Loading...
CC Minutes 1999 10 25CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2S, 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 Senn, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Engel and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Scott Botcher, Todd Gerhardt, Anita Benson, Kate Aanenson, and Bruce DeJong APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #99-87: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 5th Addition, Project 99-3. b. Approve Financial Advisor Recommendation. c. Authorize Payment of Permanent and Temporary Trail Easement, 1998 Trail Project, Robert & Lois Bowman, 6275 Powers Boulevard. d. Approval of Bills. e. Approval of Minutes: -Work Session Minutes dated September 20, 1999 - Work Session Minutes dated October 4, 1999 - City Council Minutes dated October 11, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 28, 1999 g. Accept Donation from the Chanhassen Lions Club. j. Resolution #99-88: Approve Resolution Authorizing $4.2 Million G.O. Improvement and Water Revenue Bond Sale. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. F. APPROVAL OF PROSECUTION CONTRACT FOR 2000. Councilman Senn: I'd move to table. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to table the approval of the prosecution contract for 2000? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table approval of the Prosecution Contract for 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The item was tabled. I. APPROVE ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT FOR THS/WEST 78TM STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 97-6. Councilman Senn: l(i) I pulled, somebody else can make the motion on it but it's ridiculous that we find deals that we don't bid out not to exceed and then come back later and increase them so. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you for your comments. May I have a motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: And a second please. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Engineering Services Agreement Supplement for TH 5/West 78th Street Improvement 97-6. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: DAVE HUFFMAN MEMORIAL 5K RACE, MIKE HOWE AND ROD FRANKS. Mayor Mancino: We have one visitor presentation and it's on our agenda and that is the Dave Huffman Memorial 5K race by Mike Howe and Rod Franks. If you two would like to come and make a presentation to the council please. And more of you. Mike Howe: We got a big crowd. Thank you Mayor, Council, staff. I'm Michael Howe from the Park and Rec Commission. With me tonight is Rod Franks, also from the commission and Howard Anderson and Ken Garvin from Northcott Americlnns. And I just wanted to bring you up to speed, along with my colleagues about a race we're planning for Chanhassen, along with Americlnn's sponsorship. And basically it's going to be in September. We would like to call it the Dave Huffman Memorial 5K Race. Something in that regard. Dave Huffman as you know was a Chanhassen resident, Minnesota Viking football player, broadcaster. He also was on the Park and Rec Commission. I took his seat about 4 years ago. We wanted to name it after Dave. He did a lot for the City in his short tenure on the Board and I will, some of the details I will pass off to Howard Anderson who's also on the race committee .... about our plans and hear your comments. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Howard Anderson: Thank you very much. Howard Anderson with Americlnns and Northcott Company. Appreciate the time. I'll be very brief but we did want to keep everyone in the loop in this planning City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 process. We're expecting to have the race next September 16th. We'd like to have it be a representation of the City as we are all residents of the city and our future corporate headquarters is being built right off of Highway 5 there. The Northcott Building right next to the American Legion space. We're expecting the race to start in Lake Ann parking lot and run through and north of the city, along over the bridge to the south side of the Highway 5 and end in the Americlnn-Houlihan's parking lot area. We obviously would like to raise the awareness of the City of Chanhassen and certainly would like to be a part of this as a sponsor. We've been planning for this for quite a while and as I say we wanted to keep you up to date. We could go into great detail but I don't know if this is quite the place so we do expect that the 5K run will be a successful event and hopefully for a long time to come. Maybe even be able to be expanded to a 10K run. There are quite a few requirements that we would end up needing from the City as far as cooperation goes. Hopefully some cooperation from the Carver County Sheriff. Possibly the Fire Department if need be. That type of thing but most everything should be taken care of early on a Saturday morning with a lot of volunteers. I'm not sure if any of, Rod might have some final comments for us. Rod Franks: Sure. Rod Franks. Park Commission. Mayor and members of the Council, we are so excited about bringing this opportunity to the City. We see it as not only providing a great recreational opportunity but really a great publicity opportunity for the City. Bringing in the city itself. The Americlnn and Northcott, Southwest Metro and potentially the Chamber of Commerce as a tie in in the retail environment are really drawing everybody together in terms of this Fall celebration. We've done a lot of the leg work already. The background work has already been completed to a large extent. Things are just falling into place. We're looking at being able to present a formal presentation to the Council I believe in February for your approval. At that time we really hope to have a lot of the particulars nailed down about what type of involvement specifically the City would be asked to make and what the investment of that would be. But we really just wanted to keep everyone informed. We would be willing to answer any questions. Preliminary questions that you would have for us. We would also I think appreciate some indication that this is something that the City and the Council, that you would approve of us really continuing to pursue. And with that I'd like to entertain or we can field any quick questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Hey, any questions that council members have? Any comments? Steve. Councilman Labatt: How many competitors do you anticipate? Rod Franks: Well at a minimum we are expecting about 200 runners for the first year, and based on the experience of the other communities running similar races, we can see that really expanding on a year by year basis. Scott Botcher: I'm supposed to run? Rod Franks: Well my last comment. Scott Botcher: I thought it was like in my car. Rod Franks: Well Scott I was going to specifically invite you to start training with me. Start enjoying some of the great trails. Scott Botcher: Come play hoops with me. 94 feet at a time.., yeah but I stop and start a lot. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Does it go through the Skate Park too so there's a little bit of inline skating you have to do? Rod Franks: ... skaters and the skate boarders will be able to see that there are other recreational opportunities available to them as well. Mayor Mancino: Great. Councilman Senn: How many other communities have a 5K? Rod Franks: Waconia, around us? Chaska has one. Waconia has one. Excelsior has one directly. Councilman Labatt: Minnetonka has that Turkey Trot. Rod Franks: Yeah, from the Marsh, Turkey Trot. Right. Mayor Mancino: Turkey Trot sounds better than 5K race. Rod Franks: The Excelsior race was so popular this year they had to mm down entrants. They had to limit their enrollment. Councilman Senn: But they have more than a 5K don't they? Rod Franks: Right, that's correct. We're starting out with a 5K. According to our analysis, that's the most popular type of race for the weekend warrior runner that populates our city so we hope potentially to be able to expand if there's enough of an interest for it into a 10K as well. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think it's a great idea. It's a wonderful idea. Councilwoman Jansen: Great event and thanks to our two commissioners for getting involved and going to the extra effort of helping to pull this together. Mike Howe: Well thank you Mayor. Councilwoman Jansen: Absolutely, thank you. Rod Franks: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Scott Botcher: How much is 5K? Mayor Mancino: 5K is 3.1. Scott Botcher: Put me down. I can do 3 miles. I will race the entire staff. Winner buys. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: You just want to make sure the masseuse is at the end. You know that you've got a whole line of them ready. Thanks for coming tonight. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else that would like to, this is visitor presentation time. Anyone else like to come up and make any comments? Polite, nice comments to the council at this point. PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE~ CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BOB ZYDOWSKY AND FIRE CHIEF~ JOHN WOLFF. Mayor Mancino: And I know that we're going to have a presentation and for those who are here in the audience, we will be turning down the lights for part of this presentation. Bob Zydowsky: Okay. Just a couple things. Just a couple updates for some of the things we're working on. Citizens Police Academy. We're into our fifth week. Tomorrow night is use of force. We go the use of force with the students. Last week we did DWI enforcement with the State Patrol and it went just great. Just fantastic. Class was very impressed. It was a real good night. Safe and Sober. The State has offered to us free of charge signs like this that we can post throughout the city. We get as many as we want. I've talked to Mike Wegler and he and I are going to kind of get together and put these up around the city so you'll be seeing these. Mayor Mancino: Just don't put them on a county road. Excuse me. Bob Zydowsky: Carrie, in conjunction with the DNR and also Carver County is setting up some snowmobile classes. She did this last year. I think she and one other deputy trained upwards to 200 people for snowmobile training. So it's a nice service that's offered through our office here and also Carver County DNR. Pleasant View Road. The surveys officially end November 1st SO I will have some information for the November update as far as speeds and those sorts of things. Got a voice mail the other night from Deputy Keith Wallgrad. Had a high of 55 mph at 10:30 at night so he was very happy about that. $130 ticket for the person. Mayor Mancino: 55 on Pleasant View. Okay. Bob Zydowsky: But I think overall the speeds have been reduced. Speeds have been reduced overall I think. The surveys that are coming in, 23, 24 mph average so I think the aggressiveness has really helped. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Bob? Go ahead John. Would you fill us in the grass fire that occurred too please. Give us an update. John Wolff: Sure, I'll start with that. We had a large wildland grass fire between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy last Thursday. About 3:50 the fire department was called out and it ended up being 7 to 9 acres that burned and it was a real swampy, remote area. If you're familiar with the Greenwood Shores and Prince property, between that is the, is basically the Lake Lucy/Lake Ann area. Very remote. Very difficult to get equipment in to. Grass fires are pretty demanding on fire fighters because they require a lot of work just by, it's real manual. You can't bring a lot of heavy equipment in. And we were challenged with significant logistics. We ended up calling in seven additional fire departments. There were approximately 150 fire fighters on scene at one point. We sent two people to the hospital, but nothing serious. It was basically a heat exhaustion situation. We probably went through 5-6 cases of Gatorade. The Salvation Army was on the scene feeding people. We were there for 7 hours total. And we've been called back three times since. And the reason being is that the trees caught on fire and we had to cut trees down to basically put fires out. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 And a lot of stumps also caught on fire so it's an older forested area. Kind of mature and so there was a lot of, what we call fire load in that immediate area. For example today we had a grass fire south on tOt. We extinguished it in t0 minutes. That's kind of what we're normally used to. That's typically what we see with brush fires. But the high winds played a big factor and the fact that the actual fire area was a mile from any road location that we could access it from so we had to basically drive the vehicles on a small trail. Mayor Mancino: So you take the pumper trucks in? John Wolff: Actually we have smaller trucks called brush trucks. And we, Chanhassen has two of them. We ended up having a total of t 8 brush trucks or all terrain vehicles out on scene so that's one of the reasons why we had to call so many organizations in because we were able to pool resources from various fire departments. All and all the damage was to a wildland area. And it is, you know it's going to recover and it should do fine. There were no structures within probably a half mile of any fire line so. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for that. John Wolff: Tonight I've got a brief presentation prepared to talk about a couple of items in our capital improvement plan, and I just have a couple of comments I'd like to make before I show you a brief video presentation and then we're also going to give you a chance to actually hands on see one of the devices we're talking about. The fire service is the most dangerous occupation in the United States. Each year about t 00 fire fighters die in the line of duty. Technology can have an impact on the safety factor. Over the next couple of years the fire department is looking to take advantage or technology to reduce the risk to our own fire fighters and also to increase our efficiency. As a part of our 5 year capital improvement plan we are requesting that the City consider purchasing an upgrade to our existing air pack or breathing system which we use for structural fire fighting inside the building. And also to consider purchasing some thermal imaging equipment. I've asked Nann if she could show the first two minute video which highlights some, and I believe these should come up on your screens too. Councilman Engel: We haven't had any TV here tonight. Councilman Labatt: Ours are out. John Wolff: Oh they are. I guess we're going to get it over here then. This system is an enhancement to our breathing apparatus. A video was shown at this point in the discussion. John Wolff: This system enhancements that the upgrade gives us are significant. They basically what they add are a bunch of safety features to the existing air pack. Number one, it gives the fire fighter an audible alert when they've used 50% of their air. They can look at this device, and I think you've got a handout which shows you, it kind of it's on the shoulder of the air pack. They can look at a device at any point in time and based on their personal breathing rate it tells them how much air they have left. So if they're searching the Dinner Theater and they're down in the catacombs and they know they've been out for 15 minutes and they've got t0 minutes left, they know that it's time for them to personally leave. Or if they're in a large commercial structure. Additional enhancements, it has a safety device. If the fire fighter stops moving for 30 seconds, it will start sending an audible alert and a visual alert so that the other fire fighters that might be working in that immediate area will know that there's a problem. Those two features alone City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 are significant. In addition to that there is a high temperature alert so if it's too hot. One of the problems we have with the safety equipment we have today, the.., gear, the helmets, they're very sophisticated and they're very, they provide a lot of protection. Almost too much protection and what we find is that fire fighters are going much deeper into the danger zone than maybe we're comfortable. The equipment can get them there but they might be getting close to what we call flash over or backdraft situations so the high temperature alert will tell them that if the ambient temperature is too high, over 250 degrees, whatever you set it at, then that's also going to just give them another piece of important information about their environment. So we put a lot of value in the safety of our fire fighters and while the investment is significant on the part of the city, we're looking at approximately $75,000 to upgrade our air packs. We think that we will reap the benefits of a safer work environment for the fire fighters so we'd like you to give that some consideration. We wanted to spend just a brief moment to outline that because as you look at all the hundreds of things that you have to look at, we wanted you to have some better information regarding this one particular area. The next thing that I'd like to do is take a moment to show you the thermal imaging device and there's a, Mr. Tom Green from Front Line Plus Fire Rescue, it's a dealership that sells products to the fire service is here with us tonight and he has a device that you have a copy of the specs on in front of you. And Mr. Green will show you how this device works. What we'd like to do is do a quick video on some of the benefits of this device to the fire service because it's more than just the ability to see in the dark. It really enhances the major things that we do from fire rescue to evaluating where the fire is to attacking the fire and to finding the fire that's hidden in the ceiling and the walls. So there's a quick tape here that I'd like you to just to take a moment if you would to view and then we'll let you see the device. Another video was shown at this point in the discussion. John Wolff: If you're interested we'll let you examine the device. Use it for a moment while I wrap up with my comments here. Tom Green: This is the Talisman. The screen that you're looking through is strictly thermal and what that is utilizing is the hot spots in the room. Hot spots being the. Mayor Mancino: A lot of hot people in here. John Wolff: Another application is, actually wildland fire fighting. They do have a section where, I didn't include it because we normally don't get a lot of wildland fire fighting but if we had had one Thursday night, you know I had 100 people spread throughout the woods. I didn't, it was logistically very difficult. If we had one of those on scene we would have known where the hot spots were better and really where some of our resources were. There are some other applications. Police use these for surveillance. They can use them for finding criminals. We had an incident a number of years ago where an individual was kind of, the bank robbery where they ran down into the woods and I think they were using similar devices. Savage Fire Department recently used one to find a lost child. They climbed one of their tall ladders and they knew that the child was somewhere in the woods in a particular area and looked and looked and couldn't find. They finally used that device and picked the kid up right away so I think the applications have, they haven't all been determined but the obvious ones were the ones that were highlighted in the film. And it's a fairly significant advancement for the fire service. And I would sort of make it a comparison to try image doing your job today without a PC. I mean just image an office environment with typewriters and that's kind of what we're sort of dealing with, without having the ability to see when we're working inside. So definitely worth while. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And is technology improving as it is, you know as you use the PC. For instance those used to be you know on helmets and a battery pack and now it's hand held so you can pass it on, etc. Do you see further improvements? In technology. John Wolff: Well that's a good question. I asked a couple of the dealers and product manufacturers and they indicated that the technology we have today with the hand held is probably at least in the short term about as far as it's going to go. I think where personally where I think it goes eventually is to a system that's built right into the face piece of each fire fighters equipment. But today the cost is significant. We're looking at, you know depending on the kind of features you include, $20,000 to $25,000. A lot of fire departments purchased these devices with video transmission capabilities so the people on the inside are actually, the folks on the outside in the command area are actually able to see what the people on the inside are doing and what they have for fires and so forth. So, it's an expensive technology right now. I don't know how long it's going to be before it becomes, like the PC market where prices come down significantly. Mayor Mancino: Thanks John. Any questions? Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you for sharing all that. Very informative. John Wolff: Thanks for the opportunity. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 3 & 4~ BLOCK 1~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD~ CSM CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Back in August you approved this subdivision which included five lots. Two of the buildings are already under construction. Those adjacent to Dell Road. The two interior buildings which are adjacent to the existing, the large building that's being renovated is being requested to be modified to be one large building. In order to accomplish that they have to vacate a utility easement. That's pretty straight forward application. Staff supports it in the fact that it will screen the loading dock area. We'll still have loading docks but they'll be on the interior. In addition to that, the landscaping berm is being completed. Most of that is rough graded right now. There was some concerns of some of the residents in Eden Prairie regarding that. So in order to accomplish this you can can't a building over a utility easement so staff is recommend vacation of that. The zoning law can be done administratively so that can be accomplished so staff is recommending approval of the vacation of the utility easement to accomplish this. Again because it's less than 10%, the combination of the two buildings, that also can be done administratively. So staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from council members? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Kate, is this easement the easement, the perimeter easement that was established at the time of platting or is this another easement? Kate Aanenson: No, this is one that was established with the plat. Between the two lot lines it's standard that we put an easement on the perimeter for utility. Councilman Senn: Okay, so it's the standard perimeter. City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Kate Aanenson: The standard easement with the plat, correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions at this time? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Any questions? I'm assuming that, did we notify Eden Prairie residents? Kate Aanenson: We did receive some concerns regarding just for clarification, we made the decision early, similar to what we've done in other landscapings, where we're doing natural landscaping. It will be sprinkled. All the easements, the 75 foot berm is entirely on their property. There were homeowners that had placed trees on some of the existing berms behind the DataServ. The existing building. In deference to just leaving it the way it is, the applicant had pushed the berm further onto their property to not disturb the existing landscaping. The concern that some of the neighbors have is that we've left it natural but we've requested that they do is they work with CSM, who owns the property, and maybe the homeowners association work because we felt that it wasn't our place to give them permission to, some of them wanted more highly manicured. It's difficult for them to go onto the other side. It becomes a problem so it's consistent with what we've done in other areas so we've just asked them as an association to work with CSM and see if they can resolve it themselves. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Well let's bring this back to council and may I have a, any discussion? May I have a motion please. Councilman Labatt: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution #99-89: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Vacation #99-6 of the utility and drainage easements over Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Southwest Tech Center as shown in Attachment #1, subject to the following conditions: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Southwest Tech Center shall be consolidated into a single zoning lot under a single Parcel Identification Number. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for recording fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR LAKE DRIVE WEST STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT 98-16. Public Present: Name Address Don Patton Tom Ries 7600 Parklawn Avenue So, Edina 7600 Parklawn Avenue So, Edina City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Anita Benson: This improvement project was petitioned for by Traden LLC and Redmond Products, Inc to construct Lake Drive West from Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road. Traden LLC will be refunded the $4,410 that they provided for security for preparation of the feasibility report. No written objections have been received to the proposed assessments. The total project cost to be assessed is $1,463,174.30. The assessments are 10% to 15% lower than the amounts estimated from the feasibility report. The street and storm sewer construction costs for the final assessment roll are $157.17 per assessable foot versus the $192.08 as presented in the feasibility report. This reduction is due primarily to the elimination of the proposed retaining wall at the west end of the project. And also due to favorable street construction bid prices. The principle assessment benefit methodology from the feasibility report has remained the same for the project. And Mr. Phil Gravel is here. He's a project engineer with Bonestroo and Associates on the project if you have any specific questions. But if there are no relevant questions or concerns which require further investigation at the close of the public hearing I recommend adoption of the assessment roll for Lake Drive West Street and Utility Improvement Project 98-16 at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 8%. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions from council members? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: I don't know if this is Anita or Todd but the 8 years, 8% interest rate. Out of the TIF deal, how much is covered by the TIF? The first 2 years? 3? Todd Gerhardt: It would be based on any improvements that would go in. Councilman Senn: But we had a real short time... Todd Gerhardt: Oh you mean the duration of the district? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: It's a four year district. Councilman Senn: So essentially probably then effectively the first four years of the assessments will be paid for by TIF. Todd Gerhardt: If they build on them. If they do not build on them, they will be responsible for the assessments .... associated with this development. Councilman Senn asked a question that was not picked up by the microphone. Anita Benson: I asked Bruce, our Finance Director. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions? Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the council on this assessment hearing? Seeing none, let me bring this back to council. Any discussion on the assessment hearing? Then may I please have a motion. Councilman Engel: Move approval. Councilman Senn: Second. 10 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Resolution #99-90: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adopt the assessment roll for Lake Drive West Street and Utility Improvement Project 98-16 at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 8%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR STONE CREEK DRIVE (NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD)~ IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 98-15. Anita Benson: This improvement project was petitioned for by Bluff Creek Partners and Family of Christ Lutheran Church. Those petitioning property owners will be refunded the $347.50 that they put up for preparation of the feasibility report. No written objections have been received to the assessment roll. The total project cost to be assessed is $318,700. The cost is 2.4% higher than the estimated amount in the feasibility report for the project. This increase resulted from the addition of storm sewer improvements requested by the property owners and higher than estimated actual bid prices. This was a smaller project. The principle assessment benefit methodology from the feasibility report has remained the same and again Mr. Phil Gravel is here, Bonestroo and Associates for any specific questions you may have regarding the project. However at the close of the public hearing if there are no relevant questions or concerns that require further investigation, I would recommend approval of the assessment roll for Stone Creek Drive Improvement Project 98-15 at an interest rate of 8% and a term of 8 years. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the Council and the public hearing? In this assessment hearing. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council. Any discussion? Then may I have a motion and a second please. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution #99-91: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to adopt the assessment roll for the Stone Creek Drive Improvements (North of Coulter Boulevard), Project 98-15 at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 8%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. Scott Botcher presented the staff report on this item, which was not picked up by the microphone. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: So it's not the $20 and 20% that's in the report? For penalty. Scott Botcher: ... Mayor Mancino: So it's like the IRS. There's both an interest and penalty charge. Councilman Senn: Is there a reason why we haven't turned off somebody who owes us $11,0007 Mayor Mancino: That's what we're going to research. 11 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Scott Botcher: That's the one that just...but before I make that policy... Councilman Senn: But I'm assuming... Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. Is there anyone here tonight, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Seeing none, let's bring it back to Council. Any discussion? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Engel: Move approval. Councilman Senn: I have one more question ifI could before we. If we, okay so you're going to go check this out. Effectively you're saying the ordinance does allow to mm people off, okay. I guess one I guess fairly simple question, especially on this one case with almost $11,000. If we certify it tonight for collection to the County, does that then preclude us from turning it off because we've now put it on their tax bill and we have to wait for their taxes to be delinquent to do it. Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Senn: Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Senn: Roger Knutson: ... Scott Botcher: ... Then is this an action we have to take tonight before you bring back that information? That's what I'm just saying. When's the clock up? Councilman Senn: I just have a real problem tying our hands when somebody who's got a history of not paying either their utility bills or their taxes and then just simply expanding that out another year and say we've got to wait another year because we've taken action to certify taxes which we know we aren't going to collect anyway. It's ridiculous. Mayor Mancino: We could remove that one from the list and go ahead with the rest of the list. Roger Knutson: Just so you understand. You probably will collect. I don't know about.., most commercial properties that go into tax forfeiture... Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but it seems to me a little unfair and inequitable to the taxpayers effectively to get something 5 years from now and credited to the taxpayers 5 years from now that the current ones are supposed to be enjoying the benefit of as it relates to somebody who's incurring the cost. And plus yeah, plus there's no add on going on anyway. Scott Botcher: Roger Knutson: Mayor Mancino: The down side of that.., want to preserve your position... If you don't certify it, you didn't certify it... So you're fourth or fifth in line. 12 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Todd Gerhardt: Roger Knutson: Councilman Engel: Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Engel: Councilman Senn: So even though they've already filed bankruptcy then effectively you're saying that by continuing to certify we keep our right? Roger Knutson: No. You have to...bankruptcy. Councilman Senn: But they already filed bankruptcy. Long time ago. Yes. Todd Gerhardt: And they filed their plan already. Roger Knutson: Chapter 137 Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean this is just like old news. So what do you do after a person's already filed bankruptcy? ... I would suggest you go ahead... The ability to mm them off have anything to do with bankruptcy proceedings? What amount of time is represented by these $10,8007 How delinquent? Mayor Mancino: We don't know. We don't know any of that information. Councilman Engel: I mean roughly. A month? Six months? A year? Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Mayor Mancino: But we can't mm it off anyway if they've declared bankruptcy so. Certify it. May I have a motion then please. Good questions. Councilman Engel: Move approval. Councilman Labatt: Second. Resolution/t99-92: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Certification of Delinquent Water and Sewer Accounts as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: Thank you and that's the end of our public hearings tonight. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY GUIDELINES, DAN GREENSWEIG, KENNEDY AND GRAVEN. Todd Gerhardt~ Mayor and Council. This item was before you approximately two months ago and the City Council at that time had suggested that the Economic Development Authority review the business 13 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 subsidy criteria list that Minnesota legislators have passed this last session. Attached is the business subsidy criteria as a part of Attachment #3. The EDA has approved the criteria with the one condition that the, that we add that the City of Chanhassen's Tax Increment Financing Policies be included as a part of the criteria list and that applicants review those policies as a part of their incentive. I'd like to note at this time that the City Council is ahead of the legislators in this process. You established your policy, your TIF policy which is. Mayor Mancino: Last year. Todd Gerhardt: Our guidelines when giving out incentives to businesses. Our main source of revenue. And we established a lot of the similar guidelines that the legislators have highlighted with the one exception of jobs and wages. Our policy, TIF private redevelopment agreement does talk about number of jobs and proposed wages but that we do not monitor those after buildings have gone up and now they are asking us to monitor it. So I believe our policies are very similar to the criteria and would take any questions that the council has regarding this. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions at this point for staff? Yes. Councilman Senn: Not really a question for staff and I was derelict in not doing it when we talked about the agenda but I really, at least in my opinion this is going to take considerable discussion tonight and I just wonder if we could move it to 9(c) and not hold up everybody else that's waiting for an item. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council or wants to make a remark on this particular unfinished business? It's not a public hearing but is there anyone here tonight that wanted to make comment on this? Okay, seeing none. Does anyone on council have a problem with changing the agenda? Okay. So we will be putting this at the end of. Councilman Engel: 9(c). Mayor Mancino: 9(c) under Administration Presentations. Then we'll go on to new business. 7.5, consider request for extension of time to complete improvements, Halla Great Plains Addition, Project 95- 13. Todd I'm sorry. Does that work for you too to stay and be 9(c)? You just gave your presentation and all of a sudden we change it on you. Does that work for you? Todd Gerhardt: I don't think I have a choice in the matter. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: I can see the writing on the wall. Mayor Mancino: Well at least I didn't miss visitor presentations tonight. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS~ HALLA GREAT PLAINS ADDITION~ PROJECT 95-13. Scott Botcher: You have in your packet a copy of a memo to Anita from Mr. Hempel. Dave Hempel. And a memo from myself that was put together following discussion with Mr. Halla. To summarize that... something to chew on... preliminary and side bar agreement that would granted the City of Chanhassen in 14 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 exchange.., the ability to buy on behalf of the developer to vacate the plat... Staff is recommending security... Roger Knutson: ... Scott Botcher: ... have the option to not do that... Roger Knutson: You also have the option of drawing... Mayor Mancino: Any questions from staff from council members? What if somebody buys a lot? Improvements haven't been made. Roger Knutson: It's recorded against the land... Councilman Senn: And what happens if that happens? Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Senn: So if we vacate the plat and somebody bought...No, I understand. Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Senn: I mean two things basically that I was thinking of and one is that couldn't we add a condition to this that says they can't sell any lots until the improvements are installed. Roger Knutson: There's no way that that can be... Councilman Senn: Well, I mean if they're in violation of the agreement we can draw down on their credit, right? Kate Aanenson: Right. That's why we have the letter of credit in place. To guarantee that. Roger Knutson: ... Kate Aanenson: That's why we maintain the letter of credit in place so we have that control. Mayor Mancino: So adding on to Mark's question, will we be notified ifa lot is sold? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: ... you couldn't draw down on the letter of credit tomorrow. Mayor Mancino: Until after two years. Roger Knutson: Because he wouldn't be in violation of anything for two years. Councilman Senn: No I'm just saying. If we pass this, he's free and clear for two years? 15 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Roger Knutson: That's right. Councilman Senn: Okay, and so if they go sell all the lots in the two years and don't put the improvements in, it gets very messy. So essentially wouldn't we be better off sticking some language in which says if they sell any of the lots, again I understand like all things we do that there's always problems with enforcement and everything else but if you're looking for tools and keys to do something. Roger Knutson: Maybe we could say he shouldn't sell the lots until the improvements are in. He can't build on them... Mayor Mancino: So do we want to give two years or one year? If somebody bought a lot this year, I mean I'd rather do one year than have them wait two years. Councilman Engel: What's typical for us? Todd, what have we done in the past for the developers? I mean do we have a history. Mayor Mancino: It's usually a one year extension, isn't it? Councilman Senn: We have given some one year extensions in the past but again. Councilman Engel: We gave a two year already. Councilman Senn: ... but on a real limited basis. Councilman Engel: And we already gave a two year on this one back in '97. Councilman Senn: So actually we've given a total of five years now on this one haven't we? Or six? 95 didn't you say was the... Mayor Mancino: Just a second. I think that Anita can answer that for us. Roger Knutson: You approved the development contract... Councilman Engel: So one two year extension. Anita Benson: Okay, if I could clarify the reason for the two years from a construction standpoint. The first year you put down your curb, storm drainage and your base course of paving. The next year you put your final wear course of paving so you need two construction seasons. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like, do you have any questions? Any comments? Do you have any questions for Roger? Don Halla: No real questions. I understand what he's proposing. We asked, or I asked for a five year extension due to the slow sale of these lots. As is addressed in the letter that I sent. The property has been marketed continuously during that period of time. It's been marketed through builders. It's been marketed through realtors and it's very slow to sell. I know there's an explanation in there. Maybe people don't like buying lots next to nurseries and golf courses. I don't know. But anyway it's been very slow to develop. I don't know, of course we can't sell lots unless there's improvements in. Nobody can build on them so you 16 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 can, as I understand, take a letter of intention from people wanting to buy a lot but that's as far as you can go. You can't take any money or anything like that so I don't think that's really a problem. Also if there's a wet year, it's infeasible to build because it's clay soils out there. And it would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars more to put sand in in a wet year than what would be required in a dry year. Yes, late this fall would have been an ideal time to do it. When we did the first half for the first section of the project, we definitely had a good year to do so. But there was even times there where it took a month and a half in drying time for them to be able to put the road in without having to put a foot or two feet of sand in underneath. So, it's a combination of many different things. At this point in time over this, well I'd say really two years of ability to sell lots. Really three. We've had a Parade of Homes in there. We've had Spring Preview in there. We had another Parade of Homes. Lots are still not selling. It is a rural area and I think it actually isn't creating any problems the way it is at this point. We're not using it much for nursery land either so it's really just standing there. But sales are not coming and the money to do the improvements and so forth is not there until we sell the first batch of lots. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Bringing that back to council. Any comments? Councilmembers. Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I'd move approval of a two year extension contingent upon one, the stipulation that if any lots are sold then the improvements be installed. Number two, that materials that have been dumped without authorization in the ravine be removed and that there be no further dumping in the ravine. Roger Knutson: ... Councilman Senn: Let's say 90 days or something. 90 days? Councilwoman Jansen: 60. Councilman Senn: What it says here. 60 days. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the agreement for a two year extension for Halla Great Plains Addition contingent upon one, the stipulation that if any lots are sold then the improvements be installed. Number two, that materials that have been dumped without authorization in the ravine be removed and that there be no further dumping in the ravine. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414 UNITS) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES~ COURT HOMES~ VILLAGE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES; AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address 17 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mark Guenther Dennis R. Griswold Dan Cook Julie Bischke Bob & Sherry Ayotte Dave Sellergren Tom Green Sandra & Alan Phelps Leah Hawke John Esch Lisa & Jim Colbert Bart Eddy Susan Markert Susan Cohoon Anne Ryan Krista Pangrud Laura Papas Allan Vargas Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Wayzata Boulevard Jordan Chanhassen St. Paul Brainerd Longacres Longacres Longacres Longacres Longacres 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Bent Bow Trail 2495 Southern Court Bent Bow Trail Longacres Longacres Kate Aanenson: Actually it was tabled back on September 27th for some additional information. I'd like to go back and kind of frame up what we're trying to accomplish here tonight but I think that will kind of help clarify the issue. The applicant needs to rezone the property and a comp plan amendment and at that level of detail a concept review is being requested. While this has no legal standing, the applicant in good faith is relying on your direction so he can further develop the plan. What we're looking at tonight is the overall gross and net density. The general location of each street and pedestrian way. The identification of lots and widths. Major extent of the public common space. Identification of land types and intensities and staging for development. The applicant has proposed that, or suggested that information and what we're struggling with now is the comprehensive plan allows some different land uses. At your last meeting you spent some time discussing whether or not the front acreage should be office. It does have other uses, institutional and we shared with you that while Westwood Church was looking at this property, the price became too expensive. They ended up moving across the street, or on the west side of 41 and acquiring 67 acres. That was our first choice based on what we felt the gateway to the community would be. Having said that we also looked at the comprehensive plan, looking at it as an office or institutional. So having said that, the information that you requested from staff was more information on mass transit. Mass transit, the Southwest Metro which we are a part of has put in two grants. One is for a park and ride facility off their current location off of Market and the other one is they're working with Westwood Church to provide another transit hub because it works well in the fact that their peak hours are offset from the church use so there is a grant in right now and that would be required because they'd obviously have to apply a different surface for the parking lot of the church. In addition, in the internal part of the project, similar to what we did with Westwood. We'd be providing, whether on the commercial on the interior street, either slip off lanes or a transit stops. Similar to what we did on Villages on the Pond. The other issue was whether or not the housing density, whether this was consistent with some of the densities. The allocation that we've looked at with other projects and looking at the 5 units an acre, it's very consistent. Similar to what we did on Walnut Grove. There were some questions asked as far as what other projects we have. Whether medium density zoning we have. As you're aware, the school district is looking for other property. Some of the property that's left. If you look at the southern end of the city south of Lyman, it's very encumbered by topography and wetlands. There is not significant pieces left that are flat 18 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 and contiguous. The school district is looking at. I'm unable to disclose those locations but it will gobble up some additional multi-family so again it is consistent. Our comprehensive plan, our population and the comprehensive plan was based on this as an option of being multi-family and the 400 units and the population that it would generate. Again hypothetically talking about this project more specifically, the developer under the zoning of the low density, which is that northern piece. The three zoning options. One is to do the PUD which allows you under a straight PUD to average 15. Go as small as 11. That's one option. The other is to do a straight 15,000 square foot subdivision or to do twin homes. So the applicant did lay out that and put approximately 140 units. Now the piece across the street which does have density available which is in the Bluff Creek, has another 34 units. So it's always been our objective to leave that as part of the PUD. What is the City getting. We want to leave that as a natural area and undisturbed because of the significant trees in the area. So those 34 units would be transferred across. So what they're looking at there is 166. So again if it came in with twin homes, 140 units as proposed with their proposal. 166. Now what I'm proposing to you. Mayor Mancino: Could you say that one more time, excuse me. Slow down. 140 units. Kate Aanenson: 140 units if they did twin homes. Mayor Mancino: If they did twin homes would fit in the north part. Kate Aanenson: Right, the north area. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Their proposal says 166, or what they're recommending. Okay then there's the 34 units that somehow get thrown into the mix that's being transferred. Whether that's north or south, there's another 34 units. Mayor Mancino: So 140 plus 34 units is 174. Kate Aanenson: Right. Because that's Mr. Savaryn's property, correct. But what I want to point out the difference is, is that if you were to do twin homes, you're getting a standard lot size and average breaks between the buildings. Whereas in the PUD you're allowed to cluster and some diversity in product. So if you were to come in with the twin home you're getting 140 of the same type of product. Another reason why the staff supported the transfer of the density. Mayor Mancino: So you wouldn't get all, yeah 140 units at 10,000 square feet per unit. Kate Aanenson: With minimal breaks between buildings. This is an opportunity to work with the landform to preserve some of the natural features. Taking that same thought process to the southern side, if you're looking at to achieve the 8 units an acre, which is available under that, you're pushing, you're forcing a product that's going to be more vertical. And that may be acceptable but what I heard last time from the residents, there was concern about aesthetics and what you're looking at the sea of roofs similar to what you see in Eden Prairie. So the staff's position from the beginning was to look at ways to achieve different view sheds. Orientation of buildings and different product on that site. Again, they're way under the density which is why the staff recommended the comprehensive plan change. Lowering it on the one end and raising it slightly on the other. Still coming in way under at the 5 units an acre. Now having said that, we certainly agree that there needs to be some work on the design itself. Of the product and how that lays 19 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 out. At this point again what we're trying to get a grasp on is can we agree, is there concurrence on the density and the land use change. If you have any questions on that before I move to. Mayor Mancino: Any questions on density? Kate Aanenson: Tax capacity. Okay. The tax capacity. I'll just briefly try to explain that because it gets pretty convoluted but what we did is we broke it down by acreage. Low density and the medium density, 8 units an acre. Now within that there's a plethora of options that you could provide so we tried to show those. What we did is we came up with an acreage. Then made some assumptions. Well, the long and the short of it is, is that is not showing the true fiscal impact of this, if it's residential. Service demands, parks, recreation, school district although we talk about that later. And then also obviously the office is going to pay more but you have to look at the realities of whether the market is right for the office. Whether that be in 5 years or 10 years. And I passed a letter from the realtor marketing this project and his survey of whether or not the market is right for that. In addition, when we looked at this as being an institutional use, certainly there is no tax advantage there and that was certainly a viable option that we thought of as an institutional church. Again the Westwood which ended on a different piece of property. So I guess I'd like to kind of segway that into talking about the traffic counts if I could. Certainly the office use is going to generate a lot more traffic and when you look at the Highway 5 corridor study and we spent a lot of time talking about what we wanted the function of this road to be. We wanted it to be curvalinear. Working the landform. I think it changes the dynamics of the property immediately to the east which is the Lundgren property and the rest of the Swings development because they will now be encumbered by some of the trip generations of the office building. And again the church use or the institutional use would be offset probably then the residential but an office use is going to be some of the peak hours that the residential is so the intersection of Highway 5 and 41, which we did with the EA study on the Arboretum Business Park to the south, we said even at the completion of Highway 5 upgrade, we'll be at a service level F. This is just going to exasperate the problem so it's not going to add to it by putting in additional office right at this comer. So the residential does generate less traffic. The school age children, certainly if it's office or institutional, there's going to be less generation of school age but we wanted to compare if it was low density versus traditional single family. And the numbers that we used were taken from statistics taken used by Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Chaska and those certainly explain that the multipliers that this type of product that they're proposing generates less children per unit. Then there was some discussion on the vision of the comer. And it went back to the Highway 5 corridor study and what we talked about there in speaking of, there's certainly an architectural element that we envisioned there. We didn't want to see a sea of roofs or a large mass building unless it was high quality and the setbacks and the landscaping is certainly important but one of the other aspects of that whole project was that we were concerned about saving some of the natural features that spoke about Chanhassen. The rolling topography as you approach the Arboretum and preservation of the natural features. I think again that's one of the significant benefits of the PUD is that we are able to save the natural features with the Bluff Creek overlay district preserving that on the west side of 41 also. So the plan doesn't necessarily speak just to architectural features but saving natural features. So again I think that's something as this plan evolves and we go through the EA, that that can be further articulated. Whether we want that to be landscaping, what exactly we want that to be. I mean when they originally came in they had a water fountain and I'm not sure, that seemed kind of grandiose at the time but maybe it evolves back to that but I think through this next process, whatever that use is, that as a group we would come to some conclusion of what that could be. But that's my understanding of what the Highway 5 spoke to. The rental tax credit. There was a discussion on why this couldn't be integrated into the project itself and I'll let Mr. Deanovic, if you have questions more specifically on that but the majority of this project is owner occupied and the units that he's proposing are rental. There's two different owners. Individual owners on the one and then a project owner on the other 2O City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 rental units. In discussing with the applicants, what we tried to do, certainly Lundgren had an issue of putting that product next to them. Moving that product within the project itself. And we've looked at a couple of different scenarios and one would be, south of the frontage road, immediately to the east of 41 and I think that might be an appropriate location. Moving it somewhere else in the project, integrating it. And certainly we don't want to discriminate as far as the look that this product sends out but one of the things we talked about with five different products is that we kind of come up with a neighborhood theme for each of those as that evolves. So I think there's an opportunity to resolve that issue and that's moving the product somewhere else in the project. And that may actually work out a lot better. So those were kind of the prevailing issues that we're left with. Certainly this is going to require an environmental assessment. If it's over 250 units it does require that. The staff would be the regulatory agency on that. Reviewing that. In the past what we've done then when it comes in for preliminary we're tracking that at the same time. Then we have the 30 day comment period. It would not received final approval until the EQB is also given approval on that document. Mayor Mancino: And just for everyone's knowledge, what does the EAW tell us? What's the purpose of doing it and? Kate Aanenson: Whether or not the site has adequate infrastructure and services available to the site. Also survey some of the natural features. Tree survey. The fact of the matter is our ordinances are pretty strict the way they are and most of the stuff that would be required in the EA we already mandate. But just to make sure that they're handling their stormwater and that there's adequate infrastructure, sewer and water and roads in place. Mayor Mancino: So this project really would not begin until Highway 5 is upgraded and West 78th because that will be the detour road while Highway 5 is being worked on. I'm assuming that this project will really be able to begin until that work is done. We won't be taking any more land into the MUSA until we get our infrastructure in place. Kate Aanenson: I'll let Anita address that but there's two points that I want to clarify is that one, this portion was left out. A portion of the Mills Fleet Farm was left off of the project because if you remember 5 and 41 was tied together as one project. We worked hard to segment those two so we could maintain the funding with MnDOT. So Mills Fleet Farm is dedicating, or actually Puke Homes is dedicating that right- of-way which is a big benefit to the city to ensure the continuity of that road. Otherwise it loses it's functionality. Secondly, the grading of that road is, and bringing the water through, is setting in place the necessity to kind of make the property right for development. So they can't proceed until there is a road to the project. But they want to work in conjunction while MnDOT's out there grading and working. That they're working kind of in, well it makes sense to be staging all at one time but I'll let Anita add to that. Mayor Mancino: Yeah and you know, obviously Anita my comments and question is, they're going to be working on 78th Street and making that a detour route and yet we're going to be having grading and all sorts of construction for Puke Homes going on at the same time. That doesn't sound, it's kind of counter intuitive. Anita Benson: A lot of activity in one area. Just to clarify with the frontage road, water, utility improvements are being extended out to the west side of Highway 41. So there will be no water service to this development until that, the frontage road is completed. So they can't get into there too far ahead. But sewer improvements are only being brought across to the west side of Galpin Boulevard with the Highway 5 project. Extension from Galpin Boulevard out to the west side of 41 will require a petition from the 21 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 developing property owners. So it does need to tie ahead, all tie together. The latest on the Highway 5 schedule is that MnDOT has a June 14th bid opening scheduled which brings us to probably mid summer of 2001 before those water improvements and West 78th Street would be in place with final completion of the project in August of 2002. However there is a possibility that that project can be brought back to it's March bid opening that we're exploring with MnDOT. Mayor Mancino: So they couldn't start on anything until 2001 ? Anita Benson: Correct. Without having the water service. We certainly could start with the, the sewer could, that could happen sooner. That's separate from the Highway 5 project. So that could happen sooner. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions about that at this point? Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to add onto that, there's other people petitioning on that process. Westwood Church is certainly requesting the petition of the sewer which follows the low area. The edge of the wetland and they're anticipating the same time line. Again when they're out there grading and putting in the water, it's anticipated that's also the time they'd be working on the sewer. So they will be doing some of the grading and balancing the site. It only makes sense but they could not pull a permit until the utilities are in place. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I have a lot more detail and I'm sure there's going to be a lot more questions. I'd be happy to answer those but I wanted to mention that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the report. With one additional condition and that is, even though we addressed it in the report we put it in there. Number 37 which is the density transfer. That area, 12 acres of Mr. Savaryn's that is on the west side of 41 be dedicated as a conservation easement. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this point? As we get into. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess to follow Kate just having mentioned the 12 acres on the other side. In the last meeting I think you had spoken to the property owner trying to determine the actual buildable area. Has that process moved forward with them as to where that 34 units came from? Kate Aanenson: Yes. They did submit a design with 34 twin homes which again is permitted in a low density. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So the 34's an actual buildable number from over there, okay. And realizing that you're wanting to tie that in and we're hearing from the developer that that's not part of his deal, have we worked out the actual legalities of that parcel and how that's becoming part of this project or are we just pushing it through as part of the PUD? Kate Aanenson: The two parties struck a deal on Friday on that issue because that was still an issue between the two of them. Those 34 units are not really being included in this. They're still under the density so they're not getting an additional 34 units. I mean I'm just explaining that there is value there. It's not being transferred across but there is a value there. It's always been our recommendation out of the PUD that we preserve that area. Do you follow what I'm saying? Because they're under the density allocation, they're not really benefiting from that and that was Puke's position from the beginning. But the two parties have worked something out between the two of them. That they agreed that that will be left open. There's a conservation easement. 22 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So for us to put that in there as point 37, we're not causing any conflict? Mayor Mancino: We always cause conflict. No. Thank you for that update. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is the applicant here? See what you've done since last. Dennis Griswold: Good evening Mayor and members of the council. My name is Dennis Griswold with Puke Homes and with me tonight are Jim Deanovic and Mark Guenther who would also be available to answer any questions you might have. I presume that you received the two page handout that I gave staff and had got I think into your packets. The summary of our position on some of the different issues. The one item that Ms. Aanenson was talking about, or referring to in terms of the density transfer was pre that agreement that we struck on Friday and I would like to just concur with her that we have reached an agreement on that density transfer issue. So with our calculation we would like to have that density transfer transferred to the north of the frontage road area on the property that we're dealing with. We do accept that as part of the plan development and would like to have that incorporated into our density calculations. On the second page of that handout that I. Mayor Mancino: So Dennis does that still mean that on the north portion of the site you're still proposing 166 units? Dennis Griswold: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. According to what you have written in your description. Dennis Griswold: We did go one step further just for unit verification and we did a layout on the northerly part that's a reduction so it might not look quite as well but what that represents is a straight twin home layout on the area north of 78th Street and I had indicated to staff that I felt we could get 140 units on that particular area. When I actually laid it out in final form, omitting wetlands and so forth, I actually came up with 136. So using that as a yard stick, 136 plus the 34 that we would have transferred, we would be 170 units by our calculation. Mayor Mancino: And you're proposing 166. Understand. Dennis Griswold: So we are under that unit count. The other, while we're on the density. The other part in the density calculation that I indicated in the handout was that the area south of 78th would actually support 332 units by my calculations at the 8 units per acre and we're showing 252 so we are actually leaving 80 units less than what we might reasonably ask for there. So with that.., development concept on this site and that is really the nuts and bolts of this handout to itemize those particular benefits. And our basic underlying premise is that we feel residential use on that site is correct. We feel that the transition being at Highway 5, not the frontage road is correct because if you use the frontage road it would therefore make a new transition point between business and residential just one step further north. We feel that with this plan development we can accomplish the objectives that were outlined in the numerous documents that you do have. The corridor study and so forth so that we can deal with preserving that open space corridor, the wetlands, the woodlands in their major form. We can deal with the buffering, the berming and very extensive landscaping is what we would be budgeting into this particular layout along Highway 5 to give that corridor feel as you come into the city .... relationships, I'd like to show you just briefly the aerial 23 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 photo. And I think that shows it very well. Many times a person's view driving through an area might be one thing but if you can look at it in an aerial sense, sometimes it shows things that you don't really realize are there. And if you look to the north, generally the lighter area through this area and through this area are the open fields. They were corn fields this year. This is the major wetland corridor coming through and the major wood stands along Highway 5. You can see the woods on the slope on the south side of that. But what you can also see is that the area between our northerly extent of where our two level townhomes or actually one level townhomes with a basement would be through here. It's approximately 800 or 900 feet up to the closest units to the north. And as you can see there it is across this wetland but it's also buffered by very heavy trees through here. There are trees through this area at this angle. Trees through this area and trees on our side of the wetland. So while you might have some mixed views in selected areas, the general view or buffer through that area would be a very great distance with screening through a good portion of it. The difference in housing types then would be on the north side of the marsh area. You would generally have two story walkout single family homes. On the south side you would have one story walkout homes that are three units per building. So I think that particular buffer is very significant. There are no street connections whatsoever through that area and I think it really, our site really relates more to the frontage road and Highway 5 corridor than it does to the property to the north. Mayor Mancino: Dennis may I ask a question on the trees, the stand that's contiguous to Highway 5. Will that entire stand be saved or will any part of the frontage road be part of that taking in some of trees Kate? That square stand. Dennis Griswold: As you can see on, I don't know if it comes up. Mayor Mancino: So we have a feel. Kate Aanenson: It's to the north. Mayor Mancino: Okay, it's to the north of it. Kate Aanenson: You're talking about this particular area? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. The configuration of your drawing is a little different than the configuration of the aerial so that's why I just wondered. Dennis Griswold: We are coming in to the comer of these... The area through here is all, and really that's the prime view you would have from Highway 5 coming from both angles. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And then the trees, if you could do the aerial again. I'm just. So again some of that northwestern comer of the trees will not be saved contiguous to Highway 5. And then north, as you go further north and along the edge of the wetland there on that northwest side again, those trees that surround the Markert residence. Those will be saved in the entirety too? Dennis Griswold: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And then the trees on the other side on, again the north side of the wetland that's also owned up there on that northwest side. Yep. Up there and then straight up also. Right there. Right there. And those will be saved too? 24 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Dennis Griswold: Yes. Our only intention on that portion across through here, would be to provide an easement so that that continuous path could possibly go through that area. Mayor Mancino: A trail, okay. Dennis Griswold: We're not proposing to put units on that particular piece. Mayor Mancino: And then now also across on the west side of 41, again across, straight across from the Markert residence and a little north of that will be also saved? Those 12 acres. Dennis Griswold: Yes. That would be the, those would be saved and this is part of the plan development that we're agreeing to is that density would transfer over so we would have a benefit from that on the north side of 78th. And therefore we would not be putting any units on that particular triangular piece. Mayor Mancino: Do we have any idea of what percentage of the overall acreage will be saved? The tree coverage? It's almost, it sounds like 85% of the tree coverage is pretty. Dennis Griswold: I would say that'd be very close to it. Mayor Mancino: I don't know. Kate Aanenson: Yes. I also just wanted to point out too that with that frontage road, the touch down point of where it meets at 41, we're also looking at possible access into Westwood Church so at that very comer piece of that 12 acres, the most southerly point, that may be an access drive to get into Westwood Church. You have Tanadoona which is an access. And here you're...the sight lines are poor. It may be a temporary one but in the long term, that's where we would recommend the primary access point be. There may be some removal down the road. Minimal at best but just so you're aware of that. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Dennis Griswold: Just about two or three more quick points that were covered on the handout and then I'd be happy to answer any questions. Another challenge I feel on this particular property is the fact that it has two underlying owners. And it also has a new frontage road that will be curving through it that does not totally go with that ownership line. So you may or may not be able to follow this but the ownership line where the Savaryn piece in that and the Mills property is here. So the Savaryn piece is this portion and the Mills property is here. And to develop those independently and still work with the alignment of that road and have it all come together in a meaningful manner without two different developers and builders kind of trying to work together is I think something that's a real asset for this particular proposal. It allows us to deal with the overall site with the density transfer. It allows us to get the meaningful neighborhoods that we have at the different price points. And I think it's just a real key issue here. Another point that is more economic but I think it's a point to consider. If we do go ahead with this particular planned unit development in a timely fashion so that we can essentially coordinate with the MnDOT project and we feel that we can coordinate with that so that as they're doing their development work to put in that road, we can be doing site grading and our development work to tie it together. We feel that the timing of our on site watermains could be timed so that we would be ready to hook up by the time they got the main to us. Likewise the sanitary sewer. We could be dealing with our on site improvements to coincide with the timing of the public improvement bringing that trunk over to this area. We feel that can all work together and the benefit to the public is that the MnDOT project can form that bypass. We can stay out of the way 25 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 of that because they're talking about the bypass initially just coming down to the Century Boulevard and coming back to 5. By the time they got into their next step, the bulk of our development work would be done so we would not have to do that after the fact. And the economic basis is that if we do that and can do that, the benefit is that we will dedicate the right-of-way for MnDOT. They will not have to condemn it, pay for it to acquire that right-of-way. And we feel that's a very significant amount of money that the public, whether it's the State or whomever, will gain by that particular dollar amount. That we feel can be anywhere from a million to three million dollars worth of gain to the state or whomever. So we feel that's very significant. The other point is that on the taxes we feel that the taxes generated in this was going by a handout given to us so we did kind of our own calculation before I received some of these more detailed handouts but, the basics of the calculation was that the office warehouse use was very similar in terms of tax generation to the multiple family use on that area south of 78th Street. The calculation as I indicated in there would be roughly $30,000 per acre according to that information we were given. And if you go by the comp guide plan figures using 25% coverage. It might even be more in favor of the residential because the comp guide plan shows 25% coverage for the office industrial as opposed to I think it was about 10 points higher than that based on the tax information sheet. The other point with that is that the area that we're looking at, whether it should go office industrial or residential. We'll definitely go residential in the next two years if we can have our approvals, coordinate with MnDOT. We will be ready to develop and we will build that area out in three years time. So the tax generation would start at that point. If the area goes the office industrial, it's my estimation that that would be delayed 5 to 10 years to let the market catch up to that area and I'm basing that on the comp guide plans acreages that it is showing the amount of vacant office industrial. The amount of vacant office industrial that is available and would probably develop more quickly so if you do look at a 5 to 10 year delay, you could be looking at somewhere between $6 and $12 million worth of tax generation that you could lose on the office industrial approach versus the housing approach. And the net result after they would both be up and occupied and paying full taxes, according to our information it would be relatively level from there on out. So we feel it's a definite advantage to go with the residential route. With that I would be happy to answer any questions. Mark Guenther would like to answer any questions you might have about the housing but we really feel that we'd like to work with you on the housing details at the appropriate stage and deal with the basic concepts at this point dealing with mainly the site so if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions at this point? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Councilman Labatt: I just had one. Your 166 number for the north of the frontage road, does that take into consideration setbacks and easements? Dennis Griswold: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Or the building in the bluff and wetlands. Dennis Griswold: Yes. Councilman Labatt: So that's a firm number? It won't fluctuate? Go down. Dennis Griswold: If it went anywhere it might go down a couple units but I would not see it going up any. And in fact I would guarantee you that that 166 would be our top number there. 26 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Okay, bring this back to council. Before we bring it back to council I'd just like to open it up for maybe 10 minutes till 8:30 for anyone who has any questions or comments and please if they could be, if you were here a month ago, if they could be different than those that we've heard before. That would be great and if you would like to come up and ask again, make any comments or any questions that you've heard tonight that you'd like to respond to please do. So come forward please, state your name and address. Susan Markert: My name is Susan McAllister Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm in the, I'm surrounded by Puke to put it lightly on Highway 5 and I need a good doctor next year. I don't know how I'm going to take it. Mayor Mancino: Can you show where, Sue can you show where you are? Susan Markert: Parcel A. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Susan Markert: The white space you know. I just want to mention that I was part of the Bluff Creek watershed management plan that was established in 1996. It took us a year to put together this plan and we feel it's so important that the plan stays with the vision that, the vision for protecting the primary zone and the watershed, okay. I just want to read a couple of little excerpts from it. It talks about how this plan presents the steering committee's vision and the means to accomplish it through project implementation, education and financial support. Hopefully 40 to 50 years from now the citizens of Chanhassen and the metropolitan area will look at Bluff Creek and the surrounding environmental and recreational amenities and be grateful for those who had the foresight to protect and preserve this area. That's one of them I want to read and then on the watershed vision and goals. The design is one where people and nature spend multiple ecosystems, development in Bluff Creek is ecologically designed meaning development is determined by and built around natural features. There is eco-sensitive mixed development (farms, housing, industry), with buffer areas between development and wild areas. Development within the watershed has been clustered to create more open space. There is open countryside between clustered nodes of development and several large pieces of open land and woodland along the creek. Just going through these different little parts here I really believe that, I feel that Puke is really trying to be really sensitive to what our vision is and I would like them to stay focused on what our vision is and I would like the council members and the Mayor to stay focused on what our vision is to preserve the greenway and don't chip away at it. Don't let anybody chip away at it. It would be just a terrible thing in the future if we do it now or in the future so that's all I have to say right now. Mayor Mancino: So you're going to be living right next, do you feel pretty comfortable on where it's going or? Susan Markert: I need a good doctor but I guess I'm going to feel okay. I got a lot of action in my life at that point so, I guess...trees and the green area, I really think that that was the most important thing. I know that you have to give up something to get something and when I thought about it over and over again, I just felt that the bottom line is to protect the green space. And to keep that woods. There isn't that much of it left and we really need to do that so I really am appreciative of all the hard work and the sensitivity that Pulte's put into it along with Kate and the other people involved so. I guess I'm as happy as I could be in this situation so, that's all I have to say. 27 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Susan Markert: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: A few more minutes. Tom Green: Your Honor and Councilmen. People. My name's Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. I've been with our company for years and I was involved in the acquisition of this property at 5 and 41. And we acquired the property from Dr. S avaryn's family in '87. Actually we optioned it in '87 and acquired it in '89. So we owned the property for 10 years and preparing for this meeting I went back through our files which you can imagine how big they are if you've gone back through the history. Mr. Knutson I recognize as being here for years. In May of '87 we were out looking for land and I believe it was Mayor Hamilton at the time. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: He was an old Mayor. Tom Green: Yeah I believe, well anyway. And Don Ashworth and they somewhat encouraged us to try to have a Fleet Farm store at this comer and obviously we were very interested also. From then on we worked with MnDOT, the City of Chanhassen but obviously if you look back through the old files, from '92 to '95 it's been apparent that a commercial use is not what the City wanted and so we've accepted that. And during this time we've also cooperated with MnDOT regarding extension of the service road as far a the 5 and 41. I thought tonight from reading the issues there that one of the things you wanted to do was to put some, probably put some office buildings there. Now I don't know how this works but I want to put it here and I don't think it's probably enough.., is it upside down? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Face it towards you. Tom Green: This is a survey of the property that was done in 1981. If you can read that up there it says for Minnetonka Inc. I thought it was really strange that the City went a full circle on this thing from 1981 to 1999 and want office buildings when they had their chance back in 1981 and I wanted to point that out to you. I thought that was somewhat unusual. Someone else asked me what kind of buyers we've had. In 1991 obviously we had an inquire from Target. That would have made everybody upset if we had both a Fleet Farm and a Target out on that comer. And '94 through '98 we had inquiries from the home builders, Centex, Rottlund, Lundgren and Puke. And that we also had an inquiry from the church. So in our opinion there isn't that much interest, in the short run anyway, for an office complex on this comer. We feel the City did not want our use. We obviously would have liked to have had a Fleet Farm store there and since we've held this property for over 10 years, the Sarver family has held it for many more years than that. We would request that you approve Pulte's requested land use. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Lisa Colbert: Good evening. My name's Lisa Colbert and I live at 7454 Bent Bow Trail in the Longacres sub-development and I actually am here, I had not planned to say anything so this is just going to be short. But this is in a couple points that were in the Coldwell Banker-Bumet letter by Dan Cook that was passed out to the audience. It talked about, there's a comment in here about companies moving out to Chanhassen and how the housing is cost prohibitive for employees to live in that area. It says the problem is so bad that Dee Latour from Pillsbury said that they are considering a busing program and that she had interviewed a person from Kentucky who was perfect for a job there but after 3 days of looking for a home they turned 28 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 down the job because they couldn't afford a home. Well my husband and I just relocated here from out of state. We spent probably 3 or 4 weeks at separate times looking through the area out here. In this general area. My husband had a job in Eden Prairie and every time we came we were drawn back to Chanhassen and it was the beauty of the open spaces that drew us back every time. So we ended up moving into the Longacres area, and I didn't have a job at the time. I have subsequently accepted a job in Golden Valley so I have about a 20 mile commute each direction. So while it is a long distance I'm wondering, this person's comment is people can't afford to live in Chanhassen. Well how often does somebody live in the same neighborhood that they work in? That's a luxury in my opinion these days. I mean certainly that's my opinion but people generally do have to commute to jobs so I just wanted to make my statement that what drew me to Chanhassen was the open area and I'm willing to drive 40 miles each day to live in this open area. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. One or two more. We didn't get the Coldwell Banker letter so if we can get a copy of it. Kate Aanenson: They're sitting right there. Everything. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn's asleep at the job. Dan Cook: I'm Dan Cook. I was the one who drafted that letter. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Dan Cook: And I did contact a number of the different employers in the area and their responses were real consistent. I agree that I don't think that people necessarily live in the Chanhassen area but it would at least provide them an opportunity and I guess that was my point. And everyone that I talked to, including Julian Dische from United Mailings here today, and they're all consistent in their viewpoints that they really are having a hard time with people affording places to live here so that was my point. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. We've heard it from our Chamber too. One last person. Susan Cohoon: My name's Susan Cohoon, 7525 Bent Bow Trail. Flip side of the coin of what Mr. Cook just said. A lot of us have worked a long, hard time to be able to afford the houses that we have in the Longacre development and while I'm not against affordable housing, we, like Lisa said, we moved here because of the openness of Chanhassen. My husband does not work in this city. He also commutes and just for the record I think we ought to look at the other side of the coin which is that our education's, we had to work and pay our way through school. A lot of my neighbors we all worked very hard to afford to live in Chanhassen and I just don't think it's, how do I want to say, fair that a PUD's being shoved down our throats now. We're paying, like Mr. Oddsen said, significant taxes for the privilege of living where we do and I'd like the council to keep that in mind as well. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. It's good to have you here. Okay, we'll bring this back to council. Kate we now have the handouts. Was there anyone else just dying to get up? Okay. Okay. I thought I heard some rumbling. Diane Freeman: Diane Freeman, I live in Longacres and I'm a sales rep and I was in Shakopee and you guys all said you were going to drive by their development in Shakopee. Didn't anybody get a chance to go down there and look at it? 29 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And Eden Prairie. Diane Freeman: My opinion, it's homely. Councilman Engel: Is that homely or homey? Diane Freeman: If it's going to look like that, or if it's going to be. Mayor Mancino: We'll probably be addressing that tonight. I can't speak for other council members but I'm sure we'll be addressing that. I'm so easy. Okay. Sandra Phelps: Sandra Phelps from Longacres Drive. We moved here 5 years ago from the East Coast. Chose Chanhassen and the Longacres development specifically because it was across from Lake Minnewashta and it was very close to the Arboretum. And we felt that that was a gift we were giving ourselves and our grandchildren when they come to visit. And I was thrilled to see that the Arboretum was increasing it's size by making that wonderful, wonderful comer of the Spring Peeper Meadow. And I really cannot believe that this council is in such a rush to save tax money that they would put in a development of mixed housing across from the comer of the Arboretum and this wonderful gift we're giving, not only to Chanhassen but to all of the children in Minnesota that come to visit it. And I'd like you to just think a little bit about your vote tonight on that. Yes, we think about money all the time but sometimes we have to think that maybe waiting a few more years before we develop that property, maybe that's the thing to do. Maybe our decision in 5 or 10 years will be different than the one you're going to make tonight. Think about the future of Chanhassen and the children here and the children of all of Minnesota that you may be spoiling something that you can never get back. I know, I lived in a community that in New Jersey at one point and everybody laughs about New Jersey but the people in that very small, four square mile town during the Depression bought back every square inch of land they could get in order to provide the children of the future with green spaces. It was one of the first places in the country that had green spaces. And if you go back to that community today they have more green spaces than any of the surrounding communities and the children from other towns get to walk those trails and enjoy that property. And thank goodness the people in the 1920's had the foresight to look ahead and save the green space for the future. Please, I ask you tonight before you make your vote, I understand these people have invested money for 10 years they've waited. Can't they wait another 5 or 10 years and just see which way Chanhassen is going? I'd like to see the people in this town win on this one. Thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Just know, I'm stopping now, thank you. And I just would like to tell you that Peter Olin, who's Director of the Arboretum was on the Highway 5 task force and did help us in the visualizing and guiding of the land all along the Highway 5 corridor. So the Arboretum was very well represented and he comes with a tremendous amount of urban planning in his background, having taught at the University so. Okay. Let's bring this back to council. Kate, can you tell us a little bit about this historical housing building permit data that we have and what it means and. Kate Aanenson: Well what we provided you with is statistical data going back to 1974. The types of housing and the Livable Communities Act that we signed on with, we agreed to a housing goal of 65% non- single family detached. Currently we are at, as is indicated on this chart, 76%. Mayor Mancino: We are right now 76% single family? 