Loading...
1n. Minutes 1 .vi , , CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel, and Councilman Berquist. Councilman Mason arrived during the item 5, site plan review for Famous Dave's Restaurant. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Cynthia Kirchoff, Todd Hoffman, Don Ashworth, Tom Scott, and Sharmin AI-Jaff APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda "items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: d. Resolution #97-90: Accept a Portion of Utility Improvements in Walnut Grove, Project 97-13. 1. City Council Minutes dated November 10, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 28, 1997 All voted in favor and the motion carried. A. APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS ON WEST 76TH STREET WATER TOWER. PW364A2. Councilman Senn: Item (a). The reason I pulled that is basically, I just had a question for our staff. I didn't see any reference points in here to go from. Have we done any research or have we come up with any reference points as to what we're using to establish on a fee basis for this? More or less, what are other communities charging and what are other private concerns charging in relationship to it? Charles Folch: It's my understanding that Roger Knutson, our City Attorney, has done some extensive work in investigation into that area. I think there's a great deal of discussion about that earlier this year, probably during the summer when we first were having some applicants come in to talk about this. I don't want to preface or speak for Roger but I do believe there was even information put out by the League of Cities and I do understand from Roger, I know we had this discussion in particular with the first applicant that came through some months ago, is that you cannot set a certain fee. That each contract must be a negotiated contract with that individual cell company. So the community cannot establish a standard set fee and that's it and carte blanc everybody's the same, so that much I can tell you. The rest, I'd rather not speak for Roger on but each contract must be a negotiated contract. Mayor Mancino: So you can't be fair in your product pricing? City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know. I have a hard time establishing a comfort level on it without seeing and understanding what those are. Charles Folch: I can tell you these numbers are in the ballpark of what we had from a previous lease. The first one you approved a couple months ago. I can tell you there are some differences, particularly in the area that this one actually has an extension provision that goes longer than the previous one. Therefore there was some offset financially based on the longer term extension for contract and such, but is relatively in the same ballpark financially as the previous one you approved. Mayor Mancino: Can you come up please and give us your name and address and tell us a little bit about timing so that if we did wait until we had some time. I also had a call into our attorney today to ask him a few questions and he's out of town. So we're sorry about that. Not being as prepared as we could be for you. Bill Buell: My name is Bill Buell, and I'm with Buell Consulting and I represent Nextel Communications who's address is 9401 James Avenue in Bloomington. We've been working on this lease for many months. I think even early summer is when I remember first starting. It would be quite a setback for us if we needed to wait any longer. We have done a lot of work of surveying the property and getting all our building plans in order. We're trying to get in there before the ground freezes too much more. That's one critical aspect of the construction for timing. As for rent, most of our rent for city water towers are closer to $1,000.00 a month and that's even getting interior space inside of the bottom of the water tank. We consider this on the high end of rent because we're not only paying on the average more per month. We're also having to supply our own building. We're giving three phones to the City and we're also offering to move the fire hydrant, if needed to create a better access to the property. So there's a lot of other hidden costs besides just the rent consideration. Mayor Mancino: Okay. When is our next Council meeting? Charles Folch: December 8th. Mayor Mancino: December 8th. Okay. Councilman Senn: Well I guess, I don't have a problem I guess at this point letting this one go through but I guess what I would like to see in follow-up to it is a good case of research is going to come back and show us what other communities are getting for water towers. What they're getting for the IDS tower. I mean basically come back and tell us publicly and privately what the rentals are where so we can get a feel for that in relationship to the marketplace. I have to tell you, I mean one of the things that bothered me the most about this is the long term nature of it and the benchmarks you've set basically for increases which, you know, I don't know. Seem to do nothing more than kind of follow the cn which typically this sort of thing does not follow. And you know, maybe it's not fair at this point to hang it up so I won't do that but I think before we see any more of these it would be nice to have a good foundation that we're working from on making those decisions. Mayor Mancino: And I would just like to, those were my concerns too. They're the same ones. The initial term being 5 years. Being a 15 year lease that we're into right now. Those were some of the questions that I wanted to talk to Roger about so. Then may I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: Move approval. 2 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the lease agreement with Nextel Communications for installation of antennas on West 76th Street water tower. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. AMEND A CONDITION OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 32 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN AND AN 8 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 24 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN REQUIREMENT. 860 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. DICK HENNING. Cynthia Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and tabled at both the September 8th and October 13th City Council meetings. Essentially the applicant would like to construct a 32 square foot monument sign. This IS 8 square feet larger than what is permitted by the ordmance relating to wholesale and retail nurseries. Staff does support the amendment and the variance, being that the use IS interim. Staff has also prepared for conditions If the City Council chooses to approve the amendment and variance. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this pomt? Cindy, when you say intenm. How long do you think that this Sign could possibly be up? Cynthia Kirchoff: That is until water and sewer are extended. Mayor Mancmo: And we don't have that scheduled in any time in the near future, do we? Do we have a year date on that? Kate Aanenson: That will be addressed in the comprehensive plan... Mayor Mancino: Okay. So at this point it's wide open? Kate Aanenson: Well ultimately the entire.. .by the year 2020 so that's the ultimate. Councilman Senn: 23 years then. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure we've had a use down there that long. That's stayed the same down there. Mayor Mancmo: Okay. Is the applicant here tomght? No. Okay. Discussion. Any Council member have any discussion comments? Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Well I guess my problems with this have not changed from the last time we talked about it. I mean I understand why staff is making the recommendation they are but I just have a tendency more right now to look at the things down there with a little more permanency. I think there's a reason in the past why uses down there have not lasted long and that ties back I think to general traffic and population and everything else and the general traffic population and everything else has increased substantially m that area and I think we're going to see business uses stay for much longer periods of time. I think that can somewhat also be understood by looking at the permanency of some of the businesses which have come down and gone into that area lately. And the investments they've made, you 3 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 know are not based on short periods of time. You know aside from that I guess there's just one part of this thing that keeps coming back and just bothering the heck out of me and that is, I mean I Just, you know I see us beat people over the head constantly about staying within our square footage allowances on signage and it's kind of like why all of a sudden are we throwing that out of the window for no need at all because I mean especially looking at the sign as it was presented, or the information on it, I mean it just appears to be absolutely no reason at all why it can't stay within the square footage parameters of the, of our signage which would effectively eliminate the need for any variance at all. And then we'd just simply be dealing with the amendment to the interim use permit. I guess to move forward on it, I guess to get something done I guess, if! were to approach it positively in that manner, that's the manner in which I would approach it and not as a variance. Mayor Mancino: Kate is there, do you see a reason for us to go and review the sign ordinance along this highway? Because I know that one of the findings or Cynthia, one of the things that you said was you know it's on a major intersection and that the speeds will be suffiCient enough so that the signage, or it was in your opinion the signage could be bigger because of that. So do you feel that we should be hterally reviewing the sign ordinance at this point in that area? Kate Aanenson: We're going by the underlying current zoning and this will have a different use in the future so those other rules won't apply. We just said that the 24 square feet we felt was small based on the way the site is being used. That's not going to be the long term use of the property. That's why it was given the interim. .. We just felt the 24 square feet seemed small for this type of use. Is it going to be that In the future? That use will not remain there. If you're uncomfortable that it's going to be there for 23 years, then you certainly have the option of not granting the variance. Saying that it should be smaller. I want to point that Cindy did have in the staff report the 160 days are up. Mayor Mancino: On the 6th. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: On December 6th so we have to make a decision tonight. Kate Aanenson: We recommend you take action on it tomght. We did have a work session on this. Again staff s pOSition was, based on the building matenal that was down there again so you may be seemg the Interim use permit back for review probably in 6 months anyway by the staff. Just some issues that are down there but whether you give it 24 or 32, we felt comfortable with larger based on the speed. If you're not comfortable with that, you certamly have the option of saying you don't want to give the variance.. . we felt that 8 square feet... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I'm okay with the interim use. Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Councilman Engel: I'm okay with the interim use... Mayor Mancino: And the variance. Okay. 4 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Councilman Berquist: The only thing I've got, I had a question on Kate was, modifications to the bUIlding or the structure cannot take place, nothing's going to take place virtually without city approval in one manner or another. So the siding of the existIng structure being 40 to 50 years old and two sheets of 4 x 8 plywood sort of matching that, If they went ahead and were successful, resurface the exterior of the building again to upgrade, none of that can happen without. Kate Aanenson: Right. There are some changes that are occurring right now that they've been informed are in violation. And I'm trying to keep the two.. . separate but right. They're bound by the conditions of the intenm use and... building permit will still have to go through a process. And the intent is... that buildIng the way It was and it's got to be a landscaping business. Councilman Berquist: But that's not to say they can't reside or do something to change the look of the buildIng. Kate Aanenson: They can maIntain the building. Counctlman BerqUist: They can maintain it. Kate Aanenson: The building is non-conforming. They have... Counctlman Berquist: Is it worth whtle to put a conditIOn In approval that says somethIng about any improvement to the structure? Kate Aanenson: I believe that's In there already. The original interim use. Counctlman BerqUist: I didn't really see it as one of the conditions, but maybe I wasn't reading close enough. Kate Aanenson: Well it's a non-conforming structure so It would also fall In that standard, the language of the City code that says non-conforming structure, which that is. It cannot be altered or modified unless there's 50%, over 50% burned down. That would be the only chance that they could modify that because It IS a non-conformIng structure so it falls into that category. Councilman Berquist: So they can't reside without. Kate Aanenson: They can maintain. They can do maintenance to the building. CounCilman Berquist: They could change the outside appearance essentially, could they not? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that gets into a gray area. We've had people that have maIntained a side a year and It becomes something different so that's happened before but the intent is that it be maintained and not changed. We've got documentation, pictures inside because there's a non-conforming residence inside that buildIng too. I don't know if you're aware that there is somebody that lives right there. So we've documented what that looks like inside and out. So we're comfortable of what change. Councilman Berquist: And you're comfortable with the four conditions of approval covering, changing or upgrading the sign if the exterior of the building is changed or upgraded in keeping with the citation that the sign follows the exterior of the building. Or the manner of construction. 5 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Kate Aanenson: I see what you're saying. You're saying if the building changes, would the sign have to change? Well our intent is not to let the building change. Tom Scott: Mayor, ifI could comment. It might be a good idea to explicitly have a condition that if they are permitted as a non-conforming use to upgrade the appearance of the building, that the sign would also be upgraded to conform with the building upgrade. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that it's not allowed to upgrade. It's allowed to mamtain. Tom Scott: Right, you may but whether they could side it or not be considered maintenance or upgradmg. It would just make it clear that the sign has to be. Councilman Berquist: Okay, I'm done. Councilman Senn: We could have a sign made out of vinyl siding. Mayor Mancino: So what do you think? Councilman Berquist: It depends on what you say. Maybe you'll convince me otherwise. Mayor Mancino: Well I like the fifth condition. I think that that's a good idea. Let them know. I certainly do have a concern with the signs down in that area. There is no question and so many of the older ones are just left there and it creates the aesthetics that I don't think we want to keep.. .so I would go wIth what's in, not approve the variance but what we have in the interim use permit which permits the 24 square foot sign. May I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I would move approval of the amendment to the intenm use permIt with the attached conditions and add the additional condition that, how's the best way to word that then? Kate Aanenson: Modifications of the building also match modifications in the sign. Councilman Senn: Modifications of the building match modifications to the sign. Or vice versa I guess I should say. And I guess inherent in my motIon is disapproval of the vanance. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Kate Aanenson: Well then you wouldn't need to amend the conditional. I mean you wouldn't need to amend, the purpose of the interim use. Mayor Mancino: Is to allow for the difference for the variance? So it would just. Tom Scott: If! could comment. IfI understand it right Kate, correct me if I'm wrong but if we're going to deny the variance, then the interim use permit simply says that they have to comply with our existing sign ordinance. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Tom Scott: So there really isn't any action necessary on the interim use permit if we deny the variance. 6 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but then you should make a motion on it. Mayor Mancino: Well we have to take a motIOn denying the variance. Councilman Senn: Okay, so the existing SIgn ordmance would cover the materials and everything that they're suggesting using? All right. I understand. Okay, I'm sorry. Withdraw that motion and change the motion to, so what you're saying is, at that point you just make a motion basically to deny the variance and the rest is inherent. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, make a motIon to deny that variance. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? I second. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to deny a request for an 8 foot variance from the 24 square foot monument sign requirement for Dick Henning at 850 Flying Cloud Drive. Councilman Senn and Mayor Mancino voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Berquist voted in opposition to the motion. Councilman Engel did not vote. Councilman Engel: I'm still confused. We just did that. I'm sitting here trymg to thmk, wait a minute now. Let's have someone net this out. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Right now, m that area the ordinance, the sIgn ordmance says that the square footage of the SIgn can only be 24 square feet. His interim use permit says that and that's what our sign ordinance says. He has asked to go from 24 square feet to 32 square feet. So he wants to increase it 8 square feet. And so we've just said no. He needs to stay within the ordinance and stay at 24 square feet. So if you vote yes, you're denying the ordinance. You're denying the variance. I'm sorry, going from 24 to 32. If you say no. You give him the variance. Councilman Engel: I got all that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then that's it. That's all we're doing. CouncIlman Engel: But what about this stuff we just talked about? I was still kind of processing that. Mayor Mancino: Well, Councilman Berquist wanted to bring up that If, that he was an advocate of going up to the 32 square feet but wanted to make sure that if there was any upgrade or, not upgrade. If there was any mamtenance. CouncIlman Engel: The sign.. .building. Mayor Mancino: Upgrades to the building or that the sign would also be upgraded. Is that correct? Councilman Berquist: That is correct. CouncIlman Engel: That's where I was. 7 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: I am of the opinion, but I want to hear the other side. I'm of the opinion that insofar as this has been a transient area and we are doing what we can to foster growth down there, and this company has come in. They've been there a year. Is December a year? Did I just overhear you say that? They've been there a year. They're trying to make a go of it and given where they are, and given what they want to put on the sign, which is perfectly within their rights, I am in favor of granting them an 8 foot variance so they can put two 4 x 8 sheets of plywood up as opposed to one. Mayor Mancino: No.. .one 4 x 8. Councilman Berquist: 4 x 6 or whatever. Well sandwiched together, whatever. 32 square feet. I think in order to. Mayor Mancino: We just have to redo the vote so Mark votes. So I'm going to call. Councilman Berquist: Well then it will be 2 to 2. Mayor Mancino: He hasn't voted yet. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to deny a request for an 8 foot variance from the 24 square foot monument sign requirement for Dick Henning at 850 Flying Cloud Drive. Councilman Senn and Mayor Mancino voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Engel voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Mancino: The motIon fails. We'll go onto the next item on the agenda. Kate Aanenson: I have a question on the 120 days. We have to make a decision on this. Ifthere's a no decision. T om Scott: Yeah, are there any other motions on this matter before.. .? Councilman Berquist: I would move, can we, since I was one of the dissenters I can reopen. And insofar as that, I would move approval of the mterim use, approve the amendment of the interim use permit allowmg an 8 foot square foot variance to 32 square feet With the conditions as noted in the staff report. Adding a fifth condition. Any modification or improvement to the building, architectural features shall compel with conformance with the sign ordinance, i.e. the sign materials shall be conSistent with the exterior of the structure. That's my motion. Mayor Mancino: So I'm sorry, what were you? Councilman Senn: He just made the same motion he said before. Councilman BerqUlst: I made the exact same motion Mark made except I'm in favor of the interim use permit with a 32 square foot sign. Mayor Mancmo: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I want to second that one. Mayor Mancmo: And why are we voting on this again? It's already gone down. 8 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well no, but now we're voting on it the other way because we have to act both ways. Councilman Engel: We're covering all the bases here. Councilman Senn: We have to act both ways for it go down. Councilman Berquist: Now it's a question of 32 feet versus 24 feet. Councilman Engel: With the attached conditions. Councilman Senn: And if this goes down, everything stays the way it is basically in relatIonship to the ordinances and we have acted, correct? Tom Scott: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: I'm trying to decide how I'm going to vote so Just give me a minute. I'm really on the fence on this one. Don Ashworth: Mayor? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Don Ashworth: If! may add, and at this point the die may already be cast but, let's assume at the next meeting someone would want to reconsider this. The only party that can bring it up IS a member of the prevaIlmg side. Councilman Senn: Ifboth motions fail though, who's the prevailing side? That's an mteresting one, isn't It? Tom Scott: That's a good question. I mean we'd have a motIOn to deny, which we had two people voting on one side.. .and a motion to grant one so. Councilman BerqUIst: May I make a suggestIOn? Mayor Mancino: Let's vote. Councilman Berquist: Councilman Mason will be here at about 7:30. Can we table this until that time? Mayor Mancino: No, he won't be here until 8:30. Councilman BerqUIst: 8:30. Can we have the discussion? The applicant isn't here. I mean, I'd rather have something go down 3 to 2 than something fail for a tie. 2 to 2 is ridiculous. Mayor Mancino: Well I was going to change my vote. 9 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve an amendment to Interim Use Permit #96-2 to allow for an 8 square foot variance from the 24 square foot requirement for the construction of a 32 square foot monument sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must remove any connotation to a landscaping business/contractor's yard in the wording of the monument sign. 2. The applicant must obtam a sign permit. 