Loading...
CC Minutes 1997 12 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~30 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Berquist and Councilman Mason COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch and Sharmin A1-Jaff APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda amended to move items 3 and 5 under the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Receive and Approve Recommendations; Greenwood Shores On-Street Parking. b. Approval of 1998 City Council Meeting Schedule. c. Resolution #97-93: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Initiation of the RALF Process for TH 212 Right-of-way with the Metropolitan Council, James Curry. d. Approve 1998 Prosecution Contract. f. Resolution #97-94: Approve Amendment to Legal Description for Vacation 97-5, Lyman Boulevard/Oakwood Estates. g. Powers Place & Powers Place Second Addition - Project No. 95-4. a) Consider Request to Extend Development Contract b) Approve Addendum "A" to Development Contract h. Resolution #97-95: Accept Utility Improvements in Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 1st & 2nd Additions-Project Nos. 96-18 and 95-19. i. Resolution #97-96: Accept Utility Improvements in The Frontier - Project No. 96-16. j. Resolution #97-97: Accept Street Improvements in Halla Great Plains Addition - Project No. 95- 13. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 k. Woodridge Heights 1st & 2nd Additions - Project No. 97-5. 1) Approve Grading Plan 2) Approve Extension to Landscaping Requirements 3) Approve Addendum "A" Accept $1,200 Donation from the Chanhassen Lions Club for the Congregate Dining/Meals on Wheels Program. m. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated November 14, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 1997 Resolution #97-98: Approval of Gambling Permit for February Festival, Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. Resolution #97-99: Request for a Lot Split of Lot 1, Block 3, The Woods at Longacres, into a 32,753 sq. ft. Lot and 42,942 sq. ft. lot; located at the comer of Hunter Drive and Fawn Hill Road, Charles and Irene Song, as amended by staff. 5. Approval of Franchise Agreement with NSP as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: None. UPDATE ON FRANCHISE RENEWAL~ TRIAX CABLEVISION. Don Ashworth: This is an update. I do have with seeing a representative from Triax. I had anticipated Jane Bremmer and there will be a different party and she'll have to introduce herself. Kind of looking at the bigger picture associated with Triax. I had hoped to have Dave MacKenzie as well. He's our telecommunications kind of expert. I don't see him in the audience. And finally we have Brian Grogan with us to talk a little bit about the current status of the franchise renewal process. What's required under federal law or... Paul, are you going to make the presentation? Well I should forewarn you. The City Council has asked that this be kept very short. More or less to, I'll call it bigger picture as to what Triax is trying to complete. Hopefully maybe some time frames and monetary commitment to the overall system. So you're up. Oh good. Dave MacKenzie walked in. Mayor Mancino: Good. We'll give everybody some time to get ready and you have plenty of time to take off your coat. Paul Pecora: Okay, good evening Mayor. Members of City Council. My name's Paul Pecora and I'm the Regional Manager for Triax Cable out of Waseca, Minnesota. And as Mr. Ashworth has stated, I'm here tonight to do a brief presentation on our proposed rebuild upgrade commitment for the City of Chanhassen. As the Council's aware of, over the last several months we've discussed our current situation with our cable system and while it's still functional, it really has become limited in our future capabilities and our franchise proposal is such that it will allow us to expand the capabilities well into the future. And what our City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 proposal is is to build a fiber coaxial network within the communities and this is actually a network that will be interconnected with our entire communities that we service up in this area in the Lake Minnetonka area. In short, I'll try not to be too technical with the description of the network but what we planned on doing is building a fiber network to what we call nodes. Fiber nodes and this allows us to remove a lot of the electronic equipment that is currently in place. And one of the major benefits of that is it reduces the number of electronic devices that we currently utilize, therefore increasing the reliability of the system. And when we build a fiber network what we do is we take a bundle of fibers. We go to a very specific location and from there we branch out back into a coaxial electronic system. This system however, every time we go to a node we'll be limited to serving 500 customers per node. So we greatly reduce the number of electronics serving those customers, which again increases the reliability of the system. The other benefits that we're proposing from this fiber network is that we will then be able to increase the capacity of the system for doing data transmissions, internet access, and those types of digital data services that are now available that we can do over a cable network. The upgrade is also designed to take the system to 750 megahertz which in cable terms, currently we have a 400 megahertz system which has a channel capacity of approximately 54 channels. A 750 cable network, our intention is to make 550 megahertz of that available for video services which would then take the capability up to 78 video channels. The remaining 200 megahertz from 550 to 750 will also allow us to use that band with, for data transmissions. And data transmissions is kind of a broad term. It could be used for a variety of different things. We currently have systems in Waseca, Minnesota which the school district is using for their data transmissions of computers and also their, they've got an internal telephone system that is linking 4 of their locations throughout the city. And they can actually make phone calls and page someone from one building over into another building. So there's a whole wide variety of different uses that can be utilized with this fiber network. In addition, as I mentioned, what we will be using is a six fiber bundle. One fiber will be utilized for our video services and that will allow five other fibers to be used either commercially or through a school district or whatever purpose you know we can find to use that network. In addition to building the fiber network, our proposal will be to add new video services such as pay per view, and these are the types of services that are currently not available