Loading...
CC VER 2020 12 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2020 Mayor Ryan called the City Council Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilman Campion, Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Kelly Strey, Kate Aanenson, Matt Unmacht PUBLIC PRESENT: Matthew & Laura Rosati 1798 Marigold Court Jackie Williams 7547 Walnut Curve Mayor Ryan: We have all of our Council Members present tonight. We know that they are on Zoom and hopefully they can now all hear us. Our first action is agenda approval so council members let me know if there are any modifications to the agenda as printed and please respond with a yay or nay. McDonald: Nay Tjornhom: Nay Coleman: Nay Campion: Nay Ryan: Nay. So we will proceed with the published agenda. We have no Public Announcements tonight. Next is our Consent Agenda. Tonight we have Consent Agenda item numbers 1 through 7. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be recorded as a single motion based on staff recommendation. There will be no separate discussion of these items. Are there any items that the Council would like to consider separately? Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: No. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Councilwoman Coleman: No. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 2 Councilman Campion: No. Mayor Ryan: I have one that I would like to move. Consent Agenda Item No. 4 and I will move that to New Business. Johnston: Madam Mayor? Mayor Ryan: Yes? Johnston: We have gotten some recent comments as recently as a minute ago on Number 2 if the Council wanted to hear those on the Lake Lucy Road Island development if you wanted to pull that as well. Staff would recommend pulling that piece of information. Mayor Ryan: Okay. We will move Consent Agenda Item No. 2 and Consent Agenda Item No. 4 and we will move those to New Business and we will take those first. We’ll take D-2, then D-4, followed by the outdoor storage ordinance, the budget and CIP and Chapter 4, Fees. We’ll bump those down. I’ll make that change. With those changes, is there a motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, and 5-7? CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the Interim City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated December 7, 2020. 2. Item removed for separate discussion by Mayor Ryan (H-1. New Business) 3. Approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for The Park 3rd Addition 4. Item removed for separate discussion by Mayor Ryan (H-2. New Business) 5. Resolution 2020-66: Designate Polling Place Locations for 2021 Elections. 6. Approval of Cartegraph Software Renewal. 7. CARES Act Final Budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS - NONE City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 3 OLD BUSINESS: AVIENDA WETLAND CREDIT PURCHASE NOTICE OF DECISION EXTENSION Mayor Ryan: Next up is Old Business – Avienda Wetland Credit Purchase. I’m not sure who is taking that. Matt Unmacht: That’s me. Can everybody hear me? Mayor Ryan: Matt. Are you Zooming in? Hello, Matt. Yes, I can hear you. Unmacht: I’m going to attempt to share my screen here. Can everyone see my PowerPoint that says Avienda? Mayor Ryan: Yes. Unmacht: This item is on Old Business. This involves the wetland replacement plan notice of decision that was issued for the Avienda project. That’s what I’ll be going through. So this Council’s well aware of the Avienda project so I won’t go over it in too much detail. A 115-acre development project here in Chanhassen for a regional lifestyle center. Development will include retail, housing, mixed-office space, etc. There are many wetlands that exist on the project site. Development on the site includes 4.5878 acres of wetland conservation act jurisdictional wetland impact. This mitigation is required at a 2:1 ratio, meaning that twice as much wetland needs to be replaced as is being impacted. This is proposed through the purchase of wetland banking credits. The applicant submitted a wetland replacement plan to the city in February of 2017. After much back and forth at that time with the technical evaluation panel and other related parties regarding wetland sequencing and wetland mitigation, ultimately the Chanhassen City Council approved the wetland conservation act replacement plan on December 18, 2017. Subsequently, a few days later a notice of decision was issued to formally issue this replacement plan approval decision. That decision is set to expire three years from that date, which is December 22, 2020. The applicant is requesting an extension of that approval decision. It’s important to note that Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District originally opposed the decision to approve the wetland replacement plan back in 2017. When the applicant came in and requested an extension if that decision, I put together what’s called a findings of fact document as the LGU for the wetland conservation act for the City of Chanhassen. I put together this document and sent it out to the technical evaluation panel (TEP) to get their comments and recommendations on this extension request. I also solicited comments from the Watershed District, DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. The findings of fact document ultimately show that because the scope of the project had not changed in any way, the project had been previously approved and that the wetland credits have already been purchased, the notice of decision should be extended to December 22, 2023. The TEP agreed with this determination and they offered no additional comments. They signed the findings of fact document and that is in your staff report. The Watershed District also provided comments, they mirrored their same comments from the original application. Those are City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 4 also included in the staff report. With that, I’ll open it up for questions or any comments that the Council may have there is a proposed motion up there as well. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Thank you. I will go around and ask Council if they have any questions. I’ll start with Councilman McDonald. McDonald: I have no questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: I have no questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: I have no questions, thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Matt, just a couple of questions. For clarification, is it typical to extend these applications for another three years or is there a shorter window of time or what? How is this typically handled? Unmacht: Per the wetland conservation act statute, the standard timeline is actually five years. I’m proposing three years here because that’s what was originally approved in 2017. Why that was three years back then I don’t know. The statute used to read three years but that was changed in like 2011. I’m not sure why it was three years back in 2017 for this approval so I’m going with another three but technically we can go with five. Anything longer than that would need to have TEP approval but I don’t see any reason to need to go longer than three or five. Mayor Ryan: Right. Okay. But recommended not to go any shorter, understood? Unmacht: Correct. Mayor Ryan: Then the last, just some questions obviously the Watershed wasn’t a proponent of this. Are we or have we done instead of just banking credits are we looking at joint projects that we could utilize as opposed to these credits? Kate Aanenson: I can address that. Matt and I spoke about this. One of the conditions of the original wetland alteration permit was $300,000 and so we actually bought a piece of property on Pioneer Trail and the Watershed District bought a piece next to it so we partnered up on that. I think one of the conditions that we felt strongly about which I know the Watershed, because at City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 5 that time there wasn’t much banking credit, so we actually said let’s put that money and find a piece of property that would be the best way to provide additional stormwater improvements within the city. So that $300,000 has been spent and I think that’s what Matt was pointing out. We’ve already made some action on the wetland alteration permit. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Perfect. That was my biggest question in terms of instead of just the credits, finding a project t use so I appreciate the update on that. I don’t have any other questions. Matt, thank you for your presentation. Council, does anyone have any questions or is there a motion? Coleman: I’ll make a motion, Madam Mayor. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilwoman Coleman. Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the extension of the Notice of Decision of the WCA replacement plan and sequencing flexibility with conditions for the Avienda Project. All voted in favor and the motion passed 5 to 0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you for the presentation. Next, we have two public hearings. Johnston: Madam Mayor? Just a point of clarification. Did we move those items from Consent to Old Business or… Mayor Ryan: New. Johnston: New Business. Okay, I apologize. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: You’re welcome. APPROVAL OF ON-SALE BREWER TAP ROOM AND SMALL BREWER OFF-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES – CHANHASSEN BREWERY COMPANY LOCATED AT 951 WEST 78TH STREET. Mayor Ryan: Public Hearing. Johnston: For the taproom. Aanenson: Sorry. Just give me one second. The application before you is for Chanhassen Brewing Company, LLC doing business as Chanhassen Brewing Company. As I mentioned, they are proceeding along and have found a great site. They occupy approximately 2,500 square feet located at the old Perkin’s site, which is located at 951 West 78th Street. There will be 165 seats inside and 24 on the patio and the restaurant anticipated being opened on January 15. The done a background check, law enforcement has, with Matt Rosati and Laura who are here. There were City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 6 no negative things found so we are recommending approval of the liquor license. It is a public hearing so if you want to open the public hearing we will take the comments on that. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Before I open the public hearing, Council, I’m not sure if you have any questions for staff. Councilman McDonald, any questions? McDonald: No questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: I did have one question. Are we charging any fees or accepting any payment in relation to the liquor license before we know whether or not that they can actually operate, given what is going on with COVID? Johnston: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Coleman, we have charged the standard fees at this point in time. The County is exploring different programs that might help with offsetting some of those fees but at this point in time the fees have been charged. Mayor Ryan: Any comment or question follow-up, Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: Sure. I would love to hear from the Rosatis if that’s going to be an issue, if they have any concerns with that without being sure that they will be able to open given the Governor’s orders and everything going on. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Good question. We’ll call them up shortly. Or you can come up now. Councilman Campion, do you have any questions? Campion: No additional questions right now. Mayo r Ryan. All right. I don’t either. I welcome Mr. and Mrs. Rosati or just Mr. Rosati. Just state your name and address for the record please. Matthew Rosati: Sure. I’m Matthew Rosati, 1798 Marigold Court representing Chanhassen Brewing Company at 951 West 78th Street. Part of the whole process with COVID and actually getting a loan I did have to think about happen if we remained in a shutdown and part of that is also the off-sale liquor license and we will be selling crowlers and growlers. Really kind of hitting social media to put our name out there. We figure as long as we get open by a certain time and in this area based on other breweries around here, that we can sustain a business with just off-sale sales. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 7 Mayor Ryan: Great. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Rosati before I open the public hearing? Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I was having trouble hearing him. I wonder was his mic on or off? Aanenson: Yeah, it’s on. McDonald: Because I’m sorry I didn’t hear anything of what you said. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Rosati: I can repeat it. Aanenson: Get really close. Rosati: Get really close? Part of the loan process and actually getting opened up and leasing I made sure I had a plan if COVID was still and issue. Part of the liquor license is on-sale and off- sale and based upon the local breweries in this year, they’ve done a really good job with off-sale with crowlers and growlers and really providing that service of being able to get the beer out there. Part of the off-sale liquor license that will be having the crowlers and growlers and I do plan on using that as much as I can. You have to produce a little bit more beer to keep your numbers up but like I said it seems like the southwest corner has done a really good job having those off sales and they’ve been able to survive. Hopefully that was a little bit louder. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilman McDonald, were you able to hear better? McDonald: Yes, I was and I thank you for repeating that. Based upon all of that, I have no further questions. Mayor Ryan: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions for the applicant? Tjornhom: No. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Rosati for that explanation. Please let us know if that situation changes. I know a lot of cities have considered and actually passed refunding a portion of the liquor license fees for the time that businesses were not able to sell. If that becomes an issue, and this goes out to all Chanhassen restaurants and establishments selling liquor, please let us know. I would like to learn more about that. Rosati: I appreciate that. Thank you. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 8 Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions at this time but I just want to say congratulations to Matt and Laura for the progress that has been made. Rosati: Thank you. It’s been fun. Mayor Ryan: Thank you for now. Obviously there is a lot of excitement. We’ve been anticipating this. I know there were some hurdles to overcome but we are happy where you are at now and the potential of moving this forward is really exciting for Chanhassen. Happy to have you guys here tonight at this point in time and looking forward to the futures having your brewery. Thank you. With that, I will open the public hearing. Please step forward and state your name and address for the record. I don’t see anyone coming forward so I will close the public hearing. Aanenson: There’s no one on the phone. Mayor Ryan: Yeah, I figured. I would have seen the red light flashing. To Councilwoman Coleman’s question, it was at the first of the year that we used grant dollars. Aaneson: I think the first shutdown we actually refunded some of the license…I think they came at the same time back in March. Mayor Ryan: It was a grant, correct? Johnston: Madam Mayor, yes we used some of our CARES dollars in order to do grants back to folks who had paid liquor licenses. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Again, what Councilwoman Coleman had suggested, I know that there is a package on the table coming from both the State that got passed today as well as potentially something coming out of D.C. We will of course as a city keep our eye on that and potentially if we run into more shutdowns and challenging times obviously we will address that for all of our small business owners and we will bring that back to Council. Councilwoman Coleman, thank you for bringing that up. With that, if there is a motion that a Councilmember would like to make I would appreciate it. Campion: I will make a motion. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman Campion. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 9 Council Campion moved and Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approve the request for an on-sale brewery taproom and small brewer off-sale liquor license from Chanhassen Brewing Company, LLC, doing business as Chanhassen Brewing Company. All voted in favor and the motion passed 5 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 5 to 0. Congratulations. We are looking forward to having you here. A few of us were hoping for samples tonight (laughter). We have one more public hearing. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANHASSEN MS4 AND SWPPP. Mayor Ryan: I’m guessing that’s Mr. Howley. Howley: That’s Matt. Mayor Ryan: Oh, Matt! You’re joining us again. Unmacht: Yes, I’m back. This will be just as exciting as the brewery discussion, I promise (laughter). I’m just kidding. I’ll do my best. Can everyone see my screen again? Mayor Ryan: Yes. Unmacht: And it is the presentation, I believe? Right? This is a public hearing that is required for the City’s Annual MS4 Permit. No formal action will be needed or required by Council for this public hearing. Any comments that we receive we will consider for inclusion on our SWPPP and our MS4. I will get going here. Really quick, just some brief background. An MS4 is a municipal separate storm sewer system. It’s conveyance or system of conveyance that is owned by a public entity such as Chanhassen designed for collecting and conveying stormwater. Not a combined sewer and not part of the publicly owned treatment works. The City, we have a MS4 permit basically is what that means. The MS4 permit is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants entering state waters from stormwater systems. The bulk of this is accomplished through what are called six minimum controlled measures. As an MS4 permittee, the City is allowed to discharge clean stormwater into state waters. We must satisfy the requirements of the MS4 general permit, one of which is to hold an annual public hearing on our permit and on the stormwater pollution prevention plan. One of the requirements of the permit is to development a stormwater pollution prevention plan or program. Basically, it’s a plan that describes how the City will prevent non-point source pollution from a construction site. It’s a valuable tool and becomes the backbone of an entire construction process related to erosion and sediment control and stormwater management both during construction and post-construction. Quickly, I’ll go through the MCMs, the minimum control measures. MCM1 is public education and outreach which is exactly what it sounds like. The City is required to hold seminars when we can, distribute education materials, etc. MCM2 is public participation and involvement. This involves engaging the public to become invested in water quality. One way we accomplish this goal is by being enrolled in the Adopt-a-Drain program. That program allows Chanhassen residents to City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 10 adopt a stormwater inlet in their neighborhood. Basically, they are responsible for cleaning it every so often and reporting on what they clean on the surface of the inlet once or twice a year. Another part of MCM2 is exactly what we are doing tonight, the public hearing to facilitate any public participation and input, if there is any. MCM3 is illicit discharge detection and elimination. This involves detecting and eliminating non-stormwater discharges to our MS4. We have to have procedures in place for investigating, locating and responding to spills, along with training staff on illicit discharge recognition along with many other things. MCM4 is construction site and stormwater control. Basically, we just want to make sure that no sediment or pollutants are leaving active construction sites. We accomplish this through enforcing strict rules along with having site plan reviews and construction site inspections. MCM5 is post- construction stormwater management. This is how we permanently manage stormwater on-site. A rain garden, a stormwater pond, etc. We manage that through this MCM5. We develop and operations and maintenance agreement for stormwater BMPs through this MCM. Lastly, pollution prevention and good housekeeping. This involves preventing pollution from our municipal operations for the City itself. We are required to inventory and address municipally owned sources of pollution such as materials stored at our public works facility, the City’s road salting program, etc. This MCM outlines requirements to inspect and maintain municipally owned outfalls, ponds, BMPs, and training our employees on proper stormwater pollution detection. That’s really it. If anybody has any questions or comments, I would be happy to answer them, and any public input as well. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Matt. Before I open the public hearing I will again ask Council if they have any questions. Council McDonald? McDonald: No further questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: No questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Campion? Campion: No questions. Mayor Ryan: I don’t either so I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Again, please come forward and state your name and address for the record if you have any comments. We also have a public comment call-in number if there is somebody watching that wants to call in to make any comments as it relates to this. There is nobody here coming forward and it doesn’t look like anyone is calling in so I will close the public hearing and bring it back to Council. I know that City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 11 there is no formal action being taken. Are there any additional questions or comments from anybody on Council for Matt? Councilman McDonald? McDonald: No further questions. My comment would be to thank you staff for putting these plans together. I know we have been doing this for many years and we’ve always ended up putting a pretty good plan together, so thank you for your efforts. Unmacht: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Tjornhom: No. Thank you for your presentation, Matt. Great job! Unmacht: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions but I echo the gratitude. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions. Well done, Matt. Mayor Ryan: I second all of the comments. First, thank you to Matt for putting the presentation together and also just want to commend our staff for the hard work that goes into this plan. Obviously, it is really important for our stormwater. It’s something our residents notice as well when there is a construction project near where they live and the impact to their neighborhoods, their homes. I just think overall it has an important impact on the community as a whole. I appreciate you putting these plans together and sharing the with Council tonight I appreciate it. Next up we have New Business. ORDINANCE 663: APPROVE THE REZONING OF 1601 LAKE LUCY ROAD (ISLAND) AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor Ryan: We changed the order just a little bit so let me pull that back. First up was from the consent agenda D-2 and it’s an approval of rezoning of 1601 Lake Lucy Road, it’s the island out in Lake Lucy, and approval of summary ordinance for publication. Ms. Aanenson, I think this is something that you are going to… The reason why administratively it got pulled off is, as Ms. Johnston said early on, that right before our Council meeting we received a couple of emails as it relates to this project and so just to make sure that we bring it forward and address those comments tonight is important. There was a public hearing held where comments were taken from residents at that time but these comments came in this evening so I thought it was important to address those as well. Ms. Aanenson, if you want to… City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 12 Aanenson: Sure. So this item, as you mentioned Mayor, did go to the Planning Commission who had a pretty good robust conversation with the applicant, too. This is a lot of record. It has building capacity. A house could be built on it today and just pull a building permit. It doesn’t have to go through and site plan or anything. Because a lot of record means that you can build. The applicant wanted to do an accessory dwelling unit attached to the principal structure. In order to do that we recommended the path of the PUD ordinance. Because it is guided low density there is actually a couple of different zoning options they could have applied for. The R- 4 they could have requested to get a number of homes on there. It exceeds the five acres which you need for a PUD, so that’s another reason that we felt comfortable with that. The other reason with the PUD is you can attach reasonable conditions to the property. With this, we actually restricted the size of the accessory dwelling unit. The Planning Commission was kind of split on that. They thought that maybe that was onerous. At the end, we felt it was important the PUD also says that those two properties have to go together. They cannot be sold independently. Whoever owns the principal structure always has to maintain the second one so it can never be subdivided so you will always have one structure. It will be served by septic and well. The existing driveway will be maintained in place. Instead of improving that if a private street or a public street was to come down there and service four so we felt that was the least impactful. I know Mr. Wicka, the property owner, has worked to clear out a lot of the buckthorn. Again, the City ordinance doesn’t restrict the size of a structure so if somebody wanted to build a bigger house, that could happen. In looking at the goals that the applicant wanted and to make sure we have some control over that property, we felt that the PUD with the restrictions that were put in place includes some of the outbuildings, the number of docks. So all those conditions were part of the PUD. We reviewed that with the City Attorney. Again, the Planning Commission was fully supportive of the project itself. If there are specific questions that you may have, I would be happy to answer those. Mayor Ryan: I think they came in via email…or actually both came to me directly so I forwarded it on to Ms. Johnston if she wants to read some highlights. Johnston: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, the first set of comments came from Matt and Suzanne Woods. I don’t have an address. They were concerned about the proposed size and scale of the development in terms of having two homes on the property, and then expressed a concern that if this is approved, is the Council will to approved guest houses or accessory structures for other people as well so really it was about the size and the scope. The second comment also came in tonight and that was from Kirk and Camille Swanson. They basically said that they agree with Matt and Suzanne Woods’ comment and also indicated that they would like to build an accessory structure on their property. I do not have an address for them either. Those were the general comments and perhaps Ms. Aanenson wants to address them. Aanenson: Again, this is a 9-acre site so because a PUD requires 5 acres so anybody that would have that large of a piece of property and wanted to do an accessory structure, we could evaluate that in the same circumstance. Again we looked at what the PUD ordinance says and there are City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 13 some trade-offs. We are restricting the potential of other buildings going on the site by one principal building tying it to the other building that they can never be subdivided. Then again, because it is a larger lot of 9 acres, there are not that many unique properties in the City that would have that same capacity. Mayor Ryan: So when it’s over 5 acres you can have as many accessory structures as you like? Aanenson: No. To recap that again, the cap for the accessory dwelling was capped at 1,600 square feet and only two bedrooms and then there was some outdoor storage buildings, those were capped. As to the number of docks there is currently two 0n the site and we said you cannot add any more than two docks. Those two docks have been there for quite a while. Mayor Ryan: Then just to address the concerns, I know that it was part of a packet and I know the applicant has done a lot of work in terms of buckthorn removal, working with Ms. Sinclair and getting a tree assessment. As I know, you did and other members of staff heard from a lot of residents that either are on the lake, look out onto the lake and are concerned how does the build then affect tree loss. Aanenson: I know Mr. Wicka is on the… This plan would just come in for a building permit so we would review that and the City Forester would too. She has walked the site. The other thing I want to mention too is the bridge going across. We’ve asked that they consider fire suppression, too. All those things have been addressed where if it just came in for a straight building permit, they are not required to do fire suppression so those are adds that we’re requesting. I know that Mr. Wicka has worked with the City Forester regarding some significant trees on the site. Again, we would make sure that those be maintained in place as we are looking at the building footprint. What’s been shown today is illustrative. It’s not the final, final plan. The City Forester I’m sure would be happy to walk it again when they get things staked out. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? The applicant is on the Zoom call so if there is questions that you want direct towards the applicant feel free to do that. Mr. Wicka, I thank you for joining us tonight. I’m going to go through a roll call again and ask if you have any questions for staff or for the applicant. Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I guess at this time I really don’t. The only question, I guess what I don’t understand is this is almost 10 acres. Why wouldn’t they be allowed to build two houses on it if they wanted to? I’m not sure I got that from the presentation. Aanenson: I think that’s where the Planning Commission came down and felt like that it seemed like a reasonable request and the fact that there really wasn’t two different ownerships. It would be one owner with an accessory dwelling so they would be forever linked and that’s part of the PUD Ordinance that you are also approving tonight. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 14 McDonald: Okay. Because I seem to recall a couple of years ago we had the same thing over on Lotus Lake and I can’t remember what the outcome of that was. I know the house never got built but it was going to be a detached garage with a living quarters above it and I thought that we said that was permissible but I could be mistaken. That’s where my question comes from because I had thought we had go through this once before and put some criteria in place for doing this. Aanenson: The city code does allow via a variance to do a separate dwelling unit within a house. We actually have one of those coming forward and that’s a separate process. This is a little bit different because it’s not inside the house. It’s detached from the house and that’s why we went with a PUD. Again, the PUD is structured uniquely to this piece of property. It’s a different path. McDonald: Yes but the property I’m referring to was the same thing. It was detached. The house was down by the lake and the detached garage was going to be up on the shore aways. It would have been a detached, it was going to be a mother-in-law residence and I know it went through a number of things about again putting two units on one lot. I just thought we had gone through and settled all of that. That’s… as to why. I guess if you are saying the PUD would allow it, then that’s fine. I believe that the property owner should be able to build a mother-in-law residence if they wish. Of course at that point everybody wants to be independent so they would want their own place. I can understand all of that but if the PUD allows it, then I guess were going to…same thing. No further questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. Any questions or comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom? We can’t hear you. Tjornhom: Now you can hear me I bet. Kate, I’m wondering if once these buildings are on the property, say five years goes by, can they come back to re-do the PUD and add more structures to this property if they want to or is this just going to, because of what they are going through now with this PUD, is this binding? Moving on into the future? Aanenson: Anybody can request an ordinance amendment so in five years if someone wanted to apply, that’s a decision that would require a public hearing and the City Council would have to weigh in on that. It would have to go through the same process this one did. It’s technically a rezoning so that would require Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Tjornhom: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman. Councilwoman Coleman, any questions or comments? Coleman: Just one question. I know one of the emails we received said this would “open a can of worms.” Can you explain why this does not do that? Aanenson: Again, this is a nine-acre piece of property and PUD requires at least five acres so someone else would have to have those same unique attributes. Those are all the decisions that City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 15 go into doing a PUD. The first thing are the PUD findings or the intent statement as the City Attorney always had to look at is that you do some tradeoffs. So by having less density there, we looked at combining a driveway that was really two and then saving a lot of slope and a lot of trees. Those are the attributes of recommending this course of action. Coleman: Great. Thank you. I just wanted that clearly stated for the record. I appreciate that. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman. Councilman Campion, any questions? Campion: One question. Ms. Aanenson, you had made a comment that this property cannot be subdivided in the future. Can you just explain what enables that and if its not possible to come and, I don’t know if we would be rewriting the PUD. I can’t believe there would be no mechanism to subdivide the property at any point. Aanenson: As its currently written in the PUD, they can’t subdivide. They would have to come back through the city and they could ask for a rezoning to something else. Campion: Okay. Aanenson: Again, this is low density. There are four zoning options: the RLM, RSF, R-4 or the PUD so they could come back at a later date and ask for that. But that again would require a public process, Planning Commission public hearing and approval by the City Council. Campion: Understood. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you and Ms. Aanenson I appreciate you, I know all of us have asked multiple times because I think especially with the last couple of emails that we received tonight about the can of worms and if this is allowed, then everybody should be allowed to do it. But I think the clarification comes that it’s the size and acreage that that’s why this have been allowed. I appreciate you explaining that or clarifying that for Council especially, but for all the residents. I know this has been a project that Mr. Wicka has been working on for a number of years with staff to try to come up with the least intrusive way to build on this island. I know he greatly respects the bluffs, the trees, the natural environment. It’s his family, his young children, multiple children and wants like I said to be the least intrusive to this land as possible. He’s worked extensively with the Fire Chief to make sure that the safety measures are in place for emergency vehicles. I know that was a concern with the Planning Commission. I think overall we’re used to seeing that untouched island but most of the neighbors that abut him, I think two of the neighbors that are directly abutting his access anyways, wrote letters in support of this development. While there are concerns which are understandable, I think overwhelmingly the support from the neighbors and he’s conscientious and I think just from a piece of his letter that he wrote, “We are planning to build green structures using solar for power, geothermal for heating and cooling, green roofs on parts of the structures, highly efficient building designs,” etc. and he wants to make sure that the bluff areas and shorelines will not be affected in terms of tree City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 16 canopy and coverage. I know that he wants to be a responsible steward of the land so I appreciate staff taking the time to really work through this so there isn’t that impact to not only our natural resources and the lake but the neighbors as well. Thank you for that. With that said, Council if you don’t have any further questions for staff, if there is a motion, I would entertain a motion, please. Please? McDonald: Madam Mayor, I’ll make a motion. Councilman McDonald moved and Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve rezoning the property described in Exhibit B located at 1601 Lake Lucy Road with an approximate area of 9.03 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development- Residential incorporating the attached ordinance with standards, summary ordinance, and adoption of the findings of fact and decision. All voted in favor and the motion passed 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Next up is another consent agenda item. I had actually pulled this one off and this has to do with a development at the Crossroads of Chanhassen and Ms. Aanenson, will you be doing this one for Christian Brothers Automotive. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PUD, MODIFICATION TO PUD-SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES, AND AMENDMENT TO CROSSROADS OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,100 SQUARE-FOOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP LOCATED AT 8941 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE 664. Aanenson: This item appeared at the Planning Commission and when it first came in we worked through a few issues there regarding the architecture and the like, but this project located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101, the Kraus Anderson project area, really had some unique things down there. It has a gas station, we anticipated probably some banking drive- thru so when this came forward we kind of thought, hmm. But actually, the architecture and everything as we anticipated turned out really well and as the developer explained their goals and how they like to see them fit in. It’s a 5,100 square-foot automotive facility, very high end. The architecture looks great on the site. The Planning Commission was really intrigued with how they made it fit in and work, orientate it. I just want to compliment Sharmeen Al-Jaff on the planning staff who worked really hard with the applicant to make a superior project. The presentation by the applicant was fantastic. I think they really sold the Planning Commission about what they are trying to do so it’s exciting. It’s a great project down there as how they figured how to sit within the site. They have another Christian Brothers Automotive up in Maple Grove where they are next to a daycare so they thought that was a nice ancillary relationship and also with the Park and Ride that they can use that. Someone can pick them up. But it is not your traditional auto repair. They are kind of doing more of an electronic kind of thing so it’s a nice fit. One of the Planning Commissioners did also ask how they would manage some of the residue, stormwater runoff, parked cars and they had really good responses on all of that. The City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 17 Planning Commission did recommend approval of the auto repair and very excited that they picked that spot. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Ms. Aanenson. I pulled it off not in opposition or concern about it, but obviously it’s a new business in that part of town. It’s right next to the Kwik Trip down there right off of Highway 212. Just because it’s a large building and on first blush when it came to the Planning Commission, I know there were concerns but I wanted to highlight a couple of things that came from the Planning Commission meeting, just because I thought it was important for us to read it into record tonight at the Council Meeting if there were any concerns that it didn’t get its fair share of questioning. I wanted to highlight a couple of things about the business itself. Again, Mr. Wakefield I thought did a really nice job explaining it for Christian Brothers Automotive. Commissioner Reeder had asked about the difference in Chanhassen between a repair business, is this a repair business and not a collision repair business? I think that’s important from a noise perspective and the applicant said that they don’t do anything to the exterior to a vehicle at all. They don’t do any touch-up paint, no window replacement. They are strictly internal and with a modern vehicle as you said Ms. Aanenson it has a lot to do with the electronics and the electronic diagnosis. All the work happens within the bays to the vehicles and there is no body work at all. I thought that was really important. Another concern coming from neighbors in some of the emails that were received is just the overall look of the site and will there be a lot of cars in the lot waiting for repair. The applicant said that the stipulation and the restrictions that they have accepted that require any vehicles that are in the parking lot, especially for overnight, must be operable and so they have to be driven under their own power. They don’t leave cars sitting in that parking lot and the first nine vehicles they will have go in the bays overnight so I though was important that there aren’t going to be cars just left out in the parking lot there. Another question had to do with traffic. Originally, I think there was