Loading...
CC Minutes 1994 02 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Mason, Councilman Wing, Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Chmiel STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Scott Harr and Steve Kirchman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Wing wanted to discuss HRA communications and their decision on Pauly's, and the February Festival; Councilman Senn wanted to discuss Ixash; Acting Mayor Mason wanted to discuss the article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding affordable housing and suburban zoning, and the letter to Minnetonka School District. Don Ashworth wanted to discuss under Administrative Presentations the Planning Director. All voted in favor and the motion carded. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve School Zoning Designation for Traffic Control Sign on West 78th Stxeet at St. Hubert's School. c. Authorization to Seek Proposals for the 1994-96 Audit Conlract. d. Approval of Accounts. e. City Council Minutes dated February 7, 1994 City Council Minutes dated February 14, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 25, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated February 10, 1994 All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD (FROM GALPIN BOULEVARD/CSAH 19 TO MCGLYNN DRIVE) AND GALPIN BOULEVARD/CSAH 19 (FROM TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 SOUTH TO TIMBERWOOD DRIVE). PROJECT 93-26 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 14. 1994). City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Public Present: Name Address John Dietrich Lee Horvland James Unmh RLK Associates 8004 Norway Drive, Eden Prairie Barton-Aschman Associates Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. It's my understanding that the previous public hearing it was continued to allow some perspective developers and their...representafives to meet with staff. Discuss some of the specifics which are associated with the...Staff has had the time during the past 2 weeks, we have discussed many of these issues with the developers involved. To this point, the document presented to you tonight, the amendment includes all the latest revisions and changes from those discussions and basically at this point we would open up for public comment, if there is comment. Tonight we also have the project engineer from Barton-Aschman here and he will respond to any questions that come up. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. At this time I would like to, the public hearing is open. If there are any people in the audience that have a comment, would you please step forward to the mic, give you name and address and start talking. John Dietrich: Good evening Council. John Dietrich, RLK Associates representing the Hi-Way 5 Partnership. My only comment, based on discussions with the clients is the assessments for the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain are based on, in the preliminary assessment roll are based on projected land use from a conceptual standpoint that has not been submitted or run through the city...process. If those land uses change based on the preliminary assessment roll, that they would be assessed according to the land use which is finally approved within... Acting Mayor Mason: That's correct. Right Charles? Charles Folch: That's correct. Lee Horvland: Hi. Lee Horvland, 8004 Norway Drive, Eden Prairie and I'm with...panners that just purchased land on Highway 5. We are now the proud owners of the site right next to the school. We have, because we started out with this project industrial and we were discovering there was some preference for housing on this site. Directly adjacent to the school. And we're getting into the process a little bit late. Kind of the last stages here and we certainly want to see the next stage...We do have some concerns about the cost of assessments, particularly since we're looking at housing versus what we thought we had which was industrial. And I guess we would expect to be able to demonstrate that there is some need for tax increment financing to offset some of the cost of this assessment. We also have a further issue with a power line that goes through the site from the north to south direction and for industrial this certainly is no problem. For housing we consider it to be...and we would also look at some tax increment financing for the cost of moving that power line to one of a couple ~t..ernative locations. I'm not sure if the ponding issue is on the table yet or pan of this. Again, I'm coming into this a little bit late but we have preliminarily, we feel that we've got an opportunity on our site to be able to handle the ponding... Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Don Ashworth: Do we have any response at this time to any of the points that she raised? Charles Folch: I guess staff has not received any information...provide us with some new information on what the subdivision was that occurred in terms... Kate Aanenson: Charles, maybe I can comment on that. We originally had this plat, this property came in as one large subdivision. Ryan was going to do it and there was two property owners involved. There was a third person that had an option which...They're all over 20 acres and they all split off. Instead of going as one large project, which we were hoping they would do, we felt as one large project we could get this pond to serve the school site. It would also benefit the other properties. We told the, we...that we were concerned about that because we feel like as part of our storm water management plan the pond...serving all these developments makes a lot of sense...So now they're all going somewhere different. The power line issues, we've stated from the beginning, the developer hasn't formally submitted plans to...ff you can visualize where the school is. Across the creek, the f~t piece of property is what they're talking about. And then the piece between the next segment of the Creek and McGlynn's is where Ryan will be building the industrial park. Then the property south of the frontage road going all the way down along Timberwood, what they're looking at doing a single family. That will be up before the Planning Commission in the middle of March. James Unmh: I believe this is the parcel right here that we're talking about. Kate Aanenson: Right. So there is a major power line that runs through that and they would have to have that relocated. I think that's probably where the tax increment money comes in and they wanted it closer to Bluff Creek. That's a concern of staff because we're trying to move forward with some improvements to the Bluff Creek...and industrial's not such a big issue but obviously...So I'm not sure that issue's resolved. We've stated that we're not going to participate in the moving of the lines from the city so...tax increment. So that's the background on that. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. I think we'll probably be discussing that after we close the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to address the Council at this time? If not, I'd like a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Acting Mayor Mason: Does anyone have any comments? Questions? Concerns. Councilman Senn: A couple questions. What's the underlying guiding? Kate Aanenson: Well, when the Comp Plan was put together there was a vision that said if the school site was to go in, then there was a-..industrial and multi-family. Paul may have indicated that there was desire for multi- family next to the school although they're looking at significantly higher density so I'm not sure that that's even p~:able to the neighbors at this point other .than they've got to see some...So that's what they were looking at. Councilman Senn: It almost sounds like we're at a stage where we're talking about an issue before it's an issue then? 3 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Well, again that's what they're going forward with so it's a concern to them. If they're going to go forward with multi-family and the assessments. So I guess they're hopeful that that's what they can get. You may not be looking at that because they have to get a rezoning. That may be something you don't want to do... Acting Mayor Mason: Anything else? Councilman Senn: Well as far as questions go, no. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Charles, have we figured out the assessments for those single family homes along Galpin? Whether they're being, whether they get the sewer and water from the Stone Creek line that runs up or whether they're going to get. Charles Folch: Actually you're correct. They're a pending assessment on the Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Utility Project which began last Fall. So they're not pan of this project at all? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Charles Folch: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So they've been taken off this. Councilman Wing: Other questions of assessments, the road is mapped. I don't have any problem. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, and I think there will be an assessment hearing when all is said and done, if I'm not mistaken. Don Ashworth: That's correct. If I may. ! just talked with Charles a little bit and Todd. The area of the property that, I think it was Lee who just testified, would stay as industrial. The collector road through their property would be industrial and they potentially could look to tax increment under existing policies for a reduction of the assessments in that area. I think the area that they're looking at, as far as residential, is to the south of the frontage road, right? Kate Aanenson: No, this group was also looking at putting multi-family. Changing the zoning. That's what Mark was asking. Councilman Senn: Yeah, because that was the one where I saw the proposed, I think there was a proposal to move the multi-family right up to the highway. Kate Aanenson: Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt: Don Ashworth: That was a change in the Comp Plan. They want to do multi-family. But multi-family v. ~ '~:1 generate some increment. Single family would generate zero. You'd have to crea, ~ special housing district. Well this is already a district though. 4 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Todd Gerhardt: You'd have to create a housing district...economic. Councilman Senn: You can't use economic development. Don Ashworth: Oh okay. Well I was hoping them was a little easier answer but I guess there's not. Acting Mayor Mason: Well Council. I think there are some questions that will be addressed at the assessment hearings. I guess I would agree with Councilman Wing that the road is mapped out and it needs to be done. I think at least in my opinion. Councilman Wing: Well, hearing no comment I would move to approve the feasibility study for the trunk highway south frontage road and it's project what? 93-26. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Acting Mayor Mason: It's been moved and seconded to accept the feasibility report for project 93-26. Any further discussion? Resolution g94.26: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the feasibility study for Trunk Highway 5 South Frontage Road (from Gaipin Boulevard to Audubon Road) and Galpin Boulevard/CSAH 19 (from Timberwood Drive to Trunk Highway 5), Storm Drainage and Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93.26 dated January, 1994 and it's amendment dated February 23, 1994 and that Barton-Aschman be authorized with preparation of the project plans and specification documents. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Now what's the next, where do we move from here Don? Don Ashworth: Well I was just going to, the actual action that the Council was taking was to order the public improvement project. Charles Folch: Basically in two parts, right. Approving the feasibility study and then the Council, as Don mentioned, ordering the preparation of plans and specs with the consulting engineer. Councilman Wing: That's correct. I have to add that to the motion. Authorize to proceed with preparation of the project plans and specification documents. Acting Mayor Mason: That okay to do it that way? Roger Knutson: Yeah. What you're doing is you're ordering the project in accordance with the plans, according to the feasibility report and you're ordering preparation of plans and specifications. Two actions. Acting Mayor-Mason: DO we n:~l to revote then? Roger Knutson: I've interpretted your motion to say that. 5 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: A/right. What I did was to move to accept the feasibility study, which we've done, and my motion then would be to accept, move ahead on the improvement project 93-26 and proceed with preparation of the project plans and specifications. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second agrees. Acting Mayor Mason: Second agrees. We're all in favor. Alright, good enough. Thank you. Councilman Senn: Mike, before we leave that item, could I just ask Charles a question? Charles in your letter to John Dietrich, where you get into ~_alking about basically being 6 years out ahead in terms of planning on State Aid allocations and stuff like that. Could you kind of share that specific program? Not tonight but you know with us. I guess I haven't seen the detail on that, or if I have I didn't see it. Charles Folch: In fact I would guess within 30 days...at this time of year that we go through and basically revise and update all the data sheets on our State Aid routes and that information comes back to Council to approve...so I'll put together a staff report outlining all that information. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCESSIBILITY PLAN. Todd Gerhardt: I'd just like to update the City Council. We held a public hearing to take citizen comments on February 15th at 7:30 here at the Council chambers and unformnately...attend that meeting so it's staff recommendation to the City Council that you approve the ADA plan as outlined. Julee is here to answer any questions. I know you, some of you still have some concerns regarding it. That you'd like another update from Julee on sort of the process and how we go through this, she's prepared to answer those questions. We would like to see you adopt the plan tonight...further review this, you can do that too. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, but if I could just make a comment first here. It's my understanding that approving this plan does not mean that we have to implement anything right now. Is that correct? It's an as needed basis? Todd Gerhardt: There are some priority lists within the plan that staff would start working on. Some of the signage, striping of parking lots to the width of the van accessibility needs to be done. There are a few other priorities and there's number one...off the top of my head that our staff would like to start working on. Signage...and some of those. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's the threshhold, the dollar threshhold that it would come to us for approval? Todd Gerhardt: Well any of the major improvements that we would have to do would come back. We're not looking at you know putting plans and specifications together for a total of $80,0130.00. We're going to try to deliver this within our own budget here at City Hall and public works and park and rec. However we may come back to you with some of the trail accessibility priorities in there ,{ough Block Grant funds. So any major, what I'll say is over you know $1,500.00, $1,000.00, we'd come ~ ,ck to you for approval on. But some of these priorities we feel the Block Grant monies can take care of and those are just Wail extensions in the park to some of our park equipment... City Cotmci/Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: I think there's a lot of good points that were brought up on the plan and I've worked a lot with this stuff in the past and I get a little leery of just simply adopting that plan as it sits now and the reason I get leery is that it creates sometimes a, I'm going to say a false sense of action. Or creates anticipations that by adopting the plan that all of those things are going to be done. Whereas I'm not even sure that it makes sense to do some of them. You know I'd really rather see us take a closer look at it and sort of a few more things as it relates to priorities. I don't think we need to take lime necessarily to do that tonight and there might be a better forum to do that but I get real concerned that we just simply accept the plan aa it is right now. A lot of people are going to kind of assume that well geez, that's a done deal. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. We do have that list of priorities too, which I think will help that along. Councilman Senn: Well it helps it along but again, whether it's priority 1 or priority 4, I think by adopting the plan we're kind of indicating that we're moving towards action on them. Julee Quarve-Peterson: I think possibly what you may wish to do here would be to await the training which is scheduled for the 16th of March where I will be coming in for the day for two sessions where staff will have the opportunity to get some...and then the transition plan would maybe be a better point where you feel more comfortable with adopting that portion where staff has had more opportunities to look at each one of those priorities. Cost them out. Determine who would be the responsible department and budget. That would be another alternative way of getting more time and research so that you are doing things that you're more comfortable with. Councilman Senn: I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that. Julee Quarve-Peterson: Staff might be able to identify and further support the idea that, Todd talked about where much of this work can be incorporated into pan of the yearly plans that either Park and Recreation are doing already and they can identify those dollars so that again we can track exactly where it's going. Todd Gerhardt: To answer a few of the questions that were brought up at the last meeting. There was discussions regarding the amount needed to have..xamp in place when need be. And you could use it here. We could use it at Old Village Hall. We could use it out at Lake Ann Park or Lake Susan Park and it had a variety of other uses that went along with it. And the total cost of that was approximately $600.00 to $700.00. Some of the other items, you know a lot of them, even the list that's in here, Todd has already updated some of those as he upgrades his park equipment. And a lot of the bigger items here for City Hall, ff we should ever put the addition onto City Hall, would be upgraded when that would occur. But I agree with Julee that maybe during, with the staff's training session that we do go over that...and come back with a schedule... Acting Mayor Mason: Sounds reasonable. Councilman Senn: Should I just move that we table it until the transition phase is completed or comes back for review? Acting Mayor Mason: Do you need that action tonight? Todd Gerhardt: If you want to make a motion, that's frae. Or staff will just follow through with that and put it on a future agenda. City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: I don't know, what's necessary because we held a public hearing tonight. Anything? Acting Mayor Mason: We haven't even closed the public hearing. We're not at that point yet are we? We still have a public hearing here, sorry. Roger Knutson: For future generations to follow what happened here tonight, I would think it's a good idea to take action like tabling it. Closing the hearing. So when you look at the record, you know what happened. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. I'll see if anyone else has any comments and then we'll take it from there. Okay. Do you want to say anything more now? Julee Quarve-Peterson: No. ! think that unless you've got some specific questions, I really think that the training is going to give a lot of guidance to this...and really provide some support to use with that information. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, good. Thanks. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this report at this time? Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Senn: Can I move that we table this item until the transition report is completed and returned to us for review? Acting Mayor Mason: You certainly may. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Plan until the transition report is completed and returned to City Council for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ANDREW HISCOX, 7500 ERIE AVENUE, PROPERTY ZONED RSF: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT PART OF LOTS 14, 15 AND ALL OF LOT 16, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 2 INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. VACATION OF A 33 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY EASEMENT ALONG THE EASTERN LOT LINE OF LOT 15, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 2. Bob Generous: Mayor and Council members. Kate and Andrew Hiscox are requesting a replat of parts of Lots 14, 15 and 16, Auditor's Subdivision No. and all of Lot 7, Block 4, South Lotus Lake Addition. Currently there are two home sites that exist at the end of the Erie Avenue cul-de-sac and they are creating a thir? ~ot or building site inbetween the two at the end of that cul-de-sac. It's in the southwest comer of LOL ~ Lake. The subdivision's relatively straight forward. It meets all the conditions of the Code requirements. There is, they want to put one additional home at the top of the hill between the two existing homes. One would be, ..The roadway right-of-way is along the east line of Lots 16 and 15 and it runs from the end of the cul-de-sac down to the, right down the steep hill to the wooded area. The city had never used that property for a ro:,d easement so City Council Meeting. February 28, 1994 that's part of the mason for the request. The site is supplied with all city services. Staff is recommending approval of both the preliminary and final plat for this subdivision subject to the conditions in our staff report. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, before we ask questions. Are the applicants here this evening? Do you have anything you'd like to add or say? Andrew Hiscox: My name is Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. I'd just like to say that we've been working on this project for about 7 years now and we feel we're almost there. We hope you agree. We think we've done our best if you will, to get this thing resolved. We've spent a lot of money, a lot of time, clearing up the title issues. It's a very clean piece of property now. In fact I think it might be the cleanest piece of property in the county. So I guess we'd just like, we'd hope that the Council would agree with us and wants to go forward with this. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on the proposed subdivision? ff not, I'll ask to close the public hearing. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Acting Mayor Mason: Council, questions, comments, concerns? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I tried to take a look at the property. I had a dickens of a time frying to fred it. It's interesting topography and my only concern is that we do get a tree removal plan and protect the trees on top of the hill. Other than that I have no problem with it. Councilman Wing: On that Lot 1, how do you know where to mow and when you're on your property and when you're not? Is that as awkward looking as it looks? Andrew Hiscox: No. Going down the hill... Acting Mayor Mason: You won't be mowing the hill. Councilman Senn: This does take the championship though for the most irregularly shaped lot. Acting Mayor Mason: It's right up there. Councilman Senn: I have a question I guess of staff. As far as the road easement goes, do you know what the history is on the road easement? Bob Generous: Yes. It was recorded as part of the Auditor's Subdivision I believe. I don't know why the city would ever want to use it. It goes from the end of the cul-de-sac down into the lake. Councilman Senn: It's nothing we ever acquired on this? Bob Generous: No. This was dedicated. City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Well, since there's nobody here disapproving this or complaining about it, I would move staff recommendations with number 1 t from the Planning Commission. Acting Mayor Mason: That's considering the torrens? Councilman Wing: Torrens. I would move approval accordingly. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Of the preliminary plat and vacation? Councilman Wing: Excuse me. Preliminary plat and vacation. Acting Mayor Mason: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second. Resolution g94-27: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat (Case g87-31 SUB) of 2.8 acres of land and the vacation of the 33 foot wide road casement to create three (3) single family lots subject to the following conditions: The driveway access to Lot 2 should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Drainage swales should be constructed to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed buidiing to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel, 2. Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to construction and maintained until the site is fully revegetated. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection hook-up fees, the city will extend the sewer and water service to the southerly property line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to. 4. An existing overhead power line should be relocated underground along the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedicated drainage and utility easement. Final plat shall dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing 15 foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. The final plat shall dedicate 5 foot wide side yard and 10 foot front and rear drainage and utility easements on each lot. The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. Additionally, a development contract containing these conditions shall be entered into between the developer and the city and be recorded with the final plat. 7, A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, are permitted water oriented accessory structures is permitted below the 958 contour. 10 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 9. The house pad shall be limited to an area above the 958 contour. 10. Park and trail fees are required of this development. One-third (1/3) of such fees shall be payable at the time of final platting, park and trail fees shall be payable at the time of building permit application at the ratein force at that time, less any fees paid at the time of platling. I 1. The torrens proceedings must be completed and be resolved based on the leeal descril~fion used for this subdivision prior to submission of the mylars for signatures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: REFUNDING BONDS OF 1994. Dave MacGilliwary: Good evening. We'd like your consideration of four different resolutions. I brought one copy and Don has those. The four resolutions are the...sale of $5,570,000.00 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, 1994A, $1,665,000.00 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds 1994B, $1,170,000.00 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, 1994C, and $525,000.00 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds 1994D. Now the purpose of the refunding, on the 94A issue, the fa-st one. The largest one...On the 94B through D the objective is to extend the term of the debt so as it extend the period over which you can collect tax increment monies...projects. An additional benefit would be a reduction in interest cost. We took bids at I1:00 in our office with Mr. Ashworth. In general, if you've been following things... Councilman Senn: Okay, I lost you there. The 5570 was to reduce interest. Dave MacGillivrary: 94A. Councilman Senn: 94A is to reduce interest. Okay. 94B. Dave MacGilliwary: 94B through D is to extend the term of the issues so as to extend the term over which you can collect...projects other than county road funding program. An additional benefit would also be to reduce interest cost. We have reduced interest cost in this case. Councilwoman Dockendoff: From what to what? Dave MacGilliwary: That's what we'll be going through. We took bids at 11:00 in our office. In general, a general commcm if you've been following interest rates in thc last couple weeks have moved up. I think you'll show they've also moved up on the investment side and the results here are basically at or better than the...The f'ust issue is the 94A issue. The $5,570,000.00...the lowest bid was from Norwest Investment Services. Does everybody got that sheet? Okay, and the best bid, Norwest, 4.4093%. The estimate, had you sold it in the middle of January, about 4.3%. But because of the reinvestment, because these go into an escrow account, they're...The actual savings net of all costs is $379,000.00 and based on the January sitnafion, the results would have been $360,000.00, so around $11,000.00... These bonds are all standing at a rate of 6.3 so we're reducing it by about 2% and saving $371,000.00 over time. For those of you that care about present value, what's that worth today, that's really $5,000.00 net of all cost. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And again that's just strictly right from your financing? No change in the tenn, 11 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Dave MacGilliwary: Right. The second issue is the 94B issue. $1,665,000.00. The city received 5 bids. The lowest was Norwest once again. 4.2865%. Three of these bids were from Chicago, one from Wisconsin and one from the Twin Cities. The'estimate in the middle of January was slightly over 4.1%. The actual savings net of all costs approximately $60,000.00. Present value in today's dollars, $52500.00. 94C. $1,170,000.00. This is a taxable general obligation issue meaning that the interest is not exempt from federal and state taxation. The city received...bids on this. The lowest bid was from Miller-Johnson. A Twin Cities fh'm at a rote of 6.1158. 6.1138. Estimate was about 5.8%. The actual savings were $39,400.00. The last issue, the smallest one, 94D. The city received one bid from Norwest. The rote was 4.5862%. The savings, we were at $17,600.00 net of all costs. Those bonds are outstanding at about 6.7 so you cut about 2% from the...If you put them all together, your total actual savings net of all costs is $487,600.00. That's over time...present value at $409,000.00. Anything else I had was on Moody's reviewed your credit rating once again as they always do. Confh'med the BAAl. They had basically three comments. One, debt levels are characteristic of growing suburbs on the earning debt as well as what's going on with the School District, County, etc. Somewhat similar comments you get...growing suburb situation. Two, they note the healthy level of your general fund balances. The fund balance of the general fund...So with that I'll be glad to... Councilman Senn: Now you said the overall savings is $487 net of cost. Dave MacGilliwary: Right. Councilman Senn:. Okay. What's the total cost? Dave MacGilliwary: Total cost. I have to add those up for the three issues. I can give you our fee. I've got our fee there. Councilman Senn: I want all costs, including your fees. Everything. Dave MacGilliwary: Just a minute. About $115,000.00. That's us, bond counsel, Moody's, there's a registrar, escrow agent, CPA fu-m, official statement printing, bond printing. Those sorts of things. Councilman Senn: And how are those broken down between them? Dave MacGilliwary: Our's is about $65,000.00, bond counsel. I'd have to go through hem. Councilman Senn: I mean between the different issues, how are they broken down? In terms of total cost. Dave MacGilliwary: Oh okay. 94-A, $48,000.00. 94-B, $25,000.00. 94-C, $26,000.00. 94-D, $16,000.00. Councilman Senn: Okay. In terms of the three that you're ~__a!king about as it relates, or I don't know. Maybe this is a question better for Don. Don, is it better for you to outline or for Dave to outline? Basically each one of these issues covers what area and what projects? Don Ashworth: Oh wow. Councilman Senn: That wasn't anywhere in our packet. Dave MacGillivrary: I have some of that. However...most of them are from 1988 and '89. 12 City ~otmcil Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: While he's looking now, did you have the original terms of these? Dave MacGilliwary: Terms relative to interest rate? Councilman Senn: Well the three that we're extending out here? More or less, what was the original term. When did they start and what was the term? Dave MacGilliwary: The 94-B issue was issued in 1988 and it had nm through November 1st of 2002. And now it will go to November 1st of 2004. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sorry Dave. The purpose of extending these is to get the lower rate? Dave MacGilliwary: No. The purpose of extending them I believe is part of the County review of funding a County road improvement project in terms of there's an additional $6 million that's available for the city to accelerate those projects and move them up about a decade or something. I don't know, Don would have to correct me or someone else but we're out there beyond 2000 and I think by moving them up now to the mid 1990's and there's a local share and the city has to come up with the money in order to move those projects up and by doing this, you have access to approximately $6 million more of tax increment money to accelerate these county road projects. There may be somebody on staff. Councilman Senn: You finished on 94-C. What's that now? Dave MacOillivrary: 94-C was issued in 1988. It's original term was due on November 1st of 2000. It would now go through November 1st of 2003. 94-D was issued in 1988. Original term went to November 1st of 2001 and it would now go through November 1st of 2003. So I think in each case it would extend issue term 2 additional years. Councilman Senn: Okay, and there's no extension on the other one then? Dave MacOillivrary: 94-A, no. That's the same term and structured the savings to be equal over each year. So no term extension would equal reduction in interest cost of each year of the program. Councilman Senn: Don, maybe I could rephrase my question to you then. Okay, is all of the additional increment being created by all of these bond issues strictly going into the county road improvement fund? Soley? Completely? Unequivicably? 100%? Don Ashworth: As it would deal with the extension, yes. As it would deal with the extension into the 2001, 2, and 3 time frame, those dollars would be 100% county roads because during that time flame you cannot use those for what I'll call any local projects. The first issue acn_,ally frees up the $370,000.00 and my problem with that one is general obligation improvement refunding bonds. So that, you said '88 was. Dave MacOilliwary: ...special assessment issues. Don Ashworth: Okay, and you said it was improvement bonds of '88. Do you know if it was 88-B or Series 2? I also have improvement bonds. Improvement bonds of '88 were Kerber, Church and something Meadows. Minnewashta Meadows. Those were the projects financed by that one. 13 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. I don't really need that detail any longer. I was just kind of wondering where it was going to. What is, let's say you put these properties back on the tax rolls as they were slated to be in 2001 or in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Okay. Let's assume that those properties then produce the taxes which they would be which would be going in and split up between the county, the school district and the city. Okay, what's the net difference between the taxes raised under that basis and keeping them off the tax rolls longer on this basis? Don Ashworth: You'd have significant more dollars available to you under this basis than you would under that one. It all comes back into the loss of fiscal disparities which is about 30, between 36% and 37% for our city. Councilman Senn: But that's assuming fiscal disparities is still on the same terms out in 2000 to 2003, does it not? Don Ashworth: That's correct, it does. It makes that assumption. Councilman Senn: And if fiscal disparities changes as a result of a lot of the discussion going on right now, that doesn't have, I mean it could be just the opposite. It could have a negative effect. Don Ashworth: Well if that were the case, then it would turn back into a neutral position. So in other words, it'd be the same dollars available one way or the other. There wouldn't the advantage that there is in in this case. In this instance you're picking up that 36% to 37% to use locally. If you're saying that fiscal disparities would go away, then it becomes neutral because then the same dollars are available one way versus the other. But I mean it's really difficult to believe that fiscal disparities will go away. I mean it was put through in 1970. It's been challenged by whatever. I mean what would happen is you'd have to return to the point in time where there were communities such as Burnsville that had significant tax reductions because they were fortunate enough to have the Black Dog power facility in their community. And the Eclina's and the Maplewood's, Plymouth's, etc. And to think that the legislature would shift and say, no. We want to create that spread that previously existed. Where one community sitting right next door to another might be charging it's citizens 10% to 20% more in property taxes. And at issue is, if you look at the level of property taxes that are generated by cities, there's a real parity that exists. I mean if you change your tax structure from 25.5 to 25.0, you could move up or down the list by 8 or 10 cities. I mean they are so clustered at basically that 25 level and by undoing fiscal disparities, all of a sudden you make that big switch that used to be there where some cities were at t0% and some were at 30 and I just cannot believe the legislature would do that. But your guess. Acting Mayor Mason: Well and I think we need to base our policy with what's in place now as opposed to what might be coming in the future. Does Council have anything else to say here? Councilman Wing: No. I would move approval of this to get moving here unless Mark would like to meet with the City Manager and debate this intellectually next week and bring it back at the next meeting with some conclusions, if there are any here. I would be willing to second a motion to table it, if that's the case. If not, I would move approval. Start moving approval. CotmetltFtln Senn: Well I just I get, maybe I'm overly sensitive to it but I guess I just raise real questions over ext-. '!ng the terms on these right now and just keeping the properties off the tax robs longer. I mean we have properties that have already been off the tax rolls in excess of 12 years in this city and it just seems to me it gets into a building block effect that just keeps going and going and going. And I'm not sure there's equity overall within the city as a result of the action. But you know even more importantly I look at a couple of these issues and . :'re spending just about as much money as we're saving to accomplish them and I just, I don't know. Not 14 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 having that before tonight, I guess I'd like more time to look at it but if everybody else feels differently then feel free to go ahead. Councilman Wing: Can this be tabled until the next meeting Don? Don Ashworth: It really cannot. I mean when they submitted those bids today, how many of those bonds you know literally will be sold by 9:00 tomorrow morning? Dave MacGilliwary: Well I think it has to be up or down tonight and then you start a new process for whatever you want to pursue. Acting Mayor Mason: Which would be x more number of dollars. Dave MacGilliwary: Yeah, some of these fees, our fee, if you decide not to do any of them, we won't charge you for it and you go through the next exercise but I can't speak for, you're already going to pay a good portion to the other agents that are involved here regardless. Or you pay them again. Plus you've got...probubly a good share of these that have been sold to individuals as well and therefore if you stop with any one of these issues, assuming rates continue where they're at...If you came back in 30 days or 60 days and said, okay now we've made up our mind. We're ready to go. It should be up or down tonight... Councilman Wing: Well Mark, with due respect, I guess I would put my faith in Mr. Ashworth and his staff tonight on these issues with your points well taken, other than maybe we can be ahead of the game the next time this comes around and perhaps have some of these questions answered beforehand rather than stop it. Acting Mayor Mason: Well yeah. I guess I think these questions always come up and there's a constant argument as to whether TIF is good for the city or not and as well as the county and as well as the school district and I guess I feel in this case TIF is good. That the money that we are getting back is going to the county, the school district and the city as opposed to going to the State and then who knows where it goes. Certainly properties are taken off the tax rolls but to say that the city does not get any money because of that I believe is not correct. So with that, are you going to make the motion then? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have to do each individually? Acting Mayor Mason: No. We can do them all as one. Councilman Wing: DO we have to do all four, one at a lime? Dave MacGilliwary: You have to act on four, however you want to act on them. Acting Mayor Mason: I'd like to see the motion as a group. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well if we d° the fi~i ~n¢, Mark would you vote for it? Councilman Senn: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So why don't we (a) and then Co), (c) and (d) separately. For the refunding Series 1994 A. 15 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution ~94.28A: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the $5,~70,000.00 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A as presented by Dave MacGililvrary. voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ail Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'll also move approval of the 1994 B, C and D refunding. Councilman Wing: Second. Acting Mayor Mason: Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following resolutions: Resolution g94-28B: Resolution g94-28C: Resolution g94-29D: $1,665,000.00 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994B. $1,170,000.00 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1994C. $525,000.00 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1994D. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Acting Mayor Mason: And I think we know why, thank you. APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Acting Mayor Mason: And I meant to say this for item 5, approval of the agenda. I would like to table item number 5 unless someone has some new information. I don't think we need to drag anybody else through the waters at this time. We're certainly in a deadlock and I'd like to walt until the fifth member of Council is here. Councilman Wing: I second that motion for discussion. Don Ashworth: May I add something? The Park Commission meets on the 8th. You do have a work session on the 7th. Normally you would not take action at a work session but if you announce as a part of this meeting that you would propose to take action on this item on the 7th, it would be a valid meeting and you could do that. And assuming then that you made a decision on the 7th, that person then could hopefully be available to meet with the Park Commission. His or her other members on the 8th and 15th, I think is when they have the two dates. Otherwise this would go to March 14th. Councilman Wing: ff Mike and myseff haven't changed their minds, has anybody on the right side changed their minds? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I wa~s ',~,', o. to say, let me short circuit this a little bit. I had the opportunity to speak to most of the commission~, mmry Fest and they were either neutral on the issue, however two had strong opinions and reading Todd's :l..u here about Mr. Cummings willing to step down, very graciously, I guess I am inclined to change my ,~o.~ ,m this so I don't see why can't we move tonight. Councilman Senn: My understand; g ,,~s he wasn't stepping down. Am I wrong on that? 16 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well, he didn't say he was withdrawing his nomination. He was expressing reservations that, as it's put here, he would be the ugly duck in the commission's eyes. Councilman Wing: Good heavens. Ugly duck. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, for those of you who don't have any idea of what's going on here fight now. Item number 5 was appointment to the Park and Recreation Commission. Park and Rex: made some recommendations and Council, in it's wisdom chose to do some second guessing. Some members of Council, fight or wrong. That's not the issue. And so we were deadlock with four people here. The Mayor being out of town. And he's still out of town tonight and I might add, I believe it's the only 2 times in how many years that he hasn't been here so that's not, good for him for getting out of town. So what is at issue fight now is who will be the final member appointed to the Park and Rec Commission and it's my understanding, with Councilwoman Dockendoff changing her mind, that we have a way to break the deadlock here so is...to make a motion having Dave Huffman as the...Park and Rec Commission. Councilman Senn: I think you need an appointment, did we appoint the others? Acting Mayor Mason: Yes we did. Councilman Wing: There's just the one. I'll move Dave Huffman. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it. Acting Mayor Mason: It's been moved and seconded to appoint Dave Huffman. Is there any discussion on it? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, just one item. I think it unfortunately this got blown way out of prOportion and I guess you have to be careful what you ask for in coverage in the Villager. That it was exposed to the extent that it was and I just hope that the two candidates don't have any hard feelings. They both were excellent candidates and it was a very tough decision. That's ali I want to say. Acting Mayor Mason: My comment on that is, I'm not sure that it was. It may have been blown out of proportion Colleen. I'm not sure who or what blew it out of proportion. Quite honestly. Past practice has been to approve what the commission has recommended and Council chose 2 weeks ago to not do it, and some members did and that's what created the discussion. I apologize to Mr. Cummings and Mr. Huffman and Park and Rec quite honestly for them having to go through this. I think we probably could have handled it a litlle different way but so be it. Councilman Senn: Well Mike, I'm going to take exception with that. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah. Councilman ~eun: "You know listen, We had a work ses'~ion of which we all left a work session having picked the people. And then there was going to be a vote taken at the next Council people and that pick was made after the interviews, okay. And Mr. Cummings was selected at that meeting basically in unanimity, coming into the Council session. It was a total surprise to Colleen and I that you had changed your mind to that and ttu~r Don wasn't here. Granted Dick was not at the meeting so...that statement I-think is, you know it's basically way off base. And the...thing is hey, there is no where in any job description of a commission in this city that says 17 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 it's their job description to appoint and pick other commissioners. That is the responsibility and job of the City Council. Okay, and I'm sony but I don't just rubber stamp what comes up from the commission because that's who they want. We held interviews. We made a selection. Okay, and that's what Colleen and I were hanging onto last week. Nothing more. Nothing less. Okay. In fact Mr, Cummings, if I go back to the July meeting which I was absent at for the other appointment of the other existing commissioner who was up, Mr, Cummings was at that time rated equal to that candidate by everyone here as well as the commission. The other candidate who was up for re-election this time, And stuff so I mean I fail, you know Mr, Cummings had good qualifications back then. He's back for a second time. I think that deserves some consideration. Acting Mayor Mason: I don't think anyone is arguing whether Mr. Cummings is qualified for the position or not. The statement I made 2 weeks ago was, that yes. I had felt one way at that meeting but after talking with Park and Rec Commission members, I chose to change my mind, For the reasons stated. That I felt, and I still feel that as members of this community we perhaps need to do a little bit better job of delegating authority as assuming we need to have our fingers in every piece of the pie. I think we, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we don't, I mean this was a difficult decision and. Acting Mayor Mason: Definitely. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I don't think we need to delegate it completely. We need to delegate it but then look at the decision of that and see ff we agree with it and this was the exception to it. We decided to take a look at it. Councilman Wing: I don't think, Mr. Mayor, when the floor's available. Acting Mayor Mason: Go for it. Councilman Wing: I served a decade on a commission in this city and at no time in that decade did we sit back and casually let the City Council decide who was going to serve on our commission for the simple reason that we interviewed, We went into depth. We looked at demographics. We looked at background. We looked at fairness. We looked at representation from all the elements of the community and accordingly the Council never found fault with us. We tried to run a very wide spread, well founded commission. And clearly there were people we felt more comfortable with. I guess my suggestion here is the Council stay out of it. The commission's go through the interview process. They select people they're comfortable with. That they feel meet their needs and that they can work well together. Where the Council comes into play and they have every right to, is to look at the demographics. Look at the background. Look at the education. Is this becoming a good old boy syndrome or is this a commission serving the city at large, and I think that's where we can come in and review the commissions and look at their make-up so that's why I've been pretty casual about this. As far as I'm concerned, stay out of their business and leave it alone. I don't know that we have time to interview and then go at odds with commissions unless we feel as leaders of the community that there's a specific issue at stake on a specific issue and so, as the manager's memo said, Mos'. Ce~mcils in the past have chosen not to go this ruute and this interview process is relatively recent and I d~n't~'"' '~. it's been very successful at all. The Council doesn't know a hill of beans about interviewing these people cr selecting them. i think they've made good choices and bad, just like the commissions have and we've gc; enough to do, Anyway, that's for next year. 18 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Well maybe we need to take a look at this. Is there any other discussion? If not, it's been moved and seconded to appoint Dave Huffman as Park and Recreation Commissioner. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Dave Huffman as the Park and Recreation Commission member. Ail voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47 ACRES OF PROPERTY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE, SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Janis Bremer Stephen C. Martin Loft Weber Paula Roettger Doug Anderson Bob Boyer John Blumentritt Joe & Eileen Boyer Lee Clark Jim & Jo Ginther Ted Bigos Karen Martin' Mary Jo Moore Joe & Sue Fiedler Judy Walman Steve Hall Bruce Hubbard Tom Metz Doris Hansen 2961 Washta Bay Road 3211 Dartmouth Drive 3220 Damnouth Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive 3607 Red Cedar Point Shorewood, MN 18283A Mtka Blvd, Minnetonka 3630 Virginia Avenue, Wayzata 603 lake Street, Excelsior 3131 Dartmouth Drive 3221 Highway 7 3211 Dartmouth Drive 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3121 Dartmouth Drive 6220 Bayberry Circle 6221 Arbor Lane 2841 Washta Bay 3201 Dartmouth Drive Dartmouth Drive Councilman Wing: Kate, this is still a conceptual approval? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Wing: We've gone nowhere beyond just the idea stated here? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Just to add to that. There's been a lot...Having said that, this was last up here before you on January 10th and there was a lot of issues raised by the residents that came out of the public heating and at that point you directed the applicant to come back with a Iraditional single family. As you recall, the issue on 19 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 this is that they're trying to...with 5,000 square foot lots and the way the single family residential ordinance is set up, the smallest lot size you can go is 11,000 square feet..with an average of 15. This PUD, while staying within the density range for the RSF zone...is 2.3. Density range for density RSF is 1.2 to 4.0 so it falls within the density range. So the problem comes in is the lot size. The 5,000 square foot lot size. The issue raised by the neighbors...Dartmouth Drive and existing out onto Arbor. One of the issues raised by the residents is the possible extension of this street. Putting a cul-de-sac at this end. The applicant's subdivision you have before you stated the same street access when you come off of Dartmouth. That was looked at by the staff. The applicant felt that that was...looking at the number of homes being affected. You have 6 homes on Dartmouth, Arbor that really impact it and if you push the street through blocking off Arbor, it basically affects all the homes in this development. And there is Dartmouth Drive was stubbed to this property for this development. The other issue was connecting those two streets and staff felt that in order to tie those two streets together, the impact to this wetland and making this happen and trying to get to that Washta Bay...the impact to the wetland didn't seem appropriate. The applicant has prepared a traditional subdivision. Laid it out. Again, it's conceptually but it's got the 20,000 square foot lots, which are required adjacent to the lake and came up with 22 lots...originally was 26. Again, it falls within the density range with the traditional subdivision layout. In looking at this, staff feels that that site plan is...you've got lots adjacent to Highway 7. There's a significant change in grade right there and we feel that those lots they're ~llcing about, 10, 11 and 12 are pretty difficult lots as far as being located right into the hillside. What this proposal does is split, you have 19 lots now going out onto Dartmouth Drive and the other 3 lots will come off of a private drive out onto Washta Bay so you're somewhat splitting the difference in the lot sizes there. Again the staff still supports this proposal as a PUD proposal feeling it's superior in providing natural features. We do have a letter from Mrs. Roy who lives on the corner, this corner right here. One of the homes most impacted. Steve Emmings stopped in and wanted to look at the plan. He had some comments. He's the former Planning Commission Chairman who lives down between this property and the Dun- property. And he felt that, he just wanted to put this on the record. He couldn't be here tonight but he felt the cluster development provided much better preservation of the land. He also had concerns about the dock and staff is still sticking with our original recommendation of the 9 dock slips. If you laid out the traditional subdivision there's, the DNR stated that the existing channel, whether or not you could get docks in there, they feel like that's not part of the natural shoreline so even with leaving that argument out, we said there was 5 lakeshore lots with each one having a dock. That would be up to, having 3 per dock, 15 boats and we recommended that the whole PUD, that there be 9 and that's consistent with the...under the recreational beachlot with 200 feet of frontage and 30,000 square feet plus additional docks for each additional square footage. So again going back to the staff report, we feel that the PUD design is superior in saving the natural features. The subdivision does put homes on the other side of the wetland. The PUD leaves this all in a natural state. Again going back to whether this should come through and vacating that, I think there's a trade off there. These people here will be coming up again affecting 6 homes. Now if you block this off, everybody in this subdivision now impacts all these. Again, it's kind of a, I'm not sure if it's an equal trade as far as that development goes so. We could support the plan as it is and with the conditions in the staff report. Acting Mayor Mason: Does the applicant want to, I'm sure you do. Go ahead. Bob Boyer: Good evening. My name is Bob Boyer. I'm with Boyer Building, representing the Froject. I think in our last meeting the desire among many of the City Council members was to table discus:~or ~,i a later (;~te at which a single family, 15,000 square foot, rather typical subdivision could be designed. And ' .. at ,bat point we could do some comparison studies and discuss the relative merits and goals. We have fmisheo that and that's represented here. We could kind of go through a short explanation of the way we laid it out. It's not laid out, and there may necessarily not be the way it would be constructed absolutely but certainly fi.om .he standpoint of edification, it shows you basically what could be done on a site of this type. I think our intent tonight obviously 20 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 is to discuss with you, and I think obviously we feel as planning staff does, that Spinnaker Wharf is superior to this site and that this particular type of development we would prefer to see built here. I guess we're prepared to move ahead with either one, whichever the city insists on us doing. Obviously Spinnaker Whaff...is superior in a number of different ways. I think it preserves the nauaal characteristics of the site. Maybe just a short explanation. This development would access off of Darunouth Drive. It would circle around putting homes along the lake as well as inside these home sites would be 20,000 square foot home sites that would have adjacent docks on each individual piece of property..There'd also be 3 additional homes here. The interior lots are 15,000 square feet. The streets once again are configured in son of horseshoe shape accessing out onto Dartmouth Drive. On this side there's 3 homes. Private drive that would access off of Washta Bay Road. A total of 22 homes. And then again Spinnaker Wharf, we're talking about putting 6 homes. I think we're all familiar with this particular plan. Once again we're accessing off of Dartmouth Drive. A private street that would kind of mosey around and then the homes would be placed along the lakeshore as well as some interior homes. Dockage then would be clustered along one south shore of the development and we're still proposing 26 docks. I think the relative merit of Spinnaker Wharf over this development is somewhat obvious. The impact to the shoreline is much less with the Spinnaker development. In fact the low impact to the shoreline with this development is a selling feature. The low impact of shoreline with this development is somewhat of an irritant because these people obviously wanted to utilize the shoreline and access the shoreline with boat dockage. These people have very little concern about that. The clustered dockage concept is adequate for them and they like the pristine, natural elements of the site. I think the discussion last time kind of centered around the idea of rezoning because this development being the clustered concept was going to require rezoning of the site which is a little different than the way it's zoned right now. I think that all gets down to the basic idea of why should the city of Chanhassen be interested in providing housing of this type as opposed to the typical housing developments I think we've...to see in the city. One is housing diversity. I think it's imperative that the city provide diversity of housing. I think our goal in any community is to invite people into the community. Maybe access to entry level housing and then to move those people up into custom housing and then I think it's important that we recognize the demographic characteristics of our time. Rea_liTe that people are looking, as they begin to age and their families begin to move out, they're looking for a different type of housing. I think Spinnaker Wharf is an example of that and I think we can all recognize that as people come in here for subdivisions and developments, we see very little of this type of thing. And that underscores the next reason I think Chanhassen needs to be concerned about getting involved with this type of housing and that's the issue of demand. Typically a developer's concerned about demand. He doesn't want to build a product that there is no demand for. However in this case I think it's important the city also be concerned about that. The 55 and over age bracket of people is the fastest growing age bracket in the city of Chanhassen right now. We've got homeowners, people, residents of the city here as well as other communities who are approaching that age and are looking very s~ongly at this type of housing. What we're asking them to do is move out of the city because we do not provide that type of housing, at least on the segments where we think quality. These people typically, I think the characteristics they're looking for are lower square footages and looking for no maintenance. They're looking for greater security that an association can offer. Those are things that Spinnaker Wharf can offer that are not offered in here and I think there's an adequate, I think there's a lot of this type of housing ava_il_able in Chanhassen now. I don't think we need any more. I don't think there's as much of a demand to provide this type of housing as there is for this here. Or for Spiunaker~ Property values. I think there was some concern about some of the residents in terms of property values. The homes in Spinnaker Wharf woul~ :'e valued at or in excess of all the surrounding communities. It's been our experience that surrounding communities don't negatively impact the property values of a development on Spinnaker Wharf. Because of the high demand for housing such as Spinnaker Wharf, we found that developments in...that are sprinkled around the lake Minnetonka area actually enhance the surrounding property values. Some of the reasons for that are, because it is such a high demand product, people seek it out. High quality people are seeking it out, And then I think also 21 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 the fact that it's an association ownership and association maintained provides a security as far as the neighboring communities that this development forever will be maintained and taken care of in a high quality way. I guess at this time I'd like to open it up to the public hearing. I'm sure a lot of other issues will be discussed and I hope, I guess tonight what we can do is really create an atmosphere of openness. I think there's a lot of issues that can be discussed tonight. I would like to...from time to time and be able to provide some clarification and thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, and this isn't a public hearing Mr. Boyer. I'm not saying we won't let people talk but this is under unfinished business so. No, I'm sure people will be getting their two cents in here before the night is over but just let the record be clear. Any questions to Mr. Boyer from Council at all? Or to staff at this point. Councilman Senn: To staff I guess. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay let's, well why don't we with Mr. Boyer F~rst so he doesn't have to stand there all night. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question for Mr. Boyer. The development they have across TH 7 on the north side of TH 7, up around, I can't think of it. That T street at TH 7 there. Thank you. Is that the similar design to this or is that a different type of development? Bob Boyer: There's actually two developments that are taking place there. One is being built by Ron Carlson and one being built by my brother, Pete Boyer. Councilwoman Dockendoff: I think that must be it. Bob Boyer: The one on the south side of the street, I think the homes in there are averaging $250-$300,000.00. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But is it the same one level? Bob Boyer: Those are one level...yeah. Walkout homes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And is it similar to what you're conceptually thinking here? Bob Boyer: Yeah. Actually from a conceptual standpoint, the development we have, are in the process of finishing up in the city of Shorewood, which is just off County Road 19, which by the way is open this week for the Parade of Homes... Is more of what we're U'ying to create. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And then another question. What do you feel about the road going through the middle of the development? Is that something that we could work on ff we went with the Spinnaker Wharf design? Is that a negotiating point or is that an absolute not in your mind? Bob Boyer: I don't think there's anything that's not negotiable at this point in time. All of us want to be sensitive to the community and the concerns, really the concerns the community has about traffic, we have done some traffic studies and quite frankly I would like to share those with you tonight because I think what we're finding is the concerns that the neighborhoods has about traffic are quite, are really over stated. And I think our studies wilt prove this out but in short, I'm not in favor of that plan. Prin~arily because of a lot of the reasons 22 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 that were pointed out earlier. One is that we're now we're asking all the traffic from Arbor Drive and Dartmouth and coming to a private street and it's somewhat destructive to a community. As well as, I can't understand why those people would want to do that when they've got quick access out through Arbor Lane, out to Highway 7. It's a downhill slope to TH 7. It's easy access. Safe. To now weave their way through Spinnaker Wharf, climb an incline and try to access onto TH 7 heading uphill in the wintertime I think is a lot less safe. Thc other thing I'm concerned about with that entrance is that there's a pretty substantial tree line. Natural vegetation along TH 7 that's taken a number of years to develop and it's really critical to us that we're able to maintain and control that tree line. This one fight through here. It really helps us in terms of protecting, from a visual and a noise standpoint, the houses in this area. When you start opening up a 40 foot swath to access the road up here, it will take a lot of that hedgerow out and I'm not in favor of that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And your traffic study, you're saying the impact is less probably because of demographics? Of who you're looking to move into this? Bob Boyer: The traffic study has shown that the impact on this development in terms of traffic is far less than I think what a lot of the neighbors are projecting. If we could, I'd like to show you the traffic study that we've done. It will be somewhat brief but... Councilwoman Dockendoff: If you keep it brief. Acting Mayor Mason: Sure, go ahead. Bob Boyer: Okay, John. John Blumentritt: For the record my name is John Blumentfitt. I also represent Boyer Building Corporation. Okay. For the purpose of traffic study, what we did was took a standard business day. Not weekend. Not holiday. Not over the Christmas vacation but we just stood out at the intersection and took times that we wanted to created a car count. And as you can see, we have morning traffic from 7:00 in the morning until 9:00 in the morning. And this is for traffic that projects onto Arbor Lane. Now in the one column up here you'll see that the (lark area represents less than 10 seconds. This shaded, lightly shaded area is less than 20 seconds. Less than 30 seconds. Less than 40 seconds. And then greater than 40 seconds. And what you'll do is, at this point here's the number of vehicles. 0 thru 6. The departure times. 7:00 and modulating on 10 minute increments. 7:00 thru 9:00. And what we've done is now said at between 7:00 and 7:10 there's 1 car and this car waited less than 10 seconds to be able to exit onto Highway 7. We have another car that waited less than 20 seconds to get onto TH 7. Then we also have, there's a mixture in these things because we took this survey over several different days but there's a portion of a car that actually would work in something in excess of 40 seconds. That's because of the eastbound traffic that does come along Highway 7. Again, and it continues along here. You can see the greatest time that we actually have was 8:10 to 8:20 that there's 4 cars and of these 4 cars, this is the waiting time that each of those things experienced. So we had 2 of them that may experience less than 10 seconds. And we had one that experienced less than 40 seconds. Now, in the evening, we get the did a similar type of a study. Looking at that same circumstance here. Again, we took from 4:00. Modulate I0 minutes up to 6:00. And what we see is these cars primarily, we studied both ingress and egress because now we're making the assumption that these cars are probably returning home. But there were some cars that did come up. Make a fight hand turn or left hand turn onto TH 7 but most of these were arrival limes now that we're seeing here. And again, same type of a pattern that we have here. The 10 seconds up to 40 seconds with, as you can see a car, a car, a car, no car, a car. The one that waited the greatest out of all this time was from 5:20 to 5:30. There was one car that we noted, and this isn't quite shaded fight, but there was one car that had to wait 45 23 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 seconds in order to make a left hand turn onto Highway 7 and go westbound. And we acknowledge that there are cars that do clip right along on Highway 7 and certainly if one's calculating the eastbound traffic plus watching for everything that's going westbound, we acknowledge that the left hand turn from Arbor Drive is going to take some time. And that's what this is trying to bear out. Again, similar type of a circumstance here. But as you can see, the car count over this period of time, we're looking at an overall number within that modulation of was there 6? Was there 5? I mean we're not talking a horrendous number of cars right now, in our opinion. And I don't know, we've asked for many people what constitutes traffic and what calculations people are using as that that's too many. I think this is something that we look at and we also acknowledge that our cars, our car count, excuse me, will add essenO_a_lly 1 more car for every 6 minutes. So if we went all through this and we want to say, there just went 1 car. Now let's converse for 6 more minutes. And now another car from our subdivision will go through as added traffic. I think what you need to ask yourself is that too much traffic that we're putting on the mad. I think that's it. Thank you so much. Just to...according to our calculations with the information that we received from MnDot in terms of car counts for this type of development. Meaning Spinnaker Wharf. If you took a total car count by the total number of hours, you would account, and being fair. Taking night time hours out, we're looking at approximately 12 cars. Additional. 12 additional cars per hour on Dartmouth Drive. Now if on Arbor Lane you combine that, and we're talking peak traffic okay. I'm talking peak hour traffic. Now low hour traffic. If you combine that with traffic on Arbor, we're talking approximately, with I think the 4 cars. The 3 cars you're talking per hour that's presently, we're talking 16-17 cars per hour. In order to get a better feel for how much traffic that is. I had my son actually sit out in front of our house and count the cars going by. Now I live in a very quiet neighborhood in the city of Chanhassen...It's a very quiet road and I think if you went up and down the street, all the neighbors would agree that it's a fairly quiet street. It's not a thru street It's not arboring to anywhere. It's just a quiet residential street. If I step out onto the street to walk down to the comer, it's about a quarter of a mile away, it's about 50% of the time a car will pass me. About 50% of the time. The other times I'll never see a car. That kind of underscores the density level of where I live. He kept count of the cars in a 1 hour period, 45 cars went in front of our house. Compare that with the 17 cars we're talking on Arbor Lane. At even by adding Spinnaker Wharf, this road is grossly under what the average residential street is in the city of Shorewood, city of Chanhassen. So I guess you know, we really have worked hard in terms of...we haven't found a suitable way and judging from the traffic that we've seen here, it's hard for us to get, I think look at spending large amounts of money to access another site when presently, their present street there were 9... the traffic was still way, way less than the average street would be. I guess that's it. Acting Mayor Mason: Any more questions for Mr. Boyer? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I've got a couple if I could. Acting Mayor Mason: Go ahead Mark. Councilman Senn: Both on January 10th and tonight now you've placed considerable emphasize on the fact that if this, if your PUD plan, which is a multi-family goes forward, okay this is going to be a 55 plus empty nester project. Okay, that's something you're putting into the deed restriction? Bob Boyer: No. We're not going to put in the deed restriction you've got to be 55 years or older. I don't think that's legal to do. That's age discrimination. But we do have two, this was an issue that came up with the city of Shorewood a couple years ago when we put Gideon Cove in. They were saying how can you guarantee to us that the people that are going to move in here are going to be in fact 55 years and older. Now we had our realtors there and we explained a lot of the marketing efforts and things that are done to try and encourage those 24 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 type of people. We do, from a covenant standpoint, reslrict the use of playground equipment and typically things that would appeal to a younger group of people with families. If you use Gideon Cove as an example, over 80% of the people in that community, the homeowners in that community are over the age of 58. The others are under and there is one lady in her 40's and actually a young couple in their 20's. Late 20's. So those axe kind of from a statistical standpoint, that's what we're looking at. Councilman Senn: Okay, so would a fair statement, different from earlier is that you're going to try to achieve that? Bob Boyer: Those are typically the people that are buying these homes, yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. This I think is a joint question between you and Mr. Boyer. After last time and this time I'm still confused. You guys keep pointing to that and ~lling it a wetland. They keep pointing to it and calling this a lake. He just pointed to it again tonight and said lake and docks. Kate Aanenson: It's wetland all the way around that. What the DNR is saying is that it's really, their interpretation is the natural shoreline runs east and west. It doesn't include that finger, which is one of the advantages from taking some of it, other people that live on the lake, they enjoy...left in it's natural state. Councilman Senn: So is it wetland or it is a lake? Kate Aanenson: There's wetland around it...high water mark. Below the high water mark, it's the jurisdiction of the DNR. The DNR is saying that it's not natural lake there yet there's still a wetland around that. If they to develop it they... Councilman Senn: Okay, and is the wetland the lighter shaded green area there then? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: That's all wetland? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Wing: Can I ask a question? Acting Mayor Mason: Please, go ahead. Councilman Wing: Kate, maybe for both of you. The Boyer's have been here on previous beachlot arguments that the Council has been very unanimous on. And we've argued these issues. Hopefully our last one. You've gone for 9 boats and we have our ouflot ordinance but yet they're back tonight saying they're still requesting 26 boats. I thought that wasn't even, I thought last time they were here, that was pretty well clarified that that wasn't going to happen and then we went down to 12 and now you're recommending 9. I guess if that argument holds, the standard subdivision solves, that problem. Put their four docks out and put theirs boats on and away we go. If we're going to go with this PUD, I think we need to make that clear what our ordinance says and what we're doing and where we're going with it and get the resolve of this Council so we don't have to listen to that argument any more. I'd like to clarify that as quickly as possible. Whatever number that's going to be. I don't think it's going to be 26. 25 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Kate Aanenson: The way we looked at it originally was that there were two interpretations of it. One, that it's a PUD and basically that's open for negotiation so what we gave is the high end. Obviously we felt that that was inappropriate based on the fact that they obviously are concerned about the number of docks and boats on Lake Minnewashta and what the threshhold is. So we came back to well how many can fit on there. 12. And if they're thinking of looking at the beachlot ordinance, the top end you could get, no matter how much square feet, would be 9 boats with 3 docks. But that would be our final recommend!ion. Obviously they're still pursuing that but the PUD opens negotiations. Councilman Senn: And that's based on what? Kate Aanenson: 1 per unit for them. Councilman Senn: But I mean. Kate Aanenson: Of this 37 Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: The beachlot says the minimum you can get if you have 30,000 square foot lots with 200 feet of frontage is one dock with 3 boats. And it goes incrementally up, depending if you have extra square footage. So you take the common areas and that's how we figured it out. I mean they pulled everything back. All the shoreline will all be common space so based on the amount of common space, they could have 3. Councilman Wing: 3 docks, 9 boats. Councilman Senn: So it's 1 dock with 3 boats all owned by the same person? Or not? Kate Aanenson: By the association. We've never gotten involved with who gets to use them. That's up to the association to decide. All we've done is said this is the maximum number you can have. Councilman Senn: I thought we had something by the amount of lake frontage. Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying. That's what it's based on. Square footage and lake frontage is the formula. The maximum available I believe is I0 acres... Councilman Wing: I think if this gets approved Kate, that that ought to be worked out beforehand so we don't have to debate that issue again. Simply declare what it's going to be and clarify that with the builder and let's not get into this argument again. Kate Aanenson: Well you know, obviously that's what we told them and they want to take this arena to challenge that so that's. Bob ~oy' -: I ~;.p_k our objective in keeping it on the table yet is to, well for obvious reasons. I guess we do really feel it's unfair and unreasonable. But also, that until obviously we've got approval on something, we wanted an opportunity to. I guess what we're asking for is this. We're not asking that we can put out 26 boats on Lake 1V3nnewashta. I think ff profile the people who are buying, most of them are not even going to own a boat. What we're asking is, in this scenario, these people have the capability. They have the potential of putting 26 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 up 36 boats on Lake Minnewashta. We're not asking for that. We're asking that everybody in Spinnaker Wharf, if they want, they have the opportunity to put a boat on the lake. Our experience has been that less than a third of the people are even going to own a boat, much less want to put it on Lake Minnewashta. They might, a lot of them own jointly boats on Lake Minnetonka. They just like the idea of living on a lake. However, from the study standpoint, if they buy into a neighborhood. It's nice. The idea of living on the lake is nice. The idea of having the capability, if they want to. Councilman Wing: You've gone over this before. I just want to point out we have a rexxeafional beachlot ordinance that you can't have 26 boats. Pure and simple so we don't have to argue it. We either adhere to that ordinance or there's nothing to listen to here. Am I wrong? Kate Aanenson: Well, Roger and I had this conversation and as I said before, there's two approaches to it. One is the PUD and the conceptual framework. Okay, so obviously we were uncomfortable with that based on we feel that's excessive for that lake and what we've been trying to do with all the recreational beachlots. That as the staff we'd not support that, even though it could be something that could be negotiable with the PUD so... Councilman Wing: And the 36 boats, just for Council being real familiar with this piece and obviously it's a sensitive issue to me. That's quite obvious. The land is extremely swampy. Mucky. Weed infested and the channel is filling in and very weed infested to the point where it's really not functional anymore so claiming to get all those docks and boats in there, they don't have the fight to clean this area out or dredge it or do anything else. They can't go and mitigate that wetland area or that man made channel so. If you can get 36 boats in there, then I think you ought to go for the 36 and put in the standard subdivision and I think we'd be better off. I mean that's kind of a weak argument on your part as I see it. Bob Boyer: Dick...what you're saying. I guess I really don't want to...boat issue. I think what I would want to see is...or would you rather have something like this? And I'd kind of like to table the dockage issue at this time. Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah. I agree with what you're saying about moving along here a little bit. Kate, what's your feeling about Spinnaker Wharf, what's your feeling about 26 units there? Kate Aanenson: Again, it falls within the density range. I think it may have been slightly misrepresented to the Planning Commission where it was stated that if this was laid out in a traditional subdivision 26 units would be on the site because it's been laid out that 26 don't fit on the site. I think if you wanted this to go through and be a public street, which I think engineering probably...Again, it's conceptual. 26 may not work. We haven't looked at all the grades. There's a sewer line easemem that goes through here...It might end up that they might have to discount the unit and we haven't looked at the storm drainage issues. This again would be the maximum... Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. I guess if I could move this discussion a little bit in the direction of what we think is preferable here, along with my concern and I think everyone else's. Well I shouldn't say everyone else's concern about urban sprawl and what's 'affordable and what isn't affordable. I certainly conceptually see Spinnaker Wharf as a better alternative than the other development and I guess I'd kind of like to see What the rest of the, conceptually understand, Council feels about that. $o we can kind of move off of dead center here fight now. Councilman Wing: And no other public comment? Just Council? 27 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Well let's just, can we just chat about this a little bit and then we'll ask for public comment. Does anyone want to say anything? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah, I'd like. Another concern I had was the...PUD of 5,000 square feet as opposed to the 11,000. That's the issue for me. Kate Aanenson: ...looking at a lot of other things and I think that's what the Planning Commission got hung up on and that's why we put it back but...that whole issue is, why we picked 11,000 to begin with and said that's the minimum threshhold for the PUD. There was a lot of comfort in. Councilman Senn: We dropped it to 11,000 from a considerably higher number. Kate Aanenson: ...so we said 11 but we want an average of 15. We didn't want to get those too small .... so yeah, I think that's what the Planning Commission was concerned about. If you do it with this project, what are the implications of any other parcel in the city and I think if you were to do that, because what we're recommending is instead of rezoning this specifically for...is we're recommending changing the PUD zoning to RSF which...and why it may not work on another piece. As far as, and that's what we do with every PUD zone. You have to remember when we come in, what we try to do is evaluate...natural features and I think on this site this is where it works. It's a pocket piece and it's got Highway 7, it's got the lakeshore and it's got significant wetlands. So just because we're doing it here doesn't mean we would have to apply it. You'd have to go through those same findings of fact. But again there is that potential that you would see that,..and maybe it doesn't work... Again, it's the same evaluation we do on every PUD. Sometimes it makes sense to go to the smaller lots and other times, because if there are natural features. That's what we get hung up on every time... Acting Mayor Mason: And that clearly is the advantage of going PUD because it does certainly give this city a whole lot more control over the parcel. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And I think again, and...we're not locking up that lakeshore to individual property owners. It's all being run...and try to leave it as much natural as possible except for the small area that people have access to it... Councilman Senn: Given the fact that this discussion is going on, is there a reason why the Planning Commission hasn't relooked at this and made a recommendation rather than no recommendation? Kate Aanenson: Well, I think the same reason why the PUD came up the fa'st time. They kept banging it back and forth and they finally just pushed it up the PUD to Council the f~t time around. I'm not sure that they're clear on whether or not they want to re-open for the same reason...But whether you go with 5,000 or 11,000, again we still go through that same criteria. Whether or not it merits the smaller lots. And sometimes you choose... Sometimes the Planning Commission says no. Just like they did on the Lundgren subdivision just north of Lake Riley. Planning Commission felt that didn't merit small lots up against TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. They felt like that...but you saw differently. A~,ain, you go through that evaluation. Councilman Wing: I have no probl~rn'.£.;' .g with the PUD down to 11. That would just cut the density down, that's all. 28 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Well let's, this is not a public hearing but I'm sure there are some people that would like to chat hopefully briefly on this. I guess at this point I'd like to hear their opinions and perhaps we can do some more chatting up here after that and come to some conclusion. Councilman Wing: Mike, can I just clarify though a couple points? Number one, Dartmouth was stubbed originally to feed this property. And that's a given. Secondly, clearly the developer has a right. He's thc owner. He has the fight to develop this property and I certainly support that. The access was pre.destined in some ways. One thing I'm disappointed with was that one of the big issues at the last hearing was looking at this road connection to Seamans and Yellowstone as a north/south access and I guess there was nothing in the. Kate Aanenson: I understand that that was an issue. I mean the developer has chosen that he didn't want to see that... Councilman Wing: Okay, but we didn't look into it then accordingly9. Kate Aanenson: Well we did. I think the touch down point he's talking about. He talks about where it touches down at steep grades. Where we see that touching down and tying into Yellowstone on the other side, I think it actually needs to swing a little bit more over in this direction because it does, it is very steep. It's got to, you've got to have a landing point off of Highway 7, So that's something we'd have to evaluate if you feel strongly about it... Acting Mayor Mason: MnDot...okay with that? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think, and we have to close down Arbor on that. I think that's something they were looking at putting through but fight now they're slating that for 1996, which wherever that makes it. It may be a couple years out but I think that's the place where we do have a T there. With Yellowstone, that would be a place for a possible light. Councilman Wing: Kate, now today when I looked at it, when I stood at Yellowstone and Seaman Drive, it kind of cut right into actually the higher part of the property where in fact the road kind of goes and hits Dartmouth and then almost starts to head straight north there as I looked at it today. Kate Aanenson: That's where we think it's actually more over this way. Audience: It's right where the line is. It's actually opposite the alley that's now running along that property lille. Councilman Wing: So in which case then that road would run just to the east of those, of that property line and pick up both Dartmouth and then the new area. So it just seemed to me to be something that's worth looking at from the city's standpoint. Kate Aanenson: Yeah again, I mean you're running it fight along the backs of those existing homes. Councilman Wing: Okay. 29 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: When Dartmouth was stubbed in though, it was stubbed into what, single family? I mean that was the zoning at the time? Kate Aanenson: Welt it's stubbed into the RSF zone which gives a density allocation and that's what they're saying and that's what the staff said. It still falls within the density allocation. What we've done is put them on smaller lots and got more open space and that's what we're... Councilman Wing: But the point here is we have to reduce from our present PUD ordinance of I 1,000 minimum down to 5 and that's the big debate here with everybody. Kate Aanenson: Again, it's still single family. It's just different designs. Councilman Senn: Well, and I mean there's trade offs both ways. If you accep the assumption that it's going to be all empty nesters, that's far less traffic than even the lower number of single family houses. Far, far less. The problem is there's nothing here to assure us that that's what going to happen so I mean. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, is there anyone in the audience who would like to make any quick comments on this? If there is, why don't you come on up. State your name please. Bruce Hubbard: My name is Bruce Hubbard. I live at 2841 Washta Bay. That's in the community just east of this development. I'm concerned about a number of different things. First of all, I really think that this concept is, you know we're missing the point of clustering in that it's, my interpretation of clustering would be to take what would be a traditional amount of homes you'd have in that area and cluster them together into a smaller area saving more of the land and more natural area_ It seems to me what they've done is, and I'm glad they did the single family thing so we could sort of see how many single families would be there and how many would be reasonable. First of all, these 3 here on the east side, the Boyer's at the Planning Commission said would not be built because of wetlands so I think they're throwing these in here as extra houses to have them up there. They've said it. I'm not sure what the exact thing would be but the wetlands do come up and include this house and include this so these shouldn't be counted in the total. If we're counting total single families that can build here. These 4 up here have been mentioned as probably unsellable and probably unbuildable because of the hillside there and their proximity to TH 7. No one would buy a $300,000.00 house next to TH 7, fight there. That wouldn't happen. These are 4 unbulldable houses so you can go 22 minus 3 is 19 minus 4, you're down to 15. If they put 15 houses in here, it'd be a nice development. If they put 15 houses that are clustered in here, you'd have a lot of green space. What they've done in their clustering is taken the small amount of space that they couldn't build on, which is this channel and have this all green here, which is wetland. You can't build there and this space, which they've said they probably wouldn't be able to sell and they've generously given it to the public. I think they're doing tricks with the total amount of houses. If they want us to take 15 single families and cluster them into a nice development with lots of green space and bigger ponds and little fountains, running paths, that'd be wonderful. But they're taking the maximum. They've even gone over what they said they could reasonably do, which I don't think they could do, in this development of 22, and they've tried to squeeze out 26. I think it's sort of a dock plan with houses. Let's see how many we can throw up there and as many as we can get, we'll take and then if they take away a coup' ',,~.'11 still be happy. I think we need to go down to what would be clost to more of a single family developn _. and think about clustering. I think that's a wonderful idea but I think that they're putting in way too many houses. And if you look at 15 versus 26, you're talkirlg less traffic. Less usage. Less of an issue with the boats. I think that the traffic issue should be thought about carefully. That you have position to receive these people who crash on TH 7, I'm concerned about how 30 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 many things are going up and there's another development that's being looked at just down the street...the whole area of traffic. Those would be my concerns. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Councilman Senn: Kate, could I come hack to, ask you again. Now I was pointing to this map here and he's being more direct than I was but that map there shows that all, that is wetland. Kate Aanenson: It is upland right here. You can get 2 lots on there and this wetland can be mitigated. -It's an ag urban wetland and they can mitigate it. So yes, 3 lots could be put on there. Councilman Senn: Oh okay, so where do you mitigate it? Kate Aanenson: Somewhere else on the site or somewhere else in the watershed district. Bob Boyer: This site would be mitigated over to here. Kate Aanenson: And the homes up against Highway 7, we're saying they're not as desirable but they're buildable lots. I mean we've got a subdivision coming forward that's going to be right on Highway 7 so. It's less desirable but there's people that live along that right now. Councilman Senn: Okay. But that is the correct. Kate Aanenson: Those are legitimate lots. Councilman Senn: But I mean that's the correct designation for the wetlands? The one on the right? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. Bob Boyer: Could I just respond to what the gentleman had to say, and I appreciate what you said. The cluster concept is at 1.9 units per acre. That is the lowest density I think of any housing development of this type, or any housing development for that matter. It's roughly...the density of this housing development. We don't make apologies for having 26 homes in here. Obviously our objective is to maximize use of the property. It's also to create a community that's attractive and I think that meets the needs of all people. Once again, the density 1.9 units per acre. I think that's quite low. It's down from I think...so we have made concessions. Acting Mayor Mason: They'll be quiet as soon as you start talking. Tom Metz: I need complete attention when I speak. I think myseff and like all the neighbors feel, we prohably got more man hours in attending meetings than the Boyers will have just building developments so. Again, I think that we've attended Planning Commission meetings and there were items such as sensitive to the high density that they're putting in and we talked about the recommendations of that alternative access and rejecting the beachlot. And then we attended the City Council meeting and theft recommendation for Spinnaker Wharf was that the access. We talked about maintaining that '83 baseline and then we talked about, I think those were the issues. And what bothers me is that out of both of those meetings, none of those issues got addressed in the 31 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 staff's recommendations. So I'm sitting up here, what do I want? Well we've got, can you put that map back up? On each side of the Boyer's Spinnaker, we have half a neighborhood. We've got 13 acre developments and we've got 13 acre homes, plus or minus. They've got 13 acres of the property and they want to put 26 homes on there and again, what they're really doing is impacting our neighborhoods. They're putting all of the traffic on this development into what we call is a passive neighborhood. What we've ail bought. We like to walk our kids down. We want to have something that's relatively quiet and sedate. And you could go most of the developments along this area have their own means of access and egress. They've got the roads off of TH 7 that you come into. So Boyer's could take their Spinnaker Wharf and they could develop their own sign off of Highway 7 and they get their access and egress. I guess whether they put 26 homes in or do something, it isn't something that we can object to. But to take that amount of homes and pass it through our neighborhood, we would object to. When we talked about the '83 baseline. I think what really, he was mentioning about the home or they were mentioning about the boat traffic. Well if you go to MnDot, MnDot says in an ordinary home you have, I think they're looking at 6. There's 6 in an ordinary residential home will have 6 traffics. In other words, out of that home there will be 2 cars and they'll be going up and down the street 6 times. So if you took that 27 homes times 6, you're going to have 142 vehicles that will be passing down Arbor Lane and to try to portray that back into his 6 cars that are going to get off. What you're really talking about is 142 times that those cars are going in and out of that neighborhood and that's my objection. Boyer's can build their addition but for them to take and impact a neighborhood that we live on is something taht we're requesting that you deny. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Anyone else? Doris Hansen: My name is Doris Hansen and I don't live on Arbor Lane but I live in the next block. I have quite a few concerns because also the quietness of the neighborhood. That's why I bought there. I intend to stay there until they bury me, unless something like this comes up to force me out. Number one, because of the traffic. Mr. Wing, you mentioned that's a low, swampy ground. I've been in that area since 1950. That channel was built illegally. I don't know how the DNR can allow building down there. It's very low, Very wet. We have a lot of springs under our homes, in our neighborhood. I would be very concerned about those houses in that low swampy area because of the water flow going down to the lake. There's no place for it to go but down. I have a back yard I can't mow until practically July because of the waterflow coming off of Highway 7, and I'm up higher. If I was 55 years and older, I wouldn't want a basement in these homes. I'm afraid those basements would be so under water all the time. Dartmouth is a very nice, quiet street right now. You get all that more traffic on it, you know you're going to have to enlarge the street to at least a 3 lane street. Who's going to pay for that? We know Arbor Lane is possibly going to be closed because of Highway 7 being expanded. Cypress Drive is probably going to be closed. There's going to be only one access to that whole neighborhood and rumor has it Dartmouth Drive is going to be the service link for that whole building development. So you want more homes in there and also then we look at signal lights on Highway 7... mentioned traffic to getting on and off Highway 7. They don't realize we're trying to get on when those cars are going 60 mph. We're trying to get on so we zoom out abe, ad of this traffic hoping that somebody doesn't cut out in front of us or hit us in the rear end. Whatever it takes to get out there. I've had a lady cut into that double yellow line, into the passing lane to go around me because she resented my coming on t? '~ighway. I think that traffic is something that is very serious. Think about the water table in there. That's ,, ry serious. Because that whole area's got sump pumps under those homes. Also boat dockage. I belong to Mi~mewashta Shores Association. We got letters last year threatening to take our boat rights away from us if we didn't put docks in. There are people waiting for permits for a dock on the west side of the shoreline. If they're waiting for a boat dock, how can you allow 30 some...dockage rights to go out? I don't understand. Yo,~'re afraid of traffic on a lake but you want to allow more docks..i[ight now we are paying taxes on a lot that ' ~.alled a non 32 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 buildable lot because of the low water table. I guess my question is, are you going to allow us to fill that lot up and sell it so we can get it off our h~xes? And it's considered fight now a non buildable lot and I'm concerned that we'd like to dump that lot too and that's higher up than what Mr. Boyer's lots are. So I think we should really take into deep consideration for the neighborhood. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Is there anyone? Steven Hall: My name is Steven Hall. I live in the houses fight on Arbor Lane, just south of TH 7. On the overhead there being projected, it's the one in the upper left hand corner. Down from TH 7 fight on Arbor Lane. The issue that I wish to address is the question of closing off Arbor Lane. I've given that a lot of thought and as I told one of the other homeowners, Tom Metz on Friday that I really didn't know. Well on the weekend I gave it some thought and something occured to me I'd like to point out. While it would be nice for that house to have a cul-de-sac in front of it, cutting down the traffic because the, if you move the pencil just to the fight. The property line on the fight side. I'm sorry. Yeah, there. That property line, my estimation is where the street would go if one was being in place of Arbor Lane and the reason I think that is is because it's opposite of Seamans and that would be the only way they could put in a light because then that gives you a square across. My concern would be that I would then have traffic. I would have roads on three sides of my house. The back, and I'd rather have traffic on the front. The house is addressed that way. In the back we have a deck. The back yard and master bedroom and kitchen. I'd be looking out on all the traffic that would be on Arbor Lane but it would be behind us. Arbor Lane would still be there because there are two lots facing my house just to the west of us owned by Mr. Bigos, which are not developed but I'm assuming that he could put the property there. Therefore the street would be needed for him in addition to me. If two homes with families went in there, there would be some traffic and commotion in the front and ff everything right behind me and I've got TH 7 on the north side and I think being surrounded that way would impact the value of the house. It would certainly impact the value of the back yard so the idea that I could sit in the front yard, until the homes across from me were developed...awful lot of property there that I could watch traffic from. I could do traffic counts to beat the Boyer's anytime. I guess all of this is my way of saying that, as I would envision a road taking the place of Arbor Lane, I'm fight now strongly, adamantly opposed to having Arbor Lane closed off because I'm afraid of what the results would be. And I don't know that anyone could guarantee at any rate what's going to happen if you make a decision to close Arbor, then other things are looked at. I don't know what the other things that would involve that so. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been here before but I wanted to state that I went to see the Boyer's other development, Gideon Cove and also the one on TH 7 by Market Drive. The one on TH 7, just north of TH 7. When I walked in, thank God they told me this is for 62 and older so they weren't ready to sell to me. I am one of those graying...so I'm sure it's legal since one of the Boyer developments is for 62 and older. On Gideon Cove, I'm not sure how many developments are there. They do a beautiful job. It really was nicely designed and nicely laid out. I think there were 12 or 14 homesites in this area. Lake Minnetonka apparently has only allowed them 2 docks and 2 boats for these, and you've got quite a bit of lakeshore along there. There is a service road that goes through. This is probably a good development, but as the gentleman said, there's way too many units in this. You're taking basically 10 acres of buildable property. They keep saying 13 acres. It's not. There's only 10 acres that's really bttildable and you're doubling the density to the other neighborhoods and those adjacent It's just too much. Too much traffic and there's going to be too much boat traffic and I think probably if it was cut back to the 15 or 16 units, it would be wonderful. They do a nice job. But let's keep it the 55 and over then too. Thank you. 33 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Kate, while the next party's coming up, Planning Commission doesn't want to touch this. mean I've heard them argue it back and forth, and come up. I'm just a quick question as you're walking up. Why not just approve it? Why not approve Spinnaker with our existing ordinance? Why do we want to? Nobody seems to want to address this. Kate Aanenson: They'll probably do a traditional subdivision then. Councilman Wing: Well either they have a choice of a subdivision or a PUD with 11,000 foot lots. So that, I just wanted to clarify that's an option. Okay. Janis Bremer: Janis Bremer, 2961 Washta Bay Road. I'm on the other side. It's that squiggely looking house. No, keep going. That's it. That may not be the best choice...but that's where I live. I am in full agreement with the notion of cluster housing. Even cluster housing for families seems like a reasonable idea. A dozen, 15 cluster homes on that piece of land may be viable. I'm concerned about the wrap around that goes on with talking about using this piece of land for absolutely unimaginable projects and having come to other meetings to hear the same terminology used, the same arguments made, I wonder what's really going to happen now to that piece of land. It is wet. It is designated wetland in twisted sections. It is lowland. How much of that is buildable land? And are you saying that the 13.47 acres, that includes every square inch of that property. It includes the grade. It includes right up to the water line. You're talking, I'd be surprised if there was 10. Kate Aanenson: It's 11. I acres... Janis Bremer: That is usable? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Janis Bremer: And are they usable because the lake was dredged in the Minnewashta Manor neighborhood and that dredging was put on that land 3 years ago? Is that what's making it usable land? There's some questionable tactics here that I would like to point out and I would like to make sure is taken into consideration. It's the Boyer's property but...However it's quite a fragile piece of property. It's in a very awkward place .... is it Minnewashta, what's that neighborhood called? Audience: Sterling Estates. Janis Bremer: Sterling Estates. Had that all been developed at one time maybe it would be a much more useable piece of land. We have, as I mentioned previously to the Planning Commission, some 400 feet of common property border with the Boyer's. From our property border, and you may know this for sure but I believe there's something like 110 feet between our property border and the water mark in the channel. So what's with this? I think ff there were some reasonable proposals being made here, I probably wouldn't be standing here. I probably wouldn't be standing here a couple months ago. I'm concerned that the unreasonableness and the political tactics that are being used to develop this piece of property will result in increased damage to the lake water. Increased accidents on Highway 7. I don't think there's concern here. For land or people. Jim Ginther: My name is Jim Ginther and I live at 3131 Dartmouth Drive and I think we've heard a lot of arguments and I'm not going to repeat things you've heard tonight or at other meetings and I think there really are three significant issues we're all very concerned about. Literally all the residents of Sterling Estates are here 34 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 this evening, with the exception of Joe Boyer's son-in-law so there has to be some concern I think on people's part of they wouldn't be here and they wouldn't be here every meeting. I think it's important to note that on the east side and on the west side of this property are established residential, single family developments and we're proposing now, or they were proposing to completely change the integrity of what this whole neighborhood is. Density is the issue. It's not whether they're going to be good homes or good single family homes. It's density and it's traffic. And I think the traffic count that we all heard tonight, there was a very, very important adjective. They said it was our study, and there's...seff interest in our study and I think if we're going to pay any attention to a survey, it ought to be one done by an independent organi?~ation or the city of Chanhassen and not the developers themselves. So I think if you focus on the boat issue. It is an issue. If Wing is fight, then it isn't an issue. But I'm not sure the Council themselves even knows what they're talking about because you seem to be swinging back and forth on how many boats can you actually have there. Dick seems to think it's a dead issue, and if that's the case, and it's not an issue, I think that's part of the neighborhood concern. The traffic is real. You can't sit here in this Council chamber and understand traffic through that neighborhood unless you go there and see it, live it and experience it for yourself. $o I think you really have to listen hard to what who people feel they're going to be negatively impacted are saying to you. I think you have to think about the fact that we bought. We live there with the understanding that RSF doesn't mean cluster homes and we've lived there for 20 years knowing that that place is ultimately going to be developed. Now, is it going to be developed on the basis that it was set up? Or now they're going to change it just because a developer wants to do it that way. So I think it's very, very important to listen to the people who live there. The people who truly are going to be impacted and take that into consideration. I think you've heard some very good arguments here. I think the first gentlemen who spoke this evening, has spoke about the number of cluster homes, had a good argument. If you're going to go to cluster homes, if you really are going to change the zoning, then let's look hard at how many are going to be there. But I think you really need to take into consideration whether this is the fight place for cluster homes. You know cluster homes aren't bad but when we've got open cornfields in Chanhassen, there's other ways to accomplish that and I don't think you have to completely change the integrity of one neighborhood to accomplish the objective of what single family empty nesters are loolfing for. I think if you're going to put..,you have to look very hard and an eastern access, which can be done on property that's owned by one of the Boyer's, just on the east side, fight up near Highway 7 that's high, dry land, you're going to get the eastern access out of that property. So thank you for your time and I think we've covered a lot of territory. Councilman Wing: Jim, just before you sit down, became you've been vocal on some of these issues. PUD's have and do work well for the city of Chanhassen and clustering these homes, whether we cluster a standard subdivision or we get into a reduced PUD lot size, this is, Spinnaker is an attractive concept and I think there is a hitch for it. How do you feel about approving it with the existing ordinance which says you can go down to 11,000 square foot lots. Maintain a 15,000 square foot average, which would cut down the density on this. So they have a fight to put in a standard subdivision that's going to have x homes and they claim what, 22. And they can do that tomorrow without _~ng another word. They could go straight north/south roads. Do whatever they want to. They have a right to Dartmouth Drive. You can't really argue that. $o then staff comes back and I think wisely creates somewhat of a park type space here if you will. The question really before us tonight is, should we reduce it down to $,000 square foot lots. The Planning Commission has debated th_at and passed it to us because they don't want to mess with it. And because I was in on the original discussion of lot size, I wanted to go to 22,000 with an 18,000 average and then I don't care what the PUD went but the average had to be 18. So my thoughts tonight are, I like the concept of Spinnaker Wharf. I just want the neighbors to know that. It seems to me to make more sense than a standard subdivision so we don't have the control. But if we pass it with our existing ordinance, as is. And as the conceptual approval, it would be 11,000 square foot lots and that would reduce some density but I don't know if that would resolve your problem or not. 35 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Jim Ginther: How many units are we looking at? Councilman Wing: I don't have any idea. Jim Ginther: I think 26 is what people are very, very concerned about. 26 times 2 cars. 52 cars. The traffic and that's the issue. As the one gentleman pointed out, if you get that down to 15 cluster homes, something in that neighborhood, this might make some sense. Acting Mayor Mason: But I think we might be missing an issue here. Is that under the way that land is zoned right now, they have a right to put 26 homes there. Right? 22? I mean whatever. Kate Aanenson: They could fall within the density range, if they did maybe the 11,000, maybe they could get. Acting Mayor Mason: So, I think we all have to accept, you know I've used this story before. When I first moved to Chanhassen in Carver Beach on Woodhill Drive, there were 2 homes there and I lived under the assumption that it was always going to be that way. Well, there are now 12 homes on Woodhill Drive and you know t think, to say that we've lived in someplace for 20 years, I'm upset with change too when it goes fight across the sweet from me. I don't like it but I think all of us in a city that's growing like this, it's going to come and I think it's encumbant upon all of us to figure out the best way to do it. And I hope that's what all of you folks from Sterling Estates are thinking and I hope that's what all of us are thinking. Something's going to happen there. Jim Ginther: I think we've always understood that. That Joe Boyer was going to develop...It's always been assumed that it was going to be single family homes, because that's the way it's zoned. They're proposing a different concept and I don't think you've heard anyone say, cluster housing is bad and I don't think you've heard anybody necessarily say it's absolutely bad for that site. You were playing tricks with us on the channel up until the last few meetings. I guess we've pounded out that issue. That that truly is not lakeshore and I think when we're talking about developing right there on Highway 7, I think it's been very established. That just isn't realistic. So the concept is density, and as Dick says, 11,000 feet is going to solve that problem, that might be the answer for everybody. I think access and traffic is a real concern and I think there is a way to open that up so you can have egress and ingress on both sides of that property. And then you won't have the traffic problem for anybody. On the east side, the west side or in the division itself because people are not going to wind through there on a private drive coming from the Sterling Estates Addition or the Minnewashta Heights Addition. They're not going to go that far east. So I think ff we address the density issue. Get it down to something realistic. The boat issue is not an issue and make sure we're not adding to congestion and traffic that is unsafe and unrealistic to get... Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. In terms of the boat issue, I would be very surprised ff anyone on this Council voted for more than 9 boats. I'm hard pressed with what all of us have gone through over the last 2 or 3 years, that I personally don't see the boat issue as an issue. I don't believe staff does either but we've got to start talking about this one. Who wants to say something? Councilman Senn: Well do you want to talk about it or do you want to finish? Acting Mayor Mason: Well I think no one else is. Very quickly because I don't think now, I don't think rebuttals are in order here quite honestly. 36 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Bob Boyer: I think what we probably want to do though is clarify in the minds of...as far as traffic is concerned, I think we've proven through the reports we've done that we really are not significantly impacting. As much as you look at the picture and there's an emotional sense that somehow we're going to impact the traffic substan~_ia_lly. I think the reports and tests we've done show that we are not significantly impacting traffic over and above what a typical neighborhood should expect. And up until now we're the only ones that have provided any objective and brought any objectivity to this thing. Ail we hear are...and no one has made...to tell us or provide any kind of test results or anything. So I guess, and we have seriously considered alternative exits to the property but quite frankly there are none. None that make good sense. At least none we've found. We're open but we just haven't found any yet. I'm sure that's it. Acting Mayor Mason: You looked like you wanted to talk. Oh walt. Go ahead Joe. Joe Scott: Joe Scott, 7901 Pimlico Lane. Planning Commissioner. Councilman Wing: Joe, where were you when I was wondering about what the Commission was up to? Joe Scott: Well I was sitting back in the comer there since about 7:30. But anyway, the reason why we passed this back to the City Council was, as you all know the PUD ordinance there's a 11,000 square foot minimum. 15,000 square foot average and our concern was that since this was presented to us as a concept, requiring the 5,000 square foot lot minimum and the PUD ordinance that we had to work with to deal with this particular issue, wasn't there. So and sometimes we pass things back and things get put in packets. Sometimes the actual essence of what we're trying to say doesn't come through clear. Clearly what we were asking for was direction as to whether we should have the PUD ordinance changed so that more developments like this can happen. So if you choose to deal with this based upon the existing PUD ordinance, it's very simple, You know what that is. So that's basically what our intention is. We could very well have made a decision based upon the existing ordinance. We decided to pass it back to you folks to get your view and give us some direction on it so we... deal with it based upon the ordinance. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you Joe. Councilman Wing: I think Lundgren Bros was in here not more than 12 hours after we passed this ordinance asking for a reduction in lot size. After debating this thing for 2 years, going back and forth and I think our PUD reduction was pretty significant considering that almost the majority of the Council at that lime, it was moving back and forth, was thinking of increasing the lot size so. I don't know why, are we re, addressing this same thing we just got done debating? I guess that's what I'm suggesting here is that, at least for you and I, we just through this process of trying to clarify this once and for all. And now we're suddenly going to re-evaluate to go down again. If that's the case, I don't want to get involved in this. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, I think we'll have to get involved in this at some point but I don't know that it's on this one. Go ahead Colleen, you wanted to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, addressing that specific issue. I mean I wasn't, pm of the original discussions on what the minimum lot size should be for PUD. I think Michael what you're going to discuss later tonight about affordable housing certainly is going to address, I mean the crux of this affordable housing is land cost. So it probably is an issue that we have to look at again...goals and look at. Regarding this specific development, ah boy. Traffic is an issue. However, Dartmouth was stubbed with the underslanding that it would be, would serve this parcel at one point in lime so really, the basic issue is density. I like the idea of 37 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 cluster homes. I think Boyer does an excellent job in their developments. I'm not uncomfortable looking at a division, a cluster subdivision with more like 20 units, and I don't know what that works out to be in square footage but obviously there's, I mean. And I'm not simply trying to split the difference between 26 and what the neighbors want. More like 15 or something. But it does seem reasonable that a lot of these proposed, what they could do in the normal RSF, they probably couldn't get the 22. However their overall density of 1.9 per acre is not bad. So I guess I'm just throwing out ideas. I like the cluster. I don't think the dockage issue will be an issue when it gets back to Council. I think Arbor should be, and Dartmouth should be the access to serving to other places. And I think it's simply reducing the number of units. Acting Mayor Mason: So, just to try, I'm going to try and pin you down a little bit. Where are you with 5,000 or 11,000 square feet? At this point. Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the middle. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, well that's fair enough for now. We'll get around to that I think in due time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not sitting on the fence. Acting Mayor Mason: Good enough. How about you Mark? What are your thoughts on this? Councilman Senn: I think the way I still approach it is, I guess fundamentally I've been approaching development for almost 30 years now on the basis that the first question you ask yourself, whether it's commercial or residential is, does it fit. And the fast time we had a meeting on this I guess I stated I had a real problem on that basis and I still have a real problem on that basis. I've listened to all the arguments from both sides. I don't think density's going to help us achieve anything more affordable or even close in the line of affordable housing. You know to me the primary issue comes down to you know economics. I mean the more density you can put on the land, the more money there is to be made. This small area is so inclined between two, what I'm going to call, long established areas in this city that, you know I really believe that the project that should be there should be single family homes, okay. I think the Boyer's should be given, or allowed reasonable use of their property but I think that reasonable use of their property should be single' family housing within the confines of our ordinance. You know beyond that, I don't really see getting into a whole lot of detail involvement until I see a basis going forward on that. Then I think from there it's easy enough to deal with issues you know such as dockage. Such as you know...pretty apparent on that but as far as the accesses and that sort of thing goes. This simply is not the site to accept the economic motivation versus what fits and I guess I just really underline what fits. I want to see, as I said in the past, I want to see our ordinance changed to accommodate affordable housing. But this is neither affordable nor. Acting Mayor Mason: Right, that's not an issue here. Agreed. Councilman Senn: Nor is it the place for the project even outside of that to look at that type of an ordinance cha~-.~ So I just really don't, you know unless there's some major new information coming up, that's basically wha', ,,ould say. Counc,. ,,a Wing: Mike, I would move to deny this conceptual plan then with the options being, either they go a standard subdivision or come back under the present PUD ordinance with the minimum of 11,000 square feet. I think we can gain on the PUD. I think I'd be most comfortable with the Spinnaker, with the cluster housing. 