The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1999 08 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel, Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Don Ashworth, Todd Hof'knan, Anita Benson, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Bob Zydowsky, and Scott Anding APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the agenda amended to delete item 1 (h), Approve Resolution Amending Operation Cost to be Recovered from Hazardous Material Incidents, from the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Approve Extension to Work Hours for Lake Drive West Street & Utility Improvement, Project 9g- 16. d. Springfield 7th Addition, Lundgren Brothers~ 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract, as amended to include 3 street lights at $900 instead of' 2 at $600,and PUD Agreement e. Approve Release of Development Contract for Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition. i. Approval of Bills. j. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Minutes dated August 9, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated August 4, 1999 k. Approve One Year Extension to Audit Contract, Tautges Redpath. 1. Set Dates for Truth in Taxation Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 G. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-265 OF CITY CODE TO ALLOW 3.2 MALT LIQUOR SALES AT GOLF DRIVING RANGES~ FINAL READING. Councilwoman Jansen: l(g) is the ordinance amending Chapter 20 to include basically 3.2 beer for golf driving ranges and I opposed it in the first reading and I'm standing in opposition still on the second. So I just wanted to be able to vote separate. Councilman Senn: Councilman Engel: Move approval of 1 (g). Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the final reading of the Amendment to Section 20-265 of the City Code to allow 3.2 malt liquor sales at Golf Driving Ranges. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE~ SENATOR ED OLIVER AND REPRESENTATIVE TOM WORKMAN. Mayor Mancino: Tonight we have distinguished guests, Senator Oliver and Representative Tom Workman to give us a brief update on the past legislative session and answer any questions people may have tonight. So if you two would like to come forward, or one at a time, that would be great. Scott Botcher: And the other thing to remember, this is also our opportunity to communicate to our elected officials issues of importance to the City and it's constituents so when the Senator and Representative are toiling late at night, they at least have some knowledge of the position of the council. Mayor Mancino: Oh and yes, let me add to that. One of the, we just got the packet last Friday which talks about the policies that the League of Minnesota Cities wanted to have the legislators pass for them and gave the League of Minnesota Cities favorable, what do I want to say, copy on that. We as a council have not really discussed that yet, so we're probably going to take a work session and look at some of those policies and agendas that the League has forwarded to you and then we will forward you our thoughts after going through the policies ourselves as a council. So that you have an idea of where the Chanhassen elected officials feel on some of those policies. And if they are the same or differ from you. Senator Ed Oliver: Okay, that would be fine and you don't want to call, have another session like this to necessarily do that? Okay. Mayor Mancino: No. We may do a work session or something but I think getting it to you in writing is probably the easiest form. Senator Ed Oliver: Perfect. Well Mayor and Council persons, it's a pleasure to be here. Back in Chanhassen and with the City Council. And I would like to first of all introduce you to my Legislative Assistant and if she would stand, her name is Tiffany Alm and Tiffany is the person that probably, if you call my office or if you write to my office, is the person who will get the correspondence. Will answer the phone and if you're lucky she will even go get you the answer and it would probably be good or better than mine. So it's a pleasure to have her with me this evening and it is her desire to attend all of the City Council meetings in Senate District 43, and I think that's neat so, and you can now know who you're talking to. Mayor and Council persons, Don Ashworth wrote us a letter and talked about two specific City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 items and then you also wanted to know about what was going on in the 1999 session in regard to cities and the new laws. So I'll keep my remarks to 5 minutes and I think Tom will do the same and then we'll be ready to answer any questions. Specifically as to Don Ashworth's memo, let me give you some comments. First of all as to pooling requirements, and this was done by the so called, by a so called expert in TIF. The City of Chanhassen is accurate in their assertion that this year's TIF amendments require that increments be first used to eliminate deficits caused by the class rate reductions. The legislature made a public policy decision that the pooling of increments for the purpose of eliminating deficits should take precedence over the pooling of increment for other purposes. And I don't know that Mr. Ashworth and/or the council agree with that or not but that is the response there. As to pooling, the pooling fund, the City's assertion that the $6 million set aside for the pooling fund will be exhausted by the 1998 applications runs contrary to the best information regarding the extent of the increment deficits. Both House research and the Department of Revenue believe that the $6 million will be more than adequate to fund existing deficits. If it tums out the deficits are greater than currently anticipated, the 2000 legislature will have ample opportunity to address this shortfall. And the third is the pooling duration. There's a strong possibility that the legislature will extend the availability of the funds from the grant program to deficits existing in 2002 and 2003. The other question asked by Mr. Ashworth concerned highways and the turnback issue. And again my best information that I could find said that the cities are in good shape as to turnback but the counties were not. And so I don't know the effect of 101, it now being a county road. I guess that means that that is probably not in the best of shape. To go briefly over some of the things that we did last year, and I don't know how many of these affect you but of course we changed the law regarding bleachers and I don't know if the City of Chanhassen is involved in that or not. We did several things on fire fighters and I don't know again, and I'm sorry to say whether you have a full time or a part time or a contracted fire department. But those, there were issues addressed there. Also as the pension plans of those fire departments. The issue of amortization and that is the way cities can condemn a property. It's not condemnation but amortization. That was discarded by the legislature as an option for the city, and as I understand it St. Louis Park was the only city really that was involved in that so I don't know that that's a matter of interest to Chanhassen. We did discuss lawsuits against manufacturers of guns and ammunition. Again I think possibly the only cities involved there are the two major urban cities. One that is interesting and might be applicable is if you have any shooting ranges in the city of Chanhassen and there was an effort made to grandfather those to protect those and not let local government kick them out or rezone them or whatever there might be. But that as suing the cities, suing gun manufacturers did not prevail. Most of the other things concern taxes and there was quite about TIF. We had discussions. As a matter of fact we had 20 bills presented in the House and the Senate to do away with taxing of municipalities, expenditures and regarding the State sales tax and it failed to carry so I'm sorry to tell you that sales tax on municipalities on their purchases is still existing and hopefully we will get rid of that next year. Mayor Mancino: Can you tell us why that failed? I mean from your. Senator Ed Oliver: No, I really can't because I think it's a slam dunk and I think it's an affront to local government by the legislature. However, every once in a while the legislature, in it's debate turns up to have sometimes a very low opinion of local government and local officials. And I think that's absolutely wrong but in fact there is an attitude. Maybe Tom can talk more about that but that's about all that I can say. Councilman Engel: ... works that way across the board. Senator Ed Oliver: Yeah, and I suppose that's true but last year, I can't remember the specific bill in the Senate but it was so bad as to it's effect on local government that I got up and made a speech. I even got City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Roger Moe to get up and support it kind of thing so maybe we can get a better respect for local government, which I think we really should have at the legislature. Levy limits as you know have been extended for another year. We also have a cap on how much assessed valuation can be used for taxes and that is 8 ½% per year which is down from t0, and I think that you're familiar with that. So I think that's about 5 minutes and would cover my remarks so I'll let Tom talk and then we'll both be ready for questions. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Representative Tom Workman: Thanks Ed. That was in fact not 5 minutes. That was another Senate filibuster really. Thank you for having me Mayor and City Council. I think I sued to sort of sit over there. Figured I could keep a better eye on the attorney over there. Mayor Mancino: We've got the stop watch on you. Representative Tom Workman: Good. Because it will go short. The tax increment stuff, everybody hates at the Capital any city that uses tax increment. A very simple hurdle. Current Tax Chair, Mr. Abrahams who I consider a pretty good friend, hates it and former Tax Committee Chair Dee Long hates it and Ann Rast hated it and I don't think Dougy Johnson really likes it either. They don't use a lot up in Tower, Minnesota. Mayor Mancino: That's both parties. Representative Tom Workman: Yes. Oh it is very across the board that there's something funny going on with tax increment and all attempts to put as many roadblocks in the way as possible. However, the rate compression that caused the problem is going to have to be fixed by the State. They know that. I think they all know that and a lot of people did a lot of work to try and remind them that the problem is really sort of ours and it was sort of an unanticipated problem and so we're going to fix it. I think they're going to do a little bit more of an eleventh hour thing if we can. I think at least in the House with Ron Abrahams, I think the City of Chanhassen is in pretty good shape because it is something that I learned here over the past 8, 9, t0 years as a council member and so I can at least speak to the issue. I'm confident that we're going to be able to correct whatever the problem is. If it's a million and a half, or if it's 7 or when the Department of Revenue really figures it out. I think some of the other things on the agenda like the turnback fund. Being named as the Chairman of the Transportation Committee has, was of course long overdue but has put me in a good position down there with Mr. Tinklenberg and the Governor and Met Council Chair Mondale and others to be able to try and get some things accomplished. I know that the House Republican Caucus next year and the year 2000 is going to make transportation one of three priorities, which means you could see anywhere from 200 to half a billion dollars in bonding for roads to be able to get some of these things accomplished. The right-of-way issues for 212 concern me. If we can't purchase them, then we can't build them. If we can't purchase the land, then the road isn't going to get built. The turnbacks, I live off of t 0 t. I think Mark and I are the only ones keenly attuned to probably the worst road in Minnesota. Highway tOt. And I'm keeping a very, very close eye on that. I know that there's still some hurdles and there's some public hearings coming. I'll be attending the one I think in Eden Prairie. I think I turn 40 on the day you're having one here and I'm thinking maybe I won't be here for that event. I'll be picking out grave sites or something, but so I'm keeping an eye on that and I have been in touch with all the people at MnDOT on that. And Anita and I talk every once in a while and we, and Anita provided me with a lot of information on that. It affects my neighbors so therefore I'd better be up on it. The sales tax on purchases, I can you exactly why nothing happened on that. The mood with the new City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 governor down there was to cut taxes and to kind of trim some things back. Believe it or not, 4 billion dollar surplus and the amount of time that we had, there was not enough money and not enough time to cut all of the bad, rotten taxes that I think exist out there. Secondly, cities do not have constituency, at least in this past year to be able to get that sales tax cut. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous tax. I think it occurred in 1992 while I was still on this City Council, and it's the reason I ran for the legislature. No it really wasn't but, but the cities were a little guilty because they did sort of hold hands with the devil on that one to create a local government, a trust fund. As you know the trust fund isn't there but the half cent is there and the part of the agreement was to, am I right Don? Don Ashworth: Correct. Representative Tom Workman: And part of the agreement was that if you'll just all come along with us and support this, then we'll guarantee your LGA and of course the trust fund wasn't there. You still get, some communities are still getting, most communities are still getting LGA. This one does not. But there is not the interest at the State Capital to do that. There certainly wasn't before an income tax cut and then a rebate. It fell way, way, way behind everything else. On the transportation committee, I could talk to Roger there a little bit about what I sort of stopped. There's something called the plat approval debate and fight down there. The counties want to be able to over rule the cities on plat approvals as they affect their county roads. And not having enough time to hear the bill, we didn't in fact, I held them off and being a former city councilmember I chose to side on the side of the cities and leave it the way it's been. There is going to be more pressure this next session, by the counties, to be able to get that approval and then they get to participate with you and tell you where and how roads are going to go. We can talk some more about that in private. That's about all I have. It was a fun session. Our governor made out okay last night at Wrestle Mania or whatever the heck it was. And he certainly made it interesting. Let's face it, Amie Carlson was kind of a boring guy and Jesse's not. And so it's going to be interesting because I think the governor played some after session games with some vetoes on bridges and right-of-way funds and all sorts of other things and so there's, we're starting to find out where our comers, respective comers are. But it's an interesting time to be down there so that was 4 minutes. So if you have any questions for us. Mayor Mancino: I'm sure councilmembers do. Before we ask, any questions from anyone here tonight that wants to come up? Questions to Representative Workman or Senator Oliver at this point? Okay, seeing none. Any questions from council members? Couple, or one that I have is we are committed and have been for quite a few years, the City of Chanhassen to affordable housing and for supporting the Livable Communities Act. I would like to see, and I know that the legislature last year slated $4 million to visionary housing and affordable housing for the metro area of approximately 104 cities. I'd like to see, and just a very general statement. Not only question but maybe fill me in. I'd like to see the legislature be much more proactive about having, and providing more tools to the Metropolitan Council for the cities in the metro area to get affordable housing. To make it more of a regional perspective. So if you would like to add on that letter that the sales tax exemption from construction materials used in affordable housing to all different kinds of tools. Removing SAC charges, etc. Has that been discussed much by the legislature? Senator Ed Oliver: Well it has, and last year I think the total for affordable housing was over $100 million and so that is, that's a big, big number. As to the Metropolitan or the Metro Council and the Livable Communities Act, I guess I'm not sure about that. Tom are you, can you speak of, and I'm no longer in the metro local government so I'm sort of out of the loop in that. Mayor Mancino: Do you know Tom? City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Representative Tom Workman: Well no other than I know a couple of years ago Todd and Don were down trying to use tax increment again. The former housing and redevelopment district, which never seems to do housing. But for Chanhassen to take it on their own through tax increment to again subsidize that and resoundly from Republicans and Democrats alike, no. And so again, that was a priority, Livable Communities with Mr. Orfield and others, Dee Long, over the past say 5 years and it's really sort of dying down a little bit right now but the money is still coming but I've never assumed that that pool was big enough. Senator Ed Oliver: Well I guess the one thing on affordable communities, it is voluntary. It remains voluntary and I think that that's an absolute must and as Tom said, Representative Orfield was not in favor of it being voluntary. As a matter of fact he's a frequent critic of it now because it is voluntary. In speaking to businessmen who have businesses in Chanhassen, that's one of the things that they always talk about is that their employees simply cannot afford to live here and they think that something should be done about that and so do I. Mayor Mancino: Any other? Councilman Engel: I've got one for you. I'm not so naive to think we could get rid of fiscal disparities, yet. Yet. But yet. Is there any way that you could propose some legislation that would allow communities in our position, this rapid growth mode where there's big demands on the property owners to fund school, new school buildings and the like, from an infrastructure standpoint, to let the communities that are in that kind of a growth mode to take that money that would be funneled back into the receivers and the fiscal disparities and use it to give to the school districts so that they can build these things while the communities are growing so rapidly? I mean actually communities like Chanhassen and Woodbury, Eden Prairie several years ago would have been in that mode, where they're in that rapid growth and they desperately need that money to build new facilities. And the property owners are strapped seriously to pay for these things. They're constantly approached with referendums and they feel like they're already over taxed so these referendums go down in flames. Is there any, like I say, I don't think we can eliminate them. I'd love to see that happen but I don't think it's going to. Could you get a period in there where you're exceeding certain growth rates that would allow you to funnel the money back into your own school districts. Just to facilitate building these things. Obviously a community like Edina wouldn't need to be a part of this anymore. They're already built out. St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, those first string of suburbs wouldn't need these. But when you're on the outside, you're constantly under pressure as a homeowner and these communities because of that growth. Anybody ever thought of that? Senator Ed Oliver: Go ahead Tom. Councilman Engel: You can go take the first arrow on that one. Representative Tom Workman: My first thought Councilmember Engel. Again I think it's a have's and have's not argument. I don't know that Chanhassen has hit yet by the big sharing here with the districts and the TIF. Are they? Scott Botcher: It's coming. Representative Tom Workman: So that would be, now's a good time to be thinking about that. Because I think you're a net gainer still but. It's a good idea. I would be excited to do that but the southwest suburbs and their legislators are not seen as caring about those maybe have not's and so, but I think it is a fairness City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 issue. We do have to deal with some of the problems of our industrial, commercial, industrial base and so why not use it? I don't think it's fair. Now Commissioner Charlie Weaver's father really invented it back in the 70's or something and bring it up around Charlie Weaver about how you want to do that is not interesting but. To try and balance it back out in shifting, whenever you're shifting, you're going to run into trouble and I would predict to you that those who then would be losers would have legislative representation that would outnumber those of us who would like to see fairness. We did try to get a little more fair with the education finance bill this year and so the Eden Prairie's and Chaska's and Minnetonka's did a little bit better than they have in other years so we're trying to catch up there so. Councilman Engel: I think the tide's turning. Senator Ed Oliver: The winners and losers games are you know, and here Chan could be a winner you know, and on the other hand if you had it some other way that you'd be a loser and so that's the way those things are discussed and looked at. And so that's tough but the school for growing school districts you're absolutely correct but I think we did a fair job in the education bill this year. Scott Botcher: Tom you said there were three priorities. What are the other two? Transportation was one of them. What are the other two? Representative Tom Workman: We're looking for another tax cut and it's going to be ag, rural economic development issue. Scott Botcher: And then the issue on the pooling on the tax increment that makes this difficult and we haven't really gotten into it yet but I know part of the plan when this TIF was set up and Don has said it many times that some of that pooled increment was to pay for 101, and you've heard me say this. Every time you guys cut something it begets a whole list of stuff that's screwed up and you just can't keep throwing grant programs at it. And that's not the answer. The answer is just leave us alone and we'll take care of it because you know we've got the, and we can disagree and you know, I don't know if $6 million's going to be enough in the pool or not for the TIF. Nobody knows. And you call up to revenue, they're not even sure up until what Don, probably end of July they didn't have the forms done. I mean it was just, and you go through the lines on there and every one is interpretative. And so my guess is that, I don't know if they're going to get a lot of applications or not. But I guess ifI was running all the other cities that potentially had shortfalls you'd be dang straight I'd get it in there and see what the heck floated up and maybe $6 million's enough. I guess the question is if they don't get $6 million worth of grant applications, are they going to cut the funding next year? I mean are the legislators going to say geez, well $6 million was too much. We'll make it 2 again. Representative Tom Workman: I think Chanhassen is well ahead on the learning curve on that pool and I think the tax committee chairs are very aware that there is a very large problem out there that hasn't poked it's head out yet and so. Scott Botcher: And I'm sure we're not, and maybe I'm wrong but I have to assume there's other cities out there who have money set aside for very valuable projects, even in partnership with the State like 101. That when we meet with the Hennepin County's and the Eden Prairie and State DOT quite honestly, now they look at once in a while and say well you know, how are you guys going to fund this? And sometimes Tom I just want to reach across the table and say you took my money man... I have a standing offer if you want to officiate like Jesse, you can always come out to the Chan Rec Center and officiate basketball Monday, Wednesday, Friday... City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Representative Tom Workman: Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Mayor Mancino: I'd wait until your 40th. I'd do it that day. Scott Botcher: But thank you both for coming out. I appreciate it. Representative Tom Workman: Thank you for having us. Senator Ed Oliver: Thank you. And Tom I was delighted to you know that you have influence with the Governor. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO RELOCATE A BUILDING FROM 8185 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD TO 2600 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MID-AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICE CORP. Mayor Mancino: Staff report please. Kate Aanenson: I thought we were tabling this. Councilman Senn: Could I make a point of clarification? And ask the mood of the council because I really don't want to sit through this twice. If the mood is to table it so we can notify another area, let's kind of maybe talk about that issue first and decide if we're going to do that because I think it's silly to waste everybody else's time, as well as ours in terms of going through everything tonight and then turning around and having to go through it all again in two weeks. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here tonight that would like, is attending for this public hearing on the house? Okay, then let's bring it back to council. We had talked about, Steve had brought up, Councilman Labatt had brought up that he would like to see the people that live across from the wetlands into the development he lives in, which is Longacres. He had some neighbors call on Bent Bow Trail and I think Moccasin Trail that will have a sight line onto this property and if they could also, even though they don't live within 500 feet, if they could also be sent a notification to the moving so that they know about it and can come and talk publicly on that. Is that correct? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. And maybe sort of policy... Mayor Mancino: If they have a view towards it. Councilman Labatt: Well they have a view towards the property and... Mayor Mancino: So first do you want to, any other discussion from council members? Should we go ahead and just ask, do we need to make a motion to table and ask you to go ahead and notify those people. And then make a motion, just ask you to bring back in the ordinance that we have, something that can suggest that we send notices to those that are over 500 feet when their property has a sight line and abuts the wetland or the open space. Okay? City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Good. So I'd move we table this for two weeks. Mayor Mancino: Does that give you Kate enough time to notify? Kate Aanenson: If we get them out by the end of, sure. We can get them out by the end of this week. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Second to the motion. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn: Discussion if we could. I assume we aren't going to decide the issue of the policy tonight because I think that's a discussion we need to have and a little more thought needs to be given to it rather than just some quick ideas that were thrown around tonight. Mayor Mancino: And hopefully our planning director will come back to us with some suggestions. Councilman Senn: Okay. And just one other comment. I mean I have always been all for notice and will support it 100% but at the same time I'm always amazed that people know about it and have heard about it and they're aware this was on tonight and they're not here. Councilman Labatt: Well no, they weren't. I made the calls. Kate Aanenson: I guess the other concern that staff had, I don't want to get into a big discussion but there is a subdivision, will be a subdivision between this property. I mean this will eventually, you won't be able to see any of this when, Lundgren owns the rest of that property gets developed. I guess that was kind of our intent too but we'd certainly be happy to put together a little issue paper on what our policy is and what some options are to do. We talked about topography and sight lines before. Councilman Engel: I've got kind of a fundamental question. Do you own sight lines or do you own land? Kate Aanenson: We'll put something together and talk to Roger a little bit. Councilman Senn: And when you do come back it would be nice if you'd just kind of give us the overview of the area because if there is another project being developed in-between this one and. Kate Aanenson: You'll be seeing that shortly on a project in this whole area, yeah right. I mean it will be eventually when it comes in the MUSA 2000. I guess that's kind of what our thought was too. It will eventually be completely screened. We'll have the road going through and it's going to change the dynamics so, but we'll show you what policies we have in place and with some options to make sure that we notify people that do have sight lines and the lake issue and that. Councilman Engel: That just reminds me to be very similar to the one we had in here a couple weeks ago where the mound of dirt blocked a gentleman's view to the lake now and wanted to see the lake. You don't own the view. You own the land. The way I look at it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Oh, did we vote on this? City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table the request for the House Moving Permit to relocate a building from 8185 Hazeltine Boulevard to 2600 Arboretum Boulevard to notify residents along Bent Bow Trail and Moccasin Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 35,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD; LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2m~ ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD); BOEDECKER COMPANY, AMCON CONSTRUCTION, LLC. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a 35,000 square foot office/warehouse building. The site is zoned planned unit development. Office industrial park. It's bordered by Lake Drive West to the south and Audubon Road to the west. The site has an area of 2.74 acres. The applicant is proposing the use of exposed aggregate, precast concrete panels on all four sides of the building. There is an accent band that is located over all entrances into the building. This band is continued around the entire building. It's also accented by medallions. All entrances have a metal panel above the recessed doors to give the building additional interest. Loading docks are located behind the building facing Commerce Drive. They will be screened from views from Audubon Road and Lake Drive West. Overall the site plan is well designed and staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Kate Aanenson: I just had one other thing. Councilwoman Jansen asked a question regarding impervious surface. This tabulation is one that we pulled from different reports. The PUD standard is 70%. Some of those buildings are under, some are over so we're, the question you asked on the PUD requirement of 59%, that should say 70. We could give you an average number and I don't have that right now but it does meet the standard. It's crossed out below the 70% so they are within standards. What they are right now is still under 70% for the entire PUD. There are some buildings that are over but again the Weather Service is significantly under and that's what we used when we put that PUD together. I don't have it tonight but I can get you that number for the entire PUD. So there's some miscommunication on that table. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Other questions or comments? Is the applicant here and would you like to address the Council? Dennis Cornelius: My name is Dennis Cornelius. I represent Amcon Corporation. We're the designers and contractors for the Boedecker Company. I really have nothing more to add to the design at this point unless there's questions. I think the report pretty much covers all the issues that we've addressed over the couple weeks. I want to compliment staff and their assistants in putting this together and appreciate their efforts in the last couple weeks. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And thank you for your patience for working with the Planning Commission and planning staff when they tabled it. Working with them to resolve some of those issues. Is there anyone here tonight having any questions on this particular development? To address the council. Okay. Comments from council. Any questions? Comments? 10 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Kate addressed my one question that I had on the project. I thought the Planning Commission and staff did a great job of working on this prior to it coming to us. It looks like a good project. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. The one question that I have, I have questions on 2 of the conditions. Number 6 and number 7. Number 6. According to the calculations on the matrix for landscaping, it does not meet our minimum requirements. Landscaping requirements. We're at 5 and again I've added up all the required and all the proposed and I would just like to make sure that in this PUD and with our ordinance minimum requirement so, and if staff can recalculate and work with the applicant on this. Again I think it's important that we meet minimum requirements. I have those calculated as being 5 overstory trees short, 7 understory trees short and 16 shrubs under ordinance. And again, if you can just recalculate that to make sure that it meets our ordinance, I would appreciate that. Secondly on 7. The berming on the southeast comer which is the Lake Drive, according to the grading plan that I have which is Sheet 1 of Sheet 2. The parking, the berm needs to be raised 3 or 4 feet to do some of the shielding of the parking. If that is the intent of the planning staff, then I would just like to add on condition number 7 that the height of the berm along Lake Drive West should be between 3 and 4 feet. Because right now that berm tops out at 948, which is the same height of Lake Drive West. So it really doesn't berm much. And again if the staff and the applicant can work on that to make sure that those calculations are correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. I'll move approval of Site Plan Review for 35,000 square foot office/warehouse building as per the attached by staff. A caveat that the staff follow-up on the Mayor's concerns on items 6 and 7. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated received August 13, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained at all access points until the Class 5 gravel has been installed. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event using the rational method for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Existing trees planted by the City and developer will remain on site, be incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan and replaced by the developer if they are damaged by construction. The applicant and staff shall recalculate the landscaping to be sure that it meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Additional 3 to 4 feet of berming shall be constructed in the southeast comer of the south parking lot to screen the parking from Lake Drive West and Audubon Road. Upon completion of the utility and street improvements, they will be owned and maintained by the property owner and not the city. The appropriate building permits and inspections will be required for extension of the utilities into the site from the City's Building Department. All utility 11 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates and/or state of Minnesota plumbing codes. Both driveway accesses will need to install industrial driveway aprons in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide a security escrow to the city in the amount of $6,000 to guarantee street and boulevard restoration and driveway apron construction. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, buses, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. If the Lake Drive West address is to be used, the street name as well as the numbers shall appear in 12 inch numbers on the rear of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of wording and numbers. d. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement/development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 10. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 11. The site shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than ½ foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of- ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no more than ½ foot candle of light is at the property line. 12 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. One third of the fee was paid at the time of platting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWL AND FILLY'S BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH EIGHT ADDITIONAL THEATERS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 1,400 SEATS WITH AN AREA OF 30,000 SQ. FT. AND 9,000 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE, VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE, HARD SURFACE COVERAGE, SUBDIVISION CREATING LOTS WITH NO DIRECT FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, HWY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT, PITCHED ROOF ELEMENT REQUIREMENT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND PAULY DRIVE; EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD; AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TM STREET, CHANHASSEN PROPERTIES, LLC. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl and Filly's building and construct eight additional movie screens and a 9,000 square foot retail element. The site is located north of the railroad tracks and Pauly's Drive, east of Market Boulevard and west of Frontier Building and south of West 78th Street. The site is zoned General Business District and is guided commercial. Theaters and retail are permitted in this district. The total number of movie screens will be 16 occupying an area of 50,000 square feet. The retail element has an area of 9,000. Materials on the building are comprised of painted precast panels, field brick, accent brick, stucco and rock face block. To accurately address this project we're going to break it into three segments. The existing cinema, the new cinema and the retail element. The applicant is proposing to paint the existing precast a dark brown color to match the color of the brick used on the new addition. The existing column shapes are going to be modified by projecting them by approximately 4 inches. As a result of some comments brought up at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing to cover the easterly wall with EFTS. It is intended to remove the existing marquee and this main entrance to the center of the new addition. The new cinema, the exterior material on the new cinema is field brick, accent brick and EFTS. The entrance to the theater is being moved to the south. The front portion of the marquee sign will advertise the names of movies, ratings and time. The entrance projects approximately 30 feet. The wall west of the entrance utilizes field brick, base concrete block and EFTS. Columns similar to those shown on the existing theater are shown on the addition. These columns will also project by 4 inches. Separating the theater from the retail element is a 10 foot wide alley way. The retail element is 9,000 square feet. Exterior materials consist of field brick, accent brick, EFTS and base concrete block. There is a plaza area west of the new main entrance into the theater. That basically covers the architecture of the building. One of the issues that we need to point out to the City Council is parking. And we spoke to Mr. Fred Hoisington today. He is the consultant that originally conducted the parking study for the City for the entire complex. For the entire entertainment complex. Based upon our conversation with Mr. Hoisington, if the applicant put in 2,800 seats, there's no restaurant at all, the applicant would be required to put in 509 parking stalls and that would require an unimpeded driveway between Great Plains Boulevard and Market Boulevard. Out of that 509, 32 will go to retail for 477 for the theater. Mr. Copeland also spoke to Mr. Benshoof, who is the applicant's traffic engineer and he stated that Mr. Benshoof made his recommendation as a compromise regarding the accessibility between Great Plains Boulevard and Market Boulevard. That parking, and by compromise T mean parking was made more important than the accessibility. Mr. Hoisington also stated that if seating is dropped to 2,500, then parking along the aisles can be eliminated and the applicant would 13 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 have 479 parking stalls and that would meet the projections that Mr. Hoisington has for this complex. So basically we need the east/west connection between Great Plains Boulevard, the number of seats within the theater needs to be dropped, or parking increased. There are multiple variances with this application and staff has prepared conditions should, the City Council needs to realize that there are a lot of compromises that the City would have to make to the city ordinances and standards. If you feel that this project is worthy of those compromises, then staff has prepared conditions of approval for you. And if you have any questions, we'll be more than happy to answer them. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add a couple more things real quick. Sharmin's spent a lot of time and it's been a tough project. I just want to kind of frame up a couple of issues Sharmin touched on. We got this project after it went to EDA and we got the directive then to approve the project. I'm sorry, I can wait a second. Okay. To work through the process. It went to EDA. EDA said we want to do the additional theaters with some conditions. Staff took it through the process. Sharmin spent a lot of time reviewing the architecture of the original building was amended as far as some of the designs. Mr. Copeland came in and said he didn't want to do the EFIS. He was concerned about the durability. So when this came back through we got feedback, the planning staff, that there were concerns about the design so Sharmin spent a lot of time working on the design. The Planning Commission was also concerned about this design and how it related to the existing 8 theaters. Throughout that whole discussion we spent a lot of time discussing the entertainment complex itself. The 8 theaters and what that does to the entertainment component of the downtown so there was also some discussion on that. The entire time we're trying to work as a planning staff saying it is an important element of the downtown, entertainment. We've gotten direction to work this through the process. Recognizing that to make this happen at the level that the applicant wants, there needs to be a series of compromises. One impervious surface. It's in the core downtown. Some of that's, I think the staff agreed it may make some sense. I guess what we want to turn it back to the council and say, is this the project you were expecting and is it at the level that you want to make those compromises? That's when you see the level of conditions of approval, we've put that in recommending approval with the understanding that there needs to be modifications to the plan and that you are willing to give up some things in order to get the design, if that's what you want, and the quality of the project you want. Just again to reiterate some of the issues that the Planning Commission still struggled with and I now Sharmin did too. And those were the final ones that were added, conditions 24. The Planning Commission struggled with the seating capacity and that number that Mr. Hoisington, based on occupancy of theaters. I think that's a critical thing to think about. Is that the right ratio? And then the Planning Commission still had some concerns with the alley between the retail and the cinema. Even though there was some internal discussion between the staff, whether or not that worked or not, but they were still wrestling with that. And I'm not sure we've come to some final conclusion on that. And then also the facade, and again that's another issue that the staff had. There's a green band that runs around, trying to tie it together. Do we want it to look like two separate buildings? Do we want it to look like one large building? Again, what it is now is two separate buildings. Trying to tie certain themes together and to go back and maybe approve the quality of the existing building. And then finally, this is one that staff is still wrestling with. Based on the number of parking, the applicant was reluctant to give up a lot of the parking and staff still wrestled with, we're trying to make this a pedestrian friendly downtown and we've got a large parking lot and we're not sure that's been adequately addressed. So with that, I just wanted to make sure you understood those points from the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: Does it meet the minimum of our Highway 5 corridor? Requirements. As far as impervious surface. As far as. Kate Aanenson: No. 14 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Landscaping. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again we wrestled that it was in the core of the downtown in entertainment but again, how far do you want to go on that with something that we struggled with? Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff from council members? Councilwoman Jansen: I do have a couple and really following up on where the Mayor was just going with the mention of the Highway 5 corridor. As we're looking at the parking ordinance requirements of the 1 to 4 and the hard surface coverage percent of the 65%, as other development is occurring around this one, will those developers also be faced with these same guidelines? I guess leading to these are upgraded. They are just our standard ordinances for this area. Sharmin A1-Jaff: All of the parcels within the highway business district that have developed over the last 8-9 years meet the ordinance requirements. I don't recall any variances. Mayor Mancino: There might have been some minor ones but again... Councilwoman Jansen: And more so wanting to understand that we haven't put an additional upgrade on this property for any reason. These are just the standards for this area and other developers coming in after this project would have the same requirements, correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: ... always talked about on Planning Commission .... Planning Commission member, remember these are minimum requirements. It's a minimum so someone can add more to it depending on the quality and the project that they want. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you for mentioning that. I was also trying to remember, and this was from one of our variance projects. We had a pre-existing structure that was non-conforming and so we were dealing with setbacks and where do you go and what do you do and you always want to say well, this is where it is currently. Therefore I'm kind ofgrandfathered in to get that variance. And I'm remembering our wording suggesting that you come back into conformance, if that's the word, if you go to do a remodel or. Sharmin A1-Jaff: If you demolish a building, you lose the non-conformity unless it's 50% of the value, if I remember that correct. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess the point that we wrestled with on this is that it's a non-conforming situation. And we would give them the same footprint back but our expectation was that we would try to get some additional landscaping. Some of those other areas that we could improve the building. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. 15 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Kate Aanenson: In addition, we've added to the footprint of the building by putting the retail on. Does the retail need to go out past that footprint? Can it be brought back over to the original footprint? The reason we wanted the retail component, or the EDA did, is to reduce the height of that facade on Market. Give it an interesting view from that perspective so that increased the footprint of the original building. Remember the first one was remodeled. It was their desire to take this building down and do it, to get the stadium seating, they wanted to take the building down instead or trying to work with the existing structure which they felt would be more effective. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure if it was the same application to commercial as it is to residential and it was residential last time we were talking so I appreciate that. Kate Aanenson: It's a philosophical issue to get this project to go. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt: I've got one. What's the impervious surface over at Market Square? Kate Aanenson: Sharmin might know. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That was a planned unit development and I believe the hard surface was waived with that project. For Market Square. Kate Aanenson: Because Festival's does have the capacity, there is green there. It has the capacity to expand? There is that land available for them to go to the east. If they wanted to. Councilman Labatt: What's the impact of going to 95% with your surface for storm water... Anita Benson: We would design for it to handle it. What it does is just increases the rate of runoff so it's much faster so the size of the system has to be larger or you'll have ponding in the parking lot. Councilman Labatt: But for the sanitary sewer this is going to hook up in. Anita Benson: I think you're referring Councilman Labatt to the existing storm sewer. Councilman Labatt: Yep. Anita Benson: It can handle, the existing storm sewer is fine. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Sharmin, very quick question. We, the City, the public owns a lot of parking in this area. What percentage, as I look at the parking, what percentage does the public own? Out of all those parking spaces. Sharmin A1-Jaff: This area. The area that is inside this red line... There is 192 1 believe... Mayor Mancino: That is currently owned by the City? 16 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Sharmin A1-Jaff: And it's.., by Southwest Metro. Mayor Mancino: And who maintains it? If we could find that out, that would be great. Who maintains it. Who has not only paving, not in great shape right now but would need to be upgraded and maintained... So again, could you get that number, how many of the public owned parking? Sharmin A1-Jaff: 192. Mayor Mancino: And is that parking figured in? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it is. Mayor Mancino: So the Southwest Metro area is also figured in that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Doubled counted. Oh okay, thank you. Helpful. Anything else? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There's 101 parking spaces in this area, which is west of the retail. Then the parking that is shared between Frontier Building and...there is 150 parking spaces at this time. Councilman Engel: Not owned by city. Mayor Mancino: Privately held. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Now of the 102, does that include the parking spaces that the applicant has reconfigured on Pauly Drive or is that just what's standing there now? Sharmin A1-Jaff: That includes what the applicant... Mayor Mancino: Okay. How they've reconfigured Pauly Drive. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. Councilwoman Jansen: Can I ask one more? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. I was curious in reading the report, I know that staff's goal and city's goal for this area is the diversity of the retail on the side of the building, and of course as we look at the plan we're seeing nine individual retail establishments. Then you get to the fine print and of course it says that one entity could own three of them. Does that mean we could get down to only having three different businesses? 17 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Possibility. Councilwoman Jansen: Is that of concern? Was that anything that you spoke to as this came through the process? Okay. Meaning it's not of concern or you didn't discuss it? Scott Botcher: It was not as big a concern as other things. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: We could put a control on it but you're going to find a user that you're going to want and so you give it up anyway so I'm not sure. It's always hard to predict the market. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: As long as we have a break in the facade, I think that's part of it. Councilwoman Jansen: So you'd handle it through the facade so that visually there's a differential? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Councilman Senn: ...that's where we spent most of the time talking about it and not really worrying about how many tenant would go into it but again the facade appearance with multiple retail. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: And I'm sorry, you'll have to all excuse us as we're turning these big sheets. We're kind of hiding ourselves and if you can't hear us, please let us know. We don't mean to be impolite or rude, these are just huge. Would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation please? Ron Krank: Good evening. My name is Ron Krank and I'm here representing the applicant this evening, and as you might recall I think I've appeared before you several times in your capacity as involvement with EDA so to see you again, I appreciate all of the tremendous amount of time the staff and you all and the Planning Commission members have spent with us on this project. And as is pretty evident from your questions, this is a very involved, very complicated and very important project to the community and we fully understand that and that's why we have been willing to spend the time and the effort to make sure that what we give you is a very, very quality project. If you have any questions whatsoever on the architecture, as to whether or not we've given the appropriate attention to the fact that this is a very important gateway to your community. That the effort here has been to create a project that relates to the historical concepts of the downtown and draws on the detailing and the character of downtown, than we haven't done our job with the drawings. If it would help you to pass around the large scale drawings, we'd be willing to do that certainly. But if you look at any detail, any portion of this building, it has had a tremendous amount of thought in the proportions, in the quality, in the undulations, the projections. You've probably read the staff report. We've gotten down to how far the dentils are projected out beyond the column face and we frankly accept, we're very pleased to accept all of the comments with regard to the architectural report. We've gone through it very thoroughly and we think we've done a really good job at that. What I really want to do is talk a little bit about the history of the project and why we're here tonight and our perception frankly that we're really between a rock and a hard place in achieving what the city's goals are and what 18 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 our goals are. I'd like to start by focusing on the site itself, if we could do that. This is an aerial photograph of the property taken a few years ago. And this is the existing building. The cinema is this area right here. This is the bowling center. This is the bus turnaround and existing parking. I, myself worked on this site and this building over 20 years ago when it was the Instant Web Building and it was owned by the Beddor, Frank Beddor and Jerome Carlson and they moved out of the downtown to a new site and we explored with the city at that time a variety of opportunities. They ranged from a public exercise, health club...facility to a private to a whole boost of venues. Retail. We just couldn't get it to work and so frankly it was turned into the bowling center which you see there today and I think you'd all agree, as we do, that it's not necessarily a good neighbor to us. It's not necessarily what you want at the gateway to your community. This is what, I know you know what it looks like because you see it. The cinema and that's the bowling center that we hope we can tear down and build a new building. And the detail of this is just atrocious. It's something we're not very proud to have as a neighbor and we really, our goal is to get that down. So what we have done is create the architecture that you have seen in the elevations. We've spent an enormous amount of time ensuring that it is the quality, and that was I think one of the first questions when you asked if this, the expectation and is it exceeding our expectation what the architecture should be and we hope the answer would be yes because there is all that attention, all that detail and we've done a number of projects...that I pointed out to the Planning Commission that we'd urge you to take a look at. I think you can go to a project called Golden Valley Commons on Highway 55 and Winnetka. You'll see a project there that has this kind quality and a project in Plymouth that's called Plymouth Commons, right next to the, near the Mann Cinema and a Cub store which we did. Same kind of character. And those are small buildings so it's the same kind of attention to detail. Now what creates our problem frankly is that our number one goal here is a 16 screen cinema with a minimum of 2,800 seats. It's not an arbitrary number and I think that you really need to understand why we're so adamant in trying to achieve this. Years ago when a cinema built a theater for themselves, they had a radius constraint that they could only within 10 miles of each other or they wouldn't get the movies. They'd have to share. That changed to 5 miles. And what I understand now, they do what they call zoning and if you have 16 screens or more, then you are your own zone. You're a separate radius. You're your own zone and you get first run movies. You get all of them. Any of them that you want. If you're 15 screens or less, you have to share with others in the community and you have to do special deals. You may not get all of the movies you want, so 16's essential. So if we were to have 15 or 14 screens and someone were to try to come in in a nearby area, they can get Tarzan and we might not get Tarzan because that's a block buster video of this year. And so we need to protect ourselves against that. That's why this is so critical. Why 2,800 seats? That's the bottom number of the range. They go from 2,800 to 3,500 seats for 16 screens. I don't think any of you can recall in the last several years where anyone has gone in, or at least the last year, and built anything less than 16 screens. You hear about Regal Cinema and others coming to the area, 16, 18, 20, and even 30. That's why it's so essential to us. So we've come to the community and said that's what we want and we were told well that's fine. We'll work through that. Everything else has to work, but we also want a retail component. Now we're willing to do the retail component but that's where we're caught between a rock and a hard place. We do the retail, we can maximize this site with 9,000 square feet with 60 foot deep shops and 10 foot separation and then the parking in front of it. And we can do that but then we have to have 45 parking stalls for that and we lose parking where that building is so what do we do? We only have so much land. The green area's not an issue for us. Whatever you want for green, we'll do. The landscaping we'll do. If you want something changed in the architecture, we'll do. We hope we've done it already but we're certainly willing to do more if that's your request, but we're really stuck. We have to have those 16 screens and I turn it back to you. What can we do? We think we've done our best. Now with regards to the consultant's analysis of the parking. We understand where he's coming from. We understand his analysis. We have several comments on that. We have been in business now for a year and a half. We've got 8 screens up. We're halfway there and based on those numbers, my client is very 19 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 comfortable that this, he can double those numbers and still have, double the screens and still have more than adequate parking based on his occupancy, his type of theater, his location and in his profitability. He's okay with that. Secondly, he wouldn't be building this and spending the money and the time and the effort if he didn't think he could make it work. If he were going to drive away because they couldn't get here. Thirdly, they do have the opportunity to stagger the times of the movies. The screens. You know you go to a large cinema, they're all not at 7:00 and 8:00 and whatever. They stagger them and he has the ability to do that. So other things he can make happen. And lastly, we're not out in the suburb areas, suburban area. We're really in an urban area in your community where it's a downtown, and the goal that we hear from communities is that we want cinemas because they bring people downtown. They go eat somewhere and if it's a block or two they'll walk or go browse. You've got this fabulous street and you've got the Dinner Theater with all those wonderful shops in it. Makes it conducive to people to shop and walk. Now I'm not saying they should park in the theater, Chanhassen Cinema. Chanhassen Dinner Theater parking lot but there are places around town. They can go eat and walk and we expect that they'll park here and walk and eat somewhere else. So when we add those together into the mix, we really have a comfort level it will work, and again we wouldn't be proposing this enormous expenditure if we thought it was going to jeopardize the retailers that could be here or the cinema. So with that I guess open it up to any questions you might have. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Ron? I think we'll wait if there's more presentation or other comments... Bob Copeland: Good evening. I'm Bob Copeland. One of the owners of the cinema and what I thought I'd do is just run through the conditions that were recommended by a combination of the staff and the Planning Commission and that will hit a lot of the highlights and so on related to the project. Some of them don't require much discussion. Others require more discussion. Most of the conditions we're just fine with and the others we're willing to do everything that's humanly possible to meet them but I'll just run through the numbers and if you have a question or I don't cover something adequately, please interrupt and let's pause and let's talk about that condition. Number 1 has to do with utilities underneath the building. We understand that condition. We're fine with that. We're relocate the utilities so they will not be underneath the building. Number 2 has to do with restoring disturbed areas. We'll certainly do that. 3 has to do with the east/west connection. Now the east/west connection was something that our traffic consultant Jim Benshoof came up with and he came up with this in response to a congested situation that he thought might occur when people take a left turn from Pauly Drive onto Market Boulevard after viewing a movie. And this would most likely be a problem when the shows that start around 7:00 are finished. And so this would typically in the 8:30 to 9:15 range. And he determined that these people would have difficulty making a left turn. Now they could always make a right turn at that location, at Pauly Drive or at the next exit or from the area, which is just north of Pauly Drive, and just take a couple of right turns and they're on Highway 5 and they're on their way. But if they continue to try to take a left turn there probably would be some congestion there. And so he came up with this east/west drive as the idea to alleviate that congestion. The idea being that you could go across to Great Plains and take a right turn and you wouldn't have to take a left. And so that makes sense and we've been unsuccessful however in gaining the approve of Bloomberg, our neighbor to the east to cross their property at this time. And they have a good reason though for this and their perspective on it is that when they develop that property, and they're working on it now actually, they will permit this east/west connection. But they don't know how their development's going to go. They don't know just how it's going to lay out so right now today they don't want to commit to a drive that goes across their property, which later on may be right where they want to put a building for example. So they are agreeable to one later on and they understand they fully expect that if this project were approved by you, that they would have to permit and have an east/west connection. And they would need it too. They 2O City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 would want to pass across the cinema related property over to Market and so on. They also will permit across access and easement agreements and that sort of thing on their property when the time comes. When they do their development. Now that might be 6 months from now. It might be 6 years from now. Nobody knows, but they are working on it and they do intend to do that. So in the meantime what do we do? And we've come up with an idea based on what our consultants have told us, and we've consulted two traffic consultants, Benshoof and BRW. And the consensus of those experts is that putting a traffic control person at the intersection of Pauly Drive and Market Boulevard during those busy times, and we're even willing to extend the busy times. We're not going to just limit to 45 minutes. We're proposing to the city that we'll do it from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on busy Friday and Saturday nights. We'll have an off duty Chanhassen police person there at our expense that will direct traffic and it would work very well. It would be as if there was a traffic light there only when you need it. So that you can envision this traffic control person stopping the north/south traffic on Market Boulevard. Allowing people to, everybody that wants to make that left turn onto Market and right tums at the same time, and then allowing the north/south traffic to continue. So we think it's an excellent solution. We're committing to do it as long as necessary and you have security in the form of the TIF. If that's not enough, we'll gladly give you any kind of security that you would want as a city to insure that we follow through on this and that we do provide that traffic control person there, as we say. Any questions about that issue? Mayor Mancino: Any questions councilmembers? Councilman Labatt: ... are you okay with number 3 as it's written or not? Bob Copeland: Well, probably not. Let's see, what does it say? Well, it talks about, let's address this first item under 3A. It talks about impeded versus unimpeded. And in the staff report there's a lot of discussion about that and there's been discussion about that since the first EDA meetings last fall. And our traffic consultant, Jim Benshoof, who originated this idea of the east/west connection, feels that it would be advantageous to have an unimpeded east/west connection, and we don't dispute that. I mean that would be best. But it's not possible to do without a tremendous sacrifice in the number of parking stalls. And so what we've done is worked with the staff and we thought we had their agreement on this east/west connection. We widened the east/west connection to a minimum of 30 feet. And we only have 41 stalls on the south side of this east/west connection now, whereas before we had parking on both sides and the drive was narrower. So we've widened it and we've reduced the number of stalls on the south side of it to as far as we think we can practically go and we feel that this is a reasonable compromise. Mr. Benshoof has looked at this. He studied it. He's discussed it with Mr. Hoisington and he's very comfortable with it. He's satisfied that it's not going to be a safety issue. That it's not the ideal but this site won't allow for all the ideal situations that one might want. But it's a very reasonable compromise and it's not giving up safety, not sacrificing safety issues. According to Mr. Benshoof. Scott Botcher: I think one of the issues that's out there and it's certainly not a big issue, is just from a management perspective. I don't think we would assume that off duty employment for a private party by the City of Chanhassen public safety personnel would necessarily be allowed. Secondly, we don't have a lot of staff anyway. Even if it was something that was allowed, I'm not sure that after working 8 hours a day and hanging out at Pleasant View Road, that you'd want to go and work out your elbows. And that's realistic. I mean well that's reality. I'm not sure what it is Steve where you work, but the whole idea of employees moonlighting, for lack of a better term.., insensitive. The public is paying salaries. 