Loading...
CC 1995 12 11City. Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #95-129: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in The Woods at Longacres, Project No. 93-28. b. Resolution #95-130: Accept Storm Drainage and Street Improvements in Minnewashta Landings, Project No. 94-4. Resolution #95-131: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Repairs to Well No. 3; Authorize Advertising of Bids, Project No. 94-3-3. g. Resolution #95-132: Resolution Authorizing Initiation of RALF Process for Lakeviexv Hills. h. Approval of RALF Agreement by the City of Chanhassen and MnDot. j. Resolution #95-133: Approval of Affordable Housing Goals Agreement. k. Approval of Senior Linkage Line Contract with Carver County. Approval of One Year Extension of a Wetland Alteration Permit for Alan and Mary Weingart (Mark and Kathy Sanda). m. Approval of Elimination of Septemberfest Celebration. o. Resolution #95-134: Resolution Accepting Donation of Real Property from Betty O'Shaughnessy. q. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated November 27, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 15, 1995 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 28, 1995 Resolution #95-135: Final Approval of the Sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Building Management Group (Control Products). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone concerned with any of those items on the Consent at this time? If not, we'll move that as I mentioned before, 7(b). VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL~ OFFICE~ SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Jack Lynch John Ward W.J. Ward Dave Bangasser Vernelle Clayton Gary Disch Dave Koonmen Randy Imker Sheri & Jim Lewis Bob Myers Kirsten & Scott Molencamp Frank Scott Rick Hladky A1 Klingelhutz 7425 Frontier Trail 700 3rd Street 5916 Hansen Road Applicant 422 Santa Fe Circle 8170 Marsh Drive 8153 Marsh Drive 8163 Marsh Drive 8133 Dakota Lane 8131 Dakota Lane 8137 Dakota Lane 2730 Sandpiper Trail 8173 Marsh Drive 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I'll give a brief update Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Kate Aanenson: This was tabled at your last City Council meeting. There was some concern on the Council as far as the amount of commercial and some other issues. I'd like to just briefly go through the changes. The road was realigned. Specifically deleting any of the commercial on the north, which is now approximately 11 acres and going more with a mixed use. Staff is still recommending that the property adjacent to the Lake Susan area be predominantly office residential and that the 20 area south of the road be a mixed office residential and possibly retail. In that retail we're recommending that up to 25% of that area, which is this kind of super area in here, be limited to the retail portion. Again because we are requiring the EA document, what we're trying to do is provide the outside parameters so we've got the maximum study area. Again because it's conceptual, it has no standing when it comes back for preliminary plat, which you will see again and we believe there will probably be a lot of versions of this and again it will probably take 6 months to get them studied. What we're trying to establish is what on the outside would be the maximum level of intensity and study that because if we have to go back and they decide to put something else in the mix and go back and study it, it's probably not the most efficient way to do it. So we believe that in making this the outside realm of possibility so if there's something you feel strongly about, this is what we would like you to study under the EA document. Again xve'll be doing the wetlands, the tree inventory and slopes. And in getting that information, it will help us determine what is the appropriate mix. Right now we don't have a lot of that information. Again what we're trying to establish now is just some general framework issues for them to go forward and study. So staff is City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 comfortable with this proposal as it is laid out here, with the recommendations of the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there an), questions of Kate at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate, do you have the prior schematics? Kate Aanenson: I have it on an overhead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean I kmow we have it in our packet but. Actually Brad's going to put it up. Basically the effect of it is we're taking out the designated retail areas and giving us more options, right'?. Kate Aanenson: Correct. What we always envisioned is really again, tvhat's in it for the city. There's still a mix, there's the possibility of a church use going on the site. We still would like to see the mix of South,vest Metro and maybe looking at how we can provide shared parking arrangements. If it's a church use or even an office use. And we'd still like to see more true kind of a new urbanism thing xvhere we actually have maybe a mix of commercial on one level and housing of some form on the top. We haven't designated xvhat type of housing. Again we want to leave that open and we expect to see a lot of different versions of that but that's kind of what we're looking at more of a mix and that was our original goal. Was really to do it more of a mixed project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One other thing too Kate that I had. On page 3, the first sentence where it indicates planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. Can you explain that a little bit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess one of the first premises that when this came forward, xvhen we do a PUD is there has to be some benefit to the city in order to provide different standards. What's in it for the city and one of the objectives that we had is an opportunity to maybe get some different types of housing products and what would be in it for the developer possibly could be a mix of use, including some from retail which would meet their objectives. Through some of the changing of standards, they may get increase in density, shared parking arrangements, that sort of thing that you can provide through the PUD. But some of the things that the city would also get is control of limiting the types of uses. Maybe a specific list that they could draxv from that the Council and the Planning Commission would be comfortable xvith. And architectural standards and those sort of things so actually it's very specific that we can generate a list and architectural types that everybody's comfortable with. So we kind of get, buy into...a known design and use. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. If no other questions of Kate, then we'll move to the developer. Brad. Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent the Ward family who are... What I'd like to do is quickly go through some of the changes and the rationale behind the changes, xvhich are basically to go along xvith some of the requests of either the Council, the Planning Commission, the staff or the neighborhood that has had so far. And xve've kind of read the last meeting that we should tO, to include those in our proposal so what we've done, on the right here I've kind of, this is one and this is the old one. The red line shows where the old used to be. Lake Ann, or xvhat's proposed to be Lake Ann Drive. At both the request of the staff that we lower this road and run it this way, with no objection from the engineering department. They said...change the road here. What we think that this City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 suddenly does is allows the traffic to flow through here out to Highway 5 and it doesn't encourage traffic...Lake Ann, Lake Road East. Is that East? Kate Aanenson: Lake Drive East. Brad Johnson: Lake Drive East. As you've heard from the other neighborhood, they ~vould like to have at least a discouragement of traffic to continue on down and...so this seems to work fairly efficiently through here and as I said, I think we're part of the staff's recommendations and recommendations that the neighborhood wanted. The second thing we've done is we've eliminated... The road that's coming through here simply because we're in discussions with St. Hubert's as to locating their church on this facility and the road became kind of, sort of an obstacle of figuring out where that xvas going to go. So we've taken this portion of the road out. Just left it as it is. One of the main reasons for this to be a public road at the time was to service the neighbors to the east, and in our preliminary discussions with the neighbors to the east they did not want to give us any of their property on their side of the property line for a public road to get into their property. So what we're doing is dedicating this portion of the land on the east end of our property to alloxv that to happen and what that does subtly is allow access here and here to the existing roads that are currently there. The cul-de-sac would be located as we had anticipated in this particular area and we have some grade problems of just handling the xvhole thing but we'd have them anyway no matter how we get into there. And the retail, there was some concern on the neighbors over here that we have retail up against them so xve pulled that away. There is no retail in that area. If you look at it, I think that's the major changes. As far as uses are concerned...previously had requested in...mixed use concept. We had retail, office and then we had residential, 4 to 8 units on our last request. Now in your staff report it indicates that this should be 4 to 8, we are saying that's what it xvould be unless St. Hubert's was in there. Then we have a whole ne~v configuration that xve have to study but not as far as uses. In addition to that we've added institutional...you'll notice that we may include St. Hubert's in the process that xve're going through so that's one of the uses that we would propose in the next use plan. Are there any questions on the changes? There was some concern, both on the neighbors as to something, exactly what are we trying to do? We really haven't changed the use. We've just been a little bit less specific as to where xve're going. The major neighborhood concern was the buffering area and the staff report, which if you accept it says that would be an R-4...so we've left that in there. It's given us some flexibility as to how to handle it. Any questions on the changes? There really was no changes to here...this area. So all we've done is realign the road at the request of the staff. We've tried to deal with Mark's concern so maybe ~ve should study this longer. I think Roger said that you don't want to over obligate yourself and I think this is pretty general...non-specific uses in that particular area except that we're agreeing, sort of at this public meeting this area would be residential unless it would be like St. Hubert's. Then it will change the ~vhole site. We are agreeing with the staff report that we will attempt to have residential mixed into the development. It turned out yesterday in the paper, I don't know if anybody read this. We tried to make sure everybody did. This really kind of outlines the concept that we're working on. It's interesting that one of the people that they speak to about this project is Bill Morrish and he is an advocate of this type of use and he was also an advocate of the Highway 5 plan, so it seems that ultimately we can work together on that. It's interesting, we did present this whole project to the Park and Rec Board, and I believe the Chairman of that was also the Chairman of the Highway 5 committee and he said that that is exactly what we were thinking about. In concept. And I guess it came from Morrish. I suggest you all read this because it's kind of an exciting thing and it's the type of thing that we're trying to accomplish on this environment. In addition to that, I don't 'know if you have any other questions specifically about the revitalized plan. I mean I might rattle off a couple more things and be done. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Brad Johnson: I've got a couple other things yet. Councilwoman Dockendorf: One question Brad. With the road realignment, I'm not certain, do you want to encourage thru traffic through there for people to stop along the retail areas on both sides? Brad Johnson: In here? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Brad Johnson: We don't know yet. I'm sorry...The problem we have is, that this is a State Aid road and it has certain classifications. The road ma}, or may not, see a lot of this stuff comes at the next phase of it all. The way this is configured, we may attempt to put parking on it. We may not. You know according to our planner, that's okay. There's some safety, public you know, it's an okay thing from our point of viexv. We haven't gotten there yet but we just know we need a road. And xve've asked that we be permitted to discuss parking on it but we're not, you know we don't know if that's a good idea or bad idea. You've recommended that xve do a traffic stud}, and I'm sure we'll...see if it's viable or not. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that's not the crux of your idea? I mean I -knoxv you xvere trying to create a, a quasi main street type of atmosphere. Brad Johnson: Yeah, right now there could be another internal system that will allow us to do that. If you want to see the next version of this, with buildings and stuff, you'll get an idea of what we're trying to do. But this seems to work and you ask me, we may want to have parking on there but I don't think that's something we have to deal with today because I think there's, we'd have to prove that it works first of all and then the city would have to accept it. And the State of Minnesota would have to accept it... Did I answer your question? Councilwoman Dockendorf: You sure did. Brad Johnson: As I said, I think all of you should read this article. It has a lot to say maybe overall about the livable city concept and ho~v all this can ultimately fit together. We agree basically with everything in the staff report. We are a little concerned about item number 1 where you are, I think before xve can actually study the problem, holding back on the percent of retail or the percent, you didn't say that we ultimately had to have so much residential. You didn't sa},, it just seems like it's premature from our point of view to determine what the village itself will be like because we aren't totally clear ourselves. What kind of mixes will go in there. We're tls'ing to adapt it to the parking needs of St. Hubert's and as we go through, we'd like to not have that as too harsh of a restriction. We like the word consider 25% retail. We just have to make it work and it may be, in order to do housing, you hardly ever do office and residential together but xve can do retail and residential together. You will see from that article again, that's exactly xvhat they're doing in Mr. Disney's neighborhood because that's what their plan is. That's exactly what I showed you last week in pictures from Wilmette, Illinois and...xve would like you to consider not being too restrictive yet. Remembering that this is just a concept and xve'll be back xvith hopefully something you're excited about at that time. This is hard to be excited about. I agree with you. I think as far as doing even more retail, which seems to always be coming up. We are, within the next two }'ears, going to run out of space here. 5 to 7 years from now somebody's going to say xve need more retail. When we get to 30-35,000... This property may have been gone then and therefore it xvould have to be someplace else besides downtown so this seemed to be, for us a natural progression of a place to relocate additional retail so it works with our other tenants that we have brought here. We are very comfortable that this supports most of the business people in our community, and in fact will fulfill the need. As I said we would City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 request that you at least reconsider exactly how you word item number 1. We understand where Kate's coming from on the retail side. We just think that we'd like to come back and have a chance to show you the actual plan and then you can react to it. But it does limit our ability for example to provide affordable housing residential, you know because we just don't 'know how we're going to do it at this time. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: I've got a question for you Brad. At the last meeting there ',vas some, the consensus from the people adjoining the property seemed to be that they were in favor of something, they realized that something was going to go on and they were in favor of what had transpired up to this point, for the most part. At that last meeting there '`vas some talk. Mark had mentioned that the staff and the developer seemed to be at odds. I'm not quite certain at xvhat point they were at odds and having consequent conversations, I really found no evidence of that but after that you also had a folloxv-up meeting with the adjoining homeowners in the area. Brad Johnson: We have talked to some. We have not had a meeting in the last week. Councilman Berquist: You haven't had a meeting in the last week? What was the primary topic of conversation during the conversations that you had with homeowners? Brad Johnson: They're probably here to comment on that but we've been trying to react to them. I'd say their comment on this was, have they lost some control over something. Basically we have told them for the last 2 to 3 weeks that we are going to propose for sale housing in this area, affordable to meet some standards, and that potentially also that could be St. Hubert's. Okay. Now we've come to a plan that's a little less definitive. It meets some of their road requirements but it doesn't have, show as much control. You know it doesWt say specifically what the use will be there. The staff report however, one of the items does say Kate, doesn't it, that we agree that that area ~vould be, and this is public record so ~vhen ~ve come back, if not St. Hubert's, it will be for sale affordable housing. There are other concerns with the road plan. I think in general they felt okay with the retail. They can speak to that. Some of them are concerned about the overall density, like the rest of you probably could be. We still have to fit all this on the site and that's a concern that we have also. Did I answer your question? Councilman Berquist: Well not really but ! think you did as well as you. Brad Johnson: I don't want to say anything... Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I understand. That's probably an unfair question to ask of you. Brad Johnson: I think they've been fairly cooperative. I think they want a reasonable buffer. They want access to their own neighborhoods, which we provided here. They were trying to get Lake Drive East not to go running right into their property, which we've done here and I think Charles, we've talked to him about this approach before and he seems to agree with it. From an engineering side of it a couple weeks ago. So I think we've tried to meet their requirements given that nobody knows exactly what this is going to be. We've held out still for this area doxvn here that, you know we don't want to sort of dedicate something that's valuable xvithout a negotiation part of the open space. We've indicated it potentially for park in our current plan but that's what we're... We're excited actually to get onto the next phase and if we could ask anything tonight, there's probably still concerns that you all have. I think we can all study those concerns and then try to meet those when we come back..There are some basic layouts and economic consequences to excluding or including retail in that area, you know because we have to be a little bit market driven. But if we're going to do on street City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 parking and we're going to provide that housing above something, which seems to work in our plan, then we'd probably have to do retail... Office does not, it's more, it's not the... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there an}, other questions? Councilman Mason: I have a question for Kate. Kate, what's the rationale to having the retail services be limited to a maximum of 25%? Kate Aanenson: Well I guess originally on the plan before it talks about 14 acres. There xvas existing north, of the road around 7 to 11. And then they xvanted the additional to the south. In looking at the possible building area, it seemed like 25% of the total building area kind of came close to that. We kind of put a qualifier. If you read that condition in that, that's where Brad's concern is. We're saying that there'd be 25% but we see this as more support, depending on the types of uses that go in there that it support those types of uses. What we intend to develop at the next level is a specific list of uses that would be support. If it's office or residential. Again one of the other conditions was the big box so we had said this to be integrated, as Brad said, as part of this particular use talked about in the Disneyland Centennial project is those, in true urbanism, they support what's there. It's not necessarily a larger draxv but intended to support some of the stuff that's there. The existing commercial to the north would probably be more of a larger draw. A little bit bigger square footage and it kind of ties into the village concept that he was trying to do so if you want to put a range in there of' something. We're saying that this would be the stud}, area. When it comes back, depending on the mix because there's a few question marks now whether the church goes in there and hoxv that whole mix shakes out. You know if you wanted to put a range in there just so he has some comfort level what he's got to study. Now that certainly again doesn't, when it comes back at the next level, we've had a chance to look at some of the traffic and some of the grading issues xvhich we didn't expect that or we can't live with that, it's got to be significantly less. That certainly is again...with this conceptual approval. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Brad Johnson: Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I guess I would ask tonight that if you approve this conceptual plan that it be specific within that the access connection point and the intersection plan for Lake Drive be left open, in terms of defining how that's going to happen. To be perfectly honest, I read my packet today and today I became axvare that this was an alignment proposal for Lake Drive. I have a couple concerns. I'm not sure :)'et whether they can be able to come together or not but I guess I would like to ask that that open be left open. One of my primary concerns was that this alignment might encourage northbound TH 101 traffic to circumvent the intersection of Market by, or directly Great Plains Boulevard. The Great Plains Boulevard intersection has not been designed like Market is to handle the primary traffic of TH 101 and I guess I would ask that...look at this further. I'm aware that this is a change being made and I guess I ~vould ask that that be looked over. I'm not sure that... Mayor Ctuniel: Alright, thank you. At this time, from what was presented previously to now, if you would like to come forward and state }tour concerns. We do have }'our concerns from the last meeting. I'd like to ask that if you do have some additional concerns, to come forward and present those at this particular time. And if you do, would you please state your name and your address and what the concern is. City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Dave Koonmen: My name is Dave Koonmen. I live at 8153 Marsh Drive. I'm speaking on behalf of my neighbor, Brian Johnson who lives at 8142 Marsh Drive. Due to a prior commitment he's not able to attend tonight's meeting. His specific concerns are as follows...neighborhood. When the City Council approved the zoning...residential...we checked the zoning surrounding the property prior to building...found the property east of Great Plains Boulevard xvas zoned and guided for single family homes .... zoning changes which would put high density housing, office or retail adjacent to the existing neighborhood of single family homes. Good planning requires transition between areas of low density uses and high density uses. This is confirmed by the Planning Commission who felt uncomfortable with high density rental immediately adjacent to single family residential, in support of the developer's recommendations for medium density housing in this area, along the eastern edge of the Ward property. One Planning Commission member brought up the point that nowhere else in Chanhassen is high density residential immediately adjacent to single family residential. Proper buffering of the Broo 'khill neighborhood should be a requirement...Ward property. This includes proper transitioning, landscaping berms, restrictions on lighting and restrictions on operating and delivery hours for... In regards to the mixed use designation...which designates almost the entire Ward parcel as mixed use. This is not what was presented at the neighborhood meetings or at the Planning Commission and is so vague it is impossible to make a position on whether it is good or bad for us~ The developer should be required to have neighborhood meetings when the proposal is more concrete before any further presentations before the Planning Commission... In regards to traffic flow, we are in support of the suggestion for the roadway network...at the intersection of Lake Drive, East Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. This T intersection helps limit the speed of traffic on East Lake Drive which is a major concern for those of us who live in the neighborhood with small children. In regards to tax increment financing on this property, the Ward property is one of the most valuable commercial properties in Carver County. It's at a major intersection adjacent to downtown...do not feel that there is a need for city assistance warranted for the parcel to be developed. We are very concerned about the level of taxes... considerably higher than other suburbs. I recently called the assessors xvithin the other cities and checked. Eden Prairie's approximately $700.00 lower, $800.00 lower in Bloomington, and $1,200.00 lower in Eagan on our assessed values. In summary we're concerned about how the Ward property is developed because of the effects on traffic... Would you please place yourself in our shoes of the adjoining neighborhood when you consider anything that goes on... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else9. Okay. If not, I'll bring this back for discussion with Council and see exactly where we're going to go with this from 2 weeks ago. Steve. Would you like to. Councilman Berquist: Would I like to start? Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Councilman Berquist: I could probably just re-read the Minutes from 2 weeks ago and come pretty close to what I've got to say. I think a planned unit development makes perfect sense for the site. Adjoining Highway 5, there's lots of things that can be done with it. It is a valuable piece of land. It sits virtually in the middle of the city. There's many, many things that will happen to it and with a PUD, everybody is able to participate in the process from now until the last piece is developed. I think a PUD makes sense. I understand that development takes a period of years. It's not xveeks or months. It's generally years and this process starting tonight will, before we see it again xvill probably take another 6 months before anything even remotely concrete comes to the floor. And everyone in this room will have a chance to participate in discussions that occur at that point, before any dirt is turned over. I was in favor of going ahead with the proposal at the last meeting. Giving conceptual approval. I'm still in favor of giving conceptual approval. With that I'll pass to you. City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I find it interesting. Usually when xve table things it's to refine the concept. This is kind of taking a step in the other direction and giving us more options, xvhich I think is appropriate. Before I forget, I want to comment on the use of TIF. I don't see that in this development at all. I think the district, I don't think it will be available when this is being developed so I wouldn't worry about that. And it hasn't even been taken into consideration yet. Getting back to what I was saying. I think the mixed use does give us a lot more options. We're going to find out a lot more information xvith the environmental assessment worksheet. See what is viable. I'm a little concerned about what happened in our internal communications with staff about the roadway alignment. It should have been addressed prior to this evening and I guess we're going to have to leave the issue open. So I would make that a condition of approval. I think that the Council is always very concerned with adjoining neighborhoods and the majority of this Council two weeks ago were very concerned, or were in agreement that some sort of medium density residential, some sort of buffering for single family neighborhood should occur and I think that will carry through in the planning process. Kate Aanenson: Can I just comment on that Colleen.'