38 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 My preference in recommendation in this motion would be that Spinnaker be the choice, cluster housing but within the confines of our existing PUD ordinance. Acting Mayor Mason: Are you making a motion to deny or a motion to table? Councilman Wing: Well I'm making, the motion was to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Conceptual. This conceptual plan before us with the preference for Spinnaker using PUD under our existing ordinance. You're shaking your head. Roger Knutson: No, I'm not. Bob Boyer: May I? Councilman Wing: I've got a motion on the floor Mike. Let me see if we get a second. Councilman Senn: Dick, you know maybe we should wait for the second. I just, you know your add on there of the leaning at this point towards the cluster housing and the PUD you know muses, continues to cause me concern. I think the concept should be thrown out and we should look at the options but I have a real hard time leaning over towards cluster housing at this point. Councilman Wing: Well I didn't get a second so you've got it back. Acting Mayor Mason: Well it sounds like a motion has died for a lack of a second. You're withdrawing your motion? Councilman Wing: No. Now, I don't even know what it was. Acting Mayor Mason: Well I bet we could read it back to you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think if you changed it to. Councilman Senn: Well to me what we're coming from is the Planning Commission. If what Mr. Scott said is tree, is looking for direction. I think we ought to kick them back tonight is the direction. Councilman Wing: I agree. Councilman Senn: Now beyond that, maybe it should go back into the process and come forward, okay. But again, at the same time I think the developer's gotten a pretty clear statement from each one of the Council people as to what their feelings are and I thought that's all that this was about in effect of a concept review. Acting Mayor Mason: So clarify something for me if you would Mark. Why are you opposed to a PUD, if it's a PUD ordinance that says 11,000 square feet lot sizes? Councilman Senn: In the first place, I haven't seen a plan that shows me that. Acting Mayor Mason: So you're not saying you're necessarily opposed to that? 39 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: I've already stated what my preference is given the character of the area, okay. But that, yes. I mean unless something really new came forward and that may be a plan that shows me it's a lot more, makes a lot more sense to do the other but I mean that's what's going to have to come before me. Acting Mayor Mason: Right. Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure everyone knows what all the options are here. Councilman Senn: But you know I guess, well maybe I should just make that a motion. To basically send the direction back to the Planning Commission that the Council does not want to change the PUD requirements to 5,000 and that it should be maintained, in fact reinforced at 11,000 for the time. Acting Mayor Mason: Until further notice. Councilman Senn: Well yeah. Right. I mean it can come back to this point in time. I mean again we have the other considerations we want to get under affordable housing but I don't see that impacting this decision one way or the other. And basically just send that back. ff this re-entered into the process and ff they want to come through some new ideas or plans, I mean I have no problems with that but really our action should just be to send the whole issue back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Wing: And deny this 5,000 PUD, I'll second that. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. For clarification here. There's a motion on the floor to deny conceptual approval to a PUD with 5,000 square feet and I'm hearing that the direction of Council wants this to go back to the commission telling the Planning Commission at this point in time we find 5,000 square foot lot sizes unacceptable. For the PUD. Councilman Wing: So the options being RSF or PUD RSF. Councilman Senn: Whatever options they want within the ordinances. Acting Mayor Mason: And there is a second on the floor. Is there any more discussion? Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yeah. My concern is that the, if we go down to 11,000 we're going to end up with what? Roughly 11 clustered in there...is they can start building tomorrow if they want. That's my concern. Councilman Senn: You mean you'd rather see 11 clustered houses than the single family? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Senn: Well, I mean I don't know because again, it's very difficult to look at that on the basis of. Councilman Wing: Where's the 11 coming from? Councilwoman Dockendoff: If you go to !1,000 square feet as opposed to 5,000 square feet. Acting Mayor Mason: Well they could get more than 11. Councilman Senn: They can get a lot more than 11 on there. City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's why I asked someone to check on that. Acting Mayor Mason: I guess what I think we're trying to do here is, at this point in time say we don't like 5,000 square feet and it needs to go back to the Planning Commission to see what they can work out. Councilman Wing: And when we deny this conceptual plan, we're saying either come in with a standard subdivision or propose a PUD that's acceptable with our present ordinance. Is that what I heard you say? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Pretty simple. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Is there any other further discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to deny a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density and to deny the Conceptual Planned Unit Development with 5,000 square foot lot sizes and to go back to the Planning Commission and bring back a concept under the current ordinance regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING EXPIRED VARIANCE NO. 89-1 FOR JAMES JEsSuP, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Maryellen Jessup Joy A. Smith James Jessup John B. Waldron Lucille Remus Don & Kitty Sitter 7021 Galpin Blvd. 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Sharmin AI-Jaff: This action has appeared before City Council and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for at least 6 times. The fu-st time was in 1989. They applied for a variance. Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the variance. 7 months later they started, or 6 months later they started conslruction and discovered that the parcel was contaminated. Over the past 4 years clean-up has taken place of the soils. On July 8, 1992, to repeat the lawyer from the EPA saying that the parcel is clean and they can build now. This was 18 months ago. On June 15, 1993 the applicant applied for a building permit. July 22nd he was notified that the permit was ready to be picked up. August 5th, which is 2 weeks later when he finally picked it up. November 12th the applicant contacted Steve Kirchman...deparlment and started discussing options of extending his building permit. He's approached the Planning Department and said...and technically the variance had expired at that point because substantial construction had not laken place on the site. On December 7th we sent a memo to the building official saying revoke the permit. The variance has expired. On December 22nd the building permit wa reinstated by the Planning Director. This was done in good faith. The extension-was given for one month. It was to give the applicant another chance. The extension was contingent upon continuous and substantial conslruction taking place on the site until the house was built and completed. If that should stop for any ~-~_¥ 41 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 we said that the permit would then expire and we would bring this item before the City Council for direction. On January 24th the building official received a phone call from the applicant notifying him that excavation requires dewatering of the property and work could not proceed because of cold temperatures. Steve Kirehman is here today to answer any questions regarding dewatering of the site or construction procedures. Basically the City Council has two options. You could either approve another extension or you could confirm that the variance has expired and have the applicant go through the process again with a fresh look on this application. Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Your welcome. Before anyone speaks on this, I think we need to cut to the chase. This has been going on for a long time. It quite honesty reminds me of down by. Councilman Senn: The construction yard? Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah. The construction yard and I'm sure Mr. Jessup, you have a few things you'd like to say. I would like to remind anyone that's speaking tonight that we do have the Minutes from the Planning Commission on this issue and I think we're all pretty familiar with it so ff there's any new material, why don't we have that and then we'll move on from there, okay? John Waldron: Good evening members of the Council and staff. My name is John Waldron. I'm a lawyer with the law fn-m of Curry...and Riley. I'm here representing the Jessups tonight and I will try to heed your... Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you, Appreciate it. John Waldron: As much as possible. I do want to just cover some of the relevant time points that the staff outlined and initially just remind the Council that the Jessup's goal is still to build their house on the property. Get it built as quickly as possible and to get out of their rental situation that they've been in for the last several years. And the staff acknowledged most of that is due to the site contamination that they've had no control over so they're very interested to be able to get the construction completed on the site and start to be able to enjoy the lake there. So with that in mind this, I don't think it's productive to really go beyond too far back in history. As you mentioned, I think everybody's familiar with what happened back in '92 and prior but looking at what happened beginning in January of '93 when the variance was issued. And you've got a package each of you in front of you that has some of the relevant documents that this will be referring to. But on January 25, 1993, by a letter of that date and that's pages 8 and 9 in the package. The City Council issued an extension of the variance we're talking about tonight. And ff you'll look at the conditions that were set out in that letter, really all of those have been met by the Jessup's and really a lot of them have to do with various setback items and so on but probably the most relevant one is just a requirement that Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the city. Well that was done. And as the city ordinance provides in variances, the variance is going to be void within one year unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in reliance on. So in this case the variance was.,.extended to July 25th and what happened at that point, On June 10 of '93 the Jessup's requested their building permit well within the time frame of when that variance has been granted. Now there was some delay in the issuance of the building permit and as part of your package I've given you on page 10, you'll see a letter from Mr. Kirchman of the city indicating, acknowledging the ,'act that the Jessup's had applied for their building permit well in advance of the expiration of the variance a,.. that the delay in issuing the permit was not their fault. In fact that the city would not rigidly enforce the expiration date of the variance as long as the current issuance process continued to proceed in a timely fashion. Well what happened after that then, and that letter was important because we're getting close to the time of the expiration of the variance. What happened after that was in fact on August 5th of '93, that was the very first day in which the city indicated to the Jessup's 42 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 well your building permit's ready now. Come and pick it up. The same day Mr. Jessup went and picked up the building permit. So at that point them really wasn't any issue about expiration of variances at all and the building permit had been issued and at that point, in our mind we're now looking at Section 29-~. of' the ordinance dealing with building permits. And that part of the ordinance of course says that if ~e work described in the building permit has not begun within 90 days following issuance of the building permit, t~:.~ ~he building permit's going to become void. So what happened after that point, in fact that same month exc~v~t~:~n did start. Work described in the building permit was commenced well within the 90 days. Excavation st~m~L It continued through August, September, October, and so on. In November Mr. Jessup, upon req~c~ ~rovided the city with some additional information on what was going on with the metro fund reimbursemer~ ~n~ then excavation was continuing into December and at that point, while the excavator was on site, for ~,~'~ reason there was a stop work order issued. I'm not sure why because the construction activity was progrr~:..sing at that point and then there were some discussions. The stop work order was removed. Unformnately~ ~:~dng the time the stop work order was in effect, there was some fairly decent excavation weather that would ~o~ve permitted a lot of excavation to have taken place but in any event. The stop work order wasn't removed u~ oanuary 7th and then as you'll see, there's a temperature chart on page 3. It shows that at that point, once ~Mv could engage in excavation activities again, not their fault but the weather was very cold. They encountered ~::~i~, not their fault, water problems on the site. And the weather prevented them from dewatering the site. !~v Mr. Kirchman may indicate that it's always possible to dewater even if it's.., below and us~ally th~. ~ ~ink they'll acknowledge that that kind of expense usually isn't gone to in residential construction. You c~:: ~c~t a tent over the site and you can fire up burners and so on and get the soil wanned up but that would haw~. ~ze~, very expensive and usually isn't required in residential situations. So what happened in January the~ wz~ that they did as much excavation as they could but now at this point, at this point they're going to have ~ wait for wanner weather before the dewatering can take place. But I don't see any activity or lack of c-~:~i,~y on the part of the Jessup's that indicates that their building permit is not still valid. They still have, they c[~ ~ fact begin work within 90 days after the permit was issued and the one year, during which they'll have ~ ;,:t~stantially complete their construction, has not yet expired and so at this point of course, and during the m~?zh of January Mr. Jessup, with his excavator, tried a number of times to try to dewater the site and it was ju~ ~_~o cold. It just didn't work and so at this point what they're going to have to do of course is to wait for war~c~ weather. The road restrictions are going to be in place very soon. As a practical matter what they're probabty going to have to do is wait until the road restrictions come off and then they can proceed in earnest to dewater t~ site. It's probably going to take about a week to do that. Complete the excavation of the site. It's going re. take just probably a couple days because as you'll see in the photograph that I passed out too, there's bee~ aubstantial excavation on the site. Not minor excavation but substantial excavation. In fact most of the ex~'~vation's taken place. So not much of that needs to be done. Then the footings and block work can be put h~ p~ce. The site back filled and we feel all of that can probably be accomplished by July 1st. And so at this ~t what we feel should be done is that the Council should find that in fact the variance has not expired by any ~.~eans because the building permit was obtained. The conslruction was started in a timely fashion. In fact the b~i!-:~tg permit is still valid too because the conslruction was started within 90 days and the year hasn't nm be~ s~bstantial completion has to take place and the city should monitor the matter and see that the substan~i ~ ::,~pletion takes place by the year. At this point it's really premature to find that any variance has expired ~,:~: :: ~'~y building permit is now void. There just isn't really any basis for that. And at this point, at this poin~ -~:ssup's have .gone throngh' a lot in trying to develop this property. They're very close now to being able ~:plete it and I think it's only fair, I think the Council would agree, that at this point they should be allowe<~ ~ able to complete it. There's very little left that needs to take place before all of that can be comple~z ~.~d so we that the Council find that the building permit and the variances are still in force and that wor~. ~,:~ should proceed on the property as soon as the weather permits this spring. Thank you. 43 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: I'm going to ask the Council a question before we move on here. Do we want to discuss this at all and come up with a possible motion before...that are here that would like to speak against it. I'm wondering what Council would like to do. Do you want to listen to them or do we want to make a motion now? Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to hear... Councilwoman Dockendoff: I would too. Acting Mayor Mason: That's fine. Okay, that's f'me. Just try to keep your comments brief folks. Come on up. Councilman Senn: Well I guess what I'm saying Mike is I'd really like to hear our attorney respond to what their attorney has said. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh okay. Okay. Roger Knutson: The issue is very simple. Did they, you granted an extension back in July and they had to make substantial progress before that extension ran out and did they make substantial progress. Did they continue to build their building? I guess you have to be the judge of the facts and my impression is they did not. They moved a little dirt around. I think staff is unanimously thinking that their extension has expired. But that's ultimately your judgment. Just to comment on the building permit. The building permit was issued with the assumption that the variance was valid. And once the variance is not in effect, then they can't proceed building under that building permit because they'd be in violation of the zoning ordinance at that point, because they don't have a variance. Councilman Senn: What if construction has begun? I'm not saying substantial or anything, I'm just saying let's say it's begun. What does that do? Roger Knutson: If they didn't comply with the terms of the variance, then they're building in violation of the zoning ordinance and you can stop them. Councilman Senn: Okay but what I'm trying to come around to is if you take the premise of some action at this point to revoke the variance, I mean you have a big hole in the ground out there. Basically a construction site that's been started and you know, that doesn't seem to be a real positive situation for the neighborhood or anyone else to simply leave a big hole in the ground and what are our enforcement powers or whatever at that point towards remedying that situation or have we just thrown the whole thing into limbo? Roger Knutson: It wouldn't be a matter of revoking the variance. It'd be a matter of finding whether the variance, the extension has lapsed so they no longer have one. Councilman Senn: Yeah, same end. Roger Knutson: Yeah, same result. They don't have one. They can also apply again. I mean i~ :ou wanted to say use a practical construction and then just say, well. Let's give them a few more months and ' certainly within your power to do that. Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know. I went out there today and looked around quite a bit and Y tell you, I mean that's a nice neighborbhood. But I tell you, it kind of looks like a, I don't know, I'd say a semi dump or City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 whatever in the midst of the neighborhood. I was one of the first people to champion Mr. Jessup's cause last January because I've gone through clean-up and I know the headaches that that involves and stuff but at the same time, I mean that's been resolved. There's been more than adequate time in my mind to get a beck of a lot further than things are and I just don't think that that's been very fair to the neighborhood or anybody else involved. I think again, my only concern in saying let it lapse is where does that leave the current state or the current conditions out there because that's again first and foremost to me kind of the consideration there. I think you've got some real, from what I saw today, it looks like you've got some real drainage problems there and you've got one neighbor's slab just about ready to fall into the hole. It's a mess. Acting Mayor Mason: What can we do to correct that problem? What authority does this city have to correct that problem? Roger Knutson: If he has an open excavation and it's a danger, we have lots of authority to correct that problem. Not overnight. You have to go through a legal process and require it to be closed. Acting Mayor Mason: So okay. So there are steps we can take. Councilman Senn: What is our process? Can we just go in and do it and assess it back against the property? Roger Knutson: No. You need a court order. Councilman Senn: Okay. So it could be lengthy process. Roger Knutson: Could be, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But is it going to get done quicker whether we extend it and let him build or go through the process...? Acting Mayor Mason: With that in mind, I guess I would like to hear from some of the neighbors. Understanding the fact that you folks are kind of dealing with a two edged sword here. I think some of you may be guessing that I think a year has been more than enough time and I quite honestly have not seen enough movement to get this project completed and my preference right now is to say yeah. It's expired and you've got to reapply. But then you folks are also going to be faced with the issue of a hole sitting there for however long it takes. So why don't, what do you folks think about all of this. I mean it's your neighborhood. Do you see what I'm saying Don? Don Sitter: Yeah. Acting Mayor Mason: Why don't you come on up if you don't mind. Well it is a no win sita~_a!ion so I'm trying to figure out how at least maybe somebody can win something out of this. Don Sitter: My name is DOn Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. The lv:~rty just to the west of the Jessup's and we do have a problem here. If we pull the variance or say he can' ~ -lid, then we live next to an open hole and a construction.site. But we've lived next to that for 4 years now so I don't see a whole lot of difference. We have drainage problems which I think you're all aware of. I think if the city has the ability or the means to get a temporary fix on that drainage problem and get him to somehow mitigate the hole. Fill it in. Grade it over. I don't know what. I don't know what's within the city's authority to do that. Then we can at City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 least get the property flat. safe and remove the environmental concerns for the lake and the neighbors don't have to put up with the damage from the drainage that's coming onto our property. If there's some way to do that and then let them start over. Come in with an application. Go for the variances that he wants to go for and we can all take a fresh look at it. If we say that we're going to give him one more extension, I counted 6 so far that we've given him. 3 before the pollution was corrected and 3 afterwards and some of them in good faith. I think you guys have bent over backwards to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and until January 25th, we didn't see any more than little Bobcats scratching around on the dirt. There was no excavation that took place from, I don't remember what they claimed. July up to November. How long does it take to dig a hole? So if January 25th he comes and takes a major portion of dirt out and then complains about the weather. Well, the weather was fmc last July and August, September, October. So we have no guarantee. We have seen no commitment from him. We have no guarantees he's going to build. I can't imagine you can extend it one more time. But if we say that the variance has lapsed, we have to do something to mitigate the situation and I guess I would have to tum to the city engineer and say, what's your recommendation and look to City Council to say, here's a time table by which we can get that accomplished. And I don't know what the options are. You have to help me to figure out what is a good option. I think that covers most of it. Are there any other questions.'