but many communities and customers are asking us to provide so that's going to give us the capabilities of increasing our video services as well. I did hand out to Mr. Ashworth a couple of days ago kind of a brief overview of the system. One of the things I do want to make the Council aware of is that as we go through this process, and our proposal is to do this, rebuild and upgrade of the system over the next 18 months. We probably will need at least two summers to complete this work. During this process we will be running the fiber lines and coaxial lines along existing paths. But naturally up in this area there's a lot of underground work that needs to be done and we're going to utilize the summer months to be able to complete that work, as we're froze out during the winters. The construction phase, there's really some benefits to building a network of only affecting 500 homes at a time. One will be, we'll try to minimize the affect on the current customer base and the interruptions of service as we switch over from the old system to the new system. So that's going to be greatly enhanced with only affecting 500 homes at a time. The plan would be to build the fiber network. Go to each node and cut over to the new system each node at a time so it minimizes the interruptions as well. We're also looking at one important aspect I think is the community needs. I mentioned in Waseca we had the local school district on our fiber network. We will also be seeking out information from the community as to what needs are there and are available and building the system based on those needs so we don't have to go back later. We've asked the communities, and I believe we've received some information from what potentially are going to be some needs. We've also talked to some communities and there's some interest in the local police departments tying in different networks so we're also looking at those possibilities as well. In short I guess if I can answer any questions, hopefully I didn't go too fast. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have for me at this time. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council? There are not any. Thank you. Paul Pecora: Okay, thank you. Don Ashworth: Again present with us tonight is Dave MacKenzie. He is our independent consultant specializing in high speed communication and access to the internet. I don't know if you have any questions as to Dave as to the proposal submitted by Triax or not. Mayor Mancino: I don't have any particular questions. Any Council members have any questions for Dave at this point? Councilman Mason: Well just, how do you see this fitting into the 21st century in Chanhassen, what they're proposing? Dave MacKenzie: Well as we've discussed, I believe it's been almost over the past year with Don and Triax and the other parties. To give you an overview I guess of what's going on. I'm sure that many of you have heard about the number of systems in the community putting in different architecture of those systems. The two leading architectures that we know are.., fiber coaxial system such as Triax is doing. And the other system is called fiber to the curb. And both have their benefits and their drawbacks. I believe that fiber probably has more, or fiber to the curb probably offers more flexibility, more growth into the future brought right into the home. In a community the size of Chanhassen, connecting this is probably.., because the economics in lower population, more density areas typically are prohibitive for running fiber in residential areas. That does more expensive technology due to... to the curb. The costs on that are coming down but still it's more typical to see that in very high density environments. I believe that in looking at the system in the research that I've done in the system, that Triax is... recommending here or proposing here, that this offers the same capabilities and can deliver the same capabilities and be delivered over fiber to the curb so I don't see any potential drawbacks to that. It also puts them in a position in the future by the way that they're doing this to a node and then just running 500 homes off of that. The environment is such that... If U.S. West comes in and says well we're going to do fiber to the curb, the...I think it would put them in a position where they would be better able to do that in the future... Councilman Mason: Well thank you, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Dave at this point from Council members? Thank you. Don Ashworth: Again we have with us Brian Grogan and I'll make the same comment to Brian. That is that you try to keep your comments relatively short. I think I've given you the cover memo kind of talking about the generalized franchise agreement. If you can just kind of give us a little bit of... as to why it is we need to go through this process and then kind of where we currently are. Brian Grogan: Sure. And maybe a quick follow-up on the last question about where this places Chanhassen. I do renewals kind of around the region and working in cities like Rochester and Des Moines and different operators taking different approaches to this but to the extent Chanhassen had a 750 megahertz system, hypercoax system today, you'd be among two in the Twin Cities area that would have that. Everyone else is below that level. So even your neighbors just to the east have been upgraded to 550 and are still needing the 750, so this would put you on the same playing field as eventually Eden Prairie will be and other communities. So it does put you right in the ballpark of the other neighboring communities. St. Paul for example just brought the 5. With respect to Don's question about why we're City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 proceeding through two separate documents, and you have those in your packet tonight. I'm representing several communities that Triax serves and what we've tried to do is group them together and use some standard documents that we can use for all the communities and then tailor them uniquely for each specific city's requirement. The reason for the ordinance and a franchise agreement is a regulatory ordinance that, I don't know if there's some things going on back there. The reason for a regulatory ordinance is so that it governs any provider of cable television service in the community. So as Mr. MacKenzie referenced, if U.S. West or another competitor would come into town, this ordinance will govern any provider of services. It's your standard regulatory ordinance. It's much the way you do business in many of your other ordinances you adopt. The franchise agreement would be the contract in the city and Triax. That will govern that unique relationship. We would assume that if another