to...have a big pool or community center and it's one of their visions for the church. And somehow... One of their goals and. Councilman Engel: Todd, and you're aware of that? Todd Hoffman: Yep. Westwood Church. Councilman Engel: It should be something that should be discussed as a whole rather than a separate little satellite I guess orbiting around this goal. Mayor Mancino: ... all together. Mr. City Manager, any? Scott Botcher: Just a couple things I guess. If you, and I don't disagree with the idea of doing a comprehensive survey. If you do a scientific comprehensive survey, don't get sticker shock because it's not cheap to do that. I have no idea how much but it's not going to be a thousand bucks. Secondly, on whatever issue is delineated in any survey, I wouldn't necessarily discount the applicability of having an individual survey on that issue. I mean my concern with this survey again was it's scientific applicability is the data that we're going to get be any good. Secondly, I think that if you do surveys like this, you really need to ask them the question, are you willing to pay for this and how much are you willing to pay for this and that's not part of the survey. So I agree with you guys. I think that's fine. Just I think that if you want to do that and do it well, it will be a substantial undertaking. City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: When we did our park referendum survey it was $7,500.00. $7,500.00 and we asked those exact questions. How much are you willing to pay and monthly, yearly, etc.. Scott Botcher: And sometimes when you get such a large survey, it's like taking a long test. By the time you get to the end you're sort of just yeah, okay whatever and you're clicking boxes so you know there is some good to be said about taking a survey about a specific item. Whatever direction you decide to go though, if you go individually, I would recommend maybe we do something on the questions to focus them a little bit and really ask the questions that are germane. I mean it's easy to say yeah, we don't want it. That doesn't really tell us anything so that's, those are my thoughts. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. So Thomas, I think what we'd like to do, a consensus here is to get together with our Park and Rec Commission and we do have a meeting set up on June 7th, and talk about this and some of the other priorities that we have and then get back to you. Thomas Schaffer: That'd be fine. Mayor Mancino: And you're welcome to come to the meeting too. Okay? Thank you. Councilman Senn: Since it's a new business item, we probably better move to table it to the June 7th work session with the Parks and Recreation. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And may I have a motion. Councilman Engel: Move to table. Mayor Mancino: And may I have a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the request to conduct an aquatic needs survey to the June 7, 1999 joint work session with the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT, OUTLOT C. BRENDEN POND & OUTLOT A, BRENDEN POND 2N~ CONTINUED. Public Present: Name Address Steve Kerkvliet Erin Radon 2201 Lake Lucy Road 2237 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Mancino: So it really wasn't Highway 5 that kept you here right, Radon? Are you ready? Okay. Do you want to come up please? We are going back to item number 3 which is a public hearing. Vacation of drainage and utility easement, Outlot C, Brenden Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition. Could you state your name and address please? City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Erin Radon: Yes, I'm Erin Radon. I live at 2237 Lake Lucy Road. Mayor Mancino, council members. Thank you for letting me address you and I guess reworking your agenda here so I apologize for that but I appreciate it. I'm not sure I fully understand the whole request for a vacancy of the utility easement. I exchanged several voice mails with Dave Hempel who was very valiant in trying to address my concerns but I thought this issue was a little bit put to rest last year with several meetings we had. And I thought that the final plat drawings had been approved with.., on the land and the new lots that were delineated after the change of the boundaries in the wetland. So I guess my first question is, are things much different with this request on where the house will be on the lot next to us? When we purchased the lot there was to be one lot and then there was a change with the wetland and now there are two lots. And the entire Centex development which is where Mr. Kerkvliet and I live, the houses are linear. In a row basically. Probably exact distance from the wetland. Now my concern is where this house will be built in relation to the homes that are already built there. Secondly, I just was wondering why the city wouldn't vacate their own utility easement. Why this would be at the request of the builder and why the lot would be, or the plat. I'm trying to figure out how you, the terminology for the foundations of where you put the homes are, but I thought that was all decided so I'm very confused and was very interested to get this letter and to be back here that we have some unresolved issues. So if we could address that and I might have more questions and I apologize but I'm very concerned. I don't know if you can show this on the overhead of where the homes are adjacent to this but I brought the Woodridge Heights. Okay, here we go. Now ifI can try to show this area here. Okay. It looks like the area for the wetland. Here's where we live and you can see where all the homes are in a straight line and probably equal distance from the wetland back here. Now there is an additional storm water pond that was put in last year. Last fall and so my concern basically is in the lot adjacent to us and I think I speak for most of the homeowners too that this, the building site here not be moved back here to disrupt the layout, what the development is so far. So I don't know if I'm making myself clear but I'll sit. Mayor Mancino: Let's try and answer. Just stay there and so we'll try and answer. If you have other questions, you may ask those too as we go, as long as we're not here for an hour. No, just kidding. Anita, first of all. Placement of the house. Has anything changed about the final plat that we've gone over as a council and approved? Anita Benson: No, and I do have copies of that and I can put that up in a minute. I'd just like to explain the vacation process. With the previous Brenden Pond and Brenden Pond 2nd Addition, drainage and utility easements were dedicated where we anticipated the wetland delineation was. Where we would need it. They were placed over that outlot at that time. As you are aware Erin, Brenden Pond was, 3rd Addition was platted. The wetland delineation was proven to be further to the south. Therefore, with the 3rd Addition plat we require the developer to dedicate an additional drainage utility easement over the top of if you will, slight shifted further to the south of the original one that was dedicated with Brenden Pond 2nd Addition. However, there is a legal process whereby the previous one needs to be vacated. Certain costs associated with that and since the property was owned by the developer, they were required to initiate the vacation process. The city no longer needed that because the wetland delineation had shifted and we had a new drainage utility easement dedicated with the final plat approval of Brenden Pond 3rd Addition. And I do have copies. Mayor Mancino: So we're just making it right from the change that happened last year with the delineation of the wetland. City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Erin Radon: Okay, but the cover memo to the recommendation for the staff report says the existing easements may impede the buildable area of the lot. Now if the plat was drawn, or redrawn last fall, was it approved without the vacation of these easements? Mayor Mancino: Was it approved without the vacation of the easements? Yes. And that's why it's coming up now. That's why we're here. Erin Radon: So if it was approved last year, it wasn't approved as a buildable, it wasn't buildable as it was approved last year. Correct or incorrect? Anita Benson: If I could, the function of a drainage utility easement is to allow the city access say over a storm sewer or sewer or watermain pipe should there ever need to be repairs or access to a pond to clean it out. So the purpose, that is the means through which the city acquired the drainage and utility easement. Under the guise of the necessity for access for maintenance of the utility. So that is why, with the shift it was no longer needed. That area was no longer part of a drainage area due to the wetland, the new wetland delineation which was accepted. Erin Radon: In the report it states that the vacation of the easement also asks for property east, the vacation of the easement that is east of this site as well and that is where the major construction project took place and where the actual, I mean the culverts that they put in were at least 6 feet in diameter so if we shift the, if we take away that utility easement, if anything goes wrong with this drainage area, there won't be a city easement to repair that pipe, if my understanding from the way I read these reports. Mayor Mancino: Is that correct Anita? Anita Benson: That's a misunderstanding. We're maintaining a 10 foot drainage utility easement on the Gestach-Paulson property and we also have an additional 5 feet along your property line and that is being maintained. Erin Radon: But if the culvert, if these concrete culverts are 6 feet wide, that only gives you 4 feet additional on the Gestach side of the property. Is that enough? Anita Benson: Actually I believe from my recollection, it's a 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe so that would be, not be a 6 foot pipe. What we have we believe is sufficient. Mayor Mancino: You feel like you have sufficient easement to be able to go in and fix it or clean it out or whatever needs to be done? Anita Benson: Correct, and why don't I lay out the drawings here for you Erin so you can see how the house was approved with the final plat. The house pad. Erin Radon: Yeah, I'm not talking about the pipe. I'm talking about the culverts that are bigger than these desks. The concrete, I'm talking about the diameter of the entire hole. Not just the, you know I'm sure the concrete is. Anita Benson: What Erin's referring to are the storm sewer, the structures. Man hole structures. We have sufficient room to get in should we ever need to maintain those. City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Erin Radon: Okay. Anita Benson: It's more the pipe that is a concern because you have to dig deeper to actually do any type of repair. Why don't I put up the drawings. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that eastern easement is going to stay. Erin Radon: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it is going to stay at, Anita 10 feet? A 10 feet easement. It will stay. Erin Radon: Maybe then you could tell what the rules are, how close to an easement can you build a structure? Kate Aanenson: Right up next to it. The setback goes from a property line so the easement can be encumbered in the setback. That's always been in place. Erin Radon: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So it doesn't increase the setback. It still maintains the same. So if it's a 10 foot setback and the easement's in that 10 feet, it's the same area. Anita Benson: ... shows the drainage utility easement that is dedicated with the Brenden Pond 3rd Addition... And if I can address Erin's question regarding the setback of the home. The utility easement... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Steve Kerkvliet: ... but I'm just curious why that's not consistent. Mayor Mancino: Well a lot of times Steve it, in one subdivision, in a lot of them we will have houses right next to each other. One's 20 and one's 30 and we do it at staff's request and the applicant's request because they're trying to save trees in the back. Because of a wetland. For all different reasons. It's never always the same. I mean in one subdivision if it's on farmland that there doesn't need to be a variation, but when we get into areas where there are wetlands and mature trees and topography, etc, yeah. They really can vary. Steve Kerkvliet: Okay. And the final question and perhaps Erin may need to address this as well. If I'm correct when we last met and worked with the builder in that area, with the destruction of trees and the addition of a pond, I believe that the builder was going to put some additional trees along the median on the eastern side of his property as a replacement. Does this vacation of easements affect his obligation of the foliage that's going to go along that line? I don't know where I've heard it but I've heard a rumor that he's requested that it not be there. And again that is just something I've heard. That he wanted to put it behind and the whole purpose of our agreement, or if you could call it an agreement, was to make sure we had some kind of foliage between the properties. Mayor Mancino: Anita please. City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Anita Benson: That's rumor as far as I'm aware. There is no intention to reduce the trees out there. Additionally with the Lake Lucy Road project, the city capital improvement project, the landscaping has not been completed yet. The weather hasn't been quite conducive for that this spring but we will be getting that done soon and you will be seeing a change order for the addition of the trees in the pond area as discussed when the pond work was done at your June 14th meeting. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I hope that's your answer and, okay. Any other questions that you have? Okay. Thank you. Councilman Engel: I'd like to add a little extra. If you want to see an example of this, where the home might be way offofa setback compared to it's neighbors. Go down to Lake Susan Hills on the east side of CR 17, Powers Boulevard south of TH 5. About a mile or so down there's two entrances on Lake Susan Hills Drive and it will loop around. If you go to the second one to the south and drive in there and go all the way around, look to your left and you'll see some big houses that are probably about 50 to 60 feet back for the most part. Maybe 80 and then you'll come upon one that's a white one beyond some big trees, it's about 150 back so he's way back. So just give you a feel for what it looks like. Mayor Mancino: May I please have a motion? Councilwoman Jansen: If I could comment? Mayor Mancino: Sure. Councilwoman Jansen: The work session, when we started talking about the setbacks and the differences between the Centex development and Brenden Ponds. That 10 foot difference. Though we can't require that the builder come closer to Lake Lucy, we did have the conversation that Council's amicable to it, to at least suggest to the builder that we would be, look favorably towards his requesting that variance to come back closer to Lake Lucy in order to provide a better sight line for the neighbors and keep him out of the wetland. In fact staff, Anita had mentioned that it may save him some of the cost of fill to bring it closer to Lake Lucy than punching out that additional 10 feet but seeing as all those other homes on that south side of Lake Lucy are 20 feet back, if he would look at it favorably to move forward, it would certainly be nice to encourage that. If the rest of council would be favorable towards that. Mayor Mancino: Well I kind of leave that open to the developer and what the developer would like to do. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and certainly leaving it open to the developer but if the developer doesn't know that we're suggesting that that might be a favorable alternative for the neighbors and to council, it really should have been addressed when the final platting was done but that was done last year so I gather we don't really want to put him back through the whole process again in order to be able to address that but if it's something that we can at least put out there as a suggestion. Mayor Mancino: Kate, would he have to go back through the. Kate Aanenson: ... process. We did look at that. They are shared driveways. It's compromised as far as parking space so we did look at that. This is another PUD. You have variations. Sometimes you try to taper that. 25. Step it down to 30 but it's hard to tell with the curvature of the road. We can work with the applicant and site their home on there so they can see exactly but when you've got a shared driveway situation, you're already compromising some parking spaces and with the parking on one side of the street City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 already, we did look at that so. The individual homeowner also has a right to come in and ask for a variance. Whoever buys that lot also has the right to proceed with a variance request. But we did look at that. Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. So when an individual homeowner, when they decide to buy the lot, they can come in and ask for that too. Okay. Kate Aanenson: ... forward. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's true. So you're kind of back to the same situation. Well if councilmembers would like to respond to that. Councilman Senn, any? Councilman Senn: Well I would think probably what makes the most sense tonight is to pass on the drainage and utility easements but I think staff's gotten the flavor of that between the work session and now and they could address that with the developer, the homeowners. You know if we're going to ask them or say that we're so inclined to do it, then we should probably let them know that we'd waive fees for them to do it because that's kind of unfair to double them up on that. And secondly, I just would want people to understand that with the curvature of the road to the north there, 10 feet is not going to solve the problem. 10 feet difference will still effectively leave you know, how do I say this? You can't put houses within 20 feet of the road and the houses on this within 20 feet of the road still not impacted because the road curves to the north substantially there. So you're still going to have the sight lines regardless and I just wouldn't want to create the impression that by even asking or doing a variance it's going to solve the problem because it won't. It will simply reduce that sight angle by 10 feet but you will have... There's not much we can do about it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I have no problem with the neighbors, developer, staff can work it out. I have no agenda on it. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of vacation of drainage and utility easement and staff has direction beyond that. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second please? Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution #99-45: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements dedicated on the final plats over Outlot C, Brenden Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.434 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 27,419 SQ. FT. AND 35,066 SQ. FT.; LOCATED NORTHWEST OF LOTUS LAKE, 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, ALICIA HEIGHTS, RAY AND ALICIA BROZOVICH. Public Present: 10 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Nflme Address John Miller Ray & Alicia Brozovich John & Sandra Cunningham 24925 Glen, Shorewood 6609 Horseshoe Curve 6665 Horseshoe Curve Kate Aanenson: When the staff first met with this applicant there was quite a substantial amount of fill being brought into the site. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards and we had concerns about that based on that neighborhood and the width of the streets and changing the character. This lot slopes severely down to the lake and we worked carefully with the applicant to try to reduce the amount of fill being brought in and they have revised their plans to 400 to 500 cubic yards of fill being brought in but what that did is, we had to compromise on the driveway grade. So the driveway's sloping down at maximum of 20%. The lot is further complicated by the fact that we had the shoreland regulations that say you shouldn't block the sight lines because there are existing homes on either side. One of them being the applicant's, it's impossible to push the house any further without compromising either the amount of fill or the driveway grade. The adjoining neighbor was concerned about visibility, loss of privacy. The applicant had worked since the Planning Commission meeting to move the house forward an additional 6 feet and on the most lake side, moving it further 4 feet from his property line. In addition putting landscaping or stone on the property. There is trees on the one side and putting additional landscaping on the other. The Planning Commission looked at this on their May 24th and recommended approval of the subdivision. There was a discussion on additional right-of-way dedicated for Horseshoe Curve. We had a similar subdivision that came in previously. While we certainly concur that the narrow streets add to the character, it's always the staff's choice to get the dedication at this time instead if we had to go back and acquire it for easements of whatever type that we would have to do that at a later date with compensation. So the engineering, while the Planning Commission felt that there's established character to the neighborhood, it may not be needed. The engineering department and staff still recommends consideration of the 10 additional feet of right-of- way. With that we are recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions of the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff? Councilman Senn: Kate I went by and looked at the site this afternoon. Now effectively, I mean other than the suggested location of the house, I mean did you look at alternatives? I couldn't really see any other way to do it. Kate Aanenson: Right, we did. And the builder did too. Really there isn't a lot of opportunity because of the slope. Councilman Senn: Right I mean. Kate Aanenson: You'd have to really substantially change the size of the home, and it is an oversized lot. Both lots are above the minimum for lakeshore lot so it's really what's driving this is the slope. The topography. So it's not really a self imposed. It's the topography of the lot. And we were concerned about the amount of fill being brought in and what that would do to the lake so we tried to find a middle ground there. Obviously the one neighbor would prefer to have it brought forward. Or moved further away from his house but it just can't. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? 11 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Ray Brozovich: Well it's been quite a trip. Starting in December and then proceeding. Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address. Ray Brozovich: Ray Brozovich, 6609 Horseshoe Curve. I didn't know I was going to become such a developer of what I assumed was going to be a simple metes and bounds splitting of a parcel of property. But the big positive has been that that big sign, which I really was kind of resenting initially, is drawing a lot of attention to my current home which is for sale. So granted I thank Sharmin, who's not here, for really working with us and getting us all that extra mile that she did. And I just didn't realize it was going to take as long as it did but hopefully we'll be on our way. And I've been known to plant a few trees in the neighborhood so hopefully I get some type of tree that will offer some type of a buffer for them, but thank you all and thank you Nancy for showing up yesterday and going through the property itself. Mayor Mancino: You're welcome. I do have a question for you. How do you feel about the 10 feet right- of-way? The additional 10 feet. Ray Brozovich: It's a very unique neighborhood in terms of the character and that is a big issue. I think there'd be a lot of destruction of the character of the neighborhood by extracting 10 feet all the way around Horseshoe Curve. And there are many structures that are actually practically sitting on Horseshoe Curve with their garages, etc. So it would probably be quite an imposition on most homeowners in that area. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this? Okay, seeing none. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of preliminary and final plat request for subdivision of 1.434 acres into two lots with an area of 27,419 and 35,066. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I'll second. Mayor Mancino: Would you take a friendly amendment on recommendation 11 ? Deleting the additional 10 feet of right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve. Councilman Senn: Oh yes. I thought that would only be added if we added it. Maybe I misunderstood that. Mayor Mancino: It's added in, it's number 11 in the recommendation. Councilman Senn: ...the only way we have.., future bad decisions. Mayor Mancino: Then you'll accept the friendly amendment, correct? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: And will you second that addition of the friendly amendment? Councilman Engel: I will. I misunderstood the same way he did. 12 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat with a variance allowing up to 20% grade for a driveway and an 81 foot lakeshore setback for Alicia Heights Subdivision #99-4, as shown on the plans dated May 11, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees according to local ordinances. Currently, the single family home rate is $2,780 per acre. Based on the size of 0.63 acres, the new lot will have a SWMP fee of $1,749.88. These fees are due at the time of final plat recording. 2. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees before grading can begin. 4. Building Official conditions: a. A permit from the Building Inspections Division is required for any retaining walls over 4 feet tall. b. A final soils report must be submitted to the city for any filling or soil correction done on the site to determine the bearing capacity of the soil. c. The proposed sewer and water connection details were not reviewed at this time. Contact Randy Debner at 937-1900 ext. 138 for information. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy. Premise Identification, Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. b. Any trees removed from the site must either be chipped or hauled away. Due to close proximity to other homes, no burning permit will be issued. The developer will work with staff to review the existing topographic conditions of the site so as to find a location that would have the least impact to the neighbors to the east. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. Drainage swales shall be installed along both sides of the proposed home on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard. The drainage swales shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide to minimize erosion potential along the sides of the house. Roof gutters shall also be installed on the home to redirect roof runoff to the rear of the home. 13 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Additional erosion control measures may be required along the sides of the home on Lot 1 within the drainage swale. Erosion control fence will also be required in conjunction with the sanitary sewer connection by the lake. 10. A sanitary sewer service shall be from the existing 8 inch sanitary sewer along the south property line. Water service will be extended by the city at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the north property line of Lot 1. The applicant will be required to escrow $2,500 to guarantee the cost of the water service extension. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve will be deducted from the watermain connection charge. 11. The final plat shall dedicate standard 10 foot front, rear and 5 foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line which runs through the southerly portion of Lots 1 and 2. 12. If material is imported or exported from the site, the developer will need to provide the city with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. If material is proposed to be imported from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the other properties will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the city. 13. The applicant will work with staff to keep the setback as far from the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake and minimizing the building profile at the same time. 14. A variance to the ordinance to allow a 20% driveway grade and an 81 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark for Lotus Lake. 15. The applicant shall bring in to the City Council a reforestation plan for the east side of the site to buffer the neighbors to the east as much as possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-263; AND A 27 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FT. WIDE DOCK; AND A VARIANCE OF ONE OVERNIGHT DOCK SLIP TO PERMIT FOUR OVERNIGHT BOAT MOORINGS ON OUTLOT F~ NORTH BAY~ NORTH BAY COMMUNITY. Kate Aanenson: In 1997 when the City Council granted final plat approval for North Bay, this was the outlot remnant which they had always considered for the beachlot and they are now prepared to present that for your approval. Beachlot conditional use permit which requires a separate permit. We believe that the beachlot layout is well conceived but we do have a concern about the request for the variance for the additional dock width. There's minimal tree removal and we did have some concerns about as far as... and we are working with the applicant to resolve that issue. When the Planning Commission reviewed this application they recommended denial of the variance as part of the development. This would be for the dock itself. They do allow it to have a dock with the slips and they will have up to 3 boats and they did recommend denial of that because they felt with the marginal requirement for a beachlot and if it was to be a single family home, they wouldn't be able to have that additional. There are spaces for canoe racks and the like. The other issue that came up was the access to the beachlot and safety. Traffic on Lyman 14 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Boulevard. Engineering department did look at the warrants for a crosswalk and that is being put in place right now. They did recommend approval of the conditional use again with denial of the variance. They did ask the staff to meet with the applicant to see if there's a way to resolve the width issue. Staff did present some alternatives. If they want to put a bench out there and still maintain the required width. While we could make it work it's not the first choice of the applicant so they are still requesting a variance. Just to be clear again the staff is still recommending denial as did the Planning Commission. So with that I'll recommend denial on the variance and approval of a conditional use with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and you think you can, thank you. Work through the toilet. Kate Aanenson: It's just a matter when you're doing normal maintenance. We're just concerned about the wear and tear on our trail and again the concern was the people at the association have to cross the street. We got the crosswalk in. That was a big concern of safety of the people in the area too. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for council members to staff at this time? Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Please state your name and address. Josh Redding: My name is Josh Redding. I live at 8791 North Bay Drive. Thank you Council and Mayor for reviewing our proposal. Everything that the Planning Commission approved or denied we agree with, with the exception of the variance for the dock. And we're not looking for the 27 foot variance anymore. We're asking for a 7 foot variance. The reason being is that the dock has an L section on the side of the piece of the dock that goes all the way out and maybe if we could get it up on the blueprint. Mayor Mancino: That in front of us, that would be helpful. Josh Redding: You'll see from, we will not be going this additional L section here. But what we would like to do is add this L section. The dock is 4 feet wide and then this piece would be an additional 24 so we would ask for at least a 4 foot variance... 3 foot variance here .... this 28 feet. Then another 4 feet here for an additional section on the end to have a bench area... That would be an additional 7 foot variance... Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can just clarify. The intent of getting the bench on is that you can still pass safely while, so someone can be sitting on the bench and you can still safely pass. So what they're asking for is additional width to accommodate that. In that one segment and then along the common walkway. The segment... Josh Redding: ... 4 foot length section that would butt it up to... enjoy the lake. Mayor Mancino: So instead of the dock being 25 feet wide there, it would be 32 feet wide? Josh Redding: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 25 is the ordinance. It says yeah, one dock with a maximum width of 25 feet and so for that extension they want to make it an additional 7 feet wide. 32 feet. Councilman Senn: I thought the extension's only an additional 4 feet. In width. Councilman Engel: Probably 7 in length. 