3. The applicant must place the monument sign 10 feet from the property line abutting Hwy. 212. 4. The applicant must remain in compliance with the conditions of interim use permit #96-2. 5. Any modification or Improvement to the building, architectural features shall conform with the sign ordinance, i.e. the sign materials shall be consistent with the exterior of the structure. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSISTANCE FOR EMP AK/INST ANT WEB COMPANIES REGARDING COUNTY ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BLVD) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 93-29. Todd Gerhardt: Well if you thought that one was easy. At your last City Council meeting staff was directed to review the contractual obligations between the HRA, Empak Companies and Instant Web Companies regardmg the future assistance for special assessment assistance for County Road 17. With that staff has attached a letter from John Dean, the EDA attorney providing his opinion regarding current agreements that may exist between the HRA and Empak, Instant Web Companies, UnIted Mailing and Victory Envelope. In Mr. Dean's letter he states that both Empak and Instant Web do not have any contractual obligations between the HRA and those companies for assistance for the County Road 17 upgrade and the assessments that go along with it. However, in regards to UnIted Mailing and Victory Envelope, and the outlot, there is contractual language that does tie those developments to assistance for Count Road 17 as outlined in plan modification No.5. I mistakenly gave you Table 4. You did receive Table 5 and you should have received Table 4 showing Phase I public improvement costs for County Road 17 between Highway 5 and the raIlroad right-of-way. That was one of the concerns that John Dean had and that handout will show that it did call for those improvements. Although the project would be acceptable under State Statute. The current agreements for United Mailing and Victory Envelope do have caps on the dollar amount of reduction assistance that they can be provided. In the table provided m my memo to Don Ashworth it shows total assessments already assumed by the HRA for UnIted Mailing in the dollar amount of $82,800.00 and Victory Envelope and the outlot is $86,560.13. . ..in determining the amount of credit available. And that calculation is using the market value of $3,854,700.00. Taking that, and then taking $105,400.00 away from that. Giving you the base value that would be the increment created off this site. Times giving it $3,749,300.00 times 7%, thus providing $262,451.00 in credit available. So if you take the total assessments already assumed by the HRA, United Mailing has $179,651.00 worth of credit available and Victory Envelope and the outlot, $52,137.87. With that staff would recommend.. . staff should be directed to prepare private redevelopment agreements for the EDA to approve. . . staff will answer any questions that Council may have at this time. 10 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 (The following discussion was poor quality on the tape with discussion cutting in and out.) Mayor Mancino: A couple questions that I have and probably other Council members may have a few general ones. The recommendation states in John Dean's letter that Empak and Instant Web would be excluded from assistance. Did Empak or Instant Web, was Instant Web prior to United Mailing and Victory Envelope? Was that the first building that went up? Todd Gerhardt: Instant Web was the first building that went into the Park One, Park Two subdivision. And there was, there is an agreement in place between the HRA and Instant Web Companies which called out for the HRA to purchase the old Instant Web building and, which was where the hotel sits today. The bowlmg alley is a part of that. The movie theater that is under construction right now is a part of that and also the conference center was a part of the Instant Web building that the HRA purchased almost 20 years ago. Mayor Mancino. So the HRA purchased it 20 years ago and how much did they purchase that area for? mean was there an assistance given by the way of purchasing the building from the owners? Todd Gerhardt: They purchased all those buildings for $3,100,000.00 and also provided relocation and tenant improvements of $382,673.00. Mayor Mancino: So would you give me that total that. $3,100,000.00 for the purchase of the old Instant Web site, right? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And when was that done? Todd Gerhardt: I think it was in ' 81. Mayor Mancino: And then relocation of how much? Todd Gerhardt: $382,673.00. Councilman Senn: Relocation and tenant improvements or just relocatIOn? Todd Gerhardt: Both. Mayor Mancino: So that's a total of $3.4 million. Todd Gerhardt: Rounded up to $3.5. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that was in '81. So we've kind of been holding onto that land until it's just. Todd Gerhardt: Well we've sold some of it over to the hotel, the Country Suites. We've sold the movie theater property. Bloomberg Companies and the main portion of the building was sold over to the bowling center years ago. So we no longer own any of the old Instant Web portion. We do retain some of where the park and ride area for the bus people are. 11 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to speak to the Council on this matter? Julius Smith: Thank you. My name is Julius Smith. I represent Victory Envelope, Instant Web, United Mailing. It's hard to keep them all straight and the land owners thereof. And the vacant lot that we're talking about. The first question I have before I get into this, are we going to take these separately, A and B because, or should I just talk about all of them at once? I see it as one sort of.. .one resolution or whatever. Mayor Mancino: No. Why don't we take A first. No, we can take B first, but we'll take A. Julius Smith: All nght. Because they're, what happens to one affects another so to speak. Well I'm just here to kind of do a very quick recap. I think you're all pretty familiar with it. We have some disagreement with Mr. Dean on his interpretation on the Instant Web contract. As you know this project was first proposed in '91 or '92, in which at that time we objected to the project because we already had a road and we were then told that well, we have sufficient credits of $675,000.00. The road isn't going to cost you anywhere near that so we essentially said well, if it isn't going to cost us anything, please go ahead and buIld it if you want to. For some reason or another, and I'm not really sure why now but this project has sort of, I think they were going to do some redesign. I'm not really sure why but anyway the project just didn't go ahead. And then late in '96, early '97 the project came up again and we appeared in January and again in April to voice our objectIOns because the road is not needed by us and we in the Council were told by Mr. Gerhardt and by Mr. Ashworth that we had enough credits and in which case I stated that if it wasn't going to cost us, cost my clients anything, let's go ahead and build it but we were assured that we had plenty of credits to cover that. Now after the project is built and the Notice of Assessments were sent, I contacted the City and wanted to venfy that there would be no assessments owing from my client and how do I get assurance that those are going to be covered when the assessment roll is adopted. I got a letter back from Mr. Gerhardt that said how did I ever arrive that I had any credits commg. Well I sent him his letter that he sent to us saying that we had the credits and I also sent him copies of the Council meetings where those credits were reaffirmed. Well then we got together and we were informed then that we actually had credits of $ 1,900,000.00. But since we had received $181,000.00 we only had a credit of $1,700,000.00. I'm talking now for all the projects without breaking them out but it was recommended at that meeting, and you may recall then that they couldn't give credit for the vacant lot because no building was on it so there's no contribution to the tax increment district. However, I pointed out that the Victory Envelope contract provided that excess credits... would be applied to that vacant lot so there's discussion about that so it was tabled. I then met with Todd and Mr. Dean and we were informed that they would honor the Victory Envelope agreement but there would be no agreement regarding Instant Web or United Mailings because we didn't have any contracts. Well, J indicated that we had some contracts and I submitted them to the City. So we met again, I think just this last week, and by the way I appreciate the fact that the Council put this over for a hearing because I had to be out of town on a family emergency. But anyway, we met again and now I'm told that the credits exist for the Victory Envelope and the vacant lot and for United Mailing and not for Instant Web. But the credits known are substantially less than any of the credits we were told we had before. Now however beyond that, the City has assessed this road, almost entirely against the increment district. It has not proportionately assessed this road against all the people going all the way down to Lyman Boulevard and I presume that the reason for that is they felt most of it would be paid by the increment district. I don't know but that's probably not a bad thing to do is not assess it because it is really a major arterial in the city and it's connection to 212 and it's part of your major transportation plan. But normally the people next door to that do not pay for that.. .road. They only pay for what they would need and the cities usually pick up the balance of their arterials. Now you can, it seems to me you can assess the 12 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 people for, who need the new road to the portion that they use it, but we already had a perfectly good four lanes divided roadway. Left turn lane. We didn't certainly need that. We didn't need the new road and I thmk it's going to be a very difficult time to assess that road against us and we're certainly going to appeal those assessments should they be adopted. We have really no alternative. There's no question that perhaps the City could probably hit us for some curb and gutter and maybe, maybe some ground water management plan costs that are involved with this assessment. However, the City does levy the tax.. .and It's questionable whether they can assess it and tax for it at the same time. AT any rate, you know the City could try, my point is, I don't think the City's going to really gain very much because you look at the front footage of the curb and gutter and even figuring $18.00 a foot, but let's say it's $30.00, when you add the admimstration and everything else. It's a pretty small amount of money. AT any rate, those.. . improvements could be, need not I should say, be assessed by the City and certainly aren't payable by the HRA, or the Economic Development District, if they so choose because all these improvements were built on city property. No one's buying down property. No one's connecting a buIlding to a sewer. These were all done on city right-of-way and you know the City need not, and the HRA could pay for those improvements. Agam we have to object to these assessments and to the calculations because I don't think they were proportionately established and we have no alternative but to object to these assessments. So the other question I have is, should the City direct the staff to get to the, based on the staff report, to apply for these credits or create the contracts with the EDA for these amounts m January. Since I'm not prepared, or no one's prepared to say whether the EDA will approve those, I have no alternative but to object to the whole package anyway until that is done so I think that's essentially our position and I don't know. I see Mr. Carlson is here. I don't know ifhe wants to say anythmg or not but, for the Instant Web Companies. Mayor Mancino: You'd have to come up to the podIUm. Jules, do you have a copy of the Minutes that you were referring to? Could I see that copy if you have It With you. Oh, okay. Todd, do you have a copy of the Minute? From an earher HRA meeting. PrevIOUS years ago. Isn't that correct? Do you happen to have that at all? Excuse me, Jerome. Well as you look through, please go ahead. Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson of the Instant Web Companies. Thank you for your time and attention. I am here because I am very, very frustrated and disappointed with what has been occurring. I do not understand why we get so many numbers. Why we have so much confusion. Why we were led to believe, absolutely, these were going to be taken care of and it was not untll after the fact. How would you like it? This is what has happened to us. It's not nght but I do believe that it is within your purview to make It right and/or the HRA's and I would ask that you do so. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Jerome for the record also, I would like to say that that is exactly what we're trying to do when we ask for contracts that, at the last City Council meeting that Jules attended and we were given some numbers and what we asked were for the contracts and the agreements that the City had signed with yours and Empak's developments so we could read through it and make sure that we were on firm ground, etc. We have fiduciary responsibility to all taxpayers in our city and we wanted to make sure that the numbers were right and that we were reading something that there was contractual agreement with. And Todd, you know my question from the letter from April 24th '92 is that Just that we didn't research it enough or you know, you have found that you've qualified for approximately $675,000.00 worth of tax increment assistance researching the HRA's files. Is there something that we are missing seeing evidence here that shows that at some point, or what? Todd Gerhardt: I don't know who kept the records back in '81 but there were no agreements in any of the files that I have in my files. So to conversations that I've had with staff, I was led to believe that they would qualIfy for those special assessments like all our other businesses... not received a credit similar 13 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 to.. ..located in the park and it did call out for whenever County Road 17 got developed that they would apply at that time. Mayor Mancino: So that was more or less a general understanding? Todd Gerhardt: So that's what's been my letter back.. .and my estimate of what increments would have been at that time. And that was still my belief when I wrote my first report in calculating credits for it all.. .and when City Council asked to review all the contractual agreements, Jules provided me with the United Mailing and Victory Envelope agreements. I provided those over to John Dean who did review. . . Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I am assuming Jules, that you and obviously Todd, you have found nothing, no agreements at all for Instant Web? I mean that's kind of a missing document, if there ever was one? Todd Gerhardt: ... Mayor Mancino: Do we have a copy of that agreement? Todd Gerhardt: John provided... I didn't include it in the packet because John Dean...any additional assistance other than what the purchase.. . downtown and the relocation. Mayor Mancino: And your interpretation is something else? Okay. We don't have it In our hands Jules so I'm sorry. Julius Smith: .,. people can differ on... Referring to special assessments listed. The agreement provides we have to, we being Instant Web has to pay all the costs for development, whatever building permits... except assessments. The reason for that was because those assessments were paid by the City. By the HRA. Now, whether or not that will include future.. .I'm not privy to the five modifications that... to the HRA and the changing rules and the changing method of arriving at It. But it certainly always was our understanding that we would get a credit equal to 7% of the construction cost of that building... valuatIOn put on the building by the County Assessor. The same is true, now those are of record. I mean they're not, they're ofrecord...like a found document. Mayor Mancino: And that's over and above the $3.1 million? Julius Smith: Well the $3.1 million in there was, the question was, the City wanted to buy that place on main street. We were running a business there. They were going to condemn the property. We negotiated a price for the property and also as part of the Statute, to help pay relocation costs. Now these relocation costs were very high I would admit but we are dealing with presses and all kinds of equipment that is very, very few people who can move that and it's a very expensive process. So I don't think it's a question that the City was bailing us out of it, but I mean they bought our building. We then also agreed that we would build another building. We would pay all the costs of it but that the assessments would be paid by the City on that property because there was two ways for the City to buy down our land.. .and so our position at that time was, okay. Under the HRA assessments will be paid so, up to our 7% credit which was then the rule. Now I... So anyway, that's where we're coming from on this. So that's the assessment side of it. The special assessment assistance, and I think we have some, we have some arguments there. I'm not sure exactly how these numbers were arrived at. The current numbers that Todd has referred to tonight. But there's another real question and that is whether, I mean do we have to object to the roll itself, the assessment itself because the road is not used by us. It does not improve benefit on us... I suppose some case could be made for benefit for the street light or two.. .but certainly 14 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 not the extent of these assessments. .. .assessments were not properly, proportionately levIed. Those are our objections. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: .. .may have a question for Todd. First paragraph of the new updated staff report. Okay, it's the last sentence of the first paragraph. It talks about Instant, Empak and Instant Web should be excluded from assistance based on agreements between Instant Web and Empak. Am I reading that nght? The agreements were between Instant Web and Empak? Councilman Engel: No, I think he's referring that... Councilman Senn: I understand. That's why I.. .okay. So you're just saying between us and Empak and us and Instant Web? ..okay. Then no questions. Thanks. Mayor Mancmo: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to approach the Council on this issue? This IS Just on 3(a). Todd, have we heard from Empak at all? Todd Gerhardt: They did call today and Mr. Boyle was looking for a response from a letter that he had sent to us regarding his delay in submitting their appeal because of the death of his mother. And there is some language I guess in State Statute that calls out for delays...I would ask that the City Attorney review that and provide an opinion... is justified. Mayor Mancmo: So you would like us to table Empak assessment until the Mr. Dean has reviewed the facts or? Todd Gerhardt: No. I would...you have to approve the assessment hearing tonight. You can't delay it anymore.. .accept their appeal, I thmk Scott... Don Ashworth: Mayor? Todd is correct. The CIty Council does need to take action prior to December 1 sllfthat is gomg to be certified for this next year. The other part of that though, let's assume that during the course of the next 30 or 45 days, determination was made or modifications to.. . Empak should be deleted, I can delete it. I can't add it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well I don't, as far as tomght goes, it seems like we're back against the preverbal wall or into the back comer or whatever. I think we need to adopt the assessment roll and proceed with that but I think in doing so I think, at least in my own mind these issues are far from resolved. I don't know. I guess I tell you, I'm really tom on this thing. I guess in a way I'm glad I raised the question effectively... about $1.6 million in public assistance kind of off the top of our head. But at the same time what has been covered has been extremely, I don't know what the best word is but at best frustrating. I think the Council needs to understand this more in relationship to two things and that is, one. Respondmg to a party who effectively involve, or have been involved with us throughout the period of time m negotiations. And secondly, some discussion about internally, how we get into these predicaments. As far as deahng with the people involved here, I mean I really empathize with them because I think they're experiencing the same frustrations that.. . disillusionment, whatever you want to call it, that I am and it's, this is after, I mean this is you know two months. The third month. 15 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: Third month. Councilman Senn: Yeah. But I mean looking. . . for the last couple few months, I think we're going to, I think we need to address the issue of whether it's really fair to treat people this way or not and I guess that's kind of really what it comes down to and I'm not sure it's going to come down to any... correspondence and letters and everything from staff saying they've got all this stuff and not assume that the parties working on that basis is beyond me. The underlying problem I think in this whole thing is if the attorneys opinion, at least as I'm reading it now stands, we have a fundamental problem even if we want to give them the money. Because ifthere is no previous contractual commitment, I don't know how under TIF rules we can pass the but for test which we're required to do. You know the explanation we received previously was, as long as the but for, as long as it was in a previous contractual commitment, we're okay. Now your attorney says it's not there so how do you turn around and say these projects wouldn't have happened but for the use ofTIF. Because the projects have happened and there are no contractual commitments saying that there's TIF money coming to save the day on assessments or anything else. So I think that's a real issue we're going to have to deal with. I'm not sure tonight, one way or another whether we're going to be able to deal with that. Mayor Mancino: And how do you propose that we deal with that? Councilman Senn: Well I guess, I think, I don't know. In my mind I think we need to get Mr. Dean in here and I think we need to talk to Mr. Dean and really talk through some of those issues from our own end and just kind of figure out where we stand and where we don't stand from that standpoint. You know I don't like taking more and more subsidy and effectively transferring the pressure of that onto the general taxpayers and I never have liked that. But at the same time I also don't like to read through at least letters and correspondence that I would kind of take if I were on that side of the table, as commitments and say that that's the way I treat people because it's not and I don't care whether that's business or councilor whatever. So from that standpoint I think the issues here are far from closed but I think they need more discussion. I'm not sure we're going to get through it tonight. I think that's helps identify some of the things we're going to need to discuss and some of the issues we're going to need to address but I thmk we should proceed with doing that quickly but at the same time, like I say, adopt the assessment roll tonight so we can at least meet the required timing and go forward. And realizing that really the net effect of that isn't going to affect really anybody else other than the people we're talking to. And so from that standpoint, it becomes kind of inconsequential that we take that stance but also make that commitment that we'll really look at those issues and look at those decisions. So that's about it for mme I guess. Mayor Mancmo: That seems very fair to me. Yes. Don Ashworth: There, Mr. Smith was correct. There's going to require two different actions. Two different groups. One City Council and your approving or denying an assessment roll and what's to be included in that. And the secondary meeting with they, as would they would agree to, and pick up the assessments for those properties that they legally could do that for. That second meeting appears to be the best one to have Mr. Dean in and discuss the issues that Councilman Senn just brought up. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel. Councilman Senn: I'm just curious on that basis Don then why is the Council acting on special assessment assistance? Okay, so A is really inconsequential matter on the agenda? 16 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancmo: We don't have to do anything to A. We Just have to do B. Councilman Senn: So really the only action before us tonight IS B. Mayor Mancino: Right. But it's also good to address it to let Mr. Smith and Mr. Carlson know where we're going with this because I think it's Important for them to have heard this discussion. Todd Gerhardt: He requested it. I provided you the opinion from the attorney for information and that they pass it onto the EDA is my recommendation. Mayor Mancino: When is the next EDA meeting? Todd Gerhardt: The second Thursday in January. I don't know the day offhand. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone who has a '98 calendar? CouncIlman Senn: Second Thursday in January would be the 8th. Mayor Mancino: Let's Just finish up 3A and then we will go back and vote on, and discuss 3B. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'mJust really confused about what our, when I say our, the City's commitment was with businesses... They have a $675,000.00 worth of tax increment assistance and in readmg this letter that shows they get $231, our documentatIOn just doesn't seem to.. .it's difficult to know what the nght thing is to do here. So I, I think Mark's on the right track. Take care ofB and do all of this later with our attorneys. I am really at a loss to decide what the right thing to do here is based on what I'm readmg. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman BerquIst. Councilman BerqUIst: Well I've got a pretty good idea of what we're going to end up domg as the right thmg and I'm awfully confused as well. Mark has explained the Council I thinks position fairly succmctly. Mayor Mancino: I have nothing really new to add either on that particular issue so on January 8th, Jules and Jerome we will bring that up and have Mr. Dean, our attorney there and give us, we will probably prior to that go over a list of questions that we will ask him to be prepared to answer at that meeting to review with him. Now,3B. Charles. Charles Fo1ch: 3B is basically redundant from the formal presentation you had back in September when we had the project engineer in and we gave a full scale presentation of the project costs as they have been determined and the assessments that have been spread accordingly. Basically in summary, the drainage area, drainage costs have been basically split on a percentage of contributing area. We established a front foot cost for the roadway based on total cost. They basically have gone up about 1.2% from what we estimated from the feasibility study and basically that front foot cost was what's been applied for the assessments for the roadway. Watermain basically was only a few of the parcels affected by watermain where we provided some additional services and those assessments are listed accordingly. With that the numbers remain the same as what we presented back in September. 17 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, and how did you prorate the parcels? I mean how did you decide who would pay what and are there single family residential homeowners who aren't paying any? Is there any sort of a concern there? Charles Folch: We just, agam going back to the feasibility study where it was determined that based on an established, or based on an estimated front foot cost, at that point it was proposed to assess the industrial commercial business park zoned properties and that the residential properties to the south, which basically a majority of them do not take direct access from the road and such, there was not proposed assessments to them. From that standpoint. Mayor Mancino: Now Instant Web, there is direct access. Victory Envelope and United Mailing, is there? Charles Folch: Those two sites take access off of Park Road. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they don't have direct access either. What about Empak? Charles Folch: Empak takes access off of Lake Drive I believe. Mayor Mancino: And the residential south of it exactly the same that they take access, not directly off of it but also. Charles Folch: Sorry, you do have the one large lot subdivision, Oaks ide Circle basically that has one access point that serves a few homes back in there. Then there's one that shares a common driveway together. Basically we felt, to be perfectly honest with most of the homes taking their backyards up to the County l7 corridor and we felt it would be difficult to assess these particular improvements to the subdivisions. Most of these subdivisions that have come on board basically have created their own drainage systems, storm sewer ponding, etc., inside. There really weren't contributing.. . drainage to the roadway corridor or ditch system. They basically provided their own internal utilities. Their own local streets if you will internal. We felt it would be very difficult to try and, based on a residential zoned property, to sustain a benefit assessment for a collector road improvement project like County 17. Mayor Mancino: And this assessment method was voted on and approved by the previous Council when thiS got started? Charles Folch: Correct. There was a feasibility hearing on the project I believe back in late 1995 or early '96. What we did, in fact that's the schedule that you have. The previous feasibility schedule or assessment roll was from that approved feasibility study. We did hold a public hearing on that at that point in time. As well as a number of neighborhood meetings. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council? Councilman Senn: Charles. One of the things I'm still trying to understand is, you know I do understand that there were several hundred thousand dollars of kind of like previous costs or design costs that are being folded into this. That has been folded in. Why wasn't any of that effectively reusable? I mean why did that all have to be duplicated? Charles Folch: Well again it came down from a timing standpoint. The previous project was proposed to rebuild the road from TH 5 to just south of the railroad crossing. Basically when those plans were being 18 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 developed, things, the way Highway 5, at that lOtersection was constructed, changed how the design would be in terms of connection to that po lOt. The way the roadway was laid out on Powers, County 17 to the north, affected some, really affected geometric desIgn at that intersection. In terms of how the storm sewer system laId out. We were only going to change a rural section If you will, a section with ditches, only down to the railroad tracks. Now, basically this project made it an urban section the entire length which changed a little bit how you laId out the storm sewer. Laid out, changed how you were golOg to, where you were going to have your discharge points in the ponds. Things like that because now you're building the complete package versus a piecemeal that was being proposed before. So things did change dramatically from that standpoint. Councilman Senn: Okay. And how or why do you feel that it's fair to lump that into the assessment? Charles Folch: It's listed as a project. It's lIsted as a cost to that project account, so it's being included here. If it's a fairness issue, or any other questions regarding that, I guess that's your decision but I'm listlOg here what was charged to that account. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Well and I think the project was started and I think we've discussed this before but I thlOk the project was, one CouncIl started the project and InItiated the design, which spent a fair amount of money with the design. Then a new Council was elected and stopped the project for a couple years and then it came up again. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. I just, one of the things I'm continuing to have trouble with though in relatIOnship to that is taking those costs and molding them into an assessed, a broad assessment. Mayor ManclOo: Oh, as part of the assessment cost? CouncIlman Senn: Yeah. I mean It'S klOd of like you know maybe the City did that yeah but I mean where's the value in that to the property owner and where is the, I'm going to say fairness test 10 relatIOnship to applying that back to a cost of the project which they're going to pay for. I don't know. I have some fundamental problems with that you know. Mayor Mancino: I would think you could argue that you know either way. Councilman Senn: Well I understand you can but I'mjust saying I'm havlOg trouble you know... Mayor Mancino: I understand. Councilman Senn: Having trouble winning the argument with myself, how's that? Mayor ManclOo: I understand. Councilman Berquist: I have another question. Mr. Ashworth. You've talked about we need to certify, we need to do something to act on these somehow tonight. Mayor ManclOo: Yes. 19 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: Ifwe certify these, approve them now, they could any or all or them can be amended or added to, subtracted from? Don Ashworth: Or deleted. When Todd mentioned January 8th I started to squirm around... to verify with Lori that she'll in fact give me until mid. I don't really have a problem with your saying you have to have a special EDA if the.. .office will not agree to an extension in January. Mayor Mancino: But we know for sure we have until the end of the year? Don Ashworth: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: So I think all of us. Councilman Berquist: So we can talk about that. I've got that same question regarding the fairness issue and the $300,000.00. Councilman Senn: As part of that though, just to, ifI could Steve, I'm sorry to interrupt. Then could you please, whenever we have this session, come prepared to really review where that district stands under good, bad, indifferent circumstances? Because if we're going to deal with that fairness issue, it's logical that we're gomg to look at that district to deal with it but we need to understand you know the broader implications of that ifin fact it's a decision we're gomg to consider. Don Ashworth: We met again today to go through many of those same issues and have sent out, I believe December 15th as the date where all of the parties, the bonding people, the City have walked out of there with an assignment and they should now have the type of analysis you're talking about by December 15th. Councilman Senn: That will be helpful. Mayor Mancino: So that we can, what I'm hearing you say Mark and Steve is to go ahead and adopt the assessment roll and review that at the same time. Because we would have the time to do that. And Don, you would get back to us and certamly let Jules and Jerome know if or when that meeting will be and if it needs to be before January 8th. Don Ashworth: Correct. Mayor Mancmo: Thank you. Any other comments? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the assessments as detailed within the staff report dated 15 September within the Council packet. Let's see, anything else I need to note? ., . final assessments of property ownership dated September 1 i\ 1997, see Project 93.29. Highway 17 improvement. Mayor Mancmo: Can I add a friendly amendment that the EDA will meet to review the status of the assessment roll in a special meeting prior to January 8th? Tom Scott: Madam Mayor? I'd like to just keep the motion a clean motion simply approving the assessment roll and address that in a separate motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 20 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Councilman Berquist: No, you may not. Councilman Senn: And Nancy, there's really two issues there too because I mean as far as the issue on the past cost, It's not an HRA or EOA issue so I mean Council's going to have to consider that one and the EOA's going to have to consider the issue of the. Mayor Mancino: Can we do that the same mght and deal with it separately? From what Councilman Senn was saYlllg. Don Ashworth: Policy type of issues versus a specific action to approve reductions for one or more businesses? Sure. That can be two separate items. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then IS there a second to Councilman Berquist's motion? Councilman Engel: Second his motion. Mayor Mancino: Without the amendment. Resolution #97-91: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to adopt the final assessment roll dated September 12, 1997 for the County Road 17 Improvement Project 93-29 at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 8%. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Manclllo. Is there another motion? Then I should go ahead and make the motion that we should have a special meeting to review the assessment? Is that what you were saying Tom? Tom Scott: However you want to deal With that tOpiC. IJust did not want it included III the motion. Councilman Senn: No, we don't really need to have a motion to do that. Mayor Mancino: Then we don't need to have that motion. Councilman Senn: I think we're committed to doing that. Mayor Manclllo: Okay. And again, parties that need to be told of the date of that meeting will be from Mr. Ashworth. Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Next item on the agenda is new business. Yes. Please come forward. We're just getting down everything you say. Julius Smith: Not that we're perfectly willing to sit down and talk about this at the EOA meeting and all the rest of it but because of the nature of the Minnesota Statutes, we will have to put in an appeal and I just want you to understand that because we do put in that appeal to protect our rights, doesn't mean we're not willing to sit down and talk about it. But at least, Ijust wanted you to know that. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. 21 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A HAM RADIO TOWER. 1905 STOUGHTON AVENUE. STEPHEN KUBITZ. Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. The applicant would like to construct a 64 foot tower to operate a ham radio on the amateur level. The Planning Commission did review this and unanimously approved the conditional use permit to install the tower. Staff supports the conditional use permit for the installation and has prepared four conditions that are enclosed in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff? Councilman Senn: I just want to double check, all the neighbors were notified and nobody showed up at the Planning Commission meeting or tonight? Okay. Mayor Mancmo: Well we'll see if anyone is here to speak on that. Before, if the applicant is here. How do you make a tower inaccessible for climbing? Is that, you know do you put barbed wire around the bottom of it? Cynthia Kirchoff: He was mtending on putting plywood on the base of the tower. He said that worked when he was in Chaska and he had the same type of tower. That's what he used. He didn't have trouble with people climbing it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight? Cynthia Kirchoff: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: Plywood? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: Just nail plywood to the sides and hope no one. CouncIlman Senn: You can't climb it. Mayor Mancino: Well see I'd get my little rock climbing things that you attach to the plywood and put them up. Councilman Senn: Oh, you have those rubber suction cups for climbing buildmgs and stuff? Mayor Mancmo: Exactly. Councilman Senn: All right Mayor. Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council members? Councilman Berquist: What properties adjoin this property? I see it's Scott County. Kate Aanenson: It's right on the border ofChaska. 22 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: No, It's in Carver. Councilman Berquist: It's in Carver County. Oh Scott County is across the border. What is on thIS piece of, what is on this property here? Right in this area? Kate Aanenson: That's the property owned by... Councilman Berquist: So there's nothing III here? Kate Aanenson: ... trailer home park. Councilman Berquist: Is the trader home park contiguous to this site or how far away is it? Mayor Mancino: Not contIguous. Kate Aanenson: Not a lot of properties with... Mayor MancIllo: Then I'll ask If there are any comments? May I have a motion please if there are no comments. CouncIlman Senn: Move approval. Councilman BerqUIst: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #97-5 for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant must obtain a buIlding permit. Engineering design for radial Ice and tower structure IS required for the permit. 2. The applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing. 3. Compliance wIth Section 20-915, amateur radio tower standards. 4. The applIcant must obtain a building permit when the tower is increased from 48 feet to 64 feet in heIght. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason arrived during this item on the agenda. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.300 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT. LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: LOTUS REALTY. Mayor Mancino: Staff report please for the vegetarian restaurant. 23 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Sharmin AI-Jaff: The proposal is for a 5,300 square foot single tenant commercial building. It is proposed to be occupied by a restaurant, Famous Dave's. A non-vegetarian restaurant. Briefly, the site plan is well... The building has multiple frontages and it was essentIally that none of the elevations gives the impression of.. .or of a building or serVice area. The applicant spent quite a bit of time designing this plan and we feel that they were highly successful in achieving this perspective. All elevations are designed to contained a pitched element, windows, awnings, arched windows, decorative doors, planter boxes and cupolas. Exterior materials consist of wood and stucco. The roof is asphalt shingles. There is a colored rendering and sample materials that will be presented by... The design is compatible and meets the intent and.. . approval with conditions. The one outstanding issue deals with the trash enclosure. There was some direction from the City Council to investigate other options as far as the traffic enclosure goes... within the parking lot. We have met with the applicant on several occasions and looked at some alternatives. One alternative would be to split the existing trash enclosure and take half of it. Put it next to the Famous Dave's building along the southwest comer of the building. The other alternative, and the other half would be taken to the northwest comer of the retail buildings. We believe that if we had to choose between splitting the trash enclosures between the two buildings or keeping it where it is right now, staff would recommend that the trash enclosure remain where, at the same location as it's proposed by the applicant. With that, again we're recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? At thIS time. Okay. We will go ahead and is the applicant here and would you like to present? Vernelle Clayton: The applicant is here and we have more numbers than we usually do. We have Brad Johnson, Ben Merriman, Mika Milo from whom you'll hear in a moment, and John Rose who is the Vice President of Famous Dave's and I think it'S flexible Famous Dave's rather than vegetarian or non- vegetanan. We have come a long way with them. They have been working with the City for even a longer period of time than the period during which we've been working with them. They haven't received a whole lot of compliments about their building even though it seems to serve people very well and people come back and back and back for lots of ribs and all of the buildings that they have built in all of the other CIties and it is a fine looking building except we determined it here and they gave us carte blanche to totally redesign the building which we have done and the Planning Commission had lots of good things to say about it so we're anxious to show it to you. I think that there are a couple of things beSides the building that we'll talk about tonight. You may want to talk about more than two more things but as I see it, we need to talk about the trash enclosure and a little clarification on the landscaping. I would however like to do it in exactly that reverse order. Talk about the building first and then the landscaping so you can have all of the background of the site before we talk about the trash enclosure and therefore you'll have the greatest advantage and understanding how it would best fit on the site. So with that I'll be back if you have any questions but right now I'd like to introduce Mika Milo who will show you the plans. Mika Milo: I'm Mika Milo. Principal in Milo Architecture Group, Eden Prairie. It's my pleasure to present design of that 5,300 square feet office building for Famous Dave's. Or not office building, restaurant building for Famous Dave's. On Villages on the Pond. The restaurant, like staff report said already, is located kind of in the focal point of that whole frontal area of the Villages that goes around the pond area and therefore it is certainly significant location for us and important for us to have a building that will work well for the Villages. And we have been working for quite a while, both with the owner and especially with the staff here of the planning department until we finally came up with this design that is pretty much the design that we started from scratch after some, I would say not quite successful attempts to work with the typical, the prototypical design. So now except for the floor plan, the building 24 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 is really completely brand new image for that type of restaurant and we believe that it fits very well for the architecture of the Villages itself. I appreciate all the cooperation we got from the planning staff and their mput and the Planning Commission as well and design now represents a building that is designed all around wIth equal quality and has materials being used on the building are typical for the Villages which is stucco and wood siding, which is one of the typical materials we are using on the Villages and actually on the Building #4 on the master plan which is the retaIl buildmg just across the parking from that. The comer of Great Plams Blvd. and also TH 5. Has also good portion of the building also consists of stucco and also wood siding as well. The roof material is asphalt shingle. We have selected the best looking asphalt shingle that we could find on the market and it is here. You can see it's somewhat gray but it has also some color in it. It has a beigey color and a bluish color mixed in that. And so it fits well with the matenal...for the building exterior. These are...the stucco is a...and the roofmatenal asphalt shingle. That forms a relatively neutral, quite, more of an earth tone. . . for the building where we are again using awmngs to bnng some more a highlight and to give some contrast and more interest to the... with some red stripes, vertIcal stripes on that. On the back side of the kitchen we are having just simply a yellow gold color, base color... The front area here IS.. .as far as the other accent color that we are looking at is the blue green, teal color that is applied on the exit doors which are.. . more of a traditional. .smokey glass and all exit doors are designed... even the back side where the kitchen is, we are paymg quite attentIOn to that side as well and have also provided... the side that connects these two awnings as well. At the top of the roof we have... The roof is really more like a cross.. .relatively small building surrounded with larger bUIldings that are forming the main street so we felt it important that that buildmg IS not kmd of flat. . . so that's maybe what I would say... Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions at this point for Mika? Councilman Berquist: Mika, you've got a flat area over the kitchen that will support the HV AC equipment. What are you going to do HV AC wise for the main, for the dining structure? For the pitched roof. Mika Milo: The equipment will be.. .on the roof. On the flat roof behind the parapet because we have... from the parapet but some.. . eqUIpment will be probably within the roof structure itself. Councilman Berquist: Second question was, the retail buIlding that we approved Just to the east of thiS, what was the exterior structure? Was that EFIS and, did we approve wood siding? Mika MIlo: We have approved those with wood siding on the more southern end of that bUIlding which will be... That building was consistmg of.. . consisted of the wood Siding for the south one-third of the building wood siding. Then was brick in the middle portion and stucco in front area. CouncIlman Berquist: Predominant material was stucco? Mika Milo: I would say one-third of each. Councilman Berquist: A third of each? That's not consistent here, or is it? Not it's not. It looks like we've got more siding. Mika Milo: .. . more wood than stucco but stucco is probably about 40% of the material. We've got quite.. . Kate Aanenson: .. .the stucco is probably closer to 30%. 25 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: You've got a lot of roof here too. Kate Aanenson: And wood... there's a lot of glass in the bUilding. The other building that you approved down by St. Hubert's was pretty much stucco. Mayor Mancino: And glass. A lot of glass. Kate Aanenson: A lot of glass and stucco. Councilman Berquist: The building down by St. Hubert's, the office building had, we had face brick of 4 feet that I recall and then it was EFIS from there on. Kate Aanenson: And the hotel has. Councilman Berquist: Predominantly face brick. Mayor Mancmo: Brick and wood. Mika Milo: ...the wood that we have here, that is the siding, it has a solid stain on it. It's not wood you are approving. You'll see the texture of the wood...but that would be a treated wood. It's not... Mayor Mancmo: Do you have to repamt it every three years? Mika Milo: Well it has to have a stam... Mayor Mancino: Can you explain, can I piggy back onto Steve's question? He asked it certainly from a different perspective than I. A little bit about the HV AC. . . . Well number one, I have a concern with one, the flat roof. And number two, will we see any HV AC on that part? And then on the rest of the roof, what's gomg to be there? Mika Milo was away from the microphone and his comments were not picked up on the tape. Vernelle Clayton: We have that situation m the medical building and in the Edina Realty bUilding where it's up under the roof. Mayor Mancmo: But there will be vents? Okay. Mika, I have some concerns, just about the flat roof part and how that, just design wise, how it fits into the rest that you have. Is that where the kitchen is? And so tell me the design constraints about putting, having that be a flat roof. I mean are there design constraints about that or? Mika Milo: Actually the design...I also found that it's nIce to have some.. . some portion of the roof will be flat in front of the slope roof so that way. . . flat and sloped roof. . . then you would end up having the roofs, on the sloped roof you would have... Mayor Mancino: So but what adds to those, which I really like is the canopy and sometimes you've done that, the canopy. You know on those two symmetrical ends, the canopy really helps define and bnng out another design element there. Another roof element which is kind of nice. Which isn't on the 26 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 kItchen. Is there any outside dining? I mean the one, you know the few that I've seen there is outsIde dInIng and In the, obviously in the summer. Christmas, outside dining. Where is that here? Is there any? Mika Milo: The outside dining is... but it is not really outside of the building. It is all part of this... Mayor Mancino: No patio? No outdoor patio? Mika Milo: Well, it's not really outdoor.. .It's thIs area here. Mayor ManCInO: Yes. That's not really outdoors? Mika Milo... Councilman Senn: So to answer the question, it's outdoor seating but it's covered. Mayor Mancino: No. It's actually inside the building. Mika Milo: In the building. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So it doesn't take, I mean you know, one of the nice things about a patIO was that it would take the amenity of the pond with it next to the restaurant. I thmk that was one of the thinkIng. Kate Aanenson: It still does. Mika Milo: It still does. You'll still have that outside with... Councilman Senn: That's what I saId. Outside seating with a roof over it. Kate Aanenson: .. .talk about in an archItecture term, that's what you're getting. It's screened. Verne lie Clayton: Yeah, there's screens. Mika Milo: We are provIdIng outside dmIng but we are not havmg a cheap lookIng you know terracey porch around it. Mayor Mancino: It's a screened in porch. Kate Aanenson: Integral to the building. Mayor Manclllo: It is like what's in Maple Grove? Okay, thank you. No, but yes? I dIdn't think it was that hard. Believe me this was not a trick question for anybody. My next question is, I've noticed at some of the restaurants that there are cement barricades around the restaurants. Are there going to be here? Oh, excuse me, ballards. Mika Milo: Bollards. Kate Aanenson: Bollards. 27 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: Bollards, okay. .. .Okay, and I'm assummg because they're not, there aren't going to be any. Mika Milo: Normally we put those only where we want to stop the traffic. The vehicle traffic... Separate the pedestrian area entrance from.. .or we use them at the same time as the light fixture... Mayor Mancino: They're very aesthetic and they're usually. Mika Milo: ., . safety and... Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Because I did see them at one of the restaurants and I was kind of hoping that there weren't any so. Any other questions for Mika at this point? Thank you. Oh, I know. One other, no. The only other question is, and Vemelle or Mika. I'm reading from September 24, 1996, from Bob to Brad going over the final approved PUD. Landscape walkways shall be provided between mdividual sites to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping. My only question is, if you want to go from Building #4 to Building #3, on the north side there of the parking lot, are we going to be puttmg some sort of, and it certainly doesn't need to be paved but some sort of a little walkway so that agam those people who work in, for retail, whatever, is there room to walk on the north side of Building #4, along on the north side of the parking lot to get to #3 and have lunch instead of through the parking lot? And secondly, will there be a trail on the west side of Great Plains Blvd. in front of#4 or to the east side of #4 and should we connect to that? Does that make sense? Yeah, number one. Is there going to be a trail there on the, your right. Right there, yep. Gomg all the way over to BUilding, to the Famous Dave's so that the people who work in Building #4 can go over there and number two. Will there be a sidewalk trailway here that, to get into Villages on the Pond this way, from here because you also have Lake Drive which I'm sure will have a trail at some point on it. Did I do that? Or is this Lake Drive? Vemelle Clayton: That's Lake Dnve. Mayor Mancmo: That's Lake Drive, okay. So let's do it this way. Kate Aanenson: There is a sidewalk there. Mayor Mancmo: Is there a sidewalk here? Vemelle Clayton: There's a sidewalk going around the building...site plan but there's none going... Mayor Mancmo: So they do have to go through the parking lot.. .And if they parked on this side, they really won't have a parking lot. This is a sidewalk, right? Okay. Anyone else in front of us? Vemelle Clayton: Do you have anything else to talk about with respect to the building? Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: I don't have any for the applicant. .. . questions for staff. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that's it. Thank you. Steve said he had a few questions for staff and I have a couple too. Okay. 28 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: Real quickly on thIS trash enclosure. The proposal is still to put it where we originally saw it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. CouncIlman Berquist: I mean we've got to decide whether we want to spht it... where we originally saw it. Half of It feeding the retail space. Half of it feeding the Famous Dave's.. . enclosed structure with natural ventilation. Steel doors. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Rendering plant or whatever, drives up and, I don't know. Mayor Mancmo: Where's the rendenng of that? Councilman Berquist: Whoever collects debris from a restaurant similar to this? Mayor Mancmo: No, rendering IS right? Councilman Berquist: No it's not. That's the wrong word. It is the wrong word. But the waste that's generated by a restaurant of this nature, or any restaurant for that matter. Vernelle Clayton: ... three different types of. .. CouncIlman Berquist: And that area will be large enough so that, WIll there be vehicles with the machines or the receptacles have to be wheeled outside and then dIsposed of and then dumped? Kate Aanenson: Truck can back m. That was part of the concern about puttmg it next to the building... takmg away from the architecture of the other... Councilman BerqUIst: Well I agree with that and having the truck have the ability to back m on the side that's serving the retail space isn't an issue for me. But having the vehicle be able to back into the one that's serving the restaurant I think is very important... Did the Plannmg CommissIOn talk at all about the SIze of the plantmgs that would go m to shIeld that thing initially or are they? Kate Aanenson: No, they just left it to staff. Councilman Berquist: And you guys are asking for how big...? Sharmin AI-Jaff: ... we talking about.. . around the... Councilman Berquist: Planting baby trees? Sharmin AI-Jaff: The ordinance requires 6-6 Yz feet... Mayor Mancino: But not particularly the PUD but yes, the ordinance. Regularly. Councilman Berquist: All right. 29 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Vernelle Clayton made a statement from the audience. Councilman Berquist: Are we going to have any other buildings in the project, and I know it'd be difficult to tell, that we're going to be faced with the same sort of dilemma? Kate Aanenson: Well the other office buildings it was inside the building. The reason for this is because we wanted to have the ability to. ..wetland, because Famous Dave's has got the wetland.. . exposure on TH 5 so we wanted to eliminate that. The other. ..actually a three sided building.. ..but obviously it's a VIew corridor and... Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, the which building? Vernelle Clayton made a comment that was not picked up by the microphone. Mayor Mancino: Yes, that's fine. I would like to add to that northern parking lot perimeter. I mean all the way around the perimeter so that I'm very clear. So that staff can see it from here, all the way around here, that there'd be a continuous evergreen hedge. The parking lot perimeter? Vernelle Clayton... Mayor Mancmo: That's fine but I, that's what I would like to see around, whether it goes mto that site plan or not, a green hedge and I think we brought it up at the last time too. And we certainly talked about it conceptually, a lot about shielding, and we always have, parking lots from Highway 5. And one of the things that we talked about was usmg low, not hIgh, but low evergreen hedges to do some of that shieldmg. Unless, talk to me a little bit about the basin. What is that basin going to look like? Is It going to echo the pond? Kate Aanenson: Well that's just what I was going to say. We did look at enhancing this with more wetland characteristics type vegetatIOn. I'm not sure... Mayor Mancino: How will that fit in? Kate Aanenson: .. .discussion. Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure I heard the discussion of the conifers coming all along that hedge treatment. BRW did a really nice design for the edge of that. I don't have the color pictures here right now but. Vernelle Clayton... Kate Aanenson: It's very nice. We had the other, I don't have them with me right now but we did share those with... What we're trying to do is really make that wetland an asset...in front of the restaurant so I'm not sure how you want to look at that. Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure they do now but that's. Kate Aanenson: That's what the consultants recommended. 30 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: And so what happens for year round screening? Kate Aanenson: ... prairie restoratIOn. Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's what I'd like to look at. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Comments from commissioners. Councilman Senn... Councilman Senn: I guess I don't really have a lot of comments above what's already been discussed. Looks fine to me. I do, you know I haven't changed my opilllons on EFIS. I still don't like it so I don't like the building materials here and I think there ought to be brick mcorporated into the building on a much greater extent. Well not much greater, there Isn't any. I really don't understand how we can, except they're requiring buildmgs all up and down TH 5 to be almost all brick and then require other ones to be no brick so. But we'll have to rationalize that somewhere other to ourselves I guess. Mayor Mancino: Well we don't have any across the street in the Roman Roos building. I mean that's mostly stucco, Isn't it? That's mostly a stucco buildmg. Councilman Senn: Nothing across the street's new. Mayor Mancino: In the last two years. Councilman Senn: Which one? Councilman BerqUIst: Split face bnck. Spht face block. Mayor Mancino: Is it? Is that what it IS? Kate Aanenson: Split face block with stucco. Mayor Mancino: With stucco, okay. That's you know, was in the Prairie House restaurant. Councilman BerqUIst: No, the prame dog.. .on that site. Mayor Mancino: Michael, any? Councilman Mason: I think it looks fine. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I think It'S fine. Ijust want to make sure that we have adequate coverage of that trash area. That's the only concern I have. It sounds like they're on top of that so. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. 31 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: One ofthe questions that I've had about this particular use of this site from the get go has been the potential for odors insofar as that we have a prevailing northwest wind in this part of the world and that building sits directly northwest of a significant residential area. I see there was some discussion about it at the Planning Commission and I'd like to hear from the applicant in their own words as to how they mtend to deal with impact because I am very confident that there will be significant impact or significant discussion once the restaurant is open as to the odors that waft over to the Hidden Ponds area. John Rose: My name's John Rose. I'm the Vice President of Development for Famous Dave's and part ofthe equipment package that we use, we're sensitive to that in every neighborhood. This is certainly not unique here. We've got captive air hood systems that have a filtering system that I can't tell you what exactly the captive rate is but it's significantly less than a hamburger restaurant or most other, certainly any other fast food restaurant and significantly less than most restaurants the size that we have. The way we, we have a very limited menu and the way we cook, we smoke our ribs and brisket and it's a slow process done over 4 Yz to 6 hours and we use very, it's a very low heat. It's three ounces of wood for instance in that whole time. They're electric ovens. Or electric smokers that use this. It's just significantly less than... Councilman Berquist: It's not chemically enhanced smoking or it's actually wood? John Rose: Absolutely not. Councilman Berquist: No chemicals. John Rose: No chemicals whatsoever. Councilman Berquist: Okay. John Rose: It's an electric heat source with a hickory wood and that's it. Cooked at 250 to 275 degrees for 6 hours so it's not the usual, I don't want to use any other names but up and down there there are some hamburger restaurants that I live up and down that road also. Or I live on that road also and you'll never see that sort of exhaust. I don't know if that answers anything. Councilman Berquist: Well the one in Maple Grove. I'm familiar with two of your sites and I've never been to your restaurant. I'm probably one of the few people in this room that have not been. I'm famihar with two of your sites, one of which is being constructed now and the other one is in Maple Grove. In Maple Grove, given where you're at, the wind has absolutely no bearing on anyone anywhere. The one in Minnetonka however, on the old Mama Lu's site, will have some real concerns for the people behind them on the Hightop area. Was that brought up at Minnetonka's? John Rose: I wasn't involved in the Minnetonka process.. .to speak honestly so I don't know. But it's, you know we're in this for the long haul also. We would, I mean we certainly are civicly minded people. I mean I think that Famous Dave's reputation, I hope precedes itself in here. Into this Council meeting to do what's right and part of what's right is good for business and we chose to not be a burger place. Councilman Berquist: And I don't want to give you the impression that I'm. John Rose: No, that's fine. 32 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: I'm not sure. I just want to try and cover the bases prior to the complaints being aired. By the way, the captive air hoods. Those captive air hoods, all that, their main benefit to you as a restaurant owner is they save you energy. They don't do anything to lessen the amount of odors that go. John Rose: But we do use a filtering system. Maybe the wrong brand name but we filter the air before it gets exhaust. Councilman Berquist: Thank you very much. And the other question I have for staff in regards, as we go into this, as we get in deeper into this project, you know I go back to the design details. The design criteria. Somewhere in here I have it earmarked. We talk about exterior materials and major exterior materials, surfaces shall be face bnck, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential...materials. I don't know where the differentiatIOn between commercial and residential actually comes into play here, in this paragraph. Kate Aanenson: Vinyl siding we talked about. Councilman Berquist: Vinyl Siding in residential only. Kate Aanenson: Because we thought about that, you know we did that 300 UnIts and we thought on the other side of the street, if we have another housing project. . . VInyl siding. Councilman Berquist: The point is if! take the building, as we go down here. First we did St. Hubert's. We approved that office building. EFIS and face brick. And the St. Hubert's was all brick except for the gym, which is tip up and block. And then I go to the next one and we've got roughly 30% EFIS... Now we go to the retaIl building, Building #4. We've got 30-30-30 roughly in materials. Now I look at this one and we're somewhere in the 20% to 25% EFIS and we've got 70%, 75% perhaps cedar siding. It seems as though we are going in the direction that I don't like to be going. You've got structures across the street. Americana Bank, Applebee's, that we've held to extraordInarily high standards and now we have a showcase project that we seem to be going back. We're starting to slip on it. I'm concerned about it. Mayor MancIno: Well in fact we did AmericInn, they have more wood on and we did ask.. Kate Aanenson: This one came in all wood and we, the Planning Commission recommended denial . .all wood. Americana Bank is all stucco. Mayor Mancino: Now is that a conceptual. Is that just something general or are you specific to here? Do you want to see something different or? Councilman Berquist: I don't know that I want to, I want. I'm making a general comment because I want to see the direction begin to go back the other route. The other way. Kate Aanenson: See some brick brought in. Councilman Berquist: The standards for the project were high. I sensed. The standards for the project being sacrificed...for financial reasons. I understand some of that but. Well, then I sense the standards for the project slipping for whatever reason. You know the financial aspect of it, forget about the financial aspect. Stnke that. 33 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Vernelle Clayton... Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Well and I do think that generally, let me just bring this up with Council members, certainly for Lotus to know because I don't want people to work on projects and then, and that is, in regards to EFIS. It seems to be a material that the Council is concerned working with.. .on the last project that came in, the cinema projects. I want to bring that up and get that out now so everybody you know is very clear on that. And if Council members can voice their concerns so that staff knows and so that we know working forward that it is not a material that we want to keep on using a lot, and obviously say why. The functionality and practicality of it and the aesthetics, I'd like to hear that from Council members now instead of have another project coming in that uses it and we send someone back. So do you have a concern Councilman Berquist about going ahead in other projects about the materials? Councilman Berquist: I'm going to, if! don't move approval, I'm going to vote for approval of this project. Mayor Mancino: I know that. Councilman Berquist: I simply want on the record that I consider Villages on the Ponds to be a first class additiOn to the City of Chanhassen and I know everybody's working towards those ends. But I want the exterior, I want the exterior matenal to be of as high a quality as the rest of the project. I don't know if that makes sense but that's. Mayor Mancino: I just have a couple comments. Number one, I'd just like to add a condition about the rooftop equipment. That it will be 100% screened by parapet, and that's from views from Main Street, Highway 5 and TH 101 so I would like to add that as a condition. And lastly I would, and the other council members haven't said so but I'm fine with the trash enclosure. I would just like it moved north to where spaces 15 are. I have a very big concern with people entering that parking lot to go to both Famous Dave's and the retail building and having this building right there, even though it's going to be landscaped, right there in front of them when they enter this parking lot. A big block there so I would just like to see it moved to 15 but no one else feels that way so it certainly, I haven't heard any other comments. That's where I am. Councilman Berquist: I would argue that if we move it there, maintenance of that structure will be... Mayor Mancino: .. .but as I said, that's my perspective and I hadn't heard it from anybody else but I just needed to give that. So with that, and the only thing I would like to do is just see the final prairie restoration sometime, landscaping plan. Kate Aanenson: Vernelle had a comment on the landscaping. We concur there may be some so if we can add a condition that we would review those. Make sure that they're correct and... current landscaping plan. That would cover all... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Sounds good to me. May I have a motion? Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the site plan. Noting in the conditions that conditions 2 through 4, relative to screening, shrubs, hedges and trees, be worked out between staff and the applicant. And I think. 34 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Mayor Mancino: No rooftop equipment? Councilman Berquist: Oh, I'm sorry. No rooftops to be visible, how did you want that worded? Kate Aanenson: Completely screened. Councilman Mason: Well I think you want the rooftops visible Mr. Berquist. But I'm sorry. Councilman Berquist: I can hardly make that motion being in the business that I'm in. Mayor Mancmo: May I make a friendly amendment? No, go ahead. Councilman Berquist: All the rooftop, HV AC equipment will be 100% screened by a parapet from Highway 5 and TH 101. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for Famous Dave's shown on plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 10/2/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary secunty reqUired by the agreement. 2. Add three ornamental trees to the north side of the building. 3. Add 3 overstory trees to parking lot landscaping plan: one on each side of the trash enclosure and one m the northwest comer of the parkmg lot. Enlarge islands on either side of trash enclosure to include plantmg space for trees. Enlarge landscape island at the north end of the parkmg lot to accommodate trees. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing mstalled with the trees. 4. Change 5 spruce trees to 5 deciduous trees on west side of building. 5. Add landscaping (shrubs or hedges) to north side of property to screen parking lot from Highway 5. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed sign plans for staffs review and approval. A separate sign permit shall be applied for by the applicant. 7. Lights that do not appear on the elevations plan shall not be permitted on the building. 8. The eyebrow window along the east elevation shall match the other windows and contain the same decorative element. 35 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 10. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. 11. Revise the parking lot layout per staffs design (see attached). 12. A building permit shall not be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition is recorded and the access driveway meets fire code requirements. 13. Items 2 through 4 regardmg landscaping be worked out between staff and the applicant. 14. That the roof top HV AC equipment be 100% screened from Highway 5 and Highway 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: And when will we have Famous Dave's? When will it be there ready to go? John Rose: June 1 st. Mayor Mancino: June 1 st. Now will you do prior to, like the one on Highway 7. Are you going to have everybody come and. Councilman Engel: Big cookout. Mayor Mancino: Oh good. Wonderful. APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Mancino: May I please have a motion? Councilman Senn: I would move the appointment of Matthew Burton to the Planning Commission and I would also like to include as part of that motion that if there's a vacancy in the next 3 months on the Planning Commission, that David Moes be put in for that. Mayor Mancino: Or if Matthew Burton decides not to take it or something. Councilman Senn: Correct. Councilman Berquist: I'd second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to appoint Matthew Burton to the Planning Commission and if there's a vacancy in the next 3 months on the Planning Commission, 36 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 that David Moes be appointed for that vacancy. All voted in favor, except Councilman Engel was out of the room at the time the vote was taken, and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn? What's happemng with Southwest Metro? Councilman Senn: We haven't had a meetmg. Mayor Mancino: Really? CouncIlman Senn: They don't meet in November. Mayor Mancmo: Okay. Councilman Senn: Don't ask me why. I don't know why. They just don't meet in November. Mayor Mancino: But they do in December? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Figure that one out. Those transit types you know. Mayor Mancino: So there's nothmg new to tell us? Okay. Any other Council members want to report on anythmg? Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I do have one quick questIOn. On that development that is part, right by your place. Centex. When we moved approval of that development, did we not include as part of that approval the continuation of Lake Lucy Road all the way through to TH 41 ? Mayor Mancino: That's the next phase ofBrendon Pond. It's not even part of Cent ex. The part that's dirt IS still part of Brendon Pond and they have not come in for approval of that. Councilman Senn: Yeah it's only that upper, that one upper. That's there, what Phase II? Councilman BerqUist: That's Phase II of Brendon Pond? Councilman Senn: Right. There's just a small. Councilman Berquist: ... underlying property owner of Centex... Mayor Mancino: No. Councilman Berquist: Boy, I sure seem to remember seemg the entire pass through. Mayor Mancino: No because the reason why you didn't was because of the road alignment because there were neighbors to the north and to the south who. Councilman Senn: Real loud ones to the north. Mayor Mancino: Loud ones to the n north, to tell you the truth. 37 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Senn: You know they kept changing the road around and stuff so it was real hard to decide where to hook it up to you know so it aligned right. Councilman Berquist: It was I have a better idea than the rest of the City kind of thing? Mayor Mancino: And a person who's always right too I mean. Anyway. Councilman Berquist: Boy, somebody called and said when's that going to be done? I said I don't know. Maybe they have to sell more lots. Councilman Senn: Just say whenever the neighbors on the north wants it to be. Councilman Berquist: So I'll call him and tell him I was wrong. Mayor Mancino: I would think at some point, you know it will come in soon. There has been some dumping there but the road hasn't. Actually no. They did fill a httle bit of it With dirt because they used when Centex had an overage of the 20,000 cubic yards over, they hauled a lot of that to Highover and they used that route. Councilman BerqUist: Oh really? Mayor Mancino: Yes. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM PROJECT MEETINGS. TODD HOFFMAN. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Todd for, because you were on vacation last week we decided to have you at the end of this meeting. Todd Hoffman: I guess if Council members have questions on the public process or would you like me to briefly go over? The referendum was approved in June 14th. We have initiated the public process in earnest for the development of the park. The Bandimere and redevelopment of City Center Park and then the construction of the 7 miles of community trails, SIX separate alignments. So last Tuesday evemng was the.. . community meetings to initiate the public process for City Center and Bandimere. Those meetings were well received. I know some of you were there. And from what I've been told, they were positive meetings. Constructive meetings. How we can go forward and develop, refine plans for the construction of those park sites. You saw in the Villager a public notice like this for the community parks and then last week in the Villager, a community notice was just inside the front page for the trails. And agam this is all to solidify our promise to the community that if they approve this, these dollars, that they would be involved publicly with the process of planning for their parks and trails. So this coming Tuesday and Wednesday we will host community meetings for all six trail alignments identified in the referendum. State Highway 7, Galpin Boulevard... on the 2nd and on the 3 rd Great Plains, Bluff Creek trail and the Pioneer trail, Great Plains Boulevard. Just over 500 mailings went out inviting those either adjacent to or very near to these alignments. Personally inviting them to these meetings and then again just a general notice in the paper that would allow those, or generally interested and do not live near the alignment to participate in the process. As you're aware, Brown Associates is our main consultant on the parks. Howard R. Green is our retained consultant on the trails and we put together in that letter the project team that will be movmg this. . . project on behalf of the City Council. So we can get the questions 38 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 of the publIc answered just as quickly as possible, and as efficiently as possible. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions of Council members concernmg either Issues or wants or desires concerning this process. Mayor Mancino: I'll talk to a couple of mine. Number one, I did go to the City Center and Bandimere Park presentatIOn. It was very good. At City Center Park there were approximately 15 people there. I would say 5 of them were commissioners, me, Dale. At BandImere Park, that meeting was the second meeting. There were probably 30 to 35 people there. Some people stayed. And a lot of the adjacent homeowners who were going to live near the community park were there. My question on that part of it is process oriented. It was, by the way the man, Jeffery. Jeff was very good. Very good facilitator and presentor. It was a dump though. Everybody got to kind of say what they wanted to see in the two parks. He didn't say yes or no. There were no bad ideas. He just took it all in and so you know I think everybody felt like they were hear. It was one of those kind of what I want to call in the process, an easy meeting because he took in everybody's comments. Certainly if they were outside the spectrum at all, I mean he told them that. At thIS point, and Todd what I'm concerned about is, what's the next part of the process? I assume that he's coming back with a preliminary, what I call layout of where the fields will be. What WIll be you know and will come back to the residents or anyone who wants to come in. Who wants to attend this public meeting. I have a concern that it may need to go in front of the Park and Rec Commission first to do a review of the preliminary layout before it goes to the public to give their input, because it hasn't been to the Park and Rec CommissIOn at all. And then to Council. Councilman Senn: I'd lIke to see the preliminary.. Mayor Mancmo: Pnor to gomg back to, out to the public. Todd Hoffman: As you're aware, the park design is based off of a preliminary design which goes back some SIX years WhICh has been developed. Mayor Mancmo: But he's also kmd of starting trom scratch. I mean he, from what 1 heard that night, even though there is... Todd Hoffman: '" we have things, we have demands and desires that are not met by the ongmal concept so we are starting from scratch. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. So it's gone to the public. It will go first to Park and Rec to review a preliminary plan that he has and then it will come to us and we will maybe make some revisions and then it will go out to a second publIc meeting? Or presentation, is that correct? Okay. CouncIlman Senn: And we could just do that, we could do our part in a work session. I mean J don't think it has to be formal. We're not going to really be taking input. Mayor Mancino: That would be fine with me. Councilman Senn: The other thing that would be nice, as that preliminary plan is developed, that we simply not get the plan information but also get the back-up information just in terms of current demand and utilization and numbers as far as different uses go. That sort of thing. Mayor Mancino: Well and it was very interesting what the residents said too. I mean especially at Bandimere you need to know that they have a little neighborhood park which kind of sits, it's a subset 39 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 mside the community park. And they were, you know very concerned about how they're going to butt up to the community park. They wanted tennis courts but they dIdn't want lighting. They didn't want parking so that you'd have to go through obviously their neighborhood to park and you know, good. And they asked, they had good questions and they made good comments. So that that's part of the process. The trail process, my only comment there Todd is, having been a recipient of the trail process, I think the thing that concerned me when I got the letter, and especially after going to the parks meeting last week, because I had not read my letter, was that for Bandimere and City Center Park it was very open. We want to hear your comments. We have nothing that's planned and then I got my letter for the trail on Galpin in my neighborhood and it says here is the proposed alignment. And so I took, I need to tell you, when it says enclosed you will find a map depicting the proposed alignment for the trail in your area, and I thought, wait a minute. Who decided the alignment of the trail? I know it hasn't gone through Park and Rec. I know it hasn't gone through City Council. And thirdly, you know kind of as a resident was like, holy heck. I thought we were being able to give our input and there hadn't been any proposed alignment. So I must say that did concern me. I know but when I go to other meetings and it's very open and everybody can say what's on theIr mmd, you feel as a resident that you're going to be heard versus the snowball's already started. Councilman Senn: What you're saying is it should be more termed like a proposed alignment? Mayor Mancino: Well that's what it says. Councilman Senn: From a preliminary standpoint and we'd like to hear your reaction. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, It just says depicting the proposed alignment for the trail m your area and it's like there's, you know there are two sides to the, obviously the trail can go on and how did the proposed come on one SIde and obviously there might be good reasons but also I would like to give, and again not have the snowball going before everybody gives theIr comments. Because it was certainly something I felt very open and very good about at Bandimere and City Center Park meetings. Todd Hoffman: And I'm confident you'll feel the same way at these meetings as well. We did have to start somewhere. There is good reason behind the selection for the proposed alignments based on topography. Mayor Mancino: And who did decide these alignments? Todd Hoffman: The design team which you have listed there. Project manager, Dave Nyberg. Construction Manager, excuse me, Project Manager would be myself. Construction Manager, Dave Nyberg. The surveying and staking people, Frank Kriz and then other folks from the Howard R. Green Company. So we talked about these initial alignments, and from really from day one, which is back some three years ago, many of these alignments were Just the natural alignments for those trails. Others were not and it's up to in the field investigation, take a look at it for proposed alignments based on again drainage, topography, extent of site disruption, extensive grading... proposed alignments... public process to take place and the step forward. In our conversation today, we held a meeting with Howard R. Green this afternoon from about 1:00 until 3:30 to talk about these proposed alignments and their effects on adjoining property owners. And what I made clear to Dave Nyberg and Howard R. Green is, as we enter into those public meetings, we want to maintain the public trust so when we display these final proposed alignments next Tuesday and Wednesday evening, I want to make sure that they are in the best location. You know if you have to cut down trees in this location, it'd better be for a good reason. The other side of the equation better be there. It's simply not because that's where the trail looks best or that's where it 40 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 would make the best trail. We have to be cognizant of all those issues. There are also a variety of pohcies which are handed down from the State of Minnesota, the watershed district, Carver County, that have to do with clearance zones for wetlands. Clearance zones for the roadway. For example, on Powers Boulevard North, just west of City Hall here, if you take a look at the stakes, as the residents described on their cell phones from their deck this afternoon, the orange stakes which marked the proposed center line of the trail go right through that entire row of pine trees that line the townhomes on Powers Boulevard. That is not our preferred location for the trail. Our preferred location would be closer to the roadway. Carver County has handed down, at least initially, mandated 30 foot clear zone so that 30 foot clear zone pushes that trail outside of the ditch section, into private property, through a fence and you're cutting down 40 or 50 trees. It's these kind of mandates that we will have to work through as we go through this public process. There are going to be things which raise the eyebrows of residents as we go through the process but we are prepared to be very open and... planning the details and specification and design work in construction of these trails. Mayor Mancino: And IS this something agam, the same process. This has not gone through Park and Rec CommIssion and one of the things that I want to make sure is that It does, this goes back through the Park and Rec. I'm even thmking about an area where I live, how it's going to come off of whenever Round Lake, and when Prince develops, how that trail system will hook up to Galpin or hook up over to Powers. Whether it should be on the east or west side when that hook up occurs because they're the people who are seeing the comprehensive trail plan together also. Park and Rec. So I would like to make sure that we have the same process throughout for the traIls and for the neighborhood parks so it goes through Park and Rec and then come here to allow public again. Todd Hoffman: Just so you're aware, those public meetings are scheduled in the project schedule. As far as Park Commission review for pubhc comments. Planmng Commission, CIty Council review. Now reviewing the prelimmary documents is somethmg new on the park. On the trails, our proposal would be to have this public, these pubhc meetings. Refine those plans and brIng those refined plans to Park Commission and City Council and when it was, when they were brought to City Council, that would be for authorIzation of that alignment and of those plans and specifications. That would be some time in the early part of February. So if Council would like to review this equally. If you would like updates. You just let me know what kmd of information. You are receiving everything which is decimated to date. You'll continue to receive that. If you want formal presentatIons by either myself, as the project administrator or Dave Nyberg, the construction manager.. .let me know how you would like the information given, presented to you and we wIll. Mayor Mancino: Okay. The other thing I'd like to have addressed is some of the maintenance that's going to happen, both the City Center Park trails and the community parks. As far as, are we going to keep the trails open and if we do, Charles Folch and I made a trip over to a residents home where we had snowblowed and the trees had died because of the salt, etc., that got on that side of the tree, etc. So as we do trails, and we're going to have to create different methods, if we are going to clear the trails and decide which ones and how much money we want to spend on clearing trails. And how to do it without damage to, by the property. Todd Hoffman: To date we plow all the 8 foot bituminous trails in the city. Mayor Mancino: And I think that's another thing too. Also discussed how we're going to, if we're going to keep doing that, with all these added trails. Any other process? Questions? 