competitor comes in, literally photocopy that franchise agreement. Change the name for the competitor so you'd have a level playing field among them. But the advantage in having two separate documents is you can amend the regulatory ordinance as the law changes or as the industry changes. You can even have more aggressive customer service standards.., that flexibility as a city. We are quite a ways down the road in negotiating those documents with Triax as you can see from those documents. Wayzata has been kind of leading the charge simply because their system is further away from the head end and their system has more difficulty getting quality pictures than Chanhassen so they've been very aggressive in trying to get this in place as soon as possible. What I assume is that once that is finished here in the next several weeks, we will take those documents and we'll tailor the unique provisions that we need to to reflect Chanhassen's unique issues and we should be in a position shortly thereafter to bring it back to you for consideration as Chanhassen's document and get your input and tailor it further from there. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Brian at this point from Council members? No, I think that's it. Thank you very much. Don Ashworth: Brian, maybe if you could stay. One last issue and that was, we did have a disruption between several of our neighborhoods this past summer. Paul has been, and Paul you may want to come back to the microphone. Did present his analysis of where those neighborhoods were and currently Triax is prepared to make a 20% kind of rebate to those particular neighborhoods. Although I listed this as really kind of a non-action item. Although I had listed this as really kind of a non-action item, I would like to take and get that rebate type of thing resolved so if Council members have questions that affect Paul or suggestions or. In other words I'd like to resolve that issue. Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's good. Paul we see your letter here from December 2nd of '97 about the finalize it's proposal to issue a 20% credit to all subscribers. I think one of the questions Council members have was at one time that was 25%. It has gone from 25% to 20 and we have concerns and questions about that. Paul Pecora: Okay. Mayor I honestly couldn't answer that. I don't recall a 25% offer. I could be mistaken by that. My recollection is that it's been a 20% credit. Sorry if I'm mistaken but I really, I don't recall, Todd if you do or not. Todd Gerhardt: I think your offer was over to the 20% and then our counter was 25 that we had discussions with and you wanted to get approval... City Council so I directed that onto their agenda. Paul Pecora: Okay. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Paul or any comments from council members on that credit and what you feel is. Councilman Berquist: Only to reaffirm what.., was saying. 25% is... Mayor Mancino: And Michael and Mark? Councilman Mason: I would agree. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do we need to Don, make a motion on that about accepting the 25% credit from Triax? Does it need to be in a motion form or not? Don Ashworth: I don't think it needs to be specifically acted upon but I guess I would somehow I'd like to kind of know that the majority of you feel that that's reasonable. I suppose the easiest way to do that is to make a motion. Then we know how people are voting. Mayor Mancino: Okay, before we do, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I don't know whether this is a question for Paul or Todd but, Paul or Todd. Is there a reason why the other east side areas, Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake Estates, Fox Hollow and Near Mountain weren't included the credits? They were part of that same equipment problem that. Todd Gerhardt: Well my recommendation was to go with the 25% credit plus the list of neighborhoods that you had listed. Councilman Senn: So that just wasn't included in again the final one here December 2nd SO we need to include that then? Mayor Mancino: We could include that in the motion. Councilman Senn: Okay, all right. Todd Gerhardt: It wasn't included in the data that Paul provided us as outage areas. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then I'd make a motion for Council to provide direction on the 25% credit to all subscribers associated with the street listing provided by Triax with the additions of the Colonial Grove neighborhood, Lotus Lake Estates and Fox Hollow and Near Mountain neighborhoods. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to provide direction for a 25% credit to all subscribers associated with the street listings provided by Triax with the addition of the following neighborhoods: Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake Estates, Fox Hollow and Near Mountain. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, THE WOODS AT LONGACRES, INTO A 32,753 SQ. FT. LOT AND 42,942 SQ. FT LOT; LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HUNTER DRIVE AND FAWN HILL ROAD, CHARLES AND IRENE SONG. Mayor Mancino: I'm going to ask some people that are here under the request for lot split for the Woods at Longacres. That has already gone through on the Consent Agenda. Are there people here tonight that wanted to speak on that issue? Okay. A resident in the audience made a comment. Mayor Mancino: The Song property. The split. Councilman Senn: Oh you were notified of what, a 7:00 public hearing or something? Resident: It says staff will give an overview of the.., project... Mayor Mancino: And it's 7:00. Ah, that was our mistake. Yeah, I understand. I understand. I didn't know that you got that letter. It's not listed as a public hearing. Councilman Senn: But they were notified that way. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that you were notified that way. Roger Knutson: The applicants have gone home, is that right? Mayor Mancino: Has the applicant gone home? Roger, I defer to you. I would still like to hear comments. Roger Knutson: If you'd like to hear comments but frankly, you can listen to them but I wouldn't recommend you change your action. Unless you bring back the applicant, I wouldn't... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: If you want to bring it all before you, then you can reconsider and table it to the next meeting. Which I'm sure. Mayor Mancino: After we listen to comments, yeah. Okay, did you hear what we're going to do? We're going to listen to your comments. Now we have already voted to go ahead and pass that on the consent agenda but we will open it up and bring it back right now and listen to your comments. And from what you say, if there are any things that we want to go back and reconsider our vote, we can do that. So at this point if you want to come up and if you do have any comments on what is proposed, please come up now in front of the City Council. Just state your name and address. You can ask any questions, etc. at this point. A question was asked from a resident in the audience. Mayor Mancino: We moved it and you can come up and ask us any questions. So come on up and we'll open up to your comments. It is not under a public hearing. It's under new business but please come up and, oh I'm sorry, to the podium. And state your name and address. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Ron Slaminski: My name is Ron Slaminski. I'm at 2280 Hunter Drive which is the property immediately across from the lot in question being subdivided. My comments would be this. Number one, it was my assumption that it was a public hearing and that we were going to see the developer's plans and then would be able to make some comments regarding that, so that's a concern that I've got .... subject to those same restrictions. Is anyone aware that could answer that question? Mayor Mancino: Well it is certainly subject to all of our city ordinances. There is, just a minute. Just a minute. It is subject to our city ordinances so whether it is, you know the right sized lot, etc., it hasn't asked for a variance so everything that we have said in our city ordinance, it conforms to. There is nothing that they've asked here that has to be a variance to our ordinances. As far as it goes to the private covenants of that particular subdivision, I defer to you Roger. Our City Attorney. Roger Knutson: I'll just make two points. First, the City does not enforce and has no right to enforce private covenants. Private covenants are a contract. Having said that, to tiT to answer your question. First I have not read, or ifI have it's been a long, long time since I've read those covenants so I have no knowledge of them. So speaking in general terms. The fact that a lot is subdivided, probably, frankly almost certainly would have no affect on the covenants. The covenants, if it includes this piece of, this lot before, it will almost certainly be covered by those same covenants afterwards. But again I have not read that and that's a general statement but I can say with a high degree of probability that's the case. Ron Slaminski: That would probably be covered by the covenants? Is there a way. Mayor Mancino: But if it isn't covered by the covenants or something, then we cannot enforce as a city the private subdivision covenants. So you know, if your subdivision if something isn't, someone or some property isn't abiding by the covenants, that is not something that we as a City Council have any, I mean we can't do anything about that. Does that answer? Ron Slaminski: Yeah, it's a fair challenge. The concern I then have is the fact that, you having made the decision without us seeing the developer's plans. For what they plan on doing with that and with the property because I'm not sure what they're planning on doing, other than they're going to subdivide it, I don't know what they're going to do with that subdivided portion of the land. Roger Knutson: Mayor? The only thing we, as a city know. Mayor Mancino: We don't know any more. Roger Knutson: Is that they've divided the property in accordance with our ordinances. Ron Slaminski: Okay. Roger Knutson: What they do after that is up to the property owner, as long as what they want to do is consistent with our ordinances. For example, if they wanted to build a gas station there, if the property is zoned for residential, they can't do that. So whatever our ordinances say the property is zoned will apply and they have to comply with that. Ron Slaminski: Okay, so my final question would then be, do we get to look at, or what is the process by which they, who do they come to in terms of here's what we're going to do with that lot? What is that process? City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Roger Knutson: It depends on what they want to do. If for example they want to build a single family home there, and a single family, I know nothing about this property. And a single family home is a permitted use on the property and they're going to build it in conformance with all our setback requirements and other zoning requirements. What they would have to do is come in, just like any other property owner. Apply for a building permit. It gets processed in City Hall. If it meets requirements, it gets approved. Ron Slaminski: Okay. Okay, that's my comments. Mayor Mancino: And my other, were you notified of the Planning Commission's meeting? That is where the public hearing is and it's prior to the City Council meeting and it was probably last Wednesday night that it was on the Planning Commission agenda. Ron Slaminski: No. The only thing, unless you were. The only thing we were notified of was this meeting here to listen to what the plans were, etc. and make necessary comments on it and that's why I'm here. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. That helps me. Don, because this is metes and bounds, wouldn't it have still gone through the Planning Commission? Or Roger, would this not have gone through the Planning Commission? Councilman Senn: I don't think it did. There's no Minutes. Roger Knutson: Unless it's exempt and I was just looking for that. Mayor Mancino: Now we have a notice of a public hearing for tonight in our packet that shows that you were. Councilman Senn: Yeah, this was noticed as a public hearing for tonight. Councilman Berquist: Let's listen to what everybody says and then decide whether we need to rescind our previous action. Mayor Mancino: Okay, got it. You need to realize that you, it's under our agenda as new business. It's not under public hearing but what you got said it was going to be a public hearing, so thank you. Come forward please. Jeff O'Neill: I'm Jeff O'Neill. I'm at 2370 Hunter Drive and I'm also on the, I'm just put on the Board for our Homeowners Association. And that was a concern of mine because if I look to the covenants, the Songs did sign the original covenants. I guess we're concerned, is this lot going to be part of our homeowners association? I don't know. Roger Knutson: Again, I'm repeating myself a bit but the only way to really answer that is to look at your covenants and see what properties are included within them. If this property is included within them, I've never seen a covenants that say ifa property is split it drops out of the covenants. So in all likelihood if it was there yesterday before the split, it's there today under the covenants. City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Jeff O'Neill: I guess that's some questions I wish we could have asked maybe the Song's or something when they applied for the permit. Mayor Mancino: It's certainly a very good question. Jeff O'Neill: For the split. Councilman Senn: But you really should check that because a lot of times an existing house, being engulfed effectively by a new development, may sign the covenants but they are exempt from the covenants because they're an existing situation. Jeff O'Neill: Okay. Councilman Senn: So I'm just saying, and that's not a question we can answer and I'm not even sure. Jeff O'Neill: That's why I came here tonight is to ask those questions. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I'm not sure the Song's could even answer that. You need to really look at your covenants and if that lot, I mean in your covenants it will say what lots are covered by those covenants and if there's any exempt, it will say which ones are exempt and under what conditions. Because just for example in my neighborhood, there were some exempt lots but they only stayed exempt so long as those people owned the lot. So if they ever sold the lot, then they were no longer exempt. So I mean you really need to look at the detail of your covenants and understand that, which is not something. Jeff O'Neill: Okay, I understand that but the other question, I haven't even seen how they're splitting the lots or where the proposed house site is or anything. So it would be nice to see that too. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: I understand. Don Ashworth: I thought that I did. Councilman Senn: We should him that. Don Ashworth: Yeah. Well I think that they have one. Councilman Senn: But the property line has been moved. I mean if you take this drawing here, if you have that. Okay, basically under the most recent change, this property line here has now been moved like that over to the side so this driveway is no longer an easement access. It's a private access over the lot. Okay, so the lot line's been moved over here now to include the area that the driveway's on. Okay? Penny Havelik: My name is Penny Havelik and I live at 2314 Hunter Drive so I'm like diagonal from this that we're talking about and I'm really disappointed because I thought, you know I had told like several neighbors that we were going to be seen you know more than obviously we are so I'm really disappointed and totally opposed to how that was done. How we were notified. I thought that was great. Mayor Mancino: I agree. 10 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Penny Havelik: I was really impressed but I think this is really dirty pool and I don't agree with it at all. So if we had any say so in it, I think this is really not the way to go. Developers, you know it would be nice to see some more information and we don't have it here tonight so I guess what are our options? Mayor Mancino: Well, we will discuss rescinding our vote and bringing it back again. Penny Havelik: Okay, great. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: That's what we said we'd do and anyone else like to get up? Don Ashworth: Mayor? I guess I'd like to make a public apology. I should have caught the fact that we had sent out the notice. I think each of us in looking at the report and the item realized that given the size of this property and the number of times that we have given lot splits, especially where you start in getting up into 20, 30, 40,000 square foot ending parcels has consistently occurred. There may be some misunderstanding in terms of a lot split that developers would have been here and showing a picture of a house, which is not typically part of a lot split type of process. I have a feeling all of us were kind of thinking solely about this lot split issue, not necessarily had this been noticed and was it logical that people would be coming in so... apologize for my part of the. Mayor Mancino: ... yeah, I apologize too because I though it had gone through Planning Commission too. With that, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I concur. I mean I think there's been a mix up and we owe these people an apology. The thing I guess I'd really like to understand specifically from the people that are here tonight is, are you here because you don't, or you want to discuss the lot split or are you here because you want to discuss what's going to go on the property? Audience... Councilman Senn: Both. Okay. Audience... Councilman Senn: But you understand we do not have the ability to do... Mayor Mancino: To do that. Councilman Senn: I mean just, I don't want any false information put out here. We do not have the ability to deny a lot split. Mayor Mancino: On this lot. Councilman Senn: It conforms with city ordinances. Okay. And this one does, so I mean I don't want to, if we put this off for you know, until next meeting and have them come back and present, I just don't want to give you a false sense of whatever because we can't mm around and disapprove it as long as it meets the ordinances. Mayor Mancino: And this does. 11 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Councilman Senn: And it does. Audience... Councilman Senn: Again, those are issues that will arise at the time that they bring a proposal in to develop the property. They are not issues which will be addressed now as it relates to simply dividing the lot. I mean I'll be honest with you. I mean if you want us to table this tonight and have them come back with their presentation on the lot split, I will be happy at least to make that motion. Okay. I can't tell you whether it will pass or not. Because of the mix up here and I think you have that right, okay. But again I don't want you to have us do that thinking that effectively that means we're going to be able to turn around and deny it. Audience... Councilman Senn: Well but that's what we're trying to explain to you in terms of our mix up. This shouldn't have been labeled as a public hearing. Okay? It was erroneously done so so you showed up thinking it was a public hearing. For us it was a new business, almost like an administrative item which we were going to pass on. We had kind of like one set of information and you had another and that's what we're apologizing for. Councilman Mason: And that is why we made the action we made earlier because it should be new business. It was, the information you got, got crossed and that's certainly not your issue. Councilman Senn: But again, out of courtesy, if you want us to put it off, again I'm willing to make that motion to do that. But again all it's going to accomplish is them coming and show you what the split is. We will still approve it but it sounds to me like your real issue is with what's going to happen when the property develops, which is something that you