Loading...
CC 2005 12 12 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2005 Acting Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lundquist and Councilwoman Tjornhom. Mayor Furlong arrived late for the meeting. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, and Kelley Janes PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Judd Fenlon 665 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilman Peterson: The Mayor has temporarily stepped away. Another conflict. Will be back hopefully within a half hour or so, so we’ll try to muddle through this ourselves. To that end, the public announcements section I would like to read to you, if I may, a proclamation that recognizes the passing of Herb Bloomberg, who you all probably know and had read in the paper that he passed away recently and clearly was an individual of great stature within the community and to that end this council would like to consider a proclamation and that is as follows. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HERB BLOOMBERG. Councilman Peterson: Whereas, Herb Bloomberg honorably served the City of Chanhassen as a chair of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority from 1974 to 1978; and Whereas, Mr. Bloomberg was instrumental in the development of Chanhassen starting businesses in the area of lumber yard, furniture sales, and hotels, as well as numerous residential developments; and Whereas, arguably the most recognizable landmark in the city of Chanhassen, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater is a direct result of Mr. Bloomberg’s time, talent and vision; and Whereas, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater annually brings over 250,000 visitors to Chanhassen and employs over 300 people; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen would be very different today if not for the numerous contributions of Herb Bloomberg; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen was sadden to learn of Mr. Bloomberg’s death on December 4, 2005 but will always remember him as a wonderful man and a true community legend. Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota that Herb Bloomberg be remembered and honored for his contributions to the city of Chanhassen and that the thoughts and the prayers City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 of this City Council be with his wife and his family. With that I would make a motion that we approve this proclamation. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the proclamation recognizing Herb Bloomberg. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Gerhardt, I think you have some additional comments you might add. Some personal thoughts. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I’ve worked with Herb Bloomberg probably for the last 20 years. He’s probably developed over 100 single family homes, townhomes throughout the community, South Shore, up by Pleasant View. He was the master redeveloper for a lot of projects in our downtown redevelopment. Probably one of his projects that I think he liked the most was the Country Suites. That was a joint project with himself and his wife in doing the decorating and design of the Country Suites. Master redeveloper of Market Square. The Market Street Station development that just recently was completed. Had a part in the cinema. Frontier development. Office retail center next to the Dinner Theater, so Herb has had a hand in a lot of redevelopment and new development in the downtown in the past 20 years so. I know he took a lot of pride in making downtown Chanhassen special and I think you can see it wherever you go. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. I think in addition to that I think we’d like this council to direct staff to find some other more lasting impact than a proclamation to perhaps honor his contributions to the city too so if you could put that on the agenda some time in the future. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, staff will put some options together for council based on the memorial policy that we have and see what’s most fitting. Councilman Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 28, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 28, 2005 -City Council Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 15, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 22, 2005 2 City Council Meeting - December 12,2005 b. TH 212: Approve Extending Work Hours, Project 03-09. c. Resolution #200S-97A: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Land Purchase Agreement for Storm Pond Improvement. e. Resolution#200S-98: Infiltration/Inflow Improvements: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications, PW 254B. f. Lake Susan Park Playground: Approval of Quote for Concrete Border. g. Pay Compensation Plan: Approval of Amendments. h. Council Travel Policy: Approval of Policy. 1. Resolution#200S-99: 1998A Park GO Bonds: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Debt Levy by $285,000. J. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 1, Definitions-Signs. k. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 7-22, Grading & Erosion Control. 1. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 13, Noise-Construction Hours. n. Resolution#200S-100: Well Nos. 10 & 11 Improvements: Award Contract, Project No. 04-08A. o. Resolution#200S-101: Settlers West: Accept Street & Utilities, Project No. 04-13. p. Resolution#200S-102: Cimmaron: Accept Streets & Utilities, Project No. 04-10. q. Empak Addition: Release of Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to O. D. EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT: Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on this topic really is centering around, want to give some kudo's to staff, Todd, Paul. As we've been going through this water treatment process, we'll call it for the last year or so, things don't always come out the way you planned and as this project has proceeded, the initials came in a little, bids came in a little higher than budget so I think I was a fairly vocal critic of that and pushing for some concessions there. Some deeper dives into that and wanted to, as this item comes up, have some discussion and talk about the fact that, and recognize the fact that staff has gone back and looked at some of the items that were, I'll call them want's rather than need's. Some of the ornamental things and some of those things to try to 3 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 limit those dollars, which after all are taxpayers dollars so. I think that albeit that the dollar amount is not massive in the grand scheme of the project, that the concept that staff has gone back and looked at those things and has taken those things out is again demonstration Todd for you and your staff that you can step outside of what some people might call a normal government practice to go back and look at some of those things rather than just go back and ask for more money. So with that I would say we’re on the right track there and let’s keep looking for more opportunities as we go and would move for approval of item 1(d) after that discussion. Councilman Peterson: Any other comments? It’s been moved. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: Any further discussion? Resolution#2005-103: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve Change Order No. 1, Project 04-08 for the East Water Treatment Plant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT: CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 4, FEES. Kate Aanenson: As the city staff does annually, we review the fees in light of the change in inflation and construction index. Also evaluating the park and trail fees based on land cost. Some of these prices you were shared with by the Ehlers group who specifically looked at the storm water and the utility study at one of your most recent work sessions, so attached for your recommendation, the staff’s proposed recommended fee adjustment for the year 2006. All the department heads are here and will be able to answer questions specifically on what’s parochial to them. So with that we are recommending the ordinance amending Chapter 4 for the fees as stated in the staff report. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, Brian’s looking at that too. I just saw it when I came in but how are our fees…other cities? Kate Aanenson: If you look at for example, I’ll let the Park and Rec Director talk about the park fees but if you remember when Jessica Cook was here to talk specifically about the storm water fees. We were not the highest and we’re not the lowest so we felt good about that. I’ll let Todd comment on the park and trail. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Kate. You have one copy or a copy of one survey which was recently been completed and I think if you go to the back they’ll give you an average. So our park in our park charges are higher than many in the outstate and in the metropolitan area as well. It’s tied to land cost. This fee is based off of a land cost of $125,000 per acre and our land costs, raw 4 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 land costs are actually much higher than that. They average from 125 to 225 to 250. So what we’re trying to equate this to is when we go out there and acquire an acre of property, we want the value of what we’re taking equivalent to our fees that we’re charging. So using $125,000 per acre in raw land cost equals out to a $5,800 per dwelling single family cost. Some other costs that we have, Eden Prairie next year will be at $5,000 for a single compared to 58. They’re going to be at 41 for a multi compared to our 38 so little bit behind. Lakeville, $4,032 for a single versus our 58. Plymouth, $4,000 and then Shakopee $5,340. So we are at the top end of those park charges that…past couple of weeks. Todd Gerhardt: When we, when staff sits down and looks at, look at these numbers, we try to get to a realistic value of what land prices are going for and I think we’re below that. However, you know with the formula that we use, we need to be at this level to buy parkland in southerly Chanhassen. We also need to build the trails that go along to connect those parks, so these are the numbers that we’re out there competing to try to buy land from developers. I know that turns around and increases the cost back to the homeowners that are going to build new homes here, but as we moved to this community we paid that price for what land was going for so we’re just trying to stay up with the price of land in town is why we’re recommending these fees. Councilman Peterson: Well I think it’s also important to note too that what we’re accomplishing by doing this is, is staying off potential referendums down the road which some of the other cities that were mentioned earlier Todd have their fees raised and they’re also doing referendums, so I think by accomplishing what these relatively modest fee increases are, is to certainly stay that for some period of time, which I think is commendable for the way in which we’re doing it. Todd Hoffman: It’s important to remember it’s not just for acquisition but development of these parks. Councilman Peterson: Any other questions of staff? I’d like to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to address this issue, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to council. Any thoughts? Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Peterson, thoughts I think expressed, staff’s I believe correct talking about, this is land costs. $125,000 an acre. That’s probably, I think if you could walk in and get some parcels of land for $125,000 an acre, you’d have a line at the door a mile long trying to get in so probably conservative number. It is important for us to use the development that drives the requirements of these parks to pay for those new parks. I guess that’s a price of doing business. I would however differ with your comment that, on the reasonably modest. I think you know, this is one of the unfortunate pieces where you’re in a growing, thriving community when land is skyrocketing is an increase from $4,000 a home to $1,800 a home is a pretty steep jump. You’re talking about 40, more than 40% increase there. Which is substantial. But you know, I don’t know what’s our other choice is to, you know land prices are going up 10 or 12, 15% a year so I guess I’m caught a little bit. It’s hard for me because they are going to be passed on directly to the homeowners and other things. But I guess that would be again the price of doing business, but it’s one that I struggle with a little bit to, as we look at other, this doesn’t really get us toward housing affordability and things like that, but again it’s a service and amenity that people in 5 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Chanhassen value. They see that on our surveys year after year, time after time. Any time you ask them what they like about Chanhassen, parks if not the number one, definitely in the top 3. So I guess with hesitation I can support it, but recognize that that’s, that those are pretty steep. But again market driven I guess by land so I can understand why they’re at where they’re at. Todd Gerhardt: Council, staff had the same thoughts. We were proposing to try to come in at closer to $150,000 but we thought that was too much to bite from where we were at before, and so we scaled that back. We had to bump it up. We were going into a deficit. We weren’t planning properly for our park acquisition down the line by not having a higher price per lot for these park and trail dedication fees. So we were digging ourselves in a hole by reducing it down even further we’re still not going to be able to accomplish some of the things that we need to do in the 2005 and 10 areas. So we felt that the 125 seemed to be some good middle ground to start with and re-look at it next year or the year after. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I think also in our work session we discussion the fact that we’re not living year to year. We’re trying to plan for 8 years down the road, or down the road and I think this is probably an example of that because I would much rather be raising fees than having to have a referendum for parks and raising fees like some cities are doing and so…as well for some developers and homeowners I think down the road. Councilman Lundquist: Future homeowners. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Future homeowners hopefully. This is probably the best way to go. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. My thoughts don’t differ substantially. I think it’s modest probably is inappropriate relating to the percentage increase but I think that it’s based upon staff’s comments and where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow, it’s a reasonable increase and appropriate for accomplishing our respective goal so. With that, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: I would move approval of item 2 as published in the packet. The adoption of fee schedule published. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the City Code amendment amending Chapter 4, Fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: There is no unfinished business. We move onto new business. What I’d like to offer is I’d like to move item number 4 with the Mayor still being absent. I’d like him to 6 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 participate in the budget process if we can. To that end, staff would you present the Galpin Crossing proposal this evening. GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPLICANTS EPIC DEVELOPMENT & JOHN PRYZMUS, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Rich Ragatz Eden Prairie Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail Kevin McShane 180 South Shore Court Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site located on the corner of Galpin and Highway 5. West th 78 bisects the property. It’s currently zoned A2 and it’s guided for low density residential. th Most recently it had the golf course on it before West 78, or driving range, excuse me. And then the miniature golf currently vacant. This is where the parking lot fits currently. Everything else has been removed from the site. There is a creek that runs along the north side of the subject property and on the north side they’re proposing residential and the south side is the request for the office industrial. When this first appeared before the staff, to kind of talk about what the intended use was, the applicant wanted to do all retail on the site. If we go back to the Highway 5 corridor study, which is referenced in the document, the staff report excuse me, there was a concern at that time to have strip commercial and it’s going to kind of segway into the discussion we’re going to have later tonight to talk about the retail market analysis, but there was some concern about that. If you look at the 60,000 square feet, there’s some comparable big uses down here. Byerly’s. That’s quite a significant amount of commercial in how it’s being laid out so the direction from the staff was that we would support office. There’s complimentary use there based on that, and looking at the multi-family. There’s a couple different ways to look at the multi-family or the development of this site. One of the things we talked about was the overlay district which we did on the commercial on this side is we actually left all this as open space. Was an opportunity to kind of maximize it with the PUD, doing the density transfer and then leaving the other side open in ponding. And one of the conditions we did have in there was the suitability of development on that south side, and again this is a concept PUD and as stated in the staff report, approval of the concept does not obligate the city to approve any final plans. Or to rezone the property for the PUD, but rather we were just trying to give a general framework so in here we’ve indicated some direction that we would like the applicant to pursue and one of the things that we’re kind of looking at too is we’re conducting, make a policy adoption or implementation of the market study to see how that would relay into this. But we did put some uses in there that we thought would work. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing th on this item back on November 15. They did recommend approval 6-0 for the PUD concept as outlined here for you tonight. So with that, we are recommending approval with some of those issues outlined in the staff report which kind of highlighted. One of the major ones here was the 7 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 traffic study…regarding the access point. There were certainly for retail that would probably be more desirable. We did support a bank. I know there’s a lot of banks looking at a bank to go into that corner if it was incorporated in office buildings. Very similar to what we did on the Market Street Station project. They incorporated a bank into that building and they have some offices up there too. Similarly done that over on Villages on the Pond where they incorporated the larger bank with offices. We think that works but the one concern there was the right-in/ right-out and looking at that so we’ve asked for a traffic study on that access point. Maybe encouraging U-turns and we’re just a little concerned about that, so with that again it’s concept. Giving some direction to come back. Office use only except for the possibility of incorporation of a banking or that type of similar retail. Financial institution. So with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Peterson: Any questions of staff? Councilman Lundquist: We should develop a ratio like our 1 acre of park per 75 people for our banks. We’ve got to be double digits, as we’ve got one in the back there. Kate your, I remember reading through the staff report here you talked about you not necessarily thrilled with the plan as laid out and kind of broken up into chunks you’d like to see it bigger and didn’t really reflect that in the conditions. That’s just one of those things you’re going to work with them as, I mean this is a year or two or so out do you anticipate or? Kate Aanenson: Well I think, depending how fast the applicant wants to proceed with that. Obviously before it comes back, then we put, typically when we do a PUD we put that list of uses that we permitted it in the district. First of all we want to get a read from the Planning Commission and the council as to how supportive you are of changing the zoning district, and then kind of give some specific concerns we have. As you look at the south side there isn’t much place for ponding, and again there’s two ways to reconcile that. You could, under the PUD, compress all that and then use the other side of the street. Or we felt this really lends itself to the retail…and we’d like to see a little bit bigger building footprint and give them more flexibility. I think you’ve got a smaller office building like that. We’ve got that kind of rounding, and try to look at that nitch. What don’t we have. What do we think is a little bit more in the market place. And I guess that kind of parlays in one of the conditions that we did recommend and we look at that with our marketing study to say you know, does that make some sense. I know that was a big discussion we had on the Lifetime side, trying to break up that little pieces and we held our ground to keep a bigger piece and it was a win because we ended up with Lifetime so trying to anticipate some of that. So that’s why we put in a condition that we kind of track that. Also that market study and see how that parlays out. Councilman Lundquist: That section of Vasserman right there that would back up to that. Are those townhouses right there or are they single families? Kate Aanenson: Those are single family. Councilman Lundquist: To the west. Todd Gerhardt: Those are twin homes. 