? We did can3, those forward. It is condition 22 and 24, just so you know we did understand that. And 22 says that the applicant shall develop a plan to buffer the existing residential. And then 24 says that also that it's our desire or our preference to see that the residential owner occupied be adjacent to existing residential at 4 to 8 units an acre so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Kate Aanenson: Even though it's not shoxvn on the concept, we've articulated that in the conditions of approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good. I think condition number 25 where we address big box users, I think that needs to be defined a little more. I see we still have a requirement for a commitment to provide rental housing within and I think that should stay. I'm concerned that we don't, we address the amount of retail in condition number 1 but we're only addressing the center portion of the site. We still have two very large nodes that could be all retail. So t don't want the developer to get the idea that all of that, those two large nodes to the north will be fully retail with a maximum of 25% more retail in the center. I think that really needs to be given as much attention as the rest of the mixed use site in what those should develop as. So without repeating what Steve said, I think it's a concept. It's wishy washy but I think it's a good thing that we did take a step back and provide some more options for mixed use. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Well two weeks ago I thought it was a good concept and I still think it's a good concept and I thought it was a good concept before I saw the Mr. Disney's neighborhood so what the heck. It was a good article. A couple of things. I hear the concerns about retail. I share those concerns too. I think we do need to keep in mind that we have citizens here, and I am one of those citizens who is very concerned about taxes in this city and one way to lower the tax burden for property owners is to bring business and retail into town and I think we need to be pretty careful of that. If we start limiting drastically those kinds of things, we are going to hurt our tax base even more than it is already hurting, if that makes any sense. It is a concept and I think the developer knows full well if they came back with too much retail, in viexv of staff or in view of Council, that it would get shot down so I'm okay with that. You knoxv we're talking about bringing some sort of housing in there but yet I'm hearing we absolutely can't use TIF. Some pretty high buck land has received 10 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 TIF in this city and one of the reasons it receives TIF is to bring more retail and more business into toxvn. It does not hurt our taxes. I have yet to have anyone show or prove to me that it does. As a matter of fact, xvhen is Rosemount coming off TIF? Mayor Chmiel: 2000. Don Ashxvorth: Yeah, 2000 really is the end of the district. Councilman Mason: And then how about, does anyone -knoxv about how many hundreds of thousands they'll be coming back into the city? Don Ashworth: They pay approximately one million per year in taxes. Councilman Mason: So I mean that, I'm a little hard pressed to say there xvill be absolutely no TIF. I'm not saying there xvill be TIF but this is all concept and I think we're all missing the boat if we say up front this won't happen, this won't happen, this xvon't happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I just clarify what I said? Councilman Mason: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I meant the opportunity for TIF is going to disappear before I see this being built. Councilman Mason: Oh. Well and if that's the case, so be it. I think it's a good concept. I would like to carry this forward and see what can come out of it. I'm done. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I have no problems with the development of the concept to go ahead for the environmental assessment. As far as concerns and questions, I don't think really any of those which I had two weeks ago have been answered and I continue to have the same concerns and questions. For the study, as I understand is you want to include that 25% and again that seems to make sense for the study, even though I really question any retail south of the extension at all, other than some neighborhood service stuff. I continue to have questions over the controls basically we'll have in place for the retail...but if you've covered that...those concerns are just as equal for the retail along TH 5... I think the placement of...housing talked about two weeks ago really needs to focus axvay and be axvay from the neighborhood. Be more towards that northwest comer of that 20 acres. And beyond that on the TIF questions. I think as far as TIF goes, if the opportunities there, I think we may want to look at using it there but I think...more in line with the affordable housing issue than it would be in line with the commercial issue. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Councilman Senn: Yep. I think so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just to make a point clear Michael with TIF. TIF is derived and given back to the city to utilize and to assist with additional growth within the community. It doesn't mean that TIF really goes away 11 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 or those dollars go away. Those come back directly back into the county and back into the city, back into the school district so they just don't disappear. Councilman Mason: Well that is why I made the point about how TIF has not damaged our tax base. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Mason: Exactly. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still have some minor concerns with this but then my concerns can't be addressed until the concept approval would move ahead and there are some things that I xvill see to that are adhered to as far as xvhat would be proposed and xvhat would be coming in to the respective site. I want it to be complimentary to what's existing downtown, as I mentioned. I don't want to see storefronts empty within our downtoxvn. My main goal is to see all businesses survive as much as they possibly can and to make a living off of it. There's nothing worse than going into any downtown, and I'm sure that many of you have, and see empty storefronts. It just takes away from that respective community. It just sort of breaks it apart and I think we have xvorked too darn hard xvithin this community to make sure what we're putting in is going to be best for the community. As I've said once and I've said probably 100 times, we have the opportunity to do this only once. If we don't do it right the first time, we're not going to be very happy with it. So with that I guess I'd like to see if there's a motion, but there was one additional condition that you had mentioned Colleen. As an item, or an item number 26. Would you like to be repetitive on that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'i1 quote a motion. I xvould move conceptual approval of PUD #92-1, sketch plan stamped Received December 5, 1995 with the 26th condition of approval to read, the intersection of Lake Drive East, the issue will still be left open for discussion and approval by the city engineering department. I also, if I could get some help in putting the square footage on big box users or can you define that a little more so we have. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I can't give you one right now but we will certainly try to get some definition when it comes in the next go around. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Councilman Mason: Will you entertain something about item number 1 and approximately 25% as opposed to a maximum of 25%? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Well I have just a little reservation with that. I would just as soon keep it at maximum at this time xvith the opportunity for us to once see what's being proposed and then to make that change. Councilman Mason: Well I'm not, my only comment to that I guess would be, and I'm not totally opposed to xvhat you're saying but again I think in a conceptual approval, maximum says they can't come back with this at higher than 25%. Approximate says they can and if xve don't like it, we can say nuts to you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe what it should be is to show me something what this is and show me something what that is. 12 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilman Berquist: Retail services uses shall be considered to be limited to a maximum of 25%. That gives leeway. Councilman Mason: Would you repeat that Steve? Councilman Berquist: Retail/services uses shall be considered to be limited to a maximum of 25% of the building area. Mayor Chmiel: That leaves it... Would the motionee and the second accept that? Councilman Mason: I'll second that motion. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call for the motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to grant conceptual approval of PUD #92-1 sketch plan stamped Received December 5, 1995, with the following conditions: The retail/services uses shall be considered to be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the building area xvithin the 20 acre parcel located in the central portion of the site. The retail/service uses shall he support commercial to the office, residential and institutional uses. The uses for the 9.2 acre parcel of land adjacent to Lake Susan shall be limited to office and medium density residential uses. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east/west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the reviexv process. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in it's entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD or be used to meet non-impervious surface coverage for the entire project. 4. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, maximum building square footage and the proposed specific uses. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. The applicant shall xvork xvith the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. 9. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 13 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 10. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes and wetlands. 11. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East xvill require an 80 foot wide right-of-way and the southerly loop street a 60 foot xvide right-of-xvay. 12. All accept points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDot review and approval. 13. 14. The applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not interfere with. traffic congestion and public safety. The applicant should prepare a traffic stud,,,; to provide data justifying access points and to determine necessa~, roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 15. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 16. 17. 18. 19. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant xvill be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan xvith regards to accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable permit application for xvetland alteration. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the city also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban xvetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 20. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 21. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. 22. 23. 24. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent xvith the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density (4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density. 14 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 25. No big box users shall be permitted within the development. 26. The Lake Drive East intersection issue will be left open for the city engineering department to provide input and approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT OF OUTLOT C, TIMBERWOOD ESTATES INTO LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ TIMBERWOOD ESTATES 2ND ADDmON~ LOCATED ON TIMBERWOOD DRIVE, WALLACE OTtO AND KIMBERLY HARTUNG. Public Present: Name Address Curt Olsen Greg Maanum Maxine & Wallace Otto Brian Klingelhutz Bruce Johnson 2260 Timberxvood Drive 8040 Acorn Lane 400 So. Oak, Waconia 8860 County Road 10, Waconia 2051 Oakwood Ridge John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The applicants are proposing to plat Outlot C into one lot. In 1987 when the preliminary plat for Timberwood Estates xvas approved, the City Council at the time indicated that the lot could be built upon in the future if the applicant could demonstrate that it was a buildable lot. In order to be considered a buildable lot the applicant must demonstrate that the parcel can accommodate a home, well and two drainfield sites for septic system. In April of '94 the city changed the wetland setback for a drainfield site from a wetland from 150 to 75 feet. This greatly increased the amount of area available for septic purposes. A survey has been prepared for the site which demonstrates that there is adequate room for the necessary improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat as the applicant has demonstrated that the lot is buildable based on ordinance requirements. No variances are being requested. Just to clarify one issue. Staff has requested an ultimate drainfield site located on the northern end of the lot be adjusted to be pulled outside of the wetland setback so that it does meet the 75 foot setback. There's more than enough room within that area currently to accommodate this and to accommodate a drainfield site. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question, probably more so for Charles. I don't understand how this secondary site could work xvith it so far removed from the residence. With a lot of money and a string and prayer or what? Charles Folch: I guess... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you have determined it is a feasible site? John Rask: That is something that is addressed through our building department. Steve Kirchman, the building official is the one xvho approves septic sites and installation of the system. And he has reviewed this. Has been 15 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 out on the site. That northerly site did, or the soils were good for a conventional type system. A trench, in- ground system which would work fine there. There is some elevation changes so it would be pressurized. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, would this need a lift station'? John Rask: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And can you disturb a wetland area to provide the? John Rask: The forcemain is exempt from the wetland requirement so that could either, if you look carefully at the plat, they do show the forcemain coming up around the xvetland. It's not to disturb it. It would encroach slightly into the setback but again, that is exempt from that setback requirement. It's about a 4 inch PVC pipe that would be pressurized to get it back up slope there. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: Is there an.,,' reason why, from our perspective, except that we're going to build everything else. The house is being located where it is... John Rask: That was, the applicant, was the location that was chosen by the applicant. Basically the setbacks, the front yard setback and the setback from the wetland would make it difficult to really fit in anywhere else. We have talked about the possibility with the applicant of moving the house to the east, away from that existing house that's there. More from an aesthetic standpoint trying to improve the overall appearance of the neighborhood. To maintain some of the open space there and the separation betxveen structures. You would lower it in elevation slightly but the road kind of slopes down there too so you xvould be able to maintain adequate grades as far as locating a house there without disturbing the whole site too much. It's still accommodate a walkout style given it nicely on that, with the slope and topography there. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying basically, it could be moved some. Also within the covenants xvithin that particular area, and I'm not sure exactly xvhat they consist of. Would that also have a direct bearing on location of that as well? John Rask: Possibly. I'm not real familiar with the covenants there either but I understand there are some architectural review standards for this subdivision that possibly could impact the location. I'm not, have not seen those covenants. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay. I would like to open this up for discussion. Is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything that you'd like to address, other than what staff has already indicated? Applicant: No, I think he covered it. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay, we'll open this up. Is there anyone xvho would like to address this particular issue? Please come forward. State your name and your address and basically... (The recording of the public's statements were of poor quality and therefore portions could not be heard on the tape.) 16 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Curt Olson: ...I very much object to how this is laid out and xvould very much like to have this matter tabled until we can get together with the homeowners association. They've not been contacted at all up to this point, along with the city to find a way to really make this thing work properly. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Brian Klingelhutz: ...I built real close to the property line and for some unknown reason I contacted the neighbor first and he was going to build way farther north...I can see xvhy Curt is a little bit upset because when he bought that lot he thought it xvas alxvays going to be an outlot but the rules changed and that's why they couldn't make it a lot at the beginning because of the road. And then now the rules have changed and.,.I guess I can't see how it can be turned down. I talked to the builder who's going to buy the lot and we'll move it as far as...John said, he said set the house in there somewhere where it fits. So we can ask them to put it there... That was a draxving just to have a house on that lot. We can put it anyxvhere within the setbacks so there is some room... Beautiful 5 acre lot and... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Brian. Anyone else? Oreg Maanum: Hello. My name is Greg Maanum. I live at 8040 Acorn Lane and I am somewhat...I guess I support Curt's objections for a couple of reasonst Apparently if that's not the location of the house...I guess I would support the objection... I built my house a couple years ago and...and the ;vay this house is proposed; it'd be pretty strange... Also, I'm very familiar xvith that lot. There's an extreme drop-off to the ;vetlands...I understand rules change but I think my only objection... I guess I would support Curt's objection... Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Wally Otto: Good evening. My name is Wally Otto and I was one of the original developers of the property. My partner has passed away since and this property was...lines where it could go. And the covenants that were put together, the covenants have no mention of where these buildings can set. The covenants just mention the fact that the city will affect the lot setback...so any of the lot lines and lot setbacks, they were homes...and xvithin the confines of those lot lines xve were restricted on some of our houses we could put in and we did... we've been limited on this lot so... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Bruce Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Bruce Johnson. I live at 2051 Oakwood Ridge...I am Co- Chair of the current...current architectural control committee. That is an elected committee by the homeowners of 5 residents within the subdivision...structures, landscaping...we've been in contact with all 5 and all 5 said that they would not approve the current location by where that is and everything else on the lot line and everything...Mr. Otto and I think Mr. Klingelhutz used to be members of that...and why they would not talk to the committee before they proposed it concerns me a little because it does not fit the... Article 4, Section 2. The committee shall consist of three individuals whom so long as the developer owns a buildable lot, shall be appointed by the developer after which the committee shall be appointed by a majority of the lot owners... If this becomes a buildable lot, our homeowners provision becomes...and they can do what they want to do. That is not something that we realized until about 6:00 tonight. That is something that really concerns us greatly. We were prepared to ask this for tabling of this issue until we could sit down with the developer and find a decent site... That is still some middle ground that I think we need to explore. However when I see this Section 17 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 2, I become greatly concerned that depending on when the actual transfer of the property takes place...so with that I would be happy to answer an5, questions. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Roger. What's the city's legal position on this if we were to move ahead. It appears as though the proposed owner of the property to build would have some...but where does this leave us as a city? Roger Knutson: ...practical matter, what normally has to happen to build...Second, you have a homeowners association covenants. You have to satisfy both of those as far as... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good. Thank you. Roger Knutson: I thought I had...willingness to resolve this issue...moving the home as far east, or... Wally Otto: I can understand the concerns of the people that live out there but I can speak only for myself. I have no intention of getting back on the architectural control committee. I do not live in the project and I think those people should have the determination of what takes place there. Currently you do not have a buildable lot, is that correct? Right now we don't. Kate Aanenson: Right. Wally Otto: So if it hasn't anything in there...they don't have to feel threatened on that. They're still going to be contacted but their comments...more on the structure of the home than the location because it was determined by the city as to where they could go with that so the original intent in there was not to get the building location since that was going to be handled by the Planning Commission here and the City Council had the final approval...getting back on this committee, that is not the plan... I guess xve just ask to resolve the situation and move... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, xve'll bring it back to Council. Mark. Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know...in the first place. I just have a real hard time looking...that alters it's septic sites. I mean I knoxv...but you also have to start...I don't see how it could ever be practical... There's not a great deal of discussion in here so it's kind of hard...one way or the other. If something would go ahead on this lot, from looking at...but at this point I guess I would really have questions as to the validity of the alternate site... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: Well, we have building officials to inform Council of whether things are appropriate or not. I have before me a recommendation by a building official that says it can be done. Well as I certainly don't disagree it would sound pretty impractical to meet, anyone that wanted to build on that would be held to that. I have heard people, the developer saying they're willing to move the home over as far as they can and certainly I'm aware of ,,',;hat our attorney said about we're limited as to xvhat we can and can't do. They're folloxving the guidelines. I'm hoping that house can get moved over to, away from the other homes as far as possible but that's, I would hope that's between the developers and the people that live there and I would hope that can get taken care of but I see no reason why xve shouldn't, you knoxv xvhether I like where that house is going in or not, legally I don't see that we cannot approve this request. 18 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'm trying to think of an instance, I think it was out on the south side of Lake Minnewashta, right across from the Arboretum where it was a judgment call of the Council...because the septic site was highly questionable... Councilman Mason: Was that that one under xvater? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it was basically under water and xve refused the platting but was that a primary site? Charles Folch: No, it wasn't under water... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought it was too but in retrospect I think it was the primary site. You 'know, as much as I don't want to, I think we need to rely on Steve Kirchman's analysis...acceptable secondary site... The- bigger issue is really, I think this is one of the instances where Council has some, not only responsibility but really has some...insofar as we created the situation by changing the ordinance from 150 foot setback to 75 foot setback. I think people built, purchase and built surrounding this lot in good faith knowing that the lot was unbuildable and therefore I think we do have some responsibility to influence where, if anyplace, a home will go on this lot. You knoxv as a matter of practicality, I'd really like to get it taken care of at the Council level so it doesn't have to be involved in any litigation or pitting neighbor against neighbor on that...and I xvould really like to see a xvillingness on the part of the applicant, just to put some constraints about where the setbacks xvould be from the property line...so if you would have some suggestions or some willingness to take a minimum setback on that xvestern property line, I'd strongly ask for it...so it doesn't have to...get bogged down there. So as a condition of approval, if you would be amenable to saying, 150 foot setback from the western property line and I think the... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Councilman Berquist: Was that a question of the applicant? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes it was. Mayor Chmiel: We'll get back to that until xve get your's. Wally Otto: I guess in answer to that...statement made earlier. We'll put it anyplace as long as it fails within the city guidelines... Councilman Berquist: The letter that Mr. Olson handed out, does this accurately, have you read it? Okay. I'm trusting that it accurately represents the Article 4 of the covenants. In the event that the change had not been made from 150 setback feet, what were your plans for the lot? You ~vould have held onto it forever. It never would have been a buildable lot. Wally Otto: Originally the setbacks were 75 feet... Councilman Berquist: The 150 stipulation was in place all during the planning process for Timberxvood? 19 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Wall.,,' Otto: No. It was 75... Brian Klingelhutz' statement from the audience was not picked up by the tape. Councilman Berquist: So in other words, you guys started the planning process with a 75 foot setback in place? During the middle of the planning process the city arbitrarily changed the requirement from 75 to 1507 Wally Otto: ...there were two septic sites located originally on this. One on the north side... Councilman Berquist: Maybe I'm getting fouled up on this. Okay. If I were the, and I know everybody understands because they were the adjoining neighbors, of the proximity of the proposed pad, they would be upset. I would certainly react the same way. Given the way this pad sits on the lot, according to your plat, your front yard becomes the side of his house and that would disturb me greatly if I xvere to oxvn that lot. Yeah it meets the criteria of the ordinance. Sometimes when you look at it hard and fast like that, I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this. It's frustrating sometimes not to be able to make an arbitrary decision. To have to make one based on fact. I really would like to be able to put something in the motion that will alloxv a setback from the property line. I'm not exactly sure how to word that but have staff to help us with that but I am unwilling I think to approve a change from an outlot to a buildable lot given the proximity of this house to the, to this pad of the adjoining structure. I'd like to see that addressed by the applicant prior to approval. A statement was made from the audience xvhich xvas not heard on the tape. Councilman Berquist: Well, hoxv difficult will it be to bring one back that shows how a house will fit there? The statement from the audience was not heard on the tape. Councilman Berquist: You've got a builder that's interested in the lot? The statement from the audience was not heard on the tape. Councilman Berquist: Great. He must have some idea of what he's going to do. The statement from the audience was not heard on the tape. Councilman Berquist: I understand that. What I'm saying is that, as a condition of approval I would like the setbacks to be addressed insofar as we take into consideration the adjoining property's structure. Wally Otto: Part of the original, and I... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would make a motion to that affect, adding a condition number 9 that the. Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making that motion I. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I apologize Mr. Mayor. Son3,. Mayor Chmiel: I certainly appreciate that. One of the things that I see here is, as I mentioned to Mr. Olson, the fact that that property owner is the property oxvner for that particular lot. And as long as they conform 20 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 within the guidelines of whatever the city is, he has that opportunity to build and put that house wherever he so chooses. At least that's my position that I see. It's hard to, and I sympathize with the problems that are existing xvith the houses in and adjacent to each other, but I still the fact that if the applicant so chooses to move that structure to another location, as much as they possibly can to enhance their oxvn view... So I think we can go back noxv to a motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we approve the final plat of Outlot C xvith adding condition number 9 that the house pad be placed the maximum to the east of the property line and still meeting the- setback requirements and in addition, that it be faced, that it be oriented square with the road. I guess that's it. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Bruce Johnson: May I ask...motion? Is that... Mayor Chmiel: You're out of order. Bruce Johnson: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'll bring it back. I'm looking for a second. John Rask: Can I interject one comment? When we take that house and we square it up to the road, what we do is significantly change the xvay we have to grade the site. Right now it runs parallel to the slopes so if we do square it up, there's going to be these additional impacts on the site and we can minimize those as much as possible through some of our ordinances but it is going to have some other impacts out there. Just so you're aware of those consequences. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Senn: So you won't... Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, you're not going to be able to increase the... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we're getting into a design stage more than what we basically should. Councilman Berquist: We're doing the job of the architectural board. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. And I think if xve were to make a motion, I think we should make that motion as such as to what you basically started to approve it. But also to put another condition contained in there that the property owner xvould so choose to move the house farther to the east without incurring additional basic costs themselves as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm unwilling to go that far. I would amend my condition number 9 that the proposed housing pad be placed the maximum to the east on the property as allowable by the setbacks. Mayor Chmiel: That sounds good. Is there a second? 21 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilman Berquist: I need to bring up one other issue before... The caveat that the gentleman in the back stated regarding the homeowners association becoming...in the event that the owner, the original developer has one lot left concerns me. As much as Mr. Otto says that he doesn't want to, and I believe that he does not have any intention of becoming a homeowners association again, that caveat is still part of the by-laws. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it would be, the current committee has been operating defacto for 2-3 years notv. I think if it were challenged, it would be lost. I don't know Roger, if you want to give an opinion on that but. Roger Knutson: I have not read the covenants. I have not seen the covenants. I really can't comment on it. Councilman Berquist: Well I'll make a counter motion to table this thing and that gives the homeowners association, the owner/dex'eloper/realtor time to resolve the issues before us. I think if development is, it can be considered a ladder, we're at the second wrung. We're one wrung too soon, to me. So I'll move to table. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd tvithdratt, my motion and second that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There is a motion on the table to table, with a second. And that's so the architectural committee can review their concerns as well as potentially the developer and proposed builder relocate that to the east as far as the)' possibly can. Is that tvhat you're basically saying Steve? Councilman Berquist: Close enough. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion.9 Seeing none, okay. Councilman Mason: Yeah. I quite honestly don't see any reason to table this. I don't think it is the city's purview to, as I believe our City Attorney has stated to get involved in what any, and I'm not just talking Timberwood Estates but I'm talking any development's covenants. I don't see why we, and I don't think xve should be getting ourselves tied up in the covenants. It sounds to me like the developer was willing to move that, the house as far east as they could without incurring undue costs and I quite honestly don't see why we're dragging this out at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Senn: Roger, is that something we can do or we can't do? Roger Knutson: Table it? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: On that premise. You're not just tabling it. You're tabling it on a premise. Roger Knutson: It's not uncommon to table matters that you want further discussion tvith the neighborhood but if you're saying, can you table it and give the architectural reviexv committee sort of veto what you do. No, you can't do that. But if you want further discussion with the neighborhood and allow some time for that to occur, you can do that if you like. But you can't delegate your decision making to a committee. If the architectural 22 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 committee likes it or doesn't like it, that really is not the basis for your decision. The basis of your decision making is your ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: We're on discussion on a vote. Councilman Mason: And I of course would argue, based on our ordinances we have no business tabling this tonight. Councilman Berquist: In the event that we can prevent enmity between homeowners, ;ve have every reason to table it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and I think this is one of the instances ~vhere the city is part of the issue insofar as we did change the setback. Mayor Chmiel: And that xvas so directed, or is indicated too in discussions by the proposed. Okay. I'll call the question. Councilman Benluist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the request for f'mal plat of Outlot C, Timbenvood Estates into Lot 1, Block 1, Timbenvood Estates 2nd Addition for further review with the homeowners association, the applicants and the city. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: John, we'd like to have this brought back to Council on, how about January the 8th. January 8th. Thanks. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CSM CORPORATION. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I handed out prior to tonight's meeting a letter from CSM Corporation requesting that the item be tabled so they can sit down with staff to discuss... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that it? Todd Gerhardt: That's it. Staff has no problem with tabling it... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any concerns by Council in tabling this next item? And that was your proposal? Todd Gerhardt: There's no rush. They're not building a building so we have time~ Councilman Berquist: The market values, they're going to start questioning market values, minimums and? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, they feel the market value is approximately $1.2-$1.1 million instead of $4.4. Or $4.1 to $4.2 and we've got the $4.4 as a minor adjustment and staff would probably agree...in the private redevelopment agreement probably will be going down with less incentive back to them... We didn't hear any comments regarding value until 10:30 this morning and then calling me back at 5:30 requesting the tabling. Councilman Berquist: Once again, this is an EDA and not an HRA? 23 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Todd Gerhardt: Correct. It's the sole responsibility of City Council. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion to table? Councilman Mason: I'll move to table. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berrluist seconded to table approval of the Private Redevelopment Agreement for CSM Corporation per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF THE 1996 BUDGET. Don Ashworth: City Council has received the final budget, pretty much in final form. Some of the summary sheets at the beginning are missing the cop), you have of some of the statistical type of sheets in the back are also missing. But the numbers totally correspond xvith the numbers the City Council had seen during the work sessions and finally up through the public hearing held last week. They still produce the 4%-5% decrease in property taxes for a majority of our property taxpayers, and approval is recommended with the understanding that you're actually adopting a resolution adopting the budget which is in there and the corresponding tax levies for 1996. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any discussion? I think we've had enough discussion on this over the year. The past 4-5 months I think it's been brought to fruition. Hard for me to say. Is there a motion or discussion on this particular item? Councilman Mason: I would like to move approx'al of the City of Chanhassen 1996 Budget. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Councilman Berquist: This xvas the first year, or correct me if I'm wrong. This is the first year I was lucky enough to participate in this. The impression I got was that the process began much earlier than it had in years past. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Berquist: What was stafPs feeling regarding that? 24 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: Well I think if you recall, we still had some, I think Councilman Senn had wanted to see us get to a point of by the date when we xvould have to set the truth in taxation dollar lev3, amount, that we would kind of have the budget completed by that point in time, which is like September 1st. But the information that I had passed back said that you don't have a lot of the information back by the State by the time you set that number. And in fact this year, xvhen we had set the number I had really hoped to achieve a number which xvould be approximately what this year's tax levy amount was to give the City Council the most flexibility in going through. In finalizing that budget because you can alxvays go down but you cannot exceed that number. The fact' is that, because we did not have those final numbers and we simply were making a guess, the final numbers that came out produced a property tax decrease of 4% to 5%. We were stuck with that number. We had no opportunity at that point in time, other than to show and make sure that the budget stayed under that dollar amount. I guess staff xvise I think we're very happy with the process because it, the early meetings between the Council and staff really give your department heads an opportunity to take and talk about what they're hoping to achieve as a part of the 1996 budget. And it gives the Council an opportunity to kind of say well, that makes sense or it doesn't make sense. So I guess, staff was happy with the process. I don't know if City Council was. Councilman Berquist: Well speaking from my point of viexv only, it was a heck of a learning experience. I was somewhat surprised at what I perceived to be a, well just kind of accepted xvithout questioning. I 'know that as time goes on people tend to do that a little bit more but I, if anything I expect to question more in the next few years than less, especially now that I knoxv a little bit more. But okay, I'm done. That's the end of my discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any more discussion? Resolution/495-136: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendoff seconded to approve the City of Chanhassen 1996 budget. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. APPROVAL OF 1995 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY FOR WINTER STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL, CHANHASSEN PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. City staff...contacted by Carver County... regarding the ability to possibly lease some storage space in our...program for the household hazardous waste collection program. After some discussions with staff and looking at our situation out there we basically committed to, or agreed that xve could provide the space to Can, er County to continue this operation. While they don't...each year our space needs problem is getting worse and worse...so we've indicated to Carver County to... In talking with Leslie Wilson of the Environmental Services...information as to how well it has been operating in Chanhassen... Leslie Wilson: My name is Leslie Wilson...Carver County Environmental Services. I passed out some information to you there and you can... First of all for the last year we were in the City of Chanhassen for 2 out of the 5 months...so xve spent part of it...In 1995, 43% of the household hazardous waste program usage came from City of Chanhassen residents...92% of the repeat customers, people that come back to our program more than once, were from the eiB, of Chanhassen. It appears that the city of Chanhassen residents know that the program's there and they like to use it. It's something that they're able to come back to and... You can see that the list of comments there on the survey...and generally they're very positive for this program. I think Carver County and the City of Chanhassen are being pretty proactive environmentally with this program. I think that if 25 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 I was... We have a really good working relationship with the public works staff. They've been very helpful and have been... I'd like to let you know just briefly some future plans that Carver County is looking at. We're taking a look at some alternatives for...incorporating this to probably be a household hazardous waste facility. Another option that we're thinking about is adding onto the existing building, probably at public works, the City of Chanhassen might be an ideal location for that. And for both of these alternatives that I just mentioned, we've see some grant money coming through from the State, especially where public entities are working proactively so that's an attractive feature as well. Do you have any questions I can answer? Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions by Council? I think just for the mere fact that a good working relationship between the County and the City is things that xve should have and I do appreciate the extent of this from the County to offer these kinds of services to our residents within the community. It's better to see it go there than into the garbage and eventually either go to a burner somewhere. Maybe it gets burned up but if not, then it goes to a landfill. There's contamination contained with there so it's a good program. Leslie Wilson: It is...working relationship so we really value that. And I do think that the residents...really like to bring their waste into... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: The $1,500.00 to $1.00. Leslie Wilson: Last year it was seen that if xve were to store hazardous waste in the bay over the winter, we needed...City of Chan and Carver County negotiated to go together... We split it in half and xve, Carver County... This year I have not been approached by anyone...so there xvas never any discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you ,,,eD, much. Appreciate you coming down Leslie. Okay, I'd like to declare about a 5 minute recess. Councilman Berquist: Do you want to approve this or not? Mayor Chmiel' Oh! Yeah, I think we'd better. We're really moving. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the proposed lease as indicated by Charles? Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I would move the lease agreement with the comment that we recently had a tour of the public works building and realized their shortage of space and I think that was taken into consideration in setting the lease amount. Mayor Chmiel' Is there a second? Kate Aanenson: Can I make a comment on that? The planning department runs this program and unfortunately we didn't have an opportunity to comment on this, and I apologize for that but the Environmental Resources hadn't budgeted money because they were under the understanding that their investment was improving part of' the bay. So they figured they made their original investment and based on the fact that they participated in heating, which was also a benefit to the public works department, they kind of did their due justice. There was some concern because they hadn't budgeted that. We're concerned because it does provide a service that we end up with this stuff somewhere else if they can't come up ~vith the money. So we are concerned that, to make sure if they can't find the money, because again they were never approached that they kind of figured it was a 26 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 one time thing because they solved the problem. That's certainly a goal that we've indicated to do in the planning department, is to try to look at other alternative sites long term for disposal of waste. But we are concerned that if they do not find the money in the budget, that the program isn't being offered so maybe even tabling it and giving them an opportunity to make sure they've got the money in the budget or something to make sure we don't lose that opportunity. I'm not sure xvhat the proper way to handle it is. We have a concern to make sure that the program continues. Councilman Berquist: I'm not sure, are you questioning the $1,500.00 rent versus the $1.00 rent? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Okay. The way the lease currently reads, unless we discuss it, we're going to pay a buck. Kate Aanenson: I wasn't sure what the motion was. I ',',,as just giving my input. Councilman Berquist: I think that's the motion. Mayor Chmiel' Right. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Who's the second? I need a second. I'll second it. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the 1995 lease agn~ement with Carver County for winter storage of household hazardous waste material at the Chanhassen Public Works Building with a lease fee set at $1.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1996 GOALS~ CITY MANAGER. Don Ashworth: The City staff is in the process of getting back with each of the commissions to establish goals for 1996. I'm in hopes that we'll have an opportunity to meet with City Council to review those to make sure that those goals represent the way the City Council wants this city to go in 1996. Typically a Saturday morning in early to mid-January has kind of worked. Staff is hoping that the City Council will agree. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What are you proposing exactly? Don Ashworth: To set a work session for mid-January. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, but did you have a date in mind? Don Ashworth: Oh! I brought a calendar with. I don't -know, 13th, 20th. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Those are Saturdays. Don Ashworth: We could do an off Monday as well, I mean if the City Council wanted to do, I think what did we said 8th and 22nd. If you wanted to do the 15th or the 29th. 27 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilman Senn: 15th's a holiday. We can't do it then. Don Ashworth: Okay, and the 29th, I think you've already set to meet xvith the haulers. So then you'd be at like February 5th. Councilman Berquist: Is an evening meeting adequate time to get some of this stuff resolved? Mayor Chmiel: Not really. Councilman Berquist: Then let's do a Saturday. Councilman Mason: Was the 20th? Did somebody say they couldn't do the 20th? Councilman Senn: The 13th I can't do. Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's the long weekend right? I mean for those of us that won't be working on that Monday. Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm amendable to a Saturday. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you're the only one up here I think. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's alright, xve've got to get the work done. Councilman Berquist: I'm amendable to a Saturday. Mayor Chmiel: There's two of us now. Councilman Mason: I'll be here on the 20th. Don Ashworth: Okay. Like an 8:00? Mayor Chmiel: 8:00 a.m.. Sounds good. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's fine. Councilman Berquist: I would like to also challenge, I've heard talk that there's been mission statements bandied about in this city, in this Council and strategic plans and all the other stuff and I have yet to see anything that actually outlines what the City of Chanhassen's mission statement and strategic plans consist of. I'd like to see us xvork towards that end as well. Don Ashworth: I'll submit two that xvere submitted at the last time around that xve never reached agreement on. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's go onto 7(b). Item l(c) from Consent. 28 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 C. RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTAL FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR POWERS BOULEVARD (CO. RD. 17) FROM TH 5 TO LYMAN BOULEVARD; SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE~ PROJECT NO. 93-29. Councilman Senn: A couple questions of Charles. In this you referenced the joint powers agreement between the city and the county. Under the joint powers agreement on this particular one, do we pay it all.'? Charles Folch: Absolutely. Our share would be $300...$320,000.00... Councilman Senn: Well the problem when it's city and county, I guess what I'm trying to get at is...paying at all so it's really all city expense? No county expense? Okay, and that column reflects then the city cost? Okay...that contract administration on this project totals up to $1.1 million. I assume, or I would like to see us bid that out given the level because I have a real hard time with kind of accepting the fact that ~ve're just going to pay somebody 30% without a bid process to try and get that down. Charles Folch: Actually we're not, we're not actually the design...total 30%. Basically it's your engineering, your legal, it's 3, our bonding costs. All that type of thing. It's not...and Carver County is actually doing the contracting and administration... They went through their own selection process, if you will, for this to determine it so it's... BRW ended up being the...were familiar with the project. They had preliminary... Councilman Senn: They select it and we pay the $1.1 million? Is that, do I understand it right? Charles Folch: Well we pa3, the share that xvas outlined in the master agreement...additional to that agreement such as the lighting, landscaping .... those are outside of what Carver Count3, would normally do with their.., are added to that master agreement are again city costs. Councilman Senn: You referenced a breakdown. I don't, I mean all I see in here is 30% of the project cost is going to admin, the contract admin and that totals $1.1 million, right?... Charles Folch: ...memo from BRW dated November 30, 1995. Page 2. Section... The statistics in there on xvhat elements, specific elements xvere in the...cost. There's not percentages associated with that but even after the engineering fees are one of the elements of the... Councilman Senn: Okay, so engineering, planning, legal, fiscal, appraisals...city and county, staff expenses, publications and meeting costs. Charles Folch: That 30% factor is a pretty typical standard used...I mean if you look at the feasibility report... Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but that's my question. I mean how do we get beyond that? Do we bid it to make sure we get the best pricing? And we've talked about that time and time again. When we start talking about doing a $1., you 'know almost $1.1 million in a contract, I don't think we just accept the fact that somebody's been working on the project for a little bit. Charles Folch: Again, you've got a consulting engineer... We will have any of the temporary easement acquisition being held by basically the city. We're responsible...City Attorney's office for that legal work. We'll use an appraisal...through the attorney's office for that. Publication and meeting costs are...outside of the consultant's design fees. Those are all separate elements as the consulting engineer has no control or direct involvement or... 29 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles Folch: We use Springsted for bonding purposes. That's separate outside of the engineering contract. Councilman Berquist: So at the public hearing can BRW give us a breakdoxvn of the $1,022,000.007 Charles Folch: Sure. They'll probably do a break out...their estimated design fees. Councilman Senn: And we could supply the balance. Charles Folch: Pardon me? Councilman Senn: We could supply the balance of the numbers then. Councilman Berquist: To make up that total number they assign a percentage to evei3, thing so let's just see what their splits are. Mayor Chmiel: Exactly. Okay. Is there a motion to move item (c). Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Resolution #95-137: Councilman Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to receive the supplemental feasibility report for the Powers Boulevanl (County Road 17) Reconstruction from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard (Cam'er Counh,' Project), City Project File No. 93-29, and set the public heating date for Monday, January 8, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Berquist: Mark did you want, may I interrupt for just a moment. I may not? Mayor Chmiel: He called it. He's got to ask first. Councilman Berquist: No I mean, he just sits there and moot after, I mean mute rather. I'm curious as to, is it moot? I'm curious as to why? Councilman Senn: Same reason as always. I've been asking for those things to bid out for 3 years and we continue to never bid them out. And you put in an estimated cost of 30% and I'll be damned...alxvays come out at 30%. Mayor Chmiel: No, I'll be darn. Okay, item (f). 30 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 F. APPROVAL OF POSITION CLASSWICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Senn: Don Ashworth, as we just said this afternoon then inherent in this is a 2.5% cost of living increase approval for 1996 then? Don Ashxvorth: Correct. Councilman Senn: And then I assume you and Todd have had a chance to talk to an explanation of that footnote on page 8 as it relates to, as the time interval increases, that the percentages go up? Don Ashworth: Correct. We'll make that change, Councilman Senn: Okay. So the 4% to 6% is in error? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: On page, I'm sorry. On page 8 there's that little graph that relates to the increases. It comes out basically reviexvs. There's a note there that says, at timing your increases, be sure to use the larger percentage, i.e. a rating of B salary to the percent of mid-point and go 85% time interval you go 6 month, use 4% to 6% as an increase. Not 2% to 3%. And I kept plugging that into the graph and couldn't figure out how it was coming out that way and stuff so depending on whether the 4% to 6% is an error and should be 2% to 3%, is that correct Don? Don Ashworth: Correct. But notice that the interval on that particular one is a 6 month interval so the net effect is that the employee could receive, over the course of a year, a 4% increase, or 4% to 6%. Councilman Senn: Okay, so during budget time when we talked about...and percentage increases and we taIked about them being an annual thing, that is not true? They are in fact something ~vhich could happen every 3 months, every 6 months or whatever and an accumulative increase.'? Don Ashworth: It could occur in that fashion. I do not recall it ever happening. I'm sure that there has been an instance, especially on the three month as it might deal with getting an employee kind of back to a January date so we're not doing these things 52 or whatever number of employees, 60 times during the course of the year. So we give people back to, so if you started in September we might carry out a review of you in January, especially if you started in an 80 to 85% bracket. But then your next review would be set up for July 1st. And then the next review after that xvould be the following July. Councilman Senn: I mean I understand but I guess I'm having real problems with it because you're effectively then, we have a policy xvhich allows effectively a 12% increase per year. Don Ashxvorth: Well you're going to take and go over that 90 bracket and then you're going to start falling back down into the 2 to 3 maximums. I mean even as it's written you take, it's a minimum 5 year period before you get to a mid-point minimum. Councilman Senn: Hoxv does the second part of the footnote hold true then? Also note that the increase shown shall generally apply at mid-year and does not relate to general range increases that may occur at the first of the year. 31 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: Correct. That's the example I just got through giving is exactly that. We try to get people back to, so they're true review as far as being able to move up in the range occurs on July 1st of every year. And the only way that you can do that is with different hire dates is you move your reviews around. So in some instances it may be 3 months, 6 or 9 the first time around and then after that you move into a yearly category. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think, if I may, the second part of that footnote refers to this scale applying only to merit increases, not the cost of living increases that occur on January 1. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: But what I'm turning around and hearing is they're all supposed to be merit increases January 1, and that's where my confusion is. Don Ashworth: The only time that that would occur would be again if you started in September, you were started at 82% of midpoint and you were doing a good job for those first 3 months. There's a possibility that you would, well it's not a possibility. You would be reviewed on January 1st and you could get up to a 2% to 3% increase effective January 1st. Your next reviexv would be set for July 1st of that same year. Your next review would be the following July. Councilman Senn: So in effect it creates a situation where there's ahnost an escalation of the rates until the point you get to the mid-point and then you just kind of put on the brakes and slow down. Don Ashworth: Actually you could. Councilman Senn: Is that a fair statement? ...my understanding. Mayor Chmiel: No, it's true. Todd Gerhardt: The percentages are less. Councilman Mason: That's assuming good reviexvs too. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Todd Gerhardt: ...midpoint of 3% to 6%. I don't knoxv of anybody that would ever get over 8 1/2. A xvorse case scenario that would be... Councilman Senn: But if I'm understanding your graph correctly, essentially almost everybody ends up to midpoint within the first year, within 12 months. Don Ashworth: No. No, within 5 years. Todd Gerhardt: ...you're going to see, and possibly 6%... 32 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: If you're in the very bottom of the wrung, you potentially could see, I think the maximum we've ever used is 5% and then going to 4, 3, 2, and by the time you're up close to the midpoint the most you can get is 1%. And start adding those up, 5, 4, 3, 2, you know, it does take 5 years. Councilman Senn: Okay. So it can occur on a basis of you know 3 months, 6 months, 9 months a year. ! mean it can't occur that way is what you're saying. It has to take 5 years rather than a year to go through the steps? Don Ashworth: Correct. 'Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? Councilman Senn: No, I think that xvas it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to move it? Councilman Senn: Move. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Position Classification Plan as presented by the City Manager. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. N. APPROVAL OF CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER RENTAL FEES. Councilman Berquist: Just in reading this I had a couple of quick questions. Item (b). On your memo you proposed a corporate rate for the purchase of punch cards. People purchasing or companies purchasing 1 to 9 may do so at a 10% discount rate. Those who purchase 10 or more may buy them at the resident rate. ~fny introduce the confusion? Why not simply, I mean we're penalizing smaller companies and I don't necessarily know that that's wise. I xvould advocate the purchase of, the purchase at the resident rate and that's it. That's item 1. And then under Director's comments Todd made mention that he commends you in your efforts to find a balance in the program. Our mission is to serve the residents but to do so in a financially responsible manner and in our zest to protect residents' interest, we've alienated our corporate business community and closed the door on a significant revenue source that I think that now that we're opening that door back up, it needs to be publicized to them and I'm certain that you're intending to...so the only real change that I would like to make is that, if you're in agreement, or if you can tell me a good reason why not, I'd propose that any business, regardless of size, any quantity of cards be purchased at the resident rate. If the goal is to enhance revenue 10%, one xvay or another, it isn't going to make a hill of beans of difference and at the resident rate versus the 10% discount may make other companies consider the' purchase strongly. Those are my only comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councihvoman Dockendorf: What's the current variance between resident rate, as a percentage? Daxvn Beitel: ...non-resident fee... 33 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's $1.50 for residents and $2.00 for, so what is that? Thank you. 25% as opposed to 10%. I'll second Steve's motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Senn: I've got a couple questions. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilman Senn: If I understand what you're suggesting, you're suggesting that non-residents who are employed by the School District should be treated as though they're residents if they're from District 1127 Dawn Beitel: The actual...if they work in a school in the city of Chanhassen. My final comment is I had...xvould that include all of District 112 teacher's or just ones that work in Chanhassen, which is...and Bluff Creek. Councilman Senn: Does that then mean we should afford the same privilege to 276 teachers xvorking in the city of Chanhassen? Dawn Beitel: That was the proposal that xvas...final discussion...working in Chanhassen. I would be open to that as well. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that was discussed or wasn't discussed? Dawn Beitel: All that was discussed on that topic was...District 112. However... Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I guess the first point is, I don't think we should do it either xvay, but if you're going to do it, I think we'd better do it equally. I don't like doing it either way primarily because it's kind of like saying, because they work in Chanhassen we're going to treat them differently than the other people who xvork in Chanhassen just because they work for a public entity versus a private entity. That just rubs me wrong, I'm sorry but it seems to me xve're starting to create too many classes or exceptions to our own policy xvhich we tried to simplify in the first place. So I guess I have a problem xvith that move. The other question I had related to, not the punch card situation but the facility situation as it relates to the use of the facility. Have xve actually cost out our cost basis for the rental? I mean just so we 'knoxv where xve sit. I mean in terms of utilities, janitorial clean-up, blah, blah, blah for every hour or whatever that somebody uses it. Do xve have any kind of a basis for that at all? And how do these rates compare to that? Todd Hoffman: We've got the cost of operating this building versus the project revenues and as far as hoxv...calculated, we've done it a variety of ways. I don't know if I can tell you this evening if our cost.., that you're looking for. Councilman Senn: Well I mean like on the punch card thing you've gone through and kind of done an analysis of what our costs were there versus what we needed to charge for. I've never really seen that as far as on a bigger scale of a facility, which I mean is really a different story. I mean if somebody's coming in to rent the gym for x number of hours, it seems to me we ought to be able to fairly easily determine what our direct cost is in terms of renting that out...so xve know whether we're really subsidizing these rates or xvhat. I think that also 34 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 turns around and has an effect on how you look at, how you...so effectively we don't really knoxv that, we don't have together? Todd Hoffman: No, I do not. Councilman Senn: I, for one would be interested in seeing that I guess before ;ve looked at them separately but those are my questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other concerns? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question~ Mark, I missed your point on 112 and 276. Councilman Senn: Well if you go back to page 3, at the bottom there's an update basically saying that District 112 employees, should be treated as though they're residents. The onere of discussion was, whether it should be 112 employees who live in Chanhassen or not live in Chanhassen. In our previous action we had discluded.. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excluded? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think that's better. Excluded treating them differently than on a resident and non- resident basis like everybody else. Councilman Mason: This is passed says, teachers ~vorking inside the city of Chanhassen, is that correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Mason: Which is therefore the same as xvhat businesses are getting, is that correct? So I don't understand why. Councilman Senn: Well teachers can come in effectively and do that on an individual basis then, where you're making businesses do the buying for their employees on the other basis, are we not.'? Dawn Beitel: We would have them go through the school district~.. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you'd do it the same way. Dawn Beitel: Sure. Councilman Senn: Okay. So they'd be governed under the same policy then? Dawn Beitel: ...verification...go through the school district. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: I want to whip this horse into a frenzy. But when this all began you called Mark's question about relative to gym prices is valid. You called the city of Eden Prairie, the City of Chaska, to find out what their rates were and you priced it commensurately. I'm to assume that'?. 35 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Berquist: So the way I look at this, the nut, we're already chexving on the nut. Councilman Senn: No, and Steve I said that. I said, I mean I know that we've, the rates are set commensurate to what everybody else is doing. I guess...cost basis is so we'd know in effect how we're subsidizing because to me, at least in my mind, that turns around and affects how I would look at what I charge versus a resident and a non-resident use of that facility and here we're trying to set up a basis to do that. It xvould just seem to me, it's very easy to turn around and say yeah, a resident rate should be... Councilman Berquist: I missed the part that acknowledged the fact that there had been some competitive data compiled so, okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Berquist: Well do I xvant to move approval exactly as written or do I want to? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Councilman Mason: No, as the changes you made. Councilman Berquist: Okay, what changes did I make? Councilman Mason: ...You seconded Mr. Berquist's motion. Councilman Berquist: Okay, good. Resolution #95-138: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Chanhassen Recreation Center Rental Fees amended to reflect charging businesses within the City of Chanhassen the resident rote. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. O. APPROVAL OF 1996 MEETING SCHEDULE. Don Ashworth: Karen, in putting out the proposed calendar for 1996 missed Memorial Day, May 27th. Alternatives would include, for the month of May going to first and third Monday's or trying to pick an alternative for the 27th, which might be the 28th. Mayor Chmiel: I think we'd be better to go the first and third. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I do see that that still gives us two weeks from the April, the last April meeting if we go first and third. Mayor Chmiel: Then we run behind the Planning. We'd be ahead of the Planning Commission. Right? Don Ashworth: Well you're always going to end up with before and after. I mean. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does anybody have any additions to this? To the 6th and the 20th? 36 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilman Mason: That's okay by me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion to approve that change? Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to approve the 1996 meeting schedule amending the meetings for May to thc first and third Monday of the month. All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously. U. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONNEL POLICY. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's see. We have Steve, Mark and Mike. Councilman Berquist: I had pulled it, I wanted a clarification on tuition reimbursement. The appointed authority ma5, authorize reimbursement to employee for tuition payments towards graduate/under graduate classes. Hoxvever, if the employee resigns or is terminated from city service within 2 years, for some reason I remembered and had noted 5 years on my plan. On my notes, of the date of the last class the employee must reimburse the city on a pro-rated basis. I don't ever recall pro-rating and I'm not certain how we would pro-rate over a 2 year period of time. I'd like to see that clarified somehow. I'd like to see it go back to 5 and I think that was the original intent. People correct me if I'm wrong and I do not recall pro-rating being discussed. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Don Ashworth: I do apologize in my notes, I guess I didn't have years. If the Council would like. to see it to 5, I believe that that is the number, I don't have a problem xvith that. I do feel that Todd, Todd, I'm: trying to think of others who fell under this category, may very easily have taken a course, let's say even 4 to 5 years ago. Then they were not able to take a particular required course just because that course hit Council meetings, and potentially Park and Recreation Commission meetings. It seems to me if you've gotten 5 years of service out of that individual folloxving the date that he's taken that course, that you've really gained from that benefit. I mean it's not as though he's taken the course and then just kind of walking away. I would contend if you would say from the date of getting the degree you would take people like Todd and Todd and turn them, they at a minimum would have to be here for 10 years because it literally, their course, to be able to take courses when they need to take them, I think Todd I'm guessing your's has gone over a 5 year period. And Todd, I would assume. Todd Gerhardt: Much more than 5. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Michael. 37 City Council Meeting - December 11, t995 Councilman Mason: I was not at this portion of the meeting at all. I personally, and xvell, I personally have trouble with 2 years. To punish somebody that says if you leave for any reason within 5 years of taking a class you have to pay it back. It seems to me the goal of anybody, in any profession, is to get better at what they do and one of the ways of doing that is education and to tell somebody, yeah. Go ahead and take a class but by god, if you leave in 3 years, you're going to pay us back. That's so counter productive as to quite honestly, this one just kind of really grabbed me and I am totally opposed to that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I can offer some professional opinions on this and I think it's very standard in any industry that you would have some kind of policy regarding...those kind of reasons, and I'm sure Roger can pull out some descriptions of cost. Councilman Senn: So I mean you're saying they shouldn't reimburse if they, for example leave on their own volition then? Councilwoman Dockendorf: They should reimburse. They should reimburse for voluntary termination and termination for cause. Councilman Senn: Oh, and, okay. Alright. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I agree with the prorate basis. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other within industry and some industries do this where they do 80/20, as long as they get a passing grade they pay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, the reimbursement differs. 