15 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Josh Redding: Right. What happens is we have, to get two boat slips there as we have it plotted, we have three 8 foot sections that come off the main run of the dock. So that's 24 feet. Then you add the additional 4 feet of the main run of the dock and that's 28. Then you add another 4 feet for the additional bench area at the end of the L section which is another 4 feet. Does that make sense? So this area right here. Mayor Mancino: What does that have to do with width? Josh Redding: Well the way I read the ordinance is that maximum width of the dock can be 25 feet. Right now if we just add this section right here to here onto the dock, that's going to... Councilman Engel: And another 4 in width when you get out to the end which is 7. Councilman Labatt: this, coming like this. lake? In that one comer there, couldn't you just position the adjoining piece, instead of like Shorten your depth for the two boats but how big a boats you going to put on this Josh Redding: Well the research we did, part of the reason we have the dock set up the way it is is because of the water depth in that area. It's a maximum maybe of 4 feet. It's probably a little higher right now because of the high water depth. Councilman Labatt: Bearing on which way you put that angle. Josh Redding: I think what you're saying is if we take this section and remove this section and put it this way? Councilman Labatt: No. No. Councilman Senn: No, what he's saying is you end up with basically a gap of 20 feet and the only way you'd need 20 feet as a gap is if you were putting in boats with a 10 foot span. Councilman Labatt: 10 foot beam. Councilman Senn: And there's no way you're going to put 10 foot span boats on Lake Riley. You're not even going to put 8 foot span boats. Councilman Labatt: Move your finger down to the, right there. And then where the run comes out to the west. You come out like this. You're going to come out 24 feet, right? Josh Redding: Right. That's three 8 foot sections. Councilman Labatt: And then instead, like you did in the drawing here. You're asking for the variance for another 4 feet to put the dock over here to come out. IfI understand you right. But if you put it just like you've got here, then you're not going to need the other 4 feet. Josh Redding: Well fine. I was under the impression that...that that would count as 32 feet the way it's plotted right now. 16 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Kate Aanenson: The 25 feet refers to the length of the run, not the width. Councilman Senn: We're not even talking width? Kate Aanenson: Not an issue, yes. Councilman Senn: We're not even talking width? Kate Aanenson: No. It's the length of the run is 25 feet. Councilman Senn: The length of which run? Okay. And we look at that as width because you consider in the overall width is what you're saying. Kate Aanenson: Right, it was misinterpreted. Councilman Senn: Okay, but you could just as easily cut that down as far as, you wouldn't have to use three full length sections. You could use a half section and do full eight foot sections and still then meet the requirement. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Got it, okay. Any other questions for Josh at this time so we can understand this? Councilman Senn: One other quick question for Kate. Isn't there a requirement as far as a platform at the end like that? I mean aren't we limited regardless of what our ordinance say by the DNR in terms of how wide that platform at the end can be? Kate Aanenson: I don't believe so. Josh Redding: It's my understanding this plan was submitted to the DNR and they had no issues. Kate Aanenson: Well there is on the length as far as depth to get to a certain, whatever it takes to get to. Councilman Senn: No, they actually have, at least they used to. Maybe things have changed but they had a requirement for platforms at the end that you know, you basically could have a 4 foot dock going out if added another section at the end for a platform, you were limited in terms of. Kate Aanenson: Like a boat lift or something? Councilman Senn: No, just pure. Councilman Labatt: No, I don't. Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Senn: They had one at one time. I don't know if they changed it. Mayor Mancino: Well it went through them so it should be okay. Kate Aanenson: We updated this. 17 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Councilman Senn: Okay, so they reviewed it? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Josh Redding: I have a question for staff. They brought up an issue about trees that we were going to, for vegetation and removal of vegetation that we were going to work on. Mayor Mancino: And did you resituate the gazebo? Josh Redding: Yes. Yep, that was the issue, okay. Other than that we plan on preserving all the vegetation that's on the lot, for good reason. Mayor Mancino: Oh I had a question about the fire pit. Is there going to be a kind of a council fire pit in there or is that going to be actually something man made that you're going to have fires in? Josh Redding: It will be something that will be in the ground. Councilman Labatt: Concrete or rock? Josh Redding: Concrete or rock, yeah. Correct. And we will be moving it off the beach. Mayor Mancino: Okay, because there is a certain size from the fire marshal that you are allowed to have a fire anytime in a fire pit but it has to be a certain size. It can't be over 3 feet by 3 feet so you know that. Josh Redding: Maybe the apartments should abide by that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Actually that brings up another point. Fires out in the winter time. Josh Redding: I don't think we plan on doing that. But we can make sure that. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, snow. Councilman Labatt: ... I tried that. Mayor Mancino: It doesn't work? Councilman Labatt: It didn't work. The only water source was a shovel and a big pile of snow. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Unless you have any other questions or comments for us. Okay, thank you. Anyone else tonight wishing to address the council on this issue? Okay. Let's bring it back to Council. Comments from councilmembers. 18 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: The only issue that really came up with the other homeowners on the lake was the safety factor and I think limiting the slips to where there were 3 overnights versus the 4. At least help to answer that, though I don't think it's truly going to impact the overall safety of the lake. We think some of the other comments that Josh and his association have made are going to play more to the public safety. They seem like real conscientious lakeshore owners and we're all pleased to have a nice group working with us on the lake like that but as far as the homeowners were concerned, I think they're okay with this. Mayor Mancino: And Josh, you feel comfortable with the, you do have racks for, what is it, 24 sailboats and canoes? Josh Redding: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Any other comments? Thank you. Councilman Senn: Move approval of the conditional use permit as per the Planning Commission's recommendation and denial of the variance request. Kate Aanenson: The variance request is really baseless. Should they make a motion on it? Roger Knutson: I think you could find it moot. Make a finding that the variance request is not needed. Councilman Senn: And find that the variance request is unnecessary. Mayor Mancino: Okay, a second please. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council finds that the variance request is not needed, and that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit/t99-1 for a recreation beachlot at 8901 Lyman Boulevard, Outlot F, North Bay, also known as Lot 1, Block 1, North Bay 4th Addition, for the North Bay Community subject to the following conditions: 1. Must comply with Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 2. Must comply with the site and landscape plan, and grading and drainage plan prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 3/30/99. 3. The dock shall not be constructed as shown on the site plan but must be a maximum of 25 feet wide. 4. The gazebo shall not be located as shown on the site plan but must maintain a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation (865.3) and a 30 foot setback from Lyman Boulevard. 5. Structures must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the side property lines. 6. The dock may only be extended out to a point where the lake reaches four feet in depth or fifty feet, whichever is greater. The applicant shall submit the lake depths in the vicinity of the beach lot to the city prior to the installation of the dock. 19 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 7. Timbers or retaining walls shall not be permitted to the lake side of the sand beach area. 8. The fire pit must be a minimum of 10 feet from the ordinary high water elevation. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $2,000 to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration and repair of city streets/boulevards as a result of construction activities. 10. The proposed section of Class V gravel trail between Lyman Boulevard and the city trail shall be deleted. 11. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained at a construction access point from Lyman Boulevard. Staff shall review and approve all construction access locations prior to construction commencing. 12. After construction of the site improvements, driving on the city's trail along Lyman Boulevard shall be prohibited. 13. Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of all (volleyball, horseshoe pit, shore slip areas, beach, etc.) grading limits. 14. All pruning to existing trees must be done by a certified arborist. 15. Any existing trees removed in excess of approved plan will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 16. Landscape plan shall be revised to clarify existing lawn areas. The term %od limits" in the shoreline areas shall be replaced by the term ;;existing lawn". 17. Grading equipment access to shore slip and beach areas shall be limited to proposed pathway. No equipment shall be stored within or allowed access through existing treed areas. 18. The proposed beach area shall provide a sand blanket slope as specified by the no permit standards of the DNR. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. EASTERN CARVER COUNTY COLLABORATIVE GROUP CONSIDERATION. Scott Botcher: Pursuant to our discussion at the work session, this group is seeking, and I guess representatives of the City of Chanhassen who participate with this group are seeking if nothing else reconfirmation of the direction that you would like us to represent on the municipality's behalf. I did distribute to you some text as well as a flow chart. Or not a flow chart but a matrix indicating in a conceptual sense where the facilitator might thing the City of Chanhassen may participate at an unspecified time for some of these activities and we get to the point especially as you all are aware, the planning grant dollars, or the planning dollars that were sought from legislature were not received and at some point I think they're looking for a little bit of a reconfirmation. Sort of a check in on where everybody is. 2O City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Certainly you are not under any obligation to provide them with more of a position statement than you feel comfortable with. If your position is geez, you know we're just sort of going to participate and we're not really to ready to commit one way or the other, that's fine. If you want to look at them and say we're out of here. You can say that too. And anywhere in-between. I guess just for those of us who participate with this organization, you know we'd like some confirmation of the direction that Council would like to take. Beyond that we've got a couple of folks who have participated in the group longer than I have and maybe you could add some thoughts if I'm misspeaking. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Todd, you've been on the budget committee. Do you have any thoughts and, I think actually the budget committee is the one that kind of said okay. So where are we now? Where are we going? Todd Gerhardt: Well of the five alternatives, I've got to believe that item four would be the most interested position that the city may want to look at participating in. As Chanhassen continues to grow and grow, there will be a larger and larger need for additional soccer fields. I know Mr. Engel, Councilmember Engel has expressed interest in more youth football fields which too are being considered for the outdoor recreational space. And doing a joint facility, I see us doing more joint programming with Chaska/Chan/ Victoria for recreational activities in the future so of all the programs, I think that one, I would leave at least the door open for further discussion. I know it's a long ways for our residents to go but you know for the economic benefit of the land prices in Victoria compared to Chanhassen and the sharing of the cost of the development, I think it may be something that needs additional research. Scott Botcher: I think one of the questions that will come up at the meeting Friday is whether or not, and I don't know if this will happen but since the planning dollars were not received, if it's ante up time, to continue to play I guess may be the best way to put it. If there is some push on the part of the leadership or the facilitator to still move ahead with some of this planning process, that obviously will have to be funded somewhere. And if and when we get to that point, that's where this will really get to be interesting. You know how much are we paying for. I have spoken with Mr. Hoffman and Todd and I have talked. There is functional utility I think for Chanhassen to participate in the construction of the recreational fields. The rub is how much is, how much economically is it worth to us to participate and Todd's right, there is no way in God's green earth any of us can pull out a number and say this is what it's going to cost, because we don't know. As the Mayor said, it probably will be phased. We don't know the interest rates. We really don't know the land costs even. I mean we sort of have a ballpark number but we're not quite there yet. So as far as that's concerned, I tend to agree with Todd. That maybe it's something that we take the position that we say no. We're interested in helping and maybe playing with this, but we reserve the full right to say no. You guys are asking us for too much money. It's not worth that much to us. We're going to walk away and if they know that up front, I think we're being fair with them. They can plan on that basis and maybe thirdly, it maybe gets us a little better a deal. Mayor Mancino: Let me also pose the question, because this is a three fold question as it's coming out is, would everyone respond to whether I think that they will, it's just my guess, that they will stage this and the recreational fields won't probably come on board for 3 to 5 years. So if the question is asked, is it something you want to participate in now or is it something that you would be willing to see if you want to participate in later on, how do we answer that? Because our needs assessment in 5 years may be different than it is now. So we're throwing all that into the kitty right now. Councilman Senn: Well maybe what we really need to do is just simply reaffirm our already existing motion or position statement that we made which was effectively at this time we're very interested in 21 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 continuing to be at the table discussion wise and participate in the process. But Chanhassen is making no financial commitment, okay. And we may change our mind in the future. You know in the future depending on what comes up when, but I mean we lack sufficient information to evaluate that now. Mayor Mancino: So would you be willing to get that information that we need? The question is asked then, would you participate in dollars for planning without that information? Councilman Senn: That was our previous answer. Scott Botcher: And that's fine. We just need to know that. Mayor Mancino: That's what we need to talk about. Councilwoman Jansen: ... that that initial planning of the thousand was to carry us through the end of the first phase and that's really what's coming to completion. So now they'll be coming back to us for what I understood at least initially could have been another 10 grand to go into the next planning phase. But that was if they had gotten half of the planning money from the House or the Senate, if it had gone through. So we're talking some number above 10 grand if they still work with what they're saying the planning could cost us. So I guess when I looked at this, I did go through the questions that were posed to us. What would it take for us to go forward with the project, and those questions led me to do we need the components that are in the project? Which took me back to the recreational fields. Well now if somebody could maybe speak, and I don't know what goes into a new middle school as far as the recreational facilities. Does that encompass football? And right now the school district is considering, and of course we're a long way from getting anywhere with it but consideration is being given to putting a middle school in Chanhassen. Now will that, or could that encompass some of the recreational facilities that we find we need and hence get them into Chanhassen? And then another step to that is do we have a site that would be conducive to our also being able to attach a library? A community library so in essence we would be doing within Chanhassen a smaller version of what is being proposed out in Victoria, but it would be more closely located to our residents and accommodate more the needs of the community. Mayor Mancino: Well and that's exactly right. I mean one of the whole rationales about having this collaborative process was to say this is the first one that we're going to try here in Victoria and as other school needs come on board, let's make sure that we use the same model that we used here at another school site. Now it may have different components, like you're saying. I mean there may not be a need for a library but would there be some other components that we would want to collaborate on as the three or four cities, so we were trying to take the model that we've been working on here and adopt it and use it again for, in other areas that the three or four cities would be working together. So that's right. Councilwoman Jansen: ... come as a surprise that Chanhassen would already be proposed at the same time as the elementary school in Victoria that we'd be being proposed for a middle school. So again it opens up the question to us in Chanhassen, if we're going to be spending dollars, are we better spending those dollars in our community at the facilities coming on board. We're one-third of the population of the county and we're going to tell our one-third of the county residents that they need to go to Victoria to access this facility? I don't know how well that plays. Now if, and I've heard someone mention that Victoria is eventually going to be as large as Chanhassen. Well, in their comp plan it's still showing out at 2010 at 7,800. So if we're addressing immediate population needs, I guess I would like to maybe challenge us a little bit to maybe move forward more aggressively with our own strategic planning and get our facilities up to meet the needs of our community and I go back to the '97 survey where our taxpayers are saying they're 22 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 sitting in Chanhassen and they're tax dollars are not giving them the services that they consider they are, should be paying for. Our services are not accommodating what our residents are paying in taxes and they see a disparity. So it seems that if we can address our own needs within Chanhassen, that should be our immediate concern versus going out to Victoria where again one of the concerns that was raised on Todd Hoffman's part as we were attending one of the programs, committee meetings, was that Victoria doesn't have the staff to really be able to address how to do trails. How to do the maintenance of these facilities. All of those things within this recreational piece of this project don't have the supports in place in Victoria to address them. And they have the 40 acre park that they just acquired that they need to address so which is going to come first? I think if we look at the needs within Chanhassen, our field needs are going to happen here before maybe Victoria's even set up to handle their situation. But those are just some of the comments that came about that really led me to wonder if we aren't looking out to Victoria a little early when we have possibilities here to address. Mayor Mancino: Mark? Councilman Senn: Scott, I think what's really important, any time you start talking about a collaboration such as this, the easy thing to do is to say the collaboration includes you know five people, you know and everybody's equal parties or it's based on population or whatever. Okay. Effectively I think what we need to make sure of is that there's a base or a threshold and cap as any collaborative effort like that goes forward. You know we have already provided substantial city subsidy to you know facilities that are already used in collaboration, okay. And benefit you know people from some of those other.., cities. Historically we granted a great deal of recreational subsidy here at City Center Park backing up to an elementary school. We subsidized the other elementary school in recreational facilities to the tune of about $4 million. You know nobody else helped contribute to that process at the time. And going forward I think it's unrealistic to just kind of assume and forget all that and start.., based on population or whatever because we have many of those fields and many of those facilities in place. We've done through referendum or you know TIF districts or through a whole bunch of other different mechanisms. And so I think it's really important to measure that up front and consider that up front.., kind of have a discussion on how we move forward from here. Because otherwise we do ourselves injustice and it becomes a very convoluted process. I mean all the subsidy that we've pumped into recreational facilities in Chan schools around here benefit half of the residents of our city thus far. Because it's only the Chaska school system. We have provided them subsidy through the Minnetonka... which serves the other half of our city for subsidy in terms of recreational facilities. And again, I'm not saying whether it's good, bad or indifferent. But it's something we have to keep in mind for our city.., between two school districts and access to and use of facilities especially when they're attached to a school or very limited in nature or probably say confined in nature by it's relationship with the school district. I think that's all stuff we have to consider going forward and I think remain open to that... Scott Botcher: Well and that's understood. Councilman Senn: ... separate kind of consideration. Scott Botcher: Right, and one of the things that I've tried to communicate to people on the library issue, and sometimes I've said it more directly than others because I want to communicate a message but Chanhassen is an 8,000 pound gorilla in this county. And we need to be aware of that and we need to be able to utilize that to our benefit. And sometimes we need to act like it. And if it's time for us to walk, then we walk. And that goes without saying. On the other, on Linda's stuff, I'm not sure that, and maybe I've just missed it. That the school district and Chaska has ever publicly talked about siting a junior high, 23 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 middle school in the city. I mean that's sort of been the rumor. Talk behind the scenes but I think that's probably as far as it's gone. And if it's there, then that's great but I guess my understanding is that the middle school will follow the elementary school and if that's the case, then we can plan that for the future. I think that makes a lot of sense to consolidate that sort of stuff. I agree. I think that's a good methodology. On the flip side, just because I'm paid to ask devil's advocate questions, there is some economic utility to have non-taxable park property right on your border outside your city limits so you don't have to give it up within your city limits. There is some functionality to that. And you know it's probably what, 5 miles there? I asked you this once Nancy. Was it 5 miles? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Scott Botcher: Or so to the park site. And instead of giving up how ever many acres of taxable property, you make some other guy next door give it up in their city. And you've got, you know we've got a lot of people that live on the western edge of the city. Just as well as on the eastern edge. And I know that's not how the recreational programming goes but sometimes you think economically, maybe that's not such a bad deal to have it outside the city. You know what are you giving up in terms of tax dollars forever just so you can say it's in the city. That's another thing you've got to consider. But I think I get your message. I mean as a group I get your message and we can just continue to play along. If they want planning dollars, just sort of say we're punting at this point. Mayor Mancino: Well and the fact of the matter is, from what Todd has told us at a work session, we don't need in the next 5 years, or his assessment, and I don't know to what rigor he made this assessment. That we do not need any more fields for right now in Chanhassen. For the next, I think he said to us at the work session, 5 years. That he thinks that we're doing pretty well and after everything that we've built from the referendum dollars, that we're in a good space so I think that also goes into not going ahead in the recreational part. Scott Botcher: Well I just, we needed to just sort of again get your consensus and if it hasn't changed, we'll stick with it. Mayor Mancino: Well we still haven't heard from Councilman Engel. Any comments? Councilman Engel: I'm easy. You hit the nail on the head. You'd like to have it in your city for exactly the reasons Councilwoman Jansen says. To feel you have ownership of it. You should provide it being you are the large part of the population and you're putting dollars into it. At the same time, you preserve a little taxable land. I'm kind of caught up in, what I don't want to see is we put a bunch of money into planning and feel an obligation to continue this thing. I don't know what the amount of money is that's reasonable for planning. I thought the thousand we put in would get us a little farther I guess. I'm a bit unrealistic about that. I didn't know we had to put another 10 in. Scott Botcher: And I don't think they've asked us for any money Todd, unless, we're just sort of blowing numbers around. Mayor Mancino: But they will because they have to. Now that they didn't get any. Councilwoman Jansen: That was the number that they were kicking around if they only got half. Scott Botcher: Yeah, and Linda could very well be right. I just, I don't know. 24 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: They didn't talk about it at the steering committee. They didn't talk about an amount, did they? Councilwoman Jansen: It was the meeting that you missed. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Councilwoman Jansen: They talked about if you recall, that I then became aware of and memo'd everybody that there was this $10,000 number being kicked around at the city level. Mayor Mancino: Oh, because it was on the radio. Councilwoman Jansen: I heard it there and I subsequently heard it from a commissioner so it was definitely confirmed that it was going to be $10,000.00. Todd Gerhardt: Linda Jansen made a good point regarding Victoria's capabilities in managing and maintaining a facility like this. And at the finance committee we had discussions where resources either from county, city, Chaska, or Chanhassen's contribution doesn't need to be money. It could be just maintenance would be our contribution. Or management of the facility. So that we have the equipment that we can go over there and mow something like that, and I know there's a dollar associated with that. Councilman Engel: So it's not cash out of pocket up front. Todd Gerhardt: Not cash out of pocket but you may have to put on some additional summer help or something. And right now we're not in the crunch so it isn't a top priority so it is, but Scott makes some good points regarding tax base. The distance. There's a lot of factors involved. This hasn't really been done in many places. We share a lot of Eden Prairie's resources. We use their ice in the past and now and we use their bubble. My son in the Minnetonka school district has used Eden Prairie's bubble and we don't contribute to it, with the exception of the fees that we pay to use the facility. So you know it's a sharing of resources as cities grow and add more services so this is just a way of trying to economically provide those. But right now we're not in the.., soccer fields is unbelievable. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt. Any comments you want to make? Councilman Labatt: Just a couple comments .... already alluded to is the fact that I question, do they have the infrastructure in place out there and the employees and resources... What is the cost to the city? I'm not opposed... Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Great, thank you. Councilman Engel: Enough for him to go ahead. Mayor Mancino: I do just have one question, talking about the middle school. Is this, in our Admin section. Good transition to the Admin Section I guess. Is this is really the first time I've seen you know, about the core team recommendation about a middle school. Scott Botcher: Is that... ? 25 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Yes it is. Scott Botcher: When is it? I missed it. Mayor Mancino: It's about third from the back and it's dated May 14th. Councilwoman Jansen: And then on Thursday of last week they had the core team recommendation to the Board so I would be curious to see if there was any board reaction to this proposal showing the new elementary school. Scott Botcher: And this I remember seeing. I guess, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said that they recommended a middle school for Chanhassen. Councilwoman Jansen: That's what the school board members told us at your open house was that the middle school was being recommended. Mayor Mancino: I think that one of the school board members said that he would like to see. Scott Botcher: There's some interest among the school board members of seeking, analyzing all possible sites for a middle school. But I'm with you on that one Linda. I'm with you on that one, yes. I just, I misunderstood maybe what you said then because obviously the folks in Chaska obviously may think differently. Mayor Mancino: Going into Administrative Presentations. Any questions on the Admin Section? Councilwoman Jansen: Can I just for a minute go back to the collaborative? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: On Friday my understanding is that there will be a question posed as to where are we putting our X's in the box. Are we putting X's in boxes or are we saying that. Mayor Mancino: We don't feel comfortable. I mean at least that's the impression I got from everybody. We don't feel comfortable putting X's in boxes. Scott Botcher: The X's are sort of just one guy's opinion and I guess what you guys are saying, like Steve said, we're talking but there's no checkbook on the table. Mayor Mancino: And I'm also hearing that we will, people participate in the collaborative continue go to meetings but we're not putting any checkbook out there. So that we know what's going on and that we're part of the process, yeah. Scott Botcher: I have two things if you're still on Administrative and if you're running off it. Mayor Mancino: No, go ahead please. And I do have a question about how to bring up something for reconsideration. 26 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Scott Botcher: Oh! And I forgot to ask you that with all the other stuff today. So I'll ask you that. And then Todd has one thing. Two things. I do have in my hot little hands, and you guys can take one and pass it down. A memo concerning the elimination of one work session each month. Call this the Engel Calendar. Not really. And it just, we felt it was important to communicate clearly and early to you all and to the public when we're actually meeting and when we're not and so those are the dates that we picked. I think it's June 7th and July 19th will be the two work sessions. The other two work sessions have been unscheduled. Postponed. Cancelled. Mayor Mancino: For those two months. Scott Botcher: For those two months. Candidly in August, I don't know how you're going to get your work done but if there's a chance that we could bump August, we'll try to bump it but I just, I'm looking at the work load with the budget stuff coming up. It's hard enough to skip one in July and June. But we're going to do our best. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Can I just make a suggestion on the one in July because I think we're going to starting to do budget. So could we in July, and other council members please respond. Our July work session talk a little bit about the budget. The objectives we have as a council for the 2000 budget so that staff can get going, so you can get going with staff in repairing that. Talk about what we'd like to see as far as caps and all sorts of things. Scott Botcher: Now understand that what this schedule does, and this is just the way, and Todd, please correct me if I'm incorrect but from my conversation with Don and with the financial advisory firm, since we have basically two weeks between the 19th of July and the 2nd of August, you will set your targets to the staff on the 19th. The levy publication, the Truth in Taxation levy publication comes along pretty quickly in August? You're sort of put in the position once again, primarily because of the calendar this year, of at least publishing the maximum possible levy and then following up probably at the end of August a balance budget to be submitted which may or may not be at that levy amount. Which is all okay. It's all legal. All that sort of stuff. But that's just the reality of bumping a meeting off in June and July. I mean honestly, my honest opinion, I'd rather have meetings in June and July. If you ask me. Put a gun to my head. We've got a lot of work to do. But if you can go with this calendar and go with this work load and go with the understanding, we can do this. Councilwoman Jansen: To have the work sessions we need a quorum of the council, not the entire? Is that. Scott Botcher: Well I don't think you ever need everybody there but do you need a quorum for a work session? Roger Knutson: Statutes don't recognize the term work session. They don't really exist under Minnesota statutes. It's informally used by, everyone knows what it means, unless you get down to the specifics. Under the, the short answer is, which isn't short. You could have a work session with two people there if you wanted to. Sure you could. It wouldn't be, but under various rules it would not be considered a meeting of the City Council if you don't have a quorum there but two of you could still get together. Mayor Mancino: Well and it wouldn't, again recognize a majority of the council. Couldn't we just start the work sessions an hour early or something. You know the two that we have in June and July. Just start those at 4:00 or something and get more done. 27 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Scott Botcher: Well one is starting at 4:30. Councilman Senn: Whoever can show up. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I mean I'm only one council member. Councilman Senn: I really hate to put us in a position for example we said last year that we will not adopt the maximum tax levy again as our goal. We said we will be out in front and we will be ready and we will do it that way. So now you've got to start considering, are you going to alter the schedule and give up a night or two or are you going to go back on what we said we weren't going to do? Mayor Mancino: Well also we have three council members who really wanted, the majority of the council members, wanted to try and do one month, in the summer, they just wanted to limit the monthly work sessions to one a month. Which you know at that time everyone said fine. A majority did so. Scott Botcher: I'm responding to just the majority will of the council. I understand what you're saying. It is, but in your smart guy, you know it's simply a publication. It's a notice. You're not bound to levy that but it's, you're right. It's a little bass ackwards. Councilman Senn: I really think you ought to, I mean I don't care whether it's me or somebody else because I mean if I have something come up and it's important to me, whether it's family or whether it be other things, I mean I'm going to miss anyway. So I don't expect everybody else to alter the schedule as a result of... I think we need to schedule because we're so cramped up as it is. I think we ought to keep our Monday night's sacred and we ought to keep going. Councilman Engel: I have no problem with the meetings continuing to be held. I'll just, I mean if I'm going to miss, I'll talk to you ahead of time. Scott Botcher: What's the majority want? I guess tell me what you want. I just, I think if nothing else, if you do this and you put for example the budget issue. And I guess my gut tells me June 1, '99 we might as well skip that now. I mean we're a week out of that. We might as well skip that but if we go and put the, you know we could, well maybe not. We could put the public works expansion on June 1 possibly. I assume Charles is available. The other stuff is pretty much targeted to June 7th. I don't think we're going to be moving those committee people around. I don't think it's fair to them. And tackling the schedule for June 7th and the strategic plan stuff. So that is pretty much what is June 7th. If you want to, you know if you want to start talking about target budget goals, etc, I have no history with you folks. I have no idea how long it will take. I know how long it took in Delafield. It took about 5 to 10 minutes because they knew exactly what they. Mayor Mancino: It will probably take a little longer. This will take a little longer. Councilman Senn: It will take a little longer. Scott Botcher: But I mean just to set your targets. Now I mean it's very, very theoretical. Very conceptual. You may look at me and say you know we want the gross levy to go X or Y or Z. That's all you really need to do. You don't need to talk about you know we want four dump trucks and five snow plows. That's not, you know we're just setting targets. 28 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: We could probably talk conceptually on June 1st. Scott Botcher: Sure. Yeah, and that's all that staff's looking for and I think that's all you want to communicate. Is this is the framework. Councilman Senn: I mean out of fairness though, I mean that's less than a week away. . made other plans I think. Forget June 1st at this point and go with the schedule but I mean. Mayor Mancino: Well, how does everybody feel about June 1st first of all? Will you be in town? Councilwoman Jansen: I'm okay with it. Mayor Mancino: You're okay with it. Councilman Engel: I'm in town. Mayor Mancino: And Mark, you're okay? Well, everybody's okay with June 1st. Scott Botcher: That's a Tuesday. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we'll check with Steve. But so far. Scott Botcher: And if we just make June 1st then, maybe we'll just make it just a budget. It may not be that long but at least then we've done it. And it frees up the 7th a little bit. Councilman Senn: What time June lSt? Scott Botcher: I've got 5:30 here but. Mayor Mancino: 5:30? And we can just get out all the questions or all the things we want to talk about the budget. I mean I don't know how far we'll get but let's put something on it. Are you okay Steve for that? Councilman Labatt: I might be... Scott Botcher: We've got to get it done Todd. Councilman Labatt: What's your schedule like Mark? Councilman Engel: I'm in town. I'm okay for that. I'll be here. Mayor Mancino: So it would help Steve to start at 6:00 or 6:30. Councilman Senn: Let me look and see if I've got anything. Scott Botcher: So if we start at 6:30 and just keep it almost like a one item work session. Just budget. Yes? No? 29 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Councilman Senn: I do have it in here. Yeah, the later you start the better because my son's getting awards at the high school for graduation. Awards ceremony. It starts at 6:00. So I won't be there until it's done. You guys can do without me. Scott Botcher: If you have thoughts and such that you want to communicate in writing, just send them to my office and I think that would be appropriate. If you so choose. Okay. We will reschedule that. Is that okay with the press? Can you make that? Okay. It's important that the citizens know when we do this. Mayor Mancino: 6:30? Councilman Senn: If you can't, believe me we'll change the meeting. Mayor Mancino: But you have to come with questions. Scott Botcher: We'll give you the different time. Alright, fair enough. We will do that and then the 21st and the 6th, we can remain. Can remain as cancelled because then that gives staff June and July to pull together the budget. We may look for then a, whatever the meeting is in July, July 19th. Is this a work session? July, well we'll have to talk about it Todd. Councilman Senn: June 1 is on you're saying and which ones are cancelled? Scott Botcher: Well the two that are cancelled are still cancelled. I'm just talking, and Todd you and I will talk about when we'll actually make the presentation to the Council to give them their budget so they can begin deliberations. My guess it very well could be the second meeting in July but we'll have to talk about that. Mayor Mancino: So this will allow us to be proactive with budget. Great. Scott Botcher: Be ahead of it. The other thing that I have, and this is just, this is a minor thing. Nancy, you will have in your, and I don't know if Karen has shown it to you yet. I've been in contact with PERA on the opt out. And instead of a motion, a consent agenda motion, they want you to sign a resolution and so we've done a resolution. You can execute it. The second thing is, well actually what is it worth to you? And here's the other thing. PERA does not want big, evil employers coercing us poor, helpless city managers into not participating and saving 4 ½% or 4 ¼% on the come. So what they're saying is, they approve these things but they want it to be a bump to the city. You know what I'm saying. The 4 point some percent that you did contribute, unless of course you're a police officer. Then it's like 30% or something but, anyway that 4 point some percent will be contributed to a deferred comp plan as opposed to PERA. And so you guys will pay the exact same amount you paid before, but last time I told you that I didn't care. They said no, it should go somewhere and I okay, I'll tell them. So there you go. And then Todd does have. Councilman Senn: It should go somewhere at our option or at their option? Scott Botcher: Well actually it's your option and my option. But you don't have many options quite honestly. I mean you don't want to go out and buy Janus for me. If you want to you can. Councilman Senn: ... PERA though. 3O City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Scott Botcher: No but that's what they're saying in an effort to support the poor, helpless employees against the scourge of the employer. I'm making this up. That would be you guys. They don't want you guys, bottom line is this. They don't want you to save 4%. Councilman Senn: ... you ought to stay in PERA. Scott Botcher: Well obviously that's what they want but since they've done this and they don't want the city to realize economic gain or to put the city into the position to coerce the employees, they said just put it. Councilman Senn: ... Roger Knutson: Mark, that's in the statute. Councilman Senn: So we have no choice is what you're saying? Roger Knutson: You pay whether he's in PERA or ICMA or whatever. Councilman Senn: Alright. That's the question. Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you have something for us? Todd Gerhardt: I accomplished mine on the consent agenda. Scott Botcher: Oh did you, I'm sorry. Oh you did add it Mark, you're right the (1). I'm sorry. Todd Gerhardt: ... Beth's article in... in your packet. Councilwoman Jansen: Would now be an okay time for me to ask the law enforcement task force question of how we proceed with the process? And the timing so that we're on board with when council's anticipating getting a report. I assumed work session or we assumed work session and that it would eventually go to public presentation but maybe if we could speak to that a little bit. Mayor Mancino: Boy, in task forces. Usually we get a report from staff on the task force and the recommendations. Councilwoman Jansen: I'm asking timing as to. Mayor Mancino: Well the timing was supposed to be April 26th, but because we didn't really get it going until May 1st. Well how far along is the task force? Todd Gerhardt: Tomorrow night to conclude.., whatever you next work session is. Get some feedback from the council and fine tune it after that and then bring it back to a regular city council for public... Scott Botcher: Do you want to do it on the 1st, or is that pushing it? Todd, I guess you're the gentleman who will be writing the staff report. Is that asking too much? 31 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: That'd be great. Todd Gerhardt: It will get done tomorrow night. Councilman Senn: ... if it's going to be a presentation with a recommendation by the task force, I mean. Mayor Mancino: We can do that at a city council meeting. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it should just come into a city council meeting. It doesn't need to come into a work session. Because then we're going to take it from there and work with ourselves and go from there so I don't see reason for us to sit through two public presentations. One in a work session and one in a council meeting. Just put it on the council agenda and bring it in and we'll... Councilman Engel: That gives you two more weeks. Scott Botcher: We can do that, fair enough. Todd Gerhardt: That's fine. Just in the past we usually kind of run things through a work session. Mayor Mancino: I don't think we did with the Highway 5 task force or those others. Scott Botcher: I just know how generally you guys like to have them at work sessions first but something like this, that's fine. Mayor Mancino: Great. Todd Gerhardt: We'll put it on for you Council meeting for June... Scott Botcher: The 14th. Mayor Mancino: Not for a while. Good. How do I bring up the reconsideration? Roger, ifI want to reconsider an item that came in front of the council last spring. The guys who did, is it Rain or Shine, the 212. The golf course and they had ask, the driving range and they had asked for lights and we had said no. The Planning Commission said yes. We had said no because we wanted to see if something was actually really going to happen there and it has. And we said that we would reconsider maybe the lights if after they got going. So how do we as a council bring that up for reconsideration? What is the formal, legal way to do that? Councilman Senn: Roger, to refresh your memory. It was a 3 to 2 vote and Engel and I were not on the prevailing side. Mayor Mancino: And I was on the prevailing side. Councilman Senn: And Nancy was on the prevailing side and neither Labatt nor Jansen were on the council. So if that helps frame it for you. Roger Knutson: I remember the discussion very well. 32 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: It was that good of a discussion. Roger Knutson: No, I didn't remember the vote. I couldn't give you that but I could tell you about the discussion about night lights and all that. Two terms are used kind of to mean the same thing when they're really not. Under Robert's Rules of Order, reconsideration must be made at the next meeting after action is taken. That's what Robert's Rules of Order says. And then even then you can't reconsider certain items. You can bring it up as a new business item at any time. Under your own housekeeping rules, you use reconsideration in a broader sense of bring it up again. Not in a parliamentary sense I'll call it. And this says six months after the initial approval. Any time after six months has elapsed. This is your own internal by-laws. Mayor Mancino: So we have to wait for six months? Roger Knutson: That's what your rules say, yes. It's been more than six months. Councilman Senn: It's been more than six months. Roger Knutson: You could bring it up at any time now. Mayor Mancino: So let's put it on the next agenda. Thank you. Roger Knutson: I recall in that case they got a CUP wasn't it? It was more than a site plan review. It was a CUP I believe. Councilman Senn: I believe you're right. Scott Botcher: So do you need to hold a hearing and amend that then? Roger Knutson: Right. I mean you can bring it up for discussion at the council but if you actually wanted to take action on it, it would have to go back through the process. The process is a CUP amendment. Todd Gerhardt: That means they'd have to go to planning commission and the council. Roger Knutson: Yes, because they have a CUP right now. My recollection is right on the process. Todd Gerhardt: ... application to Kate and submit a new site plan. Councilman Senn: But I thought we left it more open than that. I mean I thought we left it, if they wanted to come back and talk about that, they could come back and talk about it to council without going back through the whole process again. Because I thought that was brought up at the time that it wasn't fair to, you know basically go back and start over through the whole process when all we're really talking about is a narrow. Roger Knutson: I'd have to pull the exact, I remember the discussion generally but not specifically as to exactly how it was left but normally that's how you amend a CUP. But if you left it we will leave this issue open and bring it back in six months, or a period of time, we pull out those minutes of that meeting. 33 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I'm not sure we were that formal about it. But if you would check, that would be great. Councilman Labatt: Is there a way that they can just pull the minutes from that meeting and send it out in the packet? Councilman Senn: Well or if they just pull the minutes... Roger Knutson: That was a winter issue wasn't it, if I remember right. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it was a winter issue. Councilman Senn: ... fire chief took kind of a shot at the council I think a couple weeks ago in an article about pension plan. It's my understanding that that whole issue.., squarely, flatly nowhere else other than the fire department at this point. They were supposed to go back and come back with a bunch of information for us relating to the pension plan and I mean they, last time they came in and they had absolutely no details. No information. The guy appeared before us. He said he had the details and we said go put the whole thing together in detail form so we can understand it and then come back and talk to us about it and we would continue consideration of it. And at least that was my memory of it and I could be wrong. Scott Botcher: And other council members have said the same thing and it's one of the things that Todd and I have on our joint list to get to the bottom of. Councilman Senn: And we had asked, I even remember specifically at the time that we asked to get somebody involved that, from the other end who is not directly a participant or involved.., help evaluate it for us. Scott Botcher: Right. In fact after this meeting I'm walking across the parking lot to meet with the fire officers. Why don't I just ask them over there and see what's up. Mayor Mancino: Any questions on administrative section? I think that's it. Councilwoman Jansen: I have one other thing, going back to the council presentation. I guess that segment of the meeting. But in regards to the Park and Rec Commission meeting minutes. I'm sorry. In the minutes of April 27th there was a great deal of conversation about the skate park and the youth resident that has now been on and off our agenda twice as far as presenting a petition. This is the most information that I've read on what that's going to encompass but he apparently has solicited signatures from both residents and business owners and he's created a financial plan and a fund raising plan for the skate park. So when I read that it took me back to our February 22nd City Council minutes to, it seemed a little out of sync with what we had requested as a council and where it's now going to come from as far as some of the answers to our questions. February 22nd, reading through those minutes, there was no opposition from any of the council members to there being this skate park proposal. Everyone seemed to more so be saying the when's and how does it fit into the total. And comment was made by Councilman Engel that it go back to the commission or the committee to come up with a budget and a plan. Mr. Labatt asked a question. Councilman Senn thought it needed to get kicked back and go into the other priorities. My questions had to do with how big a project are we talking about as far as the funding for it with the whole drive. The maintenance and Mayor Mancino you were pretty much on the same wave length as far as where does it fit 34 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 within the total and are we going to be soliciting the community for additional funds on other projects. I guess where I'm going with this is, what are we all thinking is going to be the next step because I was anticipating that we might be getting some of the answers to these questions versus the community maybe now thinking that we are opposed to a skate park to the point that they would be coming in with this petition and this gentleman asked, how many people could be accommodated in the council chambers so I mean they're looking at bringing in, as Mr. Hoffman worded it. He said this is the biggest grass roots initiative that we've seen in quite some time. Well I would hate to have this gentleman come in thinking that we now really need to be railroaded into this project simply to mm him back over to the parks and rec commission to say well no. We asked several questions on February 22nd that went back to parks and rec. Mayor Mancino: And we haven't gotten any answers. Councilwoman Jansen: Exactly. I think we need, and I wanted to make sure total council was on the same page that we're looking for what is that plan? How much is it? How are we proceeding? I don't think we were anticipating that we'd be forming the committee yet but maybe getting the feedback from the commission as to. Mayor Mancino: How to go about and how they saw structuring it, yeah. Yeah, no that's true. Councilman Senn: The only thing we got back from Todd informal comments a couple weeks ago saying that you know.., undertake a private fund raising deal and it came out beyond what the council allocated. Mayor Mancino: Which we were talking about when we were having, talking about the strategic plan. That we had budgeted $15,000.00 and then maybe he saw it being somewhere between maybe 50 and 80 and there'd be private donations. Yeah. Councilman Senn: ...but then we said let's go create a plan. I mean nobody has come back to us at that point and stuff. I mean the framework that we provided up front at budget time was here's what the council and the city is allocating. Now come up with a plan and tell us. Mayor Mancino: And what Linda is saying is we have not seen that plan and yeah, and instead of some group coming. Scott Botcher: Can I have that gentleman's name and contact, address, phone number? Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I thought Todd had a concept plan that he put together. Mayor Mancino: And maybe that would be something that would be very important to put on tomorrow night's talk with Todd to have the commission talk about that. Todd Gerhardt: I know he had a preliminary budget and I thought he had a concept plan for how it would lay out. Councilwoman Jansen: And if it's going to be staged based on donations. You know what's the ultimate build and what are the stages then if we don't get all the funding. 35 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999 Todd Gerhardt: ... at that point. It's easy to do that with playground equipment but skate park, the boards.., look for the input of the kids that use it on what would be your first priority. What would you do second? Do you want bars or do you want... Councilwoman Jansen: So that's more the committee that comes up with that detail? Todd Gerhardt: I would think so. Because I mean. Mayor Mancino: Because they're the users. Scott Botcher: And they're all preparing for the X Games right now so, give them some time. Todd Gerhardt: The City of Plymouth has a parent over there that invested a lot of money into the skate ramps and Todd's talked to them about trying to buy those like 10 cents on the dollar. Councilman Senn: Yeah, because they went bust. Mayor Mancino: So, just so we get this right. So next steps really should be that the park and rec commission is going to put together a plan and have us, come to us with that before we get everyone involved in doing a raising of money and everything else. Councilman Senn: But again trying to do within what we set as the financial framework. Scott Botcher: I think part of Linda's concern is just maybe the public perception as much as anything else. I think you're, that's an extremely good point. That's true. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. Scott Botcher: As long as you've got the guy's name and number, we'll be alright. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anything else? Everybody have a good Memorial weekend. See you on the first. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 36