? Councilman Wing: Steve, if you could come up. What's the status of that cement slab to the east? I was kind of surprised to see that thing undermined and collapsing. Does that belong to a neighbor? Who's property is that on and is this property in fact affecting it that dramatically? Steve Kirchman: Ah yes. That is on the Remus' property and the excavation has caused it to be undermined and should be repaired as quickly as possible. However as Roger said, we have to go through due process to get him to do it and so long as he had an active building permit there's nothing we can do. Once he no longer has one, if that's what you all decide tonight, then we can start that process. Councilman Wing: Thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Anyone on Council have anything to say? Councilman Senn: I have an idea. Acting Mayor Mason: Let's hear it. Councilman Senn: It seems to me that if we take the route of purely letting the variance lapse, I mean it sounds like we're looking at some months in effect to be able to really do anything to remedy the situation out there. I don't know whether we have the ability to do this or not but I'll suggest it anyway but what if we would basically set up something like a $50,000.00 irrevocable bond or something like that and lay out 120 days schedule to complete the house. Or you know, if that's unreasonable Steve tell me but it seems to me it's not to do it in 120 days or at least reach substantial completion in 120 days. And let the variance ride. I mean now whether we have the ability to do that or not I don't know but it seems to me that accomplishes what both parties want to accomplish. And also puts Mr. Jessup at risk so if it doesn't, gee it seems like we've got a ready made pot of money to go and solve the problem. Roger Knutson: My only concern with that is, not being in the construction business, and I wouldn't want to finish Mr. Jessup's home. It would take money to fill in the excavation or correct the drainage problem and things like that but actually to let a contractor finish a home, it sounds good but I don't think you really want to be in that position of going and buying the fixtures for his bathroom. 46 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well I don't think he wants his house to cost $50,000.00 more than it's supposed to either so it seems to me the impetus there is to complete the house. Get your bond back. I mean otherwise you just run up the house, the cost of your house substantially. Now granted, if he defaults and there's problems, you know yeah. We could end up finishing the house and is $50,000.00 enough? I don't know but I guess there's a lot of uncertainties in the legal action going forward too and what's going to happen. That could stretch out to be 2 years. Acting Mayor Mason: That's true and that's tree and I think maybe we need to discuss Councilman Senn's idea perhaps a little further. The other side of that coin is, ff we say that the variance has in fact expired tonight, some wheels will definitely be set in motion. I'm throwing that out. I'm not, right? And ff we do that, I think we could also direct staff or our attorney to see what we can do to speed up the process. And maybe we can't speed up the process but at least we now have a process in place which we don't have now. And I really, I guess I share the neighbor's concern on this one. I worry about, I mean this thing has just, as you have said Mark, this thing is just dragging on and on and on and it would seem to me that if we do in fact say that it's expired and the Jessup's are in fact sincere of getling things done, they'll reapply and we'll be able to work something out. Councilman Senn: It just seems to me that one's a negative basis and one's a positive basis. The positive basis is to complete the house. The negative basis is to turn around and get into a further who knows what over who has what legal rights. Who's done what right? Who's done what wrong? Acting Mayor Mason: Well that is true. That's true. The other side of that coin is...a postive step for the neighborhood too. Councilman Senn: I'd like to hear, I mean just for whatever it's worth, I'd love to hear the neighbor's comments as to which they'd rather see. I mean would you rather see a process, an uncertain process of litigation which is going to leave the hole and everything else unfinished out there? Or would you rather see an idea like. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'd like to know for how long Roger. What's your guesstimate as to how long it would take to get this hole filled? Councilman Senn: Minimum and maximum. Go ahead. Councilman Wing: Even ahead of that a little bit. Roger, if we were to extend this 6 months, is there any type of a penalty performance bond we could put onto it? A performance penalty on this. Roger Knutson: What Don and I were just discussing is, if you were to get a $10,000.00...that says, pick a number. And Steve can tell us how much these things cost. I would prefer myseff to demolish rather than to finish construction of a home. I mean you could say for example, you either have this thing completed and get a CO by, pick your date. Otherwise be aware that we're going to go in and we're going to fill in your hole and put it back the way it was. Councilman Senn: $10,000.00 won't cover that but 50 would. Roger Knutson: I don't know what your numbers are. It's cheaper to tear things down than to build them up. City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: But you're saying it's cheaper to tear it down than get the bond if you default, you know pay the bond off or what? Roger Knutson: No. I mean it's just easier for us. Physically to fill in the hole. Let's say he doesn't do anything between now and May 1st. It's very easy for $10,000.00 to go and fill in that hole. His vafiance's lapsed. His hole's filled in. Councilman Senn: Do we have that right? Roger Knutson: We take up an agreement. Councilman Senn: Okay, that they'd be required to sign? My only concern is would $10,000.00 cover it? Roger Knutson: That I'm... Councilman Wing: It's certainly a penalty that says, I think I'll get serious. Councilman Senn: Well $10,003.00 irrevocable letter of credit costs 1%. I mean that's $1,000.00. That's not real serious in my mind. Councilman Wing: But if he fails to comply by the date. Roger Knutson: It doesn't necessarily cost 1%. It all depends on who you are and what your financial position is. Some people you couldn't get one...100%. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But then again you're waiting until May 1st where potentially you've still got a hole in the ground. Roger Knutson: I would guess it's going to be at least May 1st. Councilman Senn: Yeah I'd really like to still hear the neighbors. Don Sitter: I think the frustrating thing is here, we all want to push a button and make this thing happen. Unfortunately all the buttons that you have and all the neighbors have are stop buttons. The only one that has a go button is Mr. Jessup and for some reason he refuses to push that button. So we have no means to get him to go and I guess, I can't speak for the neighborhood but I can speak for our family. I'd just as soon take my chances and see this thing stopped and have this hole, take whatever legal proceedings and it takes 6 months, it takes 6 months. Because we've lived next to this for so many years and we can't get it to go, I don't see you have any way to enforce it to go so I think the only option we have is to force him to stop. And I guess we're willing to take our chances. Jerk the variance and get him to fill this in and take care of the drainage problems. And if that takes 6 months, at least we've got a means in sight and it's something we can enforce. So I'm willing to take a chance and lead that direction. I understand that eventually we're going to have a house here and we certainly don't want to stop that. We'd much rather see a house there. But we have waited way, way, way too long and we are not in control of getting that house. The only thing you can do is control the situation until he decides to build and he's shown us that's he's not serious about building over and over. So I guess I'd 48 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 rather take my shots and do something that we have control in. And if it takes 6 months, so be it. We can live with that. Don Ashworth: I'm afraid that the process could be much longer. I remind the Council of Moon Valley and their application process. Councilman Senn: And Mr. Carlson. Don Ashworth: You know. What's logically going to happen is if we make an attempt to go down and fill in the hole. Get a court order to take and have that done, he in the meantime in all likelihood will file for the variance. As soon as the court is aware that a variance is pending, they're not going to make him fill the thing in. I think that the neighbors are better protected to take and say, he's got to start this thing by, you pick a date. May 1st. Put up the $10,000.00 or $20,000.00. And he enters into a written contract that allows us to go onto that property if by May 1st he has not started substantial construction. We can go onto the property. Use the $10,000.00 or $20,000.00 to fill in the hole. I mean nobody wants to lose $20,000.00. He's going to, that will be a real incentive for him to move forward. But otherwise, just calling it quits, it could be a 2 year period of time. Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's another neighbor that would like to say something. Allen Dirks: My name's Allen Dirks. I live on Lake Riley Boulevard as well and I consider myself a friend of these folks as well as Jim so I'm just strictly a neutral party. But I've heard both sides of it and I certainly understand the Sitter's frustration because they have wonderful kids and they got to be afraid of having construction. I went through remodeling a lake home as the Sitter's did. They redid their lake home and there are so many surprises in getting into these old lake homes. To my understanding, not a fun deal. Nothing like Jim's thank goodness but I think everyone has to remember that when Jim bought this lot and he would have loved to started digging a hole when he started digging that crazy hole and ran into oil. I mean who expects that when you're building a home. The Remus' next door have written on a document here saying that they'd like to see the construction proceed and Donnie just said he'd like to see construction proceecL It seems to me the reason that Jim's not building is because he flat out has put so much money into this lot that it's choking him. And you've got a piece of paper here that says that Minnesota Pollution Control is sitting on $210,000.00 to Remus'. I don't know how much Jim has into that because it's none of my business frankly but it seems like the energy, ff you want a go buuon, why can't the city put some, a little bit of legal leuer or something together to get this pollution control to start culling a check or get this hearing on. I mean you guys have the weight of the city behind you. It seems that Donnie's interest and Kitty's interest, and I empathize with those guys. I mean my neighbors were, it's no thrill being around, hanging around when constmcfion's going on but I've got a heat gut that I'll probably be sitting up here a month from now begging for something. I've been trying to get my heat guy to get the cotton picking heat squared away for almost 2 years now. We have half our house has freezing pipes and half doesn't. That's just one of the things you get into when you get into these old lake houses. And it's extremely frustrating for Jim. It's extremely frustrating for Sitter's but I don't know that you can expect to have Jim go back and try to get this Pollution Control to give him some money. Because money, hey that's the problem. He has it figured it out to go buy a lot, like everybody else does that builds a home. They buy a lot. They put a home up. They have their financing figured out. And now you've got a guy that ends up with a oil well on his property and the pollution control. And you know how those agencies can take forever. So I'm totally empathefic with Sitter's position and the neighbors directly there. I'm about a block and a half away. And I would hate to have that hole sitting there with my kids running around so shoot Donnie, I'd want that thing filled up with cement if I could get it. Or whatever you can get to get the problem. But I don't 49 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 think it's fair to go ahead to Jim and say, you know Jim cough up this cash or, and I'm really, maybe the financial is the thing but I think the person that's really controlling the cash is this Pollution Control Agency. That's been a headache. I mean look at some of the documents. How long it's t~ken to drag their feet to even get the hole cleaned up. So I'm all for having a house on the place. I'm all for having, getting back to bar-be- ques in the neighborhood where we get together and t~llc about that instead of this as I know everybody else is. But it seems like somehow we need the city to put a little heat on that organiTation to get this case resolved and work towards bettering the neighborhood instead, I'd just encourage you not to pick a side. Maybe we can all get it going in the right direction. Councilman Wing: I remember Dana Johnson, 630i Minnewashta Parkway that bought a lot. Split it. Went to put his house up. Pulled an oil tank out~ Ran into major pollution. Pulled out tons of it. Went to build his house and he had to put pilings down. The guy fought to death and nails to get in that house but it took 18 months and he moved in last week. This has been years and I was out there looking at that and I was kind of stunned. Especially when it starts damaging neighboring property. I agree with Don Ashworth. I think we need to push the go button here and I'm happy with $10,000.00 because I think for $10,000.00 we can go fill that hole in and grade it out and get it done and I would suggest that we give an extension here with the contract attached to it with a line of credit that by May 1st, if this isn't either filled in, graded off, and secured, we do it for him. Or construction has formally started. But I think we need to have a penalty clause in here. I would agree with Don's position which is essentially your position other than the dollar amount I guess. Councilman Senn: Well except DOn is saying wait until May 1st to start a lime clock. That kind of bothers me. I mean that's March, April. DOn Ashworth: No, he can start the house before then. I'm just saying that ff on May 1st there's nothing more out there than there is today, he gives us permission to go on that property. Use the $10,000.00 to fill it in and that's it. It's all done. Councilman Wing: And he has an option too. I mean it'd be pretty easy to go f'fll that hole up, wouldn't it? Councilman Senn: Well nothing more of the broad definition. I think. Roger Knutson: What I would suggest, I think we're going to have to bring in some language and we'll have to define it very carefully so we don't get into arguments about what substantial construction is. If you'd like. Councilman Senn: Why don't we direct you to come up with some nice agreements and language? Roger Knutson: Why don't I bring it back to your next meeting? Councilman Senn: Sounds wonderful. Acting Mayor Mason: So when do, Charles, when do weight restrictions typically come off roads? Charl,. ?olch: We'll follow the County's lead but you can expect them sometime around the second week of March. Councilman Senn: When do they go on? 50 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Acting Mayor Mason: Yeah, when do they go off?. Charles Foleh: Go on. Go off?. Typically the second week in May. It all depends on weather. Acting Mayor Mason: So see May 1st is not a doable date, right? Do you think it is Steve? Steve Kirchman: Sure. People work all year round. You just have to bring in smaller loads. Councilman Senn: Smaller tracks, smaller loads. Councilman Wing: Big truck, small loads. Acting Mayor Mason: So okay. So what I'm hearing suggested here is we direct our attorney to meet with, or wait. No, we're not either. What we'd like to see is our attorney draw up some language. Roger Knutson: Write it out and I'll share it with Mr. Jessup and his attorney in the interim. Acting Mayor Mason: Stating something to the effect that in whatever terms you choose to come up with, that by the 1st of May there has to be some sort of substantial consu'uodon or the city will have the right to come in and fill up the hole. Roger Knutson: Right, we can define those terms with foundation completed and sticks going up. Councilman Senn: And a bond and I'd like to see the staff comment on this being a sufficient amount of money to basically return the site to some form of original condition. John Waldron: I just wanted to comment on the dates that are being discussed. We're talking again about the fact that very shortly, in about 2 weeks the road restrictions will be on and they won't be off until about mid May. Now I understand that this road has a 4 ton axle limit so I don't think that it's feasible frankly for any kind of construction to even start until those road restrictions come off. Whenever that is. And so I think it's only reasonable to allow some reasonable period of time after the road restrictions come off for all this to be done. And my understanding is that you...until about the second week in May so how long is reasonable after the second week in May to have x or y happen on the site? That seems to me to be reasonable. I think that too, I mean everybody's goal here is to make sure that the site gets finished excavation. Get the footings in. Get the block work in. Get the house up as soon as possible. That's Mr. Jessup's goal. That's the neighbors goal and really I think that, I think you're proceeding along in a des~uctive course because I think ff we can set some reasonable parameters for this, going into the future, that's going to be in everyone's best interest. And we have Mr. Jessup is going to go..xight now and this is his last chance to get this construction done in the way that he wants to do it, that's been approved by the city. And we see that it's going to happen. You do have some information in your packages indicating that there is a sum of money that is available and we don't know exactly when it's going to be available but we anticipate it will be soon. That will enable this to all be completed. But I think you do need to keep in mind, what are the reasonable, what's reasonable in terms of requiring construction of the rest of the excavation...Nothing's going to happen until after the second week in May. Councilman Wing: Steve, what's your opinion of that? 51 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Steve Kirchman: Well I disagree. We will have 15 houses starting with footings in and foundations in in the next 2 weeks in various parts of town so even if the road restrictions go on in 2 weeks, you've got a 2 week window here where you can get your whole foun~tion in. I'm not talking about laying the founrJ_a_tlon up. You get the blocks delivered to the job site. You know that's a one day process. If you put them up after that, that's fine. If you pour the footings in, that's a one day process. So if a person does their construction right, they can get that in before the load limits go on and even after the load limits go on, we're talking about no substantial road traffic at all so I don't know the load limit on that road. Is it less than our regular residential limits Charles? Charles Folch: Well it does go down to 4 ton. Steve Kirchman: So he would be limited. He started putting his foundation in after the load limits go on. I didn't take that 4 ton limit into account... John Waldron: The only thing is, we still have that dewatefing problem and unless we have some warmer weather, we're not going to be able to take advantage of the next 2 weeks. Steve Kirchman: It's going to be warm tomorrow. Councilman Wing: I also want to ask, if we have a spring of heavy rains, with that lot as it is, with that walk being undermined now, does that thing just, is the whole neighborhood just going to wash into the lake? I mean there's no protection. There's nothing to guard the lake right now. Steve Kirchman: He's got erosion control measures that he has to maintain while it's under construction that are supposed to prevent that. Erosion control along the front of the lot. I believe along all sides of the lot and the lake. As long as those are maintained, it's designed to prevent that. It's a question of them being well maintained. John Waldron: That's the other issue through all of this is dependent upon weather and that's part of the problem with what occurred in January and we also can't guarantee that yeah, them won't be a lot of rain that would hamper the construction activities. So I think that it's also reasonable that if there's something that's within Mr. Jessup's control, I think that's one thing. But if there's adverse weather conditions, as any kind of construction activity like this, Mr. Jessup shouldn't be penalized. Councilman Senn: I don't know, if you're saying until May 2nd, I'm for letting the variance lapse. I just don't have a lot of sympathy on that. I mean I'm sorry. Audience: If there's a lot of rain now, my neighbor's slab is going in. Councilman Senn: I know it is and that's why I'm saying, we need to get it going now. I mean hell, I started to build a house on January Ist and I had it done in the middle of May and you know yeah. There's rain but there's only one time that the rain is critical in building a house and that's when you're putting in your footings and depending on what, it isn't even that critical. Acting Mayor Mason: I think Don raises a good point. What we're discussing fight now is that we would like to see our attorney draw up some language and present it to us in two weeks. And if it's agreeable to us, we 52 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 can take action on it then. On what goes on here and hopefully we could also get some good faith by the Jessup's in seeing what can happen in the next 2 weeks at their building site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they have the right to continue with the building process during the next 2 weeks? Acting Mayor Mason: Well what I'm hearing, the direction is. Councilman Senn: We haven't taken action to the contrary have we? Acting Mayor Mason: Right. We have taken so what it sounds like we're going to be doing, is we are going to table this in 2 weeks and at that time we'll have some language from the City AUomey and we can then make, then Council can make a decision based on language ch'awn up by the Attorney. And I would also hope that in the meantime there's some good faith action taken on the consa-uction site. Councilman Wing: And that language is to resolve this? Acting Mayor Mason: That language is to resolve this issue, in my opinion. Steve Kirchman: So are you saying now that they can go ahead and continue building on this during this 2 week period or not? Acting Mayor Mason: Well, if we're tabling action, that's essentially what we're doing isn't it Roger? Councilman Senn: Well Steve let me ask you this. Don't they have an active building permit? Steve Kirchman: If they have a valid variance, they've got an active building permit. Councilman Senn: Okay, and we have not let the variance lapse yet and we've tabled it for 2 weeks so they still have a valid building permit, do they not? Roger Knutson: Staff is suggesting that the variance has in fact lapsed and that if they want to go forward, they need an extension from you. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Well give them a 2 week extension until this comes back. Councilman Wing: Okay. I'll move tabling this with a 2 week extension. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second. Councilman Senn: Councilman Wing: move this along. Roger Knutson: And that the Attorney draft an opinion about that... Yeah.' I'm assuming that would include. Moving a 2 weeks extension with your wording to The extension ends at your next Council meeting. 53 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: That is correct. Acting Mayor Mason: And I would sincerely hope that something happens in those 2 weeks. This has dragged on way too long. There's been a motion and it's seconded to table for 2 weeks with extending the variance for 2 more weeks. Any other comments? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to grant an extension on the Variance No. 89-1 for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard until the City Attorney can draft an agreement to get constructcion completed by a certain date and bring the agreement back to the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 37 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES, Public Present: Name Address Paul Harstad Keith Bedford Doug Reichert Bill Mynig 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton 3961 Stratford Ridge 3901 Stratford Ridge 6850 Stratford Ridge Councilman Senn: I move to table. Isn't that what you wanted? Kate Aanenson: This project appeared before the Planning Commission. You saw the same plat that was proposed by Heritage Development. The Planning Commission reviewed the subdivision and staff had recommended denial...several areas that are outlined in the staff report. Deficient lot sizes...shoreland regulafions...The Planning Commission did mcommeM denial. Since that Planning Commission meeting on February 22nd, we have met with the applicant, Paul Harstad. It appears that we're on our way to resolving a lot of the issues. What he would like from you tonight is your recommendation that you wouldn't accept this proposal. Instead of giving him a formal denial, giving a statement that you would recommend denial...if that's your desire but...give him the opportunity to table it and work out those issues and go back through the process... Councilman Senn: But does tabling kick it back to the beginning of the process? Kate Aanenson: Correct. He has to, once he...it would have to go back to the Planning Commission and come back up... Councilman Senn: So rather than table it, why don't we simply direct that it go back for modification or whatever? Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, ff you deny it, then this closes out the application. They start back...and go through the process. I think in good faith they're willing to work out these issues... 