The URL can be used to link to this page

December 10, 2001 Agenda AGENDA ...................... CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001 CttANItASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD $:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SF_..qSION, COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM Am 5:30 p.m. - City Center Commons Landscaping Plan 6:30 p.m. - Update on Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee Applicants 7:00 P.M. - REGIH,AR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegia~, ce) PUSLIC ,CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no sep .ar~'discussion of these items: If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council-packet for each staff report. 1. a. Establish 2002 City Council Meeting Schedule. bi Approval of On-Sale Beer License Request, Fe~ Festival, Lake Ann Park, Chanhassen Lions Club. Approve City Code Amendment to Sections 20-575 and 20-595 Requiring One Unit Per 10 Acre Density for Subdivisions Outside the Metropolitan Udmn Services Area (MUSA). d. Approve Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Arboretum Business Park to Revise the Permitted Uses within the Development Similar to the Permitted Uses in the Industrial Office Park District, Steiner Development. Receive Feasibility Report; Call Public Heating for the Think.Highway 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3. Approve Change Order No. 2 to BC7 & BC8 Trunk Utility Improvement Project 00-01. g. Approve Water Treatment Request for Qualifications. h. Approve Water Reservoir Winterizing Contract. i. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Minutes dated November 1, 2001 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated NoVember 26, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated November 26, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2001 - Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 27, 2001 Partial Release of Contract for Private Redevelopment and Partial Release of Site Plan Agreement for Lot 3, Block 1, Park One 4th Addition. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE a. Sgt. Dave Potts, Carver County Sheriff's Department John Wolff, Fire Chief PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS ,, Discussion of Services to be provided at the Carver County Household Hazardous Waste 'Facility in Chaska. 1 Consider Adoption of: a. 2002 Budget and Tax Levy b. Capital Improvement Plan 1 Discussion of Library Interior and Exterior Design. 6. Appointments: a. Council Appointment to the Southwest Metro Transit Board b. Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee COUNCIL PRF~ENTATIONS 7. Council/Commission Liaison Update ADMINISTRATIVE PRF~ENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE DISCRJSSION A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available ~ 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 937-1900 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRES~A~ON$ Welcome to the Chanha~en City Council Meeting. In the ~ of open commtmicafions, the Chanhaz~ City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public ~ address fl~e City Council That oplx~zmity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during V~tor Prese~a~. 1. Anyone indic~tln~ a desire to speak during V~tor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called utxm to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All rcnmrl~ shall be addressed to the City . Council as a whole, not to any specific mumbcr(s) or to any person who is not a mmnb~ of the City Council. . . 2. If there are a number of individuals presemt to speak on the same lopic, please designate a spokespemon tlmt 3. Limityourcommegtsmfi~~. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have writteo comments, provide a copy to the Council. . During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to commems and will not engage in discusai~ Council ~ or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order ~o gain a thorough understmxling of your concern, suggestion or request. 1 · Please be aware that disre~clecl:fill commeol:s or ~ of a personal nah~ direcmd at an imti~ eithe~ by name or inference,, will not be allowed. Personnel concertos should be direcl~d Io the City Manaser. CITYOF CHANtI EN 95293Z1900 c~erd l~ 952.93Z5739 952.9~7.9152 952.934.2524 TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Mayor City Council Todd C-eflucrdt, City Discussion on the City Center Commons Landscape Plan This item has been placed on your work session for the City Council to discuss the development of the City Center Commons landscape plan. The items that need to be discussed are: . Discuss City Council's vision for the commoxls, sgecifically fix~ a functional standpoint (such as aesthetics, educati .onal, economical, recreaitional, historical, etc.) 2. Identify'the process to be used in develbpin' gthe plan... I ha~,e also asked Damon Farber, the landscape architect for the Library Project to attend Monday's meeting. This will give the City Council the opportunity to meet Mr. Faflz~ and review his recommended development process and ideas for this area (see attachment). -' : C'.m of'C.h~t~.~,n. ,4 ~n'ondn~ ~mm~rnJ~ ,,J~ dean C1TYOF P01~147 , Mi~ntuna 55317 952.937.1900 95293Z57'39 952.937.9152 952.9342524 ~ORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Te~'~a I. Burgess, Public Works Director/City .Engin~ b December 5, 2001 SUBS: Committee- PW024P .. Requested Council Action Review and discuss the attached applications for the Water Treatm~ Project Advisory Committee. Discussion Council is being asked to name the memb~ of the Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee as part of tonight's normal ag~da. In addition to the members appointed tonight,- a'member of the City Council and City Staff will be members of the PAC. Staff is requesting that 3-4 of the PAC applicants be named to assist City Staff in interviewing consultants for the project. S~ff feels it is necessary to. keep the' PAC small during this phase of the project since it will need to meet frequently during the/nterview process. A ~ group is difficult to schedule. Staff is requesting that a total of 8-9 members be named to the PAC (incl~ the . initial 3-4 members that will assist with the hate~ewing). The PAC will advise the consultant and act as neighborhood liaison during the study, design, and implementation of water treaiment. Staff will be available during the worksession to answer questions. Applican~ for the positions have not been asked to attend the meeting due to time conslraints. Attachm~mts: PAC Applic~ons C: Kelley lanes, Utility Suparintandant PAC Applicants (~,-q~q~W~cr ~~ofl-12-.lO-Ol c. doc I~-E~S-~i 13:42 PUR WRTERPROI~S ?~3 315 5~?. P.01~1 ,o5Z,9.~7.,9I$2 Addx~: The purpose of t~ PAC ~ w p~vM~ recommen&tio~ on th~ xel~caon of th~ ~ngineering Coulter ~i~ for ~ ~ De~ of ~at~r ~ea~ent in th~ Ct~ of Chan~en. Capulet fi~ ~ill be pr~creen~ for qual~caaon~ ~ t~ Ci~ of Chanha~n Sta~ Ct~ of C~n~en ~a~wiH a~o par~ipat~ in the P~ C to pravid~ t~chn~al ~ operational Daytime Phone N~nb~r: Alternate Phone Numbs, E-mail: Please d~eribe your reasons for wanting to b.e part of the PAC: .,,/,./-,,,,// ,,,,,-- ~'leaze provi~ a brief deaeription, of yom' job history and ed~c.~io~r~e information will bm · ~l I~'"~i~ _ ~ ~ · . - ~ m i , I .i"' '/ ' Applications will be review~ by City Staff for any potential comqlcta of interest. Additional information may be re. quested ffneeeasarY. City Council will review the applications and name the PAC m~abers. C Oi 690 0_~. ~ ~ ?O lhr l-t7 ~ 34'~ 55317 952337.1900 C,~erd £a~ 9~.93Z5739 952.93Z9152 999342524 City of Chanhassen Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Application The purpose of the PA C is to provide recommendations on the select'on of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Stua~y and Design of Water Treatment in the City of Chanhassen. Consultant firms will be prescreened for qualifications by the City of Chanhassen Staff. City of Chanhassen Staff will also participate in the PA C to provide technical and operational expertise. Name: Glen M. C,-emds Address: Daytime Phone Number: Alternate Phone Number: 1071 Barbara Court 952-563-8775 612-965-0871 ggerads@ci, bloomington, mn, us Please describe ),our reasons for wanting to be part of the PAC: . I have been down the road that the City of Chantiassen is about to ~avel. A~de from having, a stron~ technical backsmund in water ~,,ammat i~_,~. I also have pramical experience in evaluatin$ consultants' proposals in this area. I look forward to sharin$ my vi~-ws and inai~ta with ~ Ca~ff members and aLso other less "~'ounded" PAC members. Mtmicipal water treatment in Chanhassen has been a hope of mine for many years, Cousrmlations on movin~ this ~tda forws.rd.. Please provide a brief description of your job history and education. :me informaUon will be used to identi~ am/potential conflicts of lnterext. I have worked for the City of Bloomington for the last 20 + years in the Utility Division~ with expertise . . in municipal water treatment- I am presently the City's project ~ for a S14 million water lreatmm~t plant expansion in Bloomin~n. I am a ~rad~ :,,,~ of the St. Cloud AVTI's Water and WastewaZer Treaunent .................. ............. duties include administrative oversight of all Utility functions in Bloomington- . , Applications will be reviewed by City Staff for any potential conflicts of interest. Additional information may be requested if necessary. City Council will review the applications and name the PAC members. CITYOF 690 Gq Qn~r Drh~ l~ Box l4? GJanhassen. Mbrmota 55317 Phone 952937.!900 Geneal I:ax 952.937'.5739 ~giueering Dqamnenr Pax 952.937.9i52 Building Depamntnr Fax 952.934.2524 Web Sire WlVW. Ci.c'i~anisassen. mn. us C}T','"' -:. .. City of Chanhassen Water Treat~nent Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Application NOV 2 '"' ~001 ENGINEERING DEPT. The purpose of the PA C is to provide recom~nendations on the selection of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Study and Design of Water Treatment in the City of Chanhassen. Consultant firms will be prescreened for qualifications by the City of Chanhassen Staff. City of Chanhassen Staff will also participate in the PA C to provide technical and operational expertise. Daytime Phone Number: e~,~" - V?o-.O"-7 7-7 ! Alternate Phone Number: E-mail: Please describe your reasons for wanting to be part of the PAC: .-'. 5 " . ' ~' ,x' '- - Please provide a brief description of your job history and education, rh/, .~.'~formatlon will be used to !dentify a. ny pottntial conflicts of intertst. x' 7.. :. ,:, Addifion~ infomation may be reque~ed ifnecess~. ~ Co~eil will renew · f~ 690 Cu7 Ce. ur DH~ PO tbx147 ~ Mim~ota 55317 952.937.1900 952937.5/"39 952.937.9152 952.934.2524 ~b Sitt crI'Y OF CHANHASSEN NOV ! 9 2001 ENGINEERING DEPT. City of Chanhassen Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Application The purpose of the PA C is to provide recommendations on the selection of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Study and Design of Water Treatment in the City of Chanhassen. Consultant firms will be prescreened for qual~cations by the Ci~. of Chanhassen Staff City of Chanhassen Staff will also participate in the PAC to provide technical and operational ~xpertise. Daytime Phone Number: Alternate Phone Number: E-mail: 7"C..HE~, co/y Please describe your reasons for wanting to be part of the PAC: Plebe p~de a b~ef d~p~oa of ~ job ~s~ ~d educaaon. ~ ~o~ ~ . -it /- -~ - - - v - ~ , . . . App~mfiom ~11 be ~~ by Ci~ S~ for~fDi~Ol m~~t. ~ ~plicafiom ~d ~e ~ PAC mmb~. CITYOF C~H~SE~ 690 Cig Center Drive t)0 B~147 GSanhauen, .~nnaota 55317 952.93Z1900 952.937.5739 Engineering Deparonent Fax 952.93Z9152 Building Department Fax 952.9342524 ~b Siee wu,u:d.d, anhassvJ, mn. us City of Chanhassen Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Application The purpose of the PAC is to provide recommendations on the selection of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Study and Design of Water Treatment in the City of Chanhassen. Consultant.firms will be prescreened for qualifications by the Ci~. of Chanhassen Staff. City of Chanhassen Staff'will also participate in the PA C to provide technical and operational expertise. Name: /Z)~?/~'~ D,SlP.~o~ Daytime Phone Number: Alternate Phone Number: E-mail: Please describe your reasgns for wanting to be part of the PAC: I Please provide a brief description of your job history, and education. :.ha information will be used to identify any potential confllcts of tnterr, st. ,~, ~ ¢-/ss/._~'~,,~/25.-zf~.,~/~~ ~~.~ Applications will be reviewed by City Staff for any potential conflicts of interest. Additional information may be requested if necessary. City Cotmcil will review the applications and name the PAC members. il~Dg~u1 PR! 1G:~3 PA,,X g~ g{? gitz ~1'1',I UF ~,,UJJU~~ ii;w~ k~uuz CRy of Otanhnss~n Wstte~ Treatment l, roJ~t: Advisory Commitme The ~e of O~e PAC ~ to 1o~ ~'c~t~oas on tl~ ~ele,~on of ~ke P,4C ~o j~'ovide ~l m~d opera~nal ~e. Address: Daytime Phone Number: All~'nat~ Yhonu Numbs': R-mail: Please de~ribe your reasons for wanting _to _be part of the PAC: ..... Ptease provid~ a bfieX' desarip~on Of your job bistc~ and .t~dUcation. 'r~ ~ 'Y- . - · /'6" Appl_L.~,,-{,:,_ us will be ~ by .C-'ity Sta/f' I~. a~y tmUmfial uonfli~ of~ tim ~q~pltcafio~s and tmm~ tim PAC m/~lb~ 11/07/2001 10:09 9524464145 CAEMN COELE(~E PAGE CTFYOF P0 ~=147 Ct~r. M~n~ot~ $$$I7 9~2.9~7~I~2 ~ &'~ City of Chanh~zsen Water Treat-meat Project Advisory Committee. ('PAC) Application The purpose of the PAC ts to provide recommendationz on'the selection of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Study and Design of lZv'ater Treatment in the Clty of Chanhassen. Consultant firms will be prescreened for qualifications by the City of Chanha~sen Stafj~. Ctty of Chanhassen Staff will also par'Mcipate in the PA C to provide technical and operational expertize. Daytime Phone Number: Alternate Phone Number: B-mail: Please describe your reasons for Wanting ~o b9 p_a.rt of,the PAC: : Applications will be reviewed by City Staff for any potent/al conflicts of interest. Additional information may be requested if necessary, City Council w411 review the applications and name the PAC members. NOV. 19. 2001 2'5§PM SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE NO. §625 P. 2/2 City of Chanh~eu Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee (PAC) AppllcaUon The purpose of the PAC i~ to provide recommendation, r on the selection of the Engineering Cottr~tlta~tt Firm for Study and D~sign of ~at~r Treatment in the City of Chanha$szn. Consultant firnts will be prascreened for qualifications by the City of Chanha~s~n Sta~. City of Chanhassen Staff will also participate in the PA C to provide technical and operational a~pertlstt. Name: Larry J. Anderson Addr~s: 400 Cimarron Circlc Daytime Phone Number: 952-939-525¢ Altemat~ Phone Number:. 612-802-6698 E-mail: larry.and~raon@s~a.si~m~ns.com Please describe your reasons for wanting .t9 be part of the PAC: I havc beem unhappy with thc water quality in Chanhassen the last fcw years and this appears to be an axcell~t opportunity to learn about the ~oblem and contribute to a SOIUtiOZL Please provide a brief description of your job history and education. v~ll b, ~ to td~ntif,/ any pot~nt~l oonfltc'~ of tnUr~ Education - Macal~t.~r College 2 Years Univa-sity of Mt--esota 3 Years Degre~ in Electrical F. ngineta'ing from Uaf Minn. Job History - Worked at Westinghouse fat over 30+ yea~ in Engineering, Sales, Msrketi.g. and Management positions. SIEMENS .................................... purchased Westinghouse in 1998 and I sm cun'emtly working for SIEMENS a~ a Ncgotiatio~AgpHcation Bngineer. Applications will be reviewed by City Staff for any potential conflicts of interest. Add,/tional informaxion may be reque, at~t ifnecesaary. City Council will review the applications and ri.me the PAC members. CF OF 690 City Center Drive PO Boc I47 C3anhauen, iinn~ta 55317 P~one 952.937.1900 Gentral Fax 952.93,7.5/"39 Engineeing D~rtn~t Fax 952.937.9152 Building Depar~nent Fax 952934.2524 Wtb $itt wwta ci. chanhauen, mn. us City of Chanhassen Water Treatment Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Application The purpose of the PA C is to provide recommendations on the selection of the Engineering Consultant Firm for Study and Design of Water Treatment in the City of Chanhassen. Consultant firms will be pre. screened for qualifications by the City of Chanhassen Staff. City of Chanhassen Staff will also participate in the PA C to provide technical and operational expertise. Name: D-O t¢-~' ~-t, 3-7 .' o' ~ ~' ~ D"x2.r Address: ~:~'zo, L~, ,.~, ~.- ~--~ ~, ,<_~ ~ ~ Daytime Phone Number: '~ s-z_--- ~ :r7 -- ~ '7 ~ ~- Alternate Phone Number: · Please describe your reasons for wanting to be part of the PAC: I would like to serve my community. I have lived in Chanhassen nearly 24 years but did not have time because of extensive international travel. My travel is now more limited and I can schedule my time. I am an electrical engineer, a Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota and understand automatic control systems. I was Superintendent of Communieatiort, Protection and Control Systems at NSP and was Manager of Embedded Automation for the Y2K Project office at NSP. I can bring these experiences to help my community. Please provide a brief description of your job l'dstory and education, rht, information will be used to identify an)~ potential confllcts of interest. My short resume is attached. Other information appropriate to the PAC is as follows: I understand water systems and have installed and tapped water mains in two cities during my college days. I have also served as a consultant on control system problems at waste water treatment plants in two different cities. I can also help explain the water systems and automatic control systems to my colleagues on the PAC. I am the CEO of Thorson Engineers Inc whose main business is helping US companies get into the electric utility business in Europe and European companies in the utility business in North America. There is no conflict of interest with my business and the PAC. Additional information may be requested if neees~a~. City Council will review the applications and name the PAC members. John M. Jr. John M. Thomon, Jr. 7320 Longvlew Circle Chanhessen, Mlnneaota 55317 612/937-0714 (O) 612/934-0254 (H) Summary of Experience Over 45 Years of experience: · Jack Thorson is Praaldent of Thomon Engineem, Inc~, a consulting company .focusing on helping US companies get into the utility business In Europe and aasisting European companies in the United States. · He ha~ been in the electric utility Industry for 45 years Including the Northern States Power Company, System Operation Department and in international marketing for Control Data Corporation. He was responsible for selling the $50M National and four Regional Energy Management Systems that control all of the power in England and Wales. He sold similar systems for Poland and Nonvay. He also worked In Russia. · As a consultant, he helped US companies set up new businesses in Poland, England and France. I-lb clients Include General Electric, Hathaway Instruments, Stanford Research Intemational, Illinois Inslituta of Technology, E]ecbtc Power Research InslYoJte, NRG Energy and Scottish Hydro ~ He IS pr~ Manager, Embedded Automa0on and Con'dngenc~ Planning, Year 2000 Project Office, Northern States Power Company. · Jack is a Felk3w of the Institute of Eleclric~ and Electronic Engineers, a member of lfle Intenla~:~-mJ Conference of High Voltage Electric Systems and is one of It's eight US Advisors on System Operation and one of irs eight Advfl(xs on Power SyStem Comrnunicatlona. He is also head of the US Na0onal Commiltee to the International Eieclmmechank~ ~ Technical Committee 57, the Intern~ standards writing body for Power Systems control and Associated Commun~ and has forty twa US Advisors working with him. · He received his BSEE from Iowa State University and is a registered professk3nal engineer in the State of Minnesota. ClTYOF PO Bar l,t7 ~ M'mmna 55317 C~eral F~ 952937.5739 952.93Z~152 9529342524 TO: Todd ~ Ci~ ~;~nag~ DATE: 2002 Meeting Schedule Attached please find a 2002 calendar depicting the City Council's meeting schedule based on meeting on the second and fourth Monday~ of the month. There are two meetings that fall on holidays~May 27 and November 11. When this has happened in the past, we have simply moved that meeting to the following Tuesday evening. Additionally, we typically only schedule one meeting in Dece~. Approval of the attached ~g schedule is recommended.- 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN S M T ~/ T '~= 2 3 4 13 14 16 17 19 2O 23 24 26 27 28. 29 30. 31 MAY 200~. ' 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 SEPTEMBER 2002 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 FEBRUARY 2002' ! S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4~ 6 7~ 9 10 11 12~141!15 16 24 27 28 MARCH 20O2 i S M T W T F1S 2 3 4~ 7~ 9 10 11 14 16 17 18 ~BI~2(; 21 23 24 25~27 28 29 3O 31 JU. oo - § M T W T F S 2 3 5 6 7 91011 13 ~'1 16 17 19 20 23 24 26 27 291 I 30 ..... J'uLY 2002 I S 'M T W T F S6' 1 5 7 8 9 13I 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 .24 25 27 28 29 30 31 ' OCTOBER'20~2 S M T'W' ' 6 7 8 13 14 20 21 27 28 29 3O 31 10 11 12 16 17 19 23 24 25 26 NOVEMBER 2002 S2I 'S M T W T' F' ' 3 4 6 7 8 9 14 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 APRIL 2002 S M T'W'¥ F S 1 .~~~ 41 ~ 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 30 g :~user~klm~..alendar AUGUST 2002 ' ' SM'T'WT F S 1 2 3 4 e 11 12~ 15 17 18 19~ 21 22 24 25-28 28 29 30 31 DECEMBER 2002 ' s'M~W'TF S 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 28 22 23 24~ 26 29 30 31 CITY HOLIDAYS COUNCIL MEETINGS PLANNING COMMISSION PARK & REC COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SENIOR COMMISSION PAYDAYS Last Updated 11/29/2001 C1TYOF CHANHASSEN ~ ~.ve~ot~ 553~7 952.93Z1900 95293Z5739 952.93Z9152 952.9342524 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB& Approval of Temporary Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, Febnmry 2, 2002 Attached please find an application for a one-day beer license from the Chanhassen Lions Club. The Lions would like to sell beer at the city's annual February Festival on ~ Ann on February 2, 2002. Also attached is the liquor liability insurance certificate covering this event. RECOMMENDATION . · Staff recommends approval of the Chanhassen Lions Club'request to sell beer at the Februar~ Festival on lake Ann on. February 2, 2002 for-a fee'of $1.00. February 3'" has been established, as an alternate date in the event of inclement weather. Minnesota Department of Public S~ LIQUOR CONTROL DMSION 444 Cedar St./Suite 100L St. Paul, MN 55101.2156 (612)296-~39 ~D (612)282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE -LIQUOR LICENSE (Organization or location limited to 3 permits in a 12 month period) a PE OR P ,m rr n O TION NAME OF OROANIZATION Lions of Chsnhassen STREET ADDRESS P.0. Box 484 NAME. OF ~ON MAKING APPLICATION Scott Wirth DA~S ~QUOR W~ BE SOLD (1 to 4 ~) February 2, 2002 ORGANIT_.ATION OFFICER'S NAME ,S~eve Somerville (President) ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME Cory Robinson, Vice-President ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME DATE ORO~rrZl~ lSO ., CITY Chanhaesen STATE MN TAX E.XE~ NU~ER 41-62 ZIP CODE 55317 BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE 052) 445-78i/. 052) 8,54-7568 TYPE OF ORGANIZaTiON [] CLUB [] CHARITABLE D RELIOIOUS [] OTHER NONPROFIT ! ADDRESS . 1425 Meadow Ct., Chaska, MN 553~8 . ADDRESS 1427 Colorad.o Ave.., #311, St. Louie Park 55416 ADDRESS Cvrtis Robinson (Treasurer) 202 West 77th Str. eet,-Chenhaseen, M.N 55317 Loc, afi~ wtmm liccnsc mil bc u~xl. If an' ou~r arc~ dcscrib'c ........ L~_ke ^hq ~ommynity Park, 7500 L~o Anq p~rk Drive. Chanhassgn grdl th~ applir, ant contrect for intoxi~ting liquor s~viccs? If so, give thc nemc and addross of thc Lkluor ~ providing tho grvi~. Will thc appli~nt carry liquor liability insuramm? If so, thc oarri~ s name and amount of ooverage. (NOTE: Insuran~ is not mandatory). Attached ii _ _ i .... i _ im i ii lI i ii i r I I I I I I ~1 Iim I · I_q _ j_ i APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPRbVED BY CITY OR COUN~ BEFORE sUBMITTING'TO'L~uoR'~oNTROL CITY/COUNT. Y C~Y FEE AMO~ DATE FEE PAID SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL .... j ....... i . i~ DATE APPROVED LICENSE DATES ................... APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR NOTE: Do not separate these two parts, send both parts to the address above and the orlglmd signed by thb dlvblon ~11 be returned a~ the license. Submit to the City or County at least 30 day~ before the event. ~079~) CORPORATE 4 ~NS AGENCY, 7220 METRO BOULEVARD EDZNA, ~ 55439-2133 ONLY AND CONFER~ NO RIGHT~ UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIRCATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIE8 BELOW. INSUREI~ AFFORDING COVERAGE u~UR~ Lexington Znsurance ~ny ueu~ Chanhassen L~ons Club PO Box 484 Chanhusen, MN 553~7 · COVERAGF~ ~SUR~ e 'FHE POLICIES OF INSURANCE lISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN Lq, SUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POUCY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWT'I'HSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT wI'rH RESPECT TO WI..IICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRJBED HERE]N 18 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCi. USI~ AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. A~TE UMIT8 SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN RE[:X.ICED BY PAID ( I'YPE OF INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIAL ~ MABJI.ITY __ CI.NM~ MA~E E~~R GEML AGC. da, EC~TE UMIT APPLIES PER: POUCY NUMBER RETENTION S ~ COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER~ ~ 06/30/200! 06/30/2002 ADDED BY ENDORSEMI NT/~PECL~J. PROV]~J~ IN~ F_N~.I OCCt.~RENCE $ MED EXP (Any am p~m) $ PE~SOHN. & ADV ~LK;RY S GENE~IG. AGGREGATE $ AL/TO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH~ S. ~TE S S S S EJ- ~ - EA EMPLOY~ EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT Per occurrence $1,000,000 Aggregate $1,000,000 RECEIVED o~e~ 152 uor Liability MAY 5 2001- CERTIFICATE HOLDER I IADO~NAL'JNOuRBD;INsuRER~ Ctty of Chanhassen Ctty Hall Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CANCELLATION CT 0F PO llar147 ~ ~ 55317 952.937.1900 952.937.5739 952.937.9152 95Z93d2524 ll~b Site MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: December 10, 2001 One Unit Per 10 Acre Outside MUSA PROPOSAL SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the zoning ordinance be amended to clarify that subdivisions in the Agricultural Estate District (A-2) and Rural Residential (PR) districts located outside the urban services area are required to maintain a one unit per 10 acre density. EXISTING ORDINANCE Section 20-575 (1). A-2, Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2½) acres, subject to Section 2O-906 Section 20-595 (1) RR, Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2½) acres, subject to Section 20-906 Sec. 20-906 Alternate lot size req~ts in A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts. Minimum lot size requirements in the A-2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Urban Service Area shall be regulated by article IX and article X of this chapter,.respectively, or in the alternative may be ~ thousand (15,000).square feet if the following conditions are mec (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained. This requirement shall not apply to lots of record in existence on January 15, 1987 or lots create~ thereafter if they were subject to a pending subdivision application on that d_at¢ and the lots were cmatext as a result of that application. (2) All lots must have soil and water conditions that permit a well. Planning Commission November 20, 2001 Page 2 (3) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems installed in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (4) The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one of the parcels. Transfer of development fights from one parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in paragraph (7) below. (5) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one (1) parcel of land to another is not allowed. (6) Each site must have an area that can support two (2) septic system sites, on a slope of less than twenty-five (25) percent. (7) Parcel~ that do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel that does · have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 170,.§ 3, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 3, 10-11-93; Ord. No. 240, § 23, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 307, § 1, 7-24-00) The comprehensive plan land use element states that, "the only means by which new lots can be created is from clustering 2.5 acre lots at a gross density'of 1 home per 10 Acres." The proposed amendment would implement this policy. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, As was intended by the City's agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) expansion approved in 1989, city ordinances are required to maintain a one unit per 10-acre density outside the MUSA. Section 20-906 requires that a one unit per 10-acre density be required for subdivisions outside the MUSA for lots down to 15,000 square feet. Otherwise, the development must meet the minimum lot size in the A-2 and RR districts. The proposed amendment would clarify that the one unit per 10-acre density shall be maintained for ail proposed lots outside the current MUSA. Thus the zoning ordinance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff has prepared a bold format to show proposed changes to the ordinance. Planning Commission November 20, 2001 Page 3 Section 20-575 (1). A-2, Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2½) acres, subject to Section 20-906. A one-unit per ten. acre gross density shah be main~ed for proposed lots outside the approved Metropolitan Urban Services Area in effect at the time of a proposed development. This requirement shah not apply to lots of record in existence on January 15,1987, or lots created thereafter if they were subject to a pending subdivision application on that date and the lots were created as a result of that application. The one-unit per ten.acre density applies to' contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one of the parcels. Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Section 20-595 (1) RR, Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot ama is two and one-half (2V2) acres, subject to Section 20-906. A one-unit per ten-acre gross density shall be maintained for proposed lots outside the approved Metropolitan Urban Services Area in effect at the time of a proposed development. This requirement shall not' apply to lots of record in existence on January 15, 1987 or lots created thereafter if they were subject to a pending subdivision application on that date and the lots were created as a result of that application. The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one of the parcels. Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities renmining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2001 to review the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to sections 20-575 and 20-595 requiring a density of one unit per 10 acres for subdivisions outside the Metropolitan Urban Services Are~ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motion: 'Whe Chanhassen City Council approves the attached ordinance amending Sections 20-575 and 20-595." Planning Commission September 18, 2001 Page 4 1. Ordinance Amending Section 20-575 (1) and 20-595 (1) City of Chanhassen Code 2. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/20/01 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIF_S, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMI~NDING CHAPTER 20 OF ~ CHANHASSEN CITY CODE~ THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-575 (1) of the Chanhassen City Code, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-575 (1). Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2!6) acres, subject to Section 20-906. A one-unit per ten-acre gross density shall be maintained for proposed lots outside the approved Metropolitan Urban Services Area in effect at the time of a proposed development. This requirement shall not apply to lots of record in existence on January 15, 1987 or lots mated thereafter if they were subject to a pending subdivision application on that date and the lots were created as a result of that application. The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one - of the parcels. Once a building eligibility has been used fora property, a development contract must be recorded With the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining or documenting that no building eligibility . remains. Section 2. Section 20-595 (1) of the Chanhassen City Code, is hereby amended as follows: : Section 20-595 (1) RR, Lot requirements and setbacks. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2]6) acres, subject to Section 20- 906. A one-unit per ten-acre gross density shall be maintained for proposed lots outside the approved Metropolitan Urban Services Area in effect at the time of a proposed development. This requirement shall not apply to lots of record in existence on January 15, 1987 or lots created thereafter if they were subject to a pending subdivision application on that date and the lots were created as a result of that application. The one-unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one of the parcels. Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded With the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ,2001. ATrEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor g:kadmin~ord\One unit per 10 acre Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 20-575 AND 20-595 REQUIRING ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRE DENSITY FOR SUBDIVISIONS OUTSIDE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREA (MUSA). Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, so basically Bob you're just telling me this is a housekeeping amenctm~t~ It doesn't change anything? Generous: No. Aanenson: This is how we've been interpreting, just to get clarity. Right now there's a lot of pressure for properties that are close to the urban service area and just to give clarity. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, any questions? Feilc One quick one. Just a point of curiosity. What is the significance of January 15~ '87. Just formy own edification. Genexous: That was the original agreement under the Met Council. Aanenson: Met Council date. Feik: That's it. Blackowialc Okay, Uli. Question. Sacche~. Yeah. It took me a while to understand what this really was. Actually I needed Sharmin to be the translator. I was trying to reach you Bob. Blackowiak: You needed that one sentence version, right7 Sacchet: It took me a while but after Sharmin was translating this to me, it actually made sense. I however have one question. In your groan, one sentence with the two, that repeats itself twice, it still refers in both cases to Section 20-906. And 20-906 has these bullets 1 through 7. And it appears that bullet 1, at least the first half of bullet 4 and about the first 2/3 of bullet 5 are repeated in those groan one sentences. Generous: That's correct. Sacchec Are they still there in addition? Generous: Yes. That would be the alternative if someone wanted. Sacchet: They're both there. Generous: Yes, they're both there. Sacchet: Why do we need them both places? Planning Comrrfission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Generous: Well if someone wanted to take a land outside the urban service area. Let's say they had 30 acres, and it's guided for low density residential so in the future we anticipate a more suburban type development, they could get their 3 units out of it, but go down to the 15,000 square foot and not, and sort of ghost plat the rest of it to show how. Sacchet: Right, I understand that part. Generous: So we had to leave that alternative in because people may still want to do that, and we don't want to preclude them from that ability. Sacchet: So there's a good reason to have it 3 places actually. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Well that was my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? No? Okay. This item, is it a public hearing? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes it is. This item is open for a public hearing. Anybody would like to speak on this item, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. Seeing no one, I will close the public. hearing. Commissioners, any additional comments to make before we vote? Okay. I need a motion. Sacchet: I would like to make a motion that, where is it? That the Planning Commission, are we recommending approval? Aanenson: Yes. .. Sacehet: Airight. That the Planning Commission .recommends approval of the attached ordinance amendment amending Section 20-575 and 20-595 as specified in the staff repo.rt. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Single seconded that the Pinnning Commission recommends to approve the attached ordinance amending Sections 20.575 and 20-595. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Okay, would somebody please note the minutes. Aanenson: All 81 pages. Blackowialc All 81 pages. CITY OF · · . PC DATE: November 20, 2001 CC DATE: Dccem. _ij~a' 10, 2001 DEADLINE: 12/21/01 CASE ~. PUDg92-6 LOCATION: APPLICANT: STAFF I REPORT Consider a request for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow uses as permitted in thc Industrial Office Park (lOP) zoning district within thc Arbo/etum Business Park. Southeast quadrant of Highways 5 and 41 Fred Richter Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzats~ MN 55391 - I ACREAGE: 38.1 SUMMARY OF. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development to permit uses permitted in thc IOP district on lots within thc Arboretum Business Park. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-~~G: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, .PUD's~ and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive' Plan. 1 Coach Court 2 Coach Lane 3 Coach Place 4 Coach Dr 5 Village Stroet Village Place 7 Century Cimle 8 Arboretum Village Trl 9 Arboretum Village Cir W 82nd St. Futura st'met :umn Ridge Ct ~mn Ridge Ln Ridge Way Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an amendment to the PUD standards to permit additional uses as permitted in the Industrial Office Park (IOP) District. Specifi~y, they requested that these uses be permi~ in the existing office/industria~ buildings on the site, which are Lots 3, 4, and 5 Blockl and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of the Arboretum Business Park PUD Plan. Staff supports the amendment to the PUD standards to permit additional office industrial uses within Arboretum Business Park. The majority of the changes will affect lots that currently are developed or have received development approval for office-industrial uses. There are other vacant office/industrial properties with the Arboretum Business Park that are governed by the existing standards. Additionally, staff is proposing additional prohibited uses be listed. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the PUD standards as outlined below. BACKGROUND August 13, 2001, the city approved, the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD g92-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with the stipulation that auto body. repair is prohibited on the site, and On June 25, 2001,'the city approved a site plan, ~.J301-6, for a 32,000 sq. ft. '0ffice/manuffaem_fing building (Phase I) for Parker Hannifin CorporatiOn on Lot 2, Block 1, Arbore~ Business Park 2~a . . Addition. On July 26, 1999, the Chanhassen City Council approved an amendment to the PUD for Arboretum Business Park to permit a church facility as an interim use in the building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park.2~a Addition. On July 12, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan #99-13, for a 59,990 sq. ft. office warehouse building (Building Ill) on Lot 2, Block 2, Arbo~ Business Park 2~a Addition. On June 22, 1998, the city approved a site plan for a 55,911 sqtmm foot building (All About Lights) on.Lot 1, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 3nt Addition and a 52~956 square foot building (On The Level) on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2~a Addition. On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved Arboretum Business Park 2t~ Addition consisting of six lots and the right-of-way for Water Tower Place, formerly known as Coulter Boulevard, and a site plan for a 113,600 square feet office-industrial-warehouse buildings (Steiner Building 2). On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD ~245 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. Arboretum Business Park - PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 3 On June 23, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution that the AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in this staff report, that the revisions to the Traffic Study prepared by SRF outlined in the staff report be incorporated into the study, and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. On June 9, 1997, the City Council approved site plan g07-6 for Heartland America, a 101,600 square foot office industrial building (Steiner Building 1) on Lot 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park. On May 27, 1997, the City Council approved the following: Approved the first reading for rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Approved the preliminary PUD g02-6 for an office/industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated fight-of-way subject to the plans dated April 4, 1997, revised May 23, 1997,with conditions. The City Council approved Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary PUD g92-6 approval. The City Council approved Interim Use Permit g97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site subject to conditions. As part of the overall PUD, up to 1,295,350 square feet was evaluated within the Alternate Urban Area wide Review (AUAR), which was the environmenial assessment performed for the development. Within this square footage, the following breakdowns were anticipated: commercial - 81,400 square feet, office- 371,800, and industrial/warehouse- 732,900. The proposed amendments would still be required to stay within these thresholds. To date, the following square footages have been approved: commercial- 14,100, office- 125,000, and.industrial- 291,300 ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Arboretum Business Park Development Standards ANALYSIS The proposed amendment is in response to the developers attempt to lease existing buildings within the development. As part of their request, they ask that the city permit uses similar to those in the Industrial Office Park district. While most of the uses fi.om the IOP district are included, some are not addressed, some apply to specific properties, and others are prohibited. Staff believes that it is appropriate to differentiate the Arboretum Business Park from other industrial office parks. However, we also believe that some additional flexibility is approPriate. Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 4 These mix of uses were to provide a synenergy to the development, cre~g a sense of place. However, changing market conditions and demographics require that flexibility be built into the development. The applicant is requesting that the proposed amendment apply to Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 2 and 3, Block 4. Existing Design Standards The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks and Lots for which they are spedfied below. The Blocks and Lots specified below are those desi~ on the attached PUD plan. The Block and Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the LOts -. identified in the PUD plan. L/gM Induar/d- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed stmeu~, with no outside. storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration,. smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) -- Warehousing - Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal ~. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4) Office - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Blockl; LOt 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lotsl, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4) Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fimess conditioning. (Lot 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4) Hotel/Motel-establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Arboretum Business Park - PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 5 Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box) 1. Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or LOt 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant.) 2. Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet, on Lot 1 or 2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store.) 3. Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; LOt 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4) 4. Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4) 5. Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) (amended 8/13/01) Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use) 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). 2. Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center). 3. Showroom - showroom type.display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.[for entire development]. (Amended 8/25/97) 4. Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only. 5. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. 6. Day Care Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e., assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: 1. The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on LOts 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2na Addition. 2. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. . Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited uses · Contractors Yard · Lumber Yard Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 6 · Home ImprovemenffBuilding Supply · Garden Center · Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (mended 8/13/01) · Home furnishings and equipment stores · General Merchandise Store Industrial Office Park District (lOP) district Permitted Offices Warehouses Light manufacturing Vocational School Health Services Printers Indoor Health and recreation clubs Body shops Utility services Recording Studios Off-premises parking lots Conference/convention centers Commercial antennas Permitted Accessory_ Uses Parking lots and ramps Signs Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site State licensed day care center Conditional Uses Communication transmission towers Public buildings Motor freight terminals Outdoor health and recreation clubs Screened outdoor storage Research laboratories Contracting yards Home Improvement trades Hotels and motels Food processing State-licensed day care centers as a separate facility State-licensed day care centers as part of a Multi-tenant building Not addressed permitt~ on specific parcels not addmss~not permiRed permitted on specific parcels prohibited permitted on specific lots not addressed not addressed/not permitted permitted, on specific lots ancillary use as conditional use ancillary use as conditional use not addressed/not permitted permitted under warehousing not addressed/not permitted not permiRed per light manufacturing pemfitted under light manufacturing prohibited prohibited permitted on specific lots not addressed/not permitted permitt~ on specific lots permitted on specific lots/ancillary Arboretum Business Park - PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 7 Commercial towers ancillary use as conditional use Staff supports the following changes: Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 4) *This amendment expands the area in which recreation health clubs are permitted to developed sites. Since these existing buildings are all multi-tenant spaces, the amendment will not encourage a single tenant user on these sites. Light Industrial- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, printing or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots. 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) *Staff had always assumed that printing would be classified as a light industrial use. The proposed amendment would clarify that such a use would be permitted within the development. Printing users would fit in to the economic niche already located in Chanhassen, e.g., Instanf Web, Banta, etc. Recording Studio - Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 2 and 3, Block 4. *Staff believes this type of use would be an appropriate tenant within a multi-tenant building. Staff recommends that we prohibit lots from developing as off site parking lots, vocational school, public buildings, screened outdoor storage, and food processing. *The vocational school and public building were never anticipated as a user within the Arboretum Business Park PUD. A outdoor storage and food processing industry is not really compatible with the corporate vision anticipated within the development. Additionally, there are potential visual, audio and olfactory issues associated with these uses. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2001 to review the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revision to the PUD. Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 8 Part of the discussion centered on the distinction between professional training, which any business is permitted to do, and vocation schools, which are defined as establishments primarily engaged in offering specialized vocational courses, including schools such as banking, commercial art, construction equipment, correspondence schools, nursing schools, real estate schools, restaurant operation, trade schools, and track driving schools. The distinction between training and vocation schools is that training generally is teaching someone how to use specific equipment, manufactured or sold on the site, or operations for an employer while a vocational school teaches individuals skills and theory for a career or occupation. The Planning Commission concurred with staff that the former O.e., training) is permitted, but that the latter (vocational schools) should be prohibited. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: 'The Chanhassen City Council approves the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) development design standards section b. as highlighted below (changes are shown in bold and underlined): · · . - . b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined heroin. If there is a que.~on.as to Whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall, make that interpreiation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks and Lots. for which they are specified below. The Blocks and Lots specified below are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The Block and Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ from those specified below. However, the permiRed uses shall continue to be those specified below for the Lots . . identified in the PUD plan. ' -- · · · L/gM lndustr/a/- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, printine or testing of goods or equipment or reseamh activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Warehousing - Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal ~. (Lots 3,'4~ .- and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4) Office - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Blockl; Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lotsl, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 9 Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4) Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fimess conditioning. (Lots 3~ 4 and 5~ Block 1.; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lots 2~ 3 and 4, Block 4) Hotel/Motel-establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block I; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Recording Studio - Lots 3~ 4 and 5~ Block 1; Lots 2 and 3~ Block 4. Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box) m . . . Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant.) Convenience store with or without-gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet, on Lot 1 or 2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store.) Banks,.with or without drive up windows (Lots 1-and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) (amended 8/13/01) Ancillary Uses (in conjunction With'and integral to a primary use) . . . Fas~ Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center). Showroom - showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-sim provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.[for entire development]. (Amended 8/25/97) Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. Day Care Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 10 Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e., assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: 1. The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2"a Addition. 2. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. 3. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited uses · Contractors Yard · Lumber Yard · Home Improvement/Building Supply · Garden Center · Auto related including sales and repair, except On the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01) · Home furnishings and equipment stores · General Merchandise Store '- -. · Vocational School · Public buildings~ except on Outlots A and B~ Which are public park land · Screened outdoor storage · Food processine ATrACHMENTS 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Development Review Application 4. Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/20/01 7. Second Amendment to Arboretum Business Park Development Contract/PUD Agreement Arboretum Business Park - PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND I-IF~~IN COUNTIF_S, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Steiner Development, Inc. for Amendment On November 20, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Steiner Development, Inc. for an amendment to , the Planned Unit Development to permit uses as outlined in the Industrial Office Park District. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT . , a) b) The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial use. The legal description of the property is: Arboretum Business Park, Arboretum Business Park 2~a Addition and Arboretum Business Park 3~a Addition. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Arboretum Business Park- PUD Amendment November 20, 2001 Page 12 c) The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report # 92-6 PUD dated November 20, 2001, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that~the City Council approve the amendment as outlined' in the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of November 2001. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary g:~plan~bg~ertxx~tum busines parl~mend PUD (IOP uses).doc BB/BZ/81 89:54:48 61 Z-937-5739-> ST~INER DEVELOP~RNT INC. 9524737858 1~002 887 OITY OP OHANHABBBN Bi000ULTBR DRIVB CHANHASgBN, MN 883'11 DBVBLOPM~I~rT REVIEW APPI. iOATION ADDRE$8: ~, TitLEPHONE; ........ -- _ --meal_ mi ...... ___ - m mm i_ ___ Comprahe'nelve Plan Amendment -- _ I .. Interim Ua4 Perrhlt ___ 8~gn Parmitm Sign Plan Review Bite Plan Review' 8ubdivl~lon' --_ - --- i . - --- i __m ! · ii _ ..... __ L :__ m m _ lit _ __ Tempom~ au;em Permit -- I m il Il m _ i · _, Var. at]on of ROW/E~emen*,. Wetland ARamtton Permit -- m mi . L ___ Zoning Appeal · __ '11 _-- Zoning Ordinance Amendment m ---m m Notification algn ~ eaerow ~ F;ng-FeegA~'ney Coat*' (1~00UP/SPRNAC, NAR/WAP/Mmtes and Boundm, 1400 Minor SUB) , -- ... TOTAL FEE $ ~ mm mm I k flat of ill property ownmm within ~00 rem of the boundlHil Df Ule properS( mumm be Inoludad with the applk~lUon, Building m/tarlal mamplea muet be .ubmltted with mite plan mvlewm, "Twan~-elX full ~tlze foldmd~ ooplaa of the plane muat be iubmitt, d, Inoludlng ~ aW' X 11" reduced Gopy of tranepmmnw'for each plan aheet. · * Eaatow Will be requited far o~ar applJcmUonm through the development oontmot NOTE · V~en multiple applications are procemaed, the appropriate fee ihall be charged ~or eaoh appi~,atlon. t0/22/01 t~:42 ~ 05247~7058 EIB/BZ/Bt B9 :SS :EI~ 81Z-9:37-5739-> ·. STEINER DI~LO~ INC. 9..~.4737BSB 1~003 Pa~e 983 PRCUEOT NAME ' . - ~/. ~ ~ ~= __~o ~~~~~ - ' ~ I ~ ~n~ ~~ ~ ~~a O~ ~~ pr~a. ~ ~ ~ ~~n, you ~ ~ ~ ~ P~nl~ ~ I i ~ G~ r~M~n~ ~. ~ ~ ~1~ r~u~L ~'~~ ~-~ p~ed ~ ~ ~ a~ I em ~-M~ w~m ~~, "..- :-.. ~e ~ ~ no~flel ~ e~nt ~at davit ~ '~t ~' m~~ ~ ~0 ~ due ~ p~ ~m~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~m, me ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ mat ~ ~ ~u~ .n ~~ . ......... The aPldleant ahould codtaet ataff for a copy of fha -,taft report wlfloh wffl be Ivallabl~ o~ Friday prior to the meeting. il not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllam~ ,addree~, ~zJ uu~ Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (952)473-5650 Fax (952)473-7058 October 15, 2001 Todd Gerhardt City Manager City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 FAX: 952 937 5739 RE: Arboretum Business Park PUD Amendment Dear Todd: Steiner Development would like to request more latitude in the permitted uses on several of the lots ( Bldg 1, Bldg 2, Bldg 3 and lots 1-Block.4, and Lot-Block 2) In Arbor.arum Business Park. We would like language similar to the lOP District, which broadens the uses compared to the existing language that only permits Light Industrial, Warehousing and Office. We are presently negotiating with a tenant for our third building which Is an office recreation use with a portion of the business providing athletic instruction and batting cages etc. to the' local school districts. We are constantly seeing a variety of users that more closely reflects the language of the lOP District and would like to be able to quickly respond to these opportunities without having to apply for conditional use permits etc. Attached is information from our PUD and the lOP District'..for your reference. I will contact you to determine City Staff's recommendation as to how we should proceed. Thank you for cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. C_,c. Fnardt.do~P:kProj~s\Chan 5 & 41-Phase 2V3~rhnrdt.doc .o_ 10/22/01 13:43 FA/ 9524737058 STEINER DEVEL0~ INC. ~005 Chapter 20 ZONING* ARTICLE XXlI. "lOp" INDU.STRIAL OFFICE pARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. Sec. 20-811. Intent. The Intent of the "lOP' District Is to provide an area Identified for large scale light Industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. The following (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (6) (10) (12) (13) Permitted uses. uses are permitted in an "lOP" District:. Offices. Warehouses. Light manufacturing. Vocational school. Health services. Printers. Indoor health and recreation clubs. Body shops7 Utility services. Recording studios. Off-premises parking lots. Conference/convention centers. commercial antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 240, § 21,7-25-95; Ord. No. 259, § 27, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses In an "lOP' District: (1) Parking lots and ramps. (2) Signs. · . (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty (20) percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (4) StateAIcensed day care c, enter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 93, § 1, 7-25-88) Sec. 20-814. Conditional u$e~. STEINER D~VELOPMENT INC. (~008 EXHIBIT ARBORETU~ BUSINESS PARK DEVELOP~NT DESIGN 8T~DARDS i ill i i il Development Standards A. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Photo- composite images'of proposed development adjacent to Highways 5 and 41 shall be submitted as part of the review process. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below if they are ancillary to a principal use on the individual lot. Commercial/retail uses are prohibited except those uses specifically noted below. B. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or'not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks and Lots for which they are specified below. The Blocks and Lots specified below are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The Block and Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the Lots identified in the PUD plan. ~ Induseria~- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, a~-~-~ling, D=c-~kaging, or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding. environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the wrase property) ~~- Means the commercial storage of merchandise and ~-ua&u~property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4) STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. ~] 007 10/22/01 13:43 FA/, 9524737058 Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and ; Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lotsl, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Health Services - Establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, .surgical and other health'services to persons- (Lots 1 a~d 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Conferences/Convert=ion Center - Establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4) Indoor Recreation/Health Club - Establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Hotel/Motel - Establishments engaged in furnishing' lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, '4, and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box) I · Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant) , Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet, on. Lot i or 2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store) · Banks, with or without drive up windows. (Lots i and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) · Day Care - Establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) (Lots Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use) STEINER DEVIgLOPIIENT INC. ~004/005 ITATi ilelftJAY ~ ff · ,,' ,, PARK PARK j' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Amendment to Planned Unit Development APPLICANT: Steiner Development LOCATION: Arboretum Business Park NOTICE: You am Invited to attend a public, hearing about a pmposel in your area. The applicant, Steiner Development, Is requesting for an amendment to the P~anned Untt Development to Arboretum Business Park to revise the permitted uses within the development similar to the permitted uses in the Industrial Office Park district. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: . . . . 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses the project. :. -. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through F_ rlday. If you wish.to talk to someone about this project,-;. please contact Bob'937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, E is helpful to have one copy to the department In advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission; .. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen' Villager on' November 8, 2001. W 82nd St. /Xrham~m Bouleva, CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTEREII~BOX 147 CHANHASSEN M/q 55317 CENTURY 2000 PARTNERS ! J.P 3610 SOUTH HWY 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455 WATERTOWER PARTNERS LLC PO BOX 265 WACONIA MN 55387 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLD MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455 ARBORETUM III REALTY FTRS rJ.P 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 COEUR TERRA LLP 3610 SOUTH HW'Y 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTERIS[RBOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTC/qER 690 CITY CENTERI.'IRBOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTEREIRBOX 147 CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RDI01 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKAGATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CORD101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD I01 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN ACQUISITIONS LLC 2036 WASHINGTON ST HANOVER MD 02339 Adopted 7/28/98 Amended 7/26/99 Amended 8/13/01 EXHIBIT C ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS Development Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Photo- composite images of proposed development adjacent to Highways 5 and 41 shall be submitted as part of the review process. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below if they' are ancillary to a principal use on the individual'lot. Commercial/retail uses are prohibited. except those uses specifically noted below..- .- b. Permitted Uses The perrni~ uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined hcavin. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks and Lots for which they are specified below. The Blocks and Lots specified below are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The Block and Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ fi-om those specified below. However, the permit~ uses shall continue to be those specified below for the Lots identified in the PUD plan. Light Industrial- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or te~ng of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Warehousing - Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4) Office - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Blockl; LOt 1, Block 2; LOt 1, Block 3; Lotsl, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4) Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Hotel/Motel-establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box) 1. Restaurant, permitted on LOt 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4.' (One stand alone restaurant.) 2. Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to excee, d 12,000 square feet, on Lot 1 or 2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store.) 3. Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) 4. Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lo. ts 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) 5. Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) (amended 8/13/01) Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use) 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). 2. Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention]conference center). 3. Showroom - showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for Such display and sales.[for entire development]. (Amended 8/25/97) 4. Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only. 5. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. 6. Day Cam Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e., assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: 1. The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2n~ Addition. 2. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. 3. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited uses · Contractors Yard · Lumber Yard · Home Improvement/Building Supply · Garden Center · Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01) · . · Home furnishings and equipment stores · General Merchandise Store c. Setbacks The development is regulated by the Highway 5 and the PUD Standards. There are no minimum requirements for setbacks on interior lot lines in the PUD zone. The following setbacks shall apply: Street Frontage Minimum Setback Buildin~Parking 70/50 Hwys. 5 &41 Coulter & Century 50/20 100 Boulevards 82~ & West Local 30/20 NA *Lot 5, Block 4, must only meet the maximum setback on one Highway frontage. Ma~ximum Setback 150 * The average hard surface coverage does not include Ouflots A and B. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Any one site/lot cam exceed the 70 percent requirement but in no case can the entire finished development exceed 70 percent d. Development Standards Tabulation Box 1. Building Ama LOT/USE ACRES Building Size~AR ual~ PARKING Street Dedication 1.80 Upland 16.6 30 Wetland 28.7 Ponds 3.01 Lot 3, Block i 10.02 131,006 262 Lot 4, Block 1 5.45 71,218 142 Lot 5, Block 1 4.41 57,688 115 Lot 1, Block 4 4.38 57,199 114 Lot 2, Block 4 5.40 70, 597 141 Lot 3, Block 4 8.98 117,371 235 Lot 1, Block 2 12.23 159,822 320 Lot 5, Block 4 23.20 (.4 FAR) 404,279 1,213 Lot 1, Block 1 1.80 11,746 / 23,520 Lot 2, Blockl 2.32 15,180 / 30,320 Lot 4, Block 4 Office/Hotel Lotl, Block 3 Restaurant/Office 4.06 6.41 26,536 / 53,060 (.10FAR) 27937 / 83,770 (4/1000) 61 (5/1000) 133 (16/I000) 447 Commercial sites may develop as office-industrial uses. Square footage for individual lots may be reallocated within the development, by type, provided the maximum square footage is not exceeded. Building Square Footage Breakdown Light Industrial Warehouse Commercial Total *includes the Wrase property. industrial uses 31% 31% 31% 7% 100% 368,000 / (432,000) 368,000 / (4~2,000) 368,000 / (432,000) 81,ooo / (o) 1,186,ooo / O, gs,ooo) ( ) represents conversion of commerdal uses to office- More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. 3. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. e le m e . Se 6~ e Lot 5, Block 4, is intended, to accommodate a major corporate headq~ or office, reseamh, high end manufacturing with limited warehousing type user. While the majority of the development is based on 30 pement office space, Lot 5 must have a minimum of 40. percent office use and include multi-story building(s). . . Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that thc development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. All materials shall be Of high quality and durable2 .Maso~ maledal shall be used. Color shall be introduc~ through colored block or panels and not painted cinder block. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-mSt, and shall be finished in stone, textured,.._ coated, or painted. Metal siding will not be approved except as support mai_axial to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as I-IVAC screen. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the pfim~ structure. m 10. 11 12. lJ 1 All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material or · camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. The use of large unadorned, pre-stressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an enclosure for each lot developed in the Business Center. Each buildings shall contain one or more pitched roof elements depending on scale and type of building, or other architectural treatments such as towers, arches, vaults; entryway projections, canopies and detailing to add additional interest and articulation to structures. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of buildings visible from public right-of-ways. All elevations visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Site Landscaping and Screening Landscaping along Highways 41 and 5 shall Comply with Buffer yard standard C. Coulter Boulevard, Century Boulevard, and West 82"d Street shall comply with Buffer yard standard B. The master landscape plan for the Arboretum Business Park (formerly Gateway) PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. Undulating or angular berms or elevation changes of 3' in height shall be placed along Coulter Boulevard, and Century Boulevard. The berrns shall be sodded or se2xted at the conclusion of each project Phase grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. . 2. e e e e . . 2. Loading areas shall be screened 100 percent year round from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appwpriate. Signage All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treamaent is an element of the architecture and thus should refletJt the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. The Arboretum Business Park PUD shall be permitted two Arboretum' Business Park identification signs. One sign per p/ojeet enuance~ at West 82t~ and Century Boulevard and at. Highway 41 and the westerly roadway, shall be permitted. Said sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign area nor be greater than eight feet in height. Wall sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. In addition to the two signs identified in g. 5. above, signage for the main entrance on Highway 5 and Century Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting along the existing Coulter Boulevard. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps or metal halide lights) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. All light fixtures shall ~ shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. L Alternative Access le Each site shall accommodate transit service within the individual development whenever possible. Pedestrian access shall be provided from each site to the public sidewalk and trail system. The developer and site users shall promote and encourage Traffic Demand Management Strategies. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. II II II u,I Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 16. The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda, which will be? Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made. Blackowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December. Aanenson: Probably January. Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for coming and I urge you to follow this item. We will be getting another mailing out.to you when the next meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received. And also I'd like to recommend that for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting; PUBLIC HEARING:, CONSIDER A REQU~qT FOR AN AMRNDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES W1THIN THE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO TI-IF~ PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL QFFI(~E PARK DISTRIQT, STEINER DEVELQPMENT. Public Present: NAme Address J. Polster Joe Smith Fred Richter 681 August Drive, Chaska 3610 County Road 101, Minnetonka 3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a half. One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we want to make that an exclusion? Could we specify that. Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Generous: Part of my view that I was thinking along the lines of a Dunwoody where we'd have a non- profit that would come in there. It is conceivable that if they went into an individual building, training type school would be appropriate and maybe that's something that we can look at. I set this up more f~r discussion to see what the policy of the Planning Commission and Council would like to go with that. The applicant I know has some comments on that also and so. Sacchet: That's my half question, which is really more a question for the applicant but from your view, do the suggested alterations to the PUD, do they meet the applicant's current need? Generous: Except for, let him bring it up. Sacchet: We'll let him talk about it. Yeah, okay. Generous: His discussions were on well what if a business had a training comtxment to that, would we consider that a vocational school and so that became'a classification discussion. Sacchet: But other than that you think it is. Generous: And then the bakery, well the food processing. He said that in other industrial buildings they have, they have bakeries that come into an individual unit and they're as concerned as the city would be for any off-site impacts with that because of the multi-tenant buildings and so that might be an issue he'll bring up. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions for staff~ Feik: A real quick one. Getting back to the vocational portion. If you did put in vocational in there.4 how would that impact parking? I mean it could impact them on a very, very large... Aanenson: Right, and there's an EAW that was done on this site that's traffic driven too so I think at that point. .. · Generous: Yeah, we'd have to look at it. As an office user, it depends upon. Feik: We've got existing drawings, existing parking that's based on industrial use. Generous: Right, with 30% office use and then the rest warehouse... Feik: If I can say, if I can jump to the conclusion if you put in a true vocational type school you would be maxed out on parking. Generous: Depends on the size. There might be a limitation that you put on that, and that's something that he may address. Oh, there is Madam Chair. One addition under the prohibited uses I included public buildings. However the city currently owns Ouflot A and B and we should put an exception to that because I believe in the furore we may look at providing an interpretative building or something on those ouflots and so that was a sheet I gave you. Additionally I pulled out the definitions of public land, public and vocational schools from the ordinance. That's part of the reason why I was directed into recommending a prohibition against vocational school. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The health club concept, I understand that these are all multi-tenant buildings right now and that it could never be a large scale thing but what if large scale health club was interested, a non-profit for instance, interested in one of those buildings and just taking out all the dividing walls? If we make this land use change to the PUD, they would be allowed to do that. Generous: Potentially yes. Kind: So would it be reasonable to put a limitation that as long as they're part of a multi-use building. Generous: Sure. That's a tool for prescribing that we be the whole building, sure. Kind: What do you think of that? Generous: It's probably work, yeah. Kind: Do you think that's a good idea? Aanenson: Well the reason why the non-profit issue was put in there, that was a large TIF district and that was an issue of discussion of putting that together. The city is desirous of the taxable property so as Bob said, is there a way to prescribe it, could you say a percentage of any one building or something like that, that may be more and you'd give the council some direction. Or some suggestions of how to limit that prescribed use. If you want to give us some direction too. It might be to say a percentage or square.. footage of any one building or that it maintain at least another use or something like that. Forward that onto the council with some recommendations. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Bob, I just have one question. And health clubs, there's a category called outdoor health and recreation clubs that is listed in the lOP as a conditional use. Said not addressed, not permitted in Arboretum, but I don't see mention of it anywhere. Should that be added onto the prohibited uses then since you added everything else that was classified as not addressed, not permitted7 Generous: Well it could but then do we get into the issue of that they have outdoor facilities? Is that, and tie it into our trail system. Would we want to prohibit it? Blackowiak: Well I don't know. I'm just sort of wondering why one is permitted and one is conditional. And why we're addressing one, the indoor health club, but not the outdoor health club. We're just sort of leaving that out totally. Generous: Well the ones I was prohibiting are the ones that really struck me as we didn't want to have in there per se and the other ones we didn't address so they're not permitted. I suppose. Aanenson: For clarity sure, if you want to add it. Blackowiak: Well I was just curious because the others that were categorized as not addressed, not permitted such as food processing, public buildings, you know there was some that specifically said not Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 addressed, not permitted. Off premises parking lots and they were all listed under prohibited uses. Except I don't see, no I don't see parking lots. Hold on. Generous: Yeah, because that's really an ancillary use to thaL We permit that, and they can have shared parking opportunities for some of the sites, but not as a primary use. Blackowiak: So do we just want to not address them. is that what you're saying? Not ~_ddress, not permitted? Leave it at that? Generous: Not address, not permitted. Aanenson: That's the official interpretation of the code. Anybody aggrieved with our interpretation is going to come and ask permission and then they would appeal it to the City Council. Blackowiak: Oh good. Aanenson: The way it's written. Blackowiak: If it's not, if you don't say yes, it's no? Aanenson: Correct. If it's not specifically listed, then it would be no. Blackowiak: Okay, that's simple enough isn't it? Okay. Thanks. At this point, anythin~ else to add? No? Okay. Would the applicant or the designee like to make a presentation? Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Blackowiak: You know you can swing that mic around. Go right ahead. Fred Richter: Okay, bow's that? Blackowiak: Little more. 'Little more. Kind: It's bugging me. Blackowiak: Thank you. Fred Richter: Now. Kind: Oh it's been bugging me. Fred Richter: Okay. Fred Richter with Steiner Development. And what we have in front of us this evening is dealing with 5 existing buildings. 3 which we own, and the gist of this is brought on by our leasing needs, and with me tonight is Joe Smith in charge of our leasing. And he deals in a world that reacts quite quickly to the market and he's in charge of leasing almost 2 ½ million square feet throughout the metro area, and what we're trying to accomplish is get our wording such that he can lease a multi- tenant building, a space 6,000, 12,000 square feet and not have to take the 60 day review that we're going through tonight. So our goal is not to deal with undeveloped sites. Our goal is not to de, al with actually Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 the physical make-up of the building. The buildings are up. They're done. Parking's in. It's really to provide a viable business park that meets our objectives as the building owners to keep them full. It meets the city's objective to provide, in many cases, incubator space for new businesses. Employment and so on. To that effect staff has agreed, and kind of forwarded this proposal and we think we're very close. But I think that background's very important. We also have one tenant that is driving this, and Chris Polster is here tonight representing that, and Joe is working with him to move into our Arboretum III building. So with that in mind we're in total agreement with the terminology. We would offer, maybe a little more flexibility on the vocational school and the food processing. When I say flexibility, maybe something such as prohibited. Now there' s a prohibited use of vocational school. That' s fine but maybe precluding educational uses within a multi-tenant building. There are a lot of examples. One thing about our buildings, it's amazing the variety of potential tenants that are out there. Because that's our business is providing space for businesses to start, grow and prosper and there axe training companies that are fled in with distribution and that that might fall under some type of educational use within the building. And albeit our parking ratios and all that is kind of precluded by the physical layout. We park ratios of 2 ½ per 1,000 and some buildings have up to 5 per 1,000 so as a building owner we know we have to provide the parking, and Joe negotiates that right with the tenant up front. It's a pretty sophisticated world out there for the marketplace meeting the demands and it all ends up working. The same thing would be with food processing. We have no intention of doing a full food processing building but we do have tenants in our portfolio that are small. There was an ice cream cone manufacturer in one. Bakery in another. Pizza dough maker. So Joe might have an opportunity, and you'd hate to have to say oh, got to get back to you in 60 days because I've got to go to the Chanhassen City Council through the Plann!ng Commission to answer that question. So that's why we're here tonight to get as much flexibility as we can in our PUD as close to the IO district as possible. So my suggestion there might be the food processing, precluding food processing in a multi tenant building. Something like that. With that in mind, I really have no other comment. Joe, do you? I guess as a point of clarification, the sites that are all built on, we worked out with staff that we would add the All About Lights building and the building that' s under construction now which is a corporate owned Parker-Hannifen. That's kind of just an academic add-on to our 3 multi tenant buildings which are Arboretum I, 12I and 121I, which total about 275,000 square feet of multi-tenant space and our tenants range from 6,000 to I think the largest is about 70,000 square feet. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, have any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yes. I've got a question for you here. On these 3 multi-tenant buildings, how many tenants are in each of those buildings approximately? Fred Richter: About 4 or 5 in each of them. Joe Smith: Arboretum I has 4 tenants. Arboretum 11 has 6. Fred Richter: And Arboretum llk we're trying to get 1 in. There's no tenants in Axboretum 11I. Claybaugh: What are you anticipating for that building? I'm assuming you've got 2 end caps and what have you got in the middle? Joe Smith: Oh, we build these buildings for 4 or 5. Claybaugh: 4 or 5, okay. Where I was headed with that is just in terms of assigning some kind of percentage with relation to the buildings so the premise is good but there's some vehicle to contain it on the back end. You said there's 5 buildings. Two that Steiner doesn't own? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Fred Richter: We own, one's All About Lights, which is the one up on 41 which there's a theme to it and has some office/showroom constraints in it's PUD. And the Parker-Hsnnifen's just a, they're just concerned that they're owned by the corporation and they'll just keep it that use unless they were to sell it. Claybaugh: Again, I didn't have any concerns about the in-house education. That makes p,~f~ sense. However the food processing, Fm struggling with that a little bit on how to strike a reasonable balance. Fred Richter. ...context. Our property managers are, we're motivated to have happy tenants. If we were to bring a food processor in, odors and that we would have a lot of thought given to making sum it doesn't disrupt our own buildings. Also, this business park you know is bordered by the Arbore~ on the west, the industrial area of Chaska on the south, the wetlands and park on the easL Highway 5, and soon to be townhouses of Pulte to the north. So there is, you know we're as landlords with our tenants are the ones that will face any negative impacts the mosL Claybaugh: At the appropriate time, I don't know if this is, I'd like staff to comment on that. That's all the questions I personally had so. Feilc I've got one for the applicant as weU. Blackowiak: Bruce. Feik: Going a little bit further on the percentage, from a landlord's perspective and 1 .easing perspective. There's a couple of items in here as it relates to indoor recreation and food processing and a couple others. Would you feel more comfortable with the percentage of a single building or a square foot limitation? How can we put that in here so that quite frankly it is workable going forward? I don't want to say just a multi-tenant building because you could easily have a 50,000 square foot building with 2,000 square feet of storage out in the backside and technically it's multi-tenant. Fred Richter: We're willing to accept that. Feik: ...so what would be. Joe Smith: A lot of things, a lot of what drives the type of temm~s that we have is the parking requirements. As owners of 30 buildings throughout the Twin Cities, we're not going to get a tenant or we're not going to pursue a tenant that's going to over park our business or our business park to create problems for additional tenants. Our buildings are all multi-tenant with the exception of one. And we're very sensitive to that as far as odors and things like that. Our lease states that the tenant cannot create additional odors and things like that that affect the other tenants. Feik: I understand that. I'm looking for a little direction how we can give you what you want and quantify... Fred Richter. If we took our existing buildings that are built out, in no case, there's another issue that happens in the marketplace. The lease rolls over. Rollovers are always kind of at different times so it's very difficult for someone to take over a total building. I mean it can happen. It'd be almost like a vacant building but most likely a space is built out at 12,000 square feet...on the market and we back fill it with a new use. In our existing buildings. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Joe Smith: One tenant takes 70%...70% of a 100,000 square foot building. Fred Richter: Is there a number you feel comfortable with? I mean where you're coming from, you would like to make sure our buildings remain multi-tenant. Feik: Well I'm trying to give you'reasonable parameters that you can work with that are...versus just saying multi-tenant. That's a little... Fred Richter: Well one would be no more than 70%. That'd be the worst case. And the other building. Joe Smith: ...continues to grow and displace smaller tenants. There may be a possibility that... Aanenson: Let me clarify. Joe Smith: Our goal as a landlord is to continue to grow with our tenants. Is to grow with them and displace the other ones in... Aanenson: My understanding of that question is if we had a single user, for example the YMCA that bought a building. So when they come in for a building permit and there's a change of occupancy, then it goes to planning and we would check the parking. Then we ask for the mix. We ask the owner of the building to go back, show us the mix within the building, because we do have that happen very frequently in industrial parks. Where there's a mi~ that's not working. We have one right now, it's a temporary situation. But if that's the question, then if we just say no single building, entire building, would that solve the problem. Should it be a health club. Not one entire building. Then it couldn't be. Feik: Is there street parking at all out there? Aanenson: Pardon me? Feik: Is there any street parking available? Fred Richter: ~nd we really don't need it. Feik: It's current not allowed is what I guess I'm saying. Fred Richter: Right. And again we would ask for proof of parking, if it was a mix that we saw that may exceed the parking ratios. If they have a user that's using less, that's great. Then they can pick it up on the other side and that's the beauty of the PUD. It allows that flexibility to balance the parking and it happens ail the ~ime. You've got a user that's, has more warehouse and the other user has more employees. Joe Smith: My concern with that is as we continue to grow, and couldn't accommodate them in an existing building and they ask us to build them another building on one of our big lots and they occupy it 100% of that building, then we'd be in violation. Fred Richter: Well, but our point is that we would be going through site plan review. On our undeveloped lots we're willing to come in, because we know we have to go through this process. It's Planning Commission Meeting - Nove~ 20, 2001 really the existing. And it's more of the quick turnover ones. Even if we ended up with a large tenant, there would probably be enough time to. Aanenson: That's not the issue. The issue is if the intent was that we would not have non-profits only in single buildings. That's the issue. If you built them an entire building and it's Northwe~ Racquet Club, that's not a problem. The problem is if it becomes a non-profit. That's how the original PUD was set up and that was the direction from the City Council at that time. Now there might be different feelings but that was the direction at the time. Feik: I didn't understand that. Aanenson: Right, so that's what we're trying to solve. Fred Richter: And we're not at odds with that. Aanenson: ...is to get that language in place. And I mean if we want to be as specific to say that, I'm not sure how we can put that in the text. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. You said this is driven somewhat by a specific applicant, but I missed, did you- say what the use actually will be of this applicant7 Fred Richter: The specific applicant is a Fungo and they're a start-~p c~..mpan, y that is going'to cater to youth and recreation. Batting cages and sports affiliated with that and. " ;" ' Joe Smith: Chris, would you like to speak to that at all? Chris Polster: Chris Polster. Fred Richter: Just briefly describe your proposed operation to us. Chris Polster. Okay. Essentially what it is, it's a youth recreation cent6r and de,~elopment. Actually we consider it a development center using sports among other activities. Youth development activities to foster youth development. Included are batting cages and courts that can be used for basketball, . volleyball, badminton, whatever the kids want to do so it will have those courts and then it will also have meeting rooms and a training center for the organizations to use. OrganiTafions in our comm~ity. Someplace where they can come in and actually call headquarters. Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: If I may ask, is it internal? Nothing outside? No batting cages or anything? ..... Fred Richter: Totally inside. As a matter of fact I don't think, it's almost like we don't, you can't have storage yards. I don't think we could have outside batting cages. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point I will open this item up for a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this, please come to the microphone. State your name and a_a_d_re, ss for the record. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. LuAnn: anything? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Sidney: Don't have a problem with the suggestions that staff made. Blackowiak: So as staff recommended? Sidney: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: I think it's a pretty straight forward situation. I certainly don't have a problem with the vocational school element. I'm hesitant about the food processing. I had to drive by a chocolate factory in Switzerland on the way to high school once or twice, or 3 or 4 times a day, and the first 2 times I thought um, this smells wonderful but after having driven past it for a couple of weeks, it was very unpleasant. But what I'm struggling with is to what extent this needs to be regulated. I mean I understand with the PUD we do have some control built in and that's the purpose of the PUD to have an agreement and dialogue between the city and the place. Personally I would expect that a lot of these things would be regulated by the market forces. Even the odor concern. Because you don't want to have something with an odor because you have other tenants. So I don't really have any really strong feelings about that. I could go either way if we put it into the proper framework with that. But generally I agree with what's in front of us. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: I agree with Uli. One thing that stuck with me is the food processing. I guess I'would like some verbiage attached to it to, if nothing else, establish some parameters. I know it's market driven. I realize that but also. Blackowiak: So do you agree with the, the recommendation by staff right now bands food processing. Prohibits it. So do you agree with that or disagree with that? Claybaugh: I think I agree with that. Blackowiak: Okay, so no food processing. Claybaugh: 'I agree with the education but I don't see a function of in-house food processing. It's just an out and out business period. Blackowiak: Okay. So then you would take vocational school off the prohibited list? Because right now it's under prohibited uses. Claybaugh: That's what we talked about in terms of possibly assigning some kind of percentage of space for use or, and perhaps maybe staff can speak to it. Maybe I'm not understanding the situation clearly. Aanenson: Well we would clearly define vocational uses as separate from someone that's doing in-house training. I don't see that as, a vocational use as defined by the standard industrial classification has different implications. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Claybaugh: So for them to do in-house education, there is no need to address the verbiage of vocational training? Aanenson: Right. Claybaugh: That's just a given with the industry that's in there that they're going to have to train the individuals. So by definition you don't. Aanenson: Right...a specific real estate school. If it was a restaurant school. I mean those are specific vocational type schools. If it's someone that's doing in-house training associated with their business sort of thing, I'm not sure that again the...classification would come into play. That's how we would interpret it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree with staff's reco~on. I think it makes sense to give some flexibility to the applicant. Fd like to see us maintain the integrity of limiting the amount of non-profit health club space. I think that's the reason why it wasn't allowed, if I'm understanding the intent there. And perhaps limit non-profits may occupy up to 30% of multi-tenant buildings only? Give me a number. What do you think guys? Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's a percentage. Again, it's the owner, the owner of the building. If they own the building. I guess we would like to look towards, the city attorney to give us some specific language. Kind: Okay. So maybe just leave that in as a concern that needs to be 8da_ressed before going to council or something. And then I agree that education and training facility should be allowed in multi-tenant buildings. I agree with leaving the vocational schools on the prohibited list but adding a permitted use of education and training facilities are allowed in multi-tenant buildings... That would be a pretty good use them. Aanenson: Well I can give you the list that the cit code says and you guys have a copy of that. I mean is it nursing school, real estate? I mean those, that's what it's defined as'. Kind: Truck driving. Aanenson: Right. If someone' s doing computer classes, if it's on a small scale, you know depending on the size. Blackowiak: I'd just like to clarify. I would interject, in-house training is different than a school. Aanenson: A school, I would agree. Blackowiak: In-house is like I'm an employee of this company and I'm going to learn their new computer system. I have no problem with that .... I don't feel we do either. Vocational is I'm paying you money. Kind: Some of these vocational uses I think are okay though if they're on a small scale. I agree we don't want a large Dunwoody taking over a whole building. Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Feik: But then you've got a limited square footage now for sale. You can't say 30% of a 100,000 square foot building is... Claybaugh: It may remain that there are going to be some uses that they're going to have to come back in front of us. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Kind: Let's leave that off. Blackowiak: Yeah, no percentages. Okay. Kind: And then Alison, what do you think about the outdoor health facility thing? Blackowiak: I say we leave it off because if it's not addressed, it's not permitted and. Kind: Just leave it. You don't want to add it to the prohibited list? Blackowiak: Nope. Kind: Okay. Feik: My concerns were answered and I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation. .... Blackowiak: I agree. I fully support the staff recommendation and don't have any changes to suggest to those. Alright with that I'd like a motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, PUD g02-6. Development design standards Section b as follows. And then the staff report pages 8 through 9 and then new page number 10, which was provided tonight. And that's my motion. I'll save my comment for after the motion. Blackowiak: Sure, yep. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Blackowiak: Okay moved and seconded. Any amendments for the motion? Kind moved, Felk seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD g92-6) development design standards, Section b as follows: b. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The use shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different blocks and lots for which they are specified below. The blocks and lots specified below Planning Commission Meeting - Nove~ 20, 2001 are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The block and lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may different from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the lots identified in the PUD plan. L/ght Industr/a/- The manufacun'ing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, printing or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall'be negligible impact upon the surrotmding environmontal by noiso, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5, Block 4, and the Wras¢ property). Warehousing- Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4). O~we - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property). Health Services - Establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block l; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Conferences/Convention Center - Establishments designed to accommc~l_~te people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4). Indoor Recreation/Health C7~ - Establishments engaged in operating reducing and other'health clubs, spas and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lotd 3, 4 and $, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 4). Hotel/Motel- Establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and ~ to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, and the Wrase property). Recording Stud/o - Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 2 and 3, Block 4. Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as Commercial in development standards tabulation box). . 5~ Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone resta~0. Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet on Lot 1 or 2, Block I only. (One convenience store). Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4). Day Care - Establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) (amended 8/13/01). Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use). 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 . . Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center). Showroom - Showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. (for entire development). (Amended 8/25/97). Telecommunication towers and antennas by conditional use permit only. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. Day care. Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: . The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2~ Addition. The church congregation may not exceext 200 adult members. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited Uses. . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Contractors Yard Lumber Yard Home Improvement/Building Supply Garden Center Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01). Home furnishings and equipment stores. General Merchandise Store. Vocational School. Public buildings. Screened outdoor storage. Food processing. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-1. Uli, would you like to comment? Sacchet: I would allow the vocational schools. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have a comment to add? Kind: I would like to direct staff to check with Roger about non-profits in this PUD. Have Roger address that. Blackowiak: Okay. This item goes to City Council on December l0th. PUBLIC HEARING: SECOND AMENDM'F. NT TO ARBORETUM BUSINKSS PARK DEVELOPMF.~ CONTRACT/PUD AGREEMI*.~ AGREEMENT dated December 10, 2001, by.and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and CHASKA GATEWAY- .. · PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSltlP, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Developer").. .. · 1. BACKGROUND. The parties haVe previ0usl'~ entered into a cle~,elopment . . contract/PUD agreement for Arboretum Business Park dated August 25, 1997 (the "Development Contract"). The Development Contract was recorded on September 12, 1997 as Carver county .. · . . Abstract Document No. 215748 and on September 12, 1997 as Carver County Torrens Document No. T98262. The Development Contract was amended by Addendum "A" dated September 22, 1997 ("Addendum A"). Addendum A was recordexl on February 16, 1998 as Carver County Abstract Document No. 222435 and Torrens Document No. T100332. The Development Contract was mended by Addendum "B" dated May 11, 1998 ("Addendum B"). Addendum B was recorded on July 8, 1998 as Carver County Abstract Document No. 230785 and Torrens Document No. T102658. The developer previously mended the development design standards as the fi/st amendment dated August 20, 2001 to incorporate churches as interim uses and to -1- permit an auto service center. The developer is now mending the development design standards as specified below. 2. EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. The Development Contract, the First Amendment to the Development Contract/PUD Agreement and Addendurns A and B shall remain in full force and effect with the modifications listed in the amendment below. 3. AMENDMENT. In addition to the terms and conditions outlined in the Development Contract, the First Amendment to the Development Contract/PUD Agreement and Addendums A and B, the following amendments shall apply: a.) Exhibit C to the Development Contract section b. permitted use is amended: b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks.and Lots for which they are specified below. The Blocks and Lots specified below are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The Block and Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the Lots identified in the PUD plan. Light Industrial- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, p~kaging, printing or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block I; Lot 1, Block 2; LOts I, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block I; and LOts 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4) Office - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Blockl; Lot 1, Block 2; LOt 1, Block 3; Lotsl, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4) -2- Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to ac~ommo~ people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4) Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in ~ting reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 4) Hotel/Motel-establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) Utility Services - Water rowers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; LOts 1, 2, and 3, Block 4; and the Wrase property) Recording Studio - Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 2 and 3, Block 4. Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box) 1. Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant.). 2. Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet, on Lot 1 or 2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store.) 3. Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) 4. Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4) 5. Auto service center, aura body repair is prohibited OR'rase) (amended 8/13/01) Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use) 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). 2. Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference cent). 3. Showroom - showroom type display ama for products stored or manuf~ on-site provicl~ that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.flor entire development]. (Amended 8/25/97) 4. Telecommunica~on Towers and Ant~mas by conditional use p~rmit only. 5. Car wash, in conjunction with conve~tience store. t5. Day Care Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e., assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: -3- 1. The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2na Addition. 2. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. 3. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited uses · Contractors Yard · Lumber Yard · Home Improvement/Building Supply · Garden Center · Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01) · Home furnishings and equipment stores · General Merchandise Store · Vocational School · Public buildings, except on Outlots A and B, which are public park land · Screened outdoor storage · Food processing IN WITNESS 'WI-IE~OF this "Second Amendment was executed by the parties the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) BY: Linda C. Jansen, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DEVELOPER: CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: STEIN DEVELOPMENT, INC. Its General Partner By Its STATE OF MI~NESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of , 2001, by Linda C. Jansen and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~ day of , 2001, by ,.the of Steiner Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and the general partner of Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership on behalf of the limited parmership. Drafted by: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 -5- MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/PUD'AGREEMENT , which holds a mortgage on all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Arboretum Business Park Development Contract/PUD Agreement, agrees that the Development Contract/PUD Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this ~, day of ,2001. By STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was' acknowledged before me this ,2001, by day of~ , its NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFrED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 \~fs l\vol2~mg~charboretum 2nd amendment.doc -6- CITYOF CHANItA EN ~ 55317 95P.93ZIS~ 952.93Z5739 951937.9152 952.9342524 M~O~L~ TO: FROM: DATE: Todd G-e~haxd~ City Manager · - Tm-esa $. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~ Receive Feam'bility Rep0rg Call Public Hem4a~ for the Trunk Highway 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3. The City Council is requested to receive the feam~oility report and call a public hearing on January 14, 2002 for a Trail adjacent to Tnmk Highway 101 north of Trunk Highway 5. The feasibility report is on file in the Engineering Depatiment Copies of the report will be attached to the January 14, 2002 staff report. The Park and Recreation Commi~ion will review thi~ feadbility study at its December 11~, 2001 meetin~ An open house will be scheduled following the holidays to allow lime for ~ nei~orhood to review the report mui ask any quest/on.. .. This project will be catmelled if a tum-b~ agreement that incl~ conslruction of the trail can be reached with Mm/DOT, however, at this point Staff is continuing to ptum~ the cotmmwtion of a trail adjace~ to Trunk Highway 10 Staff will keep Council advised of thc developments in thc turn-back project C.' Lezlie Vermillion, Mn/DOT Bob Brown, MrdDOT CITYOF PO B~ I47 C_.fianfim~ M'tn~e~ota 55317 952.937.1900 952957.5B9 952.93Z9152 95~934.2524 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Todd ~ City Manager Teresa I. Btngess, Public Works Director/City December 3,2001 Approve Change Order No. 2 to BC7 & BC8 Trunk Utility Improvement Project 00-01 Requested Action City Council is recommended to approve a change order in the mount of $26,885.00 for the BC 7 & BC 8 utility extension project. Discussion Poor soils were encountered on the'projeCt that resulted in an increase in project costs. Soil borings we~ done as part of the design of this' project, however, the' borings did not show the poor soils. Soil b0fin~ are an important'tool in determining sub-~ conditions, unfomm~ly they are only a snap shot of what is below surface. The con~ w~ required to reanove the poor soils and replace them with better material. In addition, two (2) additional 15' wyes were necessary to install a 6" service. The cost of the additional wyes is $100 each for a total of $200.. Matt Saam, Project Engin~ Mshmoud Sweidan, Engineer Jay Rubash, HTPO CITYOF CHANIIA EN ~ 55317 952.937.1900 952.937.5739 952.937.9152 952934.2524 lVmMORAND~ DATE: SUB/: Todd C~r~ City Manager Teresa ~. Bur/ess, Public Works Dire~/City Dec~mber 3, 2001 Approve Water Treatment Request for Quahfications- PW379 Requested Council Action Review and approve the attached advertisement and Request for Qualifi~fi~ for Water Treatment. Discussion Staff is reco~~ a qtmlificafion based selection process., This process is slightly different than the Request for Proposals (RFP) process normally used by the City of C'"aantumsen in that a formal scope of-work is not prepared. Instead, consultants are asked to submit resumes and references for review by the City, much like a job application. The attached are the adver[is~mt that will-be Placed/n the Cons~'~on Bttllet/n and StarTfibune and the - The RFQ itself will be posted on the City Web:site. c: Kelley Saues, Utility Super/n!emt~ ADVERTISEMENT FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANT WATER TREATMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN The City of Chanhassen, MN is seeking an engineering consultant to study, design, and oversee implementation of water treatment in the City. A full copy of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) as well as copies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Water System Distribution Study are available at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. SOQ's must be received by 3:00 pm, January 15th, 2002 to be considered. Questions regarding the RFQ should be directed to Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer, 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, phone: (952) 227-1169, e-mail: tburgess~ci.chanhassen.mn.us. G:UENG\Water Treatment'~AD for RFQ.doc WATER TREATMENT REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ'S) The City of Chanhassen is seeking an engineering consultant to study, design, and oversee implementation of water treatment in the City. Consultants are invited to submit a Summary of Qualifications (SOQ). The City desires to implement treatment in 2003. SELECTION PROCESS A technical committee will rank the SOQ's and provide the top four (4) to the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) for review. The PAC will conduct interviews and make a recommendation for final selection to the City Council. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following information viewable in Acrobat Reader is available on the City Intemet site. .- . . Hot Links for:. .-__ · 1998 Water Supply and Distribution Plan. (including the. City Pressure_Zone Map) .. · Excerpts from the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan · 2001 Water System Consumer Confidence Report . . *Addltional Information including system maps and as-built drawings are on the file at the City. SCHEDULE · Formation of PAC · Solicitation of SOQ's · Notice to Consultants of Initial Ranking Mailed · PAC Interviews · Scope Preparation and Contract Negotiations · City Council Award of Contract December, 2001 December, 2001 -January 15, 2002 February 1, 2002 February, 2002 March, 2002 .. March 25, 2002 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMI'R'EE (PAC) MAKE-UP AND ROLL The PAC will act in an advisory roll. All decisions regarding consultant selection and approval of design will be made by the City Council. The PAC is appointed by the City Council and is made up of a combination of water utility customers, City staff, elected officials, and technical advisors. The duties of the PAC are: · Interview interested consultant firms. · Recommend a consultant firm for the project to the City Council. · Advise consultant firm during study, design, and implementation of water treatment and water quality expectations in the City of Chanhassen. · Act as liaison to Chanhassen neighborhoods. EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated and ranked on the following criteria: · Qualifications and expertise of key personnel to be assigned. · Ability of the firm to perform the study, design, and construction administration for the project with minimal involvement by the City. · Ability of the firm to provide a tailored rather than a one-size-fits all solution to water treatment. Resources of the firm to conduct and complete this project in a satisfactory manner. Specifically the abil!ty and willingness to commit key personnel and resources. Proposals are limited to 20 pages. Proposals should be addressed to Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317. Five copies of the proposal must be received by 3:00 p.m. on January 15, 2002 for. consideration. Please submit any questions or comments about the proposal to Teresa Burgess at (952) 227-1169 or tburgess~ci.chanhassen.mn.us. g:~eng~water treatmentS'lq.doc CITYOF CHANHASSDI PO tbx147 ~ ~ 55317 951937.1900 95193Z5739 952.937.9152 952934.2524 ~ORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Todd C_~ahardt, City Mana~r December ~, 2001 Approve Water Reservoir Wintea-iz~ Contract REOUESTED ACTION It is re~mmealded that the Council approve a contract to add am~tors to the Arbo~ Reservoir. DISCUSSION Staffhas been working with SEH, a consultant~ finn, to review potential fieezing problems with thc Arboretum Reservoir. SEH has recommended the installation of ~rs in thc tank to reduce freezing in the reservoir during thc winter months. Attached is a price estimate from SEH for the work. SEH is still working to obtain Contractor Quotes. Conlraffmr Quotes for the work will bo provided on Monday as a supplement to this slaffreport. Competitive bids are not required due to the size of the exmtract - Failure to approve the conlract could result in po~ ~e in the tank Attachmea:R: 1. Enginecr's~ c: I~ll~ Janes, Utility Superintendent 12/03/2001 01:31 9522271310 12/03/200~ 07:31 FAZ PAGE 02 a~ vadnali oef~tet Drive, 6t, Paul, MN 551 IO-5198 III I I FAX TRANSMITTAL · __! · i_m 661,4g0,3000 8oo.ap.a.ona_q ~81,4io,R1,s0 FAX I-I F/ELD OFFICE: El URGENT FILE NO: _ ..... 1"07'AL PAC~E~.. Deo~ 3m 2001 Thom co/onan~/,~nON: C~ty or--sea FaXt,~O: 9:~2-474-15S7 TE~.gPHON~ .952-.474-2086 H~r~ is th~ ntimar~ f~ tl~ ~l_xe~ for d~e 1,5 MO tower: Please l~t m~ knorr when 1' shou/d start to makc contacte with the cou~ &act how many quotes ,_~..! you want. I plan ~n usia~ ec~utapox coal~n~ for tba xepair of thr,. coati,,~ and this shoulJ:t be t ~t t'Zx, but w~ will do soma fwt, h~ ~hecldnS on thJa, Thom 651-765-2965 lihort k'llloll Ha,'~ldnkaea Inc. . Your ?tuated RHoarce - [qua/OppertunJly Empl~et CITYOF CI]ASHASSlIN TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director DATE: December 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Approval of Bilh The following claims are aaxbmitted for approval on December 10, 2001: · . Amount 107457-107613 $470,928.51 Total Claims $470,928.51 .. I recommend spprov~ of all claims as submitted. .. In December, I intend to pay bills on the same schedule as normal This mem~ that checks will be released on December 24, just as if the City Council had approved a claims list at thc regularly scheduled meeting. This will allow us to continue paying in a timely manner and reduce the numbex of late paymems.- I I will present the list of items paid to the City Council at the regular meeting on - Janum-y 8, 2001. 12/10/01 ~te~ 12/05/01 T'J.im t9t031~ C:l. ty o£ C~mhulen Pa~ ~ 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 101-0000-2005 FleX~..~ ~ LI~ ]21~09AR~ CO 107470 ~ ~ ZNBQRA~ 110801 22/28/200 62.49 201-0000-2020 ~ ~ g~ ~ HI~ ~ 107587 ~ ~ ~ ~ 12/03/200200.00 101-0000-2020 ~tl ~y ~ ~ 107~6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 12/03/20030.00 101-0000-2022 ~ ~ ~Z 107506 ~-~~ 0102965 11/0~/2005.00 101-0000-3301 B~ ~Z 10~506 ~-~~ 0102965 11/0~/200181.25 101-0000~901 ~ FZ~ ~ 107526 ~~ - ~ ?6113 11/19/2009.00 101-0000-49~ ~ ~Z~ 107508 ~~ - ~ 76140 11/26/2008.00 ................. 101-1120-4010 101-1120-4040 101-1120-4~0 101-1120-41~0 101-1~0-4300 101-1120-4310 101-1120-4310 101-1120-4310 101-1120-4310 101-~0~310 101-1120-43~0 101-1~0~3~0 101-1150-4300 107592 N 107468 107463 ~MPLOY~ I~M~T~4DI~ABILITY 107562 107577 ~Y 107471 107472 ~.r~~ 107602 ~.T~~ ~g 107560 107547 107595 ~~-~ ~-~~ 107595 ~g-~~-~~ 107468 107463 10~5 107493 ~I~ 'De~)'cf laz~t I~ozm~t~ 8~m~ 495.74 0606041 11/15/20075.00 13190043 11/15/20040.65 40298621 11/20/20074.30 61029 11/21/200108.11 BOX*J.47 12/03/20032.00 11101 11/18/20044.91 112801 11/28/20036.57 111801 11/18/20035,88 674355 11/24/2004.08 111901 11/19/2000.70 120101 12/03/20027.73 120101 12/03/200475.00 ................. 954.93 13190043 11/15/20023.17 40298621 11/20/20043.31 40227 11/19/2001,379.96 112901 11/29/2001,500.00 ................. 2,946.44 112901 11/29/200 14.00 14.00 101-1160-4040 /nm~am~ MZNNEBOI~ LZFg 107468 D~C~4B~R L/F~ INSORANC~ 13190043 11/15/200 9.90 101-1160-4040 ~n~n~e ~B ~F~ 107463 ~ T_~ ~ D~IL~ 40298621 11/20/200 18.43 101-1160-4100 ~l~t~ ~&-~ ~TZ~. 1075~ FI~ ~ ~~~ 32543 11/27/200 2,758.35 101-1160-&300 ~ulti~ ~ X~~ ~. 107504 FI~ ~ ~~TX~ 32593 11/281200 198.00 101-1160-4310 T~ ~ 107469 ~.~ ~ ~ 111901 11/19/200 109.00 101-1160-4310 ~1~ ~ WZ;~.~ 107&72 ~ ~ ~ . 1~801 11/28/200 8.19 101-1160-4~1~ ~1~ ~I~~ 107602 ~~ ~ 111801 11/18/200 8.33 101-1160-4310 ~1~ ~ 107560 P~ ~ 674355 11/24/200 7.54 101-~60-4310 ~1~ ~~ 107547 ~ ~ 111901 11/19/200 0.37 101-1160-470] ~ ~lp ~~ ~ 107496 ~~, ~. P~ ~1159 11/14/200 161.15 1~-~60-470~ ~f ~ ~ ~'~ ~ 107510 4 ~ ~ ~ 91050595 11/09/200 101.18 By~t~n~ 3,380.44 Tol:,~ ~~t InEore~lon 101-1170-4040 Insurance H~ LI~ 107468 ~ ~ ~ 13190043 11/15/200 7.20 101-1170~0 ~~ ~8 ~FI~ 107463 ~ ~ ~ DZ~IL~ 40298621 11/20/200 13.27 101-1170-4110 O~t~ ~ ~~ ~8 107505 P~ 27752532 11/20/200 35.71 101-1170-4110 ~fl~ 8~ ~~ ~8 107505 P~~ 27752351 11/20/200 78.47 101-11~0-4110 ~ ~ ~~ ~8 107505 ~~~ 27697050 11/16/200 28.64 101-11~0-4110 ~1~ ~ ~~ ~B 107505 ~ ~ ~, ~ 2~52364 11/20/200 92.38 101-11~0-4110 ~Ei~ ~ ~~ ~ 107505 ~~ ~ 277522~8 11/15/200 5.87 101-~70-~110 ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ 107608 P~ 755255 11/2~/200 119.49 101-1170~110 ~61~ ~ ~ P~ ~ 10~60~ P~ 7~8~8 11/15/200 413.01 101-1170-4110 ~ftce ~ ~ ~ ~ 107608 P~ 755389 11/28/200 29.06 101-~70~110 ~t~ ~ ~~ ~B 107505 ~. B~X~ 276~963 11/15/200 181.34 101-~0-4110 ~g~ ~ ~~ ~ 107505 ~, ~ 27617956 11/14/200 234.20 101-1170-4110 ~ft~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107601 ~ ~ 0~372 11/14/200 50.91 101-1170~110 ~ft~ 8~ ~Z~ ~ 107572 ~ P~ 939~9 10/16/200 5.85 ' 101-1170-4110 ~f~ B~ ~Z~ ~ 107572 ~Z~ ~ 277~313 11/09/200 13.~ 101-1170-4~0 ~flce 8~ ~ 107479 ~m 13221963 12/03/200 30.50 101-1170~150 ~t ~tl ~ ~ ~ZC ~Y 107487 ~ 92082676 11/21/200 113.83 101-1170~260 ~11 ~ ~ B~Y ~ ~ 107474 ~ B~ 395129 11/26/200 43.25 101-1170-4300 ~~ ~ ~, ~ 107520 ~ ~ 343156 11/19/200 115.81 1~-1170-4310 ~1~- ~~.~B 107472 ~ ~ ~ 112~01 11/28/200 31.93 101-1170-4310 ~1~ ~~ 107602 ~~ ~ 111801 11/18/200 28.50 101-1170-4310 ~1~e ~ 107560 P~ ~ 674355 11/24/200 7.54 101-11~0-4310 ~1~ ~~ 10754~ ~ ~ 111901 11/19/200 2,303.54 101-1170~320 ~111=t~ g~-~Z~ ~ 107467 ~ ~ 112601 11/26/200 208.08 101-1170-4350 ~e=-4~ ~ ~ ~ 10q582 ~ 6596 11/30/200 146.57 101-1170-~350 ~,4~ ~ ~ ~ 107582 ~ 6595 11/30/200 2,076.75 101-1170-4510 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 10~5~3 ~~~ ~00011 11/01/200 117.76 101-~T0~530 ~p~ ~ ~ ~ 107557 MZg~ ~ - ~ 11/30/200 2.02 De.c: 9o.l. lce/Caru~rCo ~ 101-1210-4040 Zn~ur~n¢~ M~]INE8OI~ LI~ 101-1210-4040 /n~uT~nce F~I8 B~NEFZT~ To~&l ~:Lty Hall Maintenance 6,535.32 107468 ~ LIF~ ~ 13190043 11/15/200 8.10 107463 ~49LOY~ LONQT~4 DZBABILITY 40298621 11/20/200 14.98 ................. To~al Police/Carver ~ ~ct 23.08 107468 ~ LZ~ ~~ 13190043 11/15/200 20.88 107463 ~ ~~DZ~Z~ 40298621 11/20/~00 42.36 107521 ~Z~ 322466 11/20/200 143.15 107566 ~ PZ~ ~ 306816 11/09/200 67.96 107562 ~ 61029 11/21/200 289.73 12/10/01 ~ 1~/o5/01 ~ r'~-Nm. '1~/.~ ~ 9 ~ 03,Bm · -: ........................................................................................................................................ ........ ............................................................................................................................................................ ~J.tl ~ r- adm:Ln 101-1220.4170 Fu~l & ~ M'r~ ~ CDOI~ 10756~ ~ ~ 610~0 11/21/900 ~06.40 1~-~20-4290 ~K ~ ~ ~ ~ 107557 ~~ ~ - ~ ~/30/200 30.38 10~-12~0~00 ~~ ~ ~, ~. 1075~ ~ ~ ~ 2101~ 10/12/300 59.40 Z~-~20~10 ~' ~ ~.~q 107472 ~ ~ ~ ~1001 ~/10/2~ 1.84 1~-~20~3~0 ~1~ ~ 207469 ~ ~ ~ ~901 ~/19/200 1~.93 ~1-~20~]10 ~~ ~ w~ 1074~ ~ ~ ~ ~801 11/28/200 96.41 201-~20~]10 ~1~ ~ ~ 107602 ~ ~ ~ 1~801 11/18/200 43.02 101-~20~310 ~~ ~ 107560 ~ ~ 67~355 ~/~/200 100.96 ~1-~20~320 ~111~ ~-~.T~ ~ 107467 ~ ~ ~2001 ~/26/200 ~79.52 101-~20~370 ~~ ~ ~ 107465 ~ ~ ~*'/~ ~ ~/28/200 97.~ 101-~20~70 ~V~ ~ ~ ~074~ ~ ~ ~ ~/2~/200 14.00 101-2220~370 ~~ ~ ~ 107~23 ~Y ~ 11/28/01 ~/29/200 18.~ 201-~20~]70 ~~ ~ ~ 107532 ~ ~ ~/28/200 23.00 101-~20-4370 ~V~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107528 ~ ~~ 17058 ~/16/200 11.93 201-~20~370 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107528 ~ 17955 ~/28/200 39.48 201-~0-4370 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 107~8 5 ~~ ~ 280 ~/~/200 225.00 1~-~20~370 ~~ ~ ~ 107556 ~ ~ ~301 ~/03/200 14.05 1~-~0-4175 ~~ ~ ~ ~ 107527 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5218 10/~/200 ~.00 201-~20-4175 ~~ F~ ~ ~ 107527 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5219 10/~/200 1~.00 201-~0~]~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107~8 ~ ~ 17299 ~/29/200 4~.41 101-~20~375 ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107528 ~ ~ 17105 ~/29/200 34.41 201-~20~375 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10752a ~ ~~ 17343 ~/20/200 36.37 101-~20-4375 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107528 ~ ~~ 17317 ~/19/200 39.97 1~-~20~510 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~T 107487 ~ ~ ~08~75 ~/26/200 4?.37 201-~20-4510 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~Y 107487 ~ ~, ~ 9207~073 ~/~6/200 20.~ 101-1220-4510 ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ 107586 ~ ~ ~ 0~613 ~/20/200 ~.39 1~-1220-4510 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1075~ ~ ~ 333132 08/23/~00 101-~20~510 ~A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107557 ~~ ~ - ~ 11/30/200 30.52 ~-~20-4520 V~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 107~ ~ ~ 8~9 11/~/200 48.50 1~-1220-45]0 ~ ~ ~r.~ 1075~ ~A~ ~-~'8 ~5~5 11/26/200 147.09 101-1220-4531 ~o ~ ~ ~~ ~ 107~78 ~ ~ ~391 ~/~/200 101-1220-&531 ~o ~ ~ ~~ ~ 107478 ~ ~ ~&66 ~/26/200 3].00 ~ b ~v~u~.im & ~ 2,647.39 101-1250.-4040 ~ ~ ~ 107~8 ~ ~ ~~ 131~3 ~/~/200 79.~ 101-1250-4~0 ~ ~8 ~ 107~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 402~621 ~/20/200 ~0.29 101-1250-4140 V~ ~ ~ a · ~ ~R 107539 ~~ 7937 10/~/200 -29.00 101-~50~140 V~ ~ ~ & R ~ ~ 107539 ~ ~ 7888 10/01/2~0 . 114.49 101-1250-4170 ~1 & ~ ~ ~ ~ 10~2 ~ · ~029 11/21~00 614.06 101-~50-~60 ~1 ~1 ~ ~ ~' 107557 ~~ ~ - ~ ~/30/2~ 2].76 101-~50-~310 ~1~ ~ ~ 1074~ ~ ~ ~ ~001 ~/10/200 27.55 101-~50-4310 ~1~ ~ 107~0 ~ ~ ~7~355 ~/~/~00 93.79 1~50-4310 ~~ ~ ~ 107~ ~ ~ 1~01 ~/19/200 1~-1250-4340 ~ ~ ~ ~ 107~2 ~ ~ 6~1 ~/16/~00 2~.33 101-~50-4370 ~~ ~ ~ 1075~ ~ ~ ~/03/200 ~.77 JUztma/ "','~ tz'ol 10~-- 3.260.-4040 101~1260-4040 101-1260-4170 Fu~I & Lub M/D CGI]rL'Y C:QC)9 101-1260-4310 101-1260-4310 101-1260-4,310 T~I .~ VBB.T,gOM 101-1260-4310 Tel~ HB/'EDC~.T~ 101-1260-4310 101-'1_310-4040 101-1310 -4040 'r nm,~-mnge 101-1310-4170 101-1310-4300 101-1310-4300 101-1310-4300 101-1310-4310 101-1310-4310 101-1310-4310 101-1310-4310 101-1310 -4360 Mm~p 101-1310-4370 'l'z-av/T'ra/.u 101-1310-4370 'I'zlv/TrAl.u 101-1320-4040 101-1320 -4040 101-1320-4120 Iqu.'Lp Supp 101-1320-4120 ~ 8upp 101-132o-412o m~.t.p 6'u~p 101-1320-4120 101-',330-4120 101-1320-4120 ~.t.tp 8upp 101-1~20-4120 ~cl.p ~upp 101-1320--4120 ~u.'tp 101-1320--41.20 ~cl.p 8u~p 101-1320.-~0 ~ctp 101-1320-4140 101-1320-4140 V~b 8u~p '107468 107463 ~Lg]IG~DZSAB]/LT'FY 107562 107472 107472 107602 ~.T~~~ 107560 107~7 MZIIMB~yI~T-TIPK 107468 ~ ~ 107463 ~ O:)[B"rY O:X)~ 107562 ~BEJe~IIA~DB~.,/X 1074,86 C~.RV'ERO:XBETYAQDX'TO~ 107493 ~T'BAHRP(II3~TZCB' ]]lC 107583 ATaTM/BBLBBS GmLV~(~8 107460 V~.T~MT_~.~ 107472 V~T~CI~k~JrJL~ 107602 (~OME~3aD 107531 O:~(~BBZOII~O~TEI]iB]K~I~(BI 107462 ~ a][EiLDYI(/XA881 107458 MZ)m~8~Z,/FB 107468 it~:~'Z8 BBIEI~I'TS 107463 (~BK]km]T/,D.TMQ~ 107501 BU]2,D.~IQ~ 107492 BO'J/,DZMG ~ 107492 M%.T~.TC~M]U:~O 107574 ~UIL-PB"/~f:)L.B~MM]k.L~,mdud~ CO 107613 M]U~AM~TC&~IC 1O7529 Ioa:l~o~;f~ lO'7555 OlXBI~m]//,D/]IQ C~TER 107501 I, II~/L1]mA(~li]k~DMI~B 107557 ll]kU:)E,D~ 107534 ~l~~m ~ 107521 BOY~R'Em~PAiI~'B 107488 2,309.40 1319004,3 11/15/200 4.50 40298621 11/20/200 7.53 61029 11/2~/200 358.92 111001 11/10/200 90.98 1.1.2801 11/28/200 31.84 111801 11/18/200 31.50 674355 11/24/200 25.20 /.11901 11/19/200 2.18 13190043 40298621 61029 83275 706625 ~1701 ~801 ~1801 ~901 ~190~3 40298~1 228242 396874 3968741 ~901 101~52 2020253 ~0301 381053 338978 552.65 11/18/200 48.18 11/20/200 70.62 11/21/2oo 11/27/200 1,408.00 11/21/200 146.20 11/15/200 49.80 11/17/200 11.09 11/28/200 99.50 11/18/200 117.36 22/19/200 0.65 12/03/200 72.00 11/20/200 200.00 11/20/200 485.0O 2,~20.80 1//15/200 63.36 11/20/200 118.72 11/21/200 37.28 11/16/200 83.84 11/16/200 5s.24 /.2/03/200 140.00 11/28/2oo 51.15 11/29/2oo 59.41 11/28/2oo 1,3o6.11 12/01/200 24.75 11/30/200 251.39 12/03/200 25.00 11/20/200 41.15 11/27/200 7.98 12/10/01 D~te: 12/05/01 T/me: 9:03am ~Lt7 o~ Omnim,,en Page m 3 .Yu~d~GZH~2XL~:~D 101-13~0-&150 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~07557 KX~ ~ - ~ 11/30/200 12.63 101-1320-4170 ~1 ~ ~D~~ 107562 ~ 61029 11/21/200 1,132.98 101-1320~170 ~1 & L~ ~ ~ ~ 107562 DX~ ~ 61030 11/21/200 1,446.73 101-1~20~240 ~~ ~ ~ 1075~ ~ ~/~ ~~ 111901 12/0~/200 135.97 101-1320~240 ~~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ 107514 ~[~ ~ 10630 11/08/200 193.40 101-1320-4240 ~~ ~~ 107552 ~~~~ 111901 11/19/~00 219.98 101-1320~10 ~l~e ~ ~ 10~4~2 ~ ~ ~ 111001 11/10/200 15.22 101-1320-4~10 ~1~ AT~~8 ~ 10~460 ~ ~ ~ 111701 11/1T/200 55.3~ 101-1~20~10 Tel~- AT~ ~B ~D~ 10T459 ~ ~ 111801 11/18/200 3.31 101-1320-4310 ~1~ ~T~~ 10~%T~ ~.~~ ~ 112801 11/28/200 ~.83 101-1320-4310 ~1~% ~ 10~560 p~ ~ 6~4355 11/24/200 4.08 101-1320-4~10 ~ ~~ 107602 ~~ ~ 11~201 11/22/200 27.55 101-1~20-4350 ~ FT~~ ~~ 107524 ~~~/~H ~ 11/21/200 122.00 101-132D~350 ~ FZ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 107524 ~ TI~ ~ ~ 11/21/200 5~.00 101-1320-4560 81~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ 107515 ~ ~ 44580 11/20/200 4~8.61 101-1~20-4560 8t~ ~t ~ Y ~ /NC 10~515 8~ 44581 11/20/200 284.14 101-13~0-4560 Bt~t ~ ~ ~ 107557 MI8~~ ~ - ~ 11/30/200 33.01 101-1350-4120 Equip 101-1350-4310 Tel~-i~ 101-1350-4320 O1Ltlttle~ 101-1370-4040 Zn~ura~b?~ 101-1370-4040 Inm~v~nce 101-1370-4120 E~/9 I~ 101-1370-4150 Mat~/~ ~ 101-1370-4170 Fuel &Lub 101-1370-4310 Tele~ 101-1370-4310 Tel~-hcm--~ 101-1370-4310 T~le~e 101-1370-4320 D~tlltles 101-1370-4370 Trav/Tr~n 101-1370-4510 Bldg Maint 101=1370-4705 O~_hBqulp 101-1370-4705 Ot, h ~utp De~: 8entor Facility Co~mmlon 101-1430-4040 Insurance 101-1430-4040 Tn~ura~Ce Park ('~-m~4 ulcm 101-1510-4370 107557 NISC~.JaANgO~B Orl]L~]~8 - NOV 10754? TE[~T~0~E ~ 107569 EL~CTHICI"~Y(~G~Ii MINN~OTALI~ 107468 ~O~z-~/8 B~IEFITg 107463 N/lIE/ D~]44~ 107571 mR ~ ~C ~Y 107487 ~ ~ ~ 107562 ~~.~ 107472 ~ 107469 ~~ 107547 ~~-~~ 107467 ~ 8I~ 107500 ~ m~ & ~, ~ 107585 ~ ~TI~ & ~Z~, ~ 107585 ~~C 107541 MI~IB~OTA LIFE Vgg. T ~1~ WIUm.~88 I~)B~I8 ~gNEFITB MIll~80~ LIFE PORTI B B~FITG VBP. Y~ MC/ ~ ~4C TE~BCCM M/~GaBCO-~J~IANT 101=1530-4040 Insurance 101-1530-&040 101=1530-4130 Pro~ ~ 101=1530-4130 Pro~ ~ 101=1530-4310 Tel.~mm 101-1530-4310 T81e~xm 101-1530-4310 Tele~ 101=1530-4320 O~l]:Ltle~ 101-1530-4410 101-1534-3631 ~ecC~rOp 101-1534-4130 Prig Bu~p 6,511.19 11/30/200 1,119.86 De~: 101-1540-4310 TeleD 111901 11/19/200 46.33 112101 11/21/200 3,090.01 ................. Total 8tz~et Light/rig & 8tgualm 4,256.20 D~C~4BEH LII~ INg0RkNC~ 13190043 11/15/200 26.91 ~ LC~G T~U4 DIBABILITY 40298621 11/20/200 67.25 RBIMB-POIKBE~K/A~RFR~ 112601 12/03/200 8.23 ~ 92077598 11/19/200 51.12 ~ 61029 11/21/200 30.27 ~T.T~~ ~ 111001 11/10/200 8.55 ~.T.~ ~ ~ 111901 11/19/200 51.49 ~ ~8 111901 11/19/200 77.70 ~ ~ 11262001 11/2~/200 1~6.44 B~ - ~ 11/18/200 .' 10.~0 ~ 2 '~T~ 111601 11/16/200 143.00 ~AT.T.~ ~~ 110601 11/06/200 3,126.00 ~-~ ~~ 3410 10/15/200 ~9:~tel Clt¥ Gaz~:~e 4,147.46 107468'D~:::~4A~9. LIFE ~NB0~AN(~ 107463~ ~ TBS4 DISABILITY 107472~~ ~ 107472~~ ~S 107602~ ~ ~ 107~7 ~ ~ 1~190043 11/15/20036.93 40298621 11/20/20068.27 111001 11/10/2006.20. 112801 11/28/2000.19 111801 11/18/2008.33 111901 11/19/2000.18 ................. Total pla~ot~Tu~i~istz~tioo 128.10 107468 ~L~ ~~ 13190043 11/15/200 2.16 107463 ~ ~~ DI~ILX~ 40298621 11/20/200 4.01 ~1 B~ Y~tllty ~llt~ 6.17 107523 MI~ ~/B~I~ 112901 11/29/20019.45 ................. ~C~ ~ ~llt~ 19.45 107463 ~ ~~DI~IL~ 2~.5~ 107469 ~.~ ~ ~ 71.~1 10~4~1 ~ ~ ~ 33.~9 1074~2 ~~ ~ 8.19 107602 ~~ ~ 107547 ~ ~ 2.37 107463 107557 107557 10~&~ 107466 10~547 107467 107538 13190043 11/15/200 40298621 11/20/200 111901 11/19/200 11101 11/18/200 112801 11/28/200 1110O1 11/10/200 111901 11/19/200 11/07/200 569.02 107542 107490 MUSXC LI(]~B~FO~DANC~ 58447 12/04/200 58.50 9929414 10/02/200 12.00 70.50 Total Lake Ann Park 111901 11/19/200154.95 ................. 154.95 181.39 5.40 40298621 11/20/200 11.23 11/30/200 19.41 11/30/200 17.76 111001 11/10/200 8.33 111101 11/11/200 4.86 111901 11/19/200 202.28 11262001 11/26/2oo 95,27 53449738 11/23/200 204.48 12/lO/01 ]~.e~ 3~/o5/01 ........................................................................................................................................... ........ :___ 101-1550-40&0 :FJ~Clm~ M3311B~3TK ~ 107(68 ~ ~ ~ ~190~3 ~/~/200 57.96 101-1550-4~0 ~ ~8 ~ 107~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 40298621 ~/20/J00 101.14 101-~0~120 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107483 ~ ~ 70102 ~/20/200 10,299.90 101-1550~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ 107578 ~ ~ ~ 0328~ ~/03/200 ~.96 101-1550~0 ~P ~ ~ ~ & ~ 107578 ~ ~ ~ 03~ ~/28/200 99.48 101-~50~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 10~ ~ M ~ ~ 3514~B 11/26/~00 20.19 101-~50~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y 107605 ~ ~ 10615 11/30/200 31.79 1~-1550~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107557 ~ ~ - ~ 11/30/3~ ?39.49 1~-~50~140 V~ ~ ~ ~~T. ~ 107609 8 ~ ~100~ ~/~/~00 ~,0~1.65 101-1550-~140 ~ ~ ~ ~ 107533 ~, ~ ~ 24145 ~/15/200 50.?