41 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Senn: You know referring back to 38 and 39 of the Minutes from last meeting, when I raised this process, I think we pretty adequately dealt with it. The other issue was trying to get a quick work session together to talk about how we're gomg to approach the trails versus the.. .made on TH 101. .. referendum time and here we are going into these meetings which really kind of concerns me and we haven't talked about that. I kind of thought our work session was going to be about that tonight imtially but it wasn't so I guess, are we going to talk about that before we go into public meetings or are we going to go mto public meetings and worry about it later? And if so, are we kind of giving the impression that mayor may not be? Mayor Mancmo: Well number one, we had hoped to in all honesty, get to that, the second half of our work session tonight. I mean I didn't, I don't think we planned on it going an hour. We just planned on it going a half an hour and then getting to the TH 101 trail. These public hearings start the 2nd and 3rd. Todd Hoffman: 2nd. Mayor Mancino: Todd, what if, IS that Truth in Taxation night? Councilman Senn: Yep. Mayor Mancino: What about those of us who have a concern and can't attend the meeting? We could do It prior to Truth in Taxation. Councilman Mason: No. Well, I can't but. Mayor Mancino: That night you can't come early? Okay. What time does that meeting start? Councilman Senn: Truth in TaxatIOn? Don Ashworth: 5:30. If! would have, seeing that we're going to have all kinds of complaints from people saying you know they work downtown Minneapolis. There's no way they can be back here for 5:30. I'm thinking that that night we should open the thing. We'll probably go through kind of where we're at and then table action or maybe we'll just keep right on talking to make sure the people coming in at 6:30 or 7:00 can continue to talk. Mayor Mancino: Mark, do you have a suggestion? I mean I hear you. I mean I think we should talk about the TH 101 trail and I think it should be prior to starting at the other public meeting. Anyone have the suggestion of when that can take place? CouncIlman Berquist: I'm pretty flexible. Councilman Senn: We're not meeting the first? Mayor Mancino: We can. Don Ashworth: I think you would have time on December 2nd. Mayor Mancino: But that's the night of the first meeting on the trails and I think that Mark wanted to, from what I heard you say, you wanted to do it before then. 42 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think that would make sense. Mayor Mancino: Well we could certainly do It on the first. I would be willing to come in on the first and Steve would. Mark Engel, would that be somethIng you could do? Councilman Engel: I can make the first. ..first is good. The 2nd is iffy. First is better. Mayor MancIno: Well we're already on for the 2nd. For the Truth in Taxation. Councilman Senn: That's been published for a long time. We can't change that. Councilman Berquist: Has there been any talk whatsoever with the gentleman that you're using as the trail consultant regarding the commitment that we made? In my mind, well. Councilman Senn: Well that's what we need to talk about. CouncIlman Berquist: That's why we need to dISCUSS it.. .any conversation whatsoever up to thIS point with TH 101, with the gentleman that's done the trail work. Todd Hoffman: There's been no point for that discussion. They're aware that it's another segment in our community that we would like to build. Councilman Berquist: The point became evident two weeks ago, three weeks ago when we were.. . suddenly ISTEA funding went away... Mayor Mancino: Mike, does 5:30 on the first work for you? CouncIlman Mason: Well, I've already had plans for that night. If! can change them, I'll be there. mean we canceled that nIght so I made plans but I'll see what I can do. Mayor ManCInO: Okay. CouncIlman Engel: What are we doing the 2nd then? Councilman Senn: I should have made plans that night. Councilman Mason: Well see. Mayor ManCInO: So we'll see you at 5:30 on the first. On December first. Okay. Councilman Engel: What are we doing with the 2nd now? Mayor Mancino: Truth in TaxatIOn at 5:30 here. Okay. I'm sorry Todd, did you have a question? Todd Hoffman: Any points of clarification about what we want to discuss? The last time we did the feasibility study for Highway 101 north was 4 or 5 years ago. It was at half a million dollars then. It wIll certainly escalate over that point. You know we've allocated $1.25 million to these trails. We certainly cannot accomplish TH 10 I and all of the other six trail segments. 43 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 CouncIlman Senn: We understand that. I'm not sure there's anything you need to bring to the meeting. think it's just a discussion we need to have in reference to commitments and other, you know other conversations we've had and commitments we've kind of made, etc. But it's only fair for you and who ever the consultant is going to these trail meetings, that they understand what that is or isn't going into the meetmgs. Otherwise you're going to, in my mind, kind of be put in a very awkward position. So. Todd Hoffman: Well, we're going in to talk about six trails which were passed about, was approved by the referendum. Councilman Senn: Well. Mayor Mancino: There's no question Todd, they were. There's, I've got the brochure here and everything else. Councilman Senn: There was also a statement that went along with the referendum that basically you know Highway 101 trail would be occurring at the same time. There was a commitment by Council effectively that if that wasn't going to happen, that we would, you know TH 101 was our top priority and so now we need to kind of either figure out if that's the tact we're taking and how that's going to affect the other trail segments or not affect the other trail segments. So that's what we need to get into and do. Mayor Mancino: Right. And whether, how we can accomplish those or what we need to do but just have a discussIOn. A dialogue on it. I don't think any of us, but you know it was a statement that was made and we all talked about at a work session upstairs so now we have to deal with it. Any other? The meeting is adjourned. CouncIlman Senn: Whoa, whoa. Are you sure about that? Mayor Mancino: Oh shoot. Councilman Senn: We've got consent agenda. We've got administrative yet. See you and your break. Mayor Mancino: The only reason why we took a little break you know. I thought we were almost done. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: C. APPROVE REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR HALLA GREAT PLAINS ADDITION, PROJECT 95-13. Councilman Berquist: I pulled it and the reason I pulled it, maybe I dreamt this. I don't know. I dream some pretty weird stuff once in a while. That we're approving a revised grading plan. We've already granted them an extension to the development. How are we progressing? Have we progressed? Filling in the bluff issue and that cease and desisted and compost pile that accumulates and is burned off on a yearly basis. Cease and desisted and all those side issues have been resolved and... Don Ashworth: I'll have engineering or planning address that in News Alley. If you want to hold off on this approval, that's fine. I haven't heard anything. You know I had received earlier correspondence from Hempel and I was aware from the staff meetings but nobody has said anything about that issue for a month. 44 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Todd Gerhardt: I know that we went out there... Don Ashworth: I don't know that there's a rush on that. Councilman Berquist: I don't know if there's a rush either but I don't want to see it again ifit's all resolved and, what do the rest of you thmk? Councilman Senn: No, I agree with what you say. Mayor Mancino: I'd rather make sure it's resolved. CounCilman Berquist: All right, move to table. Don Ashworth: Or would you consider making a motion to approve assuming that those issues have been resolved and bringing it back if it hasn't. Councilman Berquist: I think that's a better idea. I would move approval of the revised grading plan for the Halla Great Plains Addition, Project 95-13 predicated on the resolution of the previous difficulties that have gone along with that property, i.e. filling of the bluff, i.e. accumulation of compost material on a yearly basis, and anything else that's been detailed. Mayor Mancino: I would second that. Councilman Berquist moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the revised grading plan for the Halla Great Plains Addition, Project 95-13 predicated on the resolution of the previous difficulties that have gone along with that property, i.e. filling of the bluff, i.e. accumulation of compost material on a yearly basis, and anything else that's been detailed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. F. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2. COULTER BOULEVARD STREET AND TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. PROJECT 93-26B. Councilman Berquist: Todd I understand that, or wait a minute. Todd? You're working on this? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Neither did the memo. We're spending another $12,000.00 because HGA screwed up their quantities. Arguably if they'd had their quantities correct to begin with we would have, the bids would have been somewhere in the $12,000.00 more range and that's what we would have approved. I just have a very difficult time, With all the paperwork that's completed. We went to them. We spent $64,000.00 for the design. Then they come back With the wrong quantities and we have to eat it. Go through all the paperwork needed. Go through all the rest of the overhead expense to make the thmg done and they get their full fees. Not to mention, I also heard through the grapevine. I don't even remember who I heard this from, but that the fabric had been laid on the original parking lot and the design consultant neglected to indicate fabric as part of the criteria for the addition. Fabric underlayment over the top of the Class V. Todd Hoffman: No knowledge about that. 45 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Councilman BerqUist: No knowledge whatsoever? Todd Hoffman: I can address the first one. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, how are they going to participate? Todd Hoffman: They won't. By contract they're... whatever It'S called. Councilman Senn: Well except for errors and omissions. Todd Hoffman: If you recall, their original proposal was for 12, they wanted $12,000.00 to do this work and I said no. That's not acceptable and they knocked that down to 8. Said no. That's not acceptable. I went shopping around for another proposal. ., They agreed to do the work at that rate but were upset about that negotiatiOn and that rate. They assigned a junior tech. The junior tech omitted one of the parking lots. They sent the paperwork out here. We bid it and you're correct. We would be paying for it anyway but now we're paying for it after the fact.. . rolling along. The trucks started coming with the rock and they soon were over the quantities that were estimated in the bid so they knew something was up. And so we called HGA. Had them check their numbers. They were. CounCIlman Berquist: They missed the whole lot. Mayor Mancino: No, he couldn't have. It says Chanhassen Rec, recreation center and Bluff Creek parking. Councilman Senn: Well did they miss on all of the one side or because of one side and not the side or what? Todd Hoffman: They left off the school parkmg lot. Councilman Senn: Okay. I figured it was. Mayor Mancino: But they had it m everything else. In everything else you have to buy on the list, because you gave us the estimate sheet. Councilman Senn: Todd unfortunately is essentially right. If the City signed the standard AlA contract, which is probably what we signed, you know you're probably going to be stuck for paying for it and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I think the only suggestion here should effectively be that given the problems on this one as well as the substantial problems that involves them on the school project, I think maybe as we go forward we ought to consider who we're using and who we're not using in relationship to these projects so it doesn't happen again. Mayor Mancino: Can I ask one last question? Has anything been done on the tennis courts with them? Todd Hoffman: With HGA? Mayor Mancino: Well, meaning that they informed you that the courts had been accepted so I'm assuming they accepted them? 46 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Todd Hoffman: They and John Gockel, the construction manager for School District #112, correct. My last piece of correspondence, we took some aerIal photos of the inline skating rinks and at that time they also took a few shots of the tennis courts and that just reminded me the stain pools from thiS water. You know I was never in agreement that those were accepted and so I sent a memorandum to John Gockel, Dave Leschek and to Borson, you know stating that even though Borson, or HGA and District had accepted these, you know somebody needs to pay for their repair and who's that going to be so correspondence regarding that memorandum. Mayor Mancino: So this will come up again HGA. Todd Hoffman: This has been ongoing for two years. Councilman Berquist: But the latest aerIals that reminded you? Mayor Mancino: November 4th. Councilman Berquist: November 4th. Have we issued a check to HGA for their design work? It seems like we have. Todd Hoffman: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: Well, have we issued the check or you authorized It? Todd Hoffman: Probably issued. Their work's been done quite some time ago and in fact when they sent through the payable, they sent It through at an amount of$7,800.00 or $8,100.00 showing that they did more work than they actually billed us for. The not to exceed $6,400.00 amount. CouncIlman Senn: That happens quite a bit. Councilman BerqUIst: Well would you do me a favor and check and see ifm fact that check has been released. There's nothing we can do about it I suppose if in fact it hasn't. I for one. . . hold It for a time. Ifwe can legally do that. CouncIlman Senn: This project is now effectively over budget by about that amount then, correct? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Do we anticipate any additional change order? So effectIvely the budget's come in on budget except this? Todd Hoffman: Yeah. We'll be about $6,500.00 over. The original budget was $100,000.00. So we got down to 81. Mayor Mancino: We got it down to 84.7. Councilman Senn: Well then we ought to pay for the overage.. .the budget and worry about the architect later maybe huh? Mayor Mancmo: Can I have a motion please? 47 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman BerqUIst: Not from me. Councilman Mason: Move to approve item l(f). Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Change Order No.2 for Coulter Boulevard Street and Trunk Utility Improvements. Councilman Mason and Councilman Engel voted in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Mancino: Let's take that one more time. All those? Councilman Senn: Why are we revoting? Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Councilman Senn: Well if we revote, one of the opposing people would have to re-raise it. Well go ahead Nancy. Mayor Mancino: I move that we accept to approve Change Order No.2, Coulter Boulevard Street and Trunk Utility Improvements, Project 93-26B because we'll end up paying it. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I'll second. Resolution #97-92: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Change Order No.2 for Coulter Boulevard Street and Trunk Utility Improvements. Councilman Mason, Mayor Mancino and Councilman Engel voted in favor. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. G. ACCEPT DONATION FROM REDMOND PRODUCTS FOR THE CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT. Councilman Senn: I think it's absolutely wonderful that Redmond Products made the contribution and I think we should acknowledge that. But I also think the money should be taken and set aside in relationship to our '98 consideration in terms of what we're doing right now on budget so I don't think it should be lumped in and spent in '97. I think we should hold it in relationship to some of the things we're trying to deal with in '98 and make some decisions from there. Mayor Mancino: I agree but I would have the caveat that it go for the Chanhassen Fire Department. Councilman Senn: Oh, I'm not saying that it wouldn't. Yeah, I'm not saying it wouldn't. I mean I don't think we can change that. I mean that's what they gave it to but I'm just saying, rather than have it go for 48 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 new additional equipment that, you know, how would I say may not be part of any budget at this pOlllt, we may need it to go for something, equipment that's part of the budget. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please. Councilman Senn: I would move that we graciously accept the donation of Redmond Products to the Chanhassen Fire Department and that the money be set aside in the Fire Department budget for '98 and will be tied into our budget deliberations for '98. Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to accept the donation of Redmond Products to the Chanhassen Fire Department and that the money be set aside in the Fire Department budget for '98 and will be tied into our budget deliberations for '98. All voted in favor and the motion carried. H. APPROVAL OF BILLS. Mayor Manclllo: Councilman Berquist, questions. Councilman BerqUist: A couple of questions on, for Illstance. Page number 3 and I'm sorry I did not have an opportunity to go through this and make calls to all the different people who would have ideas about what this was bemg spent for. But page number 3. Repair Rescue Truck #216. $1,525.00. We Just approved purchasing a new one to replace Rescue Truck #216 two weeks ago. Mayor Mancino: You're using the other, the old. Councilman Senn: He's uSlllg the old form. Councilman BerqUist: Yes, I'm using the old form. Mayor Mancino: I've already adapted to the new one. Don Ashworth: I'll have to check but I would doubt very much that that's the same rescue one. Councilman Berquist: You don't think so? Don Ashworth: I don't think so, no. Councilman Berquist: Maybe you're right. I mean we haven't gotten it yet and if it had to be repaired to make it sellable. And then the other, without gomg through it on a detailed basis, which I'm loathe to do given the time and the displeasure which I know a lot of people sense when I start going to details. It would seem as though, looking at the budgetary percentages, that we've got as of 10/31 on a departmental basis, that there are expense items that are, it seems as though.. .sense issue. I'm sensing this now. It seems as though there are items being purchased that go towards fulfilling budgetary amounts. Mayor Mancino: And you're saying in implication, aren't needed? 49 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Berquist: And I'm, well I'm questioning I guess the, if we've gone through the month of October without them, why we would need them in November and December. Mayor Mancino: And can you be more specific? You know just a couple items. Councilman Senn: Maybe I could help Steven out. If you look at this particular pay register there's, what I'mjust going to say generally. Okay, in the pay register here there's over $15,000.00 of effectively, supplies that are not the normal supplies being ordered in this budget. And that is things like new small tools and you know buying a few carburetors and buying you know a few batteries and buying, you know it's kind oflike a stock up. Don Ashworth: I absolutely do not believe that that is on anybody's mind here. I would also again like to stress the point that when you're looking at a report that may be dated November 18th, and this item had been purchased from 2 to 3 months ago and is in all likelihood just being invoiced and paid now. That is especially true as it would deal with attorney services. Any of our contracts because a typical contract, well if! go back through, well first of all there'd be a negotiation with Todd. Then the contractor invoicing Todd. Then Todd sending that back over to, and maybe I should have used one with engineering because then it would have gone to engineering. Then they end up approving this thing and then back to finance. From an accounting standpoint, I guess I look at this as representing really expenditures through more like July 31 st. Councilman Berquist: Really, that far back? Mayor Mancmo: Well it says invoice date on these and most of the invoice dates, and I don't know if that's from the supplier or not, are in 10 and 11 and I don't know if that's the actual invoice date of the original invoice or what. So they don't, you know. Councilman Senn: But if you look at the new format It gives you the invoice date. Mayor Mancino: That's what I said. Councilman Senn: You know like there was one here I had a question on... this IS the new forms, which I thmk are substantially improved. On page 4 it's Bergre Harley. There's an invoice for 11/17 that's due date 11/24 and it's $12,258.54. And it just says second half '97. I assume that's somebody's taxes we're paying or something? Mayor Mancino: Harley and Elizabeth Bergren. Todd Gerhardt: That's special assessment assIstance. Councilman Senn: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: .. .by National Weather Service. It was out of Fund 492. Part of their incentive program. Don Ashworth: I'll check on that invoice question for you. I still believe that I'm right. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? 50 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Councilman Senn: Don on the water tower, there's a payment in here on the water tower acquisition of $319,896.00. Don Ashworth: Property. Councilman Senn: Okay. My recollection was that, last time we talked about that I thought we kind of, you were still negotiating. I didn't. Mayor Mancmo: No, we approved that. Councilman Senn: And we approved the final number on that? Mayor Mancino: Yep, we did. Councilman Senn: Okay. And so this is all the cost or this is just the cost of acquisition? Don Ashworth: That's just the cost ofacquisltlOn. I don't understand the question. Councilman Senn: Right, because I thought. In the last numbers I thought kicked around were higher than thiS. This mcludes the relocation and everything? Don Ashworth: No. CouncIlman Senn: Okay. Don Ashworth: The $318,000.00, and I'm assuming we had some other miscellaneous costs m there. ... payment that went to Wrase. Mayor Mancmo: And which is the appraised price. Don Ashworth: .. . remember we do have the old house on that property and there IS a renter in there. So we are gomg to have to deal with that Issue yet. Councilman Senn: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Right, and he's paymg $750.00. Councilman Senn: Okay. Are we done now with the sump pump inspections or, we're still going to have more of those? Don Ashworth: Well we have, what we have are all of those homes that we haven't been able to get into. Mayor Mancino: 41 of them. Councilman Senn: But I mean we're continuing to pay. I thought we, okay so we're paying them on a per inspection basis then now? Don Ashworth: That's my recollection. 51 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Councilman Senn: All right. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, and I think they had 200 or 300 to do you know this final last couple months and that must be a payment for it. Don Ashworth: Although I haven't seen them in City Hall like I had from earlier. Councilman Senn: Okay. There was a $660.00 church paint repair here which I assume is the old church. How are we doing or has the discussion been set up wIth the church about, talking about the ownership and stuff of that parcel yet or? Don Ashworth: Contacted Father Steve and set up. Todd Gerhardt: I don't know, there was an issue between the Mayor and Father Steve were trying to... Mayor Mancino: I'm always available. Todd Gerhardt: ...Father Steve... Mayor Mancino: No. I think what happened Mark IS just we're pursuing that. In our last discussions with Father Steve, they centered around 2.2 acres so we didn't have enough time to bring up the church but we will. CouncIlman Senn: Maybe you should walt for the 2.2 acres to be done. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for understandmg that. Todd Gerhardt: The reason we had to paint the church was that we had to get gutters back up on the church. With the reroofing we had taken the gutters down and had water problems in the basement. . . . put the gutters back up until we pamted. Councilman Senn: That's fine. It was more Just reminded me to ask where we were on the issue IS all. The last one is, there were a number of vaccines in here that we're paying for four people. Why do we pay for vaccines? I'm just looking for an understanding on it. Mayor Mancino: To keep them healthy. Councilman Senn: To keep them healthy. Councilman Berquist: That's for fire fighters. Todd Gerhardt: .. . senior center. Don Ashworth: So we get reimbursed from somebody on that? Councilman Berquist: Those are all fire fighters that got vaccines. Todd Hoffman: We paid for it. Individuals paid for those. 52 City Council Meeting - November 24, 1997 Don Ashworth: It was supposed to be, because my wife was on me because I didn't pay the $2.00 or $3.00 or $4.00, whatever it was and I could have gotten one for $4.00 and I didn't do it. Councilman Senn: That's not what this is. Don Ashworth: That's not it? Mayor MancIno: I just have a couple questions, but Mark I kind of wanted to respond to your question about tools and stuff. I noticed you know Snap on Tools and all that kind of good stuff. I've noticed those throughout the year though. I mean I hadn't noticed any bigger purchases in this payables list than others. I remember that in July or August there were quite a few. Secondly, as it has to do with batteries, equipment. I think that's pretty typical of a city getting ready for winter so that's my perspective and it's not to defend because I didn't really call and ask anybody but that's my perspective when I saw a lot of the maIntenance costs coming in right now. Don Ashworth: I think Harry is one of the most frugal employees you have. He'll go out of his way to make sure he gets towels at Dnskills for half the price that he can get them anywhere else. Councilman Senn: Yeah Todd you're right. It says two fire fighters. Councilman Berquist: Well I brought that issue up too. I mean there's a, I'm just looking at total dollars and cogmzant of what the budget is and I look at the Income statements that are attached to the news alley and I see, I see the percentages. And I see the percentages where we were last year and what we end up With for final percentages.. . percent of budget and I understand that payables have, they have to work their way through the system but proportionately we should be the same, we should be in a similar position as to what we were last year. If anything I would think our payable system would have been more efficient and therefore we would have more... Mayor ManCInO: And aren't we about the same? Councilman Berquist: Well we're, In some we are and some we're not, yes. Don Ashworth: I would agree with that. That you should be able to look at percent last year versus percent this year. I have difficulty though in the, if it really was the mentality to let's go out and spend before the end of the year. That mentality should have existed last year. Councilman Berquist: That would be true. Don Ashworth: I do not believe. Mayor ManCInO: My last question has to do with the telemetry system. It says repairs to telemetry system. I thought it never really got, and it's just a question for Charles at some point. Really ever got fixed right to begin with. So when I read repairs to it, that's my only question and I'll ask it at the staff meeting tomorrow to say, you know was it really up there working fine before we paid them for repairs? Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Last question. TIF reports from Tautges. Is that it? $8,600.00? Don Ashworth: Final accounting on that will hit $15,000.00. 53 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Mayor Mancino: I think we paId some money before. Don Ashworth: The report is extensive. It's, we're on our third revision. I gave Nancy a copy of a tentative one that I had. You'll receive that report I would say within two weeks. And it is at least the size of the audit report. You're going through 20 years of reconstructing every expenditure that was made. The worse part there is, they're asking that they all be classified in a different fashion so throughout the years they've asked okay, classify expenditures by personnel, commodities, contractual services and capital outlay. That's standard..type of thing. Now they're coming back to saying, okay. We want them reclassified in a different fashion. You've got to resubmit.. . Councilman Berquist: This was required, requested by the auditors? State audItors? Councilman Senn: And we don't have the ability to do any of it in-house? Don Ashworth: Oh we did a lot of it inhouse. Between Kathy and KIm, they put in, well they had to do all of the background work for Tautges. Most were through auditing type of tasks. They came back and they said, okay. We need everyone of the invoices and we need to have you bring.. .and then Tautges basically came and put them into report form. CouncIlman Berquist: There's nothing that we could have done differently to have prevented this? Don Ashworth: No. Every city is faced with... Todd Gerhardt: They established the rules approximately two years ago. Had these rules existed 20 years ago... Now we're basically setting up a whole standard of bookkeeping that. Don Ashworth: But all of the new stuff now is being recorded in the new so everything we've done in the last two years.. .Just a matter of resurrectmg. Mayor Mancino: Good job. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Bills. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION. Councilman Senn: And the admin packet, just quickly. What, you know this thing on Frank Fox has come up a couple of times. I mean are we pursuing that or doing something with it? Doing nothing with it? Don Ashworth: He's pursuing us. We're not pursuing him. He's aware of the fact that.. .consider condemnation and I think he's very fearful of that. He knows we have appraisals that are $8,000.00 to $12,000.00 and he's trying a last ditch effort to try to get you to buy it for 30. Mayor Mancino: 32. And move the MUSA line. Councilman Senn: In news alley. In news alley under planning department it has staff received and will be authorized a grant agreement for the Met Council for local planning assistance. $10,790 grant will be 54 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 used for the SRF traffic study. Agreement attached. Okay, and then back here it shows that the requested grant amount was $23,060 and the total budget is $30,747 so does that mean now we have to come up with the other 20 some thousand rather than them coming up with $20,000 since we only got 10 from them? Don Ashworth: Kate explained that to me and the answer is no but how does the funding change? CounCIlman Senn: Well if you don't know, we don't need to address it tonight but I'd say let's Just not authorize it to go ahead until we kind of get, I guess I'd like to understand that. Because I mean again we're talking about '98 budget now and ifit means we're going to have to stick in $20,000 now to, as a match to their $10,000, I mean maybe we ought to. Maybe we don't. I don't know. That's something we need to look at in terms of our priorities... Don Ashworth: Actually that one was the one that Kate... Mayor ManCInO: Yeah, thIS IS new but we also got a grant Mark from the Metropolitan Council for the comprehensIve plan too. Councilman Senn: No I understand. This is separate from that. This is just relating to the traffic thing. Don Ashworth: Well that one changed too but, so she may have something in this week's about that. Mayor ManCInO: Bluff Creek corporate center. Councilman Senn: Yeah, Bluff Creek corporate center. I just had a question. Now that's not a TIF district Todd, or going to be a TIF district or anything? Bluff Creek Corporate Center? Todd Gerhardt: She's asked for it. I always wait until you have a project. Councilman Senn: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: But I look for direction from the entire CouncIl if we do want to create one there. Mayor Mancino: We're gIVIng the church. CouncIlman Senn: That's kind of our contribution Isn't It? Mayor Mancino: Assessment reduction program. Todd Gerhardt: Well it's up to you on the church too. Councilman Senn: So that will come to us yet I'm assuming under separate action, right? Todd Gerhardt: But I would say, you know that you treat everybody the same. Look at.. .as you would SteIner. Why did you give it to Steiner and not give it to... Mayor Mancino: Well you know I agree WIth that philosophy. The fact of the matter IS though is that cities change and as we change and we have to readjust our thinking sometimes. 55 City Council Meeting - November 24,1997 Don Ashworth: We'll get back to you. Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 56 J/lft \ - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; and David Hempel, Asst. City Engineer COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions or feedback primarily for staff? Joyce: Bob, under park and recreation you have all the expenditures in '98. Is that through the referendum? Generous: Primarily. There are some that they had programmed previously. Joyce: Does that mean you're going to spend it all in '98 then? Generous: Some could be carried over. It depends on how fast... Joyce: .. .get it all done. Generous: I'm not sure...I believe it's like... Peterson: We spoke a couple meetings ago about the number of potential units that the plan.. .as far as into the future of how many buildable lots or homes available... How does the capital improvement plan as it's designed today, parallel that? Or does it parallel that exactly or is it ahead or behind of the same philosophy that you used before. The number of units you want to keep available. Aanenson: Maybe I could talk a little bit about that. We're doing something different in our comp plan. You are allowed to do a floating. The reason that we. . . floating MUSA. .. by having a long range plan. . . ability to shift resources. . . to accomplish that. So we wanted a long term, what's the best use of where... We're looking at a 3:1 ratio as far as housing stock... IS that what you were looking for? Peterson: Yeah, exactly. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Aanenson: . . . flexibility. .. As Bob indicated. . . we're dependent on outside sources for the roads and that's... Peterson: What kind of assumptions have you made relative to 212 and Highway 5 expanding? Anything? Aanenson: Highway 5 is programmed to.. .and no build assumption. That's why we need to have the flexibility.. .so those are some issues that we have to look at. Peterson: What about Bluff Creek specifically? I mean that's probably the next one in queue to go into the housing stock or go into production, quote unquote. How do, when do you factor that in or did you, just out of curiosity? I know it's a... Generous: Well as part of the amount of housing. . . steep slope area. . .. factored in housing units. .. Peterson: Where are we at in the process of review? Are we really the first, other than your staff Kate, are we the first people to really see this or has Council? Aanenson: Actually yeah. .. Generous: This specifically has... Peterson: I know they're working on that now and so have they already tweaked this or not? Generous: They like the idea. . . Peterson: Thanks. Other questions, comments? Blackowiak: I've got a few questions. First of all one that we had talked about today. The supply of buildable land. This is I think getting at what Craig was talking about. We have come up with another source for a good rule of thumb for buildable land supply or? Generous: Well Kate just provided the Met CounciL.. What I found out from the Builders Association, they said at a minimum a 5 year supply to keep the land values stable... Blackowiak: I guess my question to Bob, just so you understand is, I feel that the Building Association might be a little bit biased towards having a larger supply so I was wondering if Bob could find some kind of an academic source that might be a less biased source and I guess that couldn't happen so. It was short notice I realize. Okay. I do have a couple more things. Also in the existing policies, number 7. We talked a little bit this morning about the fact that demonstrating adequate future funds might be difficult and I didn't know if it should be worded that way. So I have, I don't know if you looked at that at all. I have a suggestion anyway and I don't know we'll kind of start at this point but instead of saying capital improvements should not 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 be funded until it's demonstrated that adequate future funds will be available to cover 0 & M costs. I would suggest something in the line of, before capital improvements are funded, future o & M costs should be estimated and factored into the budgeting process. Something along that line so, I don't feel that you could ever actually demonstrate that there will be adequate funds. I mean so that's just wouldn't make sense to me. I mean find budgets for them. Try to figure out what they might be. I don't think it's really fair to ask you to demonstrate that something you can't, I don't think really do that far out so, something maybe like that. Estimating costs, etc. And then finally, Bob or Kate I'd like you to talk a little bit about some of the funding sources that you've identified in terms of their liability. Their longevity and also any possibilities for new sources. And specifically could you define enterprise funds? I wasn't clear on that. I need some help on that and that's it for me so. Generous: Just to let everyone know, on pages 24 and 25 of the document. That's where all the... Enterprise funds are directly related to an enterprise... In this instance it's the city sewer and water service. .. As a part of that fee, people pay not only for the actual water that they use but.. . and some of the fee goes into a capitaL.. use for those specific programs... They're not translatable to other programs... Assessments. Those are the primary.. . funds for capital improvements... There are some variances in that for the 429 projects which use some... ISTEA are the federal dollars that are generally used to do road projects... The park and trail fees are directly.. .park and trail improvements. Referendum of course.. . State aid is a form.. . roads that are designated by the State as State Aid highways. Storm water fees or SWMP fees are the fees that the city collects, I believe it's quarterly and also as part of any development... The tax increment financing dollars are for.. . and finally the developer... In that case what's.. . facilities that are beyond what their project.. . for instance going from an 8 to 12 inch water line or upsizing the storm water facility. . . Blackowiak: Okay. Most of these seem like they're fairly. ..amounts or fairly predictable amounts in terms of the assessments and general funds and so on and so forth. For example the ISTEA and the State aid. Do you see any major changes, either up or down in any of these or I mean. Brooks: ISTEA actually hasn't been re-authorized by... There's numerous competing bills in ISTEA funding and ISTEA is really going to depend on the funding and which bill gets passed. I think there will be an ISTEA bill, otherwise America will not have a Department of Transportation or a highway system. But it's the degree in which it passes. The other question that is up in the air right now is the enhancement portion with the trails and preservation and railroad depots. There is a move on by some states not to include enhancements anymore. There's some departments of transportation that don't like spending money on enhancements.. .so it is not clear at this point whether that will continue to be. Aanenson: The park and trail fees are also predicated on development. .. . developer and the economy. . . Blackowiak: Thanks. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Peterson: Any other comments? Conrad: A couple Mr. Chairman. Bob, what's the procedure for reviewing capital investments? These numbers on an annual basis. What happens? Generous: They're part of the budget process... Aanenson: The way the comprehensive plan is written right now, it should be reviewed every 5 years. The last time was in 1991 so really the Planning Commission should be looking every 5 years and the Council should be looking at it as part of their budget process... What we're hoping for tonight is something that's not... Conrad: Well my question does relate to that. When you put a 20 year plan out in front of me, that makes me nervous. I think most companies can't really project past 5 and you're trying to do 20. But I can't give a stamp of approval past 5. It's really tough to do 5 so my methodology therefore is to say, or my rationale after that is okay, that's your best guess and that's good to forecast where you're going but I need to know what the annual review process is because we are not involved here. I want to make sure that if this is there, one the City Council's doing it. But then there are two other groups. At least one that I know of. Park and Rec should be reviewing that annually too, which should be fed up to the City Council. Ifthere is an environmental protection committee, or whatever this other, I'm not even sure if we have one or they're functioning. I'm just ignorant of that but I want them to review these numbers. I don't know, I won't know but I want.. .procedure supporting the policy. The policy should say on an annual basis these numbers are reviewed. So my point is I want, I need to know that there is a procedure for reviewing this annually. I need to know that the environmental group is doing that specifically. I think Park and Rec is doing that. Generous: Yes. They review that. Conrad: Okay. There's nobody that can supervise... Aanenson: Yeah, you can't do the budget without doing an annual. What we're saying, the reason we went to 20. . . that's our ultimate build out so to work backwards is where are we going to be. What's the priority's going to be? We just took it to the... Conrad: I can support the policies as long as I know that there's a review process. Because priorities change and I can't say that these just generally are the right ones to follow every year. I want people reviewing them. Specifically, I'm going to make a point because I don't know when it comes back. Under park and rec. When I look out 20 years and I've been talking about this for as long as I've been around. We don't have an outdoor amphitheater in Chanhassen. And we talk about meeting and greeting and community and we don't have an outdoor amphitheater which is basically a hillside with dug in benches. So I'm real bothered by the fact that it's not there. I've talked to people over the years. It's always we don't have funding. I won't vote for this. I think if you're responsible and you're trying to get citizens of Chanhassen together, we say we are. We do have a pretty nice theater in town and we do have some history in theater and 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 other communities have amphitheaters and they're small. They don't cost a lot of money. You have to find the land to put them on. I don't see that being attempted and that bothers me. So that is a real irritant. The other specific that I just would, under the storm water management section. Lake Minnewashta has some major money going into it and I'm just curious as to what that, Bob if you knew what the. My recollection was it was $600 and some thousand dollars. Is there one specific project that is causing the bulk of that? Aanenson: The reason for that is, Lake Minnewashta is pretty much.. . storm water generally... We've done quite a bit of projects that aren't accounted for on Lotus Lake, so.. .really go back to a plan that was put... We tried to typically sprinkle those around when we try to do a project and then looking at what other road projects are like, as Bob indicated... tie resources together. If we've got a road improvement project, tying the storm water. . . Conrad: Is it supporting.. .plan? Aanenson: Yes. We're following.. .but there has been a little bit of development. There will be some... Peterson: Tagging along on what Ladd, one of Lad d's questions. What about, other than ourselves and Council.. .provides feedback to the numbers, citizen input process facilitate that? Aanenson: Eventually this whole process... Peterson: So this is the exception within the comprehensive plan that we. Brooks: What is the interpretative center? Is that new that we're building? Aanenson: Right, that was a part of Bluff Creek. The intention there was to provide an interpretative center, the 100 acres that we acquired, the O'Shaughnessy property... Brooks: Is it a million dollar to build a center? Aanenson: No. That's what we put out. That's an estimate. There's options. There's an existing home to put on the property.. . other resources too. That was supposed to be in connection with the schooL.. Brooks: So was that the same with Bluff Creek? Aanenson: Or the elementary school for school children. Where they can actually have a resource...with that 100 acres as kind ofa laboratory. Brooks: Okay. Peterson: Other comments? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Sidney: Just one more. This one I have for Bob. Wondering about land acquisition for park and rec. . . project out farther than. .. I guess I saw on the first page that we have a specific density requirements of having a neighborhood park within a half mile of each residence. I'm wondering if, based on.. . future for parks. Generous: Yeah, as part of the park plan and... Sidney: Are there numbers associated with... Aanenson: The way it's currently calculated, by so many acres per person.. .depending on density. Higher density.. .so when we looked at the original park element, that was something that was attached specifically to tell you where park and rec... As far as larger parks go... Generous: The quick answer is no, we can't be certain.. . once you get it out beyond 5 years... This gives you a general. . . Sidney: They really can't predict beyond '98? Aanenson: Well we can in a rough sense based on the comprehensive plan. . . but that's the best we can do to put that dollar amount. . . Peterson: Have we given you enough? Brooks: I liked.. . amphitheater. I think that's a good idea. Conrad: Everybody says it is and we never do anything about it. Sidney: How long have you been asking? Conrad: Oh probably, again there's so many reasons not to do it and money is one and finding the right land is one. But I've talked to folks for 5 to 10 years that this is, I think this is an important thing for the community to do. You go to Eden Prairie, they have some nice amphitheater over at, what Starring Park or whatever it's called and they have their community plays and outdoor celebrations and we have no place to really do that here. And unless you put it in the plan, it won't happen and it probably wasn't funded through. There's a lot of things that don't happen, that don't force it to happen but it's one of those things that you think, you've got that's supposed to happen you know. Brooks: I know Anoka's been working really hard to bring back their amphitheater. They have a.. . falling in disrepair and they wanted to try to bring that back so, I think it's a good idea. Aanenson: Todd did put out those... park referendum. Got some identified... Conrad: Well that's a tough deal Kate because you know you have a referendum, you offer something to every section of the community so everybody gets something for their 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 neighborhood. And in the absence of that, then you put money into sports facilities and then you ignore maybe some things that we really talked about and what we've had major activities over the last 5 years of where this community should go and what brings it together as a community and that is one of those things that does it. That we tried to do it with the parade, but that's a couple hours and you can meet on a baseball field but there's something wrong with that you know because that's not for everybody. The amphitheater is something that I think should be done. Jill Shipley: ... Carver County Library Board and I'm Chanhassen' s representative to the Board and I'd also like to speak to the library issue with regards to this plan. A library is another facility that truly builds community and you'll see from this plan that it's slated for, along with the City Hall expansion, to be improved in the year 2005 and the dollars slated for it are a million dollars. We've been working very closely with the Chanhassen City Council over the past 6 months to present the need for improved library facilities in Chanhassen. Chanhassen is the ideal community of a strong, strong library. We are a high income community. These are the people who use and value library services. We are a highly educated community. Again, these are the type of people that truly value and will use a library if we provide the facilities that are needed. I would like to make a request tonight that you not approve this plan until you have spoken with the Carver County library board and heard some of our data of our needs. We'd like to make a presentation similar to what we did with Council to show you the really strong need for a... I'd also like to request some sort of representation from the City because we have such a unique arrangement in Carver County with our library services where the County does the funding for personnel and for materials, but the city provides the space. There's no Todd Hoffman of Parks and Rec. within the city staffwho speaks to this issue. I would like to find some, either planning commission liaison for library services as well. Any comments? Questions to that effect. Peterson: Maybe just questions for Kate more than anything else. Is that, I mean it certainly sounds like a logical idea of some sort. Some kind of, whether that be with us, I don't know if that's the most logical. Aanenson: Maybe to give you a little bit more background on this issue. As part of the budget process, the library board did ask for additional space and dollars... I did look at this as part of. . . budgeting process. ., We're not asking you to adopt this tonight. We said we want you to look at the. . . and ultimately the Council's going to decide that but if you want to keep feedback on the timing and want more information to help you prioritize... Peterson: I think it would be interesting to see the scope of what you're requesting. Whether you're requesting of that $l.whatever million. If you're requesting $100,000.00 or if you're requesting the full.. . for expansion. Not necessarily tonight but in some format that we can go forward basically. As we talked about earlier, this is a...process that will be approving in the coming weeks and months so. Jill Shipley: I'm confused by Kate's comment because we've not made a request for anything in the budget process. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Aanenson: No, you did make a request for providing additional space... Jill Shipley: I'm not aware of that request at this point. Aanenson: What... Jill Shipley: We requested that a task force be... Aanenson: The Council elected to do that. The Council at this point...but a task force was... and if you have additional information, we certainly agree. . . we concur with that. What we're looking at is. . . but if you feel that you want to make it a higher priority, want to convey that. . .if you felt it was important to have... Peterson: My first reaction is I think it would be interesting, speaking on behalf of fellow commissioners, just to see a one page summary of what you're really, what the scope of it is. I mean right now I don't think any of us can respond other than yeah. It's a great idea but then there's a lot of great ideas in here that aren't in here as a cost. .. the balancing that we have to do. But I think as you heard Ladd speak to.. . reiterate by saying a gathering point and that is one that certainly has a priority in the hearts of a lot of the citizens. So if you could present a one page synopsis of what some of the scope is.. . first step. Jill Shipley: Okay. We'll go from there. Thank you. Peterson: Anything else Bob you want to hear from us? Good job. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Mark Koegler: Chairman, members of the commission. The draft that's before you tonight, continuing the process with the Bluff Creek ordinance, contains changes that really came from a variety of sources. From the discussion we held a couple of weeks ago. We think we've addressed most of those points. From comments that were offered by the City Attorney as part of the ordinance draft and then some additional staff items. Let me just kind of quickly highlight some of the major things and then I want to point to another case study that we've looked at in the last couple of weeks which maybe gives you a better picture of how this applies to a piece of property. First off, one of the major changes occurs on the first page and it's simply we cross referenced with the city's subdivision ordinance in addition to the aspect of the zoning code. You probably noticed also at the City Attorney's request, it's now called an overlay district right up front rather than referring to it as the Bluff Creek Watershed District. There was confusion in that regard. There was a modification to natural habitat area. Definition that was again in response to some of the comments that Roger had offered. The discussion that occurred at the Planning Commission last time, there were a couple of points raised that kind of led to modification of purpose statements. First of all to get some language in there about the benefits, the financial benefits and so forth associated with this type of development pattern. And then secondly and perhaps more importantly, to make a direct reference to the Bluff Creek Watershed management plan itself and that's done in line 16 on page 4. It refers to the term, definitions and 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 appendices. .. What that does then is that ties back to not only defining some of those things like significant resources and some of those other significances and that's what we talked about last time, but also it contains the listing of some of the species and things that are endangered and that are of concern so that incorporates that by reference as a part of the ordinance draft itself. Further on in the ordinance, again at the request of the City Attorney we've talked about potentially clustering rather than transferring. A technical sense we were looking at clustering of density rather than transfer per se, particularly with transfer occurring in other properties. And I think that essentially was some of the major changes. There were some minor verbiage changes and we've cleaned some things up as we've gone along. Some of those pertaining to the issue of this ordinance and how it ultimately will react and relate to the PUD ordinance which is going to be modified somewhat in the future. Let me quickly highlight another case study that we've taken a better look at to give you a feel for how this fits and then Kate and I can sit and we'll answer questions that you might have. If you recall last time we talked about taking a look at the property generally known as the Erhart property and we have done that. We looked at a couple of scenarios and hopefully. .. For orientation. This piece of property fronts on Highway 101 and 96th Street. North is up on this particular graphic. We started with a traditional subdivision approach if you will, looking at single family detached lot arrangement. Total site is about 122 acres but it does get impacted by right-of-way for TH 101. Additionally there is right-of-way for 212 which is over on this side of the site... The 145 lots depicted here aren't really. ..you might be able to add a few more lots.. .Net density is right around 2 units per acre. Just a hair over. The average lot size being about 21,300. The smallest lot about 12,000 square feet. The totaL.. That compares to a density, I think the average lot...pretty comparable to some of the Longacres developments... We then took a look at application of the standards that are in the Bluff Creek ordinance. First of all we...is pretty heavily impacted by both primary and secondary corridors in the western area. The primary corridor being a line hatched area. The secondary corridor being the dot pattern. .. If you look at the kind of clustered approach, it still takes single family detached. . . what you can end up with, and again this is a hypothetical example. The pattern may be similar to this.. .as a part of the development. In this particular case we have.. .to about 3.8 units per acre. Average lot size depicted here is about 11,300 square feet. Smallest lot would be 7,500-8,000 square foot... There happen to be 167 lots depicted here but that number could go down a little bit. . . in that previous scenario you could get a few more than 125... is concentrated into a different area of the site. Preserving then what becomes about 51 % or so of the site in the area that occupies the primary and secondary areas ofthe corridor, as well as.. .wetland portion of the property. So another graphic example in kind ofa series of those that we've looked at where the piece of property obviously is heavily impacted by the existence of the primary and secondary corridors that are outlined in the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan. With that Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, I think Kate and I would be happy to respond to questions that you have. Still the goal is to reflect any further comments that you might have regarding the ordinance and ultimately to take that to public hearing in the near future. Peterson: Thank you. Questions? Comments? Joyce: Mark, I have a question... Number one, on the Erhart property. Is that entirely in the Bluff Creek overlay? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Mark Koegler: It is within the entire overlay corridor. The only area, again the watershed area itself goes beyond the primary. . . Joyce: That's, because I have a related question to that but that's what I'm trying to figure out. Mark Koegler: I believe, and correct me ifI'm wrong, but I think it is wholly within the overall Bluff Creek watershed area. Joyce: Do you remember what the comprehensive plan guide looks for as far as zoning? Mark Koegler: It's low density residential. Joyce: Low density residential, which is what? 4? Mark Koegler: 1.2 to 4 I believe gross units per acre. Aanenson: That's what the first drawing reflected. Joyce: Right. Aanenson: If someone was to come and lay it out. . .low density subdivision, with an average.. .so averaging, coming in with a PUD, the average lot size has to be... Joyce: So the net would be, I guess I'm just trying to visualize. You have the comp plan and the guide, and then this overlay which supersedes the zoning. . . ? Aanenson: In addition to the zoning. Joyce: But first of all the standards are higher on, particularly like on a primary. Secondary, certainly they're higher and that would supersede... Then we go back to the comp plan, the low density. There is an example you have a net that currently doesn't exceed the density level. The highest you can go to is 4 units per acre. Aanenson: Right, but what we did is we took the entire piece. . . but what we want is a way. . . Joyce: I understand that but you could not go to 4.1 units per acre against the comp plan, correct? Mark Koegler: Well that would depend on definition because what we've done when we've put this new layer of ordinance onto this piece of property is we said, we're taking now out for purposes of development, the primary corridor area which up to this point in time has been included within a net density calculation. If you look at the traditional pattern as this one that's on the screen right now, we're at 2 units per acre. Largely because obviously we're developing that primary area as well as that secondary. .. I think what becomes the issue is, once you go from this level of calculation to applying the ordinance, do you still use the same set of ground 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 rules as to how you look at net. Do you look at net as taking out the primary area for the whole site or do you somehow at least in the secondary area look at net by saying well yes, but it includes the primary area and factoring that into net density is really so and so for the entire property. Joyce: So you are including the primary? Mark Koegler: We did in the example, just to show what the impact is. Joyce: But in the ordinance you didn't? Mark Koegler: The ordinance actually takes it's derivation back from, this is really I think a very valid exercise because the process is that there needs to be a concept prepared such as this that shows how a property could be developed. What kind of density could be achieved on the site and it has to be a realistic plan. Then essentially what we're seeking to do with the ordinance is to cluster that density in other locations on the property. So we're not looking to provide... necessarily to increase that density but to accommodate that density. Joyce: Right. Mark Koegler: In this particular case it does fall within the 4 units per acre no matter how you cut the net calculation. Whether or not that would happen in every single case, I suppose we'd have to look at that a little further. Joyce: Well that leads to my second question. A lot of this property within the Bluff Creek overlay. . . things like that. So for them to change the zoning, I mean obviously you'd have to go.. .low density or something like that. Aanenson: Well we've guided it. Again, this is an area outside the MUSA and it may not.. .but we've guided it for low density. ., The other part to your question was, under the current ordinance the 4.1, they couldn't do that even... That's why we're trying to change the PUD. We're not trying to penalize people for clustering. We want to encourage clustering. Joyce: Promote it is what it says in the... Aanenson: Well what we're trying to do is, the development pattern is different than we did in the past where we got more sensitive and this is again.. .where there's a primary and secondary zone. Not just to cluster for clustering sake but. . . Joyce: And I'm just trying to figure out if there's control here. Aanenson: Exactly. There's a large lot subdivision to the south of this. A small one that actually the people benefit from clustering because the homes that are on that northwest comer will actually benefit because the cluster.. .but we're going to have to look at that individually and 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 there may be circumstances where they'd have to buffer... but for the most part, the primary and secondary, or in the overlay district, they all have to... Joyce: I'm getting more comfortable with this ordinance. I'm glad it's come up a couple of times. You kind of have to work through it. Aanenson: That's...we think we've worked through... Mark Koegler: Again, this is just in quick concept form but we have shown for example what the existing developments on 96, with the concept plan. Larger lots abutting that and open space immediately north of some of. . . to accommodate transition of uses between existing developments. . . Brooks: I noticed and I probably should have talked about this earlier. . . clustering residential but I don't see where it really addresses industrial where we have areas within the Bluff Creek overlay. . . Mark Koegler: Well we reference that by talking about clustering of units and impervious cover because when we were dealing with, basically we have two types of land uses for the most part outside of the open space designations within the corridor. Either industrial, industrial office park or residential. There are a few very small pieces of commercial that are kind of some of the donut holes and things. But we're dealing with that and the impervious basis rather than on a square footage or some other basis in which you might look at those buildings. I think a meeting or two ago we looked at an example of the industrial park and it was based on impervious cover and being able to transfer that amount of impervious cover that would be allowed on that site to a tighter area within the same property. Aanenson: So instead of70. ..maximize the part that you're going to... Brooks: And that's why, you know an office park to me is fine but when we say industrial, and I bring that back up to Mark... Aanenson: That gets back to the comprehensive plan. . . Brooks: .. . about the wildlife and stuff and all of a sudden... Mark Koegler: I think you raise a good point though in that probably more of the focus has been on residential and maybe we just need to go back and make sure, and enunciate clearly enough that there's a commercial industrial component to it. Brooks: Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: Mark, could you get us a copy of a good ordinance that uses density transfer? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Mark Koegler: I can, boy a good ordinance. You had to qualify that. There are some examples you know as we've talked about before in these series of meetings. They really are not examples with the same kinds of components that we're looking at, and particularly the urban scale densities. I can easily provide you with a number of examples that are more rural in nature that are dealing with, you know 1 unit per 1.2 acres. We've even looked at those just simple to examine some of the techniques and there is no direct application. Aanenson: We've exhausted all the resources. Mark Koegler: Close. Weare continuing to search for that but we have not found a really apples to apples. Aanenson: We also had, we think it's the right. . . Conrad: Have you just looked in the State? Have you looked outside? Aanenson: We've looked outside, everywhere. Conrad: This has been an issue for 10 years Kate. Density transfer has been preached. Aanenson: We're on the cutting edge. Peterson: Have you checked our libraries by chance? Conrad: The PUD ordinance will become a factor in density transfer? Is that right? Will it really, density transfer, will it be guided by our PUD ordinance restrictions and guidelines? Generous: The only way you'll be able to do it is.. . because you could do a large lot subdivision and just lose the primary. . . Aanenson: .. . only do clustering... which we've always felt that.. . historically we've had a problem with large lots in certain areas... Conrad: There aren't many regulations in this ordinance. It's pretty open and on the one hand I'm not going to challenge it because I love, I like density transfer. I think it's, but Kevin I just, you know your point is you're getting more comfortable with it and I think that's great. But a lot of this will come down to how much do you want to protect an area and are you willing to allow 5.7 units to protect that area, which will take us over the single family and put it into a different category. Joyce: '" understanding of that. Conrad: Well no, it's open. We haven't addressed. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Joyce: But the comp plan still supersedes that, correct? Aanenson: Yeah. Joyce: So that was the point I was trying to make is our comp plan is our control feature. So if you have this as low density, some of it clustering, and if they average out to 3.87, so it's not over 4. Conrad: Over the whole site. Joyce: Right. A lot of this land is, what large estate which is. Aanenson: That's what it's zoned. Not guided for. It's zoned large lot. Joyce: I'm sorry. But it's zoned A2 so it had to come in front of us to get it to low density, correct? Aanenson: Right, although it's guided... Joyce: And it's guided low density, I mean it's guided large lot. Aanenson: We've guided the whole city. Remember before we said we weren't going to guide large lot in the rest of the city. We don't have that designation. It's currently zoned that way until such time as urban services are provided.. .but what we said is we don't want to take a first example throughout the rest of the city because what it does it takes out the significant features. What we said is we'd rather have it go a little bit smaller yard and preserve some natural features... We're not trying to. ..we're just compressing it into.. . small lots. It might not be the same type of... Brooks: Let me ask a question. . . large lot. If you have a large lot, a 5 acre lot by Bluff Creek and Joe Schmoe wants to subdivide it and now sell off 2 Yz acres and build a house. Now, are we going to be able to guide the house going up the slope and off the primary zone? Aanenson: You will be able to do that. Ifit's in the primary or secondary zone. Pardon me? Joyce: I said if it's in the primary, he can't develop on it at all, correct? Aanenson: Well you have to, we'd have to look at that.. .it'd be a taking... We looked to see if there were any of those. .. Mark Koegler: I'm trying to think if we have examples dealing with the vast majority of them with larger, currently undeveloped parcels that are either in, there might be a few. Peterson: Other comments? Thank you. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 OLD BUSINESS: Aanenson: Just to let you know what's going on for the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting. We will put on the historic district. Talking about what should happen in the area... First you need to decide whether you have the right area that we have identified and kind of set some framework... Also we received an application for.. .site plan review for Bluff Creek Partnerships. . . property east of Bluff Creek Elementary. . . church. There will be a public hearing... That will be our last meeting... That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 5, 1997. ONGOING ITEMS: Blackowiak: I have a question. Did the City Council interview Planning Commission candidates and? Aanenson: Correct, and it is scheduled for a meeting on Monday. . . Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: In December we should have someone. Peterson: I thought they already met them. Aanenson: They interviewed. I'm not sure who. ..select somebody. Peterson: Anything else? The public portion of the meeting was adjourned and the Planning Commission held an open discussion regarding the auto dealership. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15