Loading...
CC Minutes 1997 04 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Bob Generous, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Todd Hoffman, and Cynthia Kirchoff APPROVAL OF AGENDA; Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendment: Councilman Senn asked to remove item 3 from the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approve Plans and Specifications for 1997 Street Repair Program; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 97-9. c. Approval of Bills. d. Resolution #97-26: Approve Year End Closings & Transfers. City Council Minutes dated April 14, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 1997 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated April 10, 1997 Resolution #97-27:1997 Park Bond Referendum, Approve Sample Ballot, Polling Locations and Times. Authorize Execution of 1997 Carver County Community Grant Program Agreement for Solid Waste Abatement. Approve City Code Amendment Concerning the Makeup of the Public Safety Commission, First Reading. Resolution #97-28: Approve Resolution Authorizing an Application for Waiver of FDA Preemption of Tobacco Ordinance Provisions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Public Present: Name Address James R. Bohn Brian H. Burdick 425 Chan View, Apt. 310 684 Excelsior Blvd. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Honorable Council. Included in your packet is a resolution establishing the creation of an Economic Development Authority. With the creation of the Economic Development Authority staff is recommending a seven board consisting of Council, Mayor and two citizens at large. The terms of offices would run with the terms of the Mayor and the Council and the two at large members would serve as a five and six year term. And with that staff would recommend approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the Council on that item? On this issue. On the EDA issue. If you are, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, any questions from Council members to staff'? Any comments from Council members? Then may I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Roger Knutson: IfI could just point out, you have to fill in the blanks and it could be today's date in paragraph 4.01 and 4.03. The date should be the same for both of those but whether it's today's date or whether you want to make it effective sometime in the future. Councilman Senn: Assuming today's date? Councilman Engel: Sure. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So excuse me. Would you state your motion again please? Councilman Senn: Move approval adding in the blanks the dates of, what is it, April 28th? Councilman Engel: 28th. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution #97-29: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a Resolution enabling the creation of an Economic Development Authority in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, the motion does carry and one no vote, and do you want to give your reasons? Councilman Mason: I've stated from the beginning of all of this that I think the HRA has functioned extremely well working in conjunction with City Council as opposed to City Council being a part of that. I think HRA has proved itself time and time again by the shape of downtown. I think there are good reasons and bad reasons for disbanding HRA and turning HRA into a City Council function. I think the way it has been has operated quite well so I'm opposed to the action. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Berquist: The only thing that I'd like to say one thing regarding it and that's in recognition of an HRA member who will not be part of the Economic Development Authority. Barbara Murphy, for the public record, took an appointed position roughly a year ago. She sat through a number of HRA meetings. She came forward and volunteered her time and her efforts on behalf of the City of Chanhassen and she, because of the odd numbers, no pun intended, that are needed on a public commission, she won't be part of the EDA but I do want to publicly thank her for her involvement and the time that she's put forth. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is award of bids, which number 3 has been deleted so we will. Todd Gerhardt: There was a second element to that. The appointment of the two non members. The staff report kind of got turned around. There was two items... You can appoint both Jim Bohn and Gary Boyle at this time. Mayor Mancino: Oh okay, thank you. Then may I have a motion to appoint the two citizen members. Councilman Berquist: I will move that Gary Boyle be appointed for a five year term and Jim Bohn appointed to the EDA for a six year term. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second please? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason: Excuse me. May I have a point of clarification? Me voting against that, can I still vote for the appointment of these two? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Mason: Okay. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded that Gary Boyle be appointed for a five year term and Jim Bohn appointed to the EDA for a six year term. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just so the records clear, that was based upon your recommendation to the Council. Mayor Mancino: Yes, it was. Thank you. City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX (VERBAL). Roger Knutson: Mayor, you all received a letter we sent to the Postal Service dated April 21st in which we repeated our demand that they construct the entire berm across the Weather Service property. We've had frank discussions, arguments with them as early or as late as this afternoon on that subject and they will not do so. They will not construct a berm on the Weather Station property or adjacent to that. There's a meeting on Wednesday on the site involving some of the people from your planning staff, our office, and architects to go over final design and how it's going to be constructed. What's going to be constructed. And that's where we stand. Don Ashworth: You should probably mention that the Postal Service has agreed to finish off the berm, pay for that on their property. Pay for the landscaping and pay for the trail on their property. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Engel: I think it should be noted that off of the trail, the extension that they're not willing to do is $21,000.00. The berm extension, excuse me. Just so people know what we're talking about here. Councilman Berquist: Can I ask a question of you Roger? I don't know if you know the answer to it but they're refusing to pay for the extension of the berm onto the Weather Service property occupied by the Weather Service. How are they proposing to end the berm at that property line? Roger Knutson: The design I'm not familiar with that. Again the details will be gone over Wednesday. I can't answer your question, I don't know. Mayor Mancino: Well I think a couple things need to be done. First of all, we have not seen the final landscaping plan from the Postal Service yet so we would like that submitted to the City Council for review. Roger Knutson: I will get that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And for our sign off. Secondly, is there a way Roger where we can get a meeting with Bryan Marshall on Wednesday afternoon? Is he also coming as part of that team? Roger Knutson: Not to my knowledge, no he's not coming. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well then. Roger Knutson: He hasn't indicated he's coming. Mayor Mancino: I would like to see a, if you or Tom could have a face to face meeting with a couple of the elected officials and representatives from the U.S. Postal Service. Roger Knutson: We'll attempt to arrange that. I'm sure we can. Mayor Mancino: Bryan Marschal. This week. Are there any other suggestions from Council members? Okay. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council on this issue? City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Bill Kemble: I'm wondering if it might be appropriate for a representative from the neighborhood to attend the meeting on Wednesday. Or whether or not those discussions should be just between the City and the Postal Service. Mayor Mancino: I think that they would be best between the City and the Post Office. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council tonight? On this issue. Okay. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO REZONE 146.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL); LOCATED NEAR AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41, GATEWAY, STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous: Madam Mayor, Council members. We received the preliminary traffic report today from ... consulting group regarding this project. Basically the results of their analysis are that the construction of the Trunk Highway 5... access intersection is critical to the operation of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41 due to the traffic generation in the project. Mayor Mancino: Can you hold on one second and wait until the Gateway people come in. The applicant and do you mind Bob starting over for a minute? So that they can hear everything that you said and we can get kind of focused. Councilman Berquist: That report just came in today Bob? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Berquist: It's not anywhere in here? Bob Generous: No. Mayor Mancino: And how much time have you had to review it Bob? Bob Generous: I just looked at it this afternoon. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you've done a cursory overview of it. Bob Generous: Yeah. I'm looking at their recommendation section of the report which is really the critical part.., we would like to see the results of what the impact of this development are. Mayor Mancino: And can everyone hear Bob? I think Richard behind you is having a hard time hearing you. Bob Generous: Well looked at what the impacts of, on the roadway system are without the development and then with the development. We had them incorporate the Coulter Boulevard connection over to Galpin with and without that. To look at what impacts that would have to the intersections in that area. The number one recommendation, or comment is that the intersection, or Trunk Highway 5 north access road, the north/south road from the development. That intersection is actually critical to the operation of Trunk City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Highway 5 and 41. Without that then no development traffic is routed over to TH 5 and 41... through this access point. Mayor Mancino: Well you could still have right-in and right-out on Highway 5. Bob Generous: Yeah but then you have, it's the left mm movements that are the problem. Well it's all the left mm movements at TH 5 and 41. As part of the recommended improvements are that all of the approaches at TH 5 and 41 have to build all of these projects have a dual left mm lane. So we'll have something that we'll submit for MnDot as to the road design. It also assumes that Trunk Highway 41 will be upgraded to 4 lanes. Mayor Mancino: It does? When? Bob Generous: They have in the 2003 to make the intersection. Or make that road... Really what it really needs is an intersection at 82nd and Highway 41. And that is, will be maintained at an acceptable level of service for the 2003, which is the intersection. And then it needs to be upgraded for.., a lot of the roadways actually fail. TH 5 and 41 will fail if existing traffic patterns continue without the upgrade to four lanes on Highway 5. Mayor Mancino: It already has failed. Okay. Bob Generous: Well it said, existing is actually level.., with acceptable but it's congested. The interesting thing, the difference between the report, with or without Coulter is that the Highway 5 access into the project, the westbound would require a dual left turn lane as a part of their construction. So if you're heading west to go into the.., dual left turns. Without Coulter Boulevard being extended over to Galpin. With the extension it's only creating a single left turn lane and we'll maintain an acceptable level of services. Councilman Berquist: But that's predicated on a significant amount of truck traffic coming through? Bob Generous: Well just development traffic. They estimate 31,000 trips a day when this project is fully developed. Mayor Mancino: And the intersection is approximately 1,600 feet from TH 41 and TH 5? That was what was in your report? Bob Generous: Yeah, approximately. I don't know the exact center line measurements. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is that about a quarter of a mile? Bob Generous: A little bit more. Mayor Mancino: Okay. My driveway. Okay. Bob Generous: That's the summary of this but we also just received the Alternative Urban Areawide Review and we will be reviewing that. That's a document that we have to send out to review agencies and then a 30 day comment period on it and so we'll bring it back to Council later. Probably in June. City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: And who reviews it? Bob Generous: It goes to, there's like 26 different... DNR. MPCA. Carver County. Chaska. Mayor Mancino: The world, okay. Councilman Berquist: The initial design that was done by MnDot for that intersection, did that show a two left mm lane design? Bob Generous: I'm not aware of it. Councilman Berquist: Dual left mm lane? Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other part of your staff report? Bob Generous: Not really. We're back to those, there were like 4 or 5 issues that really needed to be resolved. Should we or shouldn't we include residential as part of the development? Discussion about TIF. Parkland issues. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions for staff at this point? Okay, I have a couple Bob. Tell me again what is the park dedication requirement for this parcel? The 146.5 acres. Bob Generous: Well ordinance specifies that it's 10% of the gross area of the site. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So 146.5. It's 14.65 acres. Is that what you're telling me is the dedication? Bob Generous: That's the way ordinance is read, yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 14.65 acres should be dedicated. Presently how many are dedicated? Bob Generous: In this proposal? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Bob Generous: Excluding wetlands there's about 10 acres. 11. With wetland it's 37 or something. Mayor Mancino: No, no, no. Real dedicated. Not wetlands. Okay. For park. Can you tell me on Parcel A the 4.08 acres, and this is what I'm referring to when I say Parcel A. How much of that 4 acres is wetland? Bob Generous: .24 and .29 acres. There's two little puddles in there. Little over half an acre. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And on B? Bob Generous: 2.14 acres. Mayor Mancino: So there's about 7 acres left? Okay. And the 10% of the gross area is on just a regular subdivision, not on a PUD? City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Bob Generous: Right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, what was the answer on B? Mayor Mancino: B is 2. Bob Generous: 2.14. Councilman Senn: Non wetland or total? Bob Generous: 2.14 acres of total wetland. Councilman Senn: And what was Parcel B in size? Bob Generous: 9.1. Councilman Senn: 9.1, okay. Mayor Mancino: So under, on page 6 of your staff report, when we are asked to rezone it to PUD. One of the reasons why we as a city would rezone it to PUD because number one says preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive, environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Are we preserving those things as a result of this PUD? Bob Generous: Well that's part of the negotiations. Yes, but that's what we try to. The most, we believe the most critical area is the southeast comer. The south side and that's where all of the discussion has been about with the developer. So plus the wetlands themselves... Mayor Mancino: So when you say the second sentence here, this wooded area is adjacent to a wetland that will be preserved through dedication of 15 acres to the City, I'm assuming you're meaning all the wooded acreage in B, A and the 2 acres in AC? All of that? Is that 15 acres? Bob Generous: Well their upland acreage right now...the 2 and the 4. Mayor Mancino: Because where it's 7 and 3.5 is 10.5 in Parcel A and B. So I'm, and then the other two is 12.5. Bob Generous: Plus there's another 8 acres of upland around the wetlands that are part of the dedication. Like on the north side of the Coulter Boulevard extension, there's an upland area. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist: So that entire upland area is an additional 8? Bob Generous: Yes. City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: So we're talking about a total of 20.5 or something? And according to our, just our regular ordinance, not a PUD, we would, the City would be entitled to 14.65 anyway? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And being a PUD, we may require more than that. The other part of the PUD is that the expectation is that the City has, that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality than, design quality that is found elsewhere in the community. Have there been design standards created for this PUD? Bob Generous: Not at this stage. We're working, the basis will be the Highway 5 standards and that will incorporate additional design details. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Because again the Highway 5 standards are for regular development, not PUD's. Bob Generous: Yes. For any development in the Highway 5 corridor. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And will that come to us at the first, I mean if we go ahead and approve this conceptually I'd like to see that next design standard. Bob Generous: At the preliminary stage we develop the parameters for the development of the site. The design guidelines if you will. Mayor Mancino: So we'll do design standards. We'll do a comprehensive landscape plan, and lighting and signage. Bob Generous: Exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay. My other question, before we go ahead and hear from the applicant is on page 8. On the summary of rezoning to PUD. You've listed quite a few things here under rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the City to request additional improvements. Many of these that are bullet pointed here, consistency with comprehensive plan again is something that we would expect from any development. Screening of undesirable views of loading and parking areas. Falls under the corridor sensitivity on Highways 5 and 41, again which we would assume that we would get from any plat that came in on Highway 5. Preservation of desirable site characteristics. Again we would see wetlands and trees. Are these trees that we're being asked to pay for or are these trees that the applicant is providing to the City? Bob Generous: We'll find out when we get the final lines down for the parkland. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bob Generous: There are some areas that we can preserve trees on the site. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I was just going over this list trying to see as we are asked to by the applicant to rezone this, basically from staff's point of view, why should the City Council rezone this to PUD? What is the City getting from changing our zoning on this? City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Bob Generous: Well we're getting the enhanced, the environmental protection. We're able to negotiate more with the developer. They're getting in dedication requirements, above what would be under a standard subdivision. Highway 41. Highway 5. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, the dedication of the roadway? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bob Generous: And then of course the architectural control as we develop the design criteria. That's something in excess of what a regular development would have. And you get a unified project. You know approximately where we're going at the onset rather than a straight subdivision with no real guarantees. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying that if a regular subdivision went in they wouldn't have to dedicate any road right-of-way for TH 41 or TH 5 ? Bob Generous: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bob Generous: Part of what we're, the enhancement the City's getting.., if we turned it over to the State. Mayor Mancino: If we turned it over to the State? Okay. Bob Generous: And then I believe, again back to the design. The gateway treatments as the development comes, we can help plan how the people who drive in the community will see Chanhassen. It's a very prominent comer. So it's nice that we can have those standards. Councilman Berquist: You talk about highway dedication. Do you have a feel for the acreage that will be developed out of the total plat? Or that will be dedicated to the TH 41 and TH 5? Bob Generous: The developer has those. Councilman Berquist: You don't have them off the top of your head? Bob Generous: Not off the top of my head. Mayor Mancino: So on the Town & Country Homes to the east. They didn't have to road right-of-way on Highway 5 ? Bob Generous: No. They did dedicate it...but they could have just platted it as an outlot and sold it to the State. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and they did dedicate it. I haven't heard of it sold outright, so that's why I wondered. 10 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Bob Generous: Yes, it was dedicated as part of Autumn Ridge. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that is true of most parcels. My only other question on this Bob is on Lot 9. It says under Lot 9, and maybe the applicant will want to speak to this but I wanted to hear what your interpretation of this is. Under Lot 9 it says higher density. What does that mean? Bob Generous: I don't know if the density but we're looking for a bigger user. A corporate type user or a large institutional user. Mayor Mancino: So that has really nothing to do with density? Bob Generous: No. Density is a residential component. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you are not assuming that on Highway 9, or excuse me on Lot 9, that there is higher density or there is more impervious surface? Bob Generous: No, that's not the assumption. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Berquist: You said that's a residential term. We're not talking about a project or a comer that would even be remotely construed as being residential. Conceivably at some point in time this thing could come back, Lot 9 could come back and be under a PUD and be changed significantly and the densities could, the industrial, the CI density, or the industrial density could be amended. Bob Generous: Could be amended. Like any other zoning ordinance. The Council can amend. Councilman Berquist: So was the choice of the phrase higher density an error? Bob Generous: I believe so. Mayor Mancino: We'll have to ask the applicant at this point. Okay. Councilman Berquist: That's right. This was done by them. I forget. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address Council? Fred Richter: Thank you Mayor, Councilmen. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development and I'll just go through our drawings and summarize what we're proposing and kind of give a little more definitive... This is the 150 acres. The road right-of-way for Highway 41 is 2.38 acres. 82nd Street dedication is 1.8 so it takes us down to 146 plus acres that is our gross acreage. We've had several meetings going way back where we talked about various dedication schemes. The scheme that's documented here has a dedication approximately 13 acres. We added the 2 acres for the comer for Coulter. Going back, we have letters talking about a 10% dedication of the gross minus the wetlands... The main issues that we talked about in our work session, traffic studies that are followed up on, are the traffic lights, full intersection. The basic land use that's the dotted line here which is primarily industrial and was labeled the potential commercial site. And we've addressed the northwest comer as we face this.., probably the last developed site, closer to the year 2000, where we can meet the goals of the city and our own goals and increase density but not 11 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 coverage. As we do get a higher user there, we'd be talking a multi-story and even possibly a parking ramp so as far as green space, that would be helped and that's where the density increase... In speaking for the TIF. We feel that's a crucial thing for the success of the development from our standpoint and the City's standpoint we're looking at starting with industrial buildings in Phase I and filling out Phase I in ~97-'98. Moving into Phase II in ~98-'99 and then Phase III when the intersection opens up and hopefully closing out the development early in 2000 to 2002... We had various discussions on housing, townhouse in the southeast comer. Our latest proposal that we've talked about with staff is to set a new park line that allows the site to grow. There's a little confusion here but it's been labeled at 20.8 acres. That includes part A and B. The residual value of that lot is about 7.75 acres if we take the... We probably would go into the trees a little bit. In the trees to approximately 12 acres leaving then a remainder which is a little bit of... possibly of 8.5 acres that would be parkland that the City would purchase under whatever circumstances and then hold the developable park completing really the original park theme which was to have the wetlands, the boundary, the trails and then the one trail connect out to 82nd. So we feel that we can accommodate that and I think that's a brief summary. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions at this point for Fred? Okay. Is there anyone tonight here wishing to address the City Council on this issue? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go for comments from Council members. If you don't mind I'd like to discuss the conceptual plan one topic at a time. After we've given our comments we'll move ahead to a new topic and please remember that this review is not legally binding. So that when it comes back for preliminary plat, if we do go ahead with conceptual review, anything that we have said cannot be held against us. Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: Pretty close. Mayor Mancino: So, let's start with the topic of Coulter Boulevard. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I would like to see Coulter Boulevard be out there for some future City Council to be able to decide whether or not the money was needed to be spent. I am curious about the original MnDot design for the intersection of Highway 5 and the north/south access road. I would like to secure dedication of that upland. Mayor Mancino: Secure dedication for Coulter Boulevard? Councilman Berquist: For Coulter Boulevard. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I agree with Steve. I'd like to see Coulter taken up at a later date when we can decide how to pay for it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do you also agree to, that we should secure the dedication from the applicant at this point for the roadway? Councilman Engel: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Same. 12 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Secure the dedication. Beyond that I think withhold decision on Coulter until we have a chance to more thoroughly evaluate the traffic study. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have nothing new to add. I agree with that too. Second topic for us to discuss is TIF funding. And again this will be something that our new EDA will review and decide on at our May meeting. Just your general thoughts, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Let's see here. On the TIF issue, I would say the minimum I would not support use of TIF beyond the repayment of special assessments for public improvements. Overall TIF wise, I'm really uncertain as to whether I support TIF on the project at all because I'm really uneasy with the assumptions and projections that have been put together, which are very aggressive as it relates to the market and also which are very aggressive as it relates to the amount of industrial use on the project versus the amount of commercial and office and other uses which I think will in reality be higher than at least what the projections are assuming. In fact, at least if you take the allowing, use stuff in the discussions that have gone back, especially relating to I think it's Parcel, what is it? The map's not up anymore. 9, ifI remember right, the comer one. Is that Parcel 9 or whatever, being predominantly office. That sort of thing. I think that will have a major impact on those projections and stuff so I would say, at least in mind the jury's still way out on that issue. Mayor Mancino: So I'm assuming that when it comes in front of the EDA you would like to see different scenarios. Best case. Worst case. In-between case, would be helpful. Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: And scenarios based on how long we'll need to keep the district going in relationship to not distributing taxes on normal basis. On the basis of (a), just special assessments and (b), the broader use of the TIF funds to beyond, purposes beyond special assessments. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist: Would you say that again please? Councilman Senn: Okay. I'd like to see the scenarios include two different approaches as it would involve the use of the TIF funds. More or less if the TIF funds can only be used for the special assessments, okay what amount would be required. How would that impact the district over what term? How soon would the properties or the district be able to wind up and the properties go back to the regular tax distribution? Versus the second scenario which is the, I'm going to say more liberal use of TIF for not only special assessments but effectively land write down or whatever else they want to attach it to, up to the half of three years, you know. Mayor Mancino: The kind of generic, general. Councilman Senn: Generic, past industrial, initial industrial park stuff that we did. 13 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Certainly TIF needs to be studied further. I basically think Chanhassen has made good use of TIF in the past and I would assume that that would continue. I agree that it needs to be studied further. It, at least at minimal levels it certainly makes sense to me in this situation. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I have no problem with it going beyond special assessments on the TIF as long as we put a short window on it. Four or five years as we talk about in the staff report. As an inducement to build the project out quicker. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: In looking at the projections that have been put together using the creation of a tax increment district, there are definite benefits to the City overall. Obviously some of which are related to the project and some of which are related to the City as a whole. I agree that the projections are aggressive. I also, and I think perhaps overly so. My projections had a tendency to run a little bit longer than some of the other ones that I saw. The collections from the commercial elements back to the district will help offset some of what I hope isn't a slow down in industrial development but what I suspect may come. Mayor Mancino: And why do you say that? Councilman Berquist: Because we're an economically cyclical nation. World. And we're in a cycle now. We have been forever. And I think it's an aggressive, what Don put together was a very aggressive build out. Two years. Three years. And I mean Mr. Richter said 2000, oh what was it? Councilman Engel: 2. Councilman Berquist: 2002? Mayor Mancino: Lot 9 won't go until Highway 5 gets widen. Councilman Berquist: So I mean that's 4 years arguably, if you don't count this, and I suppose you can't. I don't see any reason, if the district is managed properly, and I really believe it can be managed properly from all the different funds that, in respect to all the different funds that end up distributing the money to. I'm going to, I'll just shut up. I think the district makes sense. Mayor Mancino: I agree too. I also agree with Councilman Mason about further studying and seeing the different models and those that are not quite as aggressive as what we've seen. So I will be looking forward to that as we meet as the EDA and review the TIF numbers. Next topic is the commercial lots 1, 2, 10 and 11. And when I say that I ask about uses and giving some direction conceptually how you feel about the uses that the applicant has put, has associated with those lots on this sheet. On Lots 1 and 2, that southwestern comer, gas, convenience, fast food, bank, daycare, office, clinic, and this is certainly something that the, that staff and the applicant can work with but I just wanted to give them some feel as to how we thought about it. And then Lots, obviously Lots 10 and 11, which are also, they are commercial lots. And those going hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, clinics, health club. 14 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist, if you'd like to give your comments on the commercial areas and what the applicant has written down. Showed us. Councilman Berquist: Well I think, I look at those topics and obviously that's not everything that can be there. I look at it as a broad pen at this point. I understand that we're trying to define some of the uses. Hopefully not all. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with the definitions that are here. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I'll just reiterate my position on the fast food and I was cleared up on that last time. There's no drive up window type fast food operation planned for this. I would be against that for sure but I continue to question how many banks a town our size needs but, I don't know. I don't know how to quantify how many we do. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: This is conceptual. Again I think things are headed in the right direction with what I see on the paper here, knowing that nothing is in stone yet. Yeah, it looks okay. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree with Michael conceptually. I mean but again I share Mark's concerns over the fast food and the banking issues. I kind of mostly agree with our manager's comment I think it was in the report saying you know, let's wait for a more specific list that's going to get into uses at the time that we get the prelim. My only real issue, I'm going to say at this point on this right now is I just, I'm having real trouble accepting both 10 and 11 as commercial parcels and stuff and I just, which gets back to part of our issue with that intersection and everything but. Mayor Mancino: Do you see one of those as being, staying industrial? Councilman Senn: Yeah. In my mind at least. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Bob, did the traffic study that you're referring to, and maybe you haven't gotten into it far enough. Did we look at another scenario with Lots 10 and 11 as industrial versus commercial? Bob Generous: It would probably.., trip generated. Mayor Mancino: By a lot I would assume. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thanks. Councilman Senn: Just a point of clarification. I mean I'm going to go back to earlier comments where I think the commercial we create here in relationship to this area ought to be more in service to the area versus a regional use. There's a real tendency with 10 and 11 especially to be more regional in nature and I think that really runs contrary to what we've been trying to at least in the past accomplish so. 15 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Are you concerned about downtown or you know? Councilman Senn: Both in terms of the downtown and in terms of... ordinance and in terms of other sites that we've been considering precedent on that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I would also like to see staff and the applicant work together on defining these more. And I would much more on 10 and 11 go with the nursing home, office, clinics, health club and not so much hotel and restaurant as far as what that does to the, to our downtown area, etc. And I also feel that due to the industrial park, that what Mark brought up about being services, that the industrial park users could use should lead and guide what goes there. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, one thing that I missed my note on here, I'm sorry. I had some concern over the nursing home issue. Most nursing homes, as I are at least used to them, or a good number of them are effectively non-profit and to put a nursing home, to allow a nursing home on one of these parcels ends up being non-profit, I think it turns around and has a big impact on TIF. It also has a big impact on what we're looking at in relationship to this project in terms of tax generation. There's also an equal issue on that in terms of the designation of institutional on Parcel 9 which I'll get to when we get to 9 but .... I think those sorts of things need to, I think be signals and defined up front. Just so we don't end up in a situation of somebody coming back and saying we allowed it basically. Mayor Mancino: We would like to retain it in our tax base? Councilman Senn: Yeah. I don't think we're looking for any tax exempt uses I guess would be the easiest way to put it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Full intersection on Highway 5. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Of all these, this is the hardest one at least in my mind to talk about independently. I think it's really too bad the traffic study just came in today and I think it's a little hard to get into a lot of detail or comment or even a good understanding of the impacts there without having a chance to review that. So I'm going to say rather than jump to conclusions or whatever, I'd really rather just look at that first and decide after that on that. And I know that's a non answer but I'd kind of like to read the data before you know I can give you an opinion and stuff that you're looking for. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so you feel comfortable giving a conceptual go ahead or no and if you did give a go ahead for conceptual approval on this, the caveat being that you would want to review the traffic study before saying yes to the Highway 5 full intersection? And then do it at the time of preliminary plat? Councilman Senn: I think effectively it would be preliminary plat before I could render an opinion one way or the other. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. I kind of see you. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Without looking at it, excuse me. If an intersection needs to be there, it needs to be there. I, off the top of my head, I don't have a problem with it but I guess I do agree with Mark on that, that it would be. I mean I'm okay with conceptual approval on this project, and I will be regardless of that intersection or not but I would like some more information on that piece before I. 16 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Say yes. Councilman Mason: On that piece, yeah. Mayor Mancino: On that piece, okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Same. No problem with conceptual approval. I'd like to see the traffic study before final plat. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Do you want me to just say yes or do you want me to expound? Mayor Mancino: I want you to expound. Councilman Mason: I don't. Councilman Berquist: She does. She does. If we want this to be an enhancement of our tax base, i.e. an IO, industrial office park that brings some things to the city that we don't currently have, I don't see, I want to see the traffic study too obviously but I don't see, I don't see any way in the world that a full blown intersection doesn't get built. The thing just does not work without one. Mayor Mancino: Okay. For me this has been my hardest decision and so I will opt out like the other three Council members to say I'd like to see the traffic study. I understand the need for it. For the development. I also understand and are very concerned with the congestion on Highway 5 that, which is already bad right now. What it will do to the congestion in the future for Chanhassen being our main thoroughfare and knowing that at this point, nothing's going to happen with 212 until at least the year 2020. For 212. Councilman Berquist: Oh, 212. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I mean 41, or 41. So I mean TH 5 is it and I'm very concerned about adding more access to Highway 5 so that be said, I will wait until the traffic study too and not give a no or go ahead on that until we see preliminary plat. Next item. Next topic is the Wrase property. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I made it clear last meeting that I'm concerned about what happens there. I don't want this project, I don't think anybody wants this project, the owners, the Council, anybody in the City or Mr. Wrase. I don't want anything to run rough shod over a long term, long time resident. We need to find some way to make this work for the Wrase's and I know, at least I feel confident that the developer is ready to explore that. I know we want to explore it. That's probably all I need to say. I want to get it done. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I haven't heard anything that indicates to me the developer can't work this out with the Wrase's. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. 17 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Mason: I agree with what's been said. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Oh ditto. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I guess I feel the same way. I just want to make sure that they have access and that something can be worked out with either the applicant or the City in taking care of that parcel. Next item, park parcels A and B. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Parcels A and B. How do I say this? I would like to see Parcels A and B in parkland. What I'm hearing or seeing I think is if that happens, then the remaining part of that southeast comer is going to be industrial versus residential. Okay. Given that then especially I would like to see Parcels A and B as part of the parks dedication under the PUD along with the other dedication as proposed. Mayor Mancino: Okay. That would be part of the dedication of the other upland area too, okay. Mike. Councilman Mason. As a part of the PUD. Councilman Mason: Yeah. Yeah. I think the staff's, the manager's recommendation I tend to agree with. I would like to see the negotiated for that purchase or part of the park and trails dedication. I mean I would like to see that as park if at all possible. Mayor Mancino: And you would like to see that dedicated as park? Councilman Mason: If that's feasible, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Same. Like to see it dedicated as park if we can do it that way. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Oh ditto. Mayor Mancino: I think that we all are in agreement on that. Seeing the Parcels A and B be dedicated as part of the park dedication. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Roger Knutson: If I could comment on that. That's something you probably want to discuss with the developers so maybe you don't want to leave it black and white. Mayor Mancino: Okay. That's what we'd like to see but we'd like staff to work with the applicant on that. Councilman Berquist: Well concept approval, nothing here is black and white is it? 18 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: No. Remember, you can't use it against us. Ever. Okay. We're coming down to the wire here. Actually I think that that is it. What I'm hearing again is that Lot 12 will be, will have an industrial use on it and there no longer is a multi-family housing request from the applicant, correct? Okay, thank you. Any comments on that? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any other topics that Council members would like to, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: One I think we're forgetting that I think we need to address is the Parcel number 9. I think that parcel requires special attention as we've talked about it. It does. I think we need to I think make that a little clearer, or at least to solidify what we want to see there. You know as it's been suggested, you know that will be kind of a corporate headquarters site, which would be predominantly office. I think it's very important that there's a definite no institutional use on it. Because that would take it off the tax rolls. And that is listed as one of the uses at least currently being proposed. I also would like to see effectively a no to warehouse and limited use on production. To me a lot of what's being done with this project focuses around that parcel and I think at some point we need to bring the focus to it and make sure it ends up being what we're all perceiving it effectively to be. And make the ground rules on that pretty clear. Mayor Mancino: So your main uses then are down to you know, major corporate headquarters, office. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Office with maybe limited, very limited production. Mayor Mancino: Any thoughts, comments on that? Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other comments? Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: No. Mark makes a good point on Lot 9. I'd like to see that just as he described it. Major corporate headquarters first choice. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well, the only question I have is for Roger. What legal, do we have. Mayor Mancino: PUD. Councilman Berquist: We still have legal authority to effectively prohibit a non-profit from coming in and purchasing a parcel of land for the construction of a facility. Roger Knutson: Not directly in the sense that you can say that. Take as an example, and I can't think of a better one. Some book, publishing houses are for profit and some are non-profit. You could prohibit, you couldn't say we allow non, for profit publishing houses and not non for profit publishing houses. You can't make that distinction because you can't, that's not a land use distinction. What you can say, we want 19 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 offices there or we want whatever you think is appropriate. You can't directly say we don't want, we'll only take a taxpayer there. You can have that affect by listing what kind of uses you want. Councilman Berquist: So, I guess we can't say that if the Billy Graham Association came out and bought that piece and wanted to put their corporate headquarters there, we'd have a non-profit on site. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. No comment other than we need to watch how we word it so that we don't get our feet caught. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I also agree with what's been said. Have no changes in that. Any other topics for discussion? Or for guidance. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: You know again, this is conceptual. At some point it has to be firmed up but I think we need to, Steve raises an issue on wording there. In this whole thing, the thing that bothers me the most on wording is, we need to somehow or another come up with finding a reason why we would do that intersection, if we're going to do it, because the only thing I've seen in writing so far has been based on the need of the project in terms of it's financial feasibility. If that in fact is the case that we use, I think effectively we may as well start understanding this to be a lot more. Mayor Mancino: You mean why the City needs it? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And you're talking about the intersection on Highway 5? Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Again, going over the traffic study and really looking at how it would help and fulfill the needs of the City versus, or in combination with one development. Councilman Senn: Yep. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Don Ashworth: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Don Ashworth: If I could add. I'm making the assumption that you're kind of coming down to then a position where you're going to be asking for a motion that's going to incorporate. Mayor Mancino: All that. Don Ashworth: All that. As it deals with the TIF item, we've got three things that are kind of playing themselves out at the same point in time. One I'm sure the developer would like to know in fact is the City willing to create this district for the financial feasibility of their project. Two is major changes are 20 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 occurring in State law. It appears as though it would very definitely hurt this district. It would appear as though that those will be passed and those will become effective for all districts that are created after June 1st of 1997. Staff would like to recommend that in approving this that you approve authorization as a part of that for staff to present the scenarios that Councilman Senn had requested on our first meeting in May with the intent then of holding a public hearing on this item on May 27th. Mayor Mancino: Is it 27th? Don Ashworth: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion, and secondly I'll ask the City Manager, can we as part of the motion put, or Roger, can we just say to incorporate all of the things we've just said into the conditions? I mean because none of us are going to be able to be succinct and clear about. Roger Knutson: I think that's okay and then what will happen is it will come back in the Minutes summarized and if those Minutes are incorrect, you can correct those at your next Council meeting. Councilman Berquist: It won't come back summarized. Mayor Mancino: It will come back verbatim. Roger Knutson: But I think it's a practice to list the conditions. The conditions will be listed. Councilman Berquist: Well I can try and float one and see what happens. Mayor Mancino: Scary. Okay. May I have a motion please? Councilman Berquist: Have you got them written down? Did you want to try and float one? Mayor Mancino: You can also do a friendly amendment. Councilman Senn: If you've got a half hour. Councilman Berquist: I can make it shorter than that. Councilman Senn: You can't cover everything. Mayor Mancino: But I would like to make sure that the applicants know to read the Minutes for guidance, and staff also. Councilman Senn: Why don't we just move what we've given as comments. To me that makes a lot more sense at this point. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I would guess the applicant has heard what we've said. Mayor Mancino: Mr. Berquist, what would you like to do? Councilman Berquist you have the floor. 21 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist: I'll just ask the applicant. Have you folks been making adequate notes and you think you can make sense of what we've said to give yourselves adequate direction with the preliminary plat that makes. Mayor Mancino: Well and staff. Councilman Berquist: And staff, I'm sorry. And Robert. And Sharmin. Well then I'll save myself the headache. I'll move conceptual approval as per the verbatim Minutes that will be compiled by Nann. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: May I add a friendly amendment. I would also like to make sure that we add the conditions that are in the staff report. Councilman Senn: That are in keeping with our comments. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. That are in keeping with our comments. Would you accept that friendly amendment? Councilman Berquist: I would love to accept it yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second on the friendly amendment first. Councilman Senn: Oh, second on the friendly amendment. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Fred Richter: Just in response to Councilman Berquist. I think we do, you know understand what's going on...but I think it would be prudent for us to summarize or reiterate what we're hearing. I think the intersection you're saying you'd like to review with the traffic study that was turned in... We understand working out with staff the park acquisition/dedication issues. The uses I think we're understanding of, and I think going forward under the PUD and the site plan review, a lot of these things get worked out in detail and there's been any question in our minds of understanding of some of the overall planning.., of the city in terms of commercial not competing with downtown and so on. So I think given strong need for TIF. Our understanding of a thorough in response to the traffic study on the intersection. Working out with staff the park issues and.., uses that are defined as appropriate. Mayor Mancino: And also asking for an architectural design standards and comprehensive, it will come. Fred Richter: That's all coming up in the preliminary plat. Mayor Mancino: Great. Good. The motion has been made. A friendly amendment has been made. It has been seconded. A resolution calling for a public hearing to consider establishment of tax increment financing for development district #6 and tax increment financing district #6-1. 22 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council grant conceptual approval for Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on the site plans dated February 26, 1997, and per the verbatim Minutes of the previous discussion being incorporated, subject to the following conditions: Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit. Proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required. 2. The design standards shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Standards. 3. A tree inventory shall be completed. The multi-family development be developed sensitive to the landform with focus on preservation of the trees and natural area. Affordability be considered for some of the units along with direction for designing a unique product type for Chanhassen. 5. Completion of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). 6. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. Upon submittal of the preliminary development plan, the following features be incorporated: a. Designation of Outlots A and B as identified on the concept plan as open space. b. The identification of an internal trail/sidewalk system including the trails within Outlots A and B, sidewalks and/or trails adjacent to thoroughfares and a north/south trail adjacent to Highway 41. c. A sidewalk be planned for the north side of 82nd Street to facilitate east/west pedestrian movement. The applicant should work with the City in coordinating a final location providing internal street access for the water reservoir site in conjunction with preliminary plat submittal. Sanitary sewer and water service from Chaska to the southwesterly portion of the site will be limited to a discharge of 20,000 gpd. The remaining portion of the site will require sanitary sewer and water service from Chanhassen via the Upper Bluff Creek Interceptor. The applicant should petition the City for the extension of utilities and street (Coulter Boulevard) to service the site. 10. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required upon final platting for staff review and City Council approval. Erosion control measures will need to be developed on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. The developer shall incorporate the City's Surface Water Management Plan when developing an overall comprehensive master drainage plan through the site. The developer's construction plans shall also be designed to be compatible with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41. 23 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 12. The developer shall work with MnDot in preparing their construction plans for compatibility with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41 improvements. 13. A traffic study shall be prepared by the applicant to determine traffic warrants for intersection signalization, auxiliary turn lanes and street widths. The traffic study shall also address pedestrian circulation. 14. When the applicant comes back with the preliminary plat design that they present their idea for a gateway treatment and also their concept for a high grade business use for the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. 15. That the Wrase property be incorporated into the presentation when this application comes back. 16. Resolution #97-30: A resolution calling for a public hearing to consider establishment of tax increment financing for development district #6 and tax increment financing district #6-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. UPDATE ON CHANHASSEN BOWL LIQUOR LICENSE. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and Honorable Council. Included in your packet is an agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Mr. Dan Dahlin of the Chanhassen Bowl. Staff was directed at our last City Council meeting to look at alternatives of trying to secure the non payment of back taxes on the Chanhassen Bowl. During discussions with the City Attorneys office, Mr. Dahlin's attorney, Jerry Rummel. Staff has proposed a contract stipulating that if all back taxes, penalties and interest are not paid by June 1, 1997, that Mr. Dahlin would relinquish his liquor license for the Chanhassen Bowl. However there is a condition in there that if for some reason Mr. Dahlin is unable to close on the Chanhassen Bowl property, that is outside of his control for the closing, that the City would grant an additional 30 days, to July 1st, with the condition that Mr. Dahlin pay $50,000.00 towards the back taxes. The reason you're conditioning on the closing... Mr. Dahlin currently secured financing to pay the back taxes and is hoping to complete.., by May 16th. He does have a bank on line.., final details of the closing. Are negotiating with the County on penalties and interest and Mr. Dahlin has paid first half taxes, which was condition number 2. I've contacted the County and payment was made last Friday. With that Mr. Dahlin is here, and his representatives. Staff opens it up for any questions that the Council has. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point, and then I'd like Mr. Dahlin, if you'd like to come in front of Council too. Any questions? Councilman Berquist: You say the first half. Mayor Mancino: Of '97. Councilman Berquist: That was paid last Friday? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Great, thank you. 24 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for staff? Mr. Dahlin, would you like to come up in from of the City Council? Jerry Rummel: Mayor, members of Council. I'm not Dan Dahlin. He's a little larger than I am. First I want to apologize for not being at your last meeting. Unfortunately I was home in bed with pneumonia. My name is Jerry Rummel and I'm Dan Dahlin's attorney. I have worked with Mr. Gerhardt in bringing him up to date on where we're at. Going back to the original plans, we thought we could get financing for not only paying the back taxes but moving ahead with the whole development and ran into one problem after another in trying to do it all as one package and it just became too onerous and there were other problems beyond our control, including while we hadn't worked out an agreement with Mr. Pauly, that we're still trying to work out. His financing was limited so that then the owner of the property was going to have to raise more funds in order to work things out with him. We're still trying to do that but rather than proceed like we were, and when some of these problems came up and it was very, going to be very onerous for my client where he was going to have to give up large interests in the property himself to even be able to obtain some of it, we decided to seek out financing just pay the real estate taxes and get this squared away and then move forward from there. We have been working with a bank who is willing to work with us. I've informed Mr. Gerhardt of this. We wanted to have it closed by now. We're real close. I've been working with the Chicago Title Insurance Company representative. Believe we have all the title objections solved, and think we are, our goal is May 16th as was indicated to you. The reason only for the additional time is, you never know when you're depending on some other people whether you can get it closed. The bank can be willing. My client can be willing and something else can crop up that will continue the thing out. We're getting the title double checked right now to make sure there's nothing that's unforeseen there and pushing ahead with this to hit our goal and feel confident that we can, but again I've represented clients over the years in closings and I'm sure as Roger can point out to you, sometimes things come up that you don't anticipate at all and you need some additional time. We therefore feel that the agreement that the staff proposed to us, that we can live with and we can get these taxes paid and then move ahead to the next phase of being really be able to solve the development of this property. Mr. Dahlin is here also if you want to talk to him. He isn't afraid to come up and talk but I just wanted to bring you up to speed and again apologize for not being able to be here a couple of weeks ago when we could have brought the Council up to date then. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this point? No? Thanks. Is there anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue? Seeing none, comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I would be willing to go I guess with what Todd is suggesting with two changes. One change would be the addition of a $50,000.00 payment now. Towards back taxes. And second, a clause that says there will be no further extensions beyond the one extension which he can buy for an additional $50,000.00. My reasoning for that is, we've been dinging around with this over a year now. We passed the motion over a year ago that said there shall be substantial progress on back taxes as well as staying current on the existing taxes and everybody agreed to that and there hasn't been one dollar of back taxes paid within the past year. I think if we're going to give an extension at this point, there ought to be some paid immediately and then. Mayor Mancino: Instead of waiting until June lSt? Councilman Senn: Correct. And if they want an extension on June 1st, then they pay another $50,000.00 June 1st for the extension in back taxes. And then like I say, no extensions beyond that. Additionally I 25 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 guess I just.., some overall concerns at this point. Over two weeks ago Pauly's sent them a letter pulling out of the project basically. In talking with him today, they haven't even heard a response or return phone call on the letter so I don't know. I'm just not willing to kind of keep going on with this you know let's wait and see. I think it's time this thing either get pushed to... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Mancino: And Todd, the interest and the back taxes have been accruing since what, 19897 Todd Gerhardt: Some years they have made.., on schedule with the Bankruptcy Court payment schedule. There's two parcels over there that get tax statements and they were.., but basically '89 at the latest. I did hand out to you a signed agreement by Mr. Dahlin... Councilman Senn: Todd, what's the total amount outstanding at this point in back taxes? Todd Gerhardt: Well my total came out to $511,000.00. Their estimate was $509,000.00. Councilman Senn: Okay, and technically one of the reasons I'm suggesting this is, I mean really if you go in the spirit of the last resolution we passed, at bare minimum that number should not be growing. I mean again part of the motion was, and it was accepted, that there would be substantial progress on paying portions of the back taxes which would be a reducing number. I mean that amount has now gone from just over $400,000.00 at that time a year ago, to now over $500,000.00. Okay. It keeps going and keeps going. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: $50,000.00 now and $50,000.00 in a month kind of sounds like debtor's prison to me but I certainly share the frustration. I guess I'd like to see what's going to happen on the 16th of May and while I understand that problems can come up, I also know what at least my experiences with closings and what not. I'm not willing to go the extent that Councilman Senn is. But I'm certainly not happy with the situation so I don't know. Mayor Mancino: Would you agree that this not be extended? That there not be another extension? Councilman Mason: Well if we don't extend it, what are the options? Mayor Mancino: That's a good question. Councilman Mason: I mean that's, in a way I kind of feel like we're over a barrel here and I don't particularly like that. I do understand that the first half taxes have been paid and maybe I'm suffering under the false assumption here that everybody's acting on good faith. So I don't, that's a real tough one for me because I don't know. If we say no extension and nothing happens, well then what? I guess I'd sure like, I think I may have a different opinion on the 16th of May, which is awfully close to Seiten di Mai. I don't know what that has to do with anything but I'll just throw that out to the Norwegians in the crowd. I can live with Todd's agreement but I certainly have a whole bunch of reservations. I don't think that helps anything but. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. 26 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Engel: I think Mark's had more involvement with the issue than I have certainly from his time on the Council. It's a reasonable request. I'd give him a little more time. I'd give him two weeks from Thursday is May 16th. Mid month. Or May 15th. That seems like enough time to come up with that payment. And if he needs a further extension, then he buys one as well. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're saying instead of June 1st, you would change it to May 16th? Councilman Engel: I'm talking about if he wants, Mark wants $50,000.00 now. I think that's good policy, given the total here. But I would give him a little more time to come up with it. Mid May. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Almost a year ago to the date this slightly different Council made a motion that granted a liquor license for a 6 month period of time and within that 6 months the back taxes would be paid. I know stuff happens. I'm sorry you had pneumonia. From then till now absolutely nothing has happened to reduce the back taxes. I'm frankly of the opinion that Mark's right. You've paid the first half '96. That's wonderful. If we don't put a few more teeth into this agreement, I'm honestly not convinced that anything is going to happen between now and the first of June. And on the first of June there's going to be something outside of your control that gives you another 30 days and it costs you $50,000.00. Well I'd rather have the other $50,000.00 up front than get another $50,000.00 on June 1st. This has gone on too long. There's a major tenant in the development now that has effectively rescinded any contractual obligations that he has. We're way beyond good faith in my opinion. Todd, the agreement that was put together is good but it grants time. It grants time with no penalty. And I'm not, that $50,000.00 that you would pay now isn't the penalty. It's simply part of back taxes. I'm in agreement with Councilman Senn's amendments to the agreement. Mayor Mancino: So it'd kind of like be a payment of good faith that the rest will come if it's having it due now. This happened, this came up in front of the Council you said approximately a year ago? Councilman Berquist: April 22nd. I looked back in the agenda, in the Minutes. In fact I have the Minutes right here. Mayor Mancino: And Todd, there has been no payment whatsoever in that year? Todd Gerhardt: Not on back taxes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well I guess I would have to agree also. Asking for a payment now in good faith that the rest will come. I mean we're still waiting for another $480,000.00 so I would like to see that happen too. So I would also agree with making that stipulation. Making that change. And would like to see this all come to closure and I certainly hope that May 16th works and that you are able to close. Jerry Rummel: Can I make one comment? Mayor Mancino: Yes you can. Jerry Rummel: This was discussed with staff about coming up with $50,000.00 now. My client has basically paid over the last year now about $140,000.00 worth of taxes. There hasn't been anything paid 27 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 on the back. The $500,000.00 is not taxes. A very large portion of that is penalty and interest he has to pay with this loan. We're not snubbing Mr. Pauly. When he had his plans to come in he was going to get all his financing lined up. He finally got financing in December but it was short by over approximately $200,000.00 and he couldn't go ahead with his plans without that. So then he came back to my client and said, you've got to be able to help me or it won't work. So then it's go back again to try and find where we can find the money to put the whole thing together. When I talked to Mark about this recently, it's a matter of my client working to get this loan done. If he had another $50,000.00 sitting around, and could say yes, I'm sure he'd stand up and say fine. I'll write you a check right now. He's not made of money. He's struggled with this business. Taking it over with his father dying. With Mr. Dorek putting it into bankruptcy. His pulling it out and trying to make it work. Now with this development and new money being invested, we can probably make it make sense. If he can't come up with $50,000.00 tomorrow and the place goes black, that doesn't help it get the job done and get it really off the ground and where not only he wants it but you want it. It isn't that he hasn't been trying to do something over the past year. Even part of that discussion, as I recall, and I don't have the Minutes in front of me was that even if the City could somehow help us get some financing to get these back taxes. And we were led to believe through some representatives that my client was working with, that we could get this financing for both the back taxes and the TIF all at once. And then they add the additional $200,000.00. Well then, oh we can get that financing but it was from a group that wanted to charge 20% interest and wanted 20% of the property. Well he might as well let it go black if he's going to lose all the property through onerous financing but just won't allow him to do anything. So we are again with our hat in our hand but feel that he has paid substantial payment over the past year and '96 taxes now. The second half of '97. If he wasn't being sincere, he wouldn't, he'd be asking, well I can't do that. But he was able to find $45,000.00 that he took down to Carver County on Friday that paid the first half of this year. And if you will give us the time we will get this done and then we will be able to go on with the development. And if for some reason the development doesn't work, we still have to get these taxes or we're going to lose the property. So we don't gain anything by standing here asking for another 30 days roughly and then another $50,000.00 for another 30 and just throw that away if we're not going to get the job done and be able to salvage the property and go on. Mayor Mancino: And you have secured a loan you said with a bank? Jerry Rummel: Yes. We have a commitment from this bank that's willing to work with us and do, there's some final title problems we didn't have it closed right now. But we now feel that we can get it closed by the 16th of the month. Again, something can go wrong. That's why the agreement was worded the way it was worded. We are not trying to close it in June. In fact I'm going to try and push it to get it done before the 16th. But in talking to the bank, they feel that we should be able to get it done by then. That's what they're telling us. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Councilman Berquist: When did you begin talking? I'm asking this for a different reason but when did you begin talking with this lender? Jerry Rummel: We started talking with this lender in January after we found out the problems with the additional $200,000.00 and then were told, okay. We can get financing for maybe the taxes of the bridge loan but to do that Mr. Dahlin you're going to have to give up 50% of the property. And then what about the 200? Well, then we can get that but it's going to be another 20% of your interest so now you're down another 20%. Plus they want to charge 20% interest. And then he just decided well we've got to do 28 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 something. And we had to start seeking out somebody that would actually loan him the money to pay the taxes and then go onto the second phase. And in the meantime, while we're trying to do this, and I'm not trying to cry with pneumonia and everything. Mr. Dahlin broke his ankle in five different places and ended up with surgery and was hobbling around and it wasn't a bank that I knew so I could take care of it all for him but between the two of us have had our problems but we did work with and find a bank that's willing to work with us and said that yes. We will go ahead and give you this loan for the payment of back taxes. I've given the name of that banker to Todd and told him that he can talk to him and confirm it. Mayor Mancino: And have you talked to the bank? Todd Gerhardt: No I haven't. I wanted to insure that the back taxes got paid but I have not.., something in writing and things like that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Thank you. Councilman Senn: I'm going to move that we grant an extension on the basis that there be a $50,000.00 payment before May 1st, and that is an extension until June 1st. And liquor license will be canceled on June 1st unless for, or in circumstances beyond their control it cannot be closed in which case there will be another 30 day extension to July 1st for another $50,000.00. And that there be a clause added to say that there will be no extensions beyond July 1st of 1997 unless back taxes are paid in full. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Berquist: I want to hear it again. Mayor Mancino: Would you please repeat it. Councilman Senn: Okay. Moving that there be an extension granted now until June 1st based on a $50,000.00 payment of back taxes. Councilman Berquist: $50,000.00 by May 1st. Councilman Senn: By May 1st of payment towards back taxes. And that the liquor license will be suspended as of June 1st unless back taxes are paid in full. Sticking in a caveat however that if the closing does not occur for reasons beyond the control of the license holder, that one additional 30 day extension can be administratively granted from June 1st to July 1st based on an additional $50,000.00 payment of back taxes. And that no further extensions will be granted beyond July 1st without full payment of back taxes. Mayor Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment? Well, listen to it first and that would be that the first $50,000.00, for me what I have a hard time doing is sending someone out tonight knowing that they need to pay $50,000.00 by Thursday. A two week or some time to make those arrangements seems to me to not be generous but yet give them some time to be able to pull the money together. So my friendly amendment would be to have it due on May 16th. Councilman Engel: I would second that. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. Mark has to accept that. And the second on June 1st. 29 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Nancy if, I mean I understand what you're saying about overnight and two days. I mean I'd be pretty comfortable with May 5th or something. I'm not comfortable with the 16th, okay. I'll tell you why I'm not. Listen. If there's a closing that's going to go ahead on May 16th, there are two things in place. Commitments from both lenders and/or investors. If those commitments are in place, and that's the only way at this point a closing could occur on May 16th. More or less that's two weeks away, or a little over two weeks away. Okay. If that in fact is the case, then those commitments are now financable to make these payments. Okay. So beyond that, anything else here is a game in my mind. So it's called, if you want the extension, then fine. Let's start paying some back taxes. We are the only ones who keep falling behind on this thing. You know. Mayor Mancino: He might be paying more penalties. Jerry Rummel: Mayor, can I point out one thing? Mayor Mancino: Can you hold on just one second please. Until we get done. Councilman Senn: You know and, I'm really concerned that this thing get pushed to a head in terms of the overall project of what's going on with Mr. Pauly and their involvement in the project and everything else. In my mind there's only one way that's going to happen and that is that we start requiring time to be on our side rather than this game of just keep going on and on and on and you know, come on. This should be no surprise to nobody. Come on. I mean you have the Minutes there. Read verbatim the resolution or the motion that was made a year ago. And agreed to by the license holder, okay. And come on. There's a big difference between substantial progress towards back taxes and zero. I'm sorry. I've kind of really lost all sympathy at this point. The issues are just simply different reasons why we should be sympathetic now versus a year ago. Mayor Mancino: So I'm assuming you will not accept the friendly amendment? Councilman Senn: Not to May 16th, no. Mayor Mancino: To change the date to May 16th. Councilman Senn: I would happy to accept one to May 5th to provide the extra days to get the money together. Mayor Mancino: Okay, then we'll say to May 5th. Is there a second to his motion? Councilman Engel: You said May 5th? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Mayor Mancino: And before we go ahead, yes. Jerry Rummel: I just wanted to make one thing clear with the commitment from the bank, the only way we're going to get the loan from the bank is to pay the back taxes because they want a first mortgage on the property so the taxes have to be paid. So it isn't a matter of getting a commitment and not paying the 30 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 taxes. The purpose of the loan is to pay the taxes. The back taxes. Pay them up and then proceed to go on and we can't get that loan without giving them good title with a first position without paying the taxes. It'd be impossible. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: There's nothing in my motion that stops that. Mayor Mancino: The motion has been seconded. Any discussion prior to going on and voting? Councilman Mason: I prefer the May 16th date. That's my preference. Roger Knutson: If I can just point out your point. You're voting on the amendment now. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. All those voting on the amendment to May 5th. Councilman Berquist: We haven't voted on the motion yet. Mayor Mancino: No. First we vote on the amendment to the motion and then the motion. So we're amending the motion from today to May 5th. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the amendment to the motion to change the date from May 1st to May 5th. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the amendment passed with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: That carries 3 to 2. Then may I have a vote for the motion. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council to Mr. Dan Dahlin to grant an extension for the Chanhassen Bowl Liquor License on the basis that there be a $50,000.00 payment before May 5, 1997 for an extension until June 1, 1997. The liquor license will be canceled on June 1, 1997 unless circumstances beyond their control it cannot be closed, in which case there will be another 30 day extension to July 1, 1997 for another $50,000.00. Also that a clause be added to say that there will be no extensions beyond July 1st of 1997 unless back taxes are paid in full. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason and Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. RECREATION CENTER MISSION STATEMENT. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. This item was initially scheduled on the 14th... item was pulled by Councilman Senn. He shared his concern with staff and that being that it was his understanding...facility would not be a subsidizing... The operation of the Recreation Center has a subsidized entity... City Council on a number of occasions as a result of those discussion in the 1997 budget reflect a maximum subsidy of 50% of the total budget. The recommendation of staff is in the absence of a dramatic position change from the majority of new households, it is staff's recommendation that City Council approve the mission statement as previously stated, which is the Chanhassen Recreation Center is a place dedicated to serving the growing needs of a dynamic city. A place for playing, exercising, meeting, learning, and relaxing. A place where people, young and old, gather to energize. A place for lifelong leisure. And I did want to make the comment that even though the Recreation Center is subsidized 31 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 ... $125,000.00 to $150,000.00 in 1997, staff continues to dedicate enthusiasm to having the highest level of income that we can at this center without turning the community away. And we reached that point where we started to over price the facility and the community started to ask the question, are you really serving the community and... So we're at that equilibrium. I think we can move closer to a 75% payback.., dramatic changes in our operational goals. Mayor Mancino: Todd, is it a goal as part of the recreation center. I mean it may not be it's mission but do you have it as a written goal to be more self sustaining and do you have a 5 year plan to get there? Have you done some planning as far as short and long term? Todd Hoffman: We certainly have as a goal to meet 50%, 75% and 100% over the first three years and.., closer to 75%. Mayor Mancino: At the end of 3 years? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And how much longer do you think it will take? I mean again I know it's a crystal ball. You'll be 100%? Todd Hoffman: We hope to be 75% by 1998 if possible but we're right in that 50% to 75%. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And when you said.., a little bit of evidence of when you said when you started pricing the recreation center's facility or what you have to offer too high. What happened? Todd Hoffman: A community group such as neighborhood associations, Boy Scouts, Brownies, Girl Scouts. They were forced to pay considerably higher prices than what they were used to and they could also walk down the hallway.., for free if they reserved it. So they stopped by the office and asked me what the heck was going on. I said well, in an effort to minimize the subsidies of our recreation center.., pricing put in effect by the Park and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council .... indication, it's not benefiting all of our community groups. I agreed to take a look at that.., and backed off on some of those set-up fees to retain them as a part of the... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Councilman Senn: No questions, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: The reason I brought this up is previously the Council approved a plan basically whereby we do a rec center and that was based on projections of you know 50, 75 and 100 in the first year. Then we re-discuss the issue and we accept a 25, 50, 75, you know whatever. I mean basically going from that point. Kind of an unknown really effectively, because we talked about that again back at budget time. I think it's important in the mission of the rec center, since that was the basis we approved it on and was going forward on, that we don't lose site of the goal. And that's not necessarily saying we're going to achieve it. But to me there was a little conflict between this mission statement and that goal. Let's call it, not direct conflict but potential conflict. And you know we've been trying a number of new things over there, which a number of new things were also kind of due back some reports at this point like the daycare 32 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 thing and some other things like that, that we tried I think over a year ago now. And you know, like the daycare thing came in and showed us how many additional people were going to come in because we provided daycare and daycare was going to pay for itself and you know effectively bring in the additional dollars to the rec center that was going to help effectively meet the original goal. Okay. Well I don't know whether that's happening or not happening. We haven't seen that evaluation yet, even though I think it was February it was due. I guess to me if we're going to change that direction, I think we ought to do it consciously. I don't think we should do it simply by putting a mission statement in place that's going to cause I'm going to say potential conflict with the original goals. And you know Councils come and go and Councils change and I mean, you know a couple of you or two of you weren't even on the Council at the time that the original one was you know talked about and adopted as far as the primary goal. And so that's why I think it's important that somehow be put in reference to that and not lost track of as we go down the road. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's what I was trying to figure out. Where you were going with that because I certainly think it's a goal. I would not normally put down financial goal in a mission statement. In the purpose for a rec center, as I would not normally, I mean the only thing that's going to make you money and make it self sustaining is that we're actually benefiting filling the needs of the residents. I mean just to say we need a daycare because we've got to make money to make it self sustaining certainly isn't the way to go about making it self sustaining. Only when we go out there and find out what the needs are and then associate that, and can give some value for doing that, will we make it self sustaining. And that's going to take a few years to figure out. You know what the needs are of the residents. So I wanted to hear that because I certainly didn't feel that the financial goal needed to be in the mission statement. I felt that the mission statement that I read in it's entirety told me the purpose of the rec center and I always assumed whether it is anything that has a cost with it, that there are financial goals that go along with it. So, other comments? Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I'm fine with the statement the way it is. I don't think a financial, any financial stipulation or goal should be included. There's intangible benefits that are received as a result of having the rec center. Yes, I would like to see it pay more of it's costs. I hope and I feel confident that we'll get to that point. But I'm fine with the mission statement. I think the mission statement is very well done. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I'm fine with the statement as it is as well but with regard to Mark's comments that a daycare would help offset some of the costs. I'm okay with that to the degree that it parallels the type of daycare you see in other fitness centers, such as a health club where it's an hour and a half to two hour limit. But I don't want to see the City get into a situation where we've got a government entity competing with city businesses that also have daycare services or have home daycare providers and I don't think Mark wants to see that either but I just want that to be clear. I don't want a government entity competing with a private entity. Mayor Mancino: Or a private entity competing with a government entity. We could play that both ways. Well, it depends who comes first. Councilman Engel: I think we get involved in enough things that probably aren't, and I don't mean local government. Especially Chanhassen. We're not competing with businesses. That's not our job so I'd like to see it but a very limited one. 33 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I completely agree with the mission statement as it was read earlier. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And Councilman Senn, I think you've made your comments. May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the recreation center mission statement as stated in the memo. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Recreation Center Mission Statement as written: The Chanhassen Recreation Center is a place dedicated to serving the growing needs of a dynamic city. A place for playing, exercising, meeting, learning and relaxing. A place where people, young and old, gather to energize. A place for lifelong leisure. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL VARIANCE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, ANDREW AND CATHERINE HISCOX~ 7500 ERIE AVENUE. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you Mayor and Council. This variance request is located at Erie Avenue. Hiscox Addition, Lot 1, Block 2. Lot 2, Block 1. Staff would like to give a little background on this request. It's taken the applicant around 10 years to get this far. There was a trouble with Torrance proceedings on the property prohibiting them from filing the final plat until this past October. There were 11 conditions with the approval of this Addition and number 9 directly pertains to this lot. The subject property. It states that development at this time on this lot is governed by the Bluff Protection Ordinance. And furthermore in the staff report for the final plat made comment to the fact that there aren't any conditions of the topography that would prohibit a full development on the lot. On March 10th this application was reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and it was tabled with the recommendation that staff and the applicant work out a compromise on the home location. It was brought again to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on April 14th. This request was, is the same request that's in front of Council tonight. A 13.2 foot variance to the 30 foot bluff protection setback. The Board denied the request. Several issues did come up in regards to this variance request. The most notable would be the rationale behind the 30 foot bluff protection setback. Staff did contact the DNR regarding the rationale... setback. In the staff report it does state some of the factors .... construction vehicles. It takes approximately 15 feet for a vehicle to get around the house pad to do construction and having the home too close to the bluff would cause erosion and have difficulty with the vehicles moving back and forth. Secondly was the erosion factor. A panel of experts studied the bluff erosion and established that the 30 foot setback was based upon the steepness of a slope versus the weight of the home during spring when the soils are saturated and erosion is at it's peak. Thirdly, a fire emergency might cause a fire fighter to have to access the rear of the home and maneuvering access is required for that. And fourthly, aesthetically, encroachment on the bluff top can compromise or eliminate the natural appearance of the bluff. Therefore, the rationale behind the bluff setback. Staff had recommended denial of this variance for the reasons following. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Secondly, the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a single family home on this lot as it said 34 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 in the final plat staff report. And thirdly, the variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the bluff protection ordinance. However, should the City Council approve the variance, there are four conditions that staff has proposed. Firstly, the applicant must install tree fencing at the grading limits prior to excavation. No equipment or storage of material will be allowed in the protected area. Second, no vegetation removal will be allowed in excess of the grading limits. No vegetation will be allowed on the bluff. Third, no grading will be allowed in the rear of the proposed home that will attempt to create a level yard. And fourth, the applicant shall provide additional erosion control fencing along the eastern and southern property lines. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: What was item 2? You had an item 2. You had construction vehicles was number one. Fire fighter accessibility was item three. Cynthia Kirchoff: Erosion. Councilman Berquist: Erosion and saturated soils? Spring, when the soils are saturated. Cynthia Kirchoff: Erosion is at it's peak. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The formula basically deals with the weight of the house pad in relationship to the steepness of the slope. That's where the.., came in that has been adopted by the ordinance and why the certain setback. It was a formula that the panel... Mayor Mancino: So it wasn't arbitrary? Councilman Berquist: So if it goes to a 20 foot slope, does the setback change? Or 20 degree slope, does the setback change? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Technically and according to the panel of experts. Mayor Mancino: It should but we don't for our ordinance. Councilman Berquist: It should but we don't? Mayor Mancino: Well according to what the panel said. Sharmin A1-Jaff made a statement that was not picked up by the microphone. Councilman Berquist: And if it's a 12 degree slope, does it change to 22 feet? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Then it's not considered a bluff. Councilman Berquist: A bluff. So it is all kind of arbitrary. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. 35 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Could you review for me, I'm still having a hard time because of different things that were said in the staff report but would you review the timing for me in relationship to this replatting process. In relationship to applications and in relationship to the bluff ordinance being passed, etc, please. Cynthia Kirchoff: I believe the preliminary plat was done in 1987. Or around that time. Like I said in the staff report, it took several years for the Torrance proceedings to be completed on the property and in 1991 the bluff protection ordinance was adopted. That was just for the southern portion of the city. And in August 22 of 1994 the bluff protection ordinance was adopted city wide. And their final plat approval was in October of 1996. Mayor Mancino: So the preliminary plat got extended from 1987 to 19967 Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes. There were quite a few extensions. Mayor Mancino: And every time we have an extension, I'm assuming that, at least right now, every time there's an extension the extension has the statement, the clause in it that any new ordinances must, how does that read? Any new ordinances must be observed or. Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes, and the City has the right to enforce any new ordinances. Mayor Mancino: Ordinances during. Cynthia Kirchoff: Any plats that are pending. Councilman Berquist: Is there any notification that occurs of a plat that would be in the, that would be affected by an ordinance change? If I had a preliminary plat approved and I chose not to do something and two years later, and I had a couple of extensions and two years later there was going to be an ordinance amendment that would affect my plat approval, would I be notified? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Other than a notification in the newspaper for the entire city. Mayor Mancino: No. I think that when you come back for another extension you would be told at that time. Or when you come back for final plat approval. Councilman Berquist: So unless I read it in the newspaper, all of a sudden my preliminary plat could have all kinds of modifications attached to it that. Mayor Mancino: Well, you would be told at the time you ask for the extension that you would need to, you know any new ordinances that would come up during that year, if you get an extension, you would have to observe. I mean you're told at the time and it says it when. Councilman Berquist: Would the ordinances be, would they be annotated? Or would it simply be a blanket statement that any ordinance changes are going to be, you're going to have to live by them. Mayor Mancino: And you would have to come in and ask if there were any during that year, if you kept your preliminary plat. 36 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist: So the onus would be on the owner to say what have you changed that would affect me? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Because can you imagine trying to cross. Councilman Berquist: Yeah I don't know. I'm not sure of the logistics of it. I just. Mayor Mancino: I had a question from the staff before the applicant comes up, and that is on page 3 under grading and drainage. The second sentence you say, relocating the home closer to the front lot line will also maintain the correct drainage and site grades. Did I miss something or are you suggesting that they pull the house closer to the front? Cynthia Kirchoff: That sentence was pertaining to... request for a 24 ½ foot setback. Or excuse me, variance to the wetland. And what staff was trying to state is that relocating the house closer to the 30 foot front yard setback. They had it 42 feet from the front yard setback, will also maintain the drainage. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so right now are they at the 30 foot setback? Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes they are. Mayor Mancino: In their front yard. And in your opinion what are the options? Putting the deck someplace else. Making the house smaller. Pulling the house more forward and getting a variance for a front yard setback. I mean are those all the options? Cynthia Kirchoff: Those are basically... Mayor Mancino: Okay, which I'm assuming that you've gone over with the applicant? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council please. Cate Hiscox: Hi. My name is Cate Hiscox and my husband was here but right now he's on his way to California. He had to catch the 9:40 flight so, we talked about the timing and when we did the preliminary plat. We first came before the City in '86 or '87 and at that time we had just begun this torrensing process and we had 26 or 27 issues outstanding that we had to resolve prior to torrensing. So at that time we, Council and Andrew and I came to an agreement that we'd table this until we came to a comfortable point in the torrensing process that we could come before the City. And we came before the City in '94. February of '94 Planning Commission gave approval of our preliminary plat and then it went before the Council the end of February and then they gave Council approved the preliminary plat. Mayor Mancino: In 1987. Cate Hiscox: In 1994. Mayor Mancino: 1994. Cate Hiscox: But we were able to come back to. Mayor Mancino: And when in 19947 37 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Cate Hiscox: In February of '94 where the Planning Commission approved it. And at that point it was the 958 contour was the line in which we could build up. Not go past that. Council approved it the end of February of '94. February 28th. And then it was at, Ted deLancey came before City Council in January of '96 asking for his preliminary plat approval and also for a variance to the bluff setback. And at that meeting which we attended, we became aware of this 30 foot variance that was added. And at this point, or during this time since '94 we were asking for 6 month extensions because we weren't, we didn't have our property torrens yet and we needed our torrens before we could come back to the Council to get final plat approval. So we were asking for 6 month extensions and I believe either December or January of 1996 we had asked the City for another 6 month extension. We went to deLancey's hearing, or that meeting realized that we now had an addition of 30 foot setback from the 958 contour line which we were dealing with. At that point in time we had this, where should I put it? ...drawn out that put us right at the 958 contour. We realized that this was, this took up the entire property. With the 30 foot setback, this was not going to work. So then we came up with a second plan which we have submitted to staff for approval asking a variance because obviously we want to, we've got this beautiful lakeshore lot that we have been working for 10 years to subdivide. Sell our home and build next door. That's all we're trying to do. And build a house that meets our family needs with two children. Fit aesthetically into a neighborhood without trying to stick out like a sore thumb. With this, you know with everything in line with the setbacks, we feel that we have come up with a reasonable sized home. One that fits nicely on the lot. We will not be removing any vegetation or as far as we're concerned, we will not be affecting the bluff at all. The bluff follows the 958 contour line. Or the trees, all the trees and vegetation follow the contour line, 958. We could argue over what is reasonable use. Staff has their idea. We have our idea. Let's see. Grading and drainage, you know. We will do everything to provide drainage away from the bluff. Gutters on the house. Fences you know while building the home. I guess that's it. I mean we were asked by the Board of Adjustments to go back and compromised. We felt we compromised. We moved the house as far forward as we could. That's all. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Councilman Berquist: You had to torrens the property? Cate Hiscox: We had to torrens the property before we could come back to the City for final plat approval. Councilman Berquist: That was one of our requirements? Cate Hiscox: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Is that necessary? Cate Hiscox: That was part of, I don't know. We were going by staff recommendation. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Mancino: I have no idea. Roger? Does one need to torrens? Roger Knutson: All I can say is it would be highly unusual. I can't imagine why we would do that. I mean you would have to own the property to plat it, and maybe there was a problem that the ownership of the property was in doubt or whatever 27 problems and so they had to be resolved before they could get the plat recorded. But we never tell people that you just have to torrens the property just for... 38 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. For them to file the plat they probably had to. Roger Knutson: The only issue, the only public issue involved is if you're platting property. All the owners have to sign and to get the plat recorded or if there's serious title problems, or title problems where they couldn't get the plat recorded because of that. I don't have any personal knowledge of that issue. Councilman Berquist: So I'd have to see a list of the 27 reasons as to why it was necessary to torrens the property. But okay. It was at the City's behest that you torrens the property? Cate Hiscox: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Or recording the plat, which would have been the County. That wouldn't have been a City. Roger Knutson: Normally the County would catch the title problems or someone caught the title problems and said you've got to clear the title problems to record the plat. Normally it would not be the City. Cate Hiscox: I think that was made a condition of not only our property but Mr. DeLancey's property. Even though it wasn't included in his final what would you say. Mayor Mancino: Not from the City. Cate Hiscox: No it wasn't. Torrensing wasn't made part of his final platting but in talking to Bob Generous, he said that because of the property issues, his property abutting our property, the City wouldn't file the final plat until his property had all been torrens. Or the County... the County wouldn't. Mayor Mancino: The County, yeah. Cate Hiscox: The County wouldn't file the final plat until it was torrens. Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't record it, okay. I think that does clear it up. Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight wishing to address the Council on this issue? Okay, I'll bring this back to Council. Councilman Senn. Comments. Councilman Senn: I don't know. You know we have so many of these where basically you know houses are effectively over crowding the lots but I don't know, in looking at the house that's being suggested here now, at least the current house, you know it seems somewhat reasonable especially when you start comparing it to effectively other similarly situated houses in the area. You know so then it kind of becomes an issue well do you vary it in front or do you vary it in back. I guess the thing that really pushes me I guess one way or another on this one, you know it really comes back to an issue in my mind. I think it was important at the time and it's still important today. When we passed the bluff ordinance, we had a lengthy discussion about notifying effective parties and were effectively told well, we really, they're very limited. You know there aren't very many and you know so we went through a discussion on that and I thought we decided there was going to be some kind of notice going out to the ones that were known. But this really wasn't heavily pushed. Heavily published. I mean our normal little thing in the newspaper quite honestly is not the way that the world finds out about everything. And I think in doing that the way we did and not being able to really effectively notify all the affected properties, kind of is the one that pushes me more 39 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 towards to say well fine. I mean this one seems to work. It's one that just kind of got caught in the change. But I guess what I would like to see is some effort made from an engineering or landscape standpoint, neither of which I'm an expert at...love to do them on weekends. But I would like to see some kind of an effort made to basically assure that the bluff condition be preserved, even though we're granting the variance. So I mean if there's some methodology or whatever to be used, I guess like as suggested by somebody more knowledgeable than me but basically make sure that if there is a safeguard or something that can be added to effectively make sure that that condition doesn't get out of hand or become worse, I guess I wouldn't have a problem going ahead and granting the current request for variance on that basis. Mayor Mancino: So I'm going to respond and ask you a question that you brought up earlier and that is, if we're at the 30 foot setback at the front, and we came in 5 or 7 feet forward with the house and granted that variance only because it would protect the bluff more, how would you feel about that? You'd have a little more room in the back coming up forward. Councilman Senn: Well you know, in my mind a variance to the from yard affects the neighborhood. A variance to the back yard doesn't affect the neighborhood so to me it's really the issue of how do you preserve the bluff and it seems to me there's other ways to preserve the bluff and grant the variance and basically you've accomplished a positive on both ends. Does that answer your question? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I don't know what those ways are. Councilman Senn: Well I don't know either but I think that's something that basically we could approve a variance based on staff evaluating that or having somebody evaluate that and just make certain that the proper steps are taken. Mayor Mancino: And that the applicant would work with the staff recommendation on how to do that. Councilman Senn: Right. And if there's still an issue with it afterwards, then I suppose they have to come back and talk to us but I'm assuming that can be worked out. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: In '94 we did approve the bluff creek ordinance. I think granting a variance in front affects the neighborhood and I think granting a variance in back affects the neighborhood, quite honestly. In different ways certainly. I think variances are I think sometimes the most difficult, the most, somebody used the term onerous in an earlier agenda item and dealing with variances tends to be onerous because it always seems like it's us versus them or them versus us or we versus they or whatever and I don't think that's the issue here. I think, I personally think on this issue granting the variance renigs what we're trying to accomplish with the bluff ordinance. I think there is reasonable use there. I would certainly look at granting a variance on the other side but there's reasonable use exists on that lot without granting any variances. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: It seems like this is a night that our colors are coming out on some of these issues. And this is one of the things that I take, even though it's not my property, I take this type of thing personally. I look at it and I see 333 feet on western property bounds to that bluff line, the 958 contour. I see 272 feet on the east property line. And I always believe that a property owner is going to do the best 40 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 thing for his property because they have the most to gain or lose should they make the wrong decisions. They have the most skin in the deal, as it were. And a 13 foot variance on the back of this property I don't think, at the risk of sounding environmentally insensitive, because I'm not. I don't think it's going to make that much difference and the homeowners have the right to do what they want. I think we should grant the variance. I hope that's clear. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I was on the Board of Adjustments when this thing got passed onto Council and I voted in favor of the variance and I'll tell you the reasons why. I also believe that the owners of the property value the fact that that bluff is there. And they will do whatever is possible to minimize the impact of their house, and that speaks to the fundamental reason the bluff protection ordinance was implemented was to minimize damage to the property when construction occurred. Not to prevent construction but to minimize damage when the construction occurred. Originally when the Hiscox's came to the Board of Adjustments they were asking for a 24 ½ variance to the house. Now, at the behest of the Board of Adjustments they've come back with a 13 foot 2 inch variance. The house is 11 feet from the top of the bluff now. It's 22 ½ feet. The deck was 5 ½ feet from the top. Now it's 16.8. I think that had this property, I know that had this property, had they been able to build this property back in 1994, there would have been no variances. The house would have been built virtually on top of the bluff. Although at that time, from the inception, the 958 contour was the magic line to stay behind and to my way of looking at it, that's the most important condition. But the point is, is that if in fact they had built it in 1994, the house would have in essence sat on that 958 contour. Now they're well behind it. I see no reason to hold this up to the light any more. I would certainly favor the granting of a variance. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Catherine, I have a question for you. When you were given final approval on October 28, 1996, it very clearly stated the top of the bluff is designated at 958. Development of this site is governed by the City's protection ordinance. Cate Hiscox: In October of '96. Mayor Mancino: In October of '96. And at that time, I mean you knew that this was going to happen as you designed the house. My question is, knowing this and having it as a condition for the final plat, why are we here? Cate Hiscox: We are here, this original home, we had it designed so it would fit within the boundaries. That was without a deck. And also that to put a slab that would encroach on the variance. Into the 30 foot bluff setback. Also. Mayor Mancino: What do you mean the slab? Cate Hiscox: Like a walkout. This house is ideal for a walkout so the actual home structure fit within those guidelines. But add any decking or to square off our porch, we would have to ask for a variance. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you kind of knew that when you got the final plat approval on the 28th of October? Or you didn't realize that? Cate Hiscox: Realize that we would have to go before the City for a variance? It was not our foremost thought at that point, no. We have since in this whole process, we've been taking it one step at a time. 41 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 After we got the final plat approved, at that point then we sat down with a builder that we've been talking to for many years. Got hooked up with a new architect and took a stock plan rather than having to go through personalizing a plan. Or going through the time and expense that we did with our original plan. We took a stock plan and tried to modify that as best we could to fit our needs and to fit the lot. And in order to get decking and I think we added a couple feel onto the garage for additional storage and that's what prompted us to then ask for a variance. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Cate Hiscox: And I also note, Mr. Berquist said that the deck is 16.8 feet from the bluff. Actually that's a catwalk. It's a 4 foot wide catwalk. The actual decking is, at it's closest point, 21.3 feet from the 958 contour line. What we're trying to do by situating the house on a lot like we did, is to pull it further away from our existing home and to optimize lake view. That's another reason why the variance. It's facing a certain angle as opposed to another. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Well I'll tell you, when I came to the Board of Adjustments I had 10 minutes notice or, it was actually longer than that. It was a couple hours but I didn't have time to review the staff report and I sat there and listened. Now as I read through all the information, there's no question that I'm torn and that this started 10 years ago. And I understand the concerns about making sure that our ordinances, the communication to residents. However I must, I think this is going to be a change for me in my voting. I do agree that it has not created a hardship for the residents and I would not support a variance on this now. I think that it isn't arbitrary and I have seen other places actually on Galpin Boulevard that I go down every day to Highway 7 on my way south. Prior to the bluff ordinance there were some homes built high over Galpin and we have tremendous runoff problems now. Coming onto Galpin. So I'm glad that we do have the ordinance and I quite honestly don't know where that fine line is all the time and I don't presume to always know when variances should or shouldn't be granted. But I do think that this has not put undue hardship on the residents and therefore would deny the variance. May I have a motion please? Councilman Berquist: I'm going to move approval of the variance as within the staff report with the four conditions of approval. The applicant must install tree fencing to the grading limits prior to excavation. No equipment or storage of materials will be allowed in protected area. No vegetation removal will be allowed in excess of the grading limits and no vegetation removal will be allowed on the bluff. No grading will be allowed in the rear of the proposed home that will attempt to create a level yard. The applicant shall provide additional erosion control fencing along the eastern and southern property lines and the only other condition, maybe someone else has a condition regarding protection of the bluff but item 1 that Cynthia made reference to was construction vehicles. They need 15 feet within which to move around. I would like to see the construction vehicles that are necessary to excavate the lot, try to stay within a roughly 10 foot boundary of the dripline. Well footings. Footing line let's say. That should be doable. Mayor Mancino: Does that make sense? Okay. Councilman Berquist: 10 foot of the footing line. So that would give us 15 feet roughly to the edge of the bluff. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Engel: I'll second. 42 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a 13.2 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff setback for the construction of a single family home, subject to the following conditions: The applicant must install tree fencing at the grading limits prior to excavation. No equipment or storage of materials will be allowed in the protected area. No vegetation removal will be allowed in excess of the grading limits. No vegetation removal will be allowed on the bluff. 3. No grading will be allowed in the rear of the proposed home that will attempt to create a level yard. The applicant shall provide additional erosion control fencing along the eastern and southern property lines. 5. The construction vehicles are to stay within 10 feet of the footing line during construction. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino and Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: And does this just require a majority? The motion carries and the variance is granted. REQUEST TO HOLD SEMINARS IN A PROPOSED MODEL HOME~ HALLA GROVES DEVELOPMENT~ GABBERTS COMMUNITY HOME. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I'll be extremely brief due to the lateness of the hour. Gabberts Furniture is requesting a community model home to be located at the Halla Groves development. Basically what they do is, right at the beginning of the procedure they work together in partnership with the builder and they design the home in a fashion so they can create an interior design theme throughout the home. After that stage is done with, and the home is built, they offer seminars, open house, charitable events, at the home to entertain, educate the public on topics relating to the home. It's basically like... 6 to 8 months typically. Our City Code does not address anything similar to this. We contacted other communities that have experienced this. No one has any problems with it. We have developed a set of conditions. Now today around noon I did receive a phone call from the builder who requested that the City Council does not vote on this tonight but rather wait until 2 weeks from now. Their issue dealt with condition number 1 of the staff report. They didn't have a problem with the 8 month restriction but it's the fact that staff has put... 4 homes developed within this neighborhood, which would mean the end of their operation. They do not want to put the time investment and then what if, as soon as they receive their certificate of occupancy, four homes have received their certificate of occupancy. The other thing that they pointed out is they really need to keep a very positive relationship with their neighbors, be it Gabberts. They would like to sell their furniture and.., home builder because they wish to build other homes. So a suggestion made was we keep this item before you. Amend condition number 1, if all Council is agreeable to this, by keeping the fact of 8 months but delete the 4 homes. Mayor Mancino: So you want us to talk about it with the 4 homes in or with it out? Sharmin A1-Jaff: You approve it without the 4 homes, then Gabbert's, as well as McDonald Home Builders are not going to have any problems with this application. And they would move forward with it. 43 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: How many lots are in the neighborhood? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are. Mayor Mancino: There are quite a few, aren't there? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are 9 lots within the northwest comer of Halla's subdivision. They haven't.., a parcel yet but it is... comer. There aren't major... Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's the only section that's being developed at this time? Sharmin A1-Jaff: At this time, yes. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying when almost half of them are occupied. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That was the rationale behind the 4 lots receiving a certificate of occupancy. Mayor Mancino: Did the other cities do that or no? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. They just let them in. They've never had problems. Councilman Mason: I'd personally say delete the 4 homes but. Mayor Mancino: Well what about the 7:00 p.m? Did they ask anything about that because I looked at their ads and one starts, remodeling seminars at 1:00 and 6:30 p.m. so you would certainly have people going past 7:00. Did they have any questions about hours? Sharmin A1-Jaff: They didn't. It was condition number 1 basically that they had a problem with. Councilman Mason: I'm assuming shall be offered after 7:00 p.m. means it can start before 7:00 and run past 7:00. Mayor Mancino: That's my question then. Councilman Mason: Right. Mayor Mancino: No seminar shall be offered after 7:00 p.m., so that means the start time of the seminar should not be after 7:00 p.m.? Sharmin A1-Jaff: That was my intent. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then I took it a different way. Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the City Council on this issue? Comments. Councilman Senn: Just one more question? Mayor Mancino: Sure. 44 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Have they indicated the phase timing on the other sections of the development? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. Councilman Senn: Is the theory here that this model home, or this situation would stay in effect for all phases of development or is it something that would move into the then current developing phase? Sharmin A1-Jaff: We've only talked about this... Councilman Senn: So behind your rationale of half the houses, does that kind of fit in with your rationale? Saying effectively once half the houses are developed, if they're going to continue it, it should go to another phase or whatever which is being started or wasn't that any consideration? Sharmin A1-Jaff: I didn't take that into consideration. Councilman Senn: Alright. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: Comments. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I was, when Sharmin said it was going to be pulled, I'm the one that said let's just do it. Strike the four. I'm fine with that. They're not going to, this isn't, Sharmin's done her homework. She called the other cities. There's never been a problem. I can't envision there being a problem. I didn't want to read it twice. I didn't want to go through it twice. It sounds like a no brainer. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I agree with Steve. Don't need to add anything. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Delete the 4 homes and move on. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Fine with me. Mayor Mancino: My only question is, how many people do they get at these things? Do you have any idea? Councilman Berquist: Thousands. Councilman Senn: Tens of thousands. Mayor Mancino: They do get 40 at one night at a seminar? 45 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Worst case scenario. Mayor Mancino: I just want to see if she did her homework, yeah. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Was 60 individuals. However, they did. Mayor Mancino: They had 60 individuals at a seminar? Councilman Mason: Must be pretty good seminars. Sharmin A1-Jaff: However, quite a few of them car pooled and that was. Mayor Mancino: I'm talking about neighbors here. You know how neighbors are going to feel about that. ...I would like to put down some, now wait. I'd like to put down some condition so that if, you know if we get a lot of complaints that Gabberts will work with us if we need to change something, or modify it or you know. Councilman Berquist: We're not going to. I mean think of who we're dealing with here. I mean, forgive me for being. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Councilman Berquist: ... what they're doing. They are not going to irritate anybody. To the contrary. Mayor Mancino: What one may think doesn't irritate somebody, the other one you know. Councilman Berquist: I was joking when I said thousands. Councilman Mason: And you know, maybe a couple people get irritated once in a while, so goes life you know. Mayor Mancino: Well I meant heavy duty complaints. I didn't mean any. Councilman Mason: No, I tend to agree with Councilman Berquist. I would guess that if there were complaints, they would be mitigated in short order. And if not, I would bet we'd end up dealing with it one way or the other. Councilman Engel: I heard we were going to do one of these by the Mayor's house. Councilman Senn: Why don't you just say that they can do it and keep it going so long as there are not complaints and define complaints as half the people in the neighborhood complaining. Mayor Mancino: That's probably the best. Sharmin. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The way they would like to structure it is, make.., that home buyers be aware that this is happening and they know that. 46 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Good idea. Communication, okay. That that's going on. Okay. So that will be part of the conditions. Who'd like to make the motion? Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I'll make the motion. I'm not quite sure how to include that last one. I'll move we approve this. Item 1, seminars be offered for a maximum of 8 months, commencing on the day a CO is issued for the model home. Items 2, 3, and 4 as outlined by staff. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Berquist: Do you want to make? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to make the friendly amendment, if you would accept it, and Sharmin would you like to say what that friendly amendment is? Repeat it for me. Sharmin A1-Jaff: New home buyers be made aware that this use is taking place within their neighborhood for 8 months. Councilman Berquist: Be made aware by the builder/developer/decorator. Not by the City. Councilman Mason: Something tells me that group is probably going to let all those people know these seminars are going on anyway. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the amendment? Councilman Senn: Oh sure. Anything to keep the Mayor happy. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to include a condition number 5 which states that all new home buyers shall be made aware by the builder/developer/decorator that the model home in the neighborhood will be used for seminars for an 8 month period of time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the request to home seminars in a proposed model home in the Halla Groves Development, Gabberts Community Home, with the following conditions: 1. The seminars may be offered for a maximum of eight (8) months, commencing on the day a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the model home. 2. The applicant shall meet with the building official to discuss the home design and address any issues relating to accessibility requirements. At a minimum, the entrance into the home, a bathroom and a meeting room must be accessible. 3. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the street only. 4. No seminar shall be offered after 7:00 p.m. 5. All new home buyers shall be made aware by the builder/developer/decorator that the model home in the neighborhood will be used for seminars for an 8 month period of time. 47 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 35,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND LAKE DRIVE WEST~ LOT 6~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2N~ ADDITION; CH & C BUILDING~ EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The site is located north of Lake Drive West... east of Audubon Road and south of an industrial site .... the issues rather than the entire staff report, if that's okay. Material... and I found it necessary to... on the adjoining site because they are the same owner. This is the proposed building. Basically there are four entryways. There are four entryways into the site. The materials that are needed are basically decorative block and.., and the majority of the building will have this light block. In comparison to the building immediately next to it, which is the Paulstarr building. Again these two shades are identical to the proposed building. The new one will have a smooth face versus the tan with the rough face block. One of the issues staff has come...the Planning Commission meeting was dealing with staffs recommendation and you will find that on page 15 of the staff report. Condition number 16. Staff has recommended that the white scored burnished concrete be used on all four sides of the building. Today there was a meeting with the applicant. We found out that they would rather use this dark block for the rear of the building, which is what faces the Paulstarr building. There is one... Right now this is... but it is a fairly dark wall. One that is almost black.., and again having that same color, you might get the feeling as you drive into Commerce Drive that you are approaching a black hole. And it's a matter. Councilman Mason: Some people might enjoy that. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We just thought we would point that out so that's the issue. Mayor Mancino: And the applicant can address that too. Sharmin A1-Jaff: ... and the darker block will unify them. Height wise they are very comparable so the issue... The second issue deals with landscaping and parking... There are many applications that staff has reviewed... One of the requirements for the tenants that will occupy this building is that they have parking within the front yard .... comer of Lake Drive West and Audubon Road. This is the entrance into the building. As a compromise.., elevations. Right now it's 4 feet lower than the elevation of Audubon Road. There is a retaining wall right along the west, northeast lot line.., but as you're approaching, it will minimize the size of the parking lot. Meanwhile... elevation of the building at the same height as Audubon Road. So when you're approaching you're going to be... Basically we're recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the staff report. The one issue that the Council needs to decide about is the wall along.., rear elevation where the loading docks are. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: You advocated and they agreed to drop the parking lot? 4 feet did you say? Sharmin A1-Jaff's answer was not picked up on the microphone. Councilman Berquist: And that would be a grade change from the building to the berm? 48 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Sharmin A1-Jaff: The berm is basically along the east elevation of the site. Councilman Berquist: Right. I mean is that going to be, you can drop that thing 4 feet just by a grade change? Sloping up towards the building. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Sloping it towards the building, correct. And by the time you get to the building... Councilman Berquist: They won't have any drainage problems on this thing? Mayor Mancino: That's my question. Sharmin A1-Jaff: I don't believe there is going to be... I spoke to the City Engineer on that matter and... Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for staff at this point? Any Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: In terms of the, in your mind how important is this that the ratios which were approved in this PUD are maintained? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Very important. The EAW is. Councilman Senn: Is kind of a governing factor, correct? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. Do you really feel that it's realistic that what's remaining to develop is 36,000 square feet of office space is going to service 300, well. Over 375,000 square feet of warehouse and manufacturing. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes, and I only say that because two of the remaining parcels have.., buffer and that's taken all along Audubon Road... limit the size of the building area on that parcel. We're extremely... Councilman Senn: Which is going to limit parking. Which is going to limit effectively how much office space you can put in them. So what you're saying is, you have looked at that and you're comfortable with that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The other thing that gives me a comfort level is the developer for this site has purchased the other, or has a purchase agreement for the other sites and is aware of this condition. So the buildings... have incorporated those numbers and situations. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I mean this building here that's being suggested is way in, I'm going to say, way off on those percentages. So I mean if that's the trend, we've got a problem. Because you're basically saying 9,000 out of 35,000, which is roughly what? It's a whole lot more than, less than 10% which is what you're left with on the balance. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There were other buildings that were allowed higher office space or manufacturing that didn't need... For instance the National Weather Service does not need any manufacturing. They needed warehouse.., but they didn't set up any manufacturing. The same is true with... 49 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well that's the kind of the point I'm coming back to Sharmin. The only thing that we're running leaps and bounds ahead of here is office space, which is the more intense use. The intensive surface use which is parking, you know etc, etc. So I don't know. I look at these numbers and I'm really uncomfortable with that because I don't think it's realistic to assume that less than 10% of the remaining building areas are going to be office space. Way below industry average. Now this building basically is roughly 35,000 square feet is what, a single tenant building then? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. There will be two tenants in this building. Two? Three? Four? Four tenants in the building. Councilman Senn: Okay. There's going to be four tenants in the building and they will be governed, there will be no more than 8,750 square feet of office space regardless of how many tenants there are? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's absolute, controllable, enforceable, whatever? Mayor Mancino: And we'll hear from the applicant on that too. Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to address the City Council at this time please. Mark Understad: My name is Mark Understad with Eden Trace representing the owner, CH&C on this project. I guess I'd just like to hit a couple of things here. I too agree it's late. One thing that you just mentioned Sharmin, as far as the elevation I think is maybe clarification on there. The adjustments on the grade, as we were interpreting that is the grade between the berm to buffer the parking lot level to bring the whole parking lot down 4 feet from the street grade out there. You would drive off of Lake Drive West straight down 4 feet into a hole. What we do is build up that buffer, the berm out there with a boulder retaining wall and there's about a 4 ½ foot difference in elevation from the berm to the outside street and the parking lot in there. Let's see, we went through a few items here but just real quick. There's 16 different items. I think we've taken care of most of those. There's a couple issues here that we need to just clarify with staff. Number 4, on page 13. The green space in the northerly parking lot back there. What we have is basically a lot of truck maneuvering area back there. To try to put an island of green back in there, I'd like to get as much landscaping I think as we can on these sites too but to put something back in the middle of that. We tried it before and we just can't get anything to grow back in those islands. Our thought was, the issue here was our dumpster. On site dumpster and garbage recycling and that. That we would create an area back in there, in the north parking lot, in that loading area to provide screening and locate our trash and recycling back in that area. The other issue obviously is the owner...the Paulstarr building, want to maintain the same theme they have going on with the building next door. This building is larger square foot wise, 35,000 versus I think they have 20-25,000 square feet in their old facility. Area that they're looking at doing, at creating the charcoal facade around the back is actually less square footage in this project than what they have in their other one. They want to break it similar to what they have in their other building. Where the window line stops, the warehouse line begins. They wanted to wrap that gray, solid gray all the way around the back side of the building to again the other end where the windows would start and stop, which would be inbetween Paulstarr's old building and their new building at that point. You know again, the owner, we've done a few of these type of deals where we've done some more smaller sites, lots which we've created a double image. Same type of building. Back to back facades like that. They've all worked out quite well. I think that the larger buffer between Audubon and the building, you know is a lot more berming and screening and landscaping and things that we're putting in there. Trimming around the back. Putting a lot of that, you can see that image from... That's one of the keys that 50 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 the owner again, he has a nice building where he's at. He likes his building and he'd like this one to kind of carry that theme through. He is adding a little more graphics and banding and some entryways on this but the colors in these three units, he wants these exact same materials on this other building. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions for the applicant at this time? Councilman Berquist: Mr. Understad. Did you talk at all about stacking on Lake Drive or parking, stacking? Was that ever a concern? I mean I look at, what have we got? 50 some spaces here, and I don't know what the hours of operation but we're going to have a postal service, weather service has virtually nothing. Control Products, I know when they're going they've got 50 to 60 cars in the lot. Power Systems has... Chuck's Grinding will have about 30. The existing Paulstarr building has about 25-26. That's quite a bit of traffic load at 4:00 in the afternoon when we're roughly what, 90 feet back from Audubon? 5 car lengths. The site doesn't allow us to do anything else? Was it brought up at Planning or anything? Mark Understad: No. I mean basically we laid this out to try to maximize there, or get the parking to work in the front and rear of the buildings with the truck traffic in the back. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Alright, that's the only question I have. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Mark Understad: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the City Council on this? Councilman Senn. Comments. Councilman Senn: No, not really. I mean if they're comfortable with those numbers and let's make sure it keeps us within the livable ranges, I don't see a big problem with anything else. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I don't have any issues. I guess maybe we need to decide whether it's going to be gray or white. I guess my personal feelings, well. Councilman Berquist: You're a domino player. Councilman Mason: No, but I think, I'm okay with the gray if that's what the applicant wants. I mean I'm not diminishing what you're saying but. Mayor Mancino: And Councilman Senn, what was, are you a gray or white person? Councilman Mason: Is this like a touchy feely thing? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly. Councilman Senn: She said I gave her this thing earlier. Mayor Mancino: Big deal. Councilman Engel. 51 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Am I gray or white? Mayor Mancino: On the back of the building. Councilman Senn: I don't like making design decisions. Let an architect make them. That's his job. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I heartedly concur. Mayor Mancino: And any other comments? Councilman Engel: No. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I kind of like the black hole effect... That's right. There's some gravity to it. Like Mike says, somebody will like it. I like it. I got to agree on condition number 4 regarding the green space in the northerly parking lot. Nothing will grow. It will simply be a, it will look terrible. Mayor Mancino: So no herb or flower garden back there? Councilman Berquist: I don't know what it is about plants but you can't get... Mayor Mancino: I'll tell you, basil will grow very well. I have no comments. No new comments. On condition number 16, the gray is fine with me also. Otherwise may I please have a motion. This is very easy and very well done by staff. Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of site plan #97-3 as detailed in the staff report and I would like to delete condition number 4 of the wording only that reads, incorporate a green space in the northerly parking lot adjacent to building between loading docks. Councilman Mason: Delete item 16 as well? Councilman Berquist: Yes. And yes. Delete item 16 in it's entirety. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan/t97-3 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, as shown on the plans dated received February 28, 1997, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Rock construction entrances shall be used at all access points. 52 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 10. Drive aisles in the southerly parking lot shall be increased to 26 feet face-to-face wide. The drive aisle access from Commerce Drive shall be reduced from 36 feet wide to 30 feet wide face-to-face. The applicant shall construct an industrial driveway apron at the Commerce Drive access point in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. The southerly parking lot shall be redesigned to drain into the existing storm sewer from Commerce Drive. Additional berming should also be considered in the southeast comer of the south parking lot. The applicant shall install pedestrian ramps at the sidewalk in conjunction with construction of the drive aisle from Lake Drive West. Erosion control fence shall be extended along the northwesterly property line and along Lake Drive West. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add hydrant located at the south side of building. The options for an additional hydrant are: 1. Tap into water line from Lake Drive West and have hydrant at entrance. Tap into water line on south side of building and install hydrant off of southeast comer of building (refer to plan for specific location. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Appendix 3-b). b. Show location of post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on plan. c. Fire department connection (F.D.C.) will need to be placed on south side of building by front entrances. Please contact Fire Inspector for specific placement. d. Fire lane signs will need to be installed in south parking lot. Please refer to plan areas noted in red. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (Attached). The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement/contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. The freestanding sign shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The 53 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 11. Revise the site plan to show code complying accessible parking. The spaces must be eight feet wide, and at least one space must have an eight foot wide access aisle. Other required access aisles may be five feet wide. Revised plans shall be submitted prior to final site approval. 12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than ½ foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no street glare is directed off-site and no more than ½ foot candle of light is at the property line. 13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. One third of the fee was paid at the time of platting. At 1997 rates, remaining park fees equal 2.74 acres x $3,000 per acre or $8,220. This amount shall be paid at the time a building permit is granted for the CH&C building. 14. Existing trees planted by City and developer will remain on site as is and be incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan. To meet buffer yard requirements, 12 additional understory and 23 shrubs must be added to the landscaping along Audubon Road. The red maples proposed in the parking lot island will be changed to a species recommended in the City's Approved Tree List for planting in parking lots. A revised landscape plan will be submitted to the City before final approval. 15. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT, WATER SKIING TOURNAMENT AT LAKE SUSAN PARK~ INT LEAGUE. Todd Hoffman: These gentlemen have been sitting here since 7:30. Winter has returned. The lake has frozen. Steve Carlson is present in the audience and he's a representative of Minnesota International Novice Tour (INT), and they're requesting a public gathering permit for a waterski tournament June 7th and 8th. The 7th being a Saturday, a practice day and 8th the tournament date. The company started 3 years ago in Washington state and is currently traveling across the country gaining momentum. Essentially what you have going on here is a owner representative in businesses sponsoring the tournament to gain support for skiing and knee boarding and other things that we talked about in the material. If approved they expect 50 to 60 participants. In order to proceed with the tournament they must receive approval from the Chanhassen City Council for this permit. They would also need to seek a permit from Carver County to allow placement of a slalom course in a public water body. What I would like to bring to your attention is that the ordinance, as it reads. What they need to prove in order to have the City Council approve the permit is that the proposed activity or use of the park will not unreasonably interfere with or detract from the general public enjoyment of the park. The proposed activity or use will not reasonably interfere or 54 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 detract from commotion of public health, welfare, safety and recreation, etc. And the proposed activity or use is not reasonably.., crime or disorderly conduct. The proposed activity will not entail any extraordinary.., operation of the city. That the facility desired... The applicants are here. I'd like them to talk about what they perceive to be the, kind of the feel of this type of event. There's no doubt it wouldn't have a significant presence on the water front and on Lake Susan Park and I want the Council to understand that consideration. We also need to talk about whether there would be an entry fee for these people. Are they thinking about charging spectator fees along with the water-skiing, wake boarding and knee boarding, there is going to be a boat demonstration and a PA system that's talked about in the report. What affect that has on the property owners and the recreation use over a weekend... PA system for 2 days. And Roger should talk about, if it is approved, any additional insurance or what other needs would he need. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward please? Councilman Senn: Whoops. I've got some question for staff real quick at first. I'm sorry. Mayor Mancino: Sure. Councilman Senn: Todd. I mean were the residents notified of this? Todd Hoffman: A mailing did not go out to the lakeshore home owners but it was notified in the paper. I received a single call. Councilman Senn: Okay, but I mean isn't it pretty easy to send a notice out to the residents since it's a defined area? I mean wouldn't you be more comfortable with that? Todd Hoffman: I don't think the residents would be too excited about it. Councilman Senn: But I mean how do we know that? I'm not sure we're at liberty to even be suggesting whether they, I mean how would I say this? I mean it's kind of hard to tell that, especially if we just put it in the newspaper. I mean it seems to me if we're going to consider something like this, we ought to send notices out to the residents that live there and give them an opportunity to come in and hear the same thing. Mayor Mancino: Do we do it in others? I mean for the February Festival and you know, in other? Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Mancino: Do we usually. Todd Hoffman: The difference here is this is not a city or local community sponsored event. Councilman Senn: And I'm sure, I mean the other thing, and Nancy I have the same question but I said to myself well, first year after February Fest if somebody didn't like it, we would have heard. You know and this is kind of interjecting a new element. I think maybe we should look for a comment for. Another, a couple other questions if I could. I saw in here you were looking at a few of $250.00 per day. That's just in my mind seems really light, I mean considering I'm sure we get stuck with trash pick-up, trash hauling, electricity, etc, etc. 55 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Todd Hoffman: The $250.00 indicated is a standard reservation fee. It is not the fee specifically designated for or arrived at. Councilman Senn: For an event like this? Todd Hoffman: That is correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. More like company picnics at the pavilion. Todd Hoffman: Absolutely. Councilman Senn: Alright. And last question. I was going to bring this up as a separate item tonight but I thought since this item was I'd just bring it up under this. What happens, I mean right now our lake levels are at the highest I remember them in the last 10 years. I mean there's some real shoreline erosion problems starting to occur, which I think percipitate the discussion on our part of whether we should implement no wake on the lake. But now again, I mean it's hard to say, now is May. This is June 7th. Granted you know it's a month or a month and a week away but what if those conditions don't change? I mean we could be creating effectively a pretty big problem as putting this type of intensity or use on the lake, if those water levels don't go down. Todd Hoffman: Agreed. Councilman Senn: There's no way to govern that. I mean is there a way to govern that? I suppose really not. I mean you've got to say yes, we're going to allow it. No, we're going to allow it. No, we can't call it off at the last minute because of the lake being high? Todd Hoffman: Yeah. Many of the County Boards out west imposed no wake restrictions on their water bodies due to high levels. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd really like to see us do that because it's, in general. Mayor Mancino: I mean will 2 days affect it? Having some wake on the lake for 2 days. Councilman Senn: Oh, it could dramatically affect it. If the water level. Mayor Mancino: Erosion around the perimeter of the lake? Todd Hoffman: Any wave action affect... Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wondered if it would take sustained activity. Okay. Councilman Senn: Okay. That was it for questions. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council please? Steve Carlson: Hi, I'm Steve Carlson. This is Joe Mueller and basically I am the State coordinator for the INT League here in Minnesota .... some of these objectives I've heard obviously. So far the INT has grown nationwide.., and Washington, Indiana, Arizona and Michigan where it's taken off real well. There 56 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 is a major corporate sponsorship as far as... sporting good manufacture association goes. As far as the water sports industry goes... The league that has tried to bolster water-skiing at a real grass roots level and... Little League of water-skiing is kind of what they call it. There's Little League baseball. There's Pee Wee football. There's little guys hockey, as far as Pee Wee's and Bantams. I'm sure you're all familiar with that but there's never been that for water-skiing. What they're trying to do is take it from being just a recreation and many people enjoy being on the lakes throughout the.., country obviously and bring it back to be more of a sport and that's where this type of event that we're holding is trying to do. We're holding four tournaments in the State this year actually. This one in Chanhassen will actually be the first. After the one here, up in Robbinsdale. There will be one at Madden's Resort up on Gull Lake... Rochester. And so far we have been met very well, with open arms up in Robbinsdale. Up at Gull Lake at Madden's Resort... quite a big deal about it there. And also with the.., down in Rochester... would be viewed as a fund-raiser also for their... Basically with this first tournament, we're hoping to have somewhere between 50 and 60 participants. Like he says, it's going to depend on weather. It's going to depend on how well we get the word out. There's actually, there will be 10-15,000 fliers that will go out in the state to 15,000 different households. People who are from our mailing list and from mailing lists of waterski magazines and waterski manufacturers. We're trying to essentially promote it as more of a family... They're trying to bring more families together. I know a lot of... They set up camp sites and there... Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Carlson at this time? Councilman Berquist: Your shop? Steve Carlson: No. Joe Mueller: I might add. My name is Mueller. I'm the owner of Minnesota Inboard Watersports. We're Malibu Boats on Highway 7 and we also have a service shop in Christmas Lake Road. One of the reasons really that we chose Chanhassen was because we have approximately 200 customers that purchase goods from our store. Waterskis, because we have a pro shop. We have 180 Excelsior residents and one of the biggest questions that comes up every year, we've been there 6 years, is do you guys have clinics? Or where can my kids go? What can we do? I mean where can we go? INT has approached us 3 years in a row. We're a very busy company this time of year. Taking on a project like this was a huge commitment for us. I put Steve in charge, who's in charge of our retail sales and purchasing. Hopefully finding some people, which we have, to follow with us and help us out in terms, I hope you all got packets. I think we sent to Jerry and Sharmin and I know we have insurance information as well through the INT. Personally I've run, I've held tournaments. I've held clinics. We have gone through the City Councils to acquire permits for the clinics and tournaments. This is the first time obviously with Chanhassen. He spoke of residential okays and I can assure you that the activity that is done in this particular type of a tournament, there is 5 boat manufacturers that are major sponsors. There are, there's one boat that is run. There isn't 5 boats. There's one boat that's run during the day for these activities through a slalom course. So it's basically working with Jerry, positioning this slalom course away from residents and the best location of the lake, I don't feel that it's going to be a big negative to the residents. But then again I'm not a resident on Lake Susan. But we have held many of these clinics throughout the City in the past. I guess we chose Lake Susan because quite a few of our customers waterski on Lake Susan. But it's a great opportunity for us and to get involved with this and create more of an atmosphere of family fun and the Little League, because that's what it's all about is fun and the families getting together. We've talked about having, I've got one company that might come in and just have some games for the little kids. To be able to play a bowling game. And we have, it's all computerized. It's a very formal put together tournament. Very 57 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 organized. Probably the most organized tournament. It's even more organized and funded than the pro tours that you see on TV as far as the organization is done. So with that, we're willing to work, do whatever we can to assist. Mayor Mancino: Sounds like fun. Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue? Seeing none, comments. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I kind of feel, are we the, this is the first one that you folks have put together here in Minnesota, right? So this list of, this spread sheet on your personnel has yet to be filled in. Joe Mueller: No. That is the...I would say 80% of that is filled in. Councilman Berquist: We're your first tournament? Joe Mueller: In talking with Jerry on dates, we were looking at a later date, which I guess wasn't going to work out. We were looking at Crystal Lake being the first. This came up as turning out to be the first. Councilman Berquist: But we are your first? Joe Mueller: You are the first. Councilman Berquist: We're the rehearsal for the first three? For the next three. Joe Mueller: Right. Councilman Berquist: I mean from my point of view, Lake Susan is a very small, nice lake. Small being the key word. And you're going to have, if you fill these positions, you're going to have roughly 40 people there. Joe Mueller: As far as positions or being taking up with the people that are actually going to be participating. Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I'm sure. Joe Mueller: As a matter of fact I would say every one on that list will be participating as well in the toumament. Councilman Berquist: Have either of you two had experience in other parts of the country in these other states that are listed with the success of these tournaments to the approximate number of attendees? Steve Carlson: One of the things.., varies as far as Minnesota, we've got everybody in Minnesota has got a cabin up north or has a lake place somewhere and that's one of the feelings that we... at their cabin. Whereas in the states like Indiana or Arizona, where it's taken up very well, they don't have the opportunity to... weekends, every weekend at their cabin. That's where it hurts the draw is because... We're hoping to pull somewhere between 50 and 75 participants per tournament. The first one, hopefully if 50 tums out that would fantastic for us. But it's going to be a struggle...to our tournament rather than go to their cabin or go up north... In some of the other states they... I'd say 100 to 150 people in a weekend. That's running a 2 day tournament though also. 58 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist: So if you have 50 competitors and each one of them averages, I mean this is for children so, mothers and fathers and siblings are going to come along so if each one averages 2 adult or 2 people that come along, that's roughly 150 people all tolled, right? That's kind of the answer I'm looking for. 150 maybe. 200 outset. Steve Carlson: At the most. Joe Mueller: We do have two members on our crew that have had past experience... One is from Washington state... Councilman Berquist: I'll be honest with you guys. I looked through this thing trying to find the scam. Joe Mueller: There is no scam. As a matter of fact this is an effort of sponsorship that all goes to INT, a non-profit. To be quite frankly, Minnesota Inboard Watersports is putting out a lot of money into this. Out of our own pocket in benefit of creating more of a family, fun atmosphere of water-skiing and boat safety. It isn't just about putting out a slalom course and going out and cutting up the water. It's about bringing families together and having fun together. There's a lot of them that own homes on the lake around here. They don't spend a lot of time with their kids. Their kids are out playing in their own boat. This is an opportunity to get them involved on a Sunday afternoon to come down and watch their 13 year old ski a mini-slalom course and come back and just, you know arms up in the air and mom and dad are there. That's what it's all about. Obviously for Minnesota Inboard, we have pro shops in the area, it's a benefit for us in the long run for retail sales. But there is not a money maker in this. Everything goes to INT and without the large amount of sponsorship to pick up the slack in the funds.., it's a huge commitment for us. But it's a very, like I say, it was always in demand of some type of clinic or...you might say daycare. I mean it's not daycare but just a place for kids to go. I mean we have kids in our shop daily. They just like to hang out looking for a place to go. Well they come to our place. Watch the big screen and they're very clean cut, you don't get a lot of rif raf in the waterski business which is one reason why our family got involved with it. If that thing's run right and organized and cleaned up... very well for the state, as well as water-skiing. And our business. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Owning my own ski boat for 8 years and having attended some of these professional events, I find them to be quite fun. It's a nice break in the summer and I did talk to a property owner on that lake last night about this because they were concerned about the impact of the shoreline. Barring any high water conditions, you know I can easily assure them, skiers are finicky. They don't like to ski rough water. They're only going to have one boat out there because they want the water to be as smooth as possible. That's the way they run. I can tell by the way they've got the course set up that it's going to push the majority of the wake on the swampy west side of Lake Susan and the far east side the wake's largely going to mitigated by the time it reaches the property. It's not going to affect too much north and the south. So I don't think there's going to be too much impact, barring flooding levels at the lake. It would be kind of fun. It will be a lot less impact down there than we put on that area during the February Fest, I can tell you that. So I think it will be fun to have. It would be a neat thing. It's the kind of thing where you get everybody out in the summer. That's what Chanhassen probably wants to be known for. 59 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 We've got these nice natural resources. This is the type of thing we can take advantage of them with. I think it's great. Mayor Mancino: Thanks. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Well, I'll just tell one quick story. The first time I ever waterskied, nobody bothered to tell me to let go of the rope when you fall down. So I'm... so and it was just last year. No. I'm not a waterskier. I am not a big boat fan. A big motor boat fan. I kind of paddle around in my canoe but I think this would be cool. I think it would, we're talking about getting families out doing stuff. Certainly water skiing is a pretty big use of lakes in the state of Minnesota. I think for a one shot deal, it's worth giving it a try and seeing what happens. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Question first. Tell me a little bit more about your participants. Joe Muleller: The participants are pretty much drawn together from the newspaper that would go out. That is drawn from a database from, supplied from all, there's 4 to 5 pro shops in the metropolitan area. Approximately 15,000 newspapers will go out. And that newspaper it pretty much states the tournament sites, how the tournaments are...the different activities there are and the different.., of the tournaments. As well as everyone in our store that comes in receives a thank you for shopping or purchasing, it mentions about the INT and.., get more information on it. Councilman Senn: Okay. And basically you're going to have participant groups with 35 plus. 13 to 35 and 13 and under. Is that correct? Steve Carlson: Basically the participant can be anywhere.., as old as they want to be. Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I'm looking at your data here and I'm looking, I mean so far we've talked a lot about kids, but everything I read in the information tells me that you basically have three classes of skiing. You have a junior class that's 13 and under. You have a main class that's you know basically 13 to 35 and then you have a 35 plus, correct? So those are open classifications and it just kind of depends on who signs up in what class, right? Okay. Well, I love water-skiing and I'm an avid waterskier but I'll tell you, this is really bothering me that we're thinking about doing something that's on little Lake Susan without notifying the citizens and asking them, or at least giving them an opportunity to comment and if, I think that's an essential first step if we're going to go ahead with this. And I guess my other concern is I don't know what we do do if the water levels are high and stuff because they're definitely high now and we're losing lakeshore as we speak. Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you have any suggestions on that? Todd Hoffman: Table it and notify the residents. Mayor Mancino: Well I know that part we can but what about lakeshore level. Do you have, are there any predictions about what's going to happen in the next month? Todd Hoffman: Not that I know of. 60 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Mason: ... the Weather Service forecast is for less precipitation than normal for the month of May, just so you know. The 30 day forecast. Mayor Mancino: Oh that's interesting. Well at least we're going to have rain tomorrow and Wednesday. What about insurance? Roger, is that something that you've looked at or been able to review on what the City needs to? Roger Knutson: We'd want a million dollar. Mayor Mancino: Do we need to add some. Roger Knutson: We'd want a million dollar policy with us named as an additional insurer. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Only one? Roger Knutson: We have statutory. Right now under Chapter 466 we have some limitations on our exposure so that's, you certainly request more. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think it sounds fun. I think it sounds like, I think it'd be great to use our lakes this way. I have some obviously concerns about the erosion problem. What could happen but I don't have any answer for it. Is there a way, and we can just table this and at least notify the residents that live around Lake Susan and let them know and ask them for feedback. Todd Hoffman: We sure can. I don't know what that does to the applicant's time table. Mayor Mancino: What does that do to your time table if we notified and put this on for our next meeting, which would be May 12th. IS that? The 12th. Would that be a problem? Oh, it's June 8th and 9th, geez. Joe Mueller: Well the only problem...the mailings that go out, it's almost deadline for the mailings. Actually the sponsorship on these is Wednesday is the deadline.., dates will be listed. That's the drawback. We could find out the exact last date we could send that date in... Steve Carlson: Typically they want it 45 days before but... Mayor Mancino: Which is next week. Councilman Mason: This may be flying in the face of public opinion right now, and maybe I'm going to get all kinds of hate mail for this. But I don't know, I mean I do not devalue the opinion of neighbors that are directly affected by any one event in this city. But I think the other side of that coin is, does this mean that for anything that happens anywhere in this city at any time a resident has to be notified and by god if that resident opposes it, we as a City Council won't do it? Now I know some people are going to cry, so you mean you're saying we shouldn't tell people what we're doing and I hope people that know me well enough know nothing could be further than the truth. But we have an opportunity here and yes, if I lived on that lake I might kind of raise my eyebrows. The other side of the point is, I don't own any of that lake. I own the property abutting that lake. None of that lake property is, none of that lake water is mine. And I get a little concerned sometimes when we get into this microcosm of every little neighborhood. You know 61 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 should the neighborhood be notified? Sure. Sure, they should but I can tell you right now I think this is a good idea and if every resident that lives around Lake Susan says, you're a horses petoot. You shouldn't do this. I can't believe you're going to do it. I'm going to say, you know what? I think it's a good idea for the city. Councilman Engel: Mike makes a good point. I want to add to that too. The one call I got the other night about this was the concern about the erosion because they thought a lot of boats were going to be driving around all the time creating a lot of erosion. I can tell you from personal experience and I live right by that lake, any two boats on any given day will cause more trouble on that lake than one boat running an organized course in the single spot it's going to. And I can say that. I don't need one study to tell me that. I just know that. Mayor Mancino: And do the other two boats are for emergency vehicles? Steve Carlson: ...the safety crews. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: Well, you know again. On the surface this appears very much like a good idea. Okay. I just can't understand why, here we are. You know a month before the event. Backs against the wall and here we are. You know we have to decide or not decide right now, which doesn't give us time to you know, to effectively even go ask the people we supposedly represent. You know what do you think of it. That's not to say that we're going to take every word that they say as a concern or vote it one way or the other, you know as Michael said just because one objects or whatever. But you know, come on. This is a new thing. Never been done before. I think there's legitimate reasons to ask people if they have concerns related to it so the concerns can be handled and stuff, and I don't know how, I mean I don't understand again why last minute we have to kind of take all that as. Mayor Mancino: Well because I think sometimes you do last minute. I was thinking about the 4th of July parade last year and how we hadn't had one for 25 years and we were putting up no parking signs and we were, you know the line up was on city streets and everything and you know some people were a little upset because you couldn't get through and there were roads that were blocked half an hour before the parade but dog gone it, the parade was wonderful and everybody loved it and there were a few that it inconvenienced and you know they'll know about it next year and I would say that the majority of residents just were happy to have had it. So what I'm getting to is, you know thinking about the lining up on all the neighborhood streets, people were just great about it. I mean you know we had 75 different floats lined up in front of people's houses and there was no trash left. It worked out fine. And I'm glad it did. So think some of these community events we really do need to pull the neighborhoods together and make sure that the people who are putting them on do a heck of a good job of being respectful to the neighbors around and cleaning up and it's handled with our Park and Rec Department. So I guess I would be okay with letting those who live on Lake Susan know. One days it's what, 4 to 6 hours a day. 8:00 to 2:00 and 8:00 to 4:00. Is that what it is? Councilman Mason: Right. Mayor Mancino: Starts at in the morning. Councilman Engel: 8:00 to 4:00 on Saturday and 8:00 to 2:00 on Sunday. 62 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Berquist: I agree with Mark's concern that the people on Lake Susan ideally should have input into whether or not this goes on. And I hear what Mike's saying insofar as that communication is something that we're trying to be better at. A lot of the times when we're, when we are questioned on the communication levels that we provide, it's not so much the issue as much as the awareness. And I'm comfortable with granting this approval with the understanding that we will educate the people that are around the lake as to what's going to go on. And come at it from a Little League sort of a format. It's not going to be 5 boats racing around at 40 mph. It's going to be one boat and a rescue boat and it's going to be an organized, fun sort of a deal. Yeah, there might be a few people that will throw a fit but most of the people will be just fine. Mayor Mancino: And those be mailed, are you talking about something like that being mailed individually to homeowners? Councilman Berquist: Yes, I think so. Mayor Mancino: That are on the lake .... do you have any idea Todd how many residents live on Lake Susan? Todd Hoffman: 30 or 40. Councilman Berquist: We'd get into trouble if we just did it and didn't do anything. But we can be proactive and still grant the permit I think. Councilman Senn: What's the, ifI could. Todd, what's your thought on the fees? I mean do you think $250.00 a day covers all the expenses associated with something like this or? Todd Hoffman: It's difficult to tell. Roger, that'd be a good question. If we have...do you want to put a maximum limit on the amount of registrants. If you want cost of cleaning up and those type of things... number of participants and spectators.., dumpsters, portable satellites, those type of things.., costs back out to the applicant... Mayor Mancino: And we escrow the money to cover that up front? Todd Hoffman: ... damage deposit... Councilman Senn: And no traffic controls will be needed or parking direction stuff? Todd Hoffman: I don't know. I would say that there may not be... anybody showing up at the lake that day is going to be inconvenienced. Not just the lakeshore homeowners. Say you're a family, you wake up that morning and you're heading down to go fishing and you show up and there's 85 people in the parking.., waterski. You're going to turn around and go somewhere else. It's not just the people that live on the lake so you have to make a choice. Councilman Senn: Okay, but how do we assure we cover, or recover our costs? Todd Hoffman: You write up an agreement.., additional costs. It says right in there, if there's additional costs... 63 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well, I would hope the Council would include that. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Joe, are there going to be outside speakers? Any, I'm a little concerned about the noise also. Joe Mueller: There will be a small PA that will be enough for the spectators and the people to hear. There is an announcer there. The PA system we're presently looking at, we're right at 50 feet. Steve Carlson: It's basically 50 yards... Mayor Mancino: And you're not going to have any bands or anything like that? Okay. Well I just thought I'd ask. Joe Mueller: It's a professional announcer. We were working on this with Jerry since late January. February. I guess if we just.., more on top of it. We were just kind of talking with Jerry for a couple of months on the dates and he let us know what we needed to get it approved. Mayor Mancino: Well may I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I will move that we approve the permit for the water-skiing tournament on Lake Susan Park. Not having heard the damage question, the damage concern that you voiced to him that someone said would be a good idea, I'll let you add to the motion if you wouldn't mind. I'm going to move approval on this. With the caveat of the reason Todd just talked about. Mayor Mancino: Oh, oh. You mean making sure that we get all costs for city uses. Roger Knutson: I would suggest, you know you're charging him $250.00 a day plus you will want an escrow for the other. You don't want to chase them later after the event. Councilman Berquist: So do you want me to set an escrow? Roger Knutson: That'd be appropriate. Councilman Berquist: Would it? I'll move approval with a $250.00 a day fee and a $1,000.00 escrow. Roger Knutson: And then commercial and general liability insurance of one million dollars with us being named as an additional insured. Councilman Berquist: As said by the City Attorney. And we send a letter to the Lake Susan owners notifying them of this event and asking them to participate and have fun. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Public Gathering Permit for a Water Skiing Tournament at Lake Susan Park for June 7th and 8th, 1997, with the following conditions: 64 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 There be a $250.00 a day fee and $1,000.00 escrow for a damage deposit. Commercial and general liability insurance of one million dollars with the City of Chanhassen being named as an additional insured. All lakeshore homeowners on Lake Susan be notified of this event. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-405 IN REGARD TO WETLAND ALTERATIONS AND THE CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF WETLANDS, FIRST READING. Sharmin A1-Jaff: ... you adopted an ordinance that basically prohibited homeowners from using chemical treatment in wetlands to take care of algae. Staff was contacted by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and was notified that we can't prohibit anyone from doing this. So staff is proposing an amendment that would require homeowners to notify the City of their intention of treating the algae. ... staff has developed a brochure that basically has information. This is a draft. You're more than welcome to look at it but it basically looks at what options... Staff is recommending approval. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, comments. Anyone have any comments? Any Council members on this. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the amendment to Chapter 20 pertaining to the chemical treatment of wetlands as shown in Attachment #2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: Staff report please. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Honorable Council, staff would recommend... Mr. Wyffels and Ms Dockendorf. Mayor Mancino: For 3 year terms to Public Safety. Councilman Senn: Two positions, two applicants. It's a tough decision. Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. 65 City Council Meeting - April 28, 1997 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Mr. Wyffels and Ms. Dockendorf to two year terms to the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:32 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 66