The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1996 04 22CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Senn, and Councilman Mason COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt and Pam Snell APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda adding an item under Public Announcements regarding Bible Safety Helmets; and moving item 10(c) to be discussed along with item 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT~ GOVERNMENT OFFICERS FINANCE ASSOCIATION (GFOA). Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional public announcements before I get to the first two? Anyone wishing to do that? If not, H1 move right into the agenda. Item A. This is a Certificate of Achievement for Government Officers Finance Association. The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting has been awarded to the City of Chanhassen by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for it's comprehensive annual financial report. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and it's management. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded to the individual designated as primarily responsible for preparing the award-winning CAFR. This has been presented to Pamela A. Snell, Financial Director. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate it's financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The GFOA is a non-profit professional association serving 12,625 government financial professionals with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington D.C. This is the Certificate of Achievement that has been given to the City of Chanhassen and I commend Pamela for receiving this. Oh Pam, if you'd come over here please. I didn't see you hiding. Would you come up here. I would like to give you that to put in your office and hopefully you get man5, more just like it. Thanks. BICYCLE SAFETY HELMETS~ PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. .Mayor Chmiel: The second announcement is from Public Safety and is regarding bicycle safety helmets. In xecognition of promoting bicycle safety in Chanhassen, I'm pleased to announce the start of a new program, ©hanhasse~ [~ublie Safety Department is selling bicycle helmets for $8.00. These are for youngsters and adults as xw/ll. These bicycle helmets meet the safety standards of the Snell Institute and the American National Standards Institute. The helmets are being sold through the Public Safety Department during City Hall hours and during Public Safety's extended hours on Thursday evenings between 4:30 and 6:30. The program began 2 weeks ago. 200 helmets have already been sold. And the program will run through the end of June or while supplies last. So anyone who's interested this evening or who views this on cable, stop in and get your helmets. City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 CONSENT AGENDA: Councihnan Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the folloaving Consent Agenda items pursu,'mt to the City Manager's recommendations: d. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Addendum, Senior Linkage Line. e. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated April 8, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 3, 1996 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 26, 1996 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated April 11, 1996 All voted in favor and the motion carried. I(LD. UPDATE ON CSAH 62 AND TH 101 INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION (H~NNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9424)~ CITY FILE PW-197B. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I've indicated in the staff report, Hennepin County staff have revisited the issue of constructing a trail along TH 101 in conjunction with the current proposed improvements to the intersections of TH 101 and Crosstown 62, east of this junction. Basically the findings of the analysis indicate that at this point in time a trail could be added to this project. It xvould have to be placed immediately behind the bituminous curb along the majority of the section of TH 101 south of Vinehill Road in order to keep it within existing right-of-way limitations. Hennepin County has also tried to forecast xvhat likely road sections might be considered for the ultimate design of TH 101 and improvement. It's likely that it's going to end up being a 4 lane section. The question is whether it will be a divided or undivided section. In an undivided case, the deck xvould be 52 feet, curb to curb. In a divided section, more like a 74 foot xvide section. In either one of these cases, it's pretty clear that the proposed improvements for this current project would be removed or considered temporary going up from the south, up to Vinehill Court. Or Vinehill Road I should say. Therefore any trail construction at this time should be constructed with the idea that it is going to be a temporary section. It would be removed upon a future improvement project. In looking at a crystal ball in terms of the timing for the turn back. That is the turn back process that is currently in progress. It's likely that if a turn back agreement could be reached by the end of this year by all parties involved, it's likely to be probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 years before this road project would be underway, given the time that would be needed to go through the preliminary studies, the EA would need to be done. Right-of-way would need to be acquired. Wetland issues and permits would need to be addressed so that's a minimum of a 2 year process from the drop dead date for a turn back. I guess the question at this point in time becomes whether the Council so desires to have this trail added at this point in time as a temporary trail to the improvement project. As Minnetonka has done with Hennepin County, Chanhassen xvould have to enter into a separate supplemental agreement to have this trail constructed, and all associated costs with that constructed estimated to be about $30,000.00 would be the responsibility of the city of Chanhassen. The :Manager has included comments regarding this trail issue and timing and his thoughts on whether the trail should be included at this time or not. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Don Ashworth: Provide just a short update. I did talk with Jim Graup with Hennepin County and he informed me that TH 101, and they're going to be kind of the lead agency at least for TH 101 north of Highway 5 but they do have in their capital budget the cost associated with this roadway with the anticipation that as this moves through the County Board process, that they'll be into the ability to be able to the EAW and the actual plans in 1997, and with the construction occurring in 1998. I did have a call from Councilman Senn who really wants to see that moved up. We can try to see if we can do that but I guess I was very happy that we have a finn commitment from Hennepin County for this funding for 1997, with construction in 1998. I found that to be very encouraging. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there anything you'd like to add to the discussion that we've done already from Hennepin County? Bruce Polaczyk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Only to basically reinforce the manager's discussion in that we are in the process of developing our next CIP. Our 5 year capital improvement program for the years '97 through 2001. And as the manager had indicated that in 1997 what we have in there is development for design and for right-of-way acquisition and also the element '98 is for construction. Now what our intent would be, as the manager has indicated, would be for us to be the lead agency and in that role then we ~vould be, probably the end of this year, start getting to a development proposal with a consultant. To bring a consultant on board to do that design for us in that EAW. All of the environmental documentation that's necessary for the project. In '97 we would be, like I say, we would be ready to gear up to hire that consultant, get them on board in late '96, early '97. The other thing, just to, I'm not sure if Mayor and Council are aware but Hennepin County did in fact sign a letter of understanding with the State of Minnesota for the turn back of TH 101. And as a result of that, beginning last year Hennepin County has already begun to maintain Trunk Highway 101 from Trunk Highway 5 up to 62. This winter, this past winter we snowplowed Trunk Highway 101. So I think the combination of the commitment to us putting it into our CIP. Us plowing snow this past ~vinter, I think those are all positive indicators that we are on board and ready to move forward with the project. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well my concern was the timing and I understand the history of it being that the whole project to 62...been incorporated with TH 101, given the jurisdiction at the time but it just seems that the timing is unfortunate insofar as the bringing of a four lane major highway and dumping it onto a roadway that is already over used. At this point we're a little under the gun. I mean if you stop your construction right at that Townline, it doesn't mitigate anything. We still get the traffic dumped on us so our hands are pretty much tied. Not many options. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: No comment. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess I'll start by saying I guess I understand the staff's recommendations as it relates to the scope that we're talking about, xvhich is effectively you know a trail issue. Does it make sense to build a trail which is to be temporary for 2 to 4 years? I'd have to say the simple ansxver to that, no we shouldn't. Okay. But Colleen kind of referenced it here and I think the real issue is, how can we take or condone an action that's going to effectively dump a lot of additional traffic onto TH 101. And I'm going to say dump City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 because it's going to basically prove to be a free flow which it is not now. Right now every car that comes in has to stop and make an entry onto the main road, which is TH 101. Under the plan which is going to be put in place, that would be a lit intersection which will free flow basically onto the lights, traffic straight on to TH 101 into a revised S curve which will allow to flow through much quicker, much faster and basically dump the traffic onto TH 101. To me the reason is real simple. I mean I heard all about the real concerns and the loud voices that were raised in Eden Prairie over the initial design, which does not treat the S curve. You have to remember, the S curve was not part of this project until just recently. The reason it was added as part of this project was Eden Prairie was very concerned about Dell Road and the way the traffic was going to go onto Dell Road and head south rather than make movement onto TH 101. So in response to that, we now have a S curve project which effectively is going to dump all the traffic onto TH 101. And you know, I'm sorry. I'm not the Eden Prairie City Council. We're the Chanhassen City Council and I don't see the benefit to our residents. In fact I see a lot of detriment to our residents in relationship to taking that type of a move. You know I commend Hennepin County for coming to the table with their CIP budget and saying they're going to do some planning and stuff in '97. And you know participate in construction in '98. Okay. The thing that bothers me is all the construction dollars for this thing are going to come from the State turn back fund. Those funds are there now but there's no guarantee those funds are going to be there in 1998. None at all. The other thing that bothers me is we're redoing the S curve into a single lane configuration. Okay. Now xve're talking about a 4 lane divided, you know 4 lane highway coming down TH 101. Does that mean we're going to redo the S curve again? To fit with a new 4 lane highway. I don't know. It just seems inconsistent. TH 101, I think by the most basic I'm going to say safety and whatever rules, I mean can't pass anything and it's got to be one of the most unsafe roadways that any of us have ever driven on. Right now you have to just struggle to keep control of your car. With that added traffic I think on TH 101 is going to cause a lot of problems. It's already very difficult for our residents to make turning movements in and out of the neighborhoods. Impossible for them to let their kids go anywhere without getting in a car and taking them there. You wouldn't dare let them go out on TH 101. I remember, I'm going to say not even 6 months ago we were talking about a referendum issue and you know I raised this point as it related to a trail along TH 101 and the explanation at that time was, well you knoxv let's not worry about that because when the turn back deal is done, and the agreement's going to be in place and we're going to start construction in '97. Well now I'm hearing we're going to start construction in '98. I also read in the staff report, well we're really maybe going to start construction in 2 to 4 years. And again, I commend Hennepin County but I see absolutely nobody else at the table ~vhich is required to be at the table. I haven't seen any agreements signed by Carver County. I looked through the packet. I see an agreement that they've changed just about every commitment into a non-commitment and said we'll sign it. So I don't think the issue is being resolved. I don't think it's being given the priority it deserves and I just don't think it's real good policy on our part to effectively condone making TH 101 more unsafe, more hazardous and to dump traffic into it until at least the section from 78th to 62 is resolved because then you've got a logical, I don't knoxv what you'd call it. A logical intersection at High~vay 5 that can handle the traffic. Right now you're going to put a ton of traffic on TH 101 and there's nothing...handle it. And I'm real concerned about that so it's real hard for me to condone. Saying you know, let's go ahead and let's just kind of let this happen and figure that sometime in the next 2 to 4 years that TH 101's going to get taken care of. I think the two should be tied together and I think it would be a lot better condition for our residents if it was. Because it will restrict the traffic movement onto TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The utilization of 62, which I think some of our own residents would be utilizing that access and using 62 for some of their goings to wherever they're going to be going. Whether it's xvork or to downtown or whatever. Councilman Senn: Don, I'm sure some of them will be but I mean that's not. 4 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: But, but I'm just, I'm saying that I think that some of that access is going to be used by the City of Chanhassen. That coming off of Crosstown, what is it going to d0? Go north or is it going to go south onto TH 1017 Councilman Senn: The way Crosstown's set up, it's going to go every direction. Mayor Chmiel: I 'know but as it intersects with TH 101. Councilman Senn: As it intersects ~vith TH 101, the free flow or the main movement is going to be straight ahead to the S curve. The way it's designed. That's where most of the traffic flow's anticipated to go. If you look at the design, it's very obvious. It shows you the way that intersection is treated, it shows you the way that they expect the high traffic counts to go. And even if it is other Chanhassen residents, I don't see that as a reason to say that you know, that still justifies leaving TH 101 in the condition it is. Or treating the people that live in that area you know in that xvay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, but what do we solve by, I still come back to, if we vote no, we're still going to have a 4 way signal. At least a 3 way signal. Currently with the current configuration and I don't see how that's going to stop that. Councilman Senn: Because the current S curve, that traffic movement will be much more difficult, a lot slower. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Probably more dangerous. Councilman Senn: And probably more dangerous. Councihvoman Dockendorf: Unless we're trying to pull up to Pleasant View. Councilman Senn: That's right. But you knoxv again, again the issue isn't, the turn back funds are there. You know. I think it's time that we make this the priority and put them together and let's get out there in '96, this summer of '96 and do our plans and do our stakes and have our neighborhood meetings and do our acquisitions over the winter and then let's be under construction in '97. Let's not look forward to a process that may start in 1997. Councihvoman Dockendorf: Well, given the way government works it's time to, I mean is that ample time to do an EAW and all of that? I think it's....if it is pushed up on the agenda, is that reasonable? To get an EAW accomplished and all those meetings taking place this summer. Mayor Chmiel: ...at least get going on that. Don Ashxvorth: Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashxvorth: This portion of Crosstown is not being paid by this turn back dollars. This is the funding that was originally associated with Crosstown itself, correct? 5 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Bruce Polaczyk: Well Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Actually there are four sources of funds for this project. There are Federal funds. There are Trunk Highway funds. There are State Aid funds and then there are municipal funds. We did apply for an ISTEA application and we were successful in getting approval of that application and with that application, we're getting $800,000.00 worth of Federal funds. I understand what the councilman is saying. There's a down side. The down side is that if we were to say delay this project, and I think that's what you're saying. Delay this project and then add the segment to the south of this as a total one project for construction in '97? The down side of that is that we would lose our Federal funding for this project because it's available in fiscal year '96, as well as the Trunk Highway funds are available in '96. So that's the big down side. And then once we lose that, then there's no, as far as the Federal funds, there's no assurance they'd be available next year so I believe that we really have to strike while the iron is hot so to speak. I think, I really believe that this project actually paves the way for the second phase of the project to unfold. I think that because of the scope of this project and the scope of the next project are so large and complex, it's only prudent to do it in phases. And this would be the next phase. Councilman Senn: I should have been more specific with you. I didn't mean to, I'm not inferring that necessarily your project has to stop for this year. What I said is the txvo need to be tied together. I understand you've got dollars and time to construct it now but I think the rest ought to be done in '97. People shouldn't have to put up with that condition for 2 additional years waiting for the problem which we've now created by this segment to be resolved. I think that is not proper timing and I don't think that's prudent. We can get out there with a commitment now and do what we need to in '96 so we can start in '97, seems to me we've given people a good explanation. We're doing it in phases. Each phase separate by a year and that's not what I'm seeing here now. What I'm seeing here now is maybe '97, you know we'll do some stuff and maybe '98 we'll do construction but '98 construction is going to largely depend on the funding, which may not be there in '98. We have no idea. Those turn back funds could be used up on other highway projects before 1998 very easily. Bruce Polaczyk: Well Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I guess we feel more optimistic about that, that the funds will be available and that's really what we're basing our CIP on. But the other concern, and I believe Councilmember Dockendorf asked the question about could a consultant be hired and be brought on board to do all the environmental documentation in time to allow for a construction in '97 and the answer to that, in terms of us anyway being the lead agency, is that just isn't possible to do. I mean we would need all of this year and '97 to complete all of that to get ready for construction in '98. Councilman Senn: Because of your existing commitment to 62. Bruce Polaczyk: Well no. Well. Councilman Senn: Or existing priority let's say. Bruce Polaczyk: Well, and it takes time to bring a consultant on board. To go through and obtain a financial proposal. And of course I know that, as a matter of fact I just left a Minnetonka meeting just before I came here and drove down TH 101 and certainly with this project there are going to be a lot of environmental. I mean with the next stage there will be a lot of environmental issues that we would have to address and then of course all those environmental issues take time. Councilman Senn: ...just curious. City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Bruce Polaczyk: Well in terms of wetland impacts. In working with all the water resource agencies. The DNR, Corps of Engineers, Watershed Districts and all of that just takes time. And I think Charles could probably