~ 101-1550~140 ~ ~ ~ ~ 107533 ~ ~17~ ~/15/300 5.9~ 101-~50-41&0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 107561 ~~~ 4~51 11/30/200 66.~ 1~-1550~150 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ 107497 ~E ~ 280879 ~/17/200 231.78 101-1550-4~0 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~~M ~ 107600 5 ~ ~ 79~3~ 11/19/200 21.14 101-~50~150 ~b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- 107598 ~ ~ 53~ ~/~0/200 149.10 1~-~50~150 ~ ~1 ~ ~ 107593 ~ 16~ ~/13/200 ~67.2& 101-~50-~0 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~- G~ ~ 107589 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~7308 ~/91/200 1,876.06 101-1550-4150 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ 107~76 ~ ~ ~ 07/30/200 -32?.5? 101-1550-4150 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10?SS? ~ ~ - ~ ~/30/200 38.S~ 101-~50~170 ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ 1075~ ~ 61029 ~/~1/200 4?5.68 ~-~S0~?0 ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ 107562 ~ ~ 61030 ~/~1/200 274.41 101-~50~240 ~Z~ ~ 1075~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 077~96 ~/~/300 288.~ 101-~0~0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ 107501 ~ 228900 ~/29/200 219.39 101-1550~260 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 10~557 ~ ~ - ~ ~/30/200 19.89 1~-~S0~300 ~~ ~ ~ 107603 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~42001 ~/03/200 ~5.00 101-1550-4300 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1074~ ~ ~ ~ 2665 ~/30/J00 896.00 101-15~0-4310 ~ ~ 107469 ~ ~ ~ ~901 ~/19/200 361.71 101-~50~310 ~1~ K ~ 107~? ~ ~ ~1901 ~/19/900 101-~S0~520 V~ ~ ~~'B ~ ~ 107607 ~~ ~ ~14 935~87 ~/03/900 141.~ 101-~50-4~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 107~ ~ ~ 456 ~/21/~00 1,92~.00 101-~50-4705 ~ ~ W ~ ~ 1076~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 485~ ~/16/~00 422.~ 101-~50~?~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 1076~ ~ ~ 485545 ~/16/~00 214.55 101-L~51-4320 Ottllttee MZHIIIQiLflC~-RILZMr~ ~ 107467' GiB C:M3H:8 101-1551-4320 Otlllt/~l MZIINBGASC~-IIZL/AI~ ~ 10746? GadJ ~ 101-1560-4120 101-1560-4130 101-1560-4130 101-1360-4130 101-1600-4040 Tnft~il/f~e ~ L_T]~ 101-1600-4040 101-1600-4120 Bqu/p 101-1600-4130 101-1600-4130 101-1600-4300 101-1600-4320 Utl/ltlel )Of VALLEY ~LBC:/~ZC CI:X:IP 101-1700-40i0 Tn-~u~ ~ ~ L/I~ 101-1700-4040 ~J~u~nce ~ B~IEF/TS 101-1710-3636 B1 PB1]pPrOg r',t:m1~, BAZE.,R~D 101-1710-3636 81£8~hrO9 A13DR~ MOL~'T 101-1711-3636 101-17~-1-4300 101-1730-3636 81ff~ T.TIT~ Bil]TEL 101-1730-4300 ConmLlt~ ACTA N/]OIZSO~X-u~w ~ TouCh Activities 101-1731-4130 9~og 8upp (:~xvrdg ~ mm (~f368 101-173/-4300 r~u/t l~j rgr~-j~ 8C~J(~T Adult Spor~ 101-1760-4300 O:mmLlt/~ ~ ZOIRIlOY 101-1760-4300 Cmmult/22g ~ ~ 107592 VAf:~XB( CLEABER/~-~ 0852523 107592 ~ O.,BilE~&m,,b,,.T'u~-14CB,I~ 0852523 107576 ~ GZC 3743173 107~3 ~ ~/~v~ ~901 107~8 ~ ~ ~ 13190~3 107~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 402~621 107~8 ~ ...... n~ 55723 1075~ ~ ~ 0851964 · o7~0 ~ ~ 630 · 07~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7o~ zo?~9 ~~ ~ z~zoz ~ i~tl:h:~ 20,255.31 ~2601 3z/26/200 74.36 :1~252001 :u./26/200 38.~ Tota/DountoUnMl~ut~nancl 113.00 ~/20/200 101.04 ~[20/200 29.99 ~/~9/200 5~.B0 ................. ~90.~8 ~/15/~00 ~.10 ~/20/200 21.96 11/28/200 1,085.87 ~/15/200 9.5~ ~/30/200 60.00 ~/2V/~00 V0.00 . 1,301.01 107523 NZBC ~(~)/BQ9];~/~8 /12901 11/29/200 60.04 Tocal HLUmm~=~y 60.04 1074~8 I)B(~(lJ~R ~ ~~ 13190~3 ~/15/200 3.02 ~07~2 ~ ~~ ~~ 4029862~ 11/20/200 S.49 ~ ~-~ ~ 8.5~ 2o~so3 ~~~~ se3ss ~/28/2oo ~o.oo 2o~o ~~ ~ 58~6 11/16/2oo 29.27 ................. ~ ~ ~ 99.17 1075~ ~~ 58330 ~/27/200 ~.00 107516 ~ &~~~ 1~901 ~/29/200 ~.00 ................. ~ ~~~ 153.00 107551 ~I~]U)-TKD 107475 TBZ) 3]H'I'JI~TZ(m'-IPALL Total ¥our. b ~ 1O7494 ~ MaJ]]:I~8-BABYSi'I'T/BI3 ~ 107548 R&BT81'T'Z'J:BI3 r~.Tm'FC ZIEJTJ0]CT/(]I' 58436 12/03/200 90.00 110801 :]-l/08/200 1,562.60 1,652.60 266752 11/26/200 197.50 '120101 12/01/200 207.50 Total Touf:hAcClvttlell 405.00 107575 PZTJ__I~8 ZBIJTZ[R::/~(:B FALL 2001 0020 11/26/200 1,524.60 1075/2 AI:IX~T~D /]BTE/X:T/(~ 110801 11/05/200 520.00 ................. Tm:L~ Xd]l~t f)J~Jri:l 2,04&.60 12/10/01 Date, 12/05/01 T:l. me:9: 03am C:Lty oE C~an]ms,,am. Pag'e~ 5 Acg~unC At~z~w ¥~x ~ ~r /=voice Deecrlpt/oo ~mb~r Dat~ Amount Fund Tollal 65,107.64 Fund[ C~TV 210-0000-4040 :TJlWd fa.rice HZIIMRflOT~ T.TFB 210-0000-4040 ZnmLco22f~ ]q:~T]:B B~iEFI"I'B 107468 Z~C~(BBR LIFE 107463 ~GFL~/BB LG~3~BIB4DIBABILZTY ~otal 13190043 11/15/200 11.37 40298631 11/20/20020.92 ................. 32.29 ................. FUTK/~C)~i32.29 211-2310-4040 ZnmlZlGCm ~ ZLTFB 211-3310-4040 /J~f~L~mngl /OK2'ZA BEHKFI~B 311-2310-4130 ]~Qg ~ dTLXBOH Q~Ai~ZCH 211-2310-4130 ~z'Qg Bt.l~p M~EL32~ AC~ ~ 107468 DSC~(Br~ LZFB ~ 107463 ~G~,OYRB LCI4G/~J(DIBABZLZ'I'Y 107540 ~_A~O__ BLIC2 2001-3002 107557 H/BCBT. E. iRME(X~ (:3~R..;~OBfl 107468 ~ LIFE IN~URANC~ 107463 ~WPLOY~ L4~GT~DIBABZLITY 107563 C~TN BAW/~/0IL/~ 107579 ~~l-~-~ ~ P~ 107581 ~ ~X~ ~ 13190043 11/15/200 4.46 40298621 11/20/200 8.40 3187 11/27/200 18.15 11/30/200 75.74 ................. 106.75 13190043 11/15/2003.06 40298621 11/20/2005.94 226799 11/20/200830.27 8276 11/30/2001,055.50 26041 11/26/20090.00 ................. 2,784.77 I~EK2 To~al 2,891.52 400-0000-1155 l~v 400-0000-1155 De~r XXWp 400-0000-4300 Consult/z~ De~t: '191~:~ou1: Gea~ 400-4105-4705 CYch Iqutp GOT. JJIX) & JLS8~ 107486 $K~MB]~ R.TEX~ APAr134Gh'~ 107486 A~3ORrT~4VI~ 107485 ~XC~4~L 8BRVXCBB-NOV~4BI~R 107477 11 ]~LTES OF QLCYVE8 Total ~93roout Gear 83273 11/27/200 629.00 83274 11/27/200 4,668.00 120101 12/01/200 1,000.00 ................. 6,297.00 2471 11/20/200396.00 ................. 396.00 ................. Fund ~o~1 6,693.00 410-0000-4300 410-0000-4300 410-0000-4300 410-0000-4300 410-0000-4701 410-0000-4701 410-0000-4701 410-0000-4705 410-0000-'1705 107537 FOZ /3U~TT. 107537 HARBH C~,KR ~RAZT. 107559 14~tWH 107489 107522 107550 ~ ~g ~L-S~ 107550 107588 12 107~5 'Focal 01-38 11/08/200 802.00 · 11/o8/200 112.50 14771 11/29/200 2,772.50 202248 08/03/200 85.00 459 11/21/2oo 12,732.oo 38311 11/07/200 6,560.00 38310 11/07/200 3,000.00 24327 10/31/200 1,021.70 1887 11/3o/2oo 16,o74.oo 43,159.70 ~ Total 43,159.70 4~23-0000-4300 107530 MA.PTA 14253 11/14/2001,088.40 ................. 1,088.40 ................. l~ndTotal 1,088.40 445-0000-4320 445-0000-4807 445-0000-4807 1>top T~ 10746"7 107495 107495 Total 112601 11/26/20038.87 111601 11/16/20015,337.28 11162001 11/16/20043,977.92 ................. 59,354.07 Fund Tot~1 59,354.07 Fu~d: ~ ~ I - DO~rl'O~i 1025 460-0000--4040 107463 ~4PLOYE~L0~GT~U4DISABILITY Total 40298621 11/20/2000.00 ................. 0.00 Fu3~ Total 0.00 l~u~: ~,~ ~ 3 - H~G~PIN CO De~t: 490-0000-4040 490-0000-4804 ~ UUZttS. W ,,L'J,'~:I 107463 ~41~.JOYER L~H(J~U4 DIBABZLX~Y 107507 2HDil~LF OF 2001'1'AX~8 40298621 11/20/200 0.00 12/03/200 36,716.30 36,716.30 36,716.30 2-2 ~ ~ 8~ 1027 TL~ Z]K~ S - m GAY 0029 494-00004804 ~ A~mt 1024 495-0000-4804 filmC Asmzt: 495-0000-4804 81~cA~muc 495-0000-4504 fJl~c Aasmt T~ · - ~x~=byt~-~= ~OmM 498-0000-4300 C~m~/t~ 600-6002-4751 AIE~DBD CO 107511 107~9~ 107570 2]IDIIR~F'J~Z 2001-~200020 107570 ~T.E 200~-~22000~0 107536 ~~2S~S50050 1650060 3.2/03/200 22,&20.13 1630020 12/03/200 17,159.38 112001 32/03/200 7,762.S0 ~.202001 32/03/200 7,762.50 111901 11/19/200 10,496.50 ................. 65,601.01 ................. Fm2d/Yfl:a/ 65f601.01 107594 2001 25550300 32/03/200 54,437.39 54,437.39 Fund'l'ol:~Z 54,437.39 107502 21DHXX3fZ~ 107590 21DH~T~PA~(~FF 107590 2~DH~LY ~ 113001 11/30/200 20,000.00 /13001 11/30/200 44,532.50 132801 11/28/200 50,772.65 ................. /15,285.15 ]fu:Dd~ /-1.-~,285.15 10754,5 ~G~14~8/1998 ~ ~ I1~ 40227 /1/19/200 2,475.00 2,475.00 · m~d/'o'c~/ 2,475.00 107549 C~ITQ~BLVD 8~ &OX'X/, X]411~O9' 1/2701 11/27/200 5,372.25 'L'oCal ~,r,~l:Z-TBlvd. BiCCC~'~L~ 5,372.25 ~mdTot,~ 5,372.25 700-0000-4O40 700-00004040 Zz2~UZ~U~ 700-0000-4120 Equ/p fJupp 700-0000-4320 Bqu/p fJupp 700-0000-4140 Veh 700-0000-4140 Veb 700-0000-4150 IMJ.1xt 700-0000-4X50 N~L=t 700-0Q00-4150 141/~t M~tl 700-0000-4160 700-0000-4160 CSMmtcmlo 700-0000-4170 ~fu~l & LU.19 700-0000-4170 700-0000-4250 Mol'Ch Zizv 700-0000-4260 ~ml1 700-0000-4300 O:mlulc/z~g 700-0000-4310 700-0000-4310 700-0000-4310 700-0000-4310 700-0000-4320 I:R:lXttX~ ?00-0000-4320 t~CllltX~ 700-0000-4320 OtlltCte~ 700-0000-4320 Ol:111tte8 700-0000-4330 ltoatalge m & 1c7113t .B:Z3~IBXC~ If~ 710-7001-4759 ~ ~ 107468 107463 107481 107557 107S21 107509 1076~ 107491 107557 107535 107557 1075~ 1075~ 107557 1075~ 107469 107~0 107560 107~7 1074~ 1076~ 107565 107569 107473 [~:B~ERT.TVB JJ~U]gA]K~ 13190043 11/15/200 62.87 DG~-Z)YEB Lf:BIQ'J~MDZSA~ZL/'I'Z 40298621 11/20/~00 :116.74 PI]B, ~ 10392 /1/21/200 327,o0 KF, SrTT~2.UBOa8 ~ - m~ /1/30/200 54.77 ~-~'11~Xrmu~ 318808 11/15/200 2&.69 POZl'~'J~88Y/O[~i~H~ 10029264 11/28/200 54.59 3/4 9ZI~ 3170 11/29/200 9.00 M //3OOl /1/30/200 695.70 ~ On~368 - BOY 11/30/200 67.50 (3]B~ZC3kLS-RL_-'~RTBS'Z']]K~ 395945 11/~4/200 ~4.~ ~ ~ - ~ ~/30/200 ~s.so ~ 6~029 /1/2~/200 ~,202.~ ~ ~ 61030 ~/2~/2oo 3u~~-~ ~ 7~96 /1/~S/200 1~6.49 ~~ ~ - ~ ~/30/200 32.~ ~ u~un 0~3 ~2/0~/200 ~8.00 ~ ~ ~ ~90~ ~/~0/200 324.00 ~~ 674355 ~/2~/2oo 6.7~ ~ ~ ~90~ /1/~9/200 302.47 ~ ~ ~00~ ~/2S/200 39.11 ~~ ~ ~O0~ 11/20/200 177.10 ~ ~ ~70~ ~/27/200 9.59 ~~~ ~0~ ~/2~/200 ~.~ n~ ~ ~300~ ~/30/200 ~0.~0 6,421.16 ................. 6,421.16 107567 T.Tr'Hn~ 13/03/200 900.00 Tcd:~ L~mLu~Tm~rRm:cudlttcm:L22g 900.00 ~u2dTo(~]. 900.00 1~2/10/01 Der. e, 12/05/01 C/ty o~ C~zd~mmm ];,~g~, 7 ~ c~mck ~nvo~ce Due 7u~m~t ~ V~ ~ NUn~m~ I~voice D~acriptio~ ][umber ~te ~t ............................................................................................................................................................. ?20-0000-3660 GM~B~ C]2g ~I~II~I4~BATCI~I)~ 107597 1967 ~ CO0~I'~ 1822100 12/03/300 18.46 720-0000-4040 ~3.BU.CB,GCe M:Z.NI~BGOTA Z~iP~ 107468 ~ ~ ~ 1~190~ ~/15/~00 ~O.g9 720-0000-4040 Zn~ ~Z8 ~ 107463 ~ ~~ DZ~ &0298631 11/20/200 20.65 ~0-0000-4300 ~t~ ~~ ~ 107476 ~C ~ ~[~ 11700909 11/13/200 1,203.77 ~0-0000-~300 ~a~ ~ ~ ~ 107557 HZB~.T~ ~ - ~ 11/30/200 44.~2 ................. ~1 1,298.~9 ................. ~~1 1,298.29 De~t~ ~ 815-8221-2024 BIc~'c)v ~y 815-822.1-2024 E B~_?'OM ~ 107610 107553 R.~l~iID-~v~gXBXLXTY B~UDY-99-20 1083 12/03/200 1,000.00 1820 12/03/200 410.00 ................. 1,410.00 ................. I~To~&i 1,410.00 820-0000-3005 ~ 820-0000-2005 /q_m.- B20-0000-2005 flex 820-0000-2005 lr].ex 820-0000-2011 v.~fe 820-0000-2011 Z,iCe TnB. 820-0000-2013 ~ ~,%.Y C~L~Z,ZB NZ]QC/ 383200-NCgBR,5 Q]U3~ LT]rB ggCI32/'1'~ T.Z~ Z'tiBURXNC~ CO 107544 107499 107571 10754] 107468 107457 107470 Tot~l 120301 12/03/200 254.08 120301 12/03/200 70.95 120301 12/03/200 189.37 120401 12/04/200 442.08 13190043 11/15/200 399.24 38321201 11/28/200 48.00 110001 11/28/200 1,281.62 2,685.34 l~und Total 2,685.34 Total 470,928.51 ity of Chw~aa~en ~eck Check ~ Date Status 107457 11/28/2001 Printed 107458 11/28/2001 Printed 107459 11/28/2001 Printed 107460 11/28/2001Prtnted 107461 11/28/2001 Printed 1074~2 11/28/2001Prtnted 107463 11/28/2001 Printed 1074~ 11/28/2001 Printed 107465 11/28/2001Prtnted 107466 11/28/2001 Printed 107467 11/28/2001 Printed 107~8 11/28/2001 Printed 107469 11/28/2001 Printed 107470 11/28/2001 Printed 1074~ 11/28/2001Prtnted 107472 11/28/2001 Printed 107473 12/03/2001 Printed 107474 12/10/2001 Printed 107475 17./10/2001 Printed 107476 12/10/2001 Printed 107477 12/10/2001 Printed 107478 12/10/2001 Printed 107479 12/10/2001 Printed 107480 12/10/2001 Printed 107~81 12/10/2004 Printed 107482 12/10/2001 Printed 107483 12/10/2001 Printed 107484 12/10/2001 Printed 107485 12/10/2001 Printed 107486 12/10/2001 Printed 107~87 12/10/2001Prfnted 107488 12/10/2001 Printed 107489 12/10/2001 Printed 107490 12/10/2001 Printed 107491 12/10/2001 Printed 107492 12/10/2001 Printed 107493 12/10/2001 Printed 10749~ 12/10/2001 Printed 107495 12/10/2001 Printed 107496 12/10/2001 Printed 107497 12/10/2001 Printed 107498 12/10/2001 Printed 107499 12/10/2001 Printed 107500 12/10/2001 Printed 107501 12/10/2001Prtnted 107502 12/10/2001 Printed 107503 12/10/2001 Printed 10750~ 12/10/2001 Printed 107505 12/10/2001 Printed 107506 17./10/2001 Printed 107507 12/10/2001 Printed 107508 12/10/2001 Printed 107509 12/10/2001 Printed 107510 12/10/2001 Printed 107511 12/10/2001 Printed 107512 12/10/2001 Printed 107513 12/10/2001 Printed 107514 12/10/2001Prtnted 107515 12/10/2001 Printed 107516 12/10/2001 Printed 107517 12/10/2001 Printed 107518 17./10/2001 Printed 107519 12/10/2001 Printed 107520 12/10/2001 Printed 107521 12/10/2001 Printed 107522 12/10/2001 Printed 1075Z~ 12/10/2001 Printed 107524 12/10/2001 Printed 107525 12/10/2001 Printed 107526 12/10/2001 Printed 107527 12/10/2001 Printed 107528 12/10/2001 Printed V~r Nurber NCPERS AGGREA ATT1 ATTIL BRIBEN CONTRA FORBEN GREHAY GUESER HCIWOR NZNNEG NNLIFE NEXTEL SECLIF SPRPCS VERIZO POST ACESIJP ACT#IN ALEAIR ANCTEC AUDNOL BANFOR BENOUT BENPRO BOLAND BOflROS BO~STA BOYTRU BRAINT BROHUS BRYROC BUIFAS CARRED CARTRE CHACHZ CHASZE CHABUl CHAGAT CHEBAL CONINT CSNINV CLJLLZG CI.)INOR DELHAR DIglOSA DONCRE DOUHOE DUNRIT EARAND EDEPAR EHLER$ EZLHEI EHEAPP ESCTEL FACHOT FAZASP FESFO0 FIEDRE FZNBRO FIRCOR FIRSTU F__OCC~_.E CHECK REGISTER REPORT BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK 12/10/01 V~r Nanm 383200-NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS AGGREGATE & RE/~Y NiX AT&T gIRELESS LONG DIST~CE AT&T W%RELE~ S~V%CES BR%~ B~%~ ~ISSI~ OF T~S~TMI~ F~TIS BENEFITS GREG ~EST S~VIC~ NCI ~L~ ~ S~VICE NINNE~S~-REL1~T EN~GY MINNE~A L%FE N~TEL SEC~%TY LZFE %N~E SPRINT P~ V~%~ g%RELE~ ~T~T~ ACE S~PLY ~ IN~ A~TA N%NNE~TA-JEFF ~GEL ~VAN~ D~Z~GE ~Y~T~ AL~ AIR ~P~T~ %N~ ~ TECHNZ~L ~ENT~ A~ ~LET ~ R~ A~O S~V%~E ~T~ ~N F~S TE~OL~Y B~CH~K ~~ PR~S IN~ B~%EK PR~ERTY S~V%~ES ZN~ ~D & AS~%AT~ ~ESTR~ R~ENE ~D~L%~ ~DER STAT~ ELE~TR%~ ~LY B~ TR~K P~TS B~ INT~TEC ~T~ BR~D~T ~%~ Z BRY~ R~ ~~ %NC BU%LD%NG FA~ERS ~V~ ~ ~%T~ ~VER ~_~ RED ~R~S ~ ~TY TR~ ~ ~~T %N~ ~T~E PR~T~ ~S~ B~%NESS ~ENT~ LLP ~LES C~L~ SIDLE ~ BU%LD%NG ~T~ C~S~ ~T~Y P~TNERS ~H~YL ~P~ER' %NTE~T%~ TECHN. ~~TE ~ INViTeS ~L%~ ~INS N~Tfl ~T~L DELL ~%gG LP D~ LL~ D~N-R~TE SHOES & ~L F ~D~S~ %NC ~ P~%R%E P~ & RE~T%~ EHLERS & ~/ATES E%LEEN HE%T~ ~G~CY ~P~T~ ~%NT. %NC ESCHEL~ TELE~ %NC FACT~Y ~T~ P~TS ~Y FA%RF~ A~LT %NC FESTIVAL F~ F%ELO OF DR~S RE,CLiNG CTR F%NLEY BR~.~ %NC. FiRES%DE ~NER FIRST ST~T %NC F~ ~E H~ PH~O Check Description BiPLOYEE LIFE ZNStJRANCE SIglZNAR - SUE%DAN TELEPHONE CXARGES CELL~ PH~E C~GES FEE F~ ~TA C~ S~l~ - ~EI~ ~L~EE L~G T~ DZ~ZLI~ R~CE L~ CHECK ~YES N~L TZC~/F[RE A~ TEL~E C~G~ ~ C~G~ DEC~ L~FE ~LL~ P~E C~GE$ DEC~ D~TAL [NS~CE CELL~ PH~E C~GES CELL~ PH~E C~GES ~ZLZ~ BILL ~TAGE ~D S~ER T~ ZNSTR~TZ~-F~L ~T R~S 11 PA[RS OF GL~S P~ER REPAIR ~FFEE REF~D-PRESCH~L B~LL PINS, GR~E HEC~I~L P~[TS B~CH F~ES S~L~ZNG' CITY PR~ERTZES PROFE~Z~L S~VZCES-N~B~ KINGS R~ L~PS RESI~ ~STR~T[~' ~TERZALS TESTING H~IC L[C~S[NG F~ D~CE R~ -' N[SC. P~TS ~IES OF ~E C~GES R~T ~[K[NS-~BYSXTT[NG CLNC T~ F~SH N~Y~ ~P. PACK ~ETE-~HTA P~ SCH~ PA~T FL~-H~LTH S~[~- L~CH GL~S ~D ~LF PA~ENT REF~D-~C~/FL~ H~ FIRE D~T NET~INSTAL~TI~ T~, ~ELS REF~D-P~IT ~ID~ 2ND ~LF OF 2~1 T~ ~A~T - REF~D ~INT ~ ~ ~ KIT TIF - C~ B~[N~ C~T~ ~D ~ULT T~ ~N~R~[~ S~[~ ~SES ~S/~S R~U~TE SI~S B~ & B~ TXCK~S~S S~V ICES PR~ REF~D A~O EJ~ S~VICE ~LL BELT T~SI~ER T~L REPAIRS H[SC F~/~PL[ ES RE~CLE T[R~ ~D R[NS SHELTE~ST~S~K ~A~T - REF~D B~ES F~ FIRE ~ F~ELD TR~PS RE~INTS Date: 12/05/01 Time: 9:06am Page: 1 AmoLIlt 48.00 485.00 3.31 95.27 70.00 200.00 1,035.33 14.00 97.15 830.29 1,030.84 1,344.11 507.32 840.10 1,562.60 876.20 396.00 30.50 29.17 127.00 10,299.90 1,000. O0 6,705.00 232.47 7.98 ~.OO 12.00 1~).20 197.50 59,315.20 161.15 ~31.78 '17,159.38 '' 10.50 281.42 20,000.00 70.00 2,956.35 656.61 186.25 36,716.30 8.00 5~.59 101.18 22,420.13 520.00 9~2.77 193.40 762.75 119.00 1,500.00 34.00 48.50 115.81 208.~9 14,657.00 150.5 175.00 16,074.00 9.00 209.57 CHECK REGISTER REPORT BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 12/05/01 12/10/01 Ttme: 9:0~em City of Chanhassen Page: 1 ~eck Ch~k Vendor Nmber Date Status Number Vendor Name Check Description Amount 107529 12/10/2001 Printed FORAHE FORCE AHERICA IHt SEAL KIT 59.41 107530 12/10/2001 Printed GEl)CON GEOHATR]X CONSULTANTS ]NC WAFTA 1,088.40 107531 12/10/2001 Printed GEOk~ GEITdORLD SUBSCRIPTION - DEVENS 72.00 107532 12/10/2001 Printed GREHAY GREG HAYES 107533 12/10/2001 Printed HANCOH HANCE CONPANIES 107534 12/10/2001 Printed HARBRO HAROLD BROSE 107535 12/10/2001 Printed HAWCHE HA~q(INS CHEHICAL 10753 12/10/2001 Printed HERAKL HERAKLES, LLC 107537 12/10/2001 Printed HO%KOE HO%S%NGTON KOEGLER GROUP 107518 12/10/2001 Printed %OSCAP %0S CAPITAL 107539 12/10/2001 Printed JRRAD J & R RADIATOR REPAIR 107540 12/10/2001 Printed JANGRA JANSON GRAPH%CS 107541 12/10/2001 Printed JATELE JATCO ELECTR%C 107542 12/10/2001 Printed JULSM! JULIE LARSON SHITHSON 1075~3 12/10/2001 Printed KATAAN KATE AANENSON 107544 12/10/2001 Printed KELJAN KELLEY JANES 107545 12/10/2001 Printed KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 107546 12/10/2001 Printed KEVGRA KEV%N GRAFFT 107547 12/10/2001 Printed I(MCTEL IOIC TELECOH 10754~ 12/10/2001 Printed KRISCH KR%STA SCHHiDT 107549 12/10/2001 Printed KUSCON KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION CONPANY 107550 12/10/2001 Printed LAWKIN LAWN KING, iNC. 107551 12/10/2001 Printed LINBEU LiNDA BEUTEL 107552 12/10/2001 Printed LORENG LOREN ENGELHANN 107553 12/10/2001 Printed LUNBRO LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 107554 12/10/2001 Printed LYHLUN LYHAN LLJHBER 107555 12/10/2001 Printed HACEQU HACQUEEN EQUIPHENT 107556 12/10/2001 Printed HARL%T HARK LITTF%N 107557 12/10/2001 Printed HERACE HERLINS ACE. HARDWARE 107558 12/10/2001 Printed HETATH HETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 107559 12/10/2001 Printed HETLAN HETRO LAND SURVEYING & ENG. 107560 12/10/2001 Printed NETROC HETROCALL 107561 12/10/2001 Printed HETFOR HETROPOL%TAN FORD 107562 12/10/2001 Printed HIDCOU HiD COUNTY COOP 1075~ 12/10/2001 Printed HIDENG HIDHEST ENGINE SERVICE 1075~4 12/10/2001 Printed HIK~EG HiKE WEGLER 107565 12/10/2001 Printed HINNEG HINNEGASCO-REL%ANT ENERGY 1075~ 12/10/2001 Printed H%NCON H%NNESOTA CONWAY 107567 12/10/2001 Printed NNNAT HN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1075~8 12/10/2001 Printed HNFiRE HN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION 107569 12/10/2001 Printed HVEC HN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 107570 12/10/2001 Printed HONENT HONK ENTERPR%SES 107571 12/10/2001 Printed NIKDUH NIKKi DIJI~ER 107572 12/10/2001 Printed OFFHAX OFFICE HAX 107573 12/10/2001 Printed OPESHU OPEN AND SHUT ENTERPRISES INC 107574 12/10/2001 Printed PATHAC PATRICK HACZKO 107575 12/10/2001 Printed PEGZOE PEGGY ZOERHOF 1O7576 12/10/2001 Printed PEPHIN PEPPER OF HINNEAPOLIS 107577 12/10/2001 Printed POST POSTHASTER 107578 12/10/2001 Printed PRALAH PRAIRIE LAHN & GARDEN 10757~ 12/10/2001 Printed PRARES PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 107580 12/10/2001 Printed PROSAL PROHOTIONAL SALES INC 107581 12/10/2001 Printed RAYPIN RAY PINK 107582 12/10/2001 Printed RBHSER RBH SERVICES INC 107583 12/10/2001 Printed ROARUN ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION %NC 107584 12/10/2001 Printed SENSYS SENTRY SYSTENS, INC. 107585 12/10/2001 Printed SERHEA SERBUS HEATING & COLLING, LLC 10758~ 12/10/2001 Printed SHOTRU SHORLmJOOO TRUE VALUE 107587 12/10/2001Prtnted SIBEAS SIBLEY EAST HiGH SCHOOL 107588 12/10/2001 Printed SiGgSO SIGNSOURCE 107589 12/10/2001 Printed SOUSTP SOUTH ST PAUL STEEL SUPPLE CO 107590 12/10/2001 Printed STEDEV STEZNER DEVELOPHENT 107591 12/10/2001 Printed SURVIV SURVIVALINK 1075~2 12/10/2001 Printed TARGET TARGET 107593 12/10/2001 Printed TARPS TARPS iNC 107594 12/10/2001 Printed ROTCOH THE ROTTLUND COHPANY INC. 1075~5 12/10/2001 Printed TODGER TODD GERHARDT 107596 12/10/2001 Printed TODHOF TODD HOFFHAN 107597 12/10/2001 Printed TO~CRE TOHNHOHES AT CREEKSIDE 107598 12/10/2001 Printed THISEE TWIN CiTY SEED CO. 1075~ 12/10/2001 Printed THICIT THIN CITY HATER CLINIC lNC 107600 12/10/2001 Printed USFDIS US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP PARKING FEES ARBOR 10 BALES EROSION HAY CHEHICALS-HATER TESTING TfF REFUND 251650050 HARSH GLEN TRAIL COPIER RENT FUEL TANK LOGO SLICE 2001-2002 HIRE-NEH iNFRARED HEATER REFUND-KiNDERDANCE FLEX-HEALTH FLEX-HEALTH PRESBY HOHES/I~8 DEBT REST REPLACE LOST REFUND CHECK TELEPHONE CHARGES BABYSiTTiNG CLINIC iNSTRUCTION CENTURY BLVD ST & UTIL IHPROV SI(ATE PARK-RECYCLED TINBER RET REFUND-TKD REIHBLIRSE SAFETY BOOTS REFUND-FEASIBiLiTY STUDY-~-20 BUNDLES OF ~OD LATH CYLINDER FOOD REIHBURSEHENT HISCELLANEOUs CHARGES - NOV PITCHING RUBBERS/BASES HARSH GLEN/FOX CHASE TRAIL PAGER CHARGES TU~E/VALVE DIESEL FUEL CHAIN SAN/CHAINS/OIL/BARS SAFETY BOOrS/JEANS REIHBURSEHE GAS CHARGES RECHARGE FIRE EXTING LICENSE 5 CERTIFICATION TESTING ELECTRICITY CHARGES 2ND HALF 2001-BUILD 2200010 REIHB-POINS~TTA/AIR FRESHNER HAILING LABELS REBUILD DOOR CLOSURE SAFETY SHOES REIHBURSEHENT PILATES INSTRUCTION FALL 2001 SHEET HUSIC YEARLY PO BOX RENTAL SUHP AND SEAL BUCI(THORN CUTTING-BL CRK PARK NAVY WINDSHIRTS ROTOTILL CONHUNITY GARDENS CLEANING DELIVERY CHARGE FIRE STATION HONITORING INSTALL 2 THERMOSTAT COVERS TIRE PRESSURE GAUGE REPLACE LOST REFUND CHECK 12 SIGNS HISC STEEL FOR PARK SHED 2ND HALF PAYHENT BATTERY CHARGER'AEDmS VACUUH CLEANER/SUPPLIES'~I~ENS TARPS 2001TIF PAYHENT REIHBURSE'LUNCH HEET-CAR ALLOW CONFERENCE PARKING/HEALS 1~7 ANDREH COURT REFUND GRASS SEED NOVEHBER HATER ANALYSIS 5 DRAIN COVERS 23.00 56.71 25.00 114.94 10,496.50 914.50 204.48 85.49 18.15 390. O0 58.50 442.08 254.08 3,854.9~ 30.00 3,249.87 207.50 5,372.25 9,560.00 90.00 219.98 410,00 65.96 1,306.11 14.05 2,~9.52 1 o 085.87 2,772.50 249.93 6,191.11 830.27 135.97 9.59 67.96 900.00 225.00 3,422'.~4 15,525.00 197.60 19.69 117.76 140.00 1,524.~0 27.~ 32.00 190.44 1,855.50 60.00 90.00 2,223.32 49.80 59.40 "3,269.00 13.39 200.00 1,021.71) 1,876.06 95,285.15 147.09 267.24 54,437.39 502.73 22.42 18.~ 149.10 128.00 1 ,~7.~ CHEClC REGISTER REP(~T BANI(: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 12/05/01 12/10/01 Time: 9:06am ity-of Chanhassen Page: 2 ..... .. .......... ............................................................................................................ hack Check Vendor md=er Data Status Nm/3er Vefxlor Name Check Oescrlptto~ Amour ......... ........ ....... ........... .. ......... .. ............... ... ....... ......... ................................................ 107601 12/10/~001 Printed USOFF US OFFICE PROOUCT$ ENIX)~$BilENT STANP$ 50.91 1076OZ 107603 10760~ 107605 107606 1076O7 107608 107609 107610 107611 107612 107613 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/10/2001 Printed Printed Printed Printed Void Printed Printed Prtnted Printed Prtnted Pr(nted Printed VERIZO VERIZON WIRELESS CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES 308.80 VERHEN VER# HENNES RELOCATE 1 TREE AT CARVER BEAC 125.00 VICREP VICTORIA REPAIR & NFG 3/4 PIPE 9.00 WACFAN I~CONIA FANN SUPPLY PROPANE TANKS 31.79 WEARGU WEARGUARD FIX-CREDIT ONLY ENTERED 15.06 WICLTD WICHTERHAN"S LTD IMC R.EPLACE/REPAIR SEAT #~14 141.15 WZLPAP I~ILCQX PAPER CI)I~ANY PAPER 561.56 GOOBRA WIIIGFOOT CQ~ERCIAL TIRE 8 TIRES 1,018.65 WITCOIi WITCHER CONSTRUCTION CO ESCROW REFUND 1,000.00 I&/GRA IWI GRAINGER IIIC SHOP VAC 636.67 XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC ELECTRICZT7 CHARGES 177'.10 ZAHPET ZAHL-PETROLELN HAIIITENANCE CO LENS/BULB 51.15 ............. Total Checks: 157 Bank TotaL: 470,928.51 Total Checks: 157 Grand TotaL: 471),928.51 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCR, SPECIAL MitErING NOVEMBER 1, 7/}01 Mayor Jansen ~dled the meeting to order. COUNCIL MEMBEI~ P~: Mayor lansen, Councilnmn Boyle, Councilman ~ and Councilr~n Ayotte .DEBT STUDY P~ATION. Bruce Dalong: What you've got before you is a whole bunch of information about our debt service funds, but what Fd really like to try and focus in on tonight is son~tdng fairly specific, and that is calling several bond issues that are available to be called. We've got a bunch of bond issues that do not have call provision or it's out quite a few years in the future, but right now we've got some bond issues that were issued back in the late 80's, early 90's at higher interest rates. Substantially higher than the going interest rates fight now and we have an opportunity to make some money, or to save some money by paying them off early. So what I'd like to focus on is those 5 issues and they're in your packet. Starting with the fi_~ page back. You can see there's a sheet that talks about the 1988 G.O. trnre Station Bonds. We consider interest rates on those coupons are up 7.1-7.2%. Right now on our short term money we're getting less than 3% on short term inv~ts of less than 6 months in'general. You can see that on the 89C, the interest rates ranged from 6.5% to 6.7%. So what we're really doing right now is we're earning money at 2 ½%, 3% to pay off bonds that are going at 6 or 7 percent so there's a substantial change that we can accrue back to the city to pay these off early. Now we do have to put some money into paying off these bond issues and there's 3 others that we discussed. 92A G.O. lmprove~ts. The 93C bonds and the 91E bonds. In total this will take a little over a million dollars in order to actually pay all of these off, but we do have funds available~ What we've talked about last year at length, during our budget discussions was how much should we have in general fund balance. I think a couple weeks ago that you heard from both Mr. Ruff and from Mr. Mai, from Tautges-Redpath, that a city should have someplace around 50% of fund balance of tbek general tim& Now I think that's actually in line with what other outside groups like the Taxpayer's League are saying as part of their's. It certainly is prudent for cities to have a reasonable fund balance. If we use the roughly $400,000 that it will take to pay off those first two bond issues that I talked about out of the geoeml fund balance,, that will bring us down someplace around 4.2 million dollar~ which would be a lot closer to What our general fund balance probably should be, considering that next year's budget is going to be somep~ arotmd 8 million dollars worth of expenditures. Little bit over that actually. So I think we can accomplish a couple of goals because then we also would remove from the tax levy, the levies that are associated with those issues. Right now in the proposed levy we have tax levies for the 88 trLre'Station bonds of $'70,000 for next year. In the 89C we have a proposed levy of $101,472. And then the 91E we have a tax levy of $220,000 associated with that. So by paying off these bond issues we can aco_ ~ily reduce the taxes by $390,000 for next year. Mark Ruff: I think the only caveat that I have given Bruce and I think staff has mentioned to you that in the end of Nove~ when I come back, once we get county values and tax rates, be able to give you a better explanation of the whole tax picture for homeowners and businesses within the community, but the City Council Meeting - November 1, 2001 only caveat that ! had given Bruce is, the question is do you really want to reduce your debt levy that much for this particular year given the fact that we still have substantial needs in other debt service funds in future years? In other words, to the extent that you drop that whole amount, which is almost $400,000 in one year, are you going to have to then in the next couple of years raise it fight back up again and does that kind of gyration in your debt levy make a lot of sense. And I think that's part of what our goal is at the end of November is to give you a better longer term picture to say, what are your real needs in your other debt service funds? These decisions to make, that we have before you, which I think are relatively easy ones because it's much easier and much higher savings on these higher interest rate bonds of these size not to refund it because you're going to end up paying a whole lot of fees to save not a lot of present value money. You'll probably pay more in fees than you would actually get savings so it just makes good financial sense if you have the cash on hand to pre-pay these bonds and I think that's the main focus of our recommendations, at least initially in that debt study. It's not obviously until Dece~r that you need to make the decision on how you allocate the remaining debt service levy as to whether you do want to reduce that or if you want to leave it in there just knowing that you have, even though you paid off this bond issue, you've got some needs and some other debt service funds that you may need to retain. Especially that $220,000 levy that we talked about. Bruce De2ong: But at any rate, really the direction that we're seeking from the council at this point is the ability to call those bonds and we need to do that on a timely basis. One of those issues is a January 1 due date, and we have to give those bond holders a one month notice, according to our bond covenants in order to call those. So we need to get approval for that sometime here in November. We could do it either on the meeting of the 13~, or on the meeting of the 26~. Mark Ruff: And I think we recommended the 13t~ mainly because we do nm into some occasions where giving those bond holders legally and they need 30 days notice, the paying agents to the banks who · actually send in the payments to the bond holders. Sometimes they require 45 day notices so just to be on the safe side, we're recomn~nding that November 13~ date. Councilman Peterson: And what you're asking for now is the, that doesn't total the 390,000. How much does what you're asking for now total up to? Bruce De.long: So what we're asking for is the authority to go ahead and call all 5 of those bond issues. And that would require additional cash to be put in. Little bit in excess of $400,000 I'm proposing would come from the general fund, and the remainder of the money would come from the I-Iistofie Preservation Trust Fund, which has kind have been established out of some excesses that have been generated over the course of the years, but to use it for paying down debt is probably a fairly good association. Mark Ruff: We think you will from, not the first 2 that Bruce talked about that are clearly supported by taxes but the other 3 that are improvement bonds. You will have some residual special assessments that will be received by the city. Would not have any debt outstandings so you obviously will have some, it's not a net dollar amount, a million dollars, you've got to come up with a million dollars cash today but probably over the next 5, 6, 7 years you'll be recovering about $300,000-$400,000 of that through special assessments yet to be received. Councilman Peterson: So $600,000, approximately $600,000 would come from the Historic Preservation Fund getting you to the million? Mayor Jansen: You said this was going to cost about a million dollars. A little over a million. City Council Meeting - November 1, 2001 Mark Ruff: Approximately $400,000 is coming from the general fund. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, and then the 6 number is what I'm questioning. That's coming from Historic Preservation, give or take. Mark Ruff: Right. Councilman Peterson: But going back to my first question, the million dollars that we're talking about defeasing now doesn't correlate to $390 you referenced lowering the debt service for 2002. Cost. Mayor Jansen: For the levy. Councilman Peterson: We've got two different discussions going. I just want to clarify that we're. Bruce DeJong: It's just that I wanted to highlight for the council that by paying off these debts, you know calling those bond issues early, you will avoid having to levy money during the course of the next several years. When you look on the estimated tax levy sheet that I handed out, well it's been a few months now, but that shows that you have debt service levies scheduled for the next 2 years on both the fire station, the 88 Fire Station and the 89 Corporate Pm'pose Bonds, and those levies are approximately $400,000. Combining that with the $220,000 that is scheduled to be levied on the 91E and the $400,000 worth of assessments that Mark mentioned, I mean the net effect is that we're going to come out whole in this over time, but it does require some cash up front in order to make those savings. We're just really adjusting how we pay for those debts and when the money comes back to us. Councilman Ayotte: I'm having a hard tirr~ here because I keep on hearing 2 things. We service the debt and you reduce the levy. Is there a trick someplace in this thing? Mayor Jansen: We would actually be using our cash on hand to pay off these debts instead of having to levy our taxpayers the $390 this year that we would otherwise have to. I mean this is sounding very positive to me. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to find out. Mayor Jansen: Very positive. Councilman Peterson: We're talking about 2 different things though so let's talk about one at a ~me. Defeasing these doesn't, is the first conversation that they want feedback on. The second one is a different conversation so. Councilman Ayotte: I understand, but they are linked in terms of. Mayor Jansen: But it is the rationale behind doing this because what we're looking to do is reduce our levy to our taxpayers and we would in fact be able to do that, and in fact you mentioned in your memo an additional savings to our taxpayers, and I don't know if you were able to calculate this. What the actual interest savings would be to us for defeasing these now. Bruce I)e. Jong: Yes I did calculate that. Mayor Jansen: Because that's an additional cost to our taxpayers. City Council Meeting - November 1, 2001 Bruce DeJong: The interest savings over the life of the bonds is slightly over $250,000. So that' s interest of the next 3 years that we would avoid paying by paying them off early now. Now it's the same way if you pay off your house mortgage a couple years early, then you don't have to make the interest payments that would be associated with it otherwise down the line. Mayor Jansen: That's terrific. So where our total levy to our taxpayers is a sum of our expenses for your annual budget, you can call them all off but our debt service is a huge part of that and for staff to have figured out that we can reduce that debt levy, since we've been so prudent and staff I should again compliment you. Staff has been so prudent with the budget, to try and help us reduce those costs, but they're not coming up with nearly the dollars that we:re hoping for. And instead they've come up with not only a way to reduce next year by the $390,000 but now telling us we're saving $250,000 over 3 years in taxpayer dollars. Councilman Ayotte: I get it all. I'm just trying to find out the bad news. Mark Ruff: Well the bad news, if I can hit it is, should we really reduce the debt levy by $390,000 and that's the only question that we say that we really need to look at holistically at the whole city's financial picture. Mayor Jansen: And you'd be able to give us then, what you're saying is if we do direct you to move forward with this strategy, you could give us a schedule to show us what this impact would be if there is one of those big bleeps that pops up in say 4 to 5 years, because from what you just said, this one would affect at least 2 of them the next 2 years, so that would be consistent for 2 years anyway. And then the 1 is just the 1 year. Councilman Ayotte: But if we don't vote for this, then we'd never know so ! come again to the point. Councilman Peterson: And we're not voting tonight either. Mayor Jansen: Staff's looking for direction. Councilman Ayotte: Well giving direction, yeah. Councilman Peterson: The other concept, and to Mark's point, the other way in which you could use those surplus funds, other than keeping them, is instead of indirectly lowering the tax levy, which we all want to lower the tax levy. I mean nobody's going to argue that. You know you use surplus funds to directly lower the levy like we did last year. So it' s, we do it indirectly by paying down debt. You lower your interest payments. You do it directly by utilizing surplus, that same surplus to lower the tax levy. Maintain the debt service. I mean so there is, it good news either way. Mayor Jansen: Well and on that note, one of the concerns that staff has really continually raised to us, and Mark I think it's been one of your messages to us pretty consistently is that our bond rating keeps improving because we do have this cash that's on hand. Now do we see that same improvement if we're reducing our debt? Is that not a significant indicator to the rating services if we pull these issues off our debt? Mark Ruff: It is definitely, I mean you can pay down debt. That's a good thing as long as the rating agencies are assured that you're not paying down too fast, and by too fast they mean reducing your City Council Meeting - November 1, 2001 flexibility over the next several years to meet all your obligations and that's why Bruce talked about that 50% of annual expenditures being a really good minimum on your general fund discussiom Councilman Peterson: From the bond rater's perspective, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul so it's almost_ a push. You're taking away surplus, which they like, and paying down debt which they don't like so it should be a wash. Mark Ruff.' Well it's not quite a wash because at least in their mind you're paying, you're spending it on good things. The rating agency always assumes you're going to spend your. cash. Councilman Peterson: Well, they should assume that Chanhassen's going to spend it on good things all the time anyway. You're endearing yourself to them so they understand that so. Brace DeJong: Let's just say that the rating agencies are skeptical. They don't necessarily trust us. But I think it really does me~.t the objective that from the staff perspective we want to u-y and keep our annual revenues matched up with our annual expenditures in the general fund. That is just one of the basic tenants of good governmental finance to try and match those on an annual basis so that you're not building a surplus or creating a deficit in one year. It really means that you're asking today's taxpayers to pay for today's services. Now the surpluses that we have and... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Brace DeJong: ...it's by no means a decided question and I-thinl~ regardless of what we decide on an internal basis, it could certainly be questioned at some later point by an outside authority, whether that's the Office of the State Auditor, you know or the Attorney General or whatever. So until we get a better handle on what those projections are, it's not prudent to get rid of, or spend down all of our surplus funds, but certainly when we get to a point where we've got a number that staff, our consultants and the council can come to some consensus on, I'm more than willing to look at utilizing fund balances to pay down debt or to pay for projects that we're currently bonding for rather than issuing equipment ce~ficates. Utilize cash on hand to transfer it into our capital replacement fund. Things liice that_ But we are trying to, from the staff level, meet the council's desire to keep the tax levy down and minimiTe the amount of surplus funds that are sitting out there, but also to try and keep our debt service on an even keel so that we don't see tremendous spikes in that debt service levy and we don't see wild fluctuations from year to year. I think it's much easier for the city taxpayers to budget if they know that their taxes are going to be somewhat steady on some basis. So those are the competing objectives and I thinlr the calling of these 5 bond issues really helps to meet a lot of those from both the council perspective, the taxpayer's perspective and the staff perspective. Mayor Jansen: Let me ask you this. A large part of our revenue projection of course is our building permits, and now in light of what is obviously now becoming a very soft market, how conservative a number, is staff still comfortable with the projection that you put in as I'm assuming you've probably revisited that as you're starting to see the market soften on us and all this talk about recession, that'stbe ........... :- - one that could come back to really hit us if we fall short of that building permit r~venue. Bruce De.long: Well you know. Mayor Jansen: Did you take projects that were basically slated like the Pulte and some of the others that are definitely coming in? Are those the majority of what's out there or was there a lot of speculation in the number? City Council Meeting - November 1,2001 Bruce DeJong: No, I don't think that there's a lot of speculation. There are still some significant commercial projects that are coming through. And with the Pulte coming on line, that will certainly help. Residential has not been very strong the last few years. Last year was actually one of the lowest years for residential building permits. I think Kate highlighted that in a presentation earlier to you. But I guess I'm comfortable with the number that's included in there right now and I'm comfortable that we have sufficient reserves. If we're short there or that there may be some areas that we don't fully expend all of our funds. Certainly every year there is a proportion, granted it's been fairly small the last few years that the departments have been under budget but it's always some amount that isn't spent in each one of those line items. So I think that overall, as long as the council is comfortable that staff is going to spend only the resources required, that we'll be within a close enough approximation of meeting our budget numbers on the revenue side, that I don't think the expenditures will be a problem. Mayor Sansen: Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff?. Any other comments? Councilman Boyle: I have none. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Do you need a motion from us or do you just, you've got the general direction. I think we're feeling very positive about this approach. Thank you for bringing this forward and addressing, as you said, our objectives in coming up with this as an alternative so just getting back to us I guess with that chart of what it does to our debt as we go forward and if there' s any spikes would be terrific. Okay. Councilman Peterson: I'd like to motion towards the door. Mayor Jansen: Motion to adjourn please. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSE2q CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEKI'ING NOVEMBER 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen caned the work session meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. ~H'AFF ~: Todd Gedmrdt, Bruce DeJon~ Richard Rice, Todd Ho~ and Teresa Bmgess 2002 BUDG~ WORK SESSION: ADMINISTRATION. Todd Gerhardt made the presentation for the Administration Depattmeat. The question was asked if the position of Assistant City Manager was inclna~ with the salaries and wages. It was decided that that issue would be discussed at the strategic planning session. Councilman Ayotte asked for a breakdown of attorney fees, how mu~h goes to Campbell-Knutson and how much to other law firms. Bruce DeJong and Todd Gerhardt explained how the attorney fees are disbursed. Councilman Labatt requested a ~own from Sheriff Olson on what the $8,000 for Sergeant Potts includes. MIS DEPARTMENT. . Councilman Labatt wanted to know what happens .when Rick Rice goes on vacation. 'Rick Rice .explained about Jerry's role and the reason he's requesting funding for. a tech position. Mayor Jansen asked about th~ decrease in October's projections. Bruce I)clong explain~ it was due to a miscommunicafion between Rick Rice and the finance dcpat~ne~ CAPITAL IMPRQ~NT PROGRAM. Bruce DeJong went over the changes that had been made. Mayor 3ansen asked for clarification on the trail connectors. Todd Hoffman stated hi~ numbers were estimates and that solid numbers would be available in December. Councilman Ayotte asked about the life cycle costs associated with the ca~tal J .reprovers coming out of taxes. Councilman Person asked if the council could spend more time on this item. It was decided to discuss it at the meeting on December 3"~, at the Truth in Taxation hearing. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m. Submitt~ by Todd Gerhardt City Manager .by Nann Opheim CHANiIASSF_,N CITY COUNCIL RF_.~~ ME~G NOVEMBER 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Cub Scout Pack ~337, Den 8 presented the Colors for the Hedge to the ~ ~I'AFF PRESENT: Todd Gedmrdt, Roger Knmson, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Beth Hoiseth, and Sgt. Dave Ports PUBLIC ~ Lloyd Janet Paulseu ~ohn Siegfried 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 8821 Sunset Trail Carver County Commissioner PUBLIC ANNOUNC~'MENTS: Mayor lansen: We do not have any public announcements, bu~ before we go onto the consent agenda, we do have one ngenda amendrmnt as we go to do the .appmv~ of the agenda.. We will be deleting item ' nmnher 4 under our public hearings, which.is a public hearing for the lCin~ Road street and utility i .taproots, Project ~P9-20. The recommendation from staff has changed to denial on that project since thc report was published and so.we are removing that item from discussion and from the agenda so them will be no public hearing on that project this evening. So do we need a vo~e then on the amended Roger Knutson: You could do that, yes. Mayor Jannoo: Okay. If I could have a motion for the ameaded agenda please. Counc~ ~: Motion to approve deleting agenda item number 4. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Counci~ Boyle: Second. ~ Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to amend the agenda to delete item number 4, public hearing for Kin? Road $~treet & Utility Improvements, Project 99-20. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. (XINSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the following consent agenda items per the City Manager's recommendations: City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 a. Approve Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County. b. Approve Water Service Connection to 23040 Summit Avenue, Ted Rix. c. Approve Adjustment to No Parking Zone on Brenden Court. cl. Resolution g2001-79: Adopt Assessment Roll for BC 7 & BC 8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project 00-01. e. Resolution/O,001-80: Adopt Assessment Roll for Trunk Highway 5 Improvement Project 97-6. f. Resolution g2001-81: Receive Feasibility Study; Call Public Heating for Pedestrian Trail Adjacent to Highway 101, Project 97-12-3. h. Approval of Bills. L Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 13, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated November 13, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated November 6, 2001 - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 23, 2001 j. Approving Resolution Decerfifying: I. Resolution g2001-82: Hennepin County Tax Increment Financing District. 2. Resolution g2001-83: National Weather Service Tax Increment Financing District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: We'll have the separate discussion of l(g) at the end of the meeting then. VISITOR PRF.~ENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: Under visitor presentations, we again have our, have to make sure I say this right. Our Cub Scout Pack #337, Den 8 here this evening to receive their Citizenship Awards. And we thought it would be nice if we could bring them to the front of the council and have all of council congratulate them on their citizenship badges. So we have with us Bruce Feik. If you would bring your troop forward we would certainly appreciate it and join us at the front of the council deslc Mayor Jansen handed out Citizenship Awards to the following Cub Scouts: Taylor Parsons, Hunter Feik, Cory Parsons, Patrick Smith, Matty Hart, and Jack Dungess. Mayor Jansen: Thanks for coming and joining us this evening. We appreciate your bringing the flags in for us. That was very nice. Something special that we can certainly use every council meeting. And congratulations on your citizenship award. Thanks for coming in. Continuing with our visitor presentations, the council has allowed for public comments at this time. If there are any city issues that City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 anyone would like to bring to the council's attention at this time, you can approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, we will move on with our law enforcement update. LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. I don't have any ~c comuz{nts on the attachn~nts I included with th~ memo. Just have 3 items to share with the council. The first one though I don't see a representative from the fire department here, and they have not contacted me, but I'm not sure they're going to be here. The last I heard there was a power pole down across Highway 212 that was tying up several of our officers along with the fire department so they may not be available this evening. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sgt. Dave Pons: Under the miscellaneous items, you may have heard about this in the media. The juvenile traffic violator that died in a car crash at Highway 5 and 41 on November 2~d about 11:30 p.m. The juvenile was pulled over by a South Lake officer after the officer witnessed the juvenile speeding and making an illegal turn on the southbound Highway 41 from Highway 7. The male initially stopped for the officer but as the officer was approaching the violators vehicle it took off at a high rate of speed south on Highway 41. When it reached Highway 5, a car northbound on Highway 41 made an illegal left turn through a red light in front of this high speed vehicle and the two collided. The juvenile driver of that suspect vehicle did die at the scene. Two passengers were treated and released as well as the passenger of the other vehicle involved. And to make matters a little worst thsrl that, as officers were out directing traffic at the scene of this accident, one confused motorist in particular pulled over to the side and was subsequently arrested for a DWI so it was kind of a bad evening. Our patrol shift assignments. are being completed for this'coming year. Six of the 10 deputies currently .assigned to Chsnhs.~sen are returning, and just for council's information or some of the deputies you may know. Mike Douglas and Ben Germs will be working the day shift this next year. Jason Bmening and Bob Zydowsky the evening shift. And Mike Felt and Larry Lazard on overnight shill All curren, t Chart deputies returning next year. Due to some reassignments, a few of the Chan deputies will be in a little bit different role. Deputy' Dewitt Meyer currently works the overnight ~ will be working as a corporal roving throughout the county so he will be in and out of Chart, just taking a slightly different assignment there. Deputy Scott Tautges from the evening shift is going to become one of our School Resource Officer and Deputy Pete Anderly lives in the western part of the county so he bid a shift out in that part of the county a little closer to home. Have some newer returning deputies to Chanhassen. Deputy Eric Kilson who Works the western pan of the county. One of our veteran officers is taking a shift in Chanhassen this coming year. Deputy Kyle Perlick who was a former Chart deputy went into the School Resouw, e Officer program, is coming back to patrol now and he'll be coming back to Chanhassem Corporal Jim Cmmblin, again a former Chanhassen deputy will be filling in one of our open shifts in the county which happens to be in Chanhassen this next year until our new hires get trained in and we plug some of those holes. And I think council is aware that the sheriff's office has been in a constant hiring mtxte over the last couple of years and it appears we're getting caught up so it looks like if everything goes well in 2002, we'll have all of our shifts filled for the first time in a couple of years. And one of our new deputies, Brian Strandberg who completed field training recently will be working in Chanhassen full time this coming year. And the last item I have for council i.s that Chanhassen Crime Prevention and the Sheriff s Office will be hosting a robbery seminar for local businesses, and this was a suggestion that came up in conversation between a chief deputy and Councilman Ayotte, and just kind of took it from there. The program got mostly coordinated by Beth Hoiseth and we'll be discussing some security and safety precautions the businesses can take as well as what a business can expect from the sheriff's office City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 regarding responding patrol officers and then the subsequent investigation that follows. Any questions or comments from council this evening7 Mayor Jansen: Very good. Any questions for Sergeant Potts? Councilman Ayotte: Just one, and thanks a lot for reacting to that. The response time and what the deputies have been doing to take care of business has just been astounding and to take this one extra step for education is great. There was some discussion to possibly involve some of the victims and participating in the seminar. Is that where they might be able to add to the discussion on, has that been? Sgt. Dave Ports: That was going to be part of our discussion at the actual seminar. Some of those businesses chose to attend and participate, yeah. Councilman Ayotte: Alright, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I see that Beth Hoiseth is here with us as well. I don't know if you were intending to come up or not but we do have the Crime Prevention Safety Education sheet attached so if there are any specific questions for either Sergeant Potts or Beth Hoiseth on those issues, we have both of them here this evening. Good to see you Beth. Beth Hoiseth: Thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, Beth has a presentation for the council a couple steps down on your agenda. She's here for that tonight. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Sgt. Dave Ports: Hopefully I'll be staying if I don't get called away. Mayor Jansen: Well on an evening like this we won't be surprised to see you go out the door but thank you. Thanks fox; being here this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR DOGWOOD ROAD SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS~ PROJECT 00-01-1. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor and council members. This evening is the time set for the public hearing for the Dogwood Road sanitary sewer improvement. This project was actually part of the BC-7 and BC-8 utility improvement, however it was done as a separate feasibility study and therefore requires a separate assessment hearing. This project was done to address a failing mound system that was maintained and operated by the city to serve 3 properties. There are only 3 properties proposed to be assessed. I have received 3 objections from the property owners. However their objections are mainly to keep their options open with the ability to contest at District Court. We are not recommending any changes to the assessment roll as it presented to the council. I do not require additional time to respond to those unless something comes up during the public hearing. With that I'll answer any questions and turn it over. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, then we will open this item for the public hearing. If there's anyone who would like to step forward and address the council, approach the podium and if you'd please state your name and address for the record, we'd appreciate it. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Arthur Adamson: I'm Arthur Adamson, and I'm the et al of Janet Quist. If you see the~ are 3 properties here. One for Martin Jones. One for Qtfist et al and Lundell. My wife and I, my wife's Janet's sister and so we're part of that property. A couple of things I want to say first of all we've discussed with Teresa a lot of this stuff and she's been more than helpful. She's sn.~wered every question that we've asked and more than helpful for us. Another thing, we don't object to the sanitary sewer. We've got some problems up there. We don't want this thing to leak into Lake lVlTmnewashtm We're very sympathetic. The only thing is, as we understand it. we're being assessed for a line from, I don't {mow how long you know but it's approximately a third of a mile, wouldn't you say from the top of the hill down to the mound, and the 3 of us are sharing a cost in that line as I understand it. And there are some 3300 feet of lakeshore here that's going to have to be eventually on a sewer. We're approximately 300 feet, a little more than 300 feet of the 3300. Now what we want to {mow is, if we pay for that line coming down there, if other people have to tie into that line, do they owe us any money for our payment of that line? And we're somewhat concerned, and in all fairness. We have, we don't {mow the exact cost of the lrrojecc Maybe Teresa can fill us in on some of that. Initially it was about $40,000 a piece so when we were hit with that it was, it kind of woke us up and Teresa's developed a method whereby I think we can have a smaller line put underground. Maybe you've explained that Teresa and they understand that but for about half of that cost so we're looking at approximately $20,000 a piece. Is that fight? A litlle bit more. And so our question is, does the city get any help from state or federal government for sewer lines that come in? Or is the city paying any portion of this current cost? Mayor Jansen: We will be addressing, we can address your questions once we have all of the comments in and we can have Teresa in fact then speak to that for you a little bit. Arthur Adamson: Okay. I think the initial one was like we were paying $40,000. The total project was going to be a million 3 and the city was going to pay about $260,000 of that million 3 'roughly. And we just don't have any figures. We would like to {mow. .Mayor Jansen: Sure. Arthur Adamson: Another question. Down the road, other people am going to have to hook in and we'll have m put another sewer in and you'll have to put these questi~ to Temsm She'll be able to answer that but we'll be required to fie in again. We've already tied in once and by the way we have been assessed for that mound once back in 1985 through 1991 we've paid assessments to it already. We have from our house to the current mound put in altv. ady, and as I understand it. those charges won't have to be done again if we use that area. The question is where the other new sewer is going to be put in and so we may have some additional costs and we'd like to know what they would be. If it's at all possible or what percentage we would have. We understand that there will be a new road put in on the south end of this project. 78m Street. I don't know if you're familiar with that and there will be quite a few lots along that and they'll have to have a sewer. Will they tie into our sewer? It's kind of a U and we're in the bottom of the U and will they have to be put in? Also, when will the other people have to hook up to a sewer? That's the end of my comments. Maybe you can help us Out in it. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Teresa I don't {mow if you'd like to maybe answer those questions at this point or would you like us to get all of the questions in for you at one time? Teresa Burgess: If I can just have a couple seconds, I can answer them now in case there are, they answer other people's questions or trigger more questions. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Adamson. Teresa Burgess: Okay the first question I have written down is do they get reimbursed if others hook in later to the sanitary? No. The city did contribute to the cost of this project. It was approximately $1.3 million for the entire project and the city did contribute to the cost of the project. What they are being assessed is a combination of both their hook-up, which is to pay for things like lift stations and use of the city mink lines and their lateral. Because they are connecting immediately we have assessed their hook- up charge to them right away. The lateral charge, which is what normally gets assessed to a property, in this ease is $19,122 and the sanitary is $1,300 for a total of $20,422. The original assessment for this property, just for comparison purposes, was proposed to be $40,535.15. We have seen significant cost savings due to both the efforts of the consultant and the contractor in trying to push those costs down. And we're very happy to be able to report that cost savings. But no, they do not get reimbursed if others hook in later. The over sizing was paid for by the city that would accommodate those future hook-ups. Any federal or state assistance in the cost. This project was paid for with a combination of local funds, wMeh would be City of Chanhassen, and assessment funds. There were no state or federal assistance in the cost and to my knowledge there are none available. If you have significant issues you can qualify for grant and loan programs. However Chanhassen does not qualify under any of those programs and so we did have to fund this out of assessments and our utility fund, which is funded through user fees. Can they be assessed again for new sanitary? I assume that you are referring to the project that's proposed along the lakeshore on Dogwood? Is that correct? Arthur Adamson: Either or. The lakeshore or the road. I don't... Teresa Burgess: No. That project is still under study. The properties in question, if they were to re- divide and create additional lots, would be eligible for an additional assessment for the additional lot. However there are 3 homes. As long as it stays 3 homes, they don't gain any additional benefit by the new sewer line. They already have access so they would not be assessed for sewer, for sanitary sewer. The other project that's being considered does include water and roadway improvements. Those properties could be assessed for water and roadway, but not sanitary sewer. The new road, West 78e~ Street. Will those properties down in that development area fie in? Those properties, we are still in the process of studying West 78t~ Street. This council has approved doing a feasibility study but they have not received that report yet, and at this point it is put on hold while we continue the report on Dogwood Road and looking into sanitary sewer and water along that route. Those properties will eventually fie into sanitary sewer, but at this time we do not know how many properties and we do not know when. It will depend on when the properties are subdivided and the council has not even seen a preliminary plat at this time. They may connect into West 78~ if that is determined to be a feasible project. Otherwise their only alternative would be to connect onto sanitary sewer running down to serve the Dogwood neighborhood. When will the rest of Dogwood fie in? That feasibility report is still under consideration. We are hoping to have meetings with that neighborhood in January to see where we are on that project. If they feel it's economically feasible, since they will be paying the assessments. They at this point, we are not aware of any failing, septic systems on that stretch. If there becomes a failing septic system, then they would be given a time line based on the environmental impact of their failure to correct that problem and typically that is when we put these projects into high gear is to address that type of issue. Otherwise they are not required to hook in until they are ready, which would mean the neighborhood really drives the time line of the project. And so I believe I answered all the questions. If I didn't, please let me know if I missed one or misunderstood a question. Arthur Adamson: If they do, if they are required to tie in...will we have to pay anymore? ...money for it. City Council Meeting- November 26, 2001 Teresa Burgess: No. They would, you cannot be assessed unless you receive benefit. You already have sanitary sewer. Now I know we had discussed if that new sewer line comes down along the back of your lots, what you have right now is, it's a remnant of the old mound system. We've picked it up at the mound system and carried it away from there. So certainly it would be a better system if you fed directly out from your old system out into the new sanitary system insteaui of l'unnin~'through your tank al:Id then running into our system- However, you don't hav~ any more benefit. You still have sanitary so ~ would be the potential of hooking up to the new system from your ~ to the new system, but you would not be assessed for that. You would just be responsible for your share, for your cost to connect your house to the sanitary system. There would be no city assessment to your ~. They would not pay you because they are paying for the stretch of lateral that comes to their house and them by paying those mink fees, they are in effect reimbursing the city for what we have paid towards the project COllStrugtion. The city by upsizing has provided capacity in that lille, and we paid for the difference in size between the pipe it would have taken to serve your property and the pipe that we actually installed in the ground. Mayor Sansen: Does that answer your questions sir? Arthur Adamson: I believe so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to address the council on this agenda item, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on this item. Council, any questions for staff? If I could have a motion please. Or if there's discussion- Councilman Ayotte: The only point I'll make on this, and yeah their assessment has been dealt with, is the need for us as a council at some point to look at the policy and to consider short nm sewage lines, water lines, and the effects that they have when we take a splintered approach_ I just want to bring that back that at some point I really think we.have to take a look see at that and procedurally what do we do to avoid some of the things tha we've encountered recently with this son of situation. Mayor Jansen: Okay, certainly. And because these are older properties that are just receiving new services, it of course is, as you put it, maybe giving an appearance of being splinte~xi but it is in fact just services getting out to older properties that are on mound systems and wells at this point. If I could have a motion please. Councilman Boyle: I would like to make a motion that the final assessment roll dated November 19, 2001 for the Dogwood Sanitary Sewer I ,mpmvelnent Project Number 00-01-1 be adopted at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 6.5%. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Roger Knutson: Mayor just to be clear, you're adopting the resolutions sn_sehed to our packet? Mayor Jansen: Yes. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Resolut~on g2001-84: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the resolution for the final assessment roll dated November 19, 2001 for the Dogwood Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project Number 00-01-1 be adopted at a term of 8 years and an interest rate of 6.5%. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor J'ansen: Moving on, we have deleted agenda item number 4. The public hearing for the Kings Road street and utility improvements so we will move on. UPDATE ON ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT. Todd Hoffman: Mayor and City Council members. Per the direction of the City Manager I'm working on, currently working on the establishment of a joint powers agreement between the Roundhouse Renovation Committee and the City. Tom Scott from the attorney's office and Deanna Bunkelman representing the committee and I will meet this Friday. Councilman Ayotte: Will or will not? Todd Hoffman: Will, meet this Friday to discuss those particulars about who will be responsible for what in that project and then we'll bring that back to the council for your approval. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. At this point, you're still in the process of.really accomplishing what we had talked about in the last meeting so we appreciate the update. And what, anticipate hearing back from you then at the next meeting in December or7 Todd Gerhardt: First meeting in December and included in that will be some budget estimates. How money will be spent and who's going to be in charge of what as the project moves ahead. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll get more information at the next meeting.. UPDATE ON RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSING TASK PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Cee Meistel 174 Lakeview Road East Beth Hoiseth: Good evening Mayor and council members. Actually I'm here to give you an update on the conduct on premise status. The research I' ye been doing. I've reviewed ordinances and spoken with city representatives from 8 communities, and the cities...they're in various stages... For instance 3 of the communities are very new with the progran~ They've just adopted the ordinance this year, and what I found by reviewing these ordinances are, they're very similar. In fact most of the communities have modeled their ordinance after Minneapolis in the ones that I've talked to. And the Minneapolis ordinance pretty much states that a licensee or the property owner is legally responsible for criminal behavior, nuisance issues on rental property. And if there have been more than 3 police responses within a year's time, that license could be revoked or suspended. And as I stated in my report, there are some distinctions from the numerous cities. One of the communities doesn't license their rental properties but City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 they have a conduct on premise for all properties. And instead of of course, obviously they can't revoke a license but what they do is they have these service fees so they send out an invoice for service fee. If there have been more than 3 violations in one year. And then there's another community that has developed their own crime prevention program, and it's used as an incentive for the properties to get involved in their crime prevention. People lowered the licensing fee if they're involved in the crime prevention program. And new properties are required to participate in crime prevention but the existing ones are grandfathered in. And again talking to those representatives from the city about how conduct on premises is working for them, they say the majority of the complaints that they receive are usually resolved after the first warning violation has gone out to the ~ owner or the occupant. And the conduct on premises is not a cure all. It does have it's issues but it is a very good problem solving tool that, not only for the city because then they have the means, you know effective means to conduct and combat the problems but also it helps landlords. I. amdlords can rely on the city for some legal backing on problem tenants. Where I plan to go from here is, we're in the process of developing a guide book and developing a task force or committee which was made up of landl~, .city, county staff and perhaps residents, and we seek the input from landlords because we need to know how we can develop a workable ordinance that we cam all deal with. And I've already spoken with a couple of landlords who are very interested in participating so that's our goal is to get that up and nmning within the next month and start researching this as a group as to, you know unique Chanhassen issues and addressing some concerns as far as enforcement and legal issues. Are there any questions? Mayor Jansen: I just had one actually on your list of individuals that would make up the task force. When you say county staff, specifically. Beth Hoiseth: Carver County Sheriff's Office because they're going to be a big part of this..They're going to be the ones who will need, well will be the ones.responding to th~ complaints and we need_.to work as far as how we're going to enforce that and document the events.' Mayor San~en: Okay. So some of our officials that are actually having to'be out there and enforcing what you're putting together. Beth Hoiseth: Correct. Make sure it's comfortable for the sheriff's office as well. Mayor 3ansen: Very good. I would also like w hear council comments on whether or not we would like ' to have a council liaison as a part of the task force. We've done that on numerous of the task forces, just so you at least have a contact from council for input. Okay. Beth Hoiseth: Absolutely. Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte, you had a question for Beth7 Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, the guide book is intended to assist the people who are property owners to... adhere to the license requirement, is that the intent of the guide book? Beth Hoiseth: Actually more of a work book just to lay out some of the examples that are already out there. You know some examples of ordinances and terminology and that type of thing so they're more educated and prepared. Councilman Ayotte: So the guide book is a tool to help develop the license? City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Beth Hoiseth: Correct. To see what's already out there and then kind of a starting base. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So the guide book has a beginning and end life. At the end of the life of the guide book we will have constructed the license ordinance? Beth Hoiseth: We will have developed a workable plan that we will recommend. Todd Gertmrdt: The guide book is to give everybody that's on the task force examples of what other communities have done. Definitions of terms so everybody's on the same page and instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and everybody running around getting their own examples of ordinances or things like that, we thought we'd get the horse in front of the cart here and share that information with everybody and try to make this a short task force timeframe. Mayor Jansen: And so then the task force goal or mission is to draft the ordinance and bring forward a proposal to council then for consideration as far as an ordinance. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Proactive ordinance that the landlords feel as if they can live with and that the residents feel comfortable with. Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Any other questions? Gary. Couneilrmn Boyle: Beth, you're going to try to do this in 30 days? I ~ in a month. Beth Hoiseth: To coordinate to actually have a task force developed. Not to have it complete but to actually schedule a meeting and get the guide book in place. That type of thing. Councilrma Boyle: ...thank you. That's all. Mayor Jansen: As far as any estimate on how long you think it might take a task force to pull this together. Todd Gerhardt: My guess would be 2 to 3 months, depending o.n how active the task force is. You can forget about December, beginning of January so you're probably looking at the end of March would be my guess that we'd have something back to you. Do you think so Beth? Beth Hoiseth: I think so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. It seems like a pretty focused effort and especially if you've already done most of the research as far as pulling together the comparable ordinances. To then be bringing forward just recommendations to council on some of the alternatives, I wouldn't think that would take too extraordinarily long amount of time. Todd Gerhardt: And the landlords in Chanhassen are well educated in these ordinances so they're familiar, most of them Our property managers in other communities that have such ordinances so they're going to bring a wealth of knowledge to the task force and tell their stories of other communities so I would think it would go fairly quickly. Councilman Boyle: I received a couple of calls from landlords that weren't quite that enthusiastic about this after reading Thursday's Villager. You do have some opposition. 10 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Beth Hoiseth: Oh, yes we expect that but once we have an opportunity to explain the entire plan, hopefully they'll come around. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just briefly comment on that. When Plymouth started their process maybe 18 months ago, almost 2 years ago, them was plenty of landlord opposition. By the time they got to the end of it, the only folks that showed up were landlord representatives that can~ to the council meeting and they all unanimously supported it. Beth Hoiseth: I have had some real positive comments regarding that the city is there to back them up with their problems and reliable, responsible landlords look for that Mayor Jansen: And part of what I would suggest is that we have the individuals who are calling us directly, if we can pass that information onto staff so that they can address some of the questions that are being posed to us. They will be much more capable of maybe putting some of the concerns to rest, or at least incorporating those concerns into the process as you're going forward and dmit~g the ordinance so I would just suggest that we all keep forwarding that information to staff. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and I'm hoping that this is going to be an ordinance that the landlords can use as a tool for marketing their business and saying that they do have crime free housing and they work hard and show them a copy of the ordinance and use it as a marketing tool for their business so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? Comfortable with the task force concept for going forward and bringing forward the recommendations. Okay. Council interested in having a liaison on the task force? We don't necessarily have to decide that this evening. If thete'd like - to be some discussion. Councilman Boyle: Why don't we discuss that a liale bit. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We can do that, certainly. Thank you very 'much. Appreciate the update. REQ~ TO AMEND ~ LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DEN$ITY~ REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A- 2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R~F)~ PR~.rMINARY PLAT REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE INTO SIX SINGI.E FAMII.Y LOTS~ AND A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A PRIVATE STREET~ 8800 POW'ERS BOI, JI. EVARD~ POWERS CIRCI.I~'.~ ~II.D RQSSAV1K. Public Present: Name Address Mark Kelly Arild Rossavik Virginia & Donald Coban George Bizek 351 2~ Street, Excelsior 8800 Powers Boulevard 8821 Sunset Trail 8750 Powers Boulevard Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is a 3 part request. The first part is to change the guide plan for new pro~ fi'om residential largo lot to residential low density. In essence it would permit the increase in density on this tn'operty from 2 ~z, a minimum lot size 11 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 of 2 ½ acres to a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The second part of the request would be a re, zoning to RSF from Agricultural Estate district, which is a 2 ~ acre minimum lot size. And the third part is a preliminary plat for a 6 lot subdivision with a variance for a private street. The crux of this review is the proposal for the land use map amendment. This did go before a public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 6"~ and they recomn~nded unanimously that the city deny the proposed amendment and consequently denial of the rezoning and the subdivision. Their comments were that they believed the project was premature and there's no compelling reason to make this. change. Staff agonized over this. As you can see from the map, this property is located within the large lot subdivision. The property to the north is part of the Oakside Hills development, as well as those properties to the south. While it's separated from that development, it's still part of that neighborhood. We believe that changing this one lot would change the character of that neighborhood and therefore staff is recommending denial of the land use map amendment. Given that, the rezoning would be inconsistent with the current land use of large lot residential and the platting of the property would be inconsistent with that. The subdivision itself shows that by not changing the property to the north as part of a development proposal, we need to revise this plat to maintain conforming status on that property. As currently proposed, and if this was approved, the house to the, or the garage to the north would not meet required setbacks and then would become a non-conforming use. Were these 2 properties to come in together, then we may be more favorably predisposed to recommend a change in the land use. Again, the Planning Commission felt that over time this area may be a good one for transition but currently it's premature. We're recommending denial of the amendment and the proposed development. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Bob Generous: I have none at this time. Councilman Ayotte: When you're talking about the physical characteristics, and when I looked at the report, can we make the statement that if it were approved, that it would have an adverse affect on drainage and you talked about the character of there and so forth, but can we specifically state that there would be an issue with respect to that and from an environmental standpoint, would there be an environmental impact? Bob Generous: Right. Well as part of our review we did look at the subdivision and we made reconunendations were the council to approve it that we think would mitigate the potential negative impacts. At least from a drainage standpoint. And for preservation of some of the natural features. However, again we're intruding this more intensive use in a large lot area and that we believe is in conflict with what our comprehensive plan directs us. Councilman Ayotte: So the statement is that there would be an environmental impact and it would have degradation on the property for drainage? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: But what staff is saying is that they've proposed conditions that could mitigate that. Correct? Okay. This is not a public hearing. However, if the applicant is present and would like to make comments, you are certainly welcome to at this time. If you could keep that to approximately 5 minutes, it would be appreciated. We of course have attached to our packets the verbatim minutes from 12 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 the Planning Commission meeting so we have been able to review those and taking those into consideration this evening. If you could state your name and address for the record please. Mark Kelly: Thank you Mayor. My name is Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney in Excelsior. 251 Second Sue~ Excelsior, Minnesota. I' m here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rossavik. You've heard from the city staff and I'm presuming you've had an opportunity to review their comments on this matter. The issue appears to turn on only one thing. The question of whether this development is inappropriate at this time. Curiously enough the city staff has acknowledged that in so many ways this project is presently meets the expectations of the city in these regards. In particular, it is pointed out that the proposed use will be compatible with present and future land uses in this zone. The proposed use will not tend to, or actually depreciate the area so therefore there should not be any negatives on the neighboring properties. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services that will not over burden the city services in that area, or it's capacity and will not create traffic issues for the city. The staff had noted only that the proposed actions in their opinion might be found to be inconsistent with the official city comprehensive plan. In support of that, they have cited a couple of phrases from the comprehensive plan. One, the idea that the comprehensive plan incmred is low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community to reinforce the character and integrity of the existing family, single family neighborhoods while promoting establishment of new neighbors of similar quality. The staff then concludes that this would be in contrast with that proposal. This is a document that I believe Mr. Generous put together himself. You'll see that the lot in question to be rezoned is highlighted in a very dark line, and on the west, east and north of this property are all low density, single family residential housing. And slightly to the north of it along Powers Boulevard, medium density housing. None of the housing along Powers Boulevard has berms or other kind of features intended to reduce the impact of the high density traffic and on the collector street which is Powers. Boulevard. ! would also note that you'll see that the indication is that County .Road 18, south of that would have medium' and low density housing in the near future. We would ask that the City Council approve the change in the map and approve the subdivision so that we might then continue to work with staff on the issues that they had highlighted regarding the platting process. Those are largely engineering issues'that can be answered through the normal engineering process, and planning process that make this proposal work_ A couple other things I would want to note. The drainage for the area right up here, see the development on high ground, which is all low density housing, now directs the water onto those Flamingo Drive and the like up in that area. So the ravines that are in the west end of this ~, well in particular the southwest area and westerly edge, no longer are representative of the amount of volume of waters that were at one time directed through that land. This property is quite isolated. The only neighboring property that to the north will not be affected by the simple re, zoning of either of these properties, or both of them collectively. It will not precipitate or require the northerly property to be redeveloped. The continued' use of that property as is can continue indefinitely and the commercial use of that property can also continue. The situation here is, we are concerned with the suggestion that city staff would support the proposal if only the neighbor were to join. Clearly we would like a single standard to be applied to this situation and not a double standard. One in which yes, the development is entirely reasonable apparently in the eyes of the city staff were this request to be joined in by our neighbor. Unfommamly our neighbor withdrew his support for this request, but that doesn't mean that this ~ shouldn't go forward. It's quite clear that this development will add additional single family homes on 15,000 square foot lots, not dissimilar to that which is planned for here in the southeast of the property, as well as what's already built on the other areas surrounding him. The character of the area will not change and the neighboring property to the south will have a great deal of buffer in terms of space between these homes and it's most northerly boundary which is a split rail fence along that property. Mayor .Iansen: If you could begin it wrap up, I would appreciate it. 13 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Mark Kelly: Thank you. We would like to make sure that the council has, if I may approach the council. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Mark Kelly: Have copies of, these are photographs of the area...and we'd like one included in the record. Those are photographs that you see of this blue striped area in an attempt to inform the council as well as the record here, as to the character of the area. You'll see that it illustrates the neighboring properties. They do not have berming. You can see how the, with the lay of the land is, there are no issues regarding trees or anything of that sort. Clearly the trees that are at risk are a few pine trees. Those can be restored if they are to be impacted by a building pad. The remaining vegetation is largely scrub. With those comments the only thing that I would point out is that the city should be consistent in the way it applies the ordinance in this case and not adopt a standard that clearly indicates from the city staff that this is entirely timely. That this could go forward at this time, but apparently is not being approved by the city staff at least for reasons that involve exclusively whether our neighbor joins in this even though my client owns 59% of the property at issue. We'd invite any questions you might have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Mark Kelly: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Any questions? Thank you. As I mentioned, attached to each of our packets were the extensive minutes from the Planning Commission meeting where there was a great deal of public input laken and I am making the assumption that everyone had the opportunity to read those comments this evening so I will not open this for any additional public comment, but would now look to council for comments or any discussion. Councilman Ayotte: The fact of the matter remains that it's up to our decision, not based on what the neighbors do or do not want but what we currently have in terms of zoning. There is, as staff has ac. counted for, the potential for adverse affect on the area from an environmental standpoint, .and that's been made clear. And that there would be additional resources that would have to be utilized by this city to respond to the introduction of a denser area in that area. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to go along with the staff's recommendations that the Planning Commission had recommended based on those points. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments? Discussion? Councilman Peterson: I think the only comment that I have is I, I didn't read the minutes but I watched it on television so I accomplished it a different way. Mayor Jansen: Good for you. Councilman Peterson: Tells you what my life is like I guess. I don't know. One comment that the commission talked about, and Bob brought up earlier was that it may be premature that this area may develop. Down the road would be more appropriate. I guess I'm not in agreement with that, because that essentially says that every large lot will be subdivided, and I'm not even close to begin to say that. That's part of the integrity of the community. Even the survey talked about the open spaces and the large lots and the benefit of that so I just wanted to make a special note of that comment, that I certainly don't 14 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 agree with that in this particular development or others, large lots should be ~ to be subdivided. So. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. I would echo that same comrrmIlt. Again; I'm looking at this area and what the city has subsequently surrounded it with and from the map that was shown, I'm seeing the two park areas and the city worked very hard to accomplish those park areas as they did the PUD to the north. And it was a great deal of what was accomplished with that PUD was to create more of thi~ open space, and I see this large lot development being consistent with that goal of accomplishing that open space and that park area. It certainly then preserves the integrity of the tree line that abuts the park and creates more of that buffer to that, so rather than comparing it to some of the other examples that were given, I just, I don't picture this area eventually expanding into that many homes so I'm not making the assumption that this will eventually turn into any denser development than it is currently. And so with that I guess I am supporting the staff recommendation and appreciated the amount of ~ that the Planning Commission put into this agenda item as far as taking public commit and sharing with the council their convents on this. One of the points that was made is that we do need to have a very compelling mason to make any changes to our land use, and as I look at this, that's the first thing that I look for is what is the compelling reason and I don't see a good cause for making a land use change like this in a developed area. So with that, if I could have a motion please. Councilman Ayotte: I' 11 make a motion, shall I mad verbatim? To follow what the staff recommends to city council. That is that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Aamndment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Lot Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. The City Council denies the Rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside. Oaks due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council denies the Pre~ Plat of Subdivision ~s)7-12 creating 6 lots for the Powers Circle Addition .subject to not complying with the ·. ! ~ud Us~ designation and Zoning requirements. " Roger Knutson: Does that include adc~tion of the Findings of Fact contained on pages 10 throu~ 13 of the planning report dated Novemb~ 26~? I suggest that it should.. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And with that addition to the motion, do I have a second? Councilman Boyle: FII second. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map ~mandm_~nt from Residential Large Lot to Residential Lot Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. The City Council denies the RP. zoninoo from A-2, Agricultural F~ate Distri~ to RSF, Single Family Residential for LOt 2, Block 1, l~illslde Oaks due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council denies the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision 89%12 crcati~ 6 lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the Land Use designation and Zoning requirements. And that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact contained on pages 10 through 13 of the planning report dated November 26, 2001. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unnnlmnusly 4 to 0. REQUF~T FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TltF. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS TO PERMIT FOUR STORY BUH~INGS WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ~0 FEET AND THREE STORIF8 WITH A MAJOMUM [IEIG~ OF 40 FEET; 15 City Council Meeting- November 26, 2001 AND AN AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE A FORMULA FOR CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE TO RF~IDENTIAL UNITS AND VICE VERSAI VILLAGES ON THE PONDS I~ LLC LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I had a map of the Villages development. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the design standards for Villages on the Ponds. Under the original PUD the development proposed in Sector L which is the core of the Villages, that the building that could be 3 ½ stories or 3 stories with a loft and 50 feet. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to 4 stories. It's directly in response to a proposal that will come later tonight for the Presbyterian Homes project. Additionally we're looking at providing that building heights within this sector could go up to 3 stories and 40 feet, which would be consistent with the Highway 5 standards. Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 6th and they did recommend approval of the amendments subject to some qualifications. One was that the building height for the building located in the northeast comer of Sector I be limited to 2 stories. The second one was that the buildings that have frontage on the main street, or that have pedestrian access must have a majority of commercial space, except for the Presbyterian Home project and that's due to some topography that it'd be impossible for them to meet that. Additionally the amendment looks at creating a conversion for moving from one type of land use within the development to another, which is some of the flexibility we've talked about before. The overall project was reviewed under an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and we were looking at the use of the traffic generation for the project to keep a threshold that the development would not exceed. By comparing the ratio of that we were able to come up with some... Again, we simplified that and reduced it down to one conversion factor for each use. The proposed design standards for' the amendment that we have in the packet would provide us with the guidance for telling, letting staff know and any developer know what the conversions would be for the project. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for the building height and for the conversion table. The final thing was.the applicant was requesting an amendment to permit the signage in Sector I to no higher than 20 feet if it was architecturally integrated. Staff believes that this area Was designed.for more pedestrian effecrand we believe that if they want to go higher they should come through a variance process rather than having the amendment for everyone. So with that we were recommending denial of the sign permit. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: No questions from me. Councilman Ayotte: No. Councilman Boyle: I have no questions. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any discussion or we can go to motion. Councilman Peterson: I would make a motion we appm.ve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development standards for the Villages on the Ponds, amending Section (d) as noted in the staff report. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second? Councilman Ayotte: I'll second that. 16 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Couneilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve~ the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Smudaz~ for ~ on the Pond~, amending ~qion d as follows: d. Development Site Coverage and BuHdin~ Height. lm The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent 2. More than one (1) principle mucum~ may be placed on one (1) platted lot. . The maximum building height shall be for Sector I - four stories (residential with street level commercial or office)/50 feet, (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to three stories/40 feet) except for the lot on the comer of Promenade Pond and Cu'e~ Plains Boulevard shall be l~mited to two stories/30 feet, Sector H - three stories/40 feet; Sector Ill - three storieM40 feet; and Sector IV- four stories/50 feet. Building height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, and other architectural and roof accents. The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g. pede~ian passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial/ Offi~S~ce Institutional Dwelling Total Square Retail (sq. fi) (sq. ~) - (~. ft.) Units Feet Sector I 114,500 83,500 0 160 198,000 Sector H 60,000' 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector III 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0 TOTAL 174,500 97,500 100,000 322 372,000 *Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit moteL Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total tra~c loads. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses. 1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) trait. 1 Residential apamnem unit = 2 elderly (independent) unit. 1 Residential apamnent unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of insfituti~. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amen~t to the PUD. 17 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 6. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority of the street frontage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: And again I appreciated the extensive review by the Planning Commission and ail of the comments that were shared during that public hearing. Moving on we have agenda item number 9. REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO APARTMENT BUILDINC~ CONSISTING OF A 4 STORY BUILDING WITH 90 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS AND A 3 ST RY_._.~..~_.