8 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Okay, so they’d be compatible. I’m sorry. These are a little bit different as far as these wouldn’t be individual lots because they’d be a PUD. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: If it was an R-4. Councilman Lundquist: Looking at more for a usage of transition. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and the neighbors, there was some comments at the Planning Commission regarding the transitional use, which is another concern that, you know from the lights and if it’s a restaurant, particularly different hours as you would compared to an office. Maybe later hours. I know those were some of the concerns that we had with that building footprint spread out like that, how do you mitigate that? And that was the second page of the report was a letter that was sent by, and I think that kind of summarizes a lot of the concern that the neighbors have. Councilman Lundquist: And my last question, maybe Todd or Roger, as reading through this. th Approval 4/5ths. Is that 4/5 of the council or is that a ratio that you’re looking for? Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question which I got a legal interpretation on. Typically it does say PUD for rezoning but I’ll let Roger answer the question. Roger Knutson: We’re processing an amendment, to clarify this I believe. Kate Aanenson: It is a concept PUD, and because there is some residential, we determined that the 2/3 council present would address it. Roger Knutson: The short answer is, although this is concept approval and by statute you wouldn’t have to have a simple majority, by your ordinance you do require as part of the rezoning process. And so you need 4 affirmative votes to pass. Councilman Lundquist: 4 affirmative or 2/3 of your quorum present? Roger Knutson: 4 affirmative votes. Todd Gerhardt: One of the options that you could do is wait for Mayor Furlong to come back. Go through your discussion on this item. Hold this item off until you have a 4 member board here. You can go ahead and approve it with the 3 members. However you are doing that in violation of your current ordinance and then you have some risk down the line if somebody would want to contest your approval of it. Kate Aanenson: Just a further note on that. This is a strange thing we have in our code which we are, the Planning Commission at their most recent modified that, has taken that out. It’s kind of conflicts with most other city processes so, at your next City Council meeting that language will be actually struck from the ordinance. 9 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Roger Knutson: Another option, and I don’t want to burden you with options. Taking this matter to the next meeting, in case the mayor doesn’t make it back. Councilman Peterson: Well let’s continue on with questions of staff and I think the mayor’s up to speed on the projects. I don’t think he needs to necessarily dwell on it so let’s keep it moving and then we can decide what to do later. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, with this rezoning, kind of what you had discussion about finding more office industrial. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. This is one of the sites. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And on retail, everyone now that is wanting to develop something that we want them to wait for the retail market study? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Yep, we’re working with a couple other people that are definitely in the holding pattern. Yeah, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that should be done in April. March or April? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we’re recommending is that we have a 4 month, as part of the contract, a 4 month completion date. Councilman Peterson: Any questions? Kate, to go back to the drawing, could you kind of walk me through the, you know obviously we’re always focused as well as the Planning Commission on sidewalks and trails and how to get pedestrian traffic through that and across the street, which they obviously would be going to. My drawings on the PC are just so hard to see. Could you kind of walk us through. th Kate Aanenson: They’re not much better on this one, sure. Actually there is a trail on West 78, that’s on the north side. So one of the recommendations that would be in here that there be a trail along the south side, and then interconnection as you just indicated for buildings. Again they’re kind of spread out there. So the interconnection and also sidewalks is currently is shown on this side to get, and then make this connection across if you wanted to go between the uses. So really the only missing link would be between the buildings and then specifically along West th 78. Councilman Peterson: What’s the engineering’s perspective on possible stop light at the intersection? Is that at all planned in the future, do we know? Paul Oehme: Thank you council member. At that intersection there, I did have a conversation with the County on that a while ago and to date there is no warrants for a signal at that intersection. And in the future it’s still out there a ways in terms of the traffic counts now out there is significant accidents or other issues associated with that intersection that might put into a warrant category but at this time I don’t see a signal going in there anytime soon. 10 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Kate, what’s the footprint of some of the smaller buildings down towards Highway 5? Kate Aanenson: 3,000. So I mean those could be multi-tenant too. Make it you know, again this is really laid out in kind of a retail format so we expect to see something a little bit different. We were just kind of doing some comparisons of some other buildings in town. If you looked at Eckankar is the one new building they have. That’s 60,000 square feet, which is approximately what this would be so that could be one building. If you looked at Mark Undestad’s office parks, the Stone Creek Office Park, that’s about 70,000 square feet. That was our first condo type that we’ve done so it just give you some comparisons. I mentioned Byerly’s was 60,000 so you’re kind of, there is a significant amount of square footage available there. Councilman Peterson: Okay. And then you haven’t seen any of the architectural design on the residentials yet? Kate Aanenson: No, this is just preliminary. Again the goal is just to really get a read on the direction and then if the intent is to go with the industrial, we look at that study, how that weaves into this. Then we’d come back with some specific lists. The design standards and then the permitted uses and the intent of the district to actually develop that ordinance. And the district standards. Councilman Peterson: We see residentials requests for that property on the north side before and part of what some of the challenge was is that it was pushing pretty close to the road on a pretty high traffic road. That it was kind of oriented towards. Kate Aanenson: On this piece? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. I guess as a staff we felt that we didn’t see the retail there but we certainly saw some, we’ve had requests for the office, maybe a larger building and multi-tenant, we anticipated that. We’ve had requests for churches, some of those kind of things that would be a single user. Some of those rim pieces that would want something of that scale, so that’s kind of what we anticipated in looking at that. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Okay. Alright, any other questions of staff? I think what I’d like to do then is to table this, recommend tabling it until we get another member of council here and discuss that further at that point in time. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table at this point to the end of the meeting. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 11 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table this item to the end of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Well let’s try to figure out what we can talk about with the mayor not here. Why don’t we go to council presentations. Councilman Lundquist, I believe you have one. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Yep I do. Last week there was a presentation done by MnDot at the Carver County government center regarding the proposed Highway 41 bridge crossing or the new Highway 41 bridge crossing with several of the alternatives. MnDot did a mailing, direct mail to all of the households in that corridor that are affected in Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver and several of the surrounding townships and things and then also in Scott County, Shakopee and some of those. Kate was there. The Mayor and I both attended as well. I think a good turnout when I was there. Probably in excess of 150 people there, which I think is good that that comes out and as this thing progresses along we’ll keep a keen eye and interest on what’s happening with all of those different options. I don’t think there’s anyone that wouldn’t acknowledge that sometime in the future we’re going to need another way to get across the river here, other than 41 and 101. Especially when the water gets high in the spring potentially and as this area continues to grow, it’s not going to be fun to drive to Belle Plaine or to 35W to, or 169 to get across the river, so I think everybody acknowledges that but there’s a lot of, as Lisa Freise put it, there’s something to hate about every one of those options. So we’ll continue to look at that. We’ve got to look at some things coming down. Work session meetings with MnDot through that but it will be important that our residents and that keep, they can talk to staff members. I’m the council liaison to that group so they can feel free to contact me as well but as we proceed through about this time next year MnDot hopes to have a corridor identified so, you’ve got about 10-11 months to sort of work through the big issues here but I think the way MnDot did that was good. Great participation on that. Good information they handed out. It will be an interesting process to go through but for those people that live along that or are affected by that or who care about that, now’s the time to get your comments and feedback in to staff or myself. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if they just call the general number here at City Hall and ask for Paul Oehme or myself, we can get them information on the different alternatives that are out there. Councilman Lundquist: They’re also, it’s also out on MnDot’s web site. You can see that as well with maps and all that good stuff is out there. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We want to hear their comments and make sure we’re going in the right direction on which alternative we believe is the right one. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. 12 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Councilman Peterson: Anything else? Brief update on Southwest Metro Transit. As you would assume, ridership is still continuing to trend upward. Over and above the normal trends. I think gas prices have still caused more people to stay off the road and ride the buses so we are at capacity essentially in almost all of our routes. As far as the long distance routes and update on Highway 101 and Lyman facility. We are entertaining, in the midst of entertaining proposals from developers to do both the commercial development and the residential and we are sorting through those and hope we make a decision within the next 30 days or so. We are still trying to find a resolution to expanding our space here in the Market Street Station area. We’re being challenged by, just trying to find the right timing to make that happen. As you’re aware we have an easement for 160 spots there. We’re negotiating with the owner as we speak and we may have to have other alternatives as we’re having a difficult time just agreeing on timing and some of the related issues to that so we’re definitely in need of more space down there. We’re full every day and again that’s a testament to people getting off the road, which is always a good thing so. To that end things are going well at Southwest Metro Transit. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: One item in the correspondence packet. You’ve got statistics up through the third quarter for our prosecution contract. It’s not included in the close cases are the misdemeanors so if you’re trying to tie numbers back from open cases to closed cases, you’re not going to balance and I did talk with Elliott today and he has told me of the closed cases that his staff has prosecuted, you’ve got probably 3 to 4 that we weren’t successful with over the last 3 quarters, so you know it’s about 99%, so you’re doing a pretty good job Roger. And so I think we’re on the right track there and things are working out. Doing a good job. Councilman Peterson: Good. Why don’t we move on to the staff report. Item number 5. RETAIL MARKET STUDY: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF STUDY. Public Present: Name Address Bill Traxler Victoria Linda Walton Chanhassen Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior Mark A. Sass 6275 Hummingbird Road, Excelsior Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle th Kate Aanenson: Thank you. At your work session on November 28 the staff presented a proposal to you from the McComb Group that we wanted to undertake and really it’s a segway into the comprehensive plan process to look at the future needs of the city, and specifically industrial and commercial. This certainly came to the forefront as we moved through the 2005 issue and as the implementation of development of 212 that we need to be doing analysis and re- examining the assumptions that were made, and also to look at do we have the appropriate mix of land use down there and the absorptions so with that we met with the McCombs Group and 13 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 got a proposal. In working on this proposal we also met with the Chamber who showed up at your work session too and lent it’s support in the amount of $5,000. You also directed the staff to look at where the funding would come from so that’s proposed to come from the entertainment TIF district, which is also on for your meeting later this evening. Also I wanted to reaffirm to you that the contract, this proposed contract will be reviewed by the City Attorney. It is intended to be pay as you go, which is how we handle our other contracts with consultants and that also the intent is to be a 4 month contract so that will be put into the conditions. So with that I really, I don’t want to spend too much of Mr. Gorton, Bill Gorton’s thunder here and kind of go through, he’s done this in other cities. I’ve explained a little bit of that. I know the Chamber is here and they want to give some comments so I’ll just let him kind of go through the proposal and if you have other questions for me, I’d be happy to answer those. So with that I’ll turn it over to Bill. Bill Gorton: Good evening. I’m Bill Gorton. I’m Executive Associate with McComb Group. Kate did a great job of summarizing how we got to where we got. It appears that the City of Chanhassen has got some challenges facing it. Some questions that they need help answering and hopefully we can provide some insight to help you get some good direction. McComb Group has been around for about 31 years. We are a diverse real estate and retail consulting group and we offer a variety of consulting and analytic services including market and consumer research, financial feasibility, economic impact assessments, design assistance and development consulting. We do it for a wide variety of products, shopping centers, office buildings, business and industrial parks, apartments, senior housing, mixed use developments. We also have a wide range of clients that include some of the largest institutional investors and development companies, small development organizations, and a number of state and local governments. In many cases municipalities rely on us to help determine the amount of retail space that can be supported within the community based upon the pace of residential development and what the real full build-out retail potential is. We take into consideration the geography of the community and the relationship of the community with existing and potential commercial areas that surround and try to help evaluate what the real market potential is and what that in land use requirement would be based upon what that demand is. And that’s what the proposal that you have before you is intended to do. It outlines in the objective section what we hope to, the kind of information that we hope to provide you. And in the second section that outlines the task, outlines the work program. Relates how we go about it. In general what we’re proposing to do is help estimate the future residential development for the next 20 years and based on that estimate what the demand potential is for commercial and office and services uses. We would evaluate the existing competition in Chanhassen and surrounding areas and attempt to evaluate where likely competition will develop as well. We would be estimating a trade area for Chanhassen and I can pretty much suggest that it will extend well beyond the boundaries of Chanhassen already. We already know that you will draw well beyond your current boundaries. Those communities, many of them west of here that are continuing to grow and expand don’t have retail businesses there and they all come here and they’re going to continue to grow and expand and that in part I’m guessing is accountable for some of the inquiries that you’ve had recently. Additional businesses that would like to find themselves developing in Chanhassen and in areas that you thought may have already been fully mature, yet more people want to come. Why? That’s what we hope to answer. We would provide a market driven estimate of residential development in Chanhassen. Identify the types of housing that we think are suitable. 