21 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Bob Copeland: Well our proposal is not conditioned upon these individuals being employed by the City of Chanhassen. They can be employed by any city and I'm confident that we can find qualified people to do this. Scott Botcher: Except the other side is that obviously the City of Chanhassen then has some legal reason to consider whether or not to allow persons outside of Carver County, with whom we have a contract, or City of Chanhassen personnel with whom we employ, to be acting as public safety officers on our streets. That's a real issue. I guess I've been up front with this. I disagree with the whole idea of using a traffic officer anyway, but even ifI did agree with it, it's just not as easy saying we'll hire somebody to do it. Bob Copeland: It does work in other communities. A lot of churches do it. Sunday mornings, very similar situation. They have to get their people out of the parking lot at one time. It works very well over a long duration and sporting events. You see this happen all the time. Mayor Mancino: ... consultant on this, still feels that the Pauly Drive should be unimpeded, correct? A dedicated driveway with no parking. Sharmin A1-Jaff: He said if he had to choose between unimpeded connection and number of parking, he would definitely require unimpeded connection between Great Plains and Market Boulevard. That really concerned him. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel: More so than the parking issue? Councilman Senn: Not as a driveway, as a road. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Pardon? Councilman Senn: As a road or as a driveway? Sharmin A1-Jaff: As long as there is an unimpeded.., that he definitely agreed that we would need a dedicated connection. Mayor Mancino: But he didn't go into widths. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I just wanted. Can you just go ahead through the conditions, the ones that you have concerns about. Pick those out. The rest of them we will note that you agree with. Bob Copeland: Okay. 3B, having to do with 28 foot drive aisles. We can't do that. We can provide 24 foot drive aisles. The way this is written, it says all drive aisles to be 28 feet. It could be that the staff means just the main circulation drive aisles, which we can do. But it does say all and we just can't do all of them. We can make them all at least 24, which is for example what you have here at City Hall. So I'm just pointing that out. Skipping to. Mayor Mancino: Not entertainment. 22 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Bob Copeland: I'm sorry, what? Mayor Mancino: I said the reason why our roads are narrower is we're not in entertainment. Go ahead. Bob Copeland: Oh alright. Councilman Engel: It depends on when you're here. Bob Copeland: Number 6 has to do with the limiting the number of seats. Ron Krank touched on that. I would like to just elaborate a few more things on that ifI may please. If you had a chance to read my letter that was in your packet here, I did discuss the number of seats and we feel very confident that there is enough parking on the site for the uses that we've proposed here. And I want to call your attention to a count that we did on August 6th. On August 6th we had our busiest night that we've had since we opened, and we've been open about a year and a half now. And we took that opportunity to count the cars. And if you subtract the cars for the bowling alley and the cars that were employees of the Dinner Theater, which really don't have any business parking on this portion of the parking lot. We had 241 stalls associated with the cinema. And this is an excellent predictor, it's the best predictor. It's better than anybody's study that you can read anywhere in the country, what our parking requirement is going to be. And so if you double that, that's 481 stalls. Now we have 487. And so it is conceivable that with the retail thrown in there, which doesn't exist right now, that we might exceed the 487 in terms of demand, and we recognize that. And what we would propose is that there is ample parking really in the downtown area and it just needs to be used. For example this area here, just north of the so called Medical Arts building, it's a city owned parking lot. It has over 200 parking stalls. We've talked to the owner of those buildings and we have a letter from them stating that they have no objection to the cinema using those stalls for overflow parking. And that's about, I walked it this evening before I came over here and it's a little less than a 4 minute walk from this area right here over to the new entrance. And people will walk 4 minutes, and people do walk 4 minutes. The most successful cinema in town is the General Cinema at the Mall of America and people walk more than 4 minutes to get from their parking to the cinema at the Mall of America. Now granted that's a little nicer walk maybe and it's a controlled environment but still it's the time. We've also talked to the Festival Foods people and Market Square management and they've agreed to allow parking on 30 stalls right in this location right here, which is a very convenient location and that would be a relatively short walk. Councilman Engel: That's the little southeast comer by Festival? Bob Copeland: Well it's right here. Festival Foods is right here. And the comer of their lot really doesn't... Councilman Engel: Okay, the northeast comer of their lot. Bob Copeland: The northeast comer of their, Festival's portion of the parking. We've also talked to the Americana Bank, and while we don't really have an agreement there, they have told Mr. Conrad that they would agree, and they've also told us they don't see any reason why they wouldn't agree. Now that's not quite the same as having an understanding but I think we're close with those folks and I feel confident that we'll have an understanding with the Americana Bank which is right here. So it'd be a relatively convenient to go out to this sidewalk from... Now this is not going to be an everyday occurrence. We're expecting real busy times, just 10 to 12 times a year. 10 to 12 weekends a year. So this is not something 23 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 that's going to be happening all that often but when it does, there are places that can be used and we would propose to advertise these places to our customers during the slide presentation of advertisements. We can show a map of the area and show them where designated and allowed overflow parking stalls are so that people over, you know people coming to the cinema for a little while become accustomed to where they can go if the lot happens to be full, which is an unlikely event but it could happen. Now if we have not convinced you that there's enough parking, and if we have not convinced you that this east/west connection which is really an issue for exiting the cinema from Pauly Drive, taking a left mm onto Market Boulevard, then we do have another way of accomplishing both those things and that would be to eliminate the retail building. And if we did eliminate the retail building, which is right here, we would reduce the demand for parking and we would increase the availability of parking. We could also increase the green space and we would go from a 38, potential 38 car shortage according to Hoisington's figures, to a 38 car overage. Plus we could take the cars that are along here that some people are concerned about, along this east/west drive, and we could put those up here.., on the east/west drive. Now I'm not proposing that we do that but I just want you to know that that retail building could go. That's optional as far as we're concerned. And it's there at the city's request. Any questions about parking? Mayor Mancino: Bob right now the parking stalls for retail are 32 or how many? Bob Copeland: Well according to Hoisington's figures it would be 29. Mayor Mancino: And the latest number, I've got. Kate Aanenson: This afternoon talking to him he told us 32. Bob Copeland: He made a mistake on that. Kate Aanenson: To you or to me? Bob Copeland: To you and me. He made a mistake, he told me 32 also but that's not right. According to his own figures, it's 29. He used a demand reduction figure which was .898 and it's supposed to be .79, according to his report. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying instead of. Bob Copeland: It's 3 stalls different. I mean it's not that... Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, instead of putting retail there, the 9,000 square feet, we would pick up parking stalls on that west side and on the south side additional. Around the building. Instead of using it around Pauly Drive. Bob Copeland: Well it's an option that we are satisfied. Mayor Mancino: Suggesting as a second option, okay. Bob Copeland: In other words, rather than kill the whole project and send us away because we can't provide an unimpeded drive and because we don't have some count of stalls, there is another alternative. Item 7 we talked about really. We can't provide a 26 foot road over Bloomberg's land. Item 9, increase the plantings. We will increase the plantings as long as it doesn't affect parking. I mean we think we've 24 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 got the site maxed out right now but if someone can find another place to make green, we'll be happy to do that. Tree styling width is done. Hard surface coverage. First of all we don't have any more, in fact we would have less hard surface than there is today, so there won't be any additional impact on utilities or storm sewers, that kind of thing. The reason our percentage is so high is because if you look at this drawing, the area outlined in pink is the land that that's figured on. None of the green that's around the outside here is figured into those calculations because that's not really our property. But if you look at the site as a whole, there is more green than just 5%. If you look at this whole site. Mayor Mancino: The part that you don't own that's public part, correct? Bob Copeland: Well there's this lot, which we paid to half of to improve. Bloomberg owns it. There's this lot here which the city owns but we paid to improve, and so ordinarily on a standard project all that would come into play. That would all be part of the calculations. So we can't really comply with 65% or 70%. As far as the alley goes between the two buildings, between the retail building and the cinema addition. We would propose to make that have the same appearance as the rest of the buildings. In other words, the retail side of that alley we would propose to make brick, like the brick that's on the rest of the retail building. Mayor Mancino: Bob, which number is this? Bob Copeland: I'm sorry, well I'm jumping ahead. I should have given you the number. This would be item 25. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we've gone from 14 as a problem that you have, oh. You're okay with 14. Keeping it 95%. So you're okay with 14 because it says the hard surface coverage shall be 95%. So a concern I have, not you. And then you're up to 25. Bob Copeland: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bob Copeland: Alright, on 25 the issue is the alley that is created between the retail building and the cinema building. And we would make the finishes of the walls of that alley the same as the finishes of the buildings that comprise the alley. So we would have EFIS with projecting columns and so on on the cinema side and we would have face brick on the retail building. Mayor Mancino: And I thought the cinema was face brick. Bob Copeland: There is some face brick. Accent on the south side. Mayor Mancino: I thought the accent was the EFIS and the main was the brick? Bob Copeland: Well, that could be but we'll continue the same treatments onto that alley is what I'm trying to convey. Mayor Mancino: And we do not have a rendering of the alley. Bob Copeland: I don't believe you do. 25 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: That's the north side you're referring to, correct? Mayor Mancino: No. The alley is, which we don't have a rendering at all, is this area. There is no detail on this area that I've seen. Is there any rendering of that? Kate Aanenson: Tfyou look at the site plan, it just shows the egress for the doors, it's a back service. Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's a wall. Kate Aanenson: And the doors. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Is that kind of like a fire exist? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: We don't have a clue what's in there. Kate Aanenson: Right. It's just painted concrete. Bob Copeland: No. It's not. It's the same finishes that if you look at this north elevation of the cinema, it would be this same look. And if you look at this part of the brick, the face brick of the retail building, it would be face brick. It'd be the same treatment. Councilman Senn: But the north elevation is all EFTS. Right? Bob Copeland: Well 95%. The bottom part here is rock face block. Councilman Senn: So that's all EFTS. And then the west side is also EFTS. Bob Copeland: This elevation here, this section right here. This is the west elevation. It would be this same treatment, with the exception of the trash enclosure. So it's shown but you don't really know for sure what's going on back there and we're just assuring you that it would be the same. Continuing on through there. As far as screening, we will screen it if the city so desires. It's our understanding that the city does not want it screened. For safety reasons. Mayor Mancino: But don't we want screened? I'm sorry. Bob Copeland: An alley so that when you walk by the idea... Councilman Labatt: Will that be lighted in there at night? Bob Copeland: Yes. We'll have it very well lit. 26 has to do with facade changes. We do agree to, our understanding of this is that it deals with the east elevation of the existing cinema and the other alley, if you will. The alley between the cinema building and the frontier building, and we have agreed with the staff. I'm not sure if it got in this report or not, but anyway, to upgrade that facade on the building there from a 26 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 painted block, which it is now, to an EFIS finish, or stucco which will look the same. The last condition is we met with the staff and we talked about pedestrian access and we submitted this plan. In response to that meeting and what it shows are additional cross hatched walk areas and a more conducive sidewalk island arrangement through this center walk which would lead up to the main entrance of the cinema. So we've added cross hatching and changing some of the sidewalks around to be a little bit more inviting and a little safer. And if there are added measures that we haven't addressed that you would like us to address related to pedestrian safety, we'd be happy to do that. So those are the 27 issues, or recommendations. We don't have any further presentation. We'd be happy to answer questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Before we go to questions from councilmembers, is there anyone here tonight that wants to address the council after the applicant is done? Okay, we'll bring it back to council. From my point of view, and I'll just start this and have other council.., and I'm not going to give all my comments... Wow, there's to me still a lot that I don't feel comfortable with and that means that there are agreements with offsite retail around the area but there's nothing in writing that we can see. It's verbal. I'm not saying that you don't have it but we don't have any evidence of that. I don't have a feel for the colored drawings that we got really don't give me an idea of color. I would like to see a lot more detail and either a three dimensional model or color renderings. There's just a lot of details for me that is missing, and that's just a general statement that I would make. But I want to turn it over to council members and if they have questions and I'll follow up after they're done with questions too. If you have any questions right now for Bob or Ron, if you could ask that now. Any questions Steve? Councilman Labatt: I just want... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark, any questions? Councilman Engel: Yes, we've been jumping around a little bit Bob and the recommendations that staff had. Can we quickly just run through them. Not all of them but speak to the ones, and you've already done this but I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of it. What you cannot live with or which you have an issue with. Just tick them off quickly so I can review with my notes. Mayor Mancino: 3, 6, 7. Councilman Engel: Well let's let him go through them. I want him to tell them. Bob Copeland: 3A and B. Well 3A has to do with this east/west connection. Councilman Engel: Needing to be 24 feet. Bob Copeland: And 3B has to do with the 28 foot drive aisles everywhere. Councilman Engel: And you need 24 feet by your measurements? Bob Copeland: Right. And we'll do 28 kind of on the main drive aisle areas. In other words, this one for example.., and so that makes sense to do that but in-between, these drive aisles have room to make them more than 24. Councilman Engel: Let's talk a little, not talk too much about it but can you come to any agreement at all on this unimpeded street from Great Plains to Market? 27 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Mayor Mancino: ... address the drive aisles. Anita Benson: Councilman Engel, Mr. Copeland. IfI could address the drive aisles. I think there's a bit of a misinterpretation. The minimum drive aisle width for the 28 feet, or for the main drive aisles, condition B that says all drive aisle and parking lot shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20- 1118. That refers to 26 feet wide in a non, between rows of parked cars and I think that's what you previously was presented. Councilman Engel: So you're saying 26 feet is our standard? Anita Benson: Correct. That's the way the City Code reads on that. It's 26 feet between two rows of parked cars. Councilman Engel: Okay. Anita Benson: And the 28 foot drive aisle is the one next to the building. Mayor Mancino: So those you've already met. Bob Copeland: But we only have 24 feet. Councilman Engel: Okay. So you need a 2 foot variance on that you're saying. Bob Copeland: That's right. Number 6 has to do with seating and parking and so on and we need 2,800 seats. Councilman Engel: Yep, I remember that one. Before we jump ahead from 6. Just quickly on A again. This unimpeded street from Market to Great Plains. Is there anything you can do, an agreement? A future drawing. What has happened? Bob Copeland: Well we did eliminate 52 stalls by the, to get it as unimpeded as it is now. There are 41 stalls along the south side there on that side and I guess the city can decide, we'll take out the 41 stalls but I personally don't think that's a good idea. I don't think in talking to Mr. Benshoof, I don't think it's going to be a problem. Councilman Engel: Keeping going. Sorry. Bob Copeland: 7. We talked about. That's the access over Bloomberg's property. 9. 10. 9 and 10 have to do with landscaping and plantings and we'll add whatever we can add in the space available. 24 deals with parking and we feel comfortable with the ratios that are there based on our experience. Which I think is the best predictor that you could look for. 25 we talked about the alley. If there's something else we can do to the alley that people would like, I mean we're certainly willing to listen to that but I think continuing the finishes there are satisfactory for the rest of the buildings and should be fine for the alley too. 26 we're doing which is that application to the east side of the existing cinema. And 27 we feel that we've addressed but based on the feedback we got from the staff but if there's something else that we missed there in relation to that, we'll certainly add some more crosswalks or more sidewalks or something like that. 28 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Engel: What about 14 again. We were talking about that for a little while. Are we clear on that one? Bob Copeland: Well, it says that the hard surface coverage shall be 95%. Well we meet that. That's what ours is. If you take it just with the narrow definition of just the land here associated with the bowling alley property. Just this land here it's, the hard surface coverage is less if you take the whole site. Councilman Engel: I just wanted clarification on that. Thanks. No more questions at this time. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda, do you have any questions? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Mayor Mancino: I just had a few that are... You know you asked us, and we're supposed to review this, the concerns the Planning Commission had with the alley. We don't have a rendering so I can't tell you what my concerns are with the alley way. I haven't seen a rendering or anything so like tonight, I would not be able to tell you my concerns because I don't have them in front of me... so that's to kind of answer your question on 25. 