echo that comment... I 'know for us it is. It's just a very rigorous and very complex and timely... And of course the other thing, the other thing is looking at the corridor, I mean certainly there's going to have to be an a~vful lot of consideration given to a profile adjustment and the width of the roadway. It's a very tight corridor. Very tight. Councilman Senn: That was going to kind of be my last question. Where all of a sudden is a four lane highway coming from? I mean we've seen documentation on this for 10 years now. All that's ever been discussed and what the residents want is a 2 lane highway and now it seems to me if you're going to talk a 4 lane highway, we may as well all go home because my guess is everyone is going to oppose it. Bruce Polaczyk: Well and I guess my response to that Mr. Mayor, members of the Council is that ~vith the turn back also comes the design standards...turned back and presumably it would be a County State Aid Highway. In order to obtain the use of and continue to use county state aid funds, gas tax money, then we have to design the highway according to State Aid standards and right now those standards would dictate that a roadway that would be improved, or that would be eligible for reconstruction, that carries 8,000 to 9,000 cars per day, would be according to the State Aid rules anyway, would mandated to be constructed as a 4 lane roadway, unless of course you went through a variance process or a step process. There's no assurance that you'd get a variance to build anything other than a 4 lane road if you went through that process. Councilxvoman Dockendorfi I don't mean to twist your words but you just described a lot of issues that are going to make this a very complex project, this south section. Are you planning later on this year to start that process? Bruce Polaczyk: Yes. As we adopted, yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it xvill be in '962 Bruce Polaczyk: Late '96, yeah. And see until our budget, until our budget is approved and that won't occur until late '96, I don't have, we don't have any funding authority to bring a consultant on board but certainly we can do everything up to that point to bring a consultant in for an interview...and then the last step ~vould be to proeess...to approve a consultant... Mayor Chmiel: (~ood. Any other discussion? If hearing none, is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I ~vould move approval of the plans and specs for the improvement of CSAH 61 including the temporary roadway construction. Councilman Mason: I will second it. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution #96-37: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the plans and specifications for the improvement of CSAH 62 including the temporary roadway construction as it would taper into thc Chanhasscn city limits. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed~ and the motion carded with a vote of 3 to 1. City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB LOCATED AT TI-Hi INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE. Kate Garwood: Thanks for allowing me to have this time here...some updates about this project. Councilwoman Dockendorf. She's the Chair of our commission and although... The project is located at Highway 5 and Prairie Center Drive. Just to give you some anchors. Here's Rainbow Foods and here is the Flagship Athletic Club. We have 23 acres located between Technology Drive, Highxvay 5...Drive and St. Andrews Church right here. The phasing of the project is in two phases and actually starting in the center and deal with just our transit facility and an express shelter in this location. We move then to these darker blue sections here that will be adjacent retail and we're going to work with the owners of the retail...to help define the operations of the site. So that...additional tax dollars to re-invent... Then phase III involves two pieces. These two ends. This end here is planned to be a commercial section as Highway 5 and to the Prairie Center Drive intersection is constructed, we will see that Prairie Center Drive goes up and over Highxvay 212, 5 and 212 and there will be actually a 25 foot bridge in here...plans for a hotel and commercial in this location. In this location we plan future housing and this is a site that I hope to be talking with you and staff more about. It is, this meets the Livable Communities Act type of location and because we are owned and operated by the three communities, Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie, we'd like...to coordinate the efforts to the three communities for it's getting credit for the housing... Some of the detailed site plan here. The transit hub is right here. The location of our facility. That's about 10,000 square foot building. It's not very large. There's a canopy...and small express station here. This is a 500 car parking lot in these txvo pieces and as the development grows on the east and west sides, particularly on the east side, we have already made application for a parking deck ramp through ISTEA funds to be in this location. And a pretty picture. It's a little lighter in colors than this noxv that we've taken a look at some samples of materials but we'll have brick and glass and of course xve're going to have city codes in the city of Eden Prairie. Lastly, this is probably not as direct an impact on Chanhassen as it is on Eden Prairie but it's something that you might want to kno~v about and... This is what Highway 5 will look like during the construction of Highway 212, be it by MnDot or 212 Coalition are putting together. Bringing back to the St. Andrews Church over here. This...is going to be an intersection and there xvill be a temporary light installed. If you want to go southbound to Prairie Center Drive to any of the uses that are doxvn here, WalMart and Flagship and things like that, you will turn right or south down here and take the new Technology Drive access down there. If instead you want to go northbound or continue to go east, you go through this light, up here to this light. Now those of you who have been through this intersection know that there's currently a main light on Highway 5 and then another one right before you get to the main road. That's it. This will be your new route. And then it continues, here's Norwest Bank and Rainbow's right up here. It will continue to go to the east and then it will kind of float inbetween here as construction goes on. This will be the state of the area for 3 to 5 years as... We'll adjust our service accordingly. This is one alternative though until then to get some of those folks off of Highway 101, is put them all on buses. We are very excited about the opportunity to do something for all three communities on the housing project. We're not sure how that can all work out but if everybody's willing to work together on this, there's no reason again because we're serving three cities, that just Eden Prairie should get the credit for this and,..so with your permission we'll continue working with your staff and see what we can make happen. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Very well done. I like the idea, the concept of getting some additional credits for all three cities rather than just one with that respective hub. Kate Garwood: The other thing I forgot to brag about is...is that all of this is being done with tax dollars that have already been paid. It's Federal tax dollars and funds from the Metropolitan Council so... City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well there are a lot of innovative things about this, and xvhat particularly excites me is the fact that we're trying to be a self-sustaining site insofar as the retail operation, either through leasing or selling the property or renting it. That will be the source of funding to operate the transit center and just to the design. It's going to be very convenient for cars to get off of Highway 5 or wherever, park. Have a shelter and get on your bus and have a dedicated lane directly onto the highway. And the retail uses will be very transit friendly. We did a survey with our riders to find out what kind of services they would want around there. A dry cleaners, you know gas station. All of that stuff so it's going to be a very interesting site. And just to pick up on the last note that Kate made about tax dollars. What I wanted to update the Council on is the recent legislation that did pass through the legislature. It's call the Suburban Transit Association Legislation which gives levy authority to the communities instead of having it pass through the Met Council. This is huge in terms of saving all opt out communities and particularly Southwest Metro. Saving us some dollars and more so, giving us more control over how we spend those dollars so we can continue to be innovative, which the agency has been and we'll be considering that impact over the next couple of months as we move into that system so more good news for Southwest Metro. Kate Garxvood: ...each of the communities needs to take action to say ~vhether they will participate or not. We will be discussing this at the commission meetings coming up and then we'll be before each of the three cities... because you need to act by July Ist...Thank you for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS; REQUEST FOR A 1 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ~ SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADD1TION~ 7270 CONESTOGA COURT, DAVID BRAMER. Public Present: Name Address David Bramer Kevin Pumarlo 7270 Conestoga Court 7261 Conestoga Court Kate Aanenson: As you recall at the last meeting you did table and requested that the applicant possibly work to get the letters from the neighbors and he has submitted that petition. That's enclosed in your packet. The neighbors in support of the variance. If you want me to refresh on the variance, I'd be happy to do that. Otherwise I'll just leave it at your discretion if you've got any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think the concerns of the Council last meeting was the fact whether or not the adjacent property owner would approve of what was being proposed and being that he had already signed the petition, as was indicated in the staff report, I think that's where we're at right now. So is there anything, Dave did you want to say anything more than what you told us previously? David Bramer: I think I pretty well, good evening. I believe I pretty much said everything that I can say. I've done as you've requested. I walked up and doxvn the street. Talked with all my neighbors. Got their blessings and all during the period of this past week, being out in the yard, I've had neighbors stop by and ask me how CiD, Council Meeting n April 22, 1996 things are going. And giving me their support. I have had the support from every one of my neighbors. No objections whatsoever. One neighbor...commented that he thought that it would actually be a nice appearance for the neighborhood to have another home with... I've had just unlimited support. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I move approval of the variance. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: The only comment I would like to make, believe it or not I've been waffling on this one for the last two weeks. I understand the need, or the want for the variance. My concern about granting this kind of variance is that in truly technical and truly financial, I mean there is no hardship created here. At all. None. Zero. Zip. Now that's not saying there isn't a hardship created with your heart on this issue, and I understand that but in terms of writing the ordinances and what the ordinance is supposed to accomplish here, there is no hardship created. And I really think as a governing body, as a Council, as leaders or whatever, we have to be really, really careful in granting these kinds of variances because in granting this, and I think it's pretty clear that it will be granted. What is to prevent anybody, anywhere now to say hey, it's only a foot. You gave this guy one. Why can't I have one and I think we all need, and for Council's in the future and everything else, need to be aware that in granting this variance. I know each variance is dealt with separately but I think we'd all be foolish if we say that clearly now this is going to give anyone that ~vants a one foot setback variance, hey you gave this guy one. Why can't I have one. So I just, I really do hope we're all aware of that. Audience: Can I comment on that'?. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. If it doesn't take too long. Kevin Pumarlo: Well, Mayor and Council. I'm one of Dave's neighbors and some of us have...as far as you're concerned sir, he's clearly gone through the process...establish a pattern where to get the variance you have approval of the neighbors, you have to have approval of Council. It won't become an ad hoc random case... Councilman Mason: Well I think you misunderstand a little bit. I do admire the tenacity here, and clearly with this kind of neighborhood support, I agree. The issue is not whether 100 one foot variances will be granted now. The issue is, that clearly now there's the potential for a whole lot of people saying I'm only going over a foot over here. They let this one get through. I want it too. Kevin Pumarlo: Then they will have to,.. Councilman Mason: Well that's fine but I think you can kind of, from where I sit, each variance is looked at individually but my sense is that most people say well this guy got a variance, so I should get one too. Kevin Pumarlo: If you're concerned with that, that kind of attitude may generally but if you maintain xvith 5'our policy you'll be okay. 10 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason: Good point. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I sat on the Board and reviewed this. It was an unanimous decision not to move ahead with the variance. But I too have a lot of concerns in how it's going to affect the city in years to come, but if we follow the conditions as was discussed and everything goes accordingly, if you have one neighbor who is in opposition to that proposal, then it just doesn't go. So we do have something to clutch onto to move ahead on this. I have not been a strong supporter for variances, only because it should be looked at and considered when purchasing and location and I understand that David did, wasn't aware as to how his house could have been located. The footprint could have been moved I foot or 2 feet one way or the other. But I'm not going to keep going with this. I've got a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Senn moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the one (1) foot side yard variance requested based on the following findings: The garage addition should not be detrimental to the public Welfare or injurious to other properties as appropriate separations will be maintained between structures. The proposed garage addition will not substantially impact light or air to adjacent properties. The applicant shall provide a survey at the time of permit approval showing the garage addition and the proposed grading. Existing drainage patterns shall be maintained and a swale created between the garage and property line to divert stormxvater toxvards the street. 5. An escroxv fee of $50.00 shall be paid for recording of the variance. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be used during construction and until the area is re-vegetated. Ali voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who abstained and the motion carried~ After the follo~ving deliberation regarding the requirement for a 4/5 majority vote, Councilman Mason reconsidered his vote and voted in the affirmative, The motion carded ~vith 4 votes in the affirmative. Mayor Chmiel: Wait, do we need a 4/5 majority on it? Kate? Kate Aanenson: I'm just checking... Mayor Chmiel: It just dawned on me. Just had a thought of that. Councilman Mason: Yeah because I want to reconsider if... Mayor Chmiel: I think it requires 4/5 majority on variances. Councilman Mason: Well yeah, if that's true, ! xvould like to reconsider. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That would be in the affirmative? 11 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason: Yeah. But I would like to know that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll move it until we get our legal counsel back in. Anybody have any good jokes? Councilman Mason: It's not 100 yards to the smoking lounge. Which is outside, right. Mayor Chrniel: t'm sure it's 4/5. Councilman Mason: Well yeah. (There was a brief reprieve while waiting for the City Attorney to return to the meeting.) Don Ashworth: Three's fine. Mayor Chmiel: Three is fine? Don Ashworth: Yes. I think that's xvhat Roger will come back and say but why don't you assume 3 is fine. Mayor Chmiel: Well, we do have 3 votes. My concern is, I thought variances required a 4/5 majority. Don Ashworth: I thought he was...He might have been looking at, grabbing the Statute Book. Mayor Chmiel: I hope so. Before we move, we'd better have a judgment on this. Don Ashworth: Do you want me to go get him? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Only because we pay him, we should have him here. Michael, knowing what your intent was anyxvay, why don't we just ask for that 4/5 and go from there. Councilman Mason: Yeah but see I'm basically opposed to granting these kind of variances. That's xvhat I'm stating on but I kind of figured it would pass so. That's my, I'll reconsider. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 4/5 all in the affirmative. NORTH BAY SECOND ADDITION: ROTTLUND COMPANIES: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R-12 TO PUD. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. 'Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. Normally this item would have been on the consent agenda for the final plat and the rezoning as well as the development contract and construction plans. However, .in reviewing this, one of the issues is trying to provide affordable housing within this development. In discussions with the developer we've come up with an area that we believe we could provide affordable housing. ...the village home area within the North Bay project...smaller type units. There are approximately three different designs that they can put in them. A rambler and a two story unit. However there are issues. In order for us to proceed with the affordable housing portion, staff is recommending that a tax increment financial 12 City Council Meeting o April 22, 1996 district be established. Housing district. If the city decides to go for~vard with this, we would need further direction to determine the number of units to be provided under the affordable housing definition, which $115,000.00 or less in value and also the number of units that we should try to push for a first time home buyer program in which the first time home buyers could...Carver County HRA to receive first time home buyer monies. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council how to proceed on this affordable housing opportunity ~vithin the North Bay development. Once we have your direction we can move forward on that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any idea Bob as to total dollars for construction of what they can actually buy? The other thing is, what kind of can of worms do we open up with this and of course I can see we can justify and look at things that we see. We can turn do~vn additional TIF's within residential areas but this is something that is brand new to us. Can you expound on that a little bit? Bob Generous: Well what the type of units they can buy are two bedroom ramblers, ~vhich are 1,200 square feet. Two bedroom, two story units that are about 1,400 square feet and two story, three bedroom units that are 1,500 square feet. So you could get a wide range of people in there. Base prices run anywhere from approximately $61,000.00 to $67,000.00 per unit. And then you have to put on there the land costs and the development costs for the entire project. As far as the numbers are, the consultant had ~vorked that out and if you look at the attached, one of the attachments to this, it's a relative program that we're recommending ~vith the 48 units, 24 of which would meet the affordable housing only and then another 24 units that would meet the first time home buyer program. The total amount xvould be about $960,000.00. That's based on the initial negotiated number that we had from the applicant. This would be, we'd have to negotiate all of that too. Another issue that the applicant has is how to fund this. Usually tax increment financing is a pay as you go program. As you get tax dollars in, those are returned. They've advised the city that they can't carry all those costs up front and they'd like some other type of assistance. The one alternative they suggested ~vas to have the tax increment financing pick up the assessment cost for the utility improvement, which is approximately 40% of the. Mayor Chmiel: The entirety of the project for this specific amount of homes that are going in. Bob Generous: Well it xvould be for the specific dollar amount. Todd Gerhardt: Is $350,000.00. So it's about a third. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there any other questions of Bob? Councilwoman Dockendorf: What would these go for, if ~ve didn't do assistance... Bob Generous: Todd Stutz with the Rottlund Homes is probably able to answer that. Todd Stutz: Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. I'm Todd Stutz. I'm President of Rottlund Homes and I have a response to your question Councilmember. The homes that we're looking at, which are 50 in total number, are our village home product described by Mr. Generous. Typically these homes would range in the neighborhood of $125,000.00 to approximately $150,000.00 in retail price...with selected options and features and such, they certainly could go up to approximately $150,000.00-$160,000.00. To be able to give base units to try and provide affordable housing, the range is approximately $125,000.00-$140,000.00. 13 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're 10-15 off the market, and that's what you're looking for? Todd Stutz: I'm actually not looking for anything. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You don't want this. Todd Stutz: I'm here strictly in response to the city staff...Council to at least research and examine alternatives to providing affordable housing in this location. Certainly we're looking at trying to assist the city in that...it'd be our view at least in general, is that perhaps the...number of village homes which are 50 in number, perhaps only a portion of those should be set aside for affordable type of housing, down from the market rate. I don't know what that mix is...what specifically your objectives and goals are for development... We are a publicly held corporation so there is some difficulty we run into in trying to, especially when you're selling a house, you cannot...so I think there are certainly are questions that at least...so the number of units have a degree of subsidy...and then how that responded to the recommended solution... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Have you encountered this challenge in any other community? Or is it because the land values are so high that you have to price them this high, or that they can go for that high... Have you been able to build this type of zero lot line home in other communities that are affordable? Todd Stutz: This particular zero lot line home we've not built before, so this is the first time we've actually...so in terms of our sort of marketing experience, acceptability in the marketplace, we don't really have a good handle on it. It's somewhat of a concern...we do have experience with trying to let affordable housing. It xvas down in the city of Minnetonka...grant through the Livable Communities Act... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where's that? Todd Stutz: It's on Hopkins Crossroads and 394. Which is part of the 212 housing units there where 108 are affordable... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you're getting TIF financing... Todd Stutz: We are getting TIF financing... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well as you know, this will be only our second endeavor into this area. One being senior housing... Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, where do you start? I mean it sounds to me like we have an opportunity that we ought to try and seize but I quite honestly am not sure how to go about it. I mean this looks pretty complex to me but I certainly hope that we can pursue it and see what can come out of it. That's where I'm at right now and it sounds like people are certainly in agreement to keep looking. I certainly appreciate Rottlund, the comments that were made. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 14 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Senn: Question first thing. Bob, as I understand basically the way ~ve're going to structure this effectively we would pay for the utilities effectively through TIF funds, which we normally... Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Senn: ...In terms of reading through this, I think it really makes a lot of sense and we've talked a great deal in the past about using TIF in this capacity and we've got to give it a try somewhere. I think the structure's basically here to use them...I'd very much like to see it go forward...spend some time in relationship to...so I just want to make sure you get into those levels of detail...I think it's a great idea and definitely I think we ought to move forward with it. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: To answer Mark's question on that. Under the scenario as outlined by Mark Ruff, 24 of the units would have a recapture value with first time home buyers. So if they should happen to sell that home and recapture the additional value of that home, there is a formula that slowly comes down off of that. And that money then goes back into the first time home buyers pool of money. Councilman Senn: What we need is a similar program that covers us on the balance. Todd Gerhardt: So you want to do it on the TIF portion? Councilman Senn: Oh I think we need to, yeah. I think that's the same thing... Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Mike, did you have something? Councilman Mason: No. No. Well sure. I thought, in our packet on this, the comments by Sid Inman and Mark Ruff and how they set all this out was very helpful. I think Ellers and Associates needs to be thanked on that. This was oh okay. I get it now, kind of. Todd Gerhardt: Well we met with Julie Fricke from the Carver County HRA and when she first saw this project, she thought it was a townhouse project. She thought xvhen you looked at the houses, they're all lined up together. So she thought it was a townhouse project and she's saying well yeah, this is okay. And then after I sat her down and explained, these are single family homes with zero lot lines. No windows kind of on one side of the house and she got real excited about it after that. You know this is, you know from our meeting the other night, this is your St. Louis Park homes here. Couneilxvoman Dockendorf.' Well it's a product we don't have. Todd Gerhardt: It's the closest we're going to get from the market area. Mayor Cluniel: Okay. Is there...we need a recommendation. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'll move that we approve the...rezoning the property from R-12 to PUD and move approval of the construction plans and specifications and development contract, and move approval proceeding 15 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 with the concept of...TIF in the creation of a housing district with the details to be xvorked out and maybe... brought back to Council for review. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion's been made with a second. Did you include creating those 47 lots within that motion as well? Councilman Senn: Sure. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve PUD/195-1 rezoning the property from R-12 to PUD-R and granting Final Plat approval for North Bay 2nd Addition creating 47 lots and Outlot A, Outlot B, and Outlot C (plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated stamped received April 5, 1995), subject to the following conditions: A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance //9-1. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings, provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 6, 7 and 20, Block 1, and revise plant schedule to denote 7 foot size conifers. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory installation of the landscaping. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their construction. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's xvetland ordinance. The City xvill install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. '7. The applicant shall enter into a PUD/development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance xvith the terms of the PUD/development agreement. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota 16 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The lmvest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:I for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and ~vetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be relocated in conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to vacate the existing utility easement once the line has been relocated. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading with seed and disc- mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored in accordance with the wetland restoration/alteration permit. The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and drainage easement over the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel lying north of Lyman Boulevard and terminating where the full 60 foot wide right-of-way begins in the plat of North Bay. The applicant shall provide a temporary barricade at the end of Lake Riley Road East and include a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future". Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The applica,nt may choose which side of the street to restrict parking. The city will adopt the appropriate resolution prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory signs. The applicant and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments associated xvith city public improvement Project No. 93-32B including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. Staff and the applicant will work on developing revised language for this condition that conveys the intent of the condition. Payment of partial (24 of 47 dwellings) park fees and full trail fees per city ordinance. Dedication of Outlot C, North Bay, by fee title for public purpose. In consideration for the dedication, the applicant shall be granted park fee credit for 23 dwellings ($25,300.00). The applicant shall provide the city with some assurance that there will be some variation in brick and siding colors, potentially designating certain areas within the project for specific brick and siding colors. 17 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 23. The applicant shall install a watermain along Lake Riley Road in accordance with the city's feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Project (93-32B). The city shall credit the oversizing cost back to the applicant by means of a reduction in their assessments for project 93-32B. The oversizing cost shall be the difference between an 8-inch line and the proposed 12 inch line based on fair market value. 