proposed to be a bank there or that was the original use intent and they commented that it will actually reduce the traffic that would have been generated by 60%-80%. They said the McDonald’s that’s already there and operating, we do less business by volume from a traffic standpoint all day than they do in 30 minutes so it shouldn’t add to any traffic concerns. If you will indulge me a little bit more here, another big concern when you think about an automotive repair business is the noise. I just want to read this verbatim because I thought it was really well articulated. “The building orientation places the bays facing inboard and away from the street. The only people who might hear anything out of us might be the Kwik Trip. We’ve done two acoustic studies in other locales for other municipalities and we know without a shadow of a doubt that by the time the sound reaches our property line and crosses onto somebody elses, our loudest noise which is an air hammer is 74 decibels at the door and is attenuated out somewhere between 40-50 decibels at the street.” I had no idea what that meant so I was glad that he put in a point of reference. He said that his speaking voice is somewhere between 50-55 decibels so I think that was really helpful. I appreciate that. He said they work on about 17 cars a day and that’s it. Last but certainly not least, how does fit in the community or in that neighborhood and what is the business in general? He said that they have been in operation since 1982. They have over 230 stores and they’re looking, like you said Ms. Aanenson, in Maple Grove and other areas and they are near Tender Time Childcare and KinderCare so they are well suited and there’s no problem being next to a City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 18 daycare. The final point, “We are a highly professional company, extremely reputable, incredibly clean, deeply embedded within the communities that we serve and service.” I wanted to bring those out just because I know there were concerns from the neighbors about putting an automotive shop in that space and I just thought a lot of times the Planning Commission notes may not get read other than Council and parties that are looking directly at something. I just wanted to make sure we addressed those at the Council level. Thank you for letting me indulge everyone with that. Aanenson: I appreciate you doing that. I think a couple of things, when they first came in we were concerned about the traffic and this is a group that really knows their business so it was very helpful that they were able to provide that empirical data to help us make a good decision. In addition to that, we know automotive, this type of business is, there’s people looking for those lots. This is why we are amending the PUD. Looking at first if this is going to fit in, but they really knew their business and how it fit in and we know that this is a needed business. They really worked hard and gave us the data that we needed. Just like you say the traffic circulation, that was one of our first concerns. It also does provide their own some noise attenuation. They’ve got Kwik Trip next to them and its kind of a nice partnership there. Yes, we are very excited that they are coming. Mayor Ryan: Well thank you. Council, I’ll go around and ask if you have any questions or comments as it relates to this project. Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I have no further questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions. Mayor Ryan: All right. With no questions, is there any motion. Coleman: I’ll make a motion. Mayor Ryan Thank you, Councilwoman Coleman. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 19 Councilwoman Coleman moved and Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the site plan consisting of a 5,100 square-foot automotive repair shop, Planned Unit Development PUD Amendment for Chanhassen Gateway allowing automotive repair shops with standards, and summary ordinance 664 for publication purposes. Planning Case 2020-21 as shown in plans dated October 30, 2020, including the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to conditions. All vote in favor and the motion passed 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Thanks, everyone. Thank you, Ms. Aanenson. I appreciate it. Now we get to the original New Business. APPROVE A CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF BOATS, TRAILERS, AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Aanenson: This item kind of trickled down during a work session presented by the City Council. Complaints go either way. Some people want them and some people don’t. I’ve been asked to identify the problem. I’ll just give you a real brief overview and kind of let you ask the questions because obviously there are strong feelings on both sides. Some residents had expressed a desire to store trailers and recreational vehicles in their driveway. The problem is our current ordinance did not permit boat trailers and recreational vehicles be stored currently in the driveways and they are put in the side yards. Looking at allowing one boat trailer or recreational vehicle be stored because right now we don’t limit. We have a lot of vehicles. The rationale was just to see how this ordinance… Again, this is just a draft what we are recommending to you. We surveyed a number of cities. I’m not going to spend a lot of time going through all that empirical data but we surveyed a number of cities. How they enforce them and the number that they would have. Right now, except for the side yard we don’t limit the number in the back. The proposed change would allow one boat trailer or recreational vehicle be stored in the driveway so this would be the difference. You could put a camper or a boat in the driveway. It limits properties to storing a maximum of two. Again, as I stated we don’t have a cap right now. It includes boat trailers and the provision requiring items to be cleaned, well kept, and operable. Right now the only thing we say is operable is kind of RV so you could have an older boat kind of sitting there that you haven’t decided what you are going to do with yet, and then prohibit the storage of extraneous materials. Sometimes someone may have a trailer and they maybe put plywood boards up on it and fill it full of things and store it on the property. This illustrative drawing shows kind of where you could, where you can and cannot store. You can store, in the existing ordinance you can put it anywhere in your backyard. You can’t store it in the front yard or your driveway. You can store in the side yard which is very common. The proposed ordinance will allow you to put something in your driveway but not in the front yard and the side yard. Let’s show this a different way illustratively showing where the current ordinance, side yards and the rear. One of the things we talked about with the Planning Commission too, some people only have a 7-foot side yard, some people have a 10-foot. When you squish them in there and if you’re the neighbor, its not always appreciated when you look out your window and see those. Sometimes City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 20 that can be a problem, too. And then the size of the trailer. Again, we have no limit. This would be the current ordinance. The red is where you can’t park them. The green is where you can, what’s being proposed. Right here would be where you could put something in your front driveway. Some of the discussions the Planning Commission had if you put something in the front driveway and then you take that capacity from using your cars, then your car’s going to go into the street. The Planning Commission did discuss that quite a bit and saying well if that’s a deterrent then maybe that’s a good thing. That maybe you need to put your boat somewhere else if it’s taking up some of the capacity as you get into those maybe the teenage years where you have more drivers or family visiting. This is the proposed ordinance. The red would not be allowed. You can only have one in the front. The other one would have to be on the side. I know there were questions about that, too at the Planning Commission. Again, the proposed ordinance red would be not prohibited. It’s over the property line. The sight distance in the side yard was also an issue, too making sure that you have those back where people can see behind. The proposed ordinance, again, the red is where you can’t and the green would be permitted. The proposed ordinance represents a change to something highly visible and longstanding. Herein, as you found out, is the rub. Because this has been going on for a long time. People have stored things on their property. To date, the way its been handled is on a complaint basis. Every neighborhood has their own tolerance. We also have HOAs that manage it or ask the City to manage it when it’s in the HOA but we, again, generally complaint based. The other thing, we did notice this in the Villager. I know some people felt like we should have done a survey. Typically, we don’t do a survey when we did like the ordinance allowing bees, those sort of things. We haven’t done that. We did try to do a placement ad on the front page of the paper and put them out on our social media platforms to ask for feedback. As you probably recognize, the Council would probably recognize that, some people didn’t feel that was adequate. Again, right before we came to the Council meeting we got about 30 resident comments and they’re split in favor and against. Some of the common ones preferenced for less regulation, that current enforcement is unfair, can’t store in the rear or side yard without damaging your property. People don’t like that. Opposed comments are that it harms aesthetics. People felt that it lowered property values, means more cars being parked in the street, as I said takes up some of that capacity. We did send you additional emails after the packet went out. Trying to stitch all those together. What we’re suggesting here is there is no rush on doing this. There are a lot of different ways you can go. Just take some more time. We can go out and try to get some, there are existing conditions out there that have never been enforced and I think that might be a little bit of angst for some people who are currently and now they have to change how they are doing that. I think that might be something we want to look at, doing a little bit more surveying this summer. Seeing how people are using their property and get a better handle on that. How many HOAs have enforcement. Maybe just taking some more time to gather more information from residents and kind of see if we can address those issues in a different way. Because this is city initiated, there is no deadline for this so we certainly, if you wanted to table this and have it come back on a work session and kind of get better direction of some idea that we may have, we would be happy to do that too. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 21 Mayor Ryan: All right. Thank you Ms. Aanenson. As you mentioned, its an issue that people feel passionately on both sides, if we’re talking sides, but just generally as it relates to this issue. One thing that I do want to make abundantly clear, I did receive a phone call right before I came here and it was a resident who opposed the ordinance change but alluded to the fact that the decision had already been made at Council. I just want to be very clear that no decisions are ever made before we have a Council meeting for number one; and number two, and particularly in this case, we have never even discussed this ordinance as a Council. It got brought up in a Council work session round table and then it moved forward and I thought in the short amount of time it was really well written in terms of doing the legwork and understanding it, but we really never discussed this as a Council. No decisions have been made. No discussion at Council and I still think that there is a lot of uncovering to do, in my personal opinion. But I want to hear from the rest of Council and get their thoughts on it as well. I think we have just barely scratched the surface in resident feedback as well as what all kind of the nuances are as it relates to this ordinance and what this ordinance could and should be that is the right way to go. With that, I will open it up to questions from Council and I will start again with you, Councilman McDonald, with any questions or comments. McDonald: Yeah. I guess I would echo a lot about what you said about being not sure that we’ve gone through this through the detail that we really should because every house in every neighborhood is different. I think it’s a little difficult to try to do a one-size-fits-all without looking at things. I mean based upon all of that, I would actually propose a motion that we table this and give Council a better opportunity to ask more questions and to kind of spread out the discussion a little bit more. I’m in favor of the motion to table. Mayor Ryan: All right. Thank you, Councilman McDonald. I’ll come back after we hear from everybody and if you wanted to make a motion at that time but we will just keep going through with any questions or comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions or comments? Tjornhom: Thank you. I think I would agree with Councilman McDonald. I don’t think this has had enough time to really be vetted and I think when you have residents that are responding to something this passionately, it deserves, that they deserve, Council’s time and thoughtfulness in making sure that whatever conclusion they come to, it’s something that works for everybody. Because everyone has a driveway and everyone has different ways of using that driveway. I would certainly be in favor of tabling this for now. Mayor Ryan: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: I agree. I think a lot of people are just getting wind of this now. I’m even up to the Council meeting still getting emails and text messages about this issue. I don’t think it would hurt by any means to get a bit more public comment on this. Mayor Ryan: Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Campion? City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 22 Campion: Correct. I am comfortable if this issue gets tabled to allow more discussion; however, I am strongly in support of the proposal. I think that MacKenzie did a great job researching this and while it’s not perfect and there are going to be both sides to a topic like this, I think that this seems like a reasonable plan. It addresses some of the issues or nuances of the current ordinance but at the same time it does allow residents to use their driveway. To use their property. We do live in a city with multiple lakes and public launches and I think that forcing people that might have a two-car garage or just other circumstances where off-site storage of your boat during the summer time maybe is not a reasonable assumption. I am a boat owner myself, so I face some of these challenges. I see how it could be taken advantage of and people could be parking in excess in their driveway, or if they are not maintaining the upkeep and appearance of the boat, then we should be able to deal with those circumstances, but I do feel pretty strongly that the ordinance of no parking of boats in driveway is just unenforceable. I don’t think that the City is staffed adequately to be patrolling this City and making sure that no one is parking boats in their driveway. If you go and you start picking on one neighbor who happened to get reported by his neighbor, that seems unfair in that there are probably a couple hundred others that are doing the same across the city at any point in time over the summer. Those are my thoughts. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman Campion. As far as I’m concerned, as I stated in the beginning, I just think that there is still a lot that we need to uncover and I would like have this brought back to a work session and we can discuss it. And in the meantime figure out a way to continue to gather more feedback from HOAs, from residents, and then just look at kind of holistically, or big picture of what this ordinance means. I think that there are so many variables when it comes to the ordinance, whether it’s seasonable, number of boats, size of boats, RVs, campers, what that means. I think that there is just some real concerns that residents have as to the overall impact to the look and feel and aesthetics of a neighborhood. While one person may have that, the neighbor may not and doesn’t like the look and feel of it. I just think that we really need to do our due diligence in understanding what ordinance we are putting in place, and to Dan’s point, so that if the ordinance is there it has to be something that can be enforced in a reasonable manner. I think that’s kind of what got us into this in the first place. Before I ask Council, I know that there is some interest in tabling this. I know two residents are here to speak to this. I’m guessing that’s what you’re hear for? Even though it’s not a public hearing tonight, that was done at the Planning Commission, I do welcome you to come forward if you would like to say anything. Just state your name and address and if you have a couple of comments, we welcome those. Jackie Williams: 7547 Walnut Curve. I sent an email to all of the City Council. I also sent an email to the Planning Commission for their meeting before this meeting. I hope you all got that and read that. Yes, it went in the paper. Not everybody gets the Chanhassen paper or reads it. It went on Facebook. I’m on Facebook and I was it because I like the City of Chanhassen page. A lot of people aren’t on Facebook, or if they are on Facebook they may not like the Chanhassen City page so they might not see that. I would like to see a mass mailing go out possibly. Just a simple postcard that this is even being considered because I think most property owners I don’t think know that this is even trying to be done. I’m sure there will be many more people so I’m City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 23 glad you’re talking about tabling it because I think there’s many more people that are really concerned about it and many of the Chanhassen residents take pride in their property and don’t want to look at RVs and boats in the neighbor’s driveway. It’s probably more in the summer than in the winter. We have good property values and I don’t want to see those go down. I’m hoping you’re vote no to this change because I think it’s an eyesore in a lot of neighborhoods. Houses have many different sizes and values here in Chanhassen but many of them are of high value, and I just can’t see those neighborhoods with RVs sitting in the driveways and boats and stuff all the time. I just think it’s an eyesore and it just doesn’t look good. I’m hoping that you can look into this more and vote no. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Appreciate it. We don’t have anyone else here to speak but thank you for stepping forward and making those comments to add to the record as well. With that, there is a proposed motion on the screen. If there is an alternative motion, I know Councilman McDonald you had mentioned tabling it. You could make a recommendation of… I know that we don’t have to put a time limit on it because of it was brought forward by us and then if you could give direction to staff if it’s something that you would like to have brought back to a work session for further discussion. I directed that at you Councilman McDonald because you had first said that something you were interested in, but I would stand for a motion from anybody and any motion. McDonald: I’ll make the motion that the Chanhassen City Council tables the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the City Code concerning outdoor storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. I guess part of my suggestion also would be that maybe in January we make this one of our priorities for the city staff to look at so they can bring it back to Council within a timely manner within about the second or third quarter at the latest. That could be determined at the goal-setting meeting. Mayor Ryan: Great. Thank you. Before the additional comments, we do have a valid motion on the table. Is there a second? Coleman: I second the motion. Councilman McDonald moved and Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council tables the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the City Code concerning outdoor storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried 5-0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 5-0. That item will be tabled and will come back. We’ll talk about it early in January when we talk goal strategies and then if it could be brought back to a work session for discussion and at that time maybe come up with a plan for communication efforts to HOAs rather than gathering feedback, etc. We will let you guys work on that plan. I appreciate it. Thank you for coming tonight. I appreciate it. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 24 RESOLUTION 2020-XX: ADOPT FINAL LEVY & 2020 BUDGET AND 2021-2025 CIP Johnston: Madam Mayor, I think Kelly Strey is on the line to do the presentation for that. Kelly Strey: Good evening, Councilmembers. Right before this my screen froze up so I just reloaded and I’m hoping its all going to keep going here. I’m going to share my screen. Just a moment. Aanenson: I also have it up Kelly if you can’t get it. Strey: Okay. It just froze again. Aanenson: I’ve got it up here in the Council chambers so if you want to just give me the advance sign then I would be happy to click along. Strey: Sure. Okay. Mayor Ryan: We can’t see it yet. Strey: Unfortunately, the whole thing is frozen on my here but I have a printed copy so I’ll go off of that. Kate, if you want to go to the second slide. It’s the budget calendar. Just quickly, going over tonight we are at our final meeting. We’ve had lots of meetings all year long about the budget and we are here tonight for the final adoption of the tax levy, the budget, and the fee schedule. The fee schedule is your next item right after the budget. That is a separate item but the budget was developed with those fees in mind so if you are adopting the budget it is factoring in those fees. If you want to click on to the next screen that says Max Levy at 2.77. In September, the Council adopted a preliminary levy that was a 2.77% increase in the total levy over last year. That included elimination of the library debt service referendum levy because we were at the end of the library bonds. Those were paid off just recently. Those funds were redirected towards capital. Then there was an increase in the General Fund. During October and November staff continued to work on the budget and revised the budget projections to reduce the proposed property levy by $32,000 which brought the increase down to a 2.5% increase. We also proposed an option to use that $32,000 to move forward on the addition of an IT position that was planned for the 2022 budget process. With this $32,000, that position could move forward mid year and Council indicated some support for that so tonight we have prepared the resolution for approval at the 2.77%. Without the IT position it would a reduction in this levy by $32,000. We also had talked about at the previous meeting that we would be proposing using some fund balance for some one-time expenditures, and that is a total of $90,000. Your fund balance is sufficient to do that and stay well above your targeted 50% of next year’s budgeted expenditures. That is something that would fit within the usual expectations of fund balance a way to fund those one- time expenditures. I guess that is it for that slide. If you could move forward to the General Fund expenditures. This is just a quick summary of how that is divided among the departments with the changes in that so total expenditures would be increasing 2.6% and that’s in the General City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 25 Fund. On to the next slide. This is another summary of the General Fund revenues just to show you where your revenues come and as you can see, in the General Fund the majority of the revenues do come from property taxes. We are expecting some decreases in charges for services intergovernmental revenue next year that also affects where the property tax levy needs to be. Onto the next slide that says what factors change the budget for 2021. This levy at 2.77% is a $325,000 levy increase with that IT position mid-year addition as I noted. The use of fund balance would be for a compensation study and the organizational study and emergency contingency of $50,000. That emergency contingency really is if we don’t have any more funding, the CARES funding has ended but we still anticipate that we will have some paid sick leave. As a result, there may be some other things that come up that are COVID pandemic- related, so we just put in a $50,000 contingency. That would not be spent if those things do not occur or if some funding does come up from the feds or the state on that. It is just to kind of set aside I the fund balance that we are thinking there might be a possibility of having some needs there. On to the next slide. The special revenue funds budget is the same as what was presented earlier in the budget process. These are smaller funds and these funds have revenues that are specific to expenditures for special purposes. On to the next slide is the enterprise fund operating budget. On this one the stormwater management budget did change as a result of discussions about adding increased annual expenditures for pond maintenance going forward and that increased the fee for that stormwater management. That is the final slide that I have. I can stand for any questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you for the presentation. I know as you pointed out at the beginning of your presentation and I think it’s the very first slide, that this isn’t our first time discussing the budget. That started back in February and we have talked about it repeatedly. I think that’s always important to note for those that may tune in at the last meeting for what the final budget and levy is going to be and they think gosh, they moved through this pretty quickly. That’s why I think that first slide is so important to really highlight how many times we as a Council, staff discuss all aspects of our budget before we make any decisions. Quite frankly, even up until the last meeting there were some movement and discussion and this time as it relates to the IT position. Thank you for the presentation again tonight. I know its information that we’re all familiar with. With that, I will move it to Council for any questions as it relates to the presentation. Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I have no questions as it relates to the presentation. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: I also have no questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions, thank you. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 26 Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions for me either. Mayor Ryan: All right. Thank you. I don’t have any questions. I did want to highlight something that I think is important just again as we are moving through the process and budgeting. Transparency is always something that’s really important. We get questions on how if there are overages and fund balances are used and I just want to share how much I appreciate that you bring forward potential ways to spend these fund balances and how they are utilized is really important from a planning perspective but also from a transparency perspective. I’m glad that that slide has been added to this presentation. Thank you for that. Again, I just want to, I know the proposed motion has to do with the 2.77% increase and I know as a Council we asked staff to work really hard to get down to that 2.5%, but in the last couple of months I think what we have realized and come to realize is the importance of that IT position and by going back up to the preliminary levy at 2.77%. the importance of getting that IT position in mid-year and potentially sooner if we can is going to be something that is really important to how we operate as a City going forward. I think we realize how dependent we are on having effective, proficient, efficient technology and we need those folks to help support that. I’m glad that is under consideration to add back in and keep the levy at the 2.77%. One other comment that I would like to make is that I just wanted to note and acknowledge and share my appreciation. When we talked about the CIP, I guess it was a month or two ago, we looked out, I know it’s a five-year planning document, but we got into a lot of discussions around what that planning document meant and I just want to acknowledge that I’m glad that we kept those numbers in there, but that we changed that line item to unfunded to highlight that there is a need but at this point is unfunded and I think that’s really again important to recognize as a planning document some of the needs that are out there but yet we don’t have funding for to keep on our radar. I just want to acknowledge that and say thank you for changing a longstanding document. We’ve never done that before so I just want to say thank you for making that small change to acknowledge the concerns that we as Council have that while we know we need to plan, there’s no funds associated with it at this point. With that, I don’t have any questions and those are really my comments. In addition to the ongoing discussions we’ve had at Council I just want to acknowledge and thank how hard City staff and departments had worked this year and every year, but in particular this year. I know we as Council very demanding in terms of keeping this levy as low as possible knowing the impact that it’s going to have on residents in a challenging year. We kept going back and asking if you could keep cutting and getting it as low as possible and I just want to appreciate your, if Ms. Johnston you could pass along to the entire department heads. I know there’s a few here tonight but just for your hard work trimming down your budget as much as possible so thank you for that. Johnston: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The rest of them are listening I’m pretty sure. Mayor Ryan: With that, Council, are there any further questions or is there a motion as it relates to the adoption of the final levy and 2021 budget and 2021-2025 CIP? City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 27 McDonald: Yes, Madam Mayor. I’ll make a motion. I would like to preference the motion with the fact that I was a huge proponent of the 2.5% and really pushed for that but I think as you began to point out, one of the things that the pandemic has shown us is the importance of the IT positions. I think going forward we are going to living under this cloud of the pandemic at least through most of next year. I think it’s critical. McDonald moved, Campion seconded that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020- 67 establishing the 2021 final levy of $12,066,700 and approve total general fund budget of $12,208, 200, the enterprise funds operating budget of $6,288,500 and the special revenue funds operating budget of $228,900 and debt service in accordance with existing bond requirements. It also approve the CIP for the 2021-2025 with a 2021 budget total of $38,198,010 and the five-year total amount of the CIP is $109,888,425. All voted in favor and the motion carried 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Councilman McDonald, when you were reading that I going to play a tape to my kids and say remember when you didn’t want to practice reading your numbers out loud? (laughter) Well done. Thank you for that. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 4, FEES. Strey: I don’t have a PowerPoint for this one. All of the information is in your background that lists the fees that are changing. They are related to zoning permits, technology fee, the surface water management development fees, and sewer and water fees, GIS fees. I believe that is the majority of them. There is a lot of background attached to this item. You also have the utility rate study that Ehler’s performed for us that supported the utility rates as proposed. With that, I stand for questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Council, any questions? Councilman McDonald? McDonald: No questions at this time. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: No, no questions. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions, thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 28 Mayor Ryan: I don’t have any questions either and these were fees that have been discussed at length so I don’t have any questions as it relates to this as it ties to the overall budget discussion as we worked through it over the last few months. With that, is there a motion from any Councilmember? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, McDonald seconded that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code revising the fees for 2021. All voted in favor and the motion carried 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, everyone for that. Next we have Council Presentations. I will go around and ask if there’s any Council presentations. Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I have nothing tonight except this could be my last City Council meeting. I just want to say thank you to everybody I served with. I am extremely proud of what this Council has accomplished this year. We faced some big challenges, number one of which was definitely trying to get a new city manager. I think I am very surprised that we have thought along the same lines, same questions, same concerns, and I think that we have done is we have narrowed the field down to any one of which would be a very good city manager. For that, thank you Councilmembers. It was a fairly easy process I guess when we’re thinking along the same lines. Thanks very much. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. Councilman Tjornhom? Tjornhom: I’m going to have to I guess echo what Councilman McDonald said. This is my last Council meeting. It’s been almost 20 years of every other Monday. My daughter asked what do I get for that? I said, a thank you but what I really get is just the pleasure to serve this community. All the times of door knocking and meeting residents and conversations on the phone and representing them and trying to be their voice. I’m so proud of this community and what they’ve made it and what the future is for it. It’s so bright. I want to thank City staff for always being so supportive and my fellow Councilmembers past and present. Thank you so much for supporting and helping me all those times when decisions were tough. Once again, thank you so much, everybody, for allowing me to be a City Council member from Chanhassen. I’m very proud of this town and everybody that this in it, so thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: Yes, thank you Mayor Ryan. I would like to say a few words if that’s all right? Mayor Ryan: Of course. Coleman: I just wanted to say thank you so much to everybody and this will also very likely be my last Council meeting unless unforeseen circumstances happen and we are called in again this City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 29 month. When I was sworn to the Council I discussed how incredibly inspired and humbled I was to be sitting here. Inspired by the people of Chanhassen and humbled by the faith they entrusted in me. I leave today with the same sentiment adding one more gratitude. Grateful to the people of Chanhassen for electing me to the Council, for putting me on the ballot in August and for electing me to the State Senate in November. I’m grateful to all of the constituents who called, wrote, came to Council, or shared their thoughts with me at monthly open office hours, reminding me who and what I am fighting for every day. Grateful to City staff for very patiently walking me through my first elected position and a variety of very complex issues. Grateful to my Mayor and fellow Councilmembers for their wisdom and insight, and for the unexpected friends I have made along the way. Grateful to the mentors who I would have never expected helping me to become a better leader through each monumental decision, and grateful to the beautiful city for granting me grace when I sought to find my footing as a first-time mother. While my time here is ending due to a call to serve at the legislature, I am still deeply invested in the future of this city and pray that the next Council appoint my replacement with someone who has institutional knowledge, critical experience in city governments, and the strength to guide Chanhassen through uncertain times. I ran for Council hoping to make Chanhassen and even better place to live, work and raise a family despite outside circumstances hurting billions around the globe, I sincerely hope that my efforts in these endeavors have touched the lives of our neighbors and residents of the City. I am inspired by the people of Chanhassen, I am humbled by their support, and I am grateful for their faith in me and I am forever your servant. Thank you, all. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilwoman Coleman. Campion: This is not my last Council meeting. I can say that. It has been a pleasure serving with all of you. Julie and Bethany, best of luck in your future endeavors. Jerry, we’ll see if we can find a way to keep working together. That’s it for me. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman Campion. Before I share some final thoughts for the year before we adjourn, I have one quick shout-out thank you. This past weekend was our Toys for Tots and I want to extend appreciate to Assistant Chief Nutter for his leadership on this endeavor for Toys for Tots along with all of the residents, staff members that contributed help. Ms. Johnston, I know you helped load the trucks. I appreciate your time and effort on a really important donation and community event so I really appreciate everybody’s time and effort. Another kind of special shout out to some Longacres residents who contributed $385 toys. I really appreciate their efforts in supporting this. In total, we were able to donate 1,277 toys to the Toys for Tots organization and drive. Thank you, everybody for your hard work. As I stated in a post this weekend, it’s amazing to see community continue to look out for community. If there was ever a time of need it was certainly this year and for residents and staff, the Fire Department, all to come together again for this initiative and this drive is so meaningful and we are so appreciative of all the hard work and effort on this. Again, special thanks to Assistant Chief Nutter. Again, I just want to share some final thoughts before we adjourn for the year. Like I said, I just want to say a few things. It is without question that 2020 has been a challenging year. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 30 We have navigated an ongoing and ever-evolving pandemic. We have had significant changes with long-serving staff retiring. We as a Council have made weighty decisions about road projects and CARES Act funding spending, ordinance changes to help our restaurants survive, switching to remote Zoom meetings so that we can continue conducting the business of the city. We are deeply engaged in hiring a new city manager. We have spent hours and many meetings addressing budget concerns or cliffs, as they affectionately became known with the intent of setting up the City for long-term financial stability. I could go on with this list as there has been a lot of hard work that we have done over this past year but the point being that I want to say thank you to both the remarkable colleagues and city council members, as well as city staff for your hard work and diligence throughout the year. We have worked together, asked many questions of each other, and moved forward together with our focus always being on how can we best serve our residents. As mentioned in the previous comments, obviously the city council is going to look a little bit different in 2021 with new council members joining us but we are not quite sure what that final council makeup is going to look like. I also want to extend my thanks and gratitude to Councilwoman Tjornhom who served on City Council from 2005 to 2020, so 15 years. Councilman McDonald from 2007 to 2020 and that is 13 years. I think you both know we will have formal ceremony once restrictions are lifted but I just want to extend my thanks and appreciate on behalf of Council and residents for your commitment to serve Chanhassen. Councilwoman Coleman, while it was only two short years on City Council you certainly had a great impact and we are happy to know that you are going to continue to represent Chanhassen in St. Paul as one of Chanhassen’s State Senators so we wish you the best of luck. It was a big year but as I stated before in many ways I believe that we as a Council and the City have become stronger. To staff, my fellow Council members, thank you for a year that we will never forget and to everybody, all residents, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a joyous holiday season. I wish you all well. Stay healthy and I look forward to reconnecting and, again, beginning the business of Chanhassen in 2021. Thank you, everybody. Anything on Administrative Presentations? Johnston: Madam Mayor, I wanted to highlight two things. Number one, we have added a Fire Department Update on the last one because we don’t have public safety representation so there are Fire Department stats on our Correspondence Discussion. Just to draw people’s attention to that since that’s a new thing. The second thing is just to add my thanks to the Council for all of your patience with me for the last six months. I look forward to working with you in the upcoming year as well. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: You’ve been a great addition so thank you. Any questions Council on the Correspondence Discussion? Be that I don’t hear any murmurs I am going to turn it over to Councilwoman Tjornhom if she would like to make a motion to adjourn for her last meeting. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 31 Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Kim Meuwissen