14 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Try to determine the long term demand and space absorption for business office park uses. With all of that we can then quantify and give you an idea of how many acres in each of the various categories you might need and where they would most appropriately be located, at least in our opinion and what it really serves as is a building block for your planning process. It’s the get go. It’s the start. For that we get together with your space planners and start allocating where it goes and how you’re going to fit it in with your road map works and how you’re going to deal with all that traffic demand and all those other wonderful things. And this really serves as that starting point so that you can understand what the scope of the future is for Chanhassen. How we get there, and that’s outlined in the work program. We utilize our extensive experience in evaluating the area. Any specific development sites that you already have under consideration we will potentially identify others that we see as possibilities. I’ve already mentioned evaluating the competitive shopping areas. Included we have business interviews listed and some customer survey, and that’s really a part I think that the Chamber folks are very interested in. We try to utilize existing businesses to provide some additional data. It really helps better define what the relative strength of the Chanhassen area is for retail. We work with existing businesses to help get an idea from them as to what they believe their current trade area is. How far they draw customers from. The dynamics of the market. The pluses and minuses of doing business in Chanhassen. They all have opinions and most independent business people are not bashful about sharing those opinions if you give them an opportunity to express it, and we try to take advantage of that. The customer survey aspect of it, we ask the businesses to participate with a very simple, straight forward survey of their customers that identifies where they come from. Why they, in general terms, shop at a particular store. We do an analysis of those various studies to help again get a better feel for the market, the dynamics of the market. How strong is it? Where there might be opportunities for improvement. Where there might be areas of over saturation, and it really starts as a good fundamental base for understanding the overall area. Then all the number crunching starts. With that we’re able to better assess what the retail trade area is. The commercial industrial trade area for the Chanhassen area and do the number crunching. Identify what the residential growth will be. Calculate what the overall retail demand for the area will be and make an assessment of what the market potential is for the Chanhassen area. And translate that then into what kind of opportunities might exist for new businesses. Opportunities for expansion for existing businesses. Not by specific businesses but by business categories. We aren’t going to say that you need another Best Buy here. We’ll talk in terms of an electronics, retail electronics store. Who might that be? Well, Best Buy seems like a good one but there might be others. When we get all done, what you end up with is a summary report with lots of graphics and illustrations that help quantify and highlight the main findings of our study. We’ve done this in a number of places and one of the things Kate suggested I might relay, a couple examples. The City of Woodbury has been, had been growing significantly and I think everybody’s aware of some of the latest retail commercial development that’s gone out in Woodbury. I think most folks have heard of Arbor Lakes up in the Maple Grove area and Woodbury this fall just had their Woodbury Lakes open up, which is their version of Arbor Lakes. The City was faced with a real challenge. They were getting approached from lots of retail establishments that wanted to build in their community and they were running out of commercial development land. Their 20 year plan had estimated X and that X amount was almost gone. They had allocated a significant amount of land to industrial development and almost none of that had been developed. They didn’t quite understand the shift in dynamics and they were very concerned about their future. Should we take some of this industrial land and flip 15 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 it into commercial? Should we take residential and flip it into commercial? Should we just stop commercial because we’re already saturated? How long is this going to last? Well we came in and did a market assessment of Woodbury to help them answer some of the questions and identify some of the reasons why things happened the way that they happened. The end result of that was they re-evaluated their land use plan for the next 20 years and they did take some of the industrial land and flip it into commercial. They had a better understanding of what that long term commercial development demand was going to be, and that then set them into the next challenge and that was dealing with some of the traffic issues that would come from all of that. And that’s kind of where they are today is they’re still wrestling with some of the traffic issues related to that residential and commercial demand. Another example on maybe an earlier in it’s maturity, we just finished a study for Cambridge. Maybe not on the same scale as Woodbury or Chanhassen but City of Cambridge has been experiencing some significant residential growth over the last few years and as an outgrowth of that residential growth, all of a sudden they had some major retail commercial development. Some big boxes. Started with a large County Market grocery store. Then they added a Target store and a Wal-Mart super center and a Menards Home Improvement center and they’re continuing to get on a regular basis more and more requests from additional commercial development. The end result is that they’re getting lots of new development out on the east side of Cambridge and there is some concern because it’s taking away, or they’re concerned about the impact it’s having on their downtown central business district area. How long is it going to continue? What kind of long term impact will it have on the central business district area, which by itself has been struggling for a while and has some of it’s own issues to deal with. Perhaps some of the similarities to Chanhassen, and the fact that you have a fairly well established downtown area here, what would be the impact of the new Highway 212? What new commercial developments might happen in and around Chanhassen that would somehow be competitive with your current downtown area? Short term and long term and those are the kinds of things that we can potentially provide some insight into. Like we did in Cambridge, and in Cambridge we concentrated in part on their central business district area in identifying it’s position in the marketplace and what it’s long term future was and then the character in nature that it should take, and at the same time provided some insight as to what the long term, what the potential was for their east side, the newer development area. They definitely have a lot more potential then what they had anticipated. It was going to, it will require and they’re in the process of evaluating how much additional land they need to set aside for commercial development. They are re-looking some existing areas and opening up some potential re-development areas. And they have to do some very specific land planning in those existing and new areas as well if they really want to maximize long term. One of the things we identified was that some of the development was fine for the short term but in the long term it was inconsistent with the needs, the future needs of the community and in essence if they didn’t correct some of the things that were happening, they were going to short change their future potential. And the last issue that they ended up identifying and clearly need to deal with are some traffic related issues, and they have some very, well I wouldn’t call them unique but very sensitive geographic issues that they have to wrestle with because they’ve got 3 major boundaries in Cambridge. The Rum River, Highway 65 and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks that basically bisect the community down the middle from north to south and the crossover is really difficult. But that’s another example of what we’ve been involved with. Included in the information I think there’s some of our qualifications and I think you’ll find that we’ve done a lot of work in the metro area and around the country relative to this and I think 16 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 you’ll be very happy with the end result. Time wise, Kate mentioned, 4 months is our typical time table. 3 to 4 months and we would be targeting to have this completed by early April. If anybody has any questions, I’m happy to answer. Councilman Peterson: Okay, any questions? Thank you. I think what you presented and what we spent quite a bit of time on during work session a few weeks ago was going through some of the details and we’re certainly looking forward to the results and the opportunities that it will provide us. Just for our better interpreting the future so thank you. Bill Gorton: That’s it. …anybody has any other questions? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I think there’s some people from the Chamber. Councilman Peterson: Yep, would anybody with the Chamber like to make any comments and add any questions? Bill Traxler: Good evening. I’m Bill Traxler. I’m the 2006 Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber and I want to thank you for the opportunity to voice the Chamber support for the market analysis survey. Kate presented the information regarding analysis at our annual planning session on th November 17 of this year. The Chamber Board and the Government Action Committee are of the opinion that it would provide meaningful data to support decisions regarding land use designations. Because of the growth that Chanhassen is experiencing we feel it’s prudent to review whether current land uses and zonings are appropriate. We feel it is proactive and that the timing is excellent based on the accelerated growth that will be likely accompanying the Highway 212 expansion. We also feel proper utilization of our real property resources will provide for an efficient tax base. And anyone familiar with the Chamber budget knows that we’re not, our resources are not abundant and that the Chamber unanimously approved $5,000 contribution exhibits our support. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Chamber. Councilman Peterson: Thank you, and before we vote on behalf of the citizens here and council we appreciate that. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Lundquist: I can’t believe Vernelle’s going to sit in the back row and not say anything. Councilman Peterson: We’d better vote quick then. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question. Kate you’re asking for, in the staff report, council accept or approve the contract and accept the $5,000 contribution. The contract or proposal piece that’s in the packet is the retainer. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that should be modified to be pay as you go, and that will be modified, and again the entire contract be reviewed by the City Attorney, but it will be modified, for the record, pay as you go and then we want it as a 4 month as was stated. 