24. No improvements to Outlots B and F, North Bay, will be permitted until a conditional use permit for a beachlot is approved by the city. 25. Minimum building setback from the east, west and south project boundary shall be 30 feet. The minimum building setback from the north project boundary is 50 feet. Front yard setbacks along Lake Riley Road East are 20 feet. 26. The applicant shall provide cross-access and maintenance agreements in favor of all the lots adjacent to North Bay Drive. All voted in favor and thc motion carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the constmctlon plans and specifications for North Bay 2nd Addition dated December 12, 1995, revised April 3, 1996, prepared by Pioneer Engineering and the PUD/Development Contract dated April 22, 1995, conditioned upon the following: The applicant enter into the PUD/Development Contract and supply the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,003,750.00 and pay an administration fee of $35,726.00. 2. Direct staff to proceed with the concept of the creation of a TIF district. All voted in favor and the motion carried. .,REQUEST TO RECLAIM PROPERTY~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND COUNTY ROAD 17~ 9111 AUDUBON ROAD~ LOIS DEGLER. Don Ashworth: Mrs. Degler is present this evening. A similar request had been made in the late 1970's as a parcel but the city had obtained the township and I believe that at one point in time there may have been a town hall or something on that property. Again, when the city incorporated with the township, we inherited all the ownings of the township, including this particular parcel. It's approximately 2 acres. 1.83 but since the time of original acquisition, the County has slowly eaten away at the parcel on both sides for additional right-of-way. We've placed easements against the property in the form of utilities on the property and a large portion of the property was actually taken by the City of Chaska as an entry monument area. So they carried out and I think you'll see even further plantings on that property yet this year. Again, the city decided not to sell the property in the late 70's. They really did not know if there might be a future use. A future satellite fire station. Who knows xvhatever. Well house. Since that point in time, I guess in looking at what is really left in the terrain associated with what's left, I see no ability for the city to use that for any public purpose, at least that staff could think of. You couldn't do any type of construction of a building of any type. The property really has it's greatest value if it would be recombined with the Degler property. It probably would end up a xvhole lot like the property we used to own out on 82nd Street which became the mammoth parking lot and the mammoth green area. And I see this parcel being very similar. If it were conveyed back to Deglers, in all likelihood they 18 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 would end up selling that to some business and that business would then use this piece to meet their green requirements, potential parking. The question really comes down to, does the City Council wish staff to pursue obtaining an appraisal for the property. Proceed with negotiations to potentially sell to the Degler's. This item is really more of a, kind of give us guidance type of an item. We're not bringing it back trying to get you to vote one way or the other. It's just, do you feel we should go out and get the appraisals, start negotiations or not? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think what I'd like to do with this is to see basically the feelings of Council. But I was just going to say that I thought it'd probably be advisable if Mrs. Degler would like to say anything at this particular time in conjunction with what has been proposed. I think there's one point that I thought earlier. The approximate 4 acres that's indicated in the staff report, shows actually it's 1.83 acres. With the deed. And so that does make quite a bit of difference there. Don reviewed it just a few minutes ago with me prior to the Council meeting and I think he went by the square footage when he first looked at it but actually in the deed in itself, which Mrs. Degler has with her, that's what it shows. So with that, is there something that you might like to say? And if you would, if you'd come up to the microphone please. Lois Degler: Well correct, the deed does show 1.83 instead of your 4 acres as requested in the letter. And if you look at the plot, Audubon Road has cut it. There's a little piece laying to the east of Audubon and a little bit laying west over where the City of Chaska has their plantings. It is very hard to tell where the boundaries are and there isn't much left. That's about all that I can say. Otherwise I think it was explained very thoroughly, except the error and that it is not 4 acres. It xvasn't to start with even. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Lois Degler: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen, Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I mean, there's absolutely no reason that the city of Chanhassen needs it. How much is an appraisal typically go for? Don Ashworth: Well I see one like this as being, trying to get as minor as possible. Can we reasonably be talking into a $300.00 bracket, $500.00 bracket. Roger Knutson: That would be the reasonable price. It's hard to negotiate until... What you do is call the appraiser and said, you've gotten big appraisals. This is a tiny one, and we're going to offer you x dollars. If you want to continue to do the appraisal work, here's the deal. I think that's a reasonable price. Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yeah, alright. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: Roger didn't we, we purchased it from them in the first place, correct? 19 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Don Ashworth: We inherited it from the township. Councilman Senn: The township purchased it? Don Ashworth: The township got it from them, yes. Councilman Senn: Do we really have to go through an appraisal and stuff?. Couldn't we just find out in the records what we paid for it just do a swap back at the same cost that we bought it for? Are we supposed to offer it back to the person we took it from first before we do anything else with it? Roger Knutson: You don't have to do that. You can do if you want to. I would suggest though, if this was 20 or 30 years ago. Councilman Senn: We probably don't know then is what you're saying. Roger Knutson: It probably costs more to try and figure out what you paid for it. Councilman Senn: One other. Well I'm just trying to think of an easier xvay to do it. Roger Knutson: What I would probably suggest, if you want to, we could just, I would tell the appraiser. I don't want an appraisal. I want you to drive by. Someone who knows the community and give me a number. Councilman Senn: What about, just as another option. We're looking to buy the Degler property right across the street for the park. What if you just worked it into that transaction with some kind of a parcel swap or something. Then you wouldn't have to go through all that. Roger Knutson: I didn't know that. We're buying property as well? Don Ashworth: You're talking about for this referendum? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: We'd have to wait until the referendum gets voted on. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I mean that would be this year. Don Ashworth: The other part though that should make this relatively easy is, we did do appraisals and we acquired a lot of property from the Deglers on the other side of the road for when utilities went through and that was within the last 2-3 years. Roger Knutson: We can probably just look at that number and...appraisal. Mayor Chmiel: Mrs. Degler. Lois Degler: Well I was going to say, we purchased the farm 49 plus years ago and this transaction had taken place previous to that. And I did read one for the consideration of a dollar. I think it was the court house where I read that. 20 City Council Meeting ~ April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason: Well let's work something out as easily as possible. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we need a motion. You have direction. Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We can go from there. Thank you. Lois Degler: Thank you. REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE~ 581 WEST 78TH STREET~ CHANHASSEN BOWL~ INC.~ DANIEL DAItLIN. Don Ashworth: The city has received an application from Mr. Dahlin for a liquor license at the Chanhassen Boxvl. Most of the paperwork is in place and we assured that whatever is remaining will be obtained before we would give that license. At issue is the fact that under city ordinances, or city ordinances basically state that we will not issue a liquor license if the owner is delinquent in property taxes. The Council's probably aware the Bowling Center did go through a bankruptcy action approximately 2-3 years ago and just kind of pulling themselves out that and then had kind of another slide backwards. They now appear to be, if they can make this entertainment center work, they would be able to pay off back taxes, which is what they've told us, if that entertainment center would go forward. Which then another key point there is the advice from the City Attorney saying that the ordinance portion is discretionary back to the City Council. So you have the discretion of saying you are going to follow that requirement, or if in a particular instance you feel that a waiver may be warranted or you want to establish some other conditions as a part of approval. I guess I have a difficult time seeing how denying the license is going to help out Mr. Dahlin or help out the city in trying to recoup the taxes that are delinquent. So I guess I turn it back to City Council. I don't knoxv ho~v you ~vant to go. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Don? Councilman Senn: When does the license actually renew? Don Ashworth: The first of May. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I was going to see if they had any questions and then I would call. Mr. Dahlin, do you have anything to add to what Don has said? If you would like to come forward. Please state your name and your address. Daniel F. Dahlin: Daniel F. Dahlin, 1889 Fairmont, St. Paul, Minnesota. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything in addition that you may want to say to what Don has already discussed? Daniel F. Dahlin: No. As you know Don has been very cooperative and very helpful and thank you for the nice comments in the data here that I received. We are working on several offers to sell the property for the taxes but we basically need some more time. Would appreciate your graciousness in letting us continue with our license until this can be worked out. 21 City Council Meeting o April 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions of Mr. Dahlin? I guess we have none at this time. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: All I can think of are two really poor metaphors. One is throwing good money after bad and the other is shooting yourself in the foot if we don't extend... We'll never get the money. I guess it only makes sense to renew it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I don't know that either one of those metaphors are poor but yeah. It certainly won't happen if we don't. Whether I like it or not so. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess for one thing, I guess I want to repeat my comment that I made effectively at the time that we talked about the entertainment complex and the TIF and that is, how do we expect a property in this kind of shape to turn around with a new mortgage on it, new investment and everything. Pay the mortgage, the new mortgage and all the back taxes while the new taxes on higher value...basic economic principles... I agree with Colleen and Mike in the sense that I'm not sure where it gets us but I guess if xve're going to do it... every 2-3 months, I don't want to see it back in here...don't want this to become an ongoing game... I think we need to make it knoxvn that this is a short leash and also very short time period...lot of extensions. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I have basically the same concerns that you mentioned. I want to see this all xvork. I want to see everything go but I too want to see something tight on this in making sure that somehow you bring this back to Council, even on a monthly basis knowing exactly where it's at. If there's something there, fine. If not, that too. But it's one of those things that I had to quote from Steve's portion. That's Councilman Berquist and he wrote me a few notes here and he said it's sort of staggering. He says how much more rope do we provide someone. It reminds me of the fellow who I trusted who kept telling me it's coming. It's coming. We'll get it squared away. He ended up taking him for approximately $100,000.00. I want to have it very tight. Don Ashworth: I need a little clarification. Taxes are basically paid twice per year. And I can provide hopefully a status report as to how they're doing xvith the entertainment complex. Is that what I'm hearing you say or is it the tax issue? Councilman Senn: Let me try on the tax issue. As far as May 15th goes, that payment better be made or this is immediately revoked. So more or less there's no further going in the hole on back taxes. Okay. As far as review period goes, I think we should extend the license for 3 months and to come back here in 3 months and either there's something really to show us that this is about to happen or something like that, or there's got to be some kind of a reduction of payment on the back taxes at that point to get an additional extension beyond 3 months. That would be my opinion on the taxes. Don Ashworth: So you're saying the equivalent of first half taxes for 19967 Since he is so far in arrears, anything you make on taxes will first be applied to the oldest tax that you owe. Councilman Senn: That's xvhy I said go no further in the hole. 22 City Council Meeting ~ April 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Roger. Roger Knutson: I would just point out that you can't pay, technically you can't pay recent, you have to pay the oldest ones first. Councilman Senn: I understand. That's why I say no further. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any? Councilman Senn: I'll make that a motion if you want me to. Councilwoman Doekendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's been made with a second. Yes. Don Ashworth: I heard some discussion from the back. Vernelle Clayton: Only because I told Gerry exactly what...and was told otherwise. Gerry Rummel: Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Gerry Rulnmel. Dan Dahlin's attorney. I called last week, the County Treasurer's office on this and they said that the payment would first be applied to current debts before you can pay any back. I was the same...that's what I was told by the County Treasurer's office. Don Ashworth: ...that's really statute, right? (There were a number of people speaking at the same time at this point.) Don Ashworth: ...Councilman Senn's position is clear. Councilman Senn: To be honest with you, I've heard that argument both ways. You know our company does some things, work up work and I'll tell you if we paid current taxes and...I mean there are exceptions to every rule but let's not argue that. Let's deal with the issue. No further in the hole. If it goes further in the hole, it's going to be revoked. The other...3 months. In 3 months you'd better be back here ready to perform... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, motion on the floor with a second...those specific conditions. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the request by Dan Dahlin for renewal of on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the Chanhassen Bowl, Inc. for a period of three months on the condition that he pay his May 15th preperty ~axes and that he come back in that 3 month period and show progress for paying back tmxes and be able to demonstrate some abili0y to f'mish paying that off within the next 3 months should another 3 month extension bc granted. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECT FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ALONG COUNTY ROAD 117~ FILLING .13 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND REPLACING WITH .22 ACRES ON SITE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. 23 City Council Meeting o April 22, 1996 that they would do the permitting. There would be wetlands. There's two wetlands that are being filled. As you can see, replacement will be down in this area here. It's actually a pretty nominal fill of .13 acres. Staff has reviewed this plan and finds that it meets the requirements of both the city's wetland ordinance and Wetland Conservation Act, and a ratio of replacement is at 2:1. Again the wetland, we believe that as long as one of them, although the trail would not be constructed at this time, we believe it makes sense to go ahead and do the wetland alteration permits. This is a county road and the trail will go in at such future date as that road is upgraded, and again that date has not been established but we believe that makes sense now to go in and provide for the grading at this time with the construction of this project. The city has received a nation wide permit from the Army Corps of Engineers authorizing the project and on April 24th, which is the 30 day end of the comment period and to date the city has not received any comments on this project and we believe that we do not anticipate any comments on this. At the Planning Commission there was some concern from the neighbors as far as timing and that but I think we've clarified those issues as far as the trail. That there is a trail proposed again but it would not be built with this project. Again, staff is recommending approval and recommends that the Council does approve the wetland alteration permit with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #95-4 for the Woods at Longaeres 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be completed by the City. The City shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetlands. All voted in favor and the motion carded, APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR DEPOT SITE RELOCATION. Todd Gerhardt: Attached for City Council's consideration is a lease agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Bloomberg Companies in the relocation of the railroad depot. The basic terms of the lease is that the term would be 25 years at a rate of $1.00. The city pays for all construction improvements and must keep the property in good condition. During the term of the lease the City acknowledges that Bloomberg Companies is entitled to improve the railroad depot area's impervious surface for the purpose of calculating green space and permeable surfaces in connection with the future development of their property. Item number 4, under Section 2.2. The terms of the lease, this gives the City the reason why the depot should be moved if Bloomberg Companies decides to put a building or a development on this site. That the City Council would have to see the plans and if they had asked us to move the railroad depot, that they would show you how their future development would impact the railroad depot and to see if that made sense or not. But it also, on the later part of it, it doesn't take away their right from developing the site as they wish, as long as they meet the city ordinances. So it's kind of meeting both people's needs on the thing. One, that they have to come in and show you why the railroad depot would have to move. But two, not giving you the power to tell them to move their building so it doesn't impact the railroad depot. Continuing to give them their right of hoxv they can develop their site~ One other thing that needs to be added to the lease, that I found out today, is that we would have to pick up our pro-rated costs on the taxes on which the land would sit on. The railroad depot and it's...value that 24 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 the county would give for that. So with that, staff would recommend approval of the lease agreement between Bloomberg Companies and the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well it's not exactly a minute detail. Last minute, pay the taxes. What's your ballpark? Any idea? Todd Gerhardt: My guess is no more than $1,500.00 a year. Councilman Senn: You confuse me when you say pro-rated though. Proration to me is, you're going to take all the taxes for the Dinner Theater and spread them over the square footage and then pay a percentage of that. I mean you have no other way to value this property. It's not a separate piece of property. Todd Gerhardt: We did create a separate PID number and have the County assign a value to this. Councilman Senn: Okay, then that's different. That's not pro-rating the taxes. Todd Gerhardt: Well pro-rating just the land value underneath the building. Councilman Senn: Well even that. I don't want to be pro-rating the land value underneath the Dinner Theater versus a piece of land that you can, according to your report, barely use. Todd Gerhardt: No. We preliminarily talked to the County and they're saying $10,000.00. No more than $25,000.00 for a value on it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would assume that this agreement would hold regardless of whether or not the property changes hands and goes to someone else. Councilman Senn: Well yes and no. Ail they'd have to do is come and say we'll give you 6 months notice. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and that's contained within the agreement. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I'm saying if Bloomberg sells the entire Dinner Theater area. Councilman Senn: ...also have to give 6 months. Mayor Chmiel: They would have to have a pretty good reason. Councilman Senn: None required. Todd Gerhardt: Only if they have a development plan and it's approved by you ~vould they give us the 6 month. Councilman senn: And if we don't approve, we risk a lawsuit because we say we can't base any kind of approval on...property. 25 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason: Well that's true, and I think the other side of that coin is that anybody that's going to be doing business with the City of Chanhassen in the future, if they were to buy that property, would also realize the implications of telling us we have to be out of there in 6 months too. I mean I think that's kind of a double edge sword and yes, I do understand that we are taking the chance by putting it there but I think that's, I personally think that's the nicest, the best place for it and I know Todd's worked long and hard at this and I'm assuming that Todd negotiated in good faith and I'm assuming that Herb negotiated in good faith. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well in any negotiation you have stuff you like and stuff you don't. Councilman Mason: Right, and I think that's the...so I'm willing to. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ash;vorth: Just a quick update. I did meet with the operators of the Dinner Theater on Friday, and we were talking about this project and they're very excited about the possibility of them literally putting in the mannequins as it would apply to the turn of the Century. You know a lady waiting for a train. The guy standing behind the ticket taker type of a thing. And I think they see it as a real, could be very advantageous for the business. You have the owner, Bloomberg and you have the operator and they see that that's going to be a real, you know hopefully a benefit for the Dinner Theater as well. So I think it's a good mutual arrangement. Mayor Chmiel: Replaced by a mannequin. I thought that was going to be my job. Okay. Councilman Senn: I guess one comment then. I'm sorry, maybe it's a very...my background but I'm sorry, 25 years of real estate I've seen this happen too many times where you put clauses like this in leases, or in purchase agreements, and sorry, you know nobody expected it but a year later it happens and you get 6 months notice. I think everything in here conceptually is great. It's a wonderful idea. I really don't think it should be...to enter a lease agreement where you can be booted out in 6 months given the fact that the only person who runs at risk in that transaction is the city. Because the city...I understand all the things said in the staff report but you know, I read through this and ever3, thing tells me that the chances or anything occurring on this land is thin to none. If that's the case, then why is everybody worried about it and why is there a 6 month cancellation clause in here? Every other element of this I can go for but I cannot back a deal that exposes us on that kind of whim basically. Mayor Chmiel: And I don't basically agree, or disagree with you, but I think you have to have some good faith within things as well in developing those kinds of agreements. And I feel really...because I think there is good faith between the Dinner Theater and us. Anybody else we'd probably wind up wanting it. It's a protection for them, which I don't really expect to ever see them really use. Where that location is and ho;v xve're going to really change it. And I guess I would like to ask for a motion. Councilman Mason: I would move approval of the lease agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Bloomberg Companies for relocating the railroad depot. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Doekendorf: Yes. 26 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockcndorf seconded to approve the lease agreement bet~veen the City of Chanhassen and Bloomberg Companies for the relocation of the railroad depot All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. APPROVE PLANS FOR WELL NO. 7~ AUTHORIZF. ADVERTISING FOR B/DSt PROJECT 94-3. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. mayor, members of the Council. We recently completed the first phase of the Well 7 project, which is to actually conduct the drilling operation of the development. That's come to completion and it's time to begin the second phase of the project, which is to build a building around the well point and install all the necessary mechanical, plumbing and electrical...with this infrastructure. Two things we've incorporated into the plans for this well house. One is, as I discussed in the staff report, it provides additional or adequate floor plan area in the future if City Council should desire to implement a policy for emergency preparedness with the water system which provides a permanent stand-by generation at this well site. As I indicated, the capacity of this well is actually far exceeded our initial expectations and this well would be a good candidate should xve decide to implement a plan in the future for stand-by generation at critical wells. The other thing we did with these plans, it's not likely based on the current schedule that we'll have this up and running on a permanent basis for infrastructure during this summer when we run into our peak usage of water supply. Therefore, what we intend to do is monitor the ~vater supply during the summer. If we run into a hot, dry spell and need to add some temporary pumping systems from this well point to provide those...if necessary. We will try to keep the Council informed as we get to that point and xve feel we need to implement this part of the plan, we'll notify you accordingly. We tried to with the design of this building~ be sensitive to the neighborhood that it's being built at Brenden Ponds. Part of the agreements and part of the commitments that we've made to the developer who we were able to acquire the acquisition of the land for building the well site. Other than that, staff is recommending approval and authorization to advertise for bids. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions of Charles? Okay, is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: I'll second. Councilman Senn: One comment though, I just can't resist. Only after every house in Chanhasen has fallen doxvn, our well houses will still be standing. Resolution #96-38: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the plans and specifications for Well Pump House No. 7 dated April 12, 1996, as prepared by Bonestroo & Associates, be approved and that authorization be given to advertise for project bids, Project No. 94-3-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COMMllWEE REPORTS: Mayor Chmiel: Mike, do you want to make the HRA. I did it the last one. Councilman Mason: We met so long ago... Last meeting. Mayor Chmiel: We had one. Nobody showed. 27 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Todd Gerhardt: It was the entertainment complex. Councilman Mason: Pauly's lease... The entertainment complex is moving forward. It looks like Mr. Pauly, at the point was almost in, or very close to a lease agreement. Todd Gerhardt: He has signed a lease. Councilman Mason: He has signed a lease. That was what the gist of the meeting was, the entertainment complex and it looks like it's moving quite well. It's going to be really nice to see that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that just about covers it. Colleen, you had Southwest Metro. You covered that already. Bluff Creek Committee. Steve is not here so he can't comment on that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Centennial? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Centennial. I think they have it pretty well all pulled together. We are looking for May 5th...to take place. Those dates are going to he in the paper, with the time as well. And of course everything's getting lined up for the 4th of July with parades and numbers of people who are willing to participate in there xvith floats and different marching or walking things. And it looks, I really have to commend those people. They have been doing just an excellent job. Every Tuesday and every Tuesday. They've devoted a lot of time and a lot of thought and a lot of their own personal positions that they are able to really pull this all together. I think it's really great. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you know when the bricks go on sale? Mayor Chmiel: The bricks will be going on sale, in fact there's something coming, there's something out right now. For you we have a price. Councilman Senn: Equivalent to our Council's salary? Mayor Chmiel: Your price is going to be your month's salary as well as mine. it's not bad. Councilwoman Dockendorf: They start at like $30.00 or something. Mayor Chmiel: $30.00 and then there's, I know Todd ran upstairs to get it. There's $30.00. There's $50.00. There's $100.00. Different sizes.., that's personal and that's a 24 x 24. Businesses go accordingly. So the City of Chanhassen, let's do it right. Hopefully everybody's going to participate. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET WORK SESSION DATE TO DISCUSS GATEWAY PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT~ TH 5 AND TH 41~ MAY 137 Mayor Chmiel: Is that alright with everyone? Councilman Mason: That would be then after, aren't we doing the strategic from...and then we just go on? We might as well. Kate Aanenson: They want to come in and talk to you. Otherwise what did you have on for the 29th? 28 City Council Meeting - April 22, 1996 Councilman Mason: Who wants to come in? Mayor Chmiel: April 29th? Councilman Mason: No, no, no. Gateway's isn't the 29th. What do we have going on the 29th? Councilman Senn: We had the ice thing or whatever it was and the interviews for... We're meeting already on the 13th at what, 4:00? Don Ashworth: 4:00, yeah. The 13th was at 4:00 to 6:30. This item, we could do this in a half hour, right Kate7 Kate Aanenson: Oh yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Half hour, 45 minutes at max. Kate Aanenson: I don't think it will take 45 minutes. Councilman Senn: If it's a half hour, xvhy don't we do it on the 13th then. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion7 If not, motion for adjournment7 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ~vas adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 29