have to come down the road. Audience... Councilman Mason: Like our City Attorney said, it being a lot of record and if everything they do meets city codes. Mayor Mancino: And we certainly don't have a city code that says what size house. How much the house has to be, etc. We have given them setbacks where the house has to be located approximately. We have taken into account if you read the staff report and a little bit about the wetlands and how they cannot infringe on the wetlands. How the house cannot be a walkout or they will be taking out more trees so we have addressed tree preservation. We've addressed wetlands. We've addressed drainage. We've addressed all those that we would on any lot whether it was the lot that your house is built on. We did it the exact same way. The fairness issue and there is a compliance with the setbacks again in that neighborhood. What the setbacks are by city ordinance. So all of that complies with our city ordinance. Councilman Senn: And we do have tree preservation ordinances. We do have bluff preservation ordinances. Mayor Mancino: And all those were checked against that. 12 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Councilman Senn: And if they need anything to vary from that or whatever, then they'll have to come in and go through a process through the Planning Commission and the City Council. Otherwise what staff has attempted to do here and what you have is identify an area that for nothing more than identity purposes at this point is an area which they're saying is probably the spot to put a house on the site which would provide minimal damage. Mayor Mancino: To the environment. Councilman Senn: To the environment and everything else. Mayor Mancino: I mean, and you can. Councilman Senn: It's a concept at this point. I mean that's all it is. Mayor Mancino: And you can read the list of recommendations about you know around where they're building the house, they can only go out 15 feet for tree removal, etc. so again if you read the recommendations, they're very specific about what they can and can't do. Audience... Mayor Mancino: Yes. Roger Knutson: If anyone, this owner or anyone else wants a variance from our zoning or subdivision rules, a hearing has to be held. And depending on the type of variance requested, more than likely it will be held before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and mailed and published notice is required by law and by our ordinances before that can be considered. So if they want a variance from let's say the setback requirements, then you'd be notified and there'd be a public hearing. Councilman Senn: Yeah because I think most of our notification requirements are like 400 or 500 feet. Audience... Mayor Mancino: That's correct. That's correct. Councilman Senn: I can tell you from me perspective on this lot, I'm happy it's being split the way it is because they could be splitting it a lot more. I mean our. Mayor Mancino: So they could be splitting it into three lots. Councilman Senn: Right, okay? So I mean to see this type of an area dealt with in that manner where you're going to just see two lots come out of it, I'm encouraged by that. I mean myself just looking at it from that perspective. Audience... Councilman Mason: Well no. It was never a possibility.., never had a chance to listen to what was going to happen there. I mean that's, I mean it's a lot. Somebody can put a house on it if they've got the money 13 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 and they fulfill the city requirements. I mean that's no different than the house that's next to you or across the street from you or whatever. Councilman Senn: And I would doubt if Songs are going to be the developer. I mean my guess is they're going to sell this property to somebody who is and then they're going to have to go through the city processes. I guess I'll ask my question again. Mayor Mancino: So what would you like us to, yeah. What would be your pleasure? Audience... Councilman Senn: Okay. Because I mean if that's fine then we won't vote to reconsider and effectively have another meeting on the lot split, if that's okay. Okay, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. TOBACCO LICENSING, CONSIDER TRANSFERRING AUTHORITY TO CARVER COUNTY. Don Ashworth: I was contacted by Mr. Fahey's office, County Attorney, whereby they had stated that the County was considering going to do licensing on a county wide basis. Realized that they do prosecutions for the city and it's just as soon logical that you would have kind of one ordinance to enforce again on a county wide basis rather than several individual cities. So I asked Roger's office to put together a comparison of what is required under the new laws. In other words, how the County would have to fashion their ordinance and compare that to what our existing city ordinances were. My findings are that they very close to the same. The one area they do have an allowance for a vending machine but that could only occur if it is in an adult only store such as an adult book store which fortunately we do not have. But otherwise things such as a liquor store or a bar would not meet the redemption standard. The only other item that I'm not sure if the Council, how the Council feels on this one, and that is the current ordinance makes it illegal to sell, or prohibits under age 18 retail clerks. From personal experience I know that Festival Food is very good about following that requirement. I'm not sure as to other stores within the city. I do not know if S A has ever had a problem with that or Holiday or any others. I mean it is in the current ordinance. I did have Roger check on the possibility of one, having that incorporated into the County ordinance. Or two, what I call a stand alone ordinance so we would have, as far as tobacco is concerned, we'd have a one sentence ordinance. And the one sentence would say, it's illegal to. Mayor Mancino: Have a minor sell. Don Ashworth: ... under 18 sell tobacco products. With that Roger, how did you come out with Fahey's office? Oh by the way the County is, in fact tonight, holding a public hearing on this item out at the Rec Center. They're taking the thought of the County doing it on a county wide basis. My guess is it's probably going to take several months for them to get all done. By the time they've had meetings similar to this one in Young America, in Carver and on down the line. Roger Knutson: Don, I of course recall you and I discussing it but, I don't know how to say this. But I don't recall I was supposed to call the County Attorney but now that you reminded me I'm sure I was supposed to so I will promptly call the County Attorney tomorrow morning. 