100% reimbursement. Mayor Chmiel: So there's all different kinds that you can throw in there. Councilman Senn: Yeah, we do 5 years. I mean our theory is if you spend 5 years effectively training them and paying for their advanced degree, then you should have 5 years of benefit of that advanced degree after your term. And I mean you can argue like Don is that there's some benefits xvhile they are taking that but you know, an employee certainly matures as they're in a job and if you're sitting there paying for an advanced degree, which really isn't a requirement of the job which is also incurring them professionally though, the theory is here, and at least in our industry it's 5 years because they feel that that's kind of like the time, and I don't disagree with what he's saying that it may be 10 years but it's kind of like, if xve're going to invest 5 years in paying for your advanced degree, it's kind of like there should be turn around in like. In terms of getting some back to work because a becomes very marketable at the point that they get the advanced degree plus have the xvork experience so it does become a deterrent for them to essentially create a situation where they get an advanced degree and use that as a basis as a stepping stone to a job in other things. That's fine if they want to do that but then they should reimburse the city the expenses, or some expense that it creates. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Especially when our policy is 100% reimbursement, which is fairly generous. Councilman Berquist: And the other issue that I want to bring up is that, keeping, retaining good people, finding and keepiug good people is very, very difficult. And xvhen the city, when I have someone or the City of 38 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Chanhassen or an3' of us have a valued and good employee, we want to make it as difficult as possible for them to seek... Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're called economic strings. Councilman Mason: Boy, you 'know, and we really differ on that one. It seems to me. Councilman Berquist: Mike, don't misunderstand xvhat I'm saying. I'm saying they are valued, highly thought of employees. Take it as that. Councilman Mason: And it seems to me there are other good reasons and other xvays to keep employees than threatening them with saying you're going to have pay money back if you leave. Councilwoman Dockendorf: ...I see it as an economic string to keep them to the organization. To retain them. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I guess I do too because not even industry gives that away for that particular portion and I don't see why xve should be any different than much of them. Councilman Berquist: So now all we have to do is decide the term and the rate. Well, at least that's all I think xve have to do. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree with the recommendation here. I think 2 years is ample and I think that's the way it should be done, with a clarification under what circumstances... Councilman Senn: Colleen, the reason I didn't like the 2 years in the first place, and the 5 was suggested is, yes it takes 2 years to get an advanced degree on a full time basis. I don't -know much of anybody who can do it that way on a part-time basis...theory is to recapture some of the benefit of the actual degree when it's completed, you have to have a longer period of time than 2 years. And if you look at an average time, and that's what xve've done in our industry, it's 5 years basically to create the advanced degree on a part-time basis and then to turn around and recapture it over the next 5. Councilman Berquist: Since your notes didn't spell out the time frame, how did you arrive at 2 years.'? Don Ashworth: Actually I told Todd and Todd that they needed to write this particular section up, Figure out, call some other people and ~vhatever and this is what they came back with. I'm sure that they would care but you knoxv, if the Council wanted to pick out a 5 year period, I don't think that that would be that difficult. But I firmly believe it should not be 5 years after the degree. I think that's highly punitive. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think 2 years from the date of the last, of the degree is very reasonable. Mayor Chmiel: I do too, yeah. Councilman Senn: Hoxv do you form the basis of proration? Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Details Mark. 39 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Councilman Senn: ...if the.,,' stay 2 years after, or they stay 1 year after the degree, does that they mean they pay back half the degree or do they pay back half of the courses in the last 2 years? I disagree strongly with paying back half the courses in the last year. Mayor Chmiel: Well it looks like we have two 2 and maybe an abstention. Councilman Berquist: ...when you guys wrote this thing, what did you have in mind as far as proration? Todd Gerhardt: Proration xvould be the two year period of graduation. You've got people that might not graduate and find employment elsewhere so if I took a class 5 years ago...I don't think I should have to pay for that class after 5 years. That was, and then talking with other people, they thought the proration xvas important and that they shouldn't have to pay for the classes they took 5 years ago from the date of graduation. That it be prorated from 2 years of the last class that they took. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I still don't get that. Practically, give me an example. Todd Gerhardt: If I took a class 2 years ago in January, or December now, I don't have to pay for that class. If it's 2 years, I don't have to pay for the class. If it's one year, then I pay for 50% of the class and if it's 3/4 of a year, I pay for 3/4 of the class. So it's prorated up to 2 years being kind of, you don't pay anything 2 years from the class. And then if it's 1 year after taking the class, it's 50%. If it's half a year taking a class, you pay 75%. Councilman Berquist: Okay. So there's no tie into a degree or anything like that. It's simply, it's continuing education as a training. Todd Gerhardt: Right. I mean we're being more restrictive. I took a class before I started working for the City of Chanhassen which fouled up my credits of extending my program so it...it is very, very difficult to get a degree, have a family, get married and. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Really? Todd Gerhardt: ...it is a financial burden on the employee going...away from your wife, you're away from your kids and then taking the public meetings on here on a Wednesday, a Thursday, and Monday night, there is a big burden on the employees. Todd's here. Todd should be home with his four kids at home. You know and he's got a class too. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but we pay good. I mean there's compensation for it as well. Todd Gerhardt: I'm just telling the burden that goes along with taking these additional classes. Councilman Senn: But Todd I understand that but nobody's requiring you for the city's sake to take those classes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well no, no. Now I would say that our policy has been that we hire lower in the salary range and xve ask. 40 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: I've required all of them to take and get their advanced degree. Every department head that has come in here without a masters degree, their employment letter says that I expect that you xvill get your masters degree over the next 3 to 5 year period of time. Councilman Senn: Well for example I mean, one of the cities I'm familiar with is the City of St. Paul. To even get a course reimbursement from the city there, you have to directly demonstrate that it's effectively used and attributable to your job. They don't pay for advanced degrees. That's not their business. Their business is to provide continuing education to their people within their areas of employment. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but that xvas 100 years ago and I think they've changed that policy too. Todd Gerhardt: That's an employment base of I don't 'know how many employees they have there. Substantially over 100 and we're about 50 so we've got 2 people taking classes right now that this affects. Councilman Senn: Well I mean do you think it's unreasonable that if xve pay for your masters degree, that you're going to have to stick around for 2 years after you get your degree? Todd Gerhardt: Well 2 years, I would reimburse you the 2 years after taking the classes. Councilman Senn: No, that wasn't my question. Ansxver my question. Do you think it's reasonable on a city's part to ask you to stay around in employment for 2 years after they pay for and you finish the masters degree? Councilman Mason: I don't see why you have to answer that question. Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yeah I think as a policy. Councilman Senn: To me I think that's the issue, I mean. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we're going back and forth and I'm going to call for a motion to either accept or reject the proposal and to come back xvith something. Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I have a question on 3 first though if we could, Is this something that's nexv that we aren't doing that noxv? Don Ashworth: I don't, what does 3 say? Councilman Senn: The City will reimburse mileage to employees incurred while using an employee's own vehicle... Don Ashworth: I know that xve did this one before I'm sure we did the thing as a resolution and what occurs then is that, I think we lose the resolution and it just fixes in at what the amount is. So Betty currently is paying, reimbursing people like 24 cents a mile rather than, I think it went from 24 to 26 to 28 but we're still living back in the days of 24 cents. So all this says is just, we're just going to follow the federal guideline. Whatever the allowance is by the feds is what we're going to be using. Councilman Senn: Are you following the total guideline or simply the guideline as it relates to how much you get paid per mile? 41 City Council Meeting - December 11, 1995 Don Ashworth: I'd say the total guideline, if I'm understanding what your question is. If you have a long trip to somewhere, whatever, we're not going to pay you 29 cents a mile to drive from here to Florida and back. Councilman Senn: No, but I mean there's a lot of other things in that federal guidelines like if you go to a meeting on your way to or from work, you can't claim, you know you can't claim reimbursement for that on your taxes or credit for it on your taxes. So I'm just saying, if you're saying, and that's xvhy I'm just trying to clarify here Don. If you're saying we're going to follow federal regs, I just think you need to let everybody know what those federal regs are and give them the specifics of the federal regs just beyond that it's x amount of cents per mile. Don Ashworth: My intent there was just to take and have the 29 cents. Whatever the current mileage allowance is. I guess it wasn't intended to take and try to follow all of the other portions. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think you deal xvith that if it becomes an issue. Don Ashworth: I think so too. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think it needs to be codified here. We don't currently reimburse for driving to and from graduate classes do we? Don Ashworth: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I would approve our tuition reimbursement and mileage reimbursement as stated in this memo with the clarification for employee resignation voluntary or for cause. And if you want to go on and expound about how the proration occurs, that's fine but I agree xvith what Todd has constructed. Mayor Chmiel' Okay, is there a second? Councilman Berquist: Second. Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the amendment to the personnel policy regarding tuition reimbursement and mileage reimbursement as stated in the memo dated December 6, 1995 with the clarification for employee resignation voluntary or for cause. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 42 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened xvith the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilwoman Dockendorf, and Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Dawn Beitel, Kate Aanenson, John Rask, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch and Scott Harr APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Berquist moved, Mason seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RECOGNITION OF BETIT O~HAUGHNESSY FOR LAND DONATION. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council and members of the audience. I'd like to start with good news, we can go ahead and do that. I'd like to introduce Betty O'Shaughnessy. Betty is with us this evening to give the city 60 acres of real property within the city of Chanhassen. The property is located southwest of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. I've got a diagram for you. Galpin Boulevard is along the east of the property. Highxvay 5 is along the north. Betty is selling and developing the two residential parcels along the new frontage road, which is across from the elementary school site currently west across the road. The property is approximately 60 acres. It is a combination or a mixture of xvhat I call wooded wetlands, low lying hard~vood forests, and then a really picturesque oak forest as well. When I came to the city as Park and Recreation Director, the last thing in my mind was the lack of open space within the city but what 10 years of development will do to change an attitude. Since that time the acquisition and preservation of open space has been one of my number one goals as the Director of the Park and Recreation Department. It's not always an easy task. There's been many negotiations with developers which have concluded in this Council chambers not always as easily as this acquisition of 60 acres. Discussions with Betty started about 2 years ago. We are fortunate as a city to be in the right place at the right time to accept this donation from Mrs. O'Shaughnessy. With that I'll answer any questions of the Council. The actual resolution approving this acquisition or this acceptance of the donation is in your consent packet. I'll answer any questions and then we'll have the Mayor make a short presentation. Mayor Chmiel: Betty, could I have you come up here please. Nice to see you. Betty, on behalf of the Chanhassen City Council and the residents of our fine community, I would like to thank you for your generous contribution to the city. Your gift of 60 acres of open space is unmatched in our city's 99 year history. It will be 100 next year. This dedication of land xvill serve the community well and will live on as an eternal reminder of your investment in this community. Betty, as a long time resident in our community I cannot express how much we appreciate this gift and I have valued my friendship with you and Roger over the years and truly wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year. As a token of our appreciation I would like to present to you this photograph of a portion of the property you're donating. The nameplate reads, Presented to Betty and Roger O'Shaughnessy. In appreciation of our generous contribution to the City of Chanhassen, December 11, 1995. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other public announcements? If seeing none, we'll move right along with the agenda.