54 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move tabling of lhis item. Acting Mayor Mason: I'll second it. Roger Knutson: And the record should show that it's pursuant to the request of the applicant to do this because there's some time issues involved. Acting Mayor Mason: It's been moved and seconded to table per the applicant's request. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have one question. Instead of the Kings Road, that is a privately owned road? Kate Aanenson: Well, what it is is there's an easement and the way we're interpreted...the portion we have access to is the fact that we've been maintaining it for a number of years so we have a right... Acting Mayor Mason: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Acting Mayor Mason seconded to table pursuant to the applicant's request action on the Preliminary Plat, Case No. 93-11 SUB to subdivide 37 acres into 57 single family lots by Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO MITIGATE A WETLAND FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LANE. Councilman Senn: Nobody's here. Move approval. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, my only question on that is, I don't know that anyone on Woodhill Drive was mailed notification of that. Kate Aanenson: I'll have to check with Diane but I think what she did is worked, what Diane gave was to the immediate adjacent property owners to get that resolved. Acting Mayor Mason: Well isn't it supposed to be 500 feet? I just want to make sure we're covered here I guess. I mean Woodhill's a one way and all the trucks are going to be going down Woodhill. I just want to make sure people know about it before it starts. I mean I don't, quite honestly don't think anybody's going to complain about it. Kate Aanenson: No. I think what we can do on that, the reason this got hung up. Just to back up and explain a little bit about the project real quickly. We're trying to do a water qnality improvement project. This is the most upland portion...and they did meet with the ne.i.~;~bors to try to resolve their issues as far as...We've got, kind of the same problems as everybody else as far as ~,-,-ying to get an Army Corps permit. Once we get the permit, it's good for a year but we wanted to do this work in the winter so it probably will be done next winter so I think that gives us plenty of oppommity to go back... Acting Mayor Mason: Oh. Oh. So it won't start tlds year then? 55 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Kate Aanenson: Right. If we had gotten the Army Corps permit...that needs to be a project during the winter months,.,so I think if we make sure that everybody gets renotified before we even start.,. Acting Mayor Mason: I think that would really help I think, Councilman Senn: Can we approve the permit without it? Kate Aanenson: Well it will be subject to a permit. If we don't get the Army Corps approval, then it's not valid...We're not doing any excavation. We're in discussion with them... Roger Knutson: ...talking about the WCA permits. Kate Aanenson: Right. Diane's...We've got a permit from the Watershed and then we're getting one from the Corps...What was the other process. Roger Knutson: Wetland Conservation Act permits. .Kate Aanenson: Right. So it's a permit that's good for one year and... Acting Mayor Mason: I think it's an excellent idea. I just want to make sure everyone knows about it. And like I say, I don't think anyone in the neighborhood is going to be against it but I just want to make sure they're notified, Councilman Wing: I move approval of such. Councilwoman Dockendoff: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Do~kendorf seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit g94-1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. A grading and land alteration permit has been obtained from the Watershed District 2. A permit be obtained from the Corps according to the federal niles listed above. We are still in the process of obtaining a permit from the Corps and therefore, the project is now scheduled for the winter of 1994/95. 3. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval. 4. That the neighbors in the area be notified prior to construction beginning. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PURCHASE/REPURCHAE AGREEMENT, LOT 4 AND OUTLOT A, MARKET SQUARE ADDITION. Acting Mayor Mason: It's my understanding that this was on the agenda so City Council would know exactly what our options were and I think quite honestly this spells out once again Mr. Knutson has done his fine, able job in spelling things out pretty clearly. And I don't know if there needs to be any action or comments taken at 56 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 this time. I mean it seems to me._to go through the Planning Commission as stated and we'll take it from there. As the City Manager, what do. Don Ashworth: I would agree that the City Attorney has outlined your rights to review any development that is proposed for tho property, including your ability to take into account the proposed development. The proposed use. The design. Architectural style. You have no agreement on any other property, that I'm aware of, that gives you the right to look at architectural style. So should the City Council, as this items comes back up through Planning Commission and they meet or re-meet, decisions that are made by the Planning Commission, I think that the City Council has full authority to determine if that proposed development meets your standards or it doesn't, ff at that point in time it doesn't, I think that Roger's outlined a number of actions you could take. To kind of debate, will the development proposal be something we like or don't like, I think it's probably a little premature this evening to make that decision so. Councilman Senn: I agree but if we don't, what are the courses of action? Don Ashworth: Roger correctly noted that that was the HRA that has that authority but. Councilman Senn: Which authority? Roger Knutson: Under paragraph, if you look at my letter on page 2. Paragraph 5. Where it says any proposed development...shall meet the approval of seller. Councilman Senn: Seller is the I-IRA then? Roger Knutson: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay, so we don't have the control. Roger Knutson: You do have control. Councilman Senn: The City Council does not have control. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh sure. As it goes through Planning Commission. I mean as it goes through the channels, sure we do. Roger Knutson: You have normal zoning ordinance approval. Councilman Senn: Normal zoning. Councilman Wing: Except you know the HRA, we approved a one 12 month extension for Pauly's and they went 18 months. It's kind of a direction to them that was pretty clear I thought. Councilman Senn: I'm not comfortable with this. I guess I'd still like to unde:s~id okay, in terms of what you wrote here. ff the entire subject property is condemned, Bloomberg's option is automatically terminated. No payment. No nothing else. Okay, so either the city or the HRA can coudenm it at any time? Roger Knutson: Yes. 57 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. And that is not, that's not viewed as a third party offer? Roger Knutson: That's a separate paragraph. Councilman Senn: Separate from that, okay. But should the City or the HRA decide that they want to, in effect not allow what is proposed, as I'm reading this, that kind of constitutes a third party whatever, which means you pay the buck and the city or the HRA ends up with the property? Roger Knutson: Well on the condemnation. Councilman Senn: Not the condemnation. I'm talldng about under 5. Roger Knutson: Under 5. If the HRA...pmposal and they don't like it for these reasons, then they can say sorry. Pay them a buck and take the property. Councilman Senn: Okay but then, but on that basis then, does it kick back and does 3 kick in or doesn't it? If 3 kicks in, then do they have a right to match a third party's offer because you're throwing us into a third party situation? Roger Knutson: No. Councilman Senn: No. Okay. Councilman Wing: We could be the third party. Roger Knutson: The City can make an offer, yes. Don Ashworth: I should note that we received correspondence from Bloomberg's attorney, John Rice and I've distributed a copy of that to you. He does not concur with Roger's findings but I wouldn't expect that he would. Councilman Senn: But then our only avenues in this thing, from the City's perspective, to keep control of it or to condemn it or make a third party offer, because zoning doesn't really give us much of anything. Roger Knutson: Yeah. Councilman Wing: Here's my concern. We can incorporate the PUD and as the Highway 5 corridor study comes in, that may be helpful but I think that all parties concerned should just be aware that perhaps, and I'm speaking for myself, but perhaps I speak for the Council and Planning Commission. At some point in this process that that is a very pivotal, premiere comer and I'd like to see it be a monument. And I'm not saying it ought to have pitched roofs or it should or shouldn't have fast food. You know we got quoted in the paper about taking on Wendy's. Wendy's isn't the issue. It's just the general land use down there altogether. So if it's going to be a premiere building site, I guess I can't state what that would be but it may include a 3 story office building for all I care. It may or may not have a pitched tool It may or may not have fast food. But I just want to make sure we're in the driver's seat. That it's not being drive by today's marketability to sell retail, etc, etc, etc. I mean we're looking decades down the road. Not the 3, like Farmakes said at Planning, you know not trying to work over a 3 to 5 year retail process here. And I'm all for retail down there. I'm all for 58 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 developing it. I just want to make sure we're on top of this one and we're conlxolling it and we're driving it. If that means buying it, then I'd like to buy it. Councilman Senn: Well Dick, I agree with you. In fact I'm not even sure I'm opposed to what they're proposing. Again our question last week was, are in the driver's seat. I'm not hearing a wonderful answer to that tonight. I'm hearing a non answer to that tonight. The HRA is in the driver's seat. City Council is not. Pure and simply, so. Roger Knutson: Well the HRA is in title, not the city. And these, most of these things I refer to here refer to the HRA. Councilman Wing: So I guess we need a pretty strong resolution at some point to the liRA In this process about what we intend to see done there as the elected officials in the city. And that they don't have the right to approve anything without our approval in this case. When it comes to design and architectural standard and qualifies and so on and so forth. Because they're the last people on earth, excuse me, that I think are qualified to do that. And I'm not sure I am but somewhere in this process there is somebody that can, and I'm saying that the parties involved here, Bloomberg and Lotus may come back with a magnificent project that I can say thank you for. So I don't want to even get into that tonight. Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have anything more to say about this? I think this at least, if nothing else, lets us know exactly where Council and HRA stand on this one and I suspect that under Council presentations we may be hearing a few more comments about the relationship between the HRA and City Council and I think they'll be welcomed. Councilman Wing: I thank Roger for his time and Roger, can we just assume that we can live comfortably. I mean here we have two sides. Can we just, for our sake, take your comments to heart literally? Roger Knutson: I think you can. Councilman Wing: Thank you. You did not find this other side having more validity that. Roger Knutson: Than mine? Councilman Wing: Weighs this side. Which one will hit the counter fa-st? CONSIDER SETTING OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR RATE REGULATION, TRIAX CABLEVISION, MARCH 28, 1994. Don Ashworth: Given the lateness of the hour, I would recommend the City Council set a public hearing date for March 28th. Other issues I have outlined in that memorandum I think we could debate on the 28th. We don't lose any options by setting that as the hearing date and then again if you've got some other things you want to ask about, we could do those on the 28th without negating your ability to approve moving forward a: that point in time or not moving forward. Councilman Senn: I have no problem setting the public hearing as long as we're not in effect adopting what. Don Ashworth: No. Ail you're doing is you're setting the public hearing date. 59 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Senn: So moved, Councilman Wing: Second, Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to set the official public hearing date for rate regulation for Triax Cablevision for March 28, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Wing: For both Todd and Don. February Fest was to me, well. I'll lead the pack here. It started early in the morning out at the Arboretum. Acting Mayor Mason: You might want to mention who you.,.Councilman Wing, Councilman Wing: No. Dawn Lemme was out there early in the morning and of course it had rained and the snow conditions had deteriorated and they revamped that whole thing in seconds and had a very successful race. I was really surprised and the refreshments. And then I wound up over at Lotus Lake, or out on Susan and they had to build docks. I mean just on the spur of the moment build docks to get people out there and tents and all this stuff going on and what really stood out, and one person. And I'm sorry I'm singling him out but I happen to know him and I happened to see him very dominant out there was, aside from Park and Rec staff, was Dale Gregory who was there from early morning until late night just busting himself to pieces and he was positive and pleasant and enthusiastic and was like the Fire Chief out there. Running a major fire scene. Those guys went through almighty hell out there that day and they really did the job and somehow that has to get transmitted from Council back down to those people and specifically park and rec staff but Deal Gregory in particular. I couldn't believe what I saw him doing that day. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I wrote a thank you note that hopefully go into the Administrative Packet. Acting Mayor Mason: It was, I'm going to piggy back on what Dick said. I was at the Arboretum, Everything was well, everything was fairly well laid out even though the course was changed about 8 times in half an hour. Everyone was. Councilman Senn: I was watching the skiers by the way. Acting Mayor Mason: I was skiing, You were watching. It was really well done. I went over to Lake Susan. The water was ankle deep but the docks were being built. The fu'eworks were great. Kids were oohing and aahing. I was oohing and aahing. They even got the skating rink to work. I really want to see February Festival go again. I just, it was really well done. Councilman Wing: Can we somehow get a formal recognition from Council to all people involved? Don Ashworth: What you've done in the past is directed me to prepare a letter that all Council members could sign so it would go out to each of these individuals under each of your individual signatures. So one letter that would have all of your signatures. Acting Mayor Mason: That would be very nice. 60 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And particular note, not only the work that they did but the attitude that everyone had. It was just absolutely unbelievable. Councilman Wing: I don't know how they kept it up. Councilman Senn: They were even smiling as the ice was sinking. Councilwoman Dockendorf: We were drowning. Acting Mayor Mason: It was a lot of fun. It was really well done. Don Ashworth: They were smiling because Mark and I weren't catching any fish. Acting Mayor Mason: It was really well done. It was a lot of fun. Councilman Wing: Mike, real quickly on HRA. On my second item.- I stopped by the other night to emphasize on the need for teamwork and that, there's too many times well, on this bridge feature where they had approved the final design and went on and on and I concur with Mark that something's out of line here and I'd like to get a flow chart established for the HRA/Couneil so we can physically see what responsibilities are. Clarify those responsibilities so I full understand them. I also pointed out to them that they're elected positions and that we ought to be working as a team. I think if Council comes down with a strong direction, that that should hold a lot of weight, and I think this Pauly's situation was a pretty strong direction. It was debated at length and we gave them 12 months with renewable. How they came up with 18 I'll never know. That's an extension that I think exceeds, we don't know what's going to happen to that property if tied up that long and I'm not necessarily opposed to it other than to say, the direction was other than that. So if they choose to take us on, then I think we want to take them on and come to heads on who's running the city here. They have a very, I understand the history of HRA and I think they should be independent. I'm not going to suggest we take over. But I do want them listening to what's going on here and I suggest they start attending meetings and one issue that Mike brought up is, we have a responsibility to attend those meetings but in my case, to get Mondays off, I sometimes can't get Thursdays off so what I'm a.qking is that beginning next month, that the first meeting of the month have a formal position on the agenda for an I-IliA presentation by either Mike or Mayor Chmiel. Just upgrade us on what occurred. What's going on. What some of the problems might be and then carrying back any comments we might have formally on the record and I think that will solve a lot of the problems, Acting Mayor Mason: I think that's a good idea. I might suggest you put in on the second Council meeting since HRA meets between the two. I think that's an excellent idea. Councilwoman Dockendoff: And I appreciate the fact that you came hack with a very positive way to resolve the situation. I want to formally apologize to Mike for our last Council meeting. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, thank you. Councilwoman Dockendoff: No seriously. It was ganging up and it was a lot of bitching and nothing was resolved positive so I'm very thankful that you came back with some positive steps. Acting Mayor Mason: Well thank you. I did think that the thing about a flow chart or just understanding exactly the relationship between the two is an excellent idea and I also, you know I'm a firm believer in 61 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 communications Dick and I think the Mayor and myself or whoever, giving some kind of update from HRA to Council will, should help alleviate a lot of the tension, or whatever that's going on there. I think it's an excellent idea. Councilman Wing: Thank you Mike. That's all I had. Acting Mayor Mason: Mark, did you have something about trash? Who had trash down here? Councilman Senn: I did. I wanted to request that staff prepare an amendment to the solid waste ordinance changing the hours of collection to begin at 7:00 a.m. like we already have, to be consistent with construction vehicles and everything else. Got a number of calls here in the last couple of weeks because of some changed times on trash routes and starting as early as 6:15 and 6:30 and there is an old, or going back to the solid waste ordinance, there is a 6:30. No there is a 6:30 a_m. time in there and it's inconsistent with everything else we've done so I'd like to see it amended to be changed to 7:00 so it's not inconsistent. Councilman Wing: They're going to have trouble with that only because it's so important for them to get those routes going early, early, early. Heat wise and time wise and I thought it was 7:00. I thought we moved all that to 7:00. 6:30. Councilman Senn: We moved the construction vehicles and all that stuff but we did not move this and like I say, we aren't being consistent. Councilman Wing: That's our noise ordinance? Councilman Senn: No. Well the construction one is through the, in the building. Councilman Wing: But Scott just mn through the noise ordinance and I thought that had 7:00 for that. Councilman Senn: Well but again, it's superseded if you've got a solid waste ordinance that says they can start at 6:30 so I think all we have to do is remove or change the 6:30 to 7:00 and we solve the problem. And the problem in this neighborhood by the way was brought up because it's a neighborhood that has always been picked up late morning or afternoon and now all of a sudden, without any change it's a 6:15 to 6:30 so. So can we do that? Don Ashworth: Okay. Acting Mayor Mason: Two quick things. I just wanted to comment about the letter to Linda Saukkonen who is a principal over at Clear Springs. The City of Chan wants to sponsor the, what is it? Totally Turtle. I believe if Charles was here he could help out..mlking about good wetlands, bad wetlands and I'm, I was on the Swamp Committee and one of the biggest things we talked about was getting kids educated about what's going on and I'm really glad to see the city of Chan working with both school districts trying to work that kind of stuff out. I believe Charles sent that leuer so good job to Charles and whatever else is going on. I'm really glad to see that happening. My other thing was, I don't know if anyone else looked at the article about affordable housing and suburban zoning but that did not smack to the issue that we dealt with tonight but I think some excellent points were raised there about what suburbs are doing to deny affordable housing and I, we nexxl to take a look at that. 62 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Mike, you bring this up a lot. As long as it's on the floor, I'd like to raise our city lot, minimum standards. Minimum standard subdivision to 22,000, and we've gone through this before. However, in the Comprehensive Plan I would not hesitate, and I think we should designage specific areas and I don't care how you want to divy it up, that are zoned and in the Comprehensive Plan and in the ordinance for affordable housing. Subsidized housing. Whatever. There's another word I'm missing. There were three of them in the article. Every time these things come in, they're not affordable housing. They're nothing to do other than development. If you want to deal with that issue, we have to get the Comprehensive Plan out and start deciding where we're going to put it and you can go down to 3,000. T~gevilte has a project where I think they went, what's 50 x 1007 1,500 square foot lot? Acting Mayor Mason: 50 x 1007 That's 5,000. Councilman Wing: No homes. Obviously land costs are the issue. Well they went down to these really small land homes: You have to put in a relatively quality home but on a very, very small lot. I have no problem with that in Chanhassen and I think we ought to get going on that. We've got to get it zoned and get it figured out before the land's all gone. Roger Knutson: Just for your information, they don't allow that in Lakeville. Councilman Wing: Okay, Burusville. Apple Valley. Somebody. Apple Valley. Roger Knutson: Lakeville used to have that zero lot line and one project went through and they pulled the plug. Councilman Wing: Okay, well that's what I was talking about. That didn't go huh? Roger Knutson: One project went in. Councilman Wing: Was it successful? Acting Mayor Mason: We do have that on, I believe affordable housing in on an upcoming work session, if I'm not mistaken. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would just encourage, I mean there's going to be a series of articles and I think it's the rest of the week. Acting Mayor Mason: Let's read them. Yeah. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Don Ashworth: I just wanted to thank Council members. I think I made each of you aware of the necessity to try to move along with the selection process for the Planning Director. We're sorry that Paul is leaving us and I'm very happy that Ka~ has made a determination that she would like to serve in that capacity. And the really strong support of the City Council. We me moving ahead with the advertisement for the Senior Planner's position and hopefully we'll have back up to full staff in a short period of time so. Acting Mayor Mason: Are you required of a motion here or anything like that? 63 City Council Meeting - February 28, 1994 Don Ashworth: I don't think so. I just wanted the Council to be aware. I think, I did get an opportunity to kind of explain where we were at. Where I was at...in being able to promote from within and that's been an important concept for our community and I think this is going to work very well for the city and I'm looking forward to working closer with Kate. Acting Mayor Mason: If the skill is there, I'm a firm believer in promoting within and I would have to say with the three and whatever, well however many years you've been here Kate, I think the skill is definitely them and I think it's a, as the third graders would say, it's way cool. That's great. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Doekendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 64