26, the applicant review and recommend any facade changes possible to the old part of the cinema to make it consistent with the new cinema. For me looking on that south side, it's not enough. What, and again I don't see any rendering that would show your addressing that concern. That we have in front of us tonight. Bob Copeland: Well I'm sorry, I don't understand the concern there I guess because I thought I did address it. The staff interpreted. Mayor Mancino: I have and it's painted here, right? Bob Copeland: That's correct, but that wasn't, what I was told was the item, let's see which is number 26. I was told that had to do with the east side. Mayor Mancino: It doesn't say it there. Bob Copeland: It doesn't. That's why I asked. Mayor Mancino: It just says the old part of the cinema and I would address not only the east side but also the south side.., obviously we want the two to match so whatever we're going to do on the south side of the old cinema, we would also want to match on the east side of the old cinema too. Because as you look at these, and the different perspectives and if they don't match... So again I don't have anything to respond to for 26 because I haven't seen any of those changes. So you know again, we need something when you ask us to tell you and to respond, we'd have to see what those are on 26. Also on 27, what you showed about pedestrian circulation flow, is that something that staff has reviewed prior to the meeting tonight? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And did you have any concerns or recommendations? I mean again we don't have it in our packet so we don't, we haven't had any time to review the circulation flow. 29 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Kate Aanenson: I think it should be formalized as part of the conditions of approval. The drawings but what we talked about is indicating elimination of the crosswalk as it goes through. There was a planter strip that was 5 foot sidewalk and then a... so continue that in this proximity that's shown on this one here. Carrying that crosswalk. And then another crosswalk going over towards the Frontier building. So the intent of that is queuing and so people know. Similar to what we have done in front of the grocery stores, Target. And then also this was supposed to be, if this is a large spans of parking, across here. To break that up, this would be the crosswalk. Originally it was a 5 foot planter. 5 foot sidewalk and we felt that what happens is people are going to be parking right next to that and it's not comfortable walking next to that space of a car. Moving it towards the center. Mayor Mancino: So again, 24 through 27 need to be more formalized. We really don't have anything in our packet to respond to. Some of those after the Planning Commission and their concerns and so 24 through 27 1 really can't respond to. What other questions do I have? Will the trash enclosure that's on the east side that's existing, will that be deleted and only on the west side where you have a trash enclosure? Bob Copeland: That's right. Mayor Mancino: So we would need to see detailed drawings on how that will be done. Again, how they'll take away the trash enclosure on the east side. How the sidewalk will be handled there. It has not been the most attractive trash enclosure. I've walked by and the doors are always open. Is field brick, what are the differences of field brick? Is that gumbo brick or is that kind of regular size, residential brick? Ron, can you answer that? Kate Aanenson: A sample went around. Mayor Mancino: Is it just the smaller size because a lot of times when we have samples, again they're just a portion of the actual material so I can't tell. Is that the entire? Ron Krank: That is the field...not the quality of brick. It's the quantity... Bob Copeland: Like a field in border or field in trim. Mayor Mancino: But there are different sized bricks and so I'm still trying to decide. Bob Copeland: There are three different sizes. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, what size you are using here. I'd like to know that. Also I would like to see an upgrade from the rock face block on the foundation. I know that you were trying to kind of take what's already there for the wall. I would like to see an upgrade of that material and would leave you to make some suggestions of that. Any other questions? Scott Botcher: I just have one Bob, and it's primarily for the architect. If I understand the foot candle measurements here, I'm not sure they comply with city code. I had Roger check and it was half a foot candle at the lot line. At the property line, and just going through this guy here, I'm not sure that that's met so just make sure you double check that. Bob Copeland: Okay we will. 3O City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Scott Botcher: Because it looks like there's some spots where. Bob Copeland: Too bright? Scott Botcher: Very much too bright and I think one of the issues we want to do is lighting's important but we do want to keep a softer feel to it. Mayor Mancino: Bob, have you done a three dimensional model of this? Has there been any kind of three dimensional work on this? Bob Copeland: No. We had a three dimensional rendering but it wasn't popular. Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Bob Copeland: People did like the way it was done because it showed a lot of trees and it screened the actual building a lot. You couldn't see behind the trees so. Mayor Mancino: You take out the trees. Electronically. Ron Krank: I'm going to suggest in regard to the ability to use small scale elevations, that we can.., simple take off the west elevation detail and show the wall because.., so whatever you see on the north side, continues right through and we could... Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Ron, have you done on these a display window, have you actually, is there a place to see the display windows, the design of it? Ron Krank: We have a section here and a working drawing section... Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly. But is there anyplace where there is one because one of our concerns has been the window that's on the existing old cinema and how the quality of that window is one that we're concerned about so we'd like to see what it is and if one has been fabricated, where it is and what do they really look like? I mean I don't know what ... That's what I figured, okay. Ron Krank: We can do a geometric like that... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bring this back to comments from council. Thank you for answering all those questions. Appreciate it. Bob Copeland: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: ... fellow council members of looks and appearance. I would personally like to see whatever we can do to make this project work...We need some more information and I don't know... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I know we've had a lot of back and forth discussion on this parcel. And it is a key piece visually to the city, as well as functionally. I just don't know if we're going to get a perfection 31 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 consensus on that parcel. I've lived here, I've been on this council 3 years, and haven't even had an alternative to look at other than this one seems like. In one form or another. Lived in this community 8 years. It's been an eyesore the whole time. Mayor Mancino: Everybody... Councilman Engel: Yeah, it's been 20 years since Jerome and Frank Beddor moved out of that thing when it was an eyesore then. And I know there are people who have been here longer than me and I fully understand that, but I guess they have their supporters on the council and I will probably have to assume I have mine. And I believe it's time to take action on that piece. And I think I'd like to see this thing go through in one way, shape or form tonight. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess as I went through the proposal I kept coming back to what the compromises are that we're being asked to make to our city ordinances. And with each variance that we have had requested, I actually at one point had memoed through to staff and said okay, so give me just basics. What are we trying to accomplish with our ordinances? With setbacks. Why do they exist? Why do we have a variance procedure? And the conversation that came from that was that we're obviously trying to insure that we're providing for the public's best interest so that's including public safety, health, livability of our community, just from a 30,000 foot point of view. We get down into the details and I think sometimes we lose track of that. So when I looked at this project I really focused in on my three main concerns in regards to the public best interest. The parking spaces, the lack of the east/west drive, and the hard surface coverage. The parking spaces though we seem to want to downplay that as to the significance. I keep coming back to our ordinance and I realize that we've now been given justifiable reasons why maybe a theater won't need as many spaces. But it's still a 35% deficit from what our ordinance would require in that area. Let alone the fact that it's a short fall from what is being recommended as a compromise, if I followed all the numbers that we were running through. So I'm trying to picture what we're going to put our residents through as they're simply trying to go out on an entertaining evening. And I for one am not going to park in the Medical Arts parking lot and call me lazy but I am not going to come trucking over to the cinema. In my mind that's a service that's provided in that area. It's just one of those common, basic necessities that's going to be there and if we plan it short, we're going to have those shortfalls and they're not going to come back and they're not going to say to the cinema owner, you know oh you're inconveniencing me. You know it was reflected in the Planning Commission minutes that it was more a shortfall that would reflected onto the business. Well I think it comes back to planning. I do think it comes back to the City. That mom that is going to have to park over in Festival Foods and try to cross the street with her 4 children, with traffic that's already trying to turn left, that I go up and down that road all the time. And people take chances to make that left hand turn from Pauly Drive onto Market Boulevard. You have to watch for them. If you travel it frequently enough you know to watch for them, but then you also have the people coming out of Festival Foods that are making a left there too. And although we like to think of ourselves as a small community, that strip has just continued to get busier and busier. So again I come back to the parking and what are we trying to accomplish? We're inconveniencing our residents, and then I come down to the whole public safety aspect of it. Looking at this east/west access not occurring. So when I come to that it compounds it even further because now you're forcing all that traffic out onto Market Boulevard and what was suggested earlier this evening was that they could take a right. Go up to 78th Street. Take a right. Now they're coming back around the Dinner Theater. Heaven knows what traffic is already there already and now we're forcing them back through the rest of the city streets, and from what I gather when we do our traffic studies and patterns and 32 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 flows, we tend to try to want to avoid that. And again it was suggested that we're going to have this pedestrian friendly environment and we're forcing all this traffic back through that pedestrian environment, we're not accomplishing the two goals. We're putting them in conflict and we're putting residents in my mind at risk. Again, I keep coming back to the whole public safety. It's not just an inconvenience. We're putting traffic where it wasn't planned for, and I come back to the hard surface coverage and in light of the whole parking and the traffic issue, it suddenly becomes minute. But it's not because when you go to our comp plan, our comp plan talks about how by having landscaping and providing the open spaces, we're also providing for the health and livability of the community. You go to the Vision 2001 or 2000 and it too talks about how we're trying to make this pedestrian friendly environment where people want to linger and we're going to provide them a sea of asphalt and buildings to linger in. And the hard surface coverage comes back to again, what are we trying to accomplish in our downtown area? As we set the guidelines for this property, we have to realize it's going to come back to us. This isn't going to be the last time that we see the variance request. Whatever we establish it as tonight, if it's 95% hard surface, that's going to come in in the next request. If we're allowing a shortage of parking spaces, anticipate it. And I don't think that's the precedent that the city has in mind for the downtown. I read through the comments of staff and I have to support their vision of the downtown and they too are looking out for the safety of the public and what we're trying to do with our downtown area and though I can appreciate this project, and it definitely accomplishes that one goal that Councilman Engel keeps speaking to and that's getting rid of our eyesore, but I keep coming back to we created that problem ourselves. We didn't enforce our own ordinances, even if you just call it a nuisance eyesore. We, as a community need to make sure that we're requiring those sorts of upgrades or maintenance issues, and especially in our downtown. This won't be the last one. What if another building goes into disrepair? We wouldn't just sit and let it exist that way. So if this is the answer to it being an eyesore, we're paying a high price for taking care of the eyesore and it seems like too high a price to pay with all of these variances. Mayor Mancino: Did you have a comment? Councilman Engel: No, I'm just talking off line there. I think the standards existed when they built this building. Councilwoman Jansen: But that's where it has to come back up to conformity if now we're doing reconstruction or remodeling and that was my question to staff from the beginning. Mayor Mancino: Yeah... Councilwoman Jansen: Was it supposed to come up to conformity. Councilman Engel: Drastic improvement. Mayor Mancino: Well both. I mean as you become more sophisticated.., your standards go up and your questions. You had 6,000 people working here and a couple bars. Now it's a little different so the community.., as they grow and prosper, that happens. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I tried to I guess break it down into a couple different elements. One was kind of first looking at the structure and the building. You know I think that's come a long way. I think it's got a little ways yet to go. I don't see a lot of the issues there as being unworkable one way or another but I think staff is kind of seeking some direction from council in terms of where that sits at this point. I think it's sitting 75-80% the way there but it needs a little more work. That west end is highly visible and I think 33 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 needs to all mm that matter. You know and again we least not forget that with city subsidy going into this thing, which was a big chunk was supposed to be for facade eventually, I think we ought to make sure we're getting our bang for our buck you know effectively out of that. So I really think those issue can be worked out and I think staff has, I hope has a feeling for that at this point.., work that needs to be done there. Primarily as it relates to materials you know more than materials and some features mainly, especially on more visible areas of the building. The part of the project that I guess was causing me the most concern, and I guess going back and arguing with myself a lot on it was, how do I approach what I'm going to say the exterior or the exterior elements of this project and getting into the issues over the parking spaces and road, etc. It's very difficult to how would I say jump into this project independently you know because that's where you start arguing with yourself because you raise many arguments over this as an independent project, many of which may actually be after when the property to the east is developed and that leads one to think well, maybe the project should wait and actually just be developed at the same time and we get past a lot of the issues. Because at least in my mind I'm not getting past the issues, as far as the exterior elements go. I mean to me right now looking at this independently, I can't accept 1 parking space for every 6 stalls. I can't accept that road just simply not going anywhere. I can't accept it emptying onto Market without controlled signage. And to me those are issues that aren't going to go away with the project...but I think we will at least have them defined. We may need controls at both ends. I think we're definitely going to need the road both. And as far as parking goes, I don't know what we need. Because again we don't know the intensity of the development next door and... Mayor Mancino: It may be able to be shared with that property, yeah. Councilman Senn: ... shared use and that sort of thing and I don't think it's realistic to start being too far away, especially across major streets or corridors which this project effectively is surrounded by, I think is also a real deterrent to looking to using you know rounding parking. So it's kind of like if I'm forced to evaluate this purely on it's own, in a box and stuff, I mean to me the solutions become apparent that what you really need is more parking, which to me translates into one thing. A parking deck. And you need controlled signage at Market and then if the road ever does go through and intensity development occurs on the other end, you're probably going to need signalization over there too. And it's the only way you're going to really post green space back into this project one way or the other. Because I don't see how you're going to lower the intensity. Now when I get into that consideration, I'm trying to basically keep in mind what the developer says they have to have. But I mean to me it's kind of like, you know here's what we have to have. Now you guys go split all the other babies and I don't think that's the way it should be working. It's here's what we have to achieve. Now here's how we're going to achieve it. We're not getting a lot of help that way I don't think. I think we leave a lot of things open ended and a lot of, which are very problematic for the future. So on that basis I'm really not comfortable jumping forward to a next step on this one, one way or another. I think the external elements require a substantial amount of more work and again my strong preference would be to one way or another tie these properties together, if that's possible or not. Maybe that's what's best for the city. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it almost seems like it's premature until we can see what Bloomberg property, because again that will tell us a lot about the east/west connection. That will, may be able to help in the cross parking to get more parking stalls. Councilman Senn: But the number one issue to all that is intensity. And the problems that we're having with this site are the intensity of the use being put on it. And until we know the intensity of the use being put on the entire area that's developed, I don't see how we're going to come up with the answer. You know again like I say unless you put blinders on and start saying here, we're going to deal with this in a box. I 34 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 don't think anybody's going to like the answers to that one. Because there's big price tags I'm sure to every one of them. So. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: I mean I don't really have anything new to add and I talked about architecture, which I think can be worked with, the 24 through 27. I need much more detail on but just the very fundamentals of traffic, parking stalls, etc. The intensity, it just feels premature until we know what's going to happen east of it. So I'm not going to take a lot of time going over the same points that have been made. We're down to a motion. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I have a question I'd like to ask, or I think maybe it's a question for the developer because as I read the staff packet, my understanding is we have two choices tonight. To take an action passing it or denying because we're out of our time requirement under the Statutes or the ordinances. So if the applicant's willing to agree to an extension to keep the door open on this, that would be at least my preference as far as a motion goes to table it. That's not a motion we can make independent of the developer's agreement to do so. Mayor Mancino: But you would be tabling it on the expectation that we can get a plan from the eastern property to know what they're going to do prior to our making any decision. Councilman Senn: Or answers, more or less how are you going to independently going to deal with this on your parcel. Because I don't think that's being done now. I mean everything's been left open ended and saying well, yeah. I mean we're assuming the road's going to go through. Yeah, we're assuming there's going to be shared parking. Yeah, I mean we're assuming a lot. But there's no guarantee that any of it's there. So I mean to me there's two ways to deal with that. Either wait for the two to come together, or structure the one so tightly that the questions are answered and dealt with on this site, which right now that's not the assumption I think people have been working with. Councilman Engel: Do you want to grant time to table or not? Mayor Mancino: Bob, do you want to come up and tell us if you would grant more time to table this and have you work through some of those, the major concerns that we have. Bob Copeland: Well, there's only so much land. So how's the council feel about eliminating the retail building? Councilman Engel: I don't think it flies. Mayor Mancino: I don't think, the consensus no. Councilman Senn: I guess if you want to give up the subsidy or something we might consider or think about it but, well but again one of the reasons we agreed to subsidy the project in the first place was there were certain elements that were going into it. I'm just going back to the original. I don't know whether people would buy that or not but I'm just saying to me that's the foundational fix to doing it... discuss it. 35 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Engel: I'm much more willing to grant every variance than to pull the retail piece out and. Bob Copeland: Well you have precedence, I mean the Frontier Building and so on, I mean they have more than 95% hard surface so we have brought up precedence but anyway, if it will help get it approved, we will extend. Councilman Engel: Can you get a plan from Bloomberg? Bob Copeland: I don't think we can get a plan from Bloomberg anytime soon. Mayor Mancino: So that would be a 30 day extension, but I mean I don't want to raise any expectations, you know. There still has to be some concrete plans for an east/west connector. We feel that that is important. That there be significant, there will be adequate parking stalls per Hoisington's study and from staff telling us. Hard coverage surface be at the 65% and that the architectural questions that we had, I think I said 24 through 27, that those be formalized and that we get renderings and changes and answers to those. Bob Copeland: I guess I'm missing something because what can you expect us to do? How can we have less hard surface coverage? I'm missing the whole thing. What could we do? ... no tonight, that's not going to change in 30 days. Councilman Senn: That's part of the problem with the intensity you're talking about. I mean if you simply take the criteria you're taking which is I've got to have 2,800 seats. You know I've got to have this many screens, etc, etc, and then just make whatever else fits fit, that of course is the conclusion you come to. But that's not the way we can approach it. We have to make everything else fit and you know how do you get better ratios? How do you get better parking ratios? How do you get better green space and stuff? Well, if you're going to deal with this structure with this parcel, purely on it's own, I think you only have one choice and that's some form a parking structure. Bob Copeland: I don't think that will create any green space. Councilman Senn: It certainly will. Bob Copeland: Well I don't know what's going to change but we'll grant a 30 day extension. Roger Knutson: It's through September 27th. That's the second meeting in September. Bob Copeland: Whatever you say. Roger Knutson: Through September 27th. Mayor Mancino: Then may I have a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move that we table this matter for 30 days. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: I'll second. 36 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: I'm sorry. On the basis of the developer's. Roger Knutson: Until September 27th. Councilman Senn: Until September 27th. Roger Knutson: That's a little more than 30 days. Councilman Senn: Okay. I move that we table this matter until September 27th and with the understanding that the developer's agreed to said extension. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table with the applicant's approval, until the September 27, 1999 City Council meeting, the request for subdivision and site plan review to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl and Filly's Bar and replace it with 8 additional movie theaters. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Staff, is it pretty clear all of our concerns? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Scott Botcher: And also I'm going to have Roger check the lease agreement on the Medical Arts and with Southwest Metro Transit to see they are precluded from doing these sort of, I mean they may have some dibs on this stuff. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: We'll take a 5 minute break and be back. Thank you. (The City Council took a short break at this point in the meeting.) REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK TO TEMPORARILY STOCKPILE 30,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL; 8301 AUDUBON ROAD; DAVE STOCKDALE. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to fill and stockpile 30,000 cubic yards of material. A portion of this fill will be used to create a berm along Audubon Road. This is the area that you will have a permanent berm along Audubon Road. The rest of the material will be used on a daily basis for the landscape business which currently exists on the site. The site is located south of the city's public works building and Twin Cities and Western Railroads and east of Audubon Road. The following operation is anticipated to take approximately 30 days. 30 working days. Weather permitting. The operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Overhauling route would be within the site. The Stockdale site is adjacent to Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. That's where the majority of the dirt will be moved from. Everything 37 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 again will be on private property and will not be getting onto city streets. There are wetlands in the area and they will be protected by silt fences. There will be some temporary sediment ponds created as well to prevent any erosion and to, getting into the wetland. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from council members? My one, okay. Councilman Senn: Sharmin how are you, when you stockpile like this, what measures is taken basically to you know effectively contain the stockpile to make sure that it doesn't wash off site. Mayor Mancino: That's what I was going to ask. What would be the duties of the Weed Inspector? Councilman Senn: Yeah, does the Mayor have to go out and climb the pile constantly to check the weeds or you know? Mayor Mancino: What kind of you know, what do we have to do? Bob's going to help with traffic and I'm going to do the weeds and what else? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Anita I believe. Anita Benson: I'll attempt to address that concern. Obviously we will have silt fence, erosion control around the area and once the stockpile is in place, it will be seeded and vegetated. So they'll just be taking from one side of it, the side that's east of Audubon Road so you won't be seeing the part where they're bringing it in. This is an interim use permit. It has a one year duration and we'll be monitoring and the applicant can renew it within 45 days of it expiring, can come in to attempt to renew it and if there have been problems, you could address it at that point. Mayor Mancino: So if there's a problem we live with it for a year? Anita Benson: No, we would be monitoring it. Councilman Senn: The only other question I had is, you know the amount that you have in here in relationship to the surety. I mean what happens if it's still there a year from now and a lot of pressure and we've got to move it or do something with it? It doesn't come close to covering it. Anita Benson: As Sharmin pointed out it is on private property and the private property owner is the one that wants the material on his property so I guess I don't see us wanting to move it away. It is topsoil. It has value to him as a landscaping contractor. Councilman Senn: So effectively a year down the road, so if we don't want to renew the permit, then effectively they have to remove it? Kate Aanenson: No. Anita Benson: No. Kate Aanenson: It just remains as stockpiling. 38 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: Indefinitely? Kate Aanenson: Well he's going to develop the property. It's guided industrial. Over time the value of money, it's going to be redeveloped. It is guided industrial. We believe that's, he is running a business out of there right now so it will be developed. Mayor Mancino: But he doesn't really need to come in and renew it because if we said no, we would make him take it away anyway. It doesn't make sense. Councilman Senn: I'm lost. Kate Aanenson: It's his business. His interim use is the business for that. You could prohibit that. Councilman Senn: Oh, so the interim use is not, the interim use is not for an earth work permit for the storage of the material? The interim use is for the business? Kate Aanenson: No. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There is a conditional use permit for the business, which is a contractors yard, landscaping business. The interim use has nothing to do, it is for stockpiling the dirt. The black topsoil on the site and it will be used, Mr. Stockdale owns the business. He needs that dirt. He will. Mayor Mancino: What's he been doing all this time without it? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Pardon? Mayor Mancino: What's he been doing all this time without it? Kate Aanenson: I think the applicant... Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll wait so that we understand it. Okay, we'll wait. Thanks. Councilman Senn: But again I just want to understand. I mean it is an interim use permit. Under interim use permit can we not put you know effectively a time line on it? Roger Knutson: You have to. Councilman Senn: That's what I thought. Mayor Mancino: One year. Councilman Senn: So it's not indefinitely? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: But your question was, let's say after a year we decide. 39 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: ... answer my question. If we put a time limit on...that time line's one year and we decide we don't want it there any more than a year, we don't renew the interim use permit which she's been saying is private property so the private property owner has to remove it. Mayor Mancino: Is that what you're saying Roger? That the private property owner, if we don't renew it has to remove it? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thanks. Councilman Engel: What sort of money do we need as a lever to ensure that that would happen? Councilman Senn: Well we don't really need it because if he doesn't remove it and we tell him to remove it, we have our same as always. We can always do it for him and put it on the tax bill, right? Or some such thing. Roger Knutson: In theory. I've done that once. You don't want to get in that position. Councilman Senn: Right. Well I assume it would never come to that. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? We're all going to bring it to our gardens. Mark Undestad: What we're doing here, between Dave and myself, as we're taking the topsoil off of this thing, we're looking at no matter what site we put it on, over on our side, it's going to be the wrong one. We're working with Dave to develop his parcel but now today but probably in the next two years. So between us we said alright, let's do it. We can put this black dirt here. He can use it. We need some on our site but it's out of the way of getting all of our sites cleaned up and put together right now so hopefully in two years we do that. You know if you say you guys decide in one year you want to come up there and say we don't want it there anymore, you know the reason why we're putting it over, we're not saying we're going to get rid of it in one year and that's why we had talked to staff and things about having this thing, you know getting an extension with 45 day notice type deal. We would hope in a two year time frame we've got everything put back and we're ready to develop this anyway. So my question is why would you want me to get rid of a pile of black dirt in a year. Mayor Mancino: That's a good one. Who knows. Mark Undestad: But it's not, and the intent is to do something with this site in a couple years anyway so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. We've had some piles of dirt with weeds on them in our downtown and in other areas so that's why we're a little sensitive about it. Mark Undestad: We've graded this thing out too trying to create a shelf up on top. The berm from the top and.., be a weed pile eyesore out there. 4O City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Well you know in all seriousness Mark, I mean we do have people who call and tell us, ask about the eyesore and why we allowed it to happen and it has weeds on it and you can see it from so far away, etc. So it's not. Mark Undestad: I think that's kind of our one year renewal. That if it is a weed and an eyesore and we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mark at this time? Okay, may I have a motion? Councilman Engel: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Second it. Councilman Engel moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that the City Council approve Interim Use Permit #99-1 with the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount of $5,400.00 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the interim use permit. The applicant shall pay the City $457.00 for the grading permit fee. In addition, the applicant shall pay for all city staff' and attorney time used to monitor and enforce the interim use permit. The inspection fee shall be billed at a rate of $30 per hour. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. The applicant shall supply the city with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with topsoil, seed and mulch within two weeks after grading is completed. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem, warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with work not permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Prior to starting grading activities, erosion control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by staff: All material for the stockpile area shall be imported to the site by October 15, 1999. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and disc mulched by October 31, 1999. The interim use permit shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant may submit a written request to the city for renewal of the permit up to 45 days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 10. No expansion to the existing contractor's yard is being approved with this permit 41 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 11. The removal of material from the stockpile area shall be restricted to the easterly side. The westerly 50 feet of the berm/stockpile area shall remain in place at all times. The final side slopes shall be 3 to 1 or less. 12. The applicant shall construct and maintain an interim sedimentation pond east of the stockpile area. The pond shall be a minimum depth of 3 feet. Erosion control fence shall be maintained between the pond and wetland until the interim use permit expires. 13. Importing of material is restricted to the approved haul route. No hauling shall be permitted on any City street. 14. Exporting of material from the stockpile area in conjunction with the landscape business may require the appropriate traffic control signage along Audubon Road. The City shall determine when traffic signage is needed." 15. Limiting the stockpile size to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil material brought in from the neighboring property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION, FRANK FOX ACQUISITION. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. In 1997 the citizens of Chanhassen voted on a referendum which was based upon the acquisition of open space. Since that time we have been negotiating with a variety of landowners throughout the city. One of those being Frank Fox. Mr. Fox and the City have been unable to reach a negotiated price in this property and last March we sat down with the City Council and talked about that. The City Council gave direction to staff to pursue acquisition. Mr. Tom Scott of City Attorney's office has been working on that acquisition and then we have, Mr. Scott retained Mark Knoche to perform an appraisal. That appraisal was received by the attorney's office some 30 days ago, or a little bit before that and upon presenting his findings to Mr. Fox's attorney it was agreed that condemnation would be necessary to acquire this property. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution attached authorizing the condemnation of property for park open space purposes which is approximately 36.25 acres as described in the resolution in your packets. And if you'd like me to read that resolution or Mayor, if you'd like to read that resolution for the audience. Mayor Mancino: Sure, go ahead. Todd Hoffman: Okay. It's a resolution authorizing condemnation for a property for park and open space purposes. Whereas, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen does hereby determine that it is necessary and for a public use and purpose to acquire property consisting of the easterly 36.25 acres, approximately of property described below, located between Pioneer Trail and Lyman Boulevard and east of designated Highway 212 right-of-way as depicted on the attachment Exhibit A. For the audience I have an aerial photo which I can put up. It's a wooded piece of property on the eastern side ofa...property owned by Mr. Clausen. Right in this location. An old pasture is what it is... For landmark references, this is 101 South. The S turn... Mayor Mancino: Todd, in our comprehensive trail plan, will there be one going there at some point? 42 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Todd Hoffman: A couple of them actually. And then it describes, the resolution describes the property, a legal description and it continues, whereas the City has been unable to acquire the property through negotiation with the landowner, now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, 1. That the City Attorney is authorized to commence eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 to acquire title to the property described above. And that 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute all documents necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property interest. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Councilman Senn: One question. Mayor Mancino: Questions from council. Councilman Senn: Roger this is for you. In that we're authorizing the process to proceed effectively, the only thing I want to make sure of given the fact that there is no definition to the, you know definition to anything at this point. Is that it has to come back to council for some form of final action. Roger Knutson: Oh absolutely. Councilman Senn: Well that's not what this resolution says. Roger Knutson: We can't spend your money. Councilman Senn: Well, but the resolution says you can. Roger Knutson: We can start eminent domain process, but at some point what we will do is it will go to a commissioner's hearing, assuming we can't, the negotiations continue to be unsuccessful. We'll get a number there. We'll bring back that number. If you accept it, if the landowner accepts it, that's the end. If you reject the number, you say for example it's too high. We don't want to spend that amount of money, then it's all over. Councilman Senn: So I shouldn't be taking number 2 here literally? Which says that the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to execute all documents necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property interests? To me that means you go buy the property. Roger Knutson: I guarantee we won't but if you want to put that in, that'd be fine. Councilman Senn: Well, if I don't have to take it literally, I won't but. Roger Knutson: You don't have to take it literally. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. With that understanding I'd move approval. Mayor Mancino: I think I'd want to change it to the Mayor, Weed Inspector. Anyway, is there a second? Before we go for a motion, can you hold for one second. Is Mr. Fox here or is there anyone that, I know this isn't a public hearing but I just thought I'd ask if Mr. Fox was here and wanted to say anything. Okay, he isn't. I'm sorry, would you. 43 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: It's already done. Mayor Mancino: And there's been a second? Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Resolution #99-71: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution authorizing the condemnation of property for park/open space purposes (approximately 36.25 acres) as described on the attached resolution. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR LAKE SUSAN APARTMENT HOMES. Scott Botcher: We received on the middle of last week a request from the applicant for the removal of one of the conditions on the site plan approval. I believe it's condition number 3 as it relates to affordable housing. The applicant is desirous to have you remove that as a condition of approval. That's the request that has been communicated to me. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and item number 3 is a minimum of 20% of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings. Correct? Scott Botcher: Yes ma'am. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Sheldon Wert: Yes, we're here and I'd like to reserve my comments until I hear what you have to say. Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is the time for the applicant so if you would like to Shel, make some comments to us right now, that would. Sheldon Wert: We're back. Mayor Mancino: If you could give you name and address please. Sheldon Wert: Sheldon Wert. I live in 5030 Meadville, Greenwood, Minnesota. We are requesting something which I think has been agreed to already, and that is that the affordable housing aspect of this approval, approval number 3 be deleted. We believe that that's been deleted by the EDA's actions and I think you all know, except Steve wasn't there but I'm sure he still knows, that our request for TIF has been denied and I looked today and I found out that when the meetings and the staff, I mean take these things, that there's a few gaps in what happens but if you'll recall we talked about the financing request. That it did not go well for a number of different reasons. No sense going into some of those reasons. And ultimately it was positive that this could go forward on a basis of being a market project. The question was asked of me as to whether or not on that basis that we could go forward on it being a market project and my answer was, yes. We could based on some further discussions with the landowner. And so there was a motion duly made that that condition of the TIF in the request, but the condition of the TIF which is related of course to the request, be denied and that that was the way to do it. In the Minutes, which I don't think are actually Minutes but they're off of the taped statement and we found out today because I remember 44 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 vividly, and I know everybody I think will remember that I brought up the fact that well, we'll probably have to come back to the Council and get that taken off. And the comment was well Shel, we'd never, we'd never, we'd never back out on that. So here I am. Very, very simply. Let me read to you a couple of things which we did find, and it must be these mics because if I step away from the mic like this and talk to you, which I did that night, and other people too, it doesn't get on the tape. So there's gaps in here. I'd like to not think they're Nixonian gaps but there's gaps, you know. Mayor Mancino: Part of life. Sheldon Wert: That's right. It just starts on page 27, which is a little later in the meeting and Mark said, Mr. Chairman I've got a question to ask staff. Understand something before we jump into the next step. Councilman Senn: Shel, hang on a second. Councilman Labatt: Are you in the EDA meeting one or which, yeah? Sheldon Wert: I'm in the EDA meeting, page 27. Mayor Mancino: That's the July 29th EDA meeting. I don't know if you. Councilman Labatt: I wasn't here so... Mayor Mancino: July 29th. Councilman Engel: You sure it's not 12th? Mayor Mancino: Yep. Sheldon Wert: Wasn't a meeting delayed? Councilman Senn: I don't have a page 27, that's why I'm confused. Mayor Mancino: Well you may not have, do you have the July 29th minutes? Councilman Senn: I have July 12th minutes. Councilman Engel: I have the 12th. Mayor Mancino: The 29th was when we made the motion. I've got the motion here and I've got the conversation. Councilman Senn: We don't have that. Mayor Mancino: We don't have it. Sheldon Wert: I'll give you my copy as soon as I'm done. Mark said Mr. Chairman, I've got a question to ask staff. Understand something before we jump to the next step. I'm assuming right now tonight that if we take no action to subsidize this project, the developer is free to go ahead on a project as it has been 45 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 approved as a market rate project, correct? Scott. He has secured site plan approval and I am unaware, unless Don you know of something, if he wanted to go ahead and make it a market rate project, he could proceed with pulling permits. Doing the work to pull permits. Some of this is I think in transcription but it gives you the feeling. Mark, and that requires no action on our part. Botcher, none. Ashworth. He has made an application for tax increment assistance and I think for the record you probably should act to deny that application and encourage him to proceed with the project as a market rate project, if that's what I'm hearing him say. Mark says, I understand. Yeah, that was the same as my question. I mean my question was effectively if we decide not to subsidize the project, can this essentially, it can go ahead as a market rate basis. Okay, that's all I wanted to understand. Mr. Engel. Mr. Chair. He recognized Mr. Engel. And then I start. If you took the action to deny it, I'm not trying to bring up problems, one of the conditions under the conditional use permit is item 3 which, here it says 36 but, and I questioned that. And Mr. Engel said I think we should speak to that individually. Boyle said yes we may. Engel. I would like to say that as a councilperson I can't in any honorable way sit here and say I think we should remove and let him go affordable housing, or let him go market rate at the same time that we wouldn't remove it. I think it goes without saying that that would be something that should be, and then it fades. Councilman Engel: I've got my eraser in there. Sheldon Wert: Oh yeah, right. So we're here. We think it's a simple, simple plan. We know that you have conflicting views from other people involved in this process. We are no longer involved in this process. We'll always help to give you our opinion, but we are no longer involved. It is my understanding that the Met Council, because there was some conversation about paying the Met Council back $500,000 or something, that spoken with Joanne Barron at the Met Council. She's willing to come out here next week. She understands the problem. She unofficially of course, she can't speak for the Met Council, not looking for the check. Willing to sit with the AUSMAR people on the other side of the street and try to work things out in there, in terms of their future development. Whether it affects their ultimate land price that they get, for whatever they're getting, I have to say it doesn't affect us. The second part is AUSMAR. We understand that AUSMAR came to you shortly after that meeting with a group of people and tried to talk through what their obligations were, and I don't know what stands they took. I'm happy to have not been in the meeting. But I understand from Vernelle that AUSMAR today is ready to go to work on the other side of the street. Keep those 66 units. It's 66 units that are in there total, evidently in the total PUD that's approved for, that they have to deliver, and deliver them on that side of the street. So from my standpoint, we don't have an issue. We think that this should be an absolute. We're done. We've been through every process you've asked us to. We came in early in the year. We've been here 9 months. We need to start this project on September 15th. I've told you that scary story before, but I can't start this project after that. I won't start it next spring. We have the financing going. The equity money is in the bank. We are ready to pull the trigger as soon as we can get this out of the way. Now, we've done everything. Came to you in the design of the project. There's even been some conversation about doing a little bit cheaper project, and there was conversation in fact on the 176,000 if you remember. Well, 4 ½, 5 million, 6 million. We're only getting 33 houses out of it. It's not important now to me but when you look back at it, the $176,000 is a subsidy of $5,300 a year to rent an apartment. $400 and some dollars a month to rent an apartment. That's the subsidy and that's what you're paying for 33 homes that you were going to get. But that was too high and too expensive and so maybe it needs to be done. As I told you, we met with the planning staff about.., those projects. We talked about a project that looked, you know had no underground garages. We talked about projects that, I don't mean to degrade it but it looks like the Americlnn. Our product is not going to look like that. It's going to look dramatically different. It will be a cornerstone of this city. And we came here on the 28th of June and after we had been to the Planning Commission. Went through their review and got their approval. We came here on the 28th of June. The 46 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Council reviewed everything. If you recall the meeting it was in depth. We had a number of discussions about different things and it was approved. There was an attempt to get it back in front of the Council in some fashion. That happened on July 12th and the Council reviewed that request and decided to deny that request. There wasn't enough support for bringing it back open. All these times that we're doing this we're relying on you. We're relying on the process. That process is something that's supposed to work for us too and not just for you and we thought it was working good, you know on a two basis. That it'd be a back and forth. So then we continue to interface with staff and we come to a July 29th EDA meeting at which point, and that's this meeting here, we hash over again a proposal which we made originally that originated in a two page letter from Mark Ruff. Your financial advisor suggesting $176,000 for 25 years, and if you remember there was this loan of $120,000 over 10 years or a million two for qualified costs. We kind of short cutted that into $40,000 a year over 15 years. And I don't have to tell you, it was not passed. But we relied once again on the process. And now if there is any questions of this motion, that's why I was just hoping that I wouldn't have to bore you, that if there is any question here, we don't understand why there's a question and we feel that we have done everything to deliver this project and have a right to build it. I don't want to make statements like that but that is the truth. We feel you have negated number 3 already by turning down the other side. You can't say well, we'll give you a condition you have to hook into this sewer line over here on the other side of the street and then when you go to build the project, decide afterwards or even before it starts that we're not going to let you do that. It's the same thing as saying that the condition is affordable housing but we won't subsidize it. Who's supposed to subsidize it? Me? That's the public that's supposed to do that. So we went away from all that. We agreed with you. No affordable housing. No subsidy. Just our project and we'll be happy. We hope we'll be happy. We don't know. We're taking a big risk. Building a project. We're hoping the economy holds. We're hoping that over the period of time we hope to make a lot of money, and you know that's what we're supposed to do. That's why we take the risk. What am I going to say? That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are you done? Sheldon Wert: I think so. Roger Knutson: Just to clarify one thing so everyone is clear on this. The applicant was talking about two different entities, the EDA and the City Council. As this Council is aware, the EDA is a separate body with separate roles and separate functions and because the EDA does something is not the same thing as this City Council doing something. And I think it's important that the roles be kept separate. Sheldon Wert: Well I would think that the rules would be made somewhere else because all members of the Council are on the EDA. Mayor Mancino: Shel, just a minute please. Thank you Roger. If you can sit down please. Thank you. So you know as I read through the Minutes from the EDA, the motion that was made, there was no EDA action whether it could be, I mean we didn't take a vote as an EDA. It was certainly discussed about market rate project. Part of the market rate project that we as a council passed the site plan review. We did pass it. Part of that site plan review approval had number 3 in it. Now there was some talk about if it were purely market rate, would people be willing to support that. There was discussion about it. That was not the motion. The motion was, Senn moved, Jansen seconded that the Economic Development Authority deny the application for tax increment assistance for the Lake Susan Hills Housing Development. That was it. That was what we all voted on. So any other discussion was discussion legally. For the EDA. Secondly I'd just like to say, and I have no idea obviously how the vote's going to go tonight but this council and our city staff have been, and is committed to affordable housing in Chanhassen. Just because 47 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 we have turned down one project on this site doesn't mean we are not in support of affordable housing. And I think it is unrealistic for applicants to come in and to get upset with us as a council because we say no to a project. We are the elected representatives and when it comes in front of us, that is when we make our decision. This is the only time we're here together. We don't make it in the back room. We make it here publicly and that's when we make our decision. Not before. So if your assumption is we were going to go one way or another, that is your assumption and nothing happens until the night that it comes to a City Council meeting and we discuss it and vote on it. So I want to make that very, very plain. Secondly, as a city in our support of affordable housing, number one, I think a lot of times, and from here going forward and we have and we will continue in the past, use multi agencies to help us get to affordable housing. That means the Carver County HRA. That means the Metropolitan Council. Their, as I just said newly funded legislation. But in most cities affordable housing is attained in suburban areas like ours where the land price is high, development costs are high. It is done with, whether it's in Woodbury, Minnetonka, Plymouth, it is usually done with a multi agency approach. It is not just the city. Number two. We have used tools as a city in Villages on the Pond to show our commitment to affordable housing. Number one, in this section which is Section 4 of Villages on the Pond, that particular land was zoned prior to Villages on the Pond concept coming in in our 19, I think 93-95 zoning map. It was zoned medium density. That's 4 to 8 units an acre. We up zoned that to high density. Right now the units that are going to go on there are from 16 to 20 units per acre, and I don't know if that's net or gross. So we made sure that we would get more density on that land, and that is one of the tools that cities use in creating affordable housing. I just wanted to give that background. Yeah, any comments from council members. Yes. Councilman Senn: I want to understand one thing here because I keep getting torn back and forth again with myself on this, and that is that in the way that everything is structured on Villages on the Pond, okay. We have an overall agreement and within that agreement we have basically some goals and some requirements and everything else. I don't know if this is a Roger question or Scott question or Kate question or whatever but what we do on this site, okay in no way shape or form alters the overall conditions on the PUD unless we say it does, correct? And if that's not clear I'll try to rephrase it. Roger Knutson: I was just thinking through the question. I believe that the answer to that is that is correct. It does not change it. Councilman Engel: Can I ask a question while you're in the middle of this? Does that mean that if we said it's got to be 66 units and we cut half of it and say it's not, that means we can down estimate the 33 on the other side? Councilman Senn: Well I don't even remember the numbers in the agreement but I'm just saying, if the overall PUD required 100 units and 65 of them were rental and 35 of them were ownership, okay. And they were required to be affordable units in both contexts, by approving what we're doing here does not alter or negate that requirement. And Roger's answer to that was that's his understanding too. Now the second part of that question is if that would be the tax that we would take, shouldn't it also be a condition then of the whole deal to reaffirm that? So there is no question about it or kind of back to what you're saying. Or shouldn't we worry about it? Roger Knutson: It's fine to do that. I would just say that, it's already, whatever is there is already there but you saying it twice is fine. Mayor Mancino: Well no, wait. 48 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: But if we are.., changes, okay. Roger Knutson: Maybe a better understanding. If you wanted to say for example, I'm not suggesting a direction you want to go or anything but we'll lift this condition. We want to be perfectly understood that by doing that we're not forgiving or allowing you to walk away from the agreement requirements for affordable housing. And just because we're saying that you don't have to do it here, doesn't mean you're released from doing it someplace else on the PUD. Mayor Mancino: And do you realize that if we give that up here, to meet our goals we will have 84% of Section 1 be affordable. That is if we are to meet our goals which are stated in our development standards, 35 % affordable rental, 50% owner-occupied affordable, and we have 161 on this particular parcel that are all market rate, out of the 161 that we have to put in Section 1, 136 of those, which is 84%, would have to be affordable. And we said from the very beginning of this concept of this PUD, that it is a village. It is not monolithic. It doesn't have just rental. It has owner occupied and rental on, in Villages on the Pond. So we would need to put in Section 1, and I'd have to see a plan for this, how we are going to get to go towards our goal that we stated from the very beginning of this, to put the affordable, if you want to see all the affordable in Section 1 that's both owner occupied and rental. Councilman Senn: Yeah I mean and that's the reason for my questions. I mean where I was going with my questions was foundationally I wanted to understand where that was but, and here's where I get into the argument and that is practically speaking can we put 84%, or I mean can we put 100, what was it? 120, 130 units? Councilwoman Jansen: 136. Councilman Senn: Of affordable units of which that many are ownership, now okay, and I want to underline that ownership versus rental. And maybe I shouldn't be fighting with myself on that but I don't know anywhere, at least in the suburban area where anybody's effectively developed ownership residential in low rise buildings over office or retail space. I mean I'm playing devil's advocate with myself here basically but I mean that's kind of the dilemma you get in is can we accomplish what we have set out to accomplish and if not, we should be talking about changing the overall acknowledgement if, what I'm trying to say is if the practical side tells you you can't do it, which to me is kind ofa... Mayor Mancino: Know now. I don't want to know later. Councilman Senn: I know, which is...and also I think means we need some more things in front of us effectively to you know to jump and to do that basically versus just saying you know zap, let's do it here and not understanding that. Mayor Mancino: Well if you also remember in Section 1, one of the other concessions that we made I think, and Kate please if I'm wrong. In Section 1 the three stories could be 50 feet versus 40. Because we don't have 50 feet anywhere else in the city. So we wanted to make sure that we could get housing in that Section 1 and so there's certain buildings in there, and it's again in the development standards, that could go up that extra foot and again that's something that the City made for this particular development. Scott Botcher: We spoke last week at a council meeting, not an EDA meeting, with the attorney for AUSMAR I believe, and I thought we communicated quite clearly that if they wanted modifications to the 49 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 development agreement they should submit those issues that they wish to discuss in writing to us and the Council would consider whether or not they (a), wanted to enter into such discussions and (b), if so, what the framework of those discussions would be. Sort of what you were touching on Mark is that, and we've communicated that already and from my conversations with the counsel, legal counsel for the AUSMAR group, that was understood. He understands what we communicated last week so I don't think that's really a question. Insofar as modifications go but we haven't received that request and to some extent as you touched on, you're being asked to approve a project betting on the come of what you can do on the other side in terms of modifying the agreement. Mayor Mancino: Without seeing a plan to carry it out, yeah. Does that answer your question? Councilman Senn: Yeah, it does. I'm not sure it gives me. Scott Botcher: It doesn't clarify it. Councilman Senn: I mean I guess I'm not sure if it pushes everything one way or the other but. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions or comments from council members? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I have a couple, and the first again you'll get tired of it but my 30,000 foot view on this. As a council, these five members, we've not had the policy conversation on where these five members stand behind affordable housing and how we want to go about achieve it. In the absence of that, in voicing my opinion on this project I had nothing to do with drawing up the original agreement. When I look at the original agreement, I don't know that I necessarily would have drawn it up with the guidelines that are there. But that doesn't matter. That's water under the bridge. There's an agreement between the city and the developer that I'm charged with implementing because from everything that I've read, and everybody knows I've gone back through all the history on Village on the Ponds. We have already taken actions based on the original agreement. When this site plan came before us with the 20% affordable versus the 35%, when I went back and raised the issue, you know it was, and looked at all the agreements, my concern was are we already putting ourselves in a position that we don't care to be in on the other side of this project? That's when we were just coming down 15%. Well one of the things that was raised last week as we were talking about the whole affordable housing is apparently we can't go over that 20% over on the other side either because of the green acres. So where I'm going, and where Mark has kind of touched on and is leading us, is we have a pretty major evaluation to do of Village on the Ponds if we're going to change one small piece, because it's a domino effect. It's now definitely going to affect us on the other side and I can't imagine that we'd want to take this major agreement with all of these dominoes in it, and change one piece without sitting down and seeing what the repercussions are across the board. It is going to hit the other side. We need to look at it, whether this project goes forward or not, now that we have this green acres understanding and the number of units of understanding. Mayor Mancino: Well the 20% is for a qualified housing district. You don't do a TIF qualified housing district. I mean that's what keeps it at the 20%. Councilwoman Jansen: So we pull TIF on the whole thing and we can get our 35% affordable? Mayor Mancino: No. If you use TIF for a qualified housing district, you can only do 20% and it has to be all rental. It can't be affordable. I mean it can't be owner occupied. So. 5O City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I guess where I'm going is that again calling for the thing to be relooked at with all of the pieces and all of the effects of what this one decision would make. I can't fathom removing a condition from this site plan that's going to affect a major agreement that's already in place. Without taking all of those things into proper consideration. Otherwise we've painted ourselves into a comer. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Councilman Engel: I think that the applicant has accurately recounted the events of the past several weeks. And the intentions, I can't speak for the rest of the Council or EDA at this point, but I personally, and I'm sure I did at the time, indicate that I would be for it as a market rate development because it was just too much money for too few units, and I believed that that was the conveyance of the EDA at that time. And I think he's accurate about that. I think we made some, we gave insinuations, I'll put it that way. That would lead him to continue. This is my opinion. My interpretation of the meeting. It may be different from yours. I stand by it and I think. Mayor Mancino: ... and some members. Councilman Engel: Like I said, that's my interpretation of the events of that night and what has happened. And if we did pull off the affordable component on one piece of property than we would be, I believe required, I think it would be a necessity to build anything on the other side to reduce it by a percentage equivalent to what we're pulling out because I just don't see being able to compress all of that on the property that's left over. I don't know if that's an attractive option or not to the rest of the members, but I am inclined to go along with what we indicated, what I thought we indicated during the EDA meeting that we would support it as a market rate development so I'll be supporting it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: ...we have an agreement here. I agree with Linda that what we do on this side of 101 greatly impacts.., and leave it at that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Nothing else. I'd just like, I guess I would like to move or suggest that we table this and ask the Village on the Ponds to come back with a plan as to how the affordable components can be addressed on the balance of the project. Because I think that's, that's kind of like an exercise that would be close to them. They should have the opportunity to go through it and basically come back and show us whether there's something viable there or not. And you know just do this in a week or two weeks or whatever. I don't think it has to be a long period of time because I know there's some urgency on the deal so we could either do it in a work session or the next council meeting, one way or the other if they can get the plans done so. But if it's a priority they might be able to. Councilman Engel: If they're able to do that, I mean I get the impression that it's up or down tonight or he's not going to do it. Councilman Senn: Well he said he needed, I believe he said he needed approval by September 15th to get going. Councilman Engel: I think you need to put the spade in the ground by September 15th. 51 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Labatt: He needs to cut the first trees September 15th... Scott Botcher: Unfortunately for the applicant, they can't strictly separate themselves from AUSMAR and the balance of the folks, unless I misheard. It was insinuated during the presentation, I mean as interested in developing property as part of the PUD, they are tied together. And I think the motion makes some sense but again we communicated clearly last week that if they had issues they could certainly bring them to us. Councilman Senn: Well my motion's on the table. Councilman Engel: What is it, to table? Councilman Senn: Yeah. It was to table and then basically. Mayor Mancino: And to have. Councilman Senn: And ask Villages on the Pond to come in with a plan for. Mayor Mancino: To have AUSMAR come in to a plan so they can. Councilman Engel: Balance these units? Mayor Mancino: Adhere to the development contract, the development standards that we have set up for us which is, I want everybody to make sure that we're all on the same page here. The development design standards that were adopted 9-23-96 that are in our packet, how we are going to meet of the rental units the City has adopted a goal of 35% of the units. For the ownership housing, the City has adopted a goal of 50% of the units. Councilman Engel: Based on what I'm hearing going on here, I have a question for Shel. And he's in a position it looks like to answer it. Can I ask? Mayor Mancino: Sure. Councilman Engel: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Well let's go ahead with the motion first. Does this have something to do with the motion? Councilman Engel: I don't know, it may. Let me ask. Councilman Senn: Well my motion, I mean the motion basically is to table to have them do the plans. The only caveat I would offer to my own motion is basically if they can get the plan in here in a week, we should talk about it at our work session. If they get it. Mayor Mancino: On the 30th. 52 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: Yeah...As soon as they can get it ready, we'll talk about it and try to get this thing pushed to a head. Councilman Engel: So we'd have to vote to recess this meeting. Councilman Senn: To what? Councilman Engel: Vote to recess at the end of this meeting so we can convene as a council and take an official vote. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's probably true because if they could have it back in a week it would be a recess of this meeting, right Roger? Councilman Engel: We'd be able to vote as an official meeting. Councilman Senn: We'd have to recess this meeting rather than adjourn it, correct? If we were to do this at the work session as an official item or whatever. Scott Botcher: How are you going to do that? Councilman Engel: We're going to make a motion and do it. Scott Botcher: Let's be real. Councilman Senn: Well it depends on if they have the plan ready. It's up to them. Scott Botcher: I understand that but I think that, and this is sort of out of fairness to AUSMAR. This is a big, meaty document. This isn't something you're just going to do in a week or two. And I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of our citizens to go a week or two weeks. I mean you guys get paid the big bucks to do that. I'm just throwing that out. Councilman Engel: I want to leave the door open I guess is what... It may be a hail Mary pass but at least it's there. Scott Botcher: I don't want to mislead anybody though. Councilman Engel: I have a question though so I think I'd like to ask before we go. Councilman Senn: But I mean to me in my mind that's the question and I think the plan I think is going to answer it. Councilman Engel: Can we, let me ask the question, just so it's clear in the my mind and then we'll go ahead with it. On the units that you're proposing to build Shel, has it been brought up from staff or anybody to cut some of the amenities in the bottom floor, or the bottom two and build them at a lower cost so that you could subsidize them at a lower rate and meet the goals of the Council and still do the upper level units with many amenities and charge the market rates so that you've got a mix in there? Has that been approached or is not buildable? Is it too expensive either way? I mean by cutting fireplaces and individual laundries and just going with some lower grade amenities there, can you build them and do 53 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 market rate on the top units and lower cost units on the bottom so that we could effectively subsidize them at a lower level? I'm just throwing that out. Sheldon Wert: No you can't do that but I welcome the thought. It's just too cumbersome to try to market two different, you're not mixing two different products and the premise was, when we were originally back on the affordable housing was is that we're going to build this housing and then we're not going to make any differentiation between where these people are and that. It's not a project that we're interested in. Councilman Engel: Okay. I just wanted a final answer from you on that. I suspected that was it but I wanted to hear it from you. Mayor Mancino: I don't know what all has to be in the plan and obviously we're not going to set it up tonight but I've got to let you know that I need to feel confident that we can reach the goals and that it's pretty clear and that we're committed if we can transfer our affordable housing goals to Section 1. I mean it's got to be crystal clear for me and doable and not unrealistic and again, I don't know what all that means but I'm just, it's a goal that we've always had and it's important to this project. It is a very, very important to this project. It is why we created the public policy of affordable housing and to have it in this area. Anyway, is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table action on the site plan amendment request for Lake Susan Apartment Homes so that a plan can be brought back showing how the affordable housing objections can be met on the remainder of the Villages on the Pond if condition number 3 is deleted on this project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: Now, what we're trying to say is that the plan that comes in, as soon as it's ready, as soon as staff has had time to review it and make a recommendation, we will be ready to look at it and to evaluate it. We'll then make the decision on the apartments. Councilman Senn: Out of fairness though I don't think staff will be able to do a whole lot short of bringing it into the council because it's really a policy issue. Mayor Mancino: Well exactly but I meant they should look at it, again they were so involved in the standards. Councilman Senn: ... have the figured out before it comes in because it isn't going to happen. Mayor Mancino: No, but I would like their review of it. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: As every document that comes to us, they do do their review and our planning staff, I mean heavens knows how many billions of dollars they have worked with Lotus on this so anyway. Vemelle. Vernelle Clayton: Thank you. Just so you know, again to upset Nancy. Are you the Weed Inspector? Who is? 54 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Mayor Mancino: I think I am, yeah. I am the Weed Inspector. Are you going to call me on Saturday morning too? Vernelle Clayton: No, but I would like to express that next time when you're going to mark the really big weeds, you need something besides pink ribbon. Have you driven down the street tonight? Mayor Mancino: No. Vemelle Clayton: The really big weeds have pink ribbons tied around them. Mayor Mancino: Oh you're kidding. Somebody's marked them for me. Thank you. Vernelle Clayton: But anyway... I would like to say that over the weekend I've been going through much of the same thoughts as Shel has and what I really would think that we all need to do, as I think I've mentioned to a couple people today, if they're going off in directions like this, finding reasons why we can criticize one or another for this or that, talk about who got the most concessions. We're never going to win those battles. We didn't start the project that way and I don't think we'll be able to finish it if we continue to pursue any of those kinds of dialogues. The situation has. Mayor Mancino: I think that's very valid. Vernelle Clayton: The situation has changed since we started this project. In the next few days we all have to think about how that that has impacted the project. One of the things we've been worrying about is what's going to happen to the grant money. One of the things you're worried about is what's going to happen to the grant money. The Ward's are worried about it. I'm worried about it and it finally occurred to me let's, what any ordinary businesswoman would do and confront the issue. So we're talking with the Met Council. They understand that with all of these projects that they're doing, that they approved where they gave grants before, that there will be some modifications that will be required. Just in one phone conversation they're not going to commit to what. But we, the staff that we have to meet with is going to be on vacation most of next week. We will be meeting with them week after next. And it's very complicated but they do also have another grant program that could be looked into for the other side. And that's the program that the legislation enabled and we'll be looking at that. Now can we have an absolute, definite, hard, cast in stone plan for you for the next meeting? Probably not but we can have direction. We can have an idea of where the Met Council thinks we're going. You can then see how does that fit with where you think you want to go. At least we will have a little bit of this heavy weight off our shoulders. We'll see maybe we're marching in the same direction. JoAnn and I agreed none of us want any surprises. We'll try to get to that point. Some of you need to be involved in some of that conversation. It has to be everybody's project. It's probably not going to be 50% of for sale and 35% of affordable. There wasn't anything really magic about that in the beginning. We've always said where this is a goal. It was at that time that we thought it would fit into the Livable Communities program requirement. Since then we have built a lot of for sale affordable units. Maybe I shouldn't say a lot but we have built some. I happened to get a glimpse of a plan of a site plan that's coming through that God knows with the density that they're planning, some of it must be affordable. That's the community's need for affordable housing for example has changed. So just sort of think about that. In the meantime and we'll see what we can't do to bring this all together. Now what we also have to keep in mind is that Shel's project is very important to this community and it is very important to this project. There have been lots of crazy things said about who's making how much money, all that sort of thing. Let me tell you the Ward's are not making much money, 55 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 and I'll just say this one more time. If they come out after we've done all this making the same amount that they would have had they just sold the land, at the market rate back then when we started this project, they'll be really happy. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Vemelle, and I just would like to respond and just say it's, I haven't heard many rumors or anything and I don't care how much the Ward's mark. I don't care how much Lotus Realty makes. I don't care any of that. I do care about the core values of our community and how they are demonstrated and reflected in this project. And they're here and that's what's important to me. That those values from the very beginning that we wrote down that we wanted to achieve, that we're on our way to achieve them. Vernelle Clayton: That's what we want too. Now if we run into an absolute brick wall, we'll have to say we can't do it. But that's what we've been working on now for three years. Mayor Mancino: Good. Thank you. Mr. Labatt is going to work. Thanks. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE, FIRST ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF SCOTT ANDING AND CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BOB ZYDOWSKY. Bob Zydowsky: Alright, very brief. Very brief. You got the supplement to the packets. Crime prevention activities. Law enforcement updates. Pretty self explanatory. We've had a, I don't want to say a rash of burglaries but Swings, Paramount Productions which is over off of Park Road, the new water tower construction site was burglarized. Sherwin Williams Paint was burglarized. Lotus Lawn and Garden was burglarized. This month. Nothing, well other than Sherwin Williams had about $10,000 worth of items taken. Compressors and those sorts of things. I'm not sure why but we do have some leads on the water tower and Sherwin Williams burglaries. But the others I'm not real sure. Park vandalism this past weekend, most of the portable toilets were tipped over. Lake Ann and Lake Susan. Thought you'd be interested into that. Councilman Senn: Is that a monthly ritual now? Bob Zydowsky: St. Hubert's, their Fall Festival this past weekend. I was in attendance both Saturday and Sunday and it was a great, great festival. Good PR for the City. I think I handed out more of the my little cards than I ever have but so. Councilman Senn: And my lips are sealed about certain things. Bob Zydowsky: And under the fire department. Scott Anding: Thank you Bob. Mayor, members of the Council. For those of you who haven't met me, my name is Scott Anding. I'm the First Assistant Chief of the Fire Department here in Chan. What I've been asked to talk about tonight is our training and our requirements of the members of the fire department. When we first bring on our members to the fire department, they must go through a Fire Fighter I course which is where they learn the basics of how to fight fires and the sort, and that consists of 180 hours in extended, the duration of that is 7 months. All this is going to be conducted within their first year on the fire department. They'll also go to a first responder class where they learn first aid and medical procedures. That class is, usually runs about 40 hours. And/or they can take an EMT class which is an 56 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Emergency Medical Technicians class which is 110 hours. And also they will be required to go to a hazardous materials operational class which is also 40 hours. On top of going to our Monday night business meetings and training for the fire department as well. So as you can see, the training requirements for a first year cadet if you will, or for base training member, is quite extensive. And then you throw on top of their social life, their work and their family and then the fire department, it can get to be overwhelming at times. Another thing that the fire department provides for the fire fighters is the First Fire Fighter I class is instructed at our station through certified instructors that are on our fire department that teach that. And they also teach that as, offer it to other Carver County fire departments as well. Also with the general membership, once you are a full time member of the fire department and you've completed your year's probationary period, you are required to come to the training meetings and business meetings. On the training side, there's an additional 70 hours per year that each fire fighter must comply with, and that includes our EMS, HAZMAT, basic fire fighting and other rescue techniques that they have to keep current with. And then on top of that additionally each member must attend a 12 hour sectional school on weekends. So our training requirements to be on the fire department are, can be somewhat extensive just to give you kind of a background of what's required by the members. And that's pretty much all I have. Mayor Mancino: Questions from council members? Scott Botcher: Do you guys have physicals every year? Scott Anding: Yes. Yep. We have a physical agility test that will be coming up in October and we also have, we are required to go in and have physicals with Business Health Services. Scott Botcher: Do we pay for that? Scott Anding: Yes. Scott Botcher: I want to be clear. Mayor Mancino: Bob, one of the things I was thinking is, as we were talking about Villages on the Pond and we were talking about multi-family and rental and just multi-family I guess. The City Manager and I and Todd met with Sheriff Olson and one of the talks was about crime.., what that means and what kind of schooling and education and having the best so that as we get more... Bob Zydowsky: Right. And she's been, actually been to some seminars on that. Kind of geared up to do that and she'd be very excited to. Mayor Mancino: ... maybe that could be a condition of approval with some of our sites that are coming in. I'd look for you to work with the City Manager on how we frame that up and how we put it in a condition. Scott Botcher: Beth and I have met and talked about it. Mayor Mancino: Great. Bob Zydowsky: Any other questions? Mayor Mancino: No, maybe back to school. Some of these. 57 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Bob Zydowsky: Yep, we have. Mayor Mancino: I hate to intimate that it's a certain age group but. Bob Zydowsky: Right. What we've done in the past is we put everybody on a red alert you know at the specific crossing times for the various schools. We've met with the principals and we will be out and about doing the school zones like we have been before. So we're ready to rock and roll on that. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight and thank you for waiting through the meeting. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: I think that's it then. Thanks. Scott Botcher: I made copies for all the council members of this tax increment financing reports filed August 2nd' These are individual by project. I also filed for the paperwork that was submitted in accordance with the grant program. I've heard in the past you guys haven't seen these or whatever and need to see them so here's, Steve got his. And Melissa I don't know if you want a copy. It makes for great publications. And the budget meeting next week will be fairly long so wear comfortable underwear. Mayor Mancino: So we need to take a nap before we come. Is that the only thing that's on the agenda? Scott Botcher: Oh no. Mayor Mancino: So let's see, we need carbohydrates. Scott Botcher: I don't know what you need. Mayor Mancino: Spaghetti dinner. Scott Botcher: Have a big spaghetti dinner at grammas before you come. It will be a marathon. Mayor Mancino: Can we take a break during the meeting and go out to dinner together or something? Something to kind of break it up. Seriously. I mean just something. We never do that. Scott Botcher: You can do whatever you'd like. Councilwoman Jansen: Just take Roger along. Roger Knutson: What are you talking about? Scott Botcher: Nancy's taking us out to Axel's. Mayor Mancino: ... thank you it's over. Councilman Engel: Hold on...the meeting for Shel. 58 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Senn: work session. Councilman Engel: Councilman Senn: Roger Knutson: Scott Botcher: Well I think we should just in case because if they come back with the plans at the We indicated we would. We indicated we would so I think we should just. Then the open meeting law's covered. So you want to recess to August. Councilman Senn: Scott Botcher: Recess to when? Councilman Engel: Councilman Senn: Yeah, move to recess the meeting. The work session. The 30th or recess to the next meeting. ...they don't come back it doesn't make any difference. It's no big deal. Scott Botcher: But if you recess, you ultimately either have to bring it back or close what you're... Councilman Senn: I understand but we can close at the beginning. Scott Botcher: ...if you don't set a date. Roger Knutson: But they're setting a date to August 30th. Scott Botcher: No, that's not what he's saying. It didn't matter. You need to set a date. Councilman Senn: No, no we said, the only way we need to use the recess is if they come back in a week because otherwise we're back to a regular council meeting again aren't we? Roger Knutson: Say August 30th. You could recess the meeting till August 30th. Councilman Senn: How long is it till our next meeting? I guess that's the key question. Scott Botcher: September 13th. Councilman Senn: Councilman Engel: Councilman Senn: Councilman Engel: Councilman Senn: Okay, so it's actually three weeks to our next meeting then. So we could recess it till. September 7th. Whatever the Monday before that is. Well but Labor Day is the 6th. So what's the 8th? 59 City Council Meeting - August 23, 1999 Councilman Engel: Tuesday's the 7th. Councilman Senn: 7th. Okay, so let's recess it through the 7th. Roger Knutson: You don't really have to do that if you don't want to. The only time that comes important is when you have an open meeting law, if you're going to meet in less than 4 days notice. You can do that but if they came in here say whenever, next Monday and said they want a meeting, then the Mayor can call a special meeting without the recess. Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Engel: ...just clean it up because we indicated we'd do it. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 6O