17 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you’d like those conditions to be added. Kate Aanenson: That’d be fine. Councilman Lundquist: As part of that and then Roger’s going to do a contract too in addition to what… Kate Aanenson: Yeah… Roger Knutson: We have a standard formal contract for professional services that would be very appropriate. We’ll just plug this information into that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, slid into that… Councilman Peterson: Hearing no further questions, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve the amended proposal or contract to be developed with the McComb Group for the retail market study to be pay as you go and with the 4 month time line, and to accept, graciously accept the $5,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the attached contract for the Market Analysis Study to be completed by the McComb Group, Ltd, amended to include a pay as you go clause and 4 month time line, using Entertainment TIF District as the funding source. The City Council also accepts the $5,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 2006 BUDGET: CONSIDER ADOPTION AND LEVY CERTIFICATION TO THE CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR. Greg Sticha: Good evening council members. Tonight we are here to, or one of the reasons we’re here this evening is to approve the 2006 budget, 2006 through 2010 CIP and 2006 tax levy. If you recall last week the City of Chanhassen held a Truth in Taxation hearing here at City Hall to give the public an opportunity to comment on the budget and levy proposed for 2006. Just as a side note, we were not legally required to do so, due to the fact that our levy increased less than the implicit price deflator set up by the State of Minnesota which was about 5%. Therefore any community levying less than 5% increase from the prior year legally would not have to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing. We decided to, as do many communities decide to go ahead and hold the Truth in Taxation hearings anyway to offer the public a forum to give 18 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 comments and feedback to City Council on the levy and proposed budget. What I’ve done tonight is put together an adaption of the power point that I presented last week at the Truth in Taxation hearing. A couple of these slides I’m just going to go through very briefly to kind of review some of the numbers. And then at one point here I’m going to comment on a suggestion given by Councilman Lundquist to kind of clarify a few things that maybe were a little unclear after last week. The first slide goes into what the 2006 budget, general fund budget expenditures are proposed for 2006. Total expenditures in the amount of $8.9 million. A 7.1% increase from ’05. Revenues in the amount of $8.6 million, a 3.7% increase from ’05. Noting the one item of related significant differences, the reduction in the permit revenue. We’re anticipating it to be flat with this year’s permit revenue rather than in excess of the budget that we are anticipating not reaching for 2005. And then this slide just kind of gives you an idea of where our general fund expenditure, history has gone over the last several years and also includes any transfers we have made to debt service over that time. What Councilman Lundquist noted to me and is apparent to someone who doesn’t deal with government finance a lot, as you might just kind of get glossy eyed when you start talking about increases and decreases and budgets and levies is the difference between the two. So briefly what I’ve put together are a few slides that kind of point out some of the highlights of each and the differences between the two. The budget is the amount of estimated annual expenses in the general fund that the city plans on spending. The difference between that and the levy is the amount of taxes needed to pay for those expenses in the general fund and other funds not supported by other revenues or fees. What this comes down to basically, and I hate to use this term but it’s kind of a plug number in the general fund. The general fund has a budget amount, a budgeted amount of expenditures. If you look at for 2005 the general fund budget expenditures were $8.3 million. For 2006 it was $8.9 million. If you subtract out the general fund revenues that support those general fund expenses, not including property taxes, but also reducing for estimated delinquent taxes, that amount is about $2.5 million. That leaves you a hole to be plugged of $6.399 million. This is the amount that the city needs to levy for just the purpose of the general fund to maintain a balanced budget. Unlike the federal and state governments, city governments, local governments do not have the option of approving an unbalanced budget. 2005 general fund levy, if you look at for comparative purposes was $6 million 251. Therefore the actual levy that the City is requiring for the general fund in 2006 compared to 2005 is an actual increase in the levy. What then is passed onto the taxpayers are all levies. Not just the general funds, but any levy for any other funding sources and/or debt. The next two slides list all the levies that the city has a funding need for. The general fund, which we just talked about, we increased from $6 million 251 to $6 million 399. The capital replacement fund, which we kept the levy the same from the prior year, the MSA street and trail fund which is basically for the use of our sealcoating projects for the upcoming year. Then we have a whole list of debt obligations that the city has over various amounts of different types of debts. Now the total tax levy bill makes up all of these amounts, not just the general fund. So when you talk about the levy increasing for the general fund, the total amount of levy, if you look at the bottom line is, total levy for the city is $9 million 354 versus $9 million 439 of the prior year. Which means we had some reductions in some other areas. In particular, if you look at the park referendum, the amount we are levying to meet the park referendum debt is over $200,000 less than the prior year. This, as most of you are aware, is in large part due to, or totally due to the $285,000 use of general fund reserve the City Council decided to do for the upcoming year. In addition the library referendum went up a little bit, and if you go back to the other slide, general obligation debt went down just a little. The EDA stayed 19 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 about the same and special assessment debt and the need for levying for a special assessment debt went up slightly. So what happened here is, while the general fund levy did go up from 2005 to 2006, any increases were offset by reductions in other levies, and in particular debt service levies and most highly visible in the park referendum levy in which we decided to use general fund reserves to reduce. So when you talk about reductions, increases, etc, the levy or what actually is going to affect a property tax owner is going down. When you hear the word increase, it is true that the total budget of the general fund, the amount that we plan on spending in general fund dollars is increasing from the prior year. However we are seeing reductions in that amount and offsetting revenues and reductions in other levies, debt levies to make up the difference to give us a net decrease in all levies across the city. Now I hope that makes some sense to some people. Councilman Lundquist: Raise your hand if you got that. Greg Sticha: Alright. But that kind of explains where we are with the levies and budget for the upcoming year. The effect on a homeowner, as we talked about last time, is a decrease in their property tax bill on a $400,000 home, we’re looking at about $22 decrease. On a $300,000 home, it’s about a $13 decrease and on a $200,000 home, it’s about an $8 decrease. My recommendation tonight is that the City Council adopt the tax levy, budget and the CIP as presented in your packet and it is also the same budget, and tax levy presented last week at the Truth in Taxation hearing. At this time I will turn it back to council and ask if they have any questions or comments. Councilman Peterson: I pass it back to you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: It’s officially passed, thank you. Questions for staff. On this. The public hearing was held last week at our Truth in Taxation hearing. I think the, any issues that were raised there are addressed or can be addressed separately. If there’s no question for staff, I’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Last year I said a similar thing and I think this year I can even reinforce that further by saying I’m extremely proud of the efforts that the staff and this council have done to work for the citizens of this community to maintain the lower taxes. I think that kudos go up to a large number of people on the staff and I’m just in the number of years that I’ve been doing this, which are increasing rapidly, this is probably the proudest I’ve been because we’ve been able to do it consistently. One year it’s pretty easy to do. It’s 2 and 3 that we’ve done I think is truly a testament to this council’s commitment to support the citizens so I applaud staff and I applaud my fellow council people. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. This is kind of my first budget process and I want to thank Todd for kind of holding my hand through it at some points and can I get a graph on it but I feel confident that I think we are spending our tax, or our citizens money wisely and we are watching that bottom line and we’re providing high quality services… 20 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Thanks Mr. Mayor. I said in my editorial about the political grandstanding, all that aside I guess this is where we get to grandstand, right? I would echo comments before again and there is a lot of numbers. There’s a lot of stuff in there that can be difficult to grasp but Greg, you did a nice job of adapting, trying to lay that out in, you feel like Chris Berman up there in the fastest 3 minutes I guess in finance but you know the important things I think for people to realize, short of the numbers, which you can dive into if you want and Greg and staff, or that would help you get into that is that the general fund, the budget there is increasing. Those are things, salaries, natural gas that it costs to heat the library and the rec center and some of that stuff. You know sheriff’s contract. All of those things that it takes to run the city every day are going up. Our employees are going to get raises. We’re going to continue to do programming and all of those things, and those things do take more money year after year but the important thing is, that we kept an eye on the actual bottom line and offset that with other decreases in other areas. So back to what Councilman Peterson said is, you know you can juggle it from one spot to another but the amazing thing is that we continue that record of tax flat or reduction and over that time have been able to do it, employees getting raises. Continue to improve those programs. We’re still plowing the streets. We’re building a water treatment center. We’re opening up new developments. We’re doing all those things and yet we’re not taking more money to do that, so either that’s I think the way that if you look at that as a whole, where you can give in one area, you have to take in some other areas and you have to look at that thing as a whole and provide the best services that we can. And as I said in that letter again, Todd you and your staff, you know it’s not an easy task always but we’ve made it 3 years in a row so it’s good to be there and this year with the actual levy decreases, it’s pretty impressive too. Put us up against the list of cities in the state, in the metro area, anywhere, you’re not going to find a lot of matches so it’s, this is an easy one to go forward with so again thanks for everyone’s participation and hopefully as taxpayers and residents that that’s what you’re looking for in that is to provide the same services at the same or less money year after year. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I won’t repeat the comments. When you’re up here you always listen to the comments of the other council members and try to count your votes. So far I think there are 3 in favor of a decreased levy so, it looks the direction we’re going but I think it, I say that somewhat in jest. Councilman Lundquist I think did a good job with an editorial in the paper commenting about some of the issues. As a council we, for the last 3 years had been directing staff to focus on property taxes paid by the average homeowner and focusing on not increasing that amount. And to Councilman Peterson’s point, we’ve been able to do that with staff’s support and I say that very clearly that it’s not those of us up here getting the job done. It’s us working together and so to Todd and Greg and all the direct reports, I appreciate your efforts because as much as we say here’s the direction we want to go, all of you have been willing to stand up and say okay, here’s how we’re going to get there and that’s very much appreciated. Councilman Peterson said you know it’s easy to do something one year and then worry about next year next year. Here over the last 3 years we’ve seen the average assessed value of a home increase between 25 and 30 percent in the city of Chanhassen, and during that same time the property taxes paid, dollar for dollar on that same home have gone down. And yet as Councilman Lundquist said, and I won’t repeat it, went through the fact that we’re not doing it by not giving staff increases. We’re not doing it by cutting out services. In fact we’re, we 21 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 continue to grow and demand for city services continue to increase. We’re investing in our city, in our parks and in our streets. We’re continuing to develop and grow and we’re taking the benefit of that growth to support the increase where it is within the operating budget. I agree with Councilman Peterson. This is a record that we can all be proud of and we should be. As importantly, what we’ve done over the last few years is focus on long range planning and putting together long term projections, both for operating budgets as well as capital investments as well as our utility funds and in doing so we can take comfort in knowing that the decisions we’re making now are not jeopardizing a future council with decisions. One of the things that we emphasized is if we’re going to save money today, what’s that going to mean for tomorrow or next year or 5 years from now, and looking out and making sure that we can identify that we’re not putting the city in an unfair or disadvantaged financial situation because we’re holding the line today. I’m comfortable that we’re not and that’s why it’s easy to vote for these budgets that are coming through because we’re not delaying or creating a problem down the road, and that’s just as important as achieving today’s objectives so, to my fellow council members as well as to Mr. Gerhardt and his staff, thank you for all your efforts in getting this budget and putting this where it is from a levy standpoint. Looking for opportunities and continuing to focus on sound financial management for the city. It’s very much appreciated. Any other comments or discussion? Councilman Lundquist: I move that we approve the budget and CIP as published. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just before you say something I’ve got to, I’m next in line here so. I want to thank my staff for the job that they did. It was, you know we start this budget process in July and we sit down and we talk about the coming year and this budget is one of not cuts. It has overall increased from last year’s budget but from a levy standpoint we’re operating on new growth. That doesn’t mean an increase in your market value of existing homes. It’s new homes that have come into Chanhassen. We’ve got additional streets to plow. We have additional parks to maintain and we have more residents to talk to on a day to day basis. So this is a growing community and we’re, I think the Mayor kind of took my thunder on that, is that this isn’t a long time budget decrease. We have a plan. We’ve had a plan for the last 3 years. From a budget standpoint we looked out 5 years and we also look at our debt and this city has had a lot of debt over the years and we’re watching that debt and we’re managing it. We’re also planning for other new and exciting things in the community. We’re going to need to expand buildings, public works, fire stations. We’re going to have to add more parkland and we’re planning for that. I just want the community to feel comfortable that we’re looking down the line and that we do have vision to see what the future of Chanhassen is and that we are planning for that. Again this budget takes into account replacement of equipment. We’re re-building our streets. We have money in that to do either sealcoats, mill and overlays and total street reconstruction so, there’s a lot that goes into planning this budget and getting it to this point and I want to thank my 22 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 staff. I want to thank the council for your direction and support in that and look forward to next year’s process. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not there’s been a motion to adopt the budget and levy. It’s been seconded. There’s no other discussion we’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-104: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the 2006 budget and levy certification to the Carver County Auditor, and Resolution#2005-105: to adopt the 2006-2010 CIP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONTINUATION OF THE GALPIN CROSSING APPLICATION. Mayor Furlong: Where are we on the agenda? Councilman Peterson: The point I left is the discussion of the vote for the Galpin Crossing. Mayor Furlong: Galpin Crossing, okay. So we’ll bring that up now? Have we had a staff report and was it tabled? Councilman Peterson: Yes, it was tabled. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Has the applicant presented? Where are we in the process there? Just council discussions? Councilman Peterson: Council discussions and voting for or against. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s start with discussion then on the, by the council. Has that already taken place as well? Councilman Peterson: No, it hasn’t. I’d be happy to go first Mr. Mayor. I think that I agree with staff’s recommendations on housing on the north side and I think that their ideas of gathering, you know lowering the number of buildings on the south side I think would be prudent to do. I think you would provide some better pedestrian flow and better look and feel. I mean that’s a pretty visible intersection for us and I think that that being said, I think a smaller number of buildings might be more appropriate and I think that as we move ahead with this concept, I’ll voice my opinion that as I said earlier, that because this is a highly visible area of our city that I think, I certainly will and I hope the rest of the council will too, is, as we have in other areas of Highway 5 corridor, hold a pretty high standard for what goes in there. As far as architecture, as far as just general look and feel and functionality and needing that area so. I would certainly consider to move ahead with this and adhere to staff’s recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I also am willing to go ahead with this. I look forward to seeing what the retail market study says about it. I’m hoping that it’s the right thing so we can use of 23 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 our office industrial land that we need to make up right there, it’d be a good spot for it. On Highway 5 and because it’s a PUD I’m hoping too that we can hold it to some of those standards that we discussed at our work session. Councilman Peterson brought that up you know to probably push them to rather make it something that stands out and we can be proud. Right now I guess that’s nothing at this point. We’re just here to discuss the whole concept so I’m in support of allowing the traffic study and… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Echo that I’m in support of it in concept. Over rely on Kate and staff as you work through this to fine tune. We haven’t gone through some of the recent ones, the Town and Country and some of those things, I think you get a feel or flare for where we’re at and the standards that will put this against so I think there’s a lot of work yet to do on it but certainly in favor of future and then will also look to see what that retail market study says as well. That would be a good bit of information and I guess we’ll have to find another A number one sign location for campaign signs now. They don’t get much better than that so, but no. It’s a good point. Good spot so let’s put a good development on it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts and from the comments that I’ve heard here from the council it doesn’t appear to be any significant changes between what was presented here this evening and the staff report, and I think for that reason I’m comfortable the issues that concern me have already been raised by the other council members so I’m comfortable that staff will work with the developer to ensure that those are addressed. I think that overall this is good use for this property as recommended by staff and am in favor of the concept plan subject to the recommendations that I’ve heard here this evening as well as those contained in the staff report. Fortunately with the concept and with the benefit of the PUD, I think that gives us the ability to really get a development that we will all be proud of. What page does the, are there any additional comments on this? Kate Aanenson: The conditions start on page 9. And the motion. Bottom of the page. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that City Council approves Concept PUD for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review and conditions 1 through 33. As published in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I’ll proceed with the vote. 24 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1.Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2.The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3.Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4.The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5.Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6.Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7.The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9.A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10.A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11.The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12.Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge 25 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13.This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14.A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15.The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16.The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17.The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20.All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21.The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22.The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23.The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24.The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. ? Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. ? 26 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. ? Parcel B No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. ? Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. ? Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and ? bufferyard plantings. Meet parking lot landscape requirements. ? Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. ? Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. ? 25.Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26.The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28.A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29.The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31.The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32.A traffic study be completed for the proposed development.” 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CITY MANAGER’S PERFORMANCE REVIEW: ANNOUNCE RESULTS. Mayor Furlong: Item number 6 on the agenda refers to the City Manager’s performance review. th The City Council met in executive session on Monday, December 5 and again this evening discussing Mr. Gerhardt’s performance and compensation as our city manager. Following is a summary of those discussions. Mr. Gerhardt has completed another excellent year of work… 27 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 personal goals and those of the City Council and together with this staff and the City Council coordinated and executed on a number of strategic initiatives for our city. Some of the major accomplishments this year include the advancement of the City’s 2005 Municipal Utility Service Area in accordance with our comprehensive plan through an inclusive process with property owners and developers. Completed a review of the city’s public safety needs and police contracting services with Carver County Sheriff’s Department. We broke ground on the city’s first fresh water treatment plant, construction of which will be completed next year. Preserved a location for a future water treatment plant on the west side of our city necessary to support our growth. Completed a planned 2005 street and trail improvement projects, including the redesign of Lake Lucy Road and trail between Powers Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. And the city trail along Minnewashta Parkway. Worked with MnDot on the design and beginning construction of new Highway 212. Completed a multi-year playground equipment reinvestment program in many of our community and neighborhood parks. Completed a city wide citizen survey. Improved and maintained our city’s financial position and outlook by adhering to a comprehensive 5 year financial budget, debt service and property tax plan the results of which were demonstrated earlier this evening with the approval of our 2006 budget and declining tax levy. And earlier this year was exemplified by Standard and Poors reaffirmation of their AA- credit rating for the city, a rating that only the top 5 percent of cities receive. The list of accomplishments are too numerous to state here but it is clear that Mr. Gerhardt’s leadership, strategic initiative and overall job performance have helped to make the City of Chanhassen a better place for all of us to live and work. In consideration of his performance the City Council discussed increasing Mr. Gerhardt’s total compensation in 2006 by 6% above that which he received in 2005 and changing his compensation to a salary only base plan consistent with other municipalities. At this time I would move that the City Council approve the changes to Mr. Gerhardt’s compensation for 2006 as we discussed in executive session and as I have summarized here, and I would ask for a second from council. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve increasing the City Manager’s total compensation in 2006 by 6% above that which he received in 2005 and changing his compensation to a salary only base plan consistent with other municipalities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, the City of Chanhassen is proud to have you as our city manager and we thank you for your continued service and commitment to the City of Chanhassen. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Well I’d like to thank City Council. I’ve had a little bit of help too upstairs and out at the public works. I’ve got a great staff and it’s been a fun year working with the council. We did accomplish a lot of projects and look forward to next year. Excited to get the water treatment plant up and running. Starting to install utilities in the 2005 MUSA area and starting a 28 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 new chapter, new growth area in the Lyman/Audubon area. Again, thank you for your support and look forward to 2006. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Would any council members like to make any additional comments at this time? Very good. I’d like to thank Councilman Lundquist for coordinating our efforts with regard to this year’s review for the city manager. Appreciate your efforts. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I’d like to distribute for the council here, and I have some extra copies. Doing this humbly but nonetheless as information. Earlier this week I received a letter from the Governor’s office appointing me to serve on a new advisory committee for the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee. This was a committee that was established in 2005 by the legislature to look at drinking water, fresh water supply from a planning process throughout the metropolitan area. In addition this council, or on this committee will be chaired by Peter Bell who is the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council. Also there will be the commissioners from Agriculture, Health, Departments of Health, Natural Resources, and Pollution Control Agency. The way the law was written they were looking for 5 or 7 county and city representatives. 5 from the cities and one from each of the 7 county metro area and it will be my honor to serve, not only representing the City of Chanhassen but also Carver County on this board. So it should be a lot of fun. I think with the work that we’ve done in our city with regard to water treatment over the last few years, a number of the cities, well cities find their own balance with regard to how they want to pursue their drinking water needs and we went through that process ourselves and I think that will be something that I hope this body will look at as well when it’s looking at planning the water resources for our 7 county metro area. So this will be one of the ways that we can serve as well so I wanted to share that information with the council. Do we have your, any questions on that or not? I’ll try to keep the council up to date with the progress there as well. Did we already deal with administration? Is there anything else to come before the council this evening? Councilman Lundquist: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. Mayor Furlong: Exactly. This is our last meeting of this current year so we wish everybody a happy holidays, Merry Christmas. Good New Year. We’ll meet again the second Tuesday of January as a council and immediately following this meeting the Economic Development Authority will meet right here in the council chambers. That is open to the public so anybody’s welcome to stay or come and join us as well. Is there anything else to come before the council this evening? If not I would ask that my, I’d be happy to hit the gavel. Is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 29