3O City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Kate Aanenson: If you add the 3% duplex, it's really 79% because the way it's calculated by the Met Council, that would also be considered single family. So what this chart does is explain.., what we've done over the past few years. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we're at 79% single family residential right now, detached. And at 21% multi- family? Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just in case you wanted to know what would happen if this project went forward, I just happen to have that for you. Mayor Mancino: How you'd anticipate my next question? My gosh. Councilman Senn: So it's 78, what are? Councilman Engel: 79 and 21. Kate Aanenson: If you added 414 units it comes out, it drops to, the total before was 79. It drops 4 percentage points for single family. Mayor Mancino: So we're going to be 75% single family. Kate Aanenson: Obviously 25 for the other. Mayor Mancino: 25% multi-family. Kate Aanenson: To just answer one other question, or a comment that was brought up regarding the clustering. The reason why we're recommending the clustering is based on the Bluff Creek overlay district. Because we want to preserve natural features. That's why we're recommending the clustering of the project. To preserve. Mayor Mancino: The reason why you're recommending the PUD, using a PUD is so that we can cluster and save the environment. Kate Aanenson: Correct. We are preserving open spaces. That was the reason why we recommended this project. Mayor Mancino: Now, and this may be an unfair question so you know I went on my zoning map and I put yellow dots on everything that's guided medium density multi-family. And I have just about 4 or 5 other sites in the whole city that are guided medium density, multi-family and that's it. How many, I mean it's a very small. How many acres are guided total? Kate Aanenson: We can go back in the comp plan that what we just completed. We broke that down by sewer districts. It's all by sub districts so we can, that information is available. I can pull all that out but that, the way we ultimately projected our sewer and water needs were based on projected population and 31 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 the land use that I've suggested. So this is consistent. This number is consistent with what we've projected as far as use on this property. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the multi-family on Highway 5, is this kind of the last medium density, multi-family that's zoned on Highway 5? I know that we have some high density zoned. Kate Aanenson: Adjacent, correct. And that's adjacent to Lake Ann Park. There is high density there. Correct, Mr. Gorra's property. And there's Kerber's property. He's anticipated doing a golf course. I'm not sure with the frontage road, that may move faster because again there's no urban services available to the property right now. The rest of that is low density starting with, on Galpin. Mr. Pryzmus' property and then Lundgren, or Dolejsi's property. Councilman Engel: Did you say Gorra's still considering golf course? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Engel: He'd need part of Prince's property. Kate Aanenson: But again we anticipated it. We anticipated that. Councilwoman Jansen: Can I ask a point of clarification? I had referred to the housing breakdown to figure out where we were with townhomes, like what you gave us, and in here it's grouped duplexes with townhouse and multi family. Didn't just now, didn't you include duplex with single? Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying for the Livable Communities Act they group those two together. That's why I was clarifying that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So that's different than what our housing breakdown was showing? Kate Aanenson: Right. The way we track building permits is by type so I can give it to you by type but I'm just saying for the Livable Communities Act they group those two together. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because I guess what had surprised me was that from 2000 to 2005 we were saying we were going to add about 727 duplex, townhome and multi-family. This project alone would bring in over half of that for the 5 years. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Right. And the next year we'd probably be bringing in the MUSA. South of Lyman has a significant portion that's industrial. This is the largest piece of residential that's flat without like again south of Lyman it's encumbered by wetlands and slopes. It's a little bit tougher. Councilwoman Jansen: In the comp plan where it notes the office institutional, it shows the acreage at 117 acres for 2020. And says that that will be about .8%. Would that have included this 30 acres? How would we have accounted for the 30 acres when we did this projection? Kate Aanenson: We had to count it both ways because we looked at this possibly, actually we counted it three different ways so we broke it into percentage because it was also guided institutional and we also looked at it as a possible office so we had to make some ranges in there so we kind of split it. 32 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so maybe 10 of that is in this 117 for that .8%? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any overall questions? Councilman Labatt: The tax numbers that Mr. Griswold provided are kind of different than what were provided to us. Kate Aanenson: He did his own. Councilman Labatt: I realize that. Kate Aanenson: And then we did ours based on, again if you compare the industrial versus the multi- family, there's discrepancy. You can be the judge. Councilman Labatt: Who's numbers are correct? Bottom line. Mayor Mancino: Well of course we think ours are. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Well, again you're looking at this in a vacuum. You're not looking at the fiscal impact. You're not looking, I mean there's a cost attributed to both ways and part of what he's saying is true. If you go with office you're not going to receive that income for 5 years. If you go forward with this today you're receiving the tax benefit immediately but you also have other impacts. There's recreation demands on services. More fire protection. Police protection. School children. While we said that would be less than if it was single family but, so it's appearing that. Councilman Labatt: What's going to have the least amount of impact on our infrastructure? Scott Botcher: Long term or short? Kate Aanenson: It depends on what type of user you have and how much service demand and whether it's electrical or sewer and water. I mean Pillsbury has a huge demand on the water service. I mean there's all kinds of variables. I'm saying you have to take it very carefully. Mayor Mancino: So you have to kind of balance conceptually the make-up of the city. How many school aged kids are at Walnut Grove? I heard a rumor that there were 3. Is that, in the whole Walnut Grove development, that there are 3 school aged kids. Councilman Engel: You mean in like one house? Mayor Mancino: NO. In the whole development. Kate Aanenson: I think it is predominantly empty nesters or young families. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, they're mostly empty nesters so. Councilman Engel: That's stark though? I mean that's pretty stark. 33 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: I know. No, school age. Not tots. Councilwoman Jansen: ... on the weekend. There are quite a few kids in there, school aged kids on the weekend. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Well, Mr. Senn. Do you want to start with some comments? And let's kind of leave this open to discussion. I mean people can come and go with comments. Councilman Senn: Essentially what you're looking to. Mayor Mancino: Is conceptual approval. Councilman Senn: Conceptual approval which is basically the point we're at right now. Mayor Mancino: And this does not, when they come back with preliminary plat approval, say yeah or nay at that point. It has no bearing on it. Councilman Senn: Alrighty. I'll try to be brief so we're not here all night. Land use perspective, both guiding and zoning wise, I do not have any problems with this proposal. It's the lowest potential impact on the area. I would support the PUD approach with the clustering of density, density transfer. The other Puke project and the specifics of those projects really to me aren't paramount at this time. I basically looked at them but you know our standard here is always good to high quality projects and that's kind of become our trademark and ultimately I don't think this project's going to be any different than that. We aren't to the point that we can really get into the specifics of that one way or another other than fear if this project's going to go ahead in Chanhassen one way or another is going to have to meet this standard that we've always required that projects keep. Last but not least, and I guess I'd like to...talking about it, is the affordable housing issue. I take great exception over some of the correspondence I've been getting... insinuates that all of society's ills effectively can be blamed on affordable housing, or affordable housing is not something to be advocating more of in Chanhassen. You know to me there's a real misconception if people feel that 32 rental townhomes.., cost is in excess of $128,000 and some percentage oftownhomes when finished, you know will be in that $128,000 range. I think what's conjured up in people's minds is low income or public housing. There's $128,000 owner occupied housing units, or rental units capitalized on a rental basis are not either low income or public housing by any means. You know $128,000 owner occupied or rental units to me is an issue we've been dealing with for many years in this city. It's been a problem. It continues to be a problem and it's going to be an ongoing problem. I don't have any objection having houses which you know you have a couple or one spouse works at the bank as a teller and the other spouse may work at Byerly's as a cashier or Houlihan's as a waiter or waitress. Or in one of the local offices as a secretary or office manager. These are the people you're talking about. As a couple both working who effectively can afford that $128,000 type of house. And we want the goods and services effectively that we've been trying to deliver in our community which people say they moved here because partly of the goods and services. We have to have the people to basically work to deliver those goods and services. And I think in the long term it's going to be really a problem, and we already know, we all know already how tight the labor market is. And as the labor marker becomes tighter and tighter, there's even going to be more issues with employment, proximity issues. Proximity becoming a huge issue in terms of employment. And let's face it, if we all live out here and want to commute to work, for one thing we'll never be able to build the infrastructure to handle it so it'd be impossible. And more and more people are choosing to not make that commute into downtown every day.., to live and work in close proximity. That 34 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 sort of thing and I think our long term vitality as a community has, or requires us to basically make sure that we provide that range of housing. We can't be a community of purely $250,000 to $300,000 homes. And we don't have a lot of opportunities as far as affordable housing goes. We talked about a short bit ago. That this is one of those opportunities that's always been planned into there. It could be a real mistake to abandon that. And I think it's also a mistake on people's part to look at affordable housing as though it is some form of public housing or low income housing attributed to all kinds of crime and everything else because that is a misnomer and is not accurate. I think that's a real important issue as we, as they're moving forward on this and in relationship with the conceptual approval. So that's about it. Mayor Mancino: Thanks. Kate, as we look at affordable housing, the Met Council right now for 1999 is for owner occupied houses $128,000. Again, being at a Metropolitan Council meeting I did hear that in the year 2000 that will go up to $134,000. So if you could also check with that in the year 2001, what will that, again affordable standard be for the Metropolitan Council and how that affects us in the Livable, in our Livable Communities Act that we signed. Councilman Senn: For projection purposes they're using about 7% per year. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Linda. If you're ready. Councilwoman Jansen: Sure. I'm going to start from the same point that Councilman Senn did and really looking at it as the whole land use decision that we're being faced with. And as I said in the first meeting and after looking at it even farther, I look at this comer as an opportunity for us to be able to impact one of our entryways into the community. We want it to be quality. We want it to say Chanhassen. We want it to blend with what is in Chanhassen currently. To that point also, realizing that there are several different land uses for the property, I went out and I did. I looked at the Puke projects and one of the things that struck me about where these homes were built, and not just Puke. Then I was looking at housing in general. When you get near a major intersection, the homes are set back and the most recent is in Eden Prairie where the Puke project is on 212 and Anderson Parkway. There is a strip of office in-between the housing complex and 212. And there's that buffer. Whether it's for noise or visual, there is a buffer to that residence and then it's a mass of humanity living behind that. You see tall buildings and not all of those are the products that are being proposed for us, but that is what strikes you when you look there. And I realize that that is what people are reacting to. You place it on the entryway to our community and I don't know that it's being fair to the residents that we would be putting on that comer. Nor is it the blend with the community that we've suggested we want to make with affordable. I am still in favor of placing an office complex on this comer and I guess I would like to have someone go back and redo the tax calculation because I did use the land use financial impact information that was given to us by a school board member, and by these calculations townhomes with $150,000 value are 54% less in tax capacity compared to office. You take the products that are being proposed currently on that comer, multiplied by the number of units and we're looking at 127% difference in the actual tax capacity. And one of the things that I keep hearing is well, it's going to take a while. You know office isn't here. Office isn't coming. And one of the very first things I remember even being told as we were looking at industrial and office is that as cities develop, office is the last thing to come in. So I'm not saying that I'm anticipating that this would build in the same amount of time. So I multiplied it out and within five years, if the townhomes on this comer with $150,000 value, it would be recouped if the office comes in five years later, at $150,000 value on the townhomes, you recoup it in 10 years. If this project goes on this comer, we recoup it in 5 more years. Just 5 years after you finally build the office. So we're not talking, you start looking long term. If we only have 1% of our community designated for office, the property to the south of this is designated office industrial. If this comer develops as office, it certainly compliments what is across the 35 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 street. It's compatible. It provides a buffer for the residents then living behind and on the other side of the frontage road because the other part that struck me as I was driving around these neighborhoods is not only were, not only would this comer put them at a major intersection, but then they also would have the frontage road going behind them. So they're actually completely surrounded by traffic on this comer, which seems perfect for an office. That they've got all these access points. And then I did, I found a comprehensive plan that said something that, I clipped it out. The quote from this comp plan was, due to the potential for attracting higher value uses which can contribute significantly to the tax base and the employment base, these freeway frontage sites should not be allowed to develop in a manner which would aesthetically damage the area or reduce the potential for attracting major business investments. And when you look at the assets that are on this comer with the Bluff Creek watershed back behind it, and what we're trying to accomplish as far as protecting that, in protecting that you could conceivably then attract a higher value office complex. Is it going to be later in the building curve? Absolutely. Look what's happened in Eden Prairie right now. And they're getting the offices right now that are going in front of the homes. The homes were there first. Then the offices came in so you know just right next to us in our neighboring community so I guess as far as what the right thing is to do on this comer, I'm not in a rush. If we wait for the office, we're adding jobs to the community. We're protecting that little bit of tax base that right now is allocated for office. It's a little intense on the comer. The major drawback that I look at is the traffic. I mean you are going to have more traffic. Well it's right at 41 and 5. And so you've got your major intersection. They're going to go one way or the other up to 7. It's not inconceivable that this area should have that traffic impact if you would. I mean it was planned that way. That's why it's designated office. And I really feel significant about putting the residential behind where the traffic is and buffering them. Just knowing the noise potential at this intersection and putting them behind there and I'm not saying that what goes behind on the other side of the frontage road. I'm not designating what that product is. I'm just saying this comer should remain as office in my mind. The other land use major issue I guess is the rental units and whether that is compatible or not with the adjacent land uses. I don't know how else we shift that. When you look at the map though, and maybe we can get it designated as to how wide that wetland area is that would be buffering it from the east side. And the stand of trees. Topographically I don't know if it's higher or lower but it seems like at least the wetland and the trees provide something of a barrier between single family, which was Lundgren's concern. If they're going to be building on the other side. Is the compatibility between the two land uses. It seems if we're leaving a large enough buffer, that might not be so bad. But I've got a few issues with that as far as how we're impacting what's already there because that was unanticipated I think by everyone who was looking at building in this area. Having rental in that area. Kate Aanenson: The zoning ordinance doesn't speak to owner or rental. It just says units per acre. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It doesn't say whether it's rental or not. And as we discussed earlier, the applicant is willing to move that and put it on another site that may blend well because the concern that I heard last time is that we want to blend it in more and not stigmatize it and if there's owner occupied to the east, then that certainly maybe could be somewhere else on the site. More integrated with the rest of the project. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Linda, a couple questions. So you're saying office, not office industrial? Councilwoman Jansen: Correct. 36 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay, just straight office. And what numbers were you using to show a tremendously different tax capacity? I think I. Councilwoman Jansen: These were actually shared, and I thought with all of us but one of the school board members. Mayor Mancino: You didn't use staff's numbers on tax capacity? Councilwoman Jansen: Because we only got those on Friday. I had already tried to work this through. And this form was, the one that I had.., and again, just to have somebody go back verify that these numbers, that they were using to calculate are correct. At the bottom where you see all of my chicken scratch, that's just as I was then trying to work the Puke numbers. Because the products that they're putting on that comer work out to a much lower average than was being used. In this study which was the $150,000 per unit. The average comes out to $113,000 for the products that are being proposed. Mayor Mancino: I don't know. Councilman Engel: I don't know how to cross this with your numbers. Kate Aanenson: I haven't seen that. I can't comment on it so. Councilman Senn: This is the stuff that Brad Johnson gave us. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Scott Botcher: There's no fiscal disparities backed out of this. Kate Aanenson: Right. We took all that out. Mayor Mancino: Disparities isn't out of here. Kate Aanenson: And what the city's portion of the tax rate so we took all that out and worked with the Finance Director. It's pretty accurate. Ours is I believe. Councilwoman Jansen: Oh because I would assume. Mayor Mancino: Because fiscal disparities is what, 40% or 60%? Scott Botcher: 40. Mayor Mancino: 40%. You have to take out 40% of the office for fiscal disparities. Kate Aanenson: ...that we did on ours and again worked with the Finance Director on that so. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I'll run through that again. Kate Aanenson: We took the stepping based on valuation. Of homes that the State uses... 37 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: I had one other question for you. While you were talking. Shoot, I can't remember what it was. If it comes up. Mr. Engel, are you ready? Councilman Engel: I don't know if Linda's done. Mayor Mancino: Are you done? Councilwoman Jansen: No, actually. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Jansen: As I was looking at the northern part of the site, and I'm still having trouble with how staff has calculated the acreage and Puke. From the staff report I've got different numbers for the north and the south compared to what Puke used for the north and the south and again I would have run through these with you but we got the report so late. So I won't go through that to great detail but you quoted to the south 30 acres on the comer, which is where we're calculating the highest percent of units are going to be. So it's skewing the, that's why the numbers are skewing so dramatically. Puke's using 41.5 whereas, from what you've given us, I've been using 30 within the medium density and multiplying that by the 8. That's where I'm coming up with that lower comer maximum at the 8 would be 240 units. And their calculating that at the maximum it would be 332. Kate Aanenson: I guess I'd like to just keep it more simplified. How you figure out density is you take out the roads and the wetlands. You take the gross acreage, which is 114. He kept leaving off the 12 acres on the other side because he didn't want to deal with them. It was always our position that they had to be included. So you have 114 acres. Of that. Councilwoman Jansen: And wait. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: Because you haven't delineated this for us yet. That's where my confusion is. With the 114. Kate Aanenson: ... in the staff report I put in there, right. Councilwoman Jansen: Is that the, that's the gross without the wetlands? Kate Aanenson: Right, then taking out wetlands and roads, I had that in the report. I believe it's approximately 14 or 15 acres. You divide that by 414 units and that gives you your density. I believe it's a little less than what they said. Councilwoman Jansen: And the 15 acres that you took out you said was for what? Kate Aanenson: The wetlands and roads. 38 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so I've written this down wrong again then because you said the 114.8 was without wetlands and roads? Kate Aanenson: Is the entire property. Councilman Engel: 114's gross. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Jansen: With everything. So including the primary zone? Kate Aanenson: Correct .... calculate that in this density. Councilwoman Jansen: So with everything that we're preserving, what is the total of what we're preserving with the trees, the wetlands, do you have that? Kate Aanenson: It's in the report. I can give you a quick answer. I think Dennis Griswold knows off the top of his head really quick while I'm looking for it. The acreage. Mayor Mancino: Dennis, do you have the total acreage that we're preserving? Kate Aanenson: It's 12 on the west side and then. Councilman Engel: Approximately 12 acres. Mayor Mancino: That's just on the west side. Kate Aanenson: On the east side it's probably another, then the piece behind, another 2. Probably 18 acres. Councilwoman Jansen: 18 total? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Again that's a guesstimate. Councilwoman Jansen: So maybe 10%. Kate Aanenson: Yes. But that doesn't include the wetland, but he can't develop that anyways. Councilwoman Jansen: So I would take the. Mayor Mancino: Does that 114.8 include wetland? Councilman Engel: Yep. Mayor Mancino: So we're saving a lot more than 18 acres because the wetland itself is 12 or something. 39 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That's the number that, and I did go through the staff report several times and I'm not finding that number. And part of why I'm looking for it is in comparison to some of the other projects where we have done these preservation easements, and what we're tried to accomplish with the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan, again I just pulled it out of the comp plan. The townhomes at Creekside. It ended up with only 52% net acres so that would have been the buildable acres that were left, correct? After everything was factored out. So we almost preserved 50% of that. Going back to the Lynmore Addition, that was 60% that was left over to build on. And when I'm trying to come up with that number as a comparison to see how our preservation is working on this property compared to those other projects, I'm not coming up with that significant number. Kate Aanenson: Right. Again you have to compare the projects. Some of those were encumbered by larger portions of the Bluff Creek Overlay District, okay. If this was to become something else where he can't transfer the density, which is why we were adamant that it be included with this, you have to give them reasonable use of property. You'd have to give them a variance. If it was industrial something, you'd have to give them a variance because he can't take that density and put it somewhere else. He can't take it and put it down on Mr. Fox's property. He has to use it on this property. So that was one of the advantages of this PUD is that he, as long as it's contiguous on the one parcel he can transfer that density. Therefore we can preserve it. That's our opportunity now. Otherwise to preserve it we're going to have to give him a variance or compensate him somehow. Councilwoman Jansen: It's because of, is it because of the PUD as you worded it that we would be able to build twin homes on the, under low density as it's currently zoned, would we be able to build twin homes? Kate Aanenson: Correct. There's three zoning options under the current zoning designation. That's straight single family subdivision, 15,000 square foot lots. They can request a PUD which is similar to what Longacres is. It averages 15,000 so you can go as small as 11,000 but they have to average 15. Or twin homes. Those are the three zoning options under the density, or the comprehensive plan for low density. Councilwoman Jansen: So there's three separate options? Kate Aanenson: Only three, correct. Councilwoman Jansen: And if it were zoned low density, would it allow them for the twin homes? Kate Aanenson: Yes. That is a permitted zoning under that. Mayor Mancino: Low density. Councilwoman Jansen: In low density, okay. So it's not three separate, it's one of the options under low density? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: 1, 2 or 3. 4O City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I was getting confused by the way you were saying them as options. I was doing them as separate options. Mayor Mancino: So like in Longacres, you know what's contiguous to Galpin, those lots are smaller. And some of the lots inside of Longacres are bigger to preserve some of the environmental features. Those that are contiguous again to the major road ways are smaller lots. It's a PUD. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I guess it would be helpful, and I don't know how we do this but to be able to see compared to, and I'd have to go back to the Lynmore because there it was more obvious. We had where the primary corridor was and where we were actually moving the homes out of that, and I realize this is just conceptual but conceptually I'm having a problem with it obviously because I'm not seeing, I'm not seeing the green space that should be impacting, that should be impacted by moving these homes farther away from the wetlands. You know is this 60 feet as it's shown on here? Mayor Mancino: It's pretty rough. I mean it's going to have to be. I mean when we actually get into designing it, there may be some units lost when it, you know and it may show up a little different and we also may ask for a PUD that may be a little lower density in the north part. I mean that's one of the things I'm going to talk about. A little lower density maybe in the northern part, and a little different density on the southern part. But first you've got to set it up as a PUD so you can start to do it. I mean obviously you can see that there's a transfer from west of 41 to the northern part. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. Now they've got that confirmed that we can do that, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, so keep going. Councilwoman Jansen: And again, I appreciate your making comment along those lines. Because what I gather, just from going through the other Puke projects, the, and I'm gathering that the amount of density that they can get in this area is significant to one of these projects. That's the way they build. That's their standard and if what we're trying to accomplish is less intensity, I'm not sure that this project, these products are going to accomplish what they need to accomplish compared to what our goals and objectives are. That we can lose some of this density and I guess I want to be, I want to be clear on what I'm trying to communicate anyway and that's that this needs to be less intense. That it doesn't seem to be doing what I would have anticipated would have happened using the Bluff Creek overlay district. It's not giving enough open space. Mayor Mancino: Well and it's hard because the one big open space is across the street. I mean in all honesty, you know you're going to lose some of it on the other side because you're putting it on west on 41. Councilwoman Jansen: And that's why I wondered about that as far as the percentages and that 12 acres is 10% so if on these other projects and not even just the Bluff Creek projects, our usual net acres average is 68%. And that's where I was just trying to go through this then and get a frame of reference. Of okay, so what amount of open space is left and I can't come up with those numbers. I don't think it's clearly stated. That's what I was looking for. Mayor Mancino: And you may want to see a little different clustering of product to show a bigger open space. And you can do that different ways. So anyway, and that's part of what staff and Puke and the Planning Commission will work on. Like Walnut Grove. I mean there are areas where that's a little more 41 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 dense and yet you have some nice green, big open spaces that are kind of gathering or common areas for that neighborhood. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Let me just comment on it again just to make sure we're clear. There were some significant large areas that they are maintaining. The 12 acres across the street. The property behind Markert's. The piece adjacent to 5 and the 2 acres behind the Olson property. Mayor Mancino: Well and the big stand of trees. I don't know how many acres that is. Kate Aanenson: Plus all the interior and the wetland but all the interior open space which they haven't calculated, which was common ownership as opposed to if it was subdivided private ownership and that's part of the clustering that we were trying to talk about that you can, as it evolves you try to create some of those view sheds. And that's what we were saying with Walnut Grove that took all the time to resolve how you wanted those breaks to occur. Councilwoman Jansen: And again I guess if we can come up with the total as you were calling it off, of what we're preserving and I realize then we have the common areas. Kate Aanenson: So it's going to be much greater. I'm just giving you the larger portions of it, sure. Councilwoman Jansen: Having gone through these other projects, there isn't a lot of large common open space and that is the way that this plan is laid out so these other projects were very significant to try to get a feel for how this was actually going to look in it's final stage. And Parks and Rec was probably a real good example and I did read in the Minutes, just in this last meeting that Jan Lash, the Parks and Rec Commissioner, had gone down to the one in Shakopee and looked at the totlot and did want to come back and look and make sure that we're all on the same page as far as what is a totlot. What is the size of it. What is in it. And just make sure that we're providing for the right services for these areas. Mayor Mancino: For young professional couple. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Councilwoman Jansen: But I'll stop. Mayor Mancino: Well, and you can add to as we keep going. Kate Aanenson: That's similar to what we did at North Bay and at the other, Mission Hills. Both Rottlund projects. Mission Hills is 7 units an acre. If you were to look at this on paper, it looks similar density. There was a question about putting a totlot there. It was at North Bay, the homeowners association asked to leave it in abeyance until they decided what the make-up of that would be and actually it's a community garden. So I mean we can build in that kind of flexibility of preserve those open spaces and decide as a homeowners association developments what that space should be used for. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. 42 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Can I just have a reminder. There was supposed to be, and I think you told me that the Park and Rec Commission decided not to but there was supposed to be a neighborhood park. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And it's not going to be there? Kate Aanenson: No. Actually this has close proximity to the one at the end of Forest Road. On Galpin. Or the trail to get to that one and the Park and Rec. Mayor Mancino: That's going to be the closest neighborhood park is the one on Galpin. Kate Aanenson: Right. Then you go across and underneath the underpass over to Bluff Creek Elementary too. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: There needs to be some other type of interior that something as this evolves that we work on. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Mark. Councilman Engel: Trying to boil it down to just what I see that's good in my opinion and why I think is bad. Hopefully stay out of the specifics but I'll probably degenerate to that point. From a good standpoint, from the description I've gotten, it does sound like it saves a large amount of the natural trees on the site, which I have found to be a problem with a lot of our developments in our past. We just mow them down because they're in the way where we strategically need to put structures. That's a good. Regardless of where they're located, keeping them is good. I'm glad for that. The huge natural buffer to the north is very good. The wetland. I like that. They wouldn't disturb that. The owner occupied affordable housing is extremely good. We need it. I can't tell you how badly we need it as a city. If you ever go to the Chamber meeting, you can't hardly get out of there with your skin on without hearing that one. You know and if you look at this from an ownership standpoint, and Mark said it already. I'll reiterate it. It's not subsidized government affordable housing. That would frighten me. I wouldn't want, I would have fears about it having my own home next to properties like that because maybe I'm narrow minded. I have a stigma to that. I think people that have part of their home paid for by somebody other than themselves don't care about their neighborhood as much as I do. I think if you take homes like these, I don't care if they're half the value of my home, or they're twice the value of my home, the three homeowners all have the same care about their neighborhood. They all have the level of commitment and long term care of what's going to happen there. The common theme there is owner occupied and not rental. From a bad standpoint, it still looks a little bit intense to me. It still gives me the frightening aspect that it might have that monotonous look as I come driving in from the west. So I would like to see something done to break that up. And it might be difficult to do. If you look at some of these past pictures that Linda has here, when you mow down a field or it's just a plain field to begin with, it's hard to break up roof lines. Very difficult. You need to put some pretty significant plantings in there and I don't know if the developer would be willing to do that. And just from a real aesthetic standpoint on that western comer I would like to see a mirroring office complex. And if not that and it's going to be homes, then I'd like to see a large pond or waterfall or a fountain. Something there that is very aesthetic and pleasing as you drive in from the west. And not a 43 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 sea of rooftops and I don't know that that plan avoids that. So that's what I see that's a bad. That's what frightens me on it. I can go for it if all those concerns can be addressed and I think it'd be aesthetically pleasing to drive in from the west to see it. I'm not going to go anywhere near these numbers because I've heard all kinds of numbers already. They're just a little too confusing to sort out here depending upon who's opinion you want to take. But I could go with the houses even in the northern half and the office in the southern half as Linda has stated as well. I'm open for compromise there but the aesthetics is the thing that's really frightening me at this point on that comer especially. But there are some good points to the plan. There's more good than there is bad but the bad still bothers me greatly. Mayor Mancino: Yeah I'll just, and then I'll pass it onto Steve. Kind of add to some of Mark's comments and that is, I don't have a problem with the density. What I would like to see, and I have gone to both the Shakopee and the Eden Prairie developments and I'm going to be just a little bit more specific. That Puke has and I would like to see this particular development have a higher quality. And a much higher quality. And that would be something that I have seen in Minnetonka at the Gables. Those townhouses which are priced from approximately $95,000 to $110,000 with some units up to $150,000, look completely different than your products in that price range. And some of the things that are happening at the Gables is that number one, they're very streetscape. Not garages but front porch scape. There's a feeling of a neighborhood there. There's a feeling, there are balconies. There are gables. There is stone. Field stone used. There is a feeling of a front porch. There is a feeling of a family there. There is a feeling of neighborhood. And it just reeks of it. It's charming. And there are, there's articulation in the buildings. There are bay windows. There is use of different materials on it. Even the railing on the backless units that have decks, have an architectural feature so I would strongly suggest that you look at that and go over there and also the residents go over and walk that area. The streets, the internal streets are narrower. They're 18 to 22 feet. Pavement width. There is a lot of landscaping. Wonderful landscaping. It almost has a feeling of the row house but again the details, the architectural details are there. And I know that Minnetonka and the developer worked in using funds, State funds for affordable housing from the challenge fund. There are many other tools that we can use to upgrade this project. So I'd like to see us look at that. And I'd also like to see the use in the northern part of the wonderful wetland amenity. It seems like that hasn't been used to the greatest extent. Here you have this wonderful nature preserve. The wetland and you have a very conventional twin homes just backing up to it. Out of that wetland area you could form a, again a community common green space and put more twin homes around it and actually probably get more money for those. But I think all through this complex I don't have a feeling of neighborhood and when I went to both of your other projects I didn't feel that. I didn't feel that neighborhood charm which is what we want to get here. The other thing is, is there a way to move the pond, the retention pond from that comer to the comer of 41 and 5 ? Kate Aanenson: My understanding that's where MnDOT's preferred location of that pond is. Well they're at 90% drawings I believe Anita. Mayor Mancino: Again, if we could look at that and do again something special on that comer and I looked for the developer to come back with some really creative ways for that comer. And also creative ways of how to buffer noise abatement in that southern area south of West 78th Street. And I also would like to see the rental housing scattered in the development. Not just you know one row against a wetland. I'd like to see it scattered in it and I want to see it such, and I really want the detail as to, I want it to look like just the other homes and I want to know which homes. So again I want to see a higher quality of architecture and building materials. Especially for that comer. I think that's it for right now. If I can think of anything, go ahead Steve. 44 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Okay. Well my position hasn't changed since September 27th and I'm not in favor of this concept at all. I would like to see an office on the 5 and 41 comer south of the frontage road. I think it's the western view of the city and as stated in the...meeting. This does nothing to, what is just west of this location, the Arboretum. Doing nothing to play with that and that southeast comer over at 5 and 41. Concept here just adds to the corridor of medium and high density of rooftops from 41 to Powers. If you look at what the comp plan is going to call for. We need to buffer driving down 41 and 5. We need to buffer the homes from the freeway. And then the, I question does this product or concept fit with the goals of Chan and I think you hit it here that this is definitely, I mean it's a lower end quality of housing. I toured the Shakopee place and the Eden Prairie place and I feel there's a lack of a neighborhood there and hominess to it. Mayor Mancino: ...we can get it. Councilman Labatt: I you know, to be point blank I'd like to see the office on the southwest comer south of the frontage road and then single family or low density to the north. Too high density. I'm not against affordable housing but there's nothing to scatter it out throughout around the city. Mayor Mancino: Let me ask, wherever we have medium density, I mean is there a place to pick it up somewhere else because we have so little of it zoned in the city that's left. My concern is giving this up and where else, I mean would we put medium density. Kate Aanenson: That same issue was raised a while back when we had significant number of requests to take industrial. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. They wanted to change the office industrial south of Trotters Ridge to medium density and. Kate Aanenson: That same issue occurred on the Mattson property, the 80 acres there. That we could solve all of our housing problems and stick it in one area. Going back to the comprehensive plan is that we've tried to put a scattering of these. They're not all in one area. That there's, people have different lifestyle choices to pick that. Again that was one of the reasons under the comprehensive plan that this land use designation was in place. And I just wanted to preface the design.., and certainly what we're trying to do now is resolve the framework issue of the switching of the zoning but they understand what Chanhassen is. They've driven around. Looked at our projects. They understand what our expectations are and staff certainly does and they are willing and I am confident of that that, I mean it's going to take 9 months or a year to get that, several different evolutions to get the quality but that's the beauty of the PUD. When it comes in, if it's not meeting your expectations, and put the standards in place that this will have these design standards. It will have these materials. It will have this pitched roof. These colors. And again that's the difference between the low density, the twin homes that you wouldn't have that control on as opposed to the PUD that the staff is supporting. Mayor Mancino: Well and you know, and I'm willing to say and it's a challenge to Puke. Come back and show us something that will be a wonderful gateway to our city. I mean show us a quality, different quality oftownhomes and multi-family on that lower area. If you don't, we won't go with it. But it's kind of a challenge up to you to come to us and show us something that we like. That we feel will work in our city. We have standards. And see if you can do it. If you can't, we won't approve it. So it's a challenge to you and we're trying to be specific and show you, or I'm trying to, well we're all trying to be specific and tell you, you know what it is we're looking for. Whether it's using Walnut Grove. Whether it's using the 45 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Gables. That sort of quality of development is what we want. And also to keep you know the affordability. The only place in our city where we have affordable housing is, there's no question is in our medium density. It's, we don't start out hardly in any new single family development under $300,000. So something we've all done a lot of thinking about and obviously just for the residents in Longacres we have gone round and round about this comer as far as not wanting office retail there because we didn't want to take away from our downtown. What would work there. Do you buffer? How much do you buffer the Arboretum? Etc. So we've asked ourselves a lot of good questions about that. Any other comments? Okay. Is there a motion? And the motion would be for concept approval. What that concept approval would be. That's what you're looking for from Kate, right? Kate Aanenson: I guess I leave that to the applicant. I'm assuming their expectations concept approval of this. Of their proposal. Mayor Mancino: With all of our comments. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay Dennis, that's what you're looking for? Concept approval. Dennis Griswold: Yes Mayor. We're looking, we understand your comments about... We definitely would like to meet your terms. What we would like concept approval of... We would not like that if office were... Kate Aanenson: They wouldn't be the developer and the project would die. Councilman Labatt: They wouldn't what? Kate Aanenson: They would not be the developer then. The project would basically die because they wouldn't proceed under, they're not office. Councilman Labatt: If it stayed office south. Kate Aanenson: Right. My understanding, you can clarify that with Mr. Griswold but the project would not go forward. Mayor Mancino: But, you know as I also said tonight is, I'm willing to look at a townhome development in the, personally in the southern part but you've got to prove to me you know what it's going to look like. How it's going to, you know all those things that we talked about. If you don't, you know then I won't accept it. Councilman Senn: ...without the details following. Mayor Mancino: Yep. Councilman Engel: Yeah, and I could go for it as well but there's a lot of aesthetics that have to be addressed so maybe tabling is the thing to do until they come back with an alternative or is that not? Because I can't approve it like that. 46 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Kate Aanenson: Well back to the chicken and the egg thing. Mayor Mancino: Let's give marching orders. Councilman Senn: Let's try to dissect it and break it down. Mayor Mancino: Yes, let's do that. Councilman Senn: Okay, if you dissect it and break it down effectively your first issue is, as it relates to residential as far as your land use, zoning and guiding. Okay. And so that's number one. And issue number two is, the issue of effectively how do you approach that residential development. Do you allow it to just go by existing codes or do you create a PUD effectively to take advantage of the you know best, you know alternatives as far as where we could go with the density transfer and the stepping and the clustering and all that sort of thing that we've done before. And then the third issue deals with, I mean there's obviously a split here but if you listen to everything that's been said effectively, even if you would go with residential on the whole thing, it's obvious that something needs to happen on the comer of 41 or maybe like talking to MnDOT or something like that that would effectively move the pond over and make some kind of a feature or natural feature on that comer with, if you go with the residential. The other option to that is to not go with the residential period but to go with the residential and the office, but you're still going to end up with the same density. In terms of the residential north of the road, right? Scott Botcher: Could. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Could. Yeah I mean I don't see that being altered simply by taking out a certain number of houses and the deal on the bottom so I mean to me those are at least as far as the concept review, and then the devil's in the details of course and I mean I think the comments are loud and clear tonight on the details. I didn't hear one single person not deal with the issue as it relates to the quality and materials and the architectural design as far as, you know there's a lot that needs to be sold effectively there yet. But again that's where they're trying to go with the next step. Does that kind of break down where we're at now? If it is I'll try a motion. We'll see where it goes but I would move that. Mayor Mancino: Hang on just one second. One question? Scott Botcher: I'm just not sure, and this is my only comment for Linda and Steve primarily. I'm not sure how office got to be the panacea to be the attractive gateway to Chan. Mayor Mancino: It is on the east. Scott Botcher: I just raise that as a question and I think that what Mark is saying is that, you know the housing may not be either but we're not going to, I mean if the request was tonight was to do office we could make the same argument in reverse. Until we see the detail, you don't know. And so I mean we could make the exact same arguments, the whole thing being office so I guess what I'm saying is, no matter what you're doing here tonight, give them some direction and come back. If you don't like it, tell them to get lost. Councilman Senn: Because I mean one of the big assumptions here in the issue over the PUD. And again I don't mean to down play it because to me of all the issues we just went through, that is the most significant. Because you talk about the devil being in the details. The devil of the detail is really in that 47 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 PUD. And with what staff does now in following through with the applicant as it relates to the clustering, the density transfer and everything else. I mean all the broad issues we've talked about. I mean that to me is a whole different picture than the picture that's before us tonight. But again we're just, you know we're being conceptually asked to deal with those broader issues tonight and leave that detail to come back at a later date. Scott Botcher: Giving yourself a land use planning tool. That's what you're doing. We're not sitting here calculating trees or, I mean it's a conceptual tool. From this then you establish a framework and you move ahead and if you don't like it, you don't do it. Councilwoman Jansen: But I gather at this point the applicant needs to know if within that PUD we are going to approve the entire project for residential. And if to do that this is what we have to consider, I'm not comfortable zoning the comer for residential. Scott Botcher: That's concept plan. No more. No less. Mayor Mancino: Go ahead Mark. Councilman Senn: I would move that we give concept approval to this project on a residential guiding and zoning with the medium to carry that out being a PUD which staff would follow up and negotiate out everything from clustering to density transfer to whatever I guess as it relates to the PUD. And thirdly, to work it out so that on the south end there can be a revision and maybe try to get it worked out with MnDOT or something to move that feature more over to the comer and see what we can do about, you know. Mayor Mancino: Presence. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know doing something on that comer as a gateway type of thing rather than just pure a development whether it be office or residential or whatever. Some kind of a natural feature there that would incorporate in because that's already there. And just a piece. So I think that incorporates the main points. And that basically you know beyond that, I mean there's a lot of detail and design yet to be done which within our concept approval is, I mean we're not approving anything on that. It needs a lot more work in detailing to come back both in terms of quality and architecture and that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I want to make a comment before we get there because I don't want there to be any, I don't want there to be any question where I'm standing on this. If you go back and take this thing and start to do some more work on this plan, if it passes tonight. And I want to be real clear which way I vote on this thing. I can support what Mark's presenting right now but there are, in my mind, serious, there's some serious heavy lifting to be done before it get to a PUD that I would approve from an aesthetic standpoint. Location of that pond. Use of the topographical land features in a more creative way. The neighborhood aspects. So I will go for it but those are a lot of big ones in this so I will say okay to it tonight but I don't want you thinking you can chalk that one up with that plan because I never would go for it. That's enough said. Mayor Mancino: So is there a second to the motion? 48 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Engel: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Conceptual Planned Unit Development #99-2 for Arboretum Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment directing staff to follow up and negotiate out everything from clustering to density transfer and whatever else as it relates to the PUD. Also direct staff to work with the applicant on the south end for a revision, and maybe try to get it worked out with MnDOT to move the pond feature more over to the corner and see what can be done on that corner as a gateway type of thing rather than just pure development, whether it be office or residential or whatever. Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel and Mayor Mancino voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen voted in opposition. The motion failed with a 3 to 2 vote. Roger Knutson: Just to point out the obvious. Although concept approval requires only 3 votes, rezoning to PUD requires 4. Councilman Engel: He doesn't need rezoning yet. Roger Knutson: No, he does not. Councilwoman Jansen: Within our zoning Roger, under General Concept Plan, it does say approval shall require a 4/5 vote of the entire council and that's after it says the Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. So you're saying though that we can approve the concept with a 4/5 ? Roger Knutson: Where are you reading? I just read the ordinance. I didn't. Councilwoman Jansen: I'm under zoning, page 1201. 20-5-17. Roger Knutson: We're not on general concept plan. Councilwoman Jansen: Point 4. Excuse me? I guess I thought that was what we were doing. Was the concept plan. Scott Botcher: We'll get the legal opinion. Of course we could pay the County Attorney $50 an hour and one third of any fines that we get. Roger Knutson: I stand corrected. You do have 4/5 vote for a concept. Mayor Mancino: So the concept plan is not approved. Is not approved. (Steve Labatt left the meeting at this point.) ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING, CITY MANAGER. 49 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Scott Botcher: We have a previously scheduled meeting with the Chamber that is on Friday morning. Linda and I have actually been debating on the start time. Mayor Mancino: 8:00 is what I wrote down. I wrote down 8:00. Scott Botcher: Well okay 8:00 then. Mayor Mancino: 8:00 to 9:00. Scott Botcher: ...there's something else going on that day that I'm sending Todd to. Councilwoman Jansen: The 212. Scott Botcher: Southwest Corridor. Councilwoman Jansen: And I think I'm going to that. Mayor Mancino: Good, let us know. Scott Botcher: But I think one of the things that you ought to consider is, there's probably an expectation that the Chamber would present some of their legislative proposals that they've been working on diligently over the past 3 months and that's great. They should do that. We've encouraged them to and I hope they continue to. I would just bring it up I guess as a point of order to consider how, what your MO is going to be on Friday. As I said in the memo, I don't think it's in our best interest to take these things and go through them one by one and say we like this. No we don't like this. Yeah we don't like this. You know they're presenting them to you as a special interest group like any other special interest group and you can certainly give personal opinion. You can give whatever two cents worth you want. I would just, you know, you're going to see them for the first time and some of them are probably going to be very complex issues so, I just wanted to at least remind people first of all. Secondly, bring it up that you need to think about how you as a council want to react to that I guess. Councilman Senn: I mean this seems very awkward. I mean if we're supposed to have that meeting with them Friday morning and we also have the Southwest one, Nancy and I are the city reps to the Southwest and if Linda's coming at Southwest, you're going to end up with at best two council people at the Chamber meeting and that's only if those two would come and have never come before to the Chamber meetings. So I don't know, I mean is anybody even going to be showing up to the Chamber meeting and should we be doing something to look at rescheduling, reordering or doing something about it? Because I know the Southwest meeting got moved from another time, which creates the conflict. I understand that. But again how are you supposed to cope with it. You can't be two places at once. Mayor Mancino: No, but I feel very comfortable in Linda going to the Southwest and Todd going and the rest of us going to the Chamber meeting. Councilman Senn: We don't need to go, I mean there's nothing, no actions being taken one way or the other? Mayor Mancino: I think it's. 5O City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Senn: ... in the past they've always taken some actions and you know the voting members are. Mayor Mancino: I think it's just informational. That's the impression I got. Scott Botcher: I know of no hot topics coming down. Todd Gerhardt: Well even if there is a decision. Mayor Mancino: It has to come back to council anyway. Todd Gerhardt: There's usually some type of resolution or memo of understanding. Councilwoman Jansen: And actually Nancy, isn't the Southwest Corridor Rep. Mayor Mancino: I'm on the Board. Councilwoman Jansen: Not the 212. You're the Southwest Metro. This is the 212. I think we've got them a little confused. This is the coalition. This is the coalition meeting down in Chaska. Scott Botcher: Lindahl's group. Fred Corrigan, right? Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: But again you guys, this is just an informational meeting. It's not a meeting of, I mean a lot of people were invited. Scott Botcher: Some to the wrong day. Councilwoman Jansen: There were 8 of us there last Friday morning. Mayor Mancino: So again, getting back to the Chamber meeting. I certainly, I think this is a good idea Scott because I certainly, there are going to be just a few of us there and we don't want to respond or speak for council. What we'll try and do is just find out where they're coming from and get. Councilman Senn: ... develop their own legislative agenda. And reach consensus on as a Chamber and then bring it to us and we'll react from there but I mean that's not going to happen at the meeting I'm assuming. Mayor Mancino: That's why it was brought up so that we could talk about it and decide that. So that you didn't have a couple of us trying to react to it at the same time that we received it. Just so we're all on the same page. Understanding that. Scott Botcher: I don't want us to misspeak or give an inference that is incorrect and would come back to haunt us. You know I still haven't found, unless you guys got it and I just haven't seen it go out. I'll have to look in last, do you guys remember seeing something from the League of Minnesota Cities that ranked about 6, 8, 10 cities about our size. Remember I mentioned that to you? I got it. I gave it to Karen to copy then she left and I have to find it again. One of the things that you know we're going to hear is that we're not building any commercial industrial and aren't we evil because they can't afford to build schools 51 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 in Chaska. One of the things that we discovered in this document, in the survey, and this league guy met with Mr. Peterson's committee, local government committee. Whatever it's called for the Chamber. That we are out of the cities in that pool we have the third highest percentage of commercial industrial property value on that list. Of comparable cities in the Twin Cities. And he just, you know he didn't know it was even an issue. The guy from the League. He just pulled them out. And I think we're third by just a few percentage points behind somebody else, Rosemount or somebody so we're, Chaska's number 1. Which I guess you would expect, by a large margin. But we are third by just a schooch and close to second and that flies in the face of the argument that I have seen, or I have heard, saying how we simply don't have any and what are you doing and the numbers that the League guy brought by, Eric Willette. Do you know him? Do you know Eric? He's a legislative research aide over there. Runs contrary to what I've been told by School Board members in District 112. Councilwoman Jansen: And you said industrial value? Scott Botcher: It was based upon the value of the industrial office component of your community. Chaska was oh yeah. Oh yeah. Councilman Senn: You can't compare us to Chaska. Scott Botcher: No, no, no, no. Councilman Senn: Chaska's been operating in a free development basis, not governed by the lines that we've been governed by for many years because they had their own sewer system before the Metropolitan District was even created. Councilwoman Jansen: Through what date? Does that include everything that we've just recently done? Scott Botcher: I'd have to check. It's pretty new. Councilwoman Jansen: So we're getting even better. Scott Botcher: Well yeah, I mean I'm sure there's some things in there that doesn't count but. Councilman Senn: They don't have any left to develop and we've got quite a bit left to develop. Scott Botcher: But and Chaska, you're right. Chaska's just in another league. Compared to everybody on that list but it was, and I had asked Karen to copy that and I didn't know if it had gone out to you and I didn't know it but. Mayor Mancino: And again I think it was, it wasn't cities that compared to us in size. I mean it didn't compare us to obviously Bloomington or Eden Prairie or Minnetonka that are so much bigger than we are. I mean it compared us to like size cities. Scott Botcher: Rosemount. Those types of cities. Councilman Senn: Chaska would be just the opposite of most cities. Back in the 70's Chaska took a run at developing as a residential community. Fell flat on their face. Everything went bankrupt. Down the 52 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 tubes. Went back to the government and effectively their only strategy at that point, change and basically go for industrial development. Scott Botcher: Anything that moved. No, you're right. And they are far ahead of everybody. They're almost like 24%, give or take. Almost a quarter. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks for sharing that though. B. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FINANCIAL SOFTWARE~ CITY MANAGER. Scott Botcher: Alright, 9(b). This is something I talked about at the work session last time. Mark, you split. But this is the memo that I was asked to put together. I guess Bruce is here to address it if you want to. I can address it if you want to. I don't have anything to add you know that we didn't talk about last time. Councilwoman Jansen: Would you maybe share with the others your answer to my question about the reporting capabilities. I had actually called Scott and said, realizing that we've had issues as a council with the level of reporting and the information that we've gotten, it was software that he had used in Delafield and tell them what your response was. Scott Botcher: Well the report writer within the general ledger package and the same report writer carries through to the other packages, has 720 different options on every report writer. And you know so the opportunity of not finding a report that you can have is almost impossible. I mean Bruce right now, just another lovely feature of our software. We have to capture printers Mark, ever remember doing that? Pain in the butt man. In our network system we have to capture printers to get them to work. The finance director hasn't been able to run reports probably for four days, five days I'm guessing. And Rick, who is a bright bulb, is about learning words that I normally use. Rick never uses those words. I mean it's just, it's a disaster. I did meet today with Todd and Bruce and I met with the three of the four finance staff people for 2 1/2 hours this morning. Went through the entire thing. What we've done all summer. Some of the stuff that has happened over the summer. Bruce is coming in and he's sort of, I guess not sort of, he has reinstated weekly department meetings with them. They reviewed the communication that there had been concerns expressed about the software all summer. And really just shared with them the vision for the organization above and beyond finance, which is something that finance people, personal opinion, have never even thought about. They were just dumbfounded. How they, you know they weren't just this own little bubble. That it was part of a bigger picture. And you know I've had that same talk with people in planning, and planners are easy because that's how they think anyway. They're always thinking big picture. But we did do that. Walked through where we want to go and you know how we're going to go from here but you now we just simply cannot operate this multi million dollar organization with the garbage that we have. I can't be any clearer than that. You guys can throw in whatever you like. Mayor Mancino: ... are management tools for us to make decisions from. Nothing more or less. Decision making tool for us. Scott Botcher: And this is, you know we'll be, depending on how the budget ends up at the end of the year, because God knows we don't know right now, we'll be either taken out of monies that we haven't spent this year that were budgeted. We'll be taking on a fund balance applied .... great source. Mayor Mancino: Somebody's pocket. 53 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Bruce DeJong: Don't have any identified yet. Mayor Mancino: Any comments you want to add Bruce? Bruce DeJong: No, I think that the issue is one of how everything operates inside the department. There really isn't much difference between different software packages. As far as... entering accounts payable. The big difference is in reporting capabilities and I don't think that we have enough, year or two years to wait to play around and see if we can fix this one and tweak it to get it to... It's clear it's not working very well internally and.., as far as reporting and.., citizens at large. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions? So we need to make. Scott Botcher: Make a motion. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please and a second. Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the authorization for utilization of an amount not to exceed $35,000 for the purchase of and training within a software product by the name of Fund Balance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Councilman Labatt was not present to vote on this item.) CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY GUIDELINES, DAN GREENSWEIG, KENNEDY AND GRAVEN. Todd Gerhardt: The business subsidy criteria, I think Mark has some questions regarding it. I don't know where it came from. Why the legislators felt it was important. If you go through, these are the kind of the bare minimums that you have to meet here under Attachment #3. I think our TIF policy is, have been the working policy and criteria that I've used in doling out assistance. Even the state statutes regarding TIF are limited. The best thing that ever happened was combining those two buildings that you saw earlier on CSM tonight. They're all office. They don't get subsidy. They can't get any TIF because it's all office. And so that's all increment in the district. So that gives you the flexibility of pooling from shortfall downtown, building 101, doing your entry monuments in that comer. Closing out the district early. That gives you a lot of flexibility. And the one office building in the comer next to the pond, that's all office. So that's probably close to $170,000 increment stuff, those two buildings. Office manufacturing. That talked about the school district wanting more and more of that. I think it's more commercial is what I think Brad's point was. All the towns that Brad would reference were Bloomington, Edina, people that have large malls. Taxes generated offa mall are unbelievable. Close to $5.00 to $6.00 a square foot. Taxes in a mall versus retail out here where you're maybe... Mayor Mancino: Well even back when Bloomington when I taught in Bloomington where they had the Mall of America and all the retail, they were still passing school referendums in Bloomington. Back then. So you know they didn't have that sort of tax capacity at that point. It was mostly again a bedroom 54 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 community. They were just starting to develop so they were still passing referendums, even when it was on the shoulder of the homeowners. Todd Gerhardt: They just passed another large one in Bloomington. About $100 million. Mayor Mancino: Yes they did. Todd Gerhardt: ...their schools. Bring them up and get even with the communities that have brand new schools like Chaska and Minnetonka just renovated their facilities. They've got softer bleachers. Roger Knutson: Mayor, one comment before you dig into this. The law says you have to have it. The law says you only have to have one thing in it essentially. You've got to give policy related to wages to be paid for jobs created. Other than that you don't have to, you are not required to have any other substance in here. And I'll also point out just so you understand the lasting significance of it. There's nothing in this shall be indicted into an entitlement or publish any right to a subsidy or we can change anything we want, any time we want, and we'll look at the project as a whole. In other words, as this sits now, this does not tie your hands or bind you to anything.., legal requirement. If you wanted to have more substance to give you greater guidance, you can do that. But as far as saying this is a document we're going to be stuck with, that's going to. Councilman Senn: Either way you're stuck with the document. Todd Gerhardt: You have to have it. Councilman Senn: I mean you have to have the document. You can change the document any time you want to change the document. Roger Knutson: And you pretty well you can ignore if you choose to. Councilman Senn: Right. But essentially it's still a document. Roger Knutson: You have to have it. Councilman Senn: You have to have it and it's a public document. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Todd Gerhardt: And you have to have the public hearing when giving more than $25,000. And you have to, I think this is the State's way of making cities report how many new jobs are you creating with these incentives? I think that's the whole key in this. Councilman Senn: Which is absolutely ridiculous. Todd Gerhardt: And what was the wage. Roger Knutson: You probably do that with TIF now anyway. Councilman Senn: I know but that, I mean well. 55 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Todd Gerhardt: We never had to report it before. Mayor Mancino: Well let's go forward with it. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and the one thing that's emphasized on Thursday on this was that we can always make the actual business agreement more restrictive. You can tailor it to each one of the projects, right? Councilman Senn: You can. The problem is, is historically around here what you have thrown back at you all the time, especially by certain people in town and development and other things like that, is precisely what is in the public document. Which is your city allows for year, by it's business subsidy criteria to do this project so why aren't you in support of it. Or you know you should definitely be in support of it, etc. I mean to me if you take this criteria and put it next to our TIF policy, they are totally, 180 degrees apart. And if I were somebody who was knowledgeable in the area who wanted to use it, you'd probably have a lot of fun making arguments and ripping it apart, but more importantly if I was somebody coming into the area who didn't know the history on it. You know ifI got stuck with say picking up one of these documents or the other and didn't see the other, you could be, have a total misimpression of what our policy is. Councilwoman Jansen: And that's where at the EDA we were saying that this needs to include the TIF policy. That in here it's not that this is overriding or it's an exception to TIF but the TIF. Councilman Senn: Where? Where does it incorporate it by reference? There's no incorporation in this by reference, that I could find. Todd Gerhardt: I think it is. It talked about TIF. Councilman Senn: There is no incorporation of our TIF policy here by reference. The State's going to state. Councilwoman Jansen: This didn't change after our EDA meeting did it Todd? I mean did you add that to this yet from the EDA meeting? Todd Gerhardt: What's that? Councilwoman Jansen: A reference to wanting this to reference that the TIF policy applies as a part of this? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilwoman Jansen: Is that in here? Todd Gerhardt: No, I didn't. Councilwoman Jansen: It's not in here yet. Todd Gerhardt: ...today when I talked to Don. I was out of City Hall on Friday. 56 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Where is it supposed to be? Roger Knutson: Put it in b. I thought it was in b. Mayor Mancino: In 4(b)? Roger Knutson: B refers to the TIF. Councilman Senn: Okay, well B I'd like to propose one major change anyway. It should be labeled training, jobs and wages. Because the issue in this State no longer is jobs and wages. The issue is training people to get to a livable wage. Let's call it what it is but beyond that. Todd Gerhardt: Let's do this. Let's take what is essential in the business subsidy criteria that's essential that you have to have in there like jobs and wages and include that in our TIF policy under project requirements or project selection criteria. And that their TIF policy will be our business subsidy criteria. Mayor Mancino: So where would we put that Todd? In our criteria. In our policy. Where would it go under? Todd Gerhardt: We got to have, I mean we already have A in there. Increase tax base. I mean that's a given. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, where are you? Todd Gerhardt: On number 2... Councilman Senn: ...the original document. He's saying throw out the criteria. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are you under purpose? Todd Gerhardt: Okay, under purpose. Our purpose will be our general policy will be our purpose. And our TIF policy so Attachment #4. Mayor Mancino: So will be our general policy but we're going to pick it up from our TIF policy. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Councilman Senn: So then what you're saying is take the project requirement section, TIF policy, and add one item that basically. Todd Gerhardt: Jobs and wages. Councilman Senn: How about training, jobs and wages? Put training, jobs and wages in there, and then that's fine. That's fine because then we're consistent in my mind. 57 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Todd Gerhardt: And we have to hold a public hearing too so whenever, somewhere in here we have to put public hearing. When I bring you a private redevelopment agreement back, we have to hold a public hearing. Is this... Roger? Roger Knutson: The only thing I hesitate on, there may be subsidies that aren't TIF. If you just take it verbatim as a general policy and put it... Councilman Senn: Oh yeah but I mean, yeah. I assumed you were saying take tax increment financing off the top.., talking about business subsidy. Mayor Mancino: Give us, you know e-mail us a draft and we can. Todd Gerhardt: Can you approve this tonight. Roger Knutson: Approve it tonight and change it tomorrow night. Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll tell you what. I'll make a motion to approve the City of Chanhassen Business Subsidy Criteria as presented, except purpose one will be changed to be the general policy of the TIF with the substitution of business subsidy versus TIF. Okay, and the goals and objectives, and the business subsidy criteria will be changed to reflect the project selection criteria and the project requirements and activities to be considered for financing for the TIF process. Then I assume we don't really need the application process in there. We delete that out of the TIF part. And then this, per number 4 you just stick with your compliance and reporting requirements and add the section as it relates to the public hearing. Does that sum it up? Mayor Mancino: Yep. Todd Gerhardt: And I'll put a draft in our next council packet. I'll put it under administrative and then you'll have six public hearings for private redevelopment agreements. Mayor Mancino: You could also just e-mail us a copy of the draft and any of us can get back and say yeah. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the Business Subsidy Criteria document as amended by Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. (Councilman Labatt was not present to vote on this item.) CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Todd. Any questions in correspondence? Scott Botcher: I found these documents on Karen's desk so I'll pass them out. Then we'll talk about them. Just read them or whatever. 58 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Senn: I had a question if I could on, or I have a few questions on the correspondence. Roger, there's a letter in here from Tom Scott relating to the condemnation matter. I mean essentially is that, that's effectively at lager heads and is going to court because it's at lager heads? There's no even remote basis for agreement? Or is it going to be a friendly condemnation? Roger Knutson: I believe there's a big difference, I'm not sure. I'll double check. I think there. Scott Botcher: Last I heard 23 grand an acre. Roger Knutson: Yeah, it's a big difference. Councilman Engel: Per acre? Scott Botcher: That's the last number I was told. Roger Knutson: Do you want to pay it? Councilman Senn: No. Well but I'm sorry. I mean if we're sitting out there negotiating on a piece of land where we're $23,000 per acre apart and we're going to court, maybe it's time that we sit back and say well yeah. That was our number one priority but this guy obviously is going to fight us every tooth of the way. Why don't we look at other options and decide whether other options make more sense where people might be more amenable sellers. Scott Botcher: My understanding of his position is, he's not opposed to working with the City. Not opposed to working with us. We obviously disagree in value. It is I would call it a quasi friendly condemnation. We disagree on the value. He agrees that through this process the court will set the value. And that's what they'll do. Roger Knutson: And if you don't like the result, you don't take it. Scott Botcher: That's what it comes down to. If you want to say it's too much and walk away from it, he keeps it. Councilman Engel: I don't think you can lose there. Scott Botcher: I think he probably knows that. Councilman Senn: Well the court is basically just going to hire their own appraiser and have them appraise it. Roger Knutson: Well, he has three commissioners appointed. Councilman Senn: Oh okay, so he's going to that process. So he's going through the panel process, not right to court? Roger Knutson: Well you have to go to the commissioners hearing first to start the process. There are the three commissioners and then there are appraisers and testify and the commissioners decide who's what and if he decides he doesn't like it, then you go up to court. 59 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Senn: Then you go up to court, okay. Alright. That's what I wanted to make sure because if... going to court now. Roger Knutson: Not really. He's going to a commissioners hearing. Councilman Senn: Alrighty. Scott I guess this is for you. This letter to Greg Havlik dated September 23, 1999. From Todd Hoffman. I was a little perplexed to read the last paragraph. Which says the City has received a good number of complaints regarding the use of snowmobiles in the City last year. That's totally contrary to what we were told during the discussion on the county trail. We were told there were no complaints on snowmobiles in the city of Chanhassen. Scott Botcher: I'll take that up with him. Thanks for clarification. Is Shorewood not allow them, did I read that? Councilman Senn: I know Shorewood has allowed them in the past but it sounds. Scott Botcher: I thought I read they don't allow them on the LRT trail. But I read that in the Excelsior, North Shore whatever. Mayor Mancino: Oh, then they may have changed. Scott Botcher: I may have misread it. I just saw... Mayor Mancino: ... how does that... County Road 17. What's Tom. Scott Botcher: Tom Scott? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. How does it, it's county jurisdiction and everything else. Councilman Senn: Why are we going in Summary Judgment to get ourselves removed? I mean we're not even a party to the contract. Mayor Mancino: We can't even put up signage. How could we be part of a lawsuit? Councilman Senn: I mean I understand.., third party anybody in that they want to. But I'm assuming that just because they. Roger Knutson: We're third party in BRW. BRW's being the third party. Councilman Senn: We are? Scott Botcher: BRW. Councilman Senn: Why are we even part of the lawsuit? Roger Knutson: Because it's our money. 6O City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Senn: But that's immaterial. We're not a contract. Roger Knutson: That's correct but I believe it's 80/20 split so. When the dust settles, the county has to pay X dollars. The city pays 80% of it. That's why we have a stake in it. A bigger stake in the outcome of this than the county does. Councilman Senn: But the stake is immaterial. We signed the dumb thing saying we'd take 80/20 of whatever. That's immaterial. The county makes the decision on what happens on this case, with or without us. They can ignore us totally, just as they do on signage. Roger Knutson: They could, but they have agreed not to. Councilman Senn: Is this in writing? Roger Knutson: I believe you have... Tom Scott has met with the County Attorney and that's the agreement. Whether it's in writing, I believe there's correspondence and I'll get that. Councilman Senn: Okay. I just think from a policy standpoint it'd be a real bad idea on our part to be going forward without it in writing. Roger Knutson: I believe that is in writing but I'll find out for sure. Tom has been handling that. Councilman Senn: Because I can accept to protect our butt an argument only if in fact valid but it's not valid unless we have that guarantee in writing. Roger Knutson: The County Attorney's office does not have anyone who has... Councilman Senn: No, I understand as long as we get to be involved in the ultimate decision. Roger Knutson: And we have tendered the defense to... Councilman Senn: And what's, now what's the deal on Country Clean? Scott Botcher: Last time I spoke to them, and actually Sharmin spoke to them after I did and that's the memo that's in the packet. Bottom line is that PCA sat on their ass all summer. Quite candidly. They were supposed to, I spoke to them in May or June and there's a Bev somebody. Bev, some lady that's sort of watching that whole project. Mayor Mancino: Bev Richter. Scott Botcher: Bev Richter. There it is. And when she called them in late September they said well, they're almost ready with their plan. Bottom line is they didn't do squat over the summer. They are planning on testing ground water in and around the area. They're not just going to test at the Country Clean site. They're going to check for ground water flow. See if there's any migration. Councilman Senn: So they're going to do the lateral and vertical penetrations? Scott Botcher: Yep. Yep. 61 City Council Meeting - October 25, 1999 Councilman Senn: And they're doing this for Country Clean or who's employing Ledvina? Scott Botcher: I believe he's been employed by PCA. That's my understanding but I need to clarify that. What I've been told is that the money for this project is coming from two sources. One is the PCA. Second is that clean-up fund that drycleaners across the United States all kick into and those are the two funding sources. Who's paying for whom at any given time, honestly I couldn't tell you because PCA hasn't been very aggressive in pursuing it. Candidly in the world of PCA, this is probably nickel and dime stuff. Councilman Senn: No, no it is but I mean, unless they've changed the rules from the past, the responsible party's responsibility to do it and remedy and stuff. PCA just reviews their plan and recommendations coming out of there. Scott Botcher: PCA has indicated they're doing some of this. Mayor Mancino: They're working with them. Scott Botcher: That's what they told me. I'm just, but they haven't been very aggressive. Councilman Senn: No, because I mean. Mayor Mancino: It's a little. Scott Botcher: It's just not a big deal to them. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Engel: Yes. I want a two minute summary from Roger. Probably 60 seconds on a point discussed earlier tonight and that is the options to those developers, Puke left. What are they legally allowed to do if they came back and just met zoning requirements? Mayor Mancino: Ordinance requirements? Scott Botcher: I would adjourn. Turn those off and you can ask him. I don't think you want a legal opinion from your City Attorney on a potential issue that may or may not involve litigation recorded. Mayor Mancino: Okay, then I think we'll close the meeting. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 62