14 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Don Ashworth: What about the stand alone ordinance? Roger Knutson: I'm fine with that if you wanted to do that. Don Ashworth: So if the City Council wanted to act on this, you could take and fashion, if Mr. Fahey would agree to take and put it in there. Otherwise, the motion... Roger's office to draft a one sentence. Councilman Senn: A couple questions before we move. Mayor Mancino: Sure. I have a few questions too. Go ahead. Councilman Senn: Don, just the first one for you. You know our existing ordinance, as long as I've been around here, has kind of been held out as being kind of cutting edge. You know way in the forefront, kind of the best ordinance ever around. Okay. It seems to me that we're giving up elements of that and I guess the question is should we. Now, and this is the second part of the question. I don't mean to run it together but I guess there's no other way to do it. One of my big concerns is, okay I understand the differences between the vending and the minors and we can solve the minor ones. But the other part that concerns me the most is how do we insure enforcement which we insure now. Because once this is out of our hands we don't enforce it and we're relying on another party to enforce it and what guarantees do we have that effectively the effort will be made and what that effort will be and in fact the enforcement will be as effective as our existing enforcement has been. Which again it's kind of always been held out, as I understand it, as a model. Don Ashworth: There's no question that when Chanhassen passed it's ordinance that it was considered one of the strictest in the State of Minnesota and I think a lot of people were trying to vie for well who foot the thing in and I think it came down to like three communities of which Chanhassen was one of them. The enforcement, well. Provisions in there such as the not sell and all the rest of it, have been there but I would, I would sincerely question enforcement in the past because I do not recall of any type of sting operations that we have given out in the whole tobacco area. We've sent copies of the ordinances to everyone in the firms and have told them that they need to comply when we go for renewal.., ordinance again and tell them they need to comply. And again people like Festival, I know personally do comply. I mean I've had clerks there who are under 18. I've asked for a tobacco product. They have called over another clerk. She has gone in the little sales area and got whatever product I wanted, came over and personally handed. The 18 year old never touched that product. Councilman Senn: Well I understand what you're saying but... Scott has told us though that they did shop this. Mayor Mancino: They did what? Councilman Senn: Well they'd shop some of the stores to check them. Councilman Mason: That was a county thing though wasn't it? Mayor Mancino: But we can still do that and it doesn't mean we can't. If we go by county. Councilman Mason: That Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. 15 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Councilman Senn: That's the part I'm not remembering... Councilman Mason: ... no, because I remember 3, 4 years ago that Southwest Metro Drug Task Force did run a couple of operations where they would have underage kids... Don Ashworth: But both of those though, as it dealt with alcohol products and did take and both of those times we did have some illegal sales. I do not know of any type of a sting that's occurred in regards to tobacco products. Under the new State law however, if it tums over to an enforcement issue with, or if the County ends up with it, they must do exactly that. They have to, under the State law, go to each and every store. Anybody that has a license. Sometime during the course of that year attempt to purchase tobacco products. So therefore they can get this group of voluntary kids. Go to the back of the churches and school where you sign up. They need to get somebody to put the whole program together. When it is we're going to do the sting. When to meet at City Hall and if they have to take and make arrangements back with the Sheriff's Department to in fact carry out that sting. It's the reporting that's required as a part to show which date that they went there. What they tried to buy and what the actions were. That's all those good things that I'm basically saying, I don't know that we necessarily want to do those. So whichever agency is going to control us, that's the agency that has to do all of these things. And the other part is that it says under the law that we are, well we can recoup all of our cost. I don't know if it's much recoup our loss... but my other fear would be that this is going to be a very expensive operation as far as I can tell. I mean make all these arrangements and bring in the cops and do the stings. We're at $25.00 per license. I mean I could easily see that going to 150. At that point in time I am sure you would have Tom Krueger in here from Riveria, the people from the bowling center. A lot of these smaller spots just don't sell, I'm guessing Brown probably doesn't sell $150.00 worth of tobacco products during the. Maybe that's a good way. Councilman Berquist: Brown? Don Ashworth: Yeah, Gary Brown. Councilman Senn: I bet he sells a lot more than that. Councilman Berquist: He'd sell that to me every other month. Councilman Mason: I thought you quit? Councilman Berquist: Well, used to when I smoked. Councilman Senn: ... then that pretty much answers my question. Just the last element of it becomes so okay. If we turn that all over then and they do it, this isn't going to become something we're billed back for then. Under our contract or otherwise. Don Ashworth: No. Councilman Senn: So this becomes basically a County responsibility and becomes County funded, etc.? Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilman Mason: My personal feeling would be we get that one sentence, after these things were cleared up. We get that one sentence put in there about the 18 year olds and I'm fine with it. 16 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Councilman Senn: I am too then, yeah. Councilman Mason: Are we looking for. Councilman Senn: And Councilman Berquist. We want him added in there too. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that he can never be sold tobacco products again... Councilman Senn: We want to encourage. Roger Knutson: Special provisions. Councilman Mason: ... such a good job. So do we need a motion on that? Roger Knutson: What about Ashworth? Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's throw him in too. Roger Knutson: Ashworth too. Councilman Mason: So since Mayor Mancino's out for the moment and as Acting Mayor I'm supposed to do something important here. Don Ashworth: The very last line in my... resolution. Councilman Mason: So we're looking for a more of approval with the one sentence. Don Ashworth: Either added to the County or as a stand alone ordinance and then, so then the motion should read, authorizing the transfer subject to the County agreeing to the under 18 provision. And should that fail, that the City Attorney's office is authorized to draft a ordinance that would have that one sentence. Councilman Senn: That'd be shortest thing I've ever seen Roger draft. So moved. Councilman Mason: Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to authorize the transfer of authority to license tobacco products within the City of Chanhassen to Carver County subject to the County agreeing to the under 18 provision. And should that fail, that the City Attorney's office is authorized to draft a ordinance that would have that one sentence. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino who was out of the room, and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRSENTATION: CONSIDER RENAMING COULTER DRIVE (IN FRONT OF CITY HALL), ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. 17 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Todd Gerhardt: We're having difficulties with the two Coulters. Both Boulevard and Drive. We have an identity crisis where we have people coming up to City Hall and looking for the Rec Center. So staff is recommending a name change of the City Hall address to, where are the selections we had in there. Councilman Mason: City Center Drive or City Center Plaza. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. As you may know, the park over here is called City Center and we did try some government plaza and government center and we got thumbs down from a lot of people on that. That people were saying when are you going to pay your taxes when you read that kind of title so we thought City Center Plaza was a nice one. And if you want to stay with the typical Drive or Boulevard, City Center Drive would be another alternative. Or if you have one on your own, we're receptive to other ideas. Councilman Senn: Now what section are we talking about? Todd Gerhardt: We'd be from Market Boulevard over to Kerber. Councilman Senn: So that's the only section we're talking about? Todd Gerhardt: We're the only ones affected by it and I've had discussions with Sig at the Post Office and she assured me that we could use up our letterhead and that she would make sure that we still got our mail. It would be either of the two addresses. The old one and the proposed new one. Councilman Berquist: Well considering that we pick it up every morning, that'd be hard to screw up. Mayor Mancino: I think this is a sixth grade, this would be fun for sixth graders to have a naming party. Okay. Councilman Mason: Third grade maybe. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So what would you, Todd what. Mike, I'll let you finish this one. I'm sorry. Councilman Mason: I certainly understand the confusion there and it is confusing. I personally, the City Center Plaza seems a little too hoity toity. I could live with City Center Drive, but I don't know how other people feel about it. Councilman Berquist: IS that a motion? Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll make the motion. Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to rename Coulter Drive in front of City Hall to City Center Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION. 18 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Mayor Mancino: There are no more items on the agenda but do we have any questions on the Administrative Section? Admin Section. Councilman Senn: I had one on the Bonestroo one but Charles answered that before on the way down here. I don't know if you wanted. It was just basically, Bonestroo had given us this listing on... but we didn't have anything to compare it to '97 but Charles said to kind of ignore that.., put a whole standard one together for all consultants... Mayor Mancino: Great. Councilman Senn: The only other thing I had was, I thought Jim Grube's information was supposed to be back to us tonight under our agreement at the meeting. Charles Folch: I just went through my mail just before the meeting tonight and I do have something. I can make copies and make sure that I can get copies in all the, all your mailboxes tomorrow if you'd like. Mayor Mancino: We can even get it in the packet for next Monday. Charles Folch: Actually I can just run upstairs and get it tonight if you'd like. Mayor Mancino: We've got a work session on the 15th SO just have it ready. Is there any reason you want it before Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: No. I mean he was just supposed to get it back the info so we had it... Mayor Mancino: We'll do it the 15th. Great, thanks. Councilman Senn: The only other thing I had was parks. Park and Rec. Jane is resigning. What about maybe just anybody interested in appointing that one fellow we just interviewed who had an interest either in Parks or Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I know who you mean. Good idea. Very good idea. Yeah, because I would think they'd want to have a chance to interview. So yeah. Good. Todd Gerhardt: You may be getting more down the line. Todd made a comment. Councilman Berquist: We've got one in Public Safety... Mayor Mancino: And when you say more down the line, you mean in Park and Rec? Okay. Councilman Senn: It just kind of sounded like she'd stay on until we needed to but it sounded like at the same time she kind of wanted to get done with it... if you want to consider it because he's already gone through the interview process... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Council members, if you don't mind, I'll bring that up to Todd tomorrow at the staff meeting. 19 City Council Meeting - December 8, 1997 Councilman Mason: I think that's fine. I guess I'd like to know how Park & Rec. Actually I think it's a good idea but I'd like to know how Park and Rec Commission feels about that. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I think that's good. Councilman Senn: Maybe have him go in and talk to them. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: I had one question for Charles. Recent heavy equipment operator position has been filled. Did someone resign or is this a position? Charles Folch: This was a position where someone resigned and we're refilling the vacancy. Councilman Berquist: This was the gentleman that worked for... Mayor Mancino: Mr. Peters. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: For Loren Engelman is an existing employee, correct? He's an outside... ? Okay... Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 20