~.UILDINC~ WITH 73 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILDING AREA ~. WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AND APPROXIMATELY 9 000_~. FT. OF COMMERCIAL AREA:LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWES. T COiF LAKE DRIVE AND MAIN STREETi VILLAGES ON THE PONDS SENIOR LIVING CAMPU~ ~ENIOR HOI, ISING PARTNERS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor. I just want to show within the Villages project, this site is located in this area. It's bounded on the north by Lake Drive, on the east by Main Street and on the west by Market Boulevard. The proposed development is for 2 buildings. It's Presbyterian Homes. They would have 90 independent living senior apartment buildings on the building located adjacent to 101 which is the building on the left in this project. This is a 4 story building. There would be only apartments in this unit. It does not have direct pedestrian access to Lake Drive. The only concern we had on this building really, well there's 2 of thew One is the required setback from the wetland which is located in the northwest corner of this site. We are working with the applicant to verify the edge of this wetland. There may be some revisions just to a portion of that building to make sure they meet the 40 foot setback. The other issue we'd like.to work with them is to create additional articulation in the building through the use of different window treatments, including the use of window boxes, shutters, different window types to help give more individual attention to the units. So people could actually go by and say that's my unit and know that it's different from the rest of thew We also are working with them, we're somewhat concerned with the color palette that they have. We believe they should use a little bolder colors in it to give us a little more differentiation. We do have their sample palette, and if you look at it and you can't really see the, distinguish the different uses so we're working with them to come up with greater colors. The primary building elevation, materials for both buildings would be brick on the lower levels and then a vinyl siding on the upper levels. One of the recommended conditions of approval would be that we permit the use of EFIS in order to achieve that darker color if we can't do it through the use of the vinyl siding. Building II is the one that's on Lake Drive. It's an L shaped building and Main Street. The northern part of it, that on Lake Drive, the first floor elevation, the entire length of that would be for commercial type uses. We've worked extensively with the developer to get this. To have them provide that. Originally when they came in, that area was proposed for their senior restaurant. Instead we want to have lease type space and so they made a design that works for that. On the back part of that elevation they would have some of their administrative offices. The facade greatly meets the requirements for the Villages concept. We wanted to get a northern European flavor and they do have a lot of articulation. They're going to work with staff again on color for this building and the samples. These buildings do have underground parking for each of the units. There's also surface parking. They're in excess of their parking requirements based on the design standards for Villages on the Pond. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in our staff report with the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did vote unanimously to recommend approval of the site plan. 18 City Council Meeting- November 25, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: Did? Bob Generous: They did, yes. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Are all the points that you brought up with respect to architectural issues and so on and so forth, are all contained in your recommendation? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: So there's nothing that you've mentioned that's not written? Bob Generous: No. And they assured staff that they're right now they're at almost at a schemsfic stage and as they get into more detail, they'll be able to bring it out. Councilman Ayotte: They'll be able to assimilate all that? Councilman Boyle: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Go ahead, any other questions? Councilman Peterson: There really isn't, to reinforce the fact that to change the design of that one wall so that the articulation or different windows and the size, I mean we've got a building opposite of 101 that we didn't achieve that goal and I think it's even more i .mportant that we have more careful ~_n__~ation to that so I applaud you catching that and here and I'll stand behind you and push you forward if I need to. Councilman Boyle: Is the plan that's in our packet have, is this the design you're talking about? The windows you're talking about or is there something different? Bob Generous: There would be additional articulation in the windows, such as the use of planter boxes outside some of the windows or shutters on sides or user of different window types. Half round on top just to give a little more definition. Councilman Boyle: Okay. Thank you, I missed that part. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. I guess I would just also want to echo what Councilman Peterson said and cormrend you on the additional conditions that you've added to this as far as catching some of the articulation, working with them on the color palette to give it a little bit more variety~ Love the underground parking to try and get some of this surface parking maybe tucked in underneath the buildings is a great addition over in that area. And I believe the changes as you've worded them in the conditions is that it just has to come through for the Planning Director approval, correct? So we're not slowing the project down at all. They don't want to come back in and go back through the process so I think you've done an excellent job and with the Planning Commission revisions I think they've caught a great deal of the issues that I would have found concern with. So I think it's an excellent proposal. 19 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Councilman Boyle: I agree. Councilman Peterson: This is going to be the centerpiece of that development so I think it's even more impetus for us to do the right thing, and I think we are. Mayor Jansen: Yep, I agree. Councilman Peterson: I will miss the walkway on the original rendition though with the tower going across. I thought that was really neat. Mayor Jansen: Would have been our first skyway, right? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay, and it certainly addresses a key housing need in the community so I'm sure I'm expressing the council's extreme pleasure in seeing this come in for our senior community that I recall receiving my first petition as I got onto council 3 years ago from our seniors looking for assisted living facilities here in Chanhassen, so I think the project will be very well received by the community as a whole. And I'm judging by the fact that Vemeile Clayton isn't here this evening that she either got snowed in and is watching us on television. Kate Aanenson: We expected them to be here. I was frantically looking for them so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And Mr. Eckloh also gave extensive comment at the Planning Commission so I appreciate that they were at that meeting. We were able to read their comments even though they're not here this evening and thank you for working closely with them on the project. If I could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: I'm assuming that our motion, usually it reads the council adopts." This one hasn't been changed from Planning Commission so we're doing the same thing, right? Kate Aanenson: It should say council. Councilman Peterson: I would recommend that council approves Site Plan g2001-13 prepared by KKE Architects dated September 14, 2001 subject to conditions 1 through 57. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second? Councilman Boyle: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan g2001-13, plans prepared by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson ArcMtects, dated September 14, 2001, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion con.trol, site restoration and landscaping. 2O City Council Me~ting - Noveml:~ 26, 2001 2. 3~ . 5~ . . 10. 11. 12. 13. Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outiot F, Villages on the Ponds, to a block and lot designation. Pedestrian connections shall be provided from th~ interior parking lot to both Lake Drive and Main Street. Thc applicant shall make the following corrections to the landscape plan: Add 9 grey dogwood. Plant 13 Redtwig dogwood instead of 6. Substitute 2 Green Mountain sugar maples for 2 Emerald Queen Norway maple. Plant 7 Black Hill spruce instead of 6. All changes pertain to the landscaping proposed along ~way 101. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping or vine type plants to be planted in areas where the garage elevation of the building is exposed, including the southern end of Building I and the southern end of Building IL on the west end of Building IL and adjacent to the retaining wall. Shredded bark mulch shall be placed under the line of lapanese tree lilacs proposed along the terrace facing Lake Drive. A strip of sod shall be laid along the sidewalk. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Additional fire hydrants may be requix~ on the inner parking portion of the project. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire hydrants. A lO-foot clearance space must be main~ed around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure thst fire' hydrants can be quickly kr. ated and safely operated by firefightm~. Pursuant to Chanhassen City 0rdinance #9-1. Fire lanes and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire land signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1, 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) is required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. Comply with the Chanhas~ Fire Department/Fh'e Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy g29- 1992. Comply with water service installation policy for co~ and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/l:rtre Prevention Division policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic, tiffin sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Depamnent/Ftre Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 21 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 3m 26. 27. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy g4-1991. Submit design specifications regarding vehicle access over the underground link connecting the two buildings. This tunnel design should support the imposed loads of Chanhassen's largest f'ue apparatus. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. The inner courtyard area should be designed for fire apparatus access drive-through. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The proposed ;building areas are over the allowable area permitted for Type V One-Hour construction, area separation walls will be required to bring the building areas in compliance with the code. Building gl is not permitted to be four stories high if constructed of Type V One- Hour construction. The proposed 13R fire sprinkler system cannot be used for area and/or number of story increases. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State 'Building Code Chapter 1341. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) must be installed on the domestic/fire suppression water service. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained or established around all wetland basins. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of city staff and shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the required wetland buffer setback for structures. The rate of discharge from the proposed development shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed development. 22 City Council ~ng - November 26, 2001 8e 29. 30. 31. 33. 35. 3'/. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 45. Existing drainage and utility easements should be vacated and new drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and stonn water ponds. Erosion control blankets should be installed on all areas with slopes 3:1 or greater. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. The monument sign located in the northwest comer of the site at the corner of Lake Drive and Mar~t Boulevard must, at a mi~num, identify the Villages on the Ponds development. The applicant/developer shall install site furniture throughout the project including benches, planter boxes, tables, chairs, etc. The applicant/developer shall work with staff to prepare a final color pallet with greater differentiation in siding colors. The number of vinyl siding colors is limited to four colors. Since the siding areas are for accent only, EFIS or stucco would be an acceptable alternative in order to achieve bolder colors. . The applicant/developer shall work with staff to incorporate additional window types such as bay, half-round, round, and Italiana~ as well as window accents Such as plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, trellises, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit stormwater pond design calculations for the 10 and 100 year storm event. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos: 2202, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301, 5302, and 5313. The minimum drive aisle width is 26 feet. Revise the plans to comply. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regularity agency permits. Retaining walls must be designed by a registered engineer and require an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. The two proposed rock construction entrances are required to be a ~ of 75 feet in length- Public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public storm sewer line. The minimum easement width shall be 25 feet. City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 46. Add a storm sewer schedule to the plans. 47. On the utility plan revise CB 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 to CBMI-I 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14. 48. Plan and profile views are required for all of the public storm sewer. 49. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 50. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. This easement shall cover the pond up to the 100 year high water elevation. The easement over the existing pond will have to be vacated as a condition of site plan approval. 51. Type ffL heavy duty silt fence shall be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). All silt fences shall be removed upon completion of the project. 5Z Connection to the public utility lines will incur hook-up charges against the lot. The 2001 sanitary sewer hook-up charge is $1,322 per unit. The 2001 water hook-up charge is $1,723 per unit. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges will be collected at the time of' building permit issuance. 53. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading. 54. Add a legend to the plans. 55. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls, access aisles and driveway widths. 56. Ground air conditioning units, utility boxes, and meters shall be screened with landscaping and/or with the same building materials used on the main structure. 57. The uses located on the first floor of building 2, along Lake Drive, shall be commercial type uses, open to the public and not directly related to the Presbyterian Homes operation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Great project. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO SO~T METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. Mayor Jansen: We've received a letter from Len Simich, the Executive Director at Southwest Metro Transit noting that my term is expiring. And I didn't see in the memo, for those of you who are interested in grabbling this position. It is, the meetings are once a month. The fourth Thursday of every month starting at 6:00 and we've been running until 8:00 approximately. There are 2 committees that the commission has set up that also there's a budget and personnel committee, as well as a development committee that's taking care of the development of the site around the transit commission. I happen to be a member of the development committee at this point. The commission is made up of representatives from each of the member cities, as well as a rider representative from each of the cities. And I'd have to City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 say it's one of the more pleasant volunteer opportunities that I've participated in over the last 2 years. Just that contact with the different communities as well as having input then from our whole transit perspective on these issues. So I would say that thig is an excellent oppoRunity for whoever would like to step up and take over the term. The next term would be~n in January of 2002 and go until Dece~ 31'~ of 2004. Is there anyone interested in volunteering for the position? Councilman Peterson: Is it your desire to go off or is it your desire to stay on or ~ Mayor Jansen: I've served on the commission for 2 years and I would say that after the year term I felt that carrying on into a second year would certainly be a plus for Chanhassen in that there was continuity. I think at this point, you know definitely to have another council representative on the commission would not be a negative as far as some turnover right now. And like I said, I have appreciated being able to serve on the commission so it's not as if I'm looking to leave that position but I would encourage any of you to get involved on this if only because of that additional contact and one other perspective on another issue in the community. Councilman Ayotte: One of the things, knowing where the water treatment is leading, that's going to take a lot of my time. I'm not as concerned on my time as I am with the scheduling and so forth. So that certainly has an impacc I don't think I could really .respond until I know how that lays out and what the requirements are going to be for that activity. And I really have to focus on that because obviously that's pretty critical in near term. So I'd like to see where that fails out first. I wouldn't mired. I'd enjoy it but I want to see where that falls out first. Councilman Peterson: I'd maybe recommend we walt'until Steve comes and 'see if he has any desires. I mean I don't want to raise my hand if he says that he would want to do it. Mayor Jansen: Did you get any feedback from Councilman Labatt by any chance? Todd Gerhardt: Not on this item, no. Mayor Jansen: I didn't think about that before he had to leave for work. Okay. Okay, if we tabled this until our next council meeting. If you would maybe check and make sure that Councilman Labatt is going to be there. Will everyone be present for the December 10~ council meeting? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Councilman Boyle: As far as I know, yes. Mayor Jansen: Okay. $o then we would have a full group to make that decisiom Councilman Ayotte: I'm wondering too, we've got the issue with the task force for thc licensing. The possible involvement there. We've got the water treatment activity that I'm involved with. We've got the transportation activity. It may be a good idea to kind of bring it all together and address all of these oppommities at one time, or no? Mayor Jansen: Well they're not all coming open, as far as consideration for needing to fill a position. This is actually a position that we do need to fill for that January time period. The others are task force commitments that arc just internal so I think it's a little different consideration actually. City Council Meeting - November 26, 200 ! Councilman Ayotte: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So why don't we table any action on this until the next council meeting when we can have the conversation with Councilman Labatt here. Todd Gerhardt: Steve will be back the 8~ is what he told me. He's out from the 2~ to the 8t~. He should be at the 10*, but I will call and verify. Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Thanks. Do we need a motion to table or? Roger Knutson: It'd just be appropriate so the record, somebody reading the minutes could figure out what happened. Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion to table please? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved~ Cotmeilman Ayotte seconded to table the appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Commi~sion to the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRF.~ENTATIONS: COUNCI~COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: We had one issue at the Planning Commission that led to some interesting conversation around one of the proposals that came forward from staff. I think we've all grown accustomed to receiving the staff reports with most of their recommendations having been met by the time it comes up to say Planning Commission or Council. They were faced with a project where what staff had pulled together was a long list of recommendations and co.ndifions that they could support the approval of that particular project with those conditions attached, and there was a little confusion and it led to a little discussion on the part of some of the Planning Commissioners as to why a report would come forward like that. So I was able to then have a conversation with everyone and express on staff' s behalf that they work very hard to bring proposals forward that they can support, and if there are conditions that they can put within that report, they certainly will do that to try to move it to an approval so it was I think a very positive conversation on the commission part and again another one of those learning experiences as something comes through a little differently and I would compliment Kate on how she handled that discussion in the course of the public hearing on that issue. But that was the only thing that came up at the Planning Commission. Any other updates? Councilman Boyle: I don't have one. Councilman Ayotte: Nor L ADMINISTRATIVE PRF.~ENTATIONS: CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. 26 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Kate Aanenson: This report is really for your edification. At your last council meeting where you were discussing in the capital i .mprovements plan, the request from the Community Development Depamnent for funding, $10,000 for the Carver County Community Demographic Partnership. And this is a spin-off that is being led by Waconia Ridges as part of their quality of life and they worked hard with the County and it's a pretty exciting project because we'd be the only community, only county in the State of bfinnesota that's working as an entire group or all of our data is being compiled together. The school district is very excited. I'm meeting with them, Barbara Luckermsn from the University who does their study. They missed the mark a little bit on project, their 112 district projections and some of the household trends are changing and we're trying to track some of that data too and looking at the make-up of households. So with this program, not only is the Carver County participating but so are all the school districts in the county as well as individual jurisdictions. While each individual jurisdiction collects their own data, this will be put on a database that we can all extrapolate the information. Whether it's crin~ statistics. Right now we're tied into the Carver County for the Recorder's Office, we want to find property owners. The intent of this is not to get individual names but to get data. When we can find out household information where we can do programming specifically. Where are the childr~ and where do we need to provide recreation programs. For us, programming some of the things that we would do out of the planning department would be where are the seniors. Where do we need to be looking at for Meals on V~qleels7 Some of those sort of things. We are just really excited about this because it gives us a lot of the information that we can do a better job of providing services and thc like. So I really just provided this to give you information from the census was putting thi.~ together. This is their bailiwick. They do this throughout the metro area. Some of the uses that they saw for it. Again, Chaska and the City of Chanhassen obviously so as the two largest communities in the city are taking the lead on this, but again it would also not only be, our concern was that if we didn't have District 276 in it, the information - wouldn't be as valid for us because we're also tryihg to provide planning for the two different distri.'cts, and that is a concern when we're looking at specific needs and households and how those changing demographics, 276 has signed on as to be a partner. To supply the data which was'a concern for us so really this was just to give you more information on that,, and I know as you work through your capital improvements, I'll be happy to answer more questions as that goes om Mayor Jansen: Thank you. You've noted an annual expenditure then of $5,000. Is that for the maintenance and ut~s_te then of that data? Kate Aanenson: That's correct Right now we're looking at that coming through the C_x~xtmunity Development Department but really this is data that we'd be using, every department would be using that so we'd be working that through the different deparumnts. 'Each department contributing to that annual upkeep of that database. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Very good. Todd, any comments? Todd Gerhardt: No. I support it. This is something that I think we can link up as a part of our web page and have this information available to residents. I think it's a great program. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staW? Councilman Boyle: I have none. I think it's very timely and appropriate. Mayor Jansen: Yes, and thank you for partnering up with the on this and participating. Appreciate that. Okay, there is no action requLred on this item_ Moving on, oh! Anything else? Mr. C. mdmrdt under Administrative? City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Todd Gerhardt: No. Just the agenda item removed. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for the reminder. CONSENT AGENDA: (G) APPROVAL OF PROSECUTION CONTRACT WITH CARVER COUNTY. Mayor Jansen: We removed agenda item l(g) for separate discussion. Councilman Ayotte, that was your motion. If you would like to begin the discussion. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, thank you Madam Mayor. As we have with other services that we've purchased, it would be good in order to properly represent Chanhassen and being good stewards of their tax dollars, to close the loop with our contract with the County Attorney. What I mean by that is, it may be helpful to periodically receive information on the activities associated with Carver County Attorney as it affects the City of Chanhassen. Much as we have from the Carver County Sheriffs Office where Sergeant Ports provides information on a periodic basis. I was wondering if it would be appropriate, and I like to open it up for discussion to see whether or not we could add to the language of the relationship under the contract we have with the County, and to also couch what additional costs it might bring. A quarterly report or a periodic report that would include fine revenues to date. Number of cases handled. Presented for charging. A breakdown of specifically since this is a large concern for Chanhassen at this point but there may be others, DUI' s. The verdicts. Guilty. Not guilty. And any reporting that might be associated with drugs and controlled substance cases. And the reason why We bring those out obviously is because it seems, it appears based on the Carver County Sheriff's reports that we get, that that is a large run. I'm not saying limit it to these data elements but using these as examples. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any comments council? Councilmah Peterson: I would agree. I think it's reasonable to get some kind of report back that shows 'activity level Councilman Boyle: I agree also. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Mr. Gerhardt. How would you like us to handle this as far as the contract? Do you need time then to work out that condition with the Carver County Attorney's Office? Do you need us to table this for you to get that accomplished or? Roger Knutson: If I could suggest stepping in. There would be two ways of doing it. One is discuss it and then bring it back. The more efficient way maybe, just put it in here. Approve it. That's what your desire is and if he doesn't like it, then you have to bring it back for your next meeting but I'd just point out, like from the perspective of our office, we have software that can tell you anything you want to know and a lot more that you don't want to know. It cuts it up every which way and everything that ever happens is. Again, I don't know what kind of software they have. Councilman Ayotte: Well, and I think it's a really good point. That's why I think we ought to approve it. It's my feeling that we ought to approve the contract and to have whatever language added loose enough so that we can work towards the construction of a report that would have meaning, both to the County Attorney's office and to the City. 28 City Council Meeting - November 26, 2001 Mayor Jansen: With that if you would make a mofion~ Councilman Ayotte: I would like to make a motion to approve the Contract with the County Attorney's office and to further move that we establish a reporting procedure between the Carver County Attorney's Office and the City of Chanhassen, preferably on a quarterly basis. And that the contents of the report would be worked out between the City Manager and the County Attorney prior to the next council meeting. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Ayotte: Don't ask me to repeat that Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I don't have a problem with that. Councilman Ayot~e moved, Councihmm Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the Prosecution Contract with the Carver County Attorney's Office and establish a reporting procedure between the Carver County Attorney's Office and the City of Chanlmssen, preferably on a quarterly basis, the contents of the report to be worked out between the City Manager and. the County Attorney prior to the next council meeting. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Any discussion around the correspondence? Everybody wants to see if we could manage to drive home this evening safely. If I could have a motion to adjourm Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:3S p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt ' City Manager Prepared' by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an hUroduclton to the audience on how the meeting would proeee& MEMBF_,R~ PRF~ENT: Rich $1aglc, laAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb rand and Craig aaybaush /~rAFF P~: Ka~ Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner;, Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR A!J~ ITEMS: 7305 Laxe~ Drive PUBLIC I~IARING: CONSIDER ~ REQUI~T FOR PRI~.LIMINARY PLAT TO RI/PLAT A 72}7 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18~/ACRES) INT0 22 FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT~ LAND USE AM~.ND~ FROM ~ENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, ~NING FRQM RI,,.I'RAL R~mENTIAL TO RKSIDI~ITIfi~ SINGI.E FAMH.Y DISTRICT, . AND A WETLAND ALTERATIQN PERMIT FQR PRQPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAK~'. L~GY ROA~, ~ 0F I~SO~: LUGY ~ ~ 0F ASm.mG lV~.AOOW SUBDnOSION, LA~ LU(~ RII)G~ NQECKI~ DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bill & $oanne Lambrecht Gloria & Dale Carlson Scott Rein Jim Schluck Dennis Scheppmann Jack & M¢lanie Gorczyca Tamara Satl~ Eric Rivkin John & Mariellen Waldron Tedd Mauke Randall Noecker 6990 Utica Lane 6900 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Terrace 6800 Utica Terrace 6740 I. akeway Drive 7090 Utica Lane 1695 St~llex Court 8315 Pleasant View Drive, Moundsview Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on tlds item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?. Rich, any? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: Sharmin if I may. There's more than just the first two I'm going to mention but as I read through this, what came across to me was a number of things that were not in the plan. And understanding that there were then clarification that this could be worked on, it could be da, da, da, da, da. My simple question is, is there a reason that we can't sit with the applicant and get all of these done and presented to the commission as a, either a complete or an almost complete proposal7 As one commissioner I just want to say I don't feel comfortable with as many of these numbers of, and Fve only mentioned two, or I could talk about two. I know there's 4 or 5 that we could just have that worked on and then present it again. And Kate you're going to address that it looks like. Aanenson: Sure. We've worked with the applicant. Sharmin has extensively over the last several months to make the changes. Eventually get to the point where it needs to come to a different arena to get those changes made. Slagle: Understand. So maybe it's a question to the applicant. Aanenson: Correct. So I guess that's why we're saying, if you feel like those changes are significant enough that you want to see it again, then it may make sense to table it to see what the changes are but at this point the direction needs to come from the Planning Commission because the staff's tagen it to the level they can to get the changes made. Slagle: Fair enough. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn? Sidney: Questions for staff. I see that the applicant will need to apply for other permits from regulatory agencies such as Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers. What type of permits would those entail? Can you give us any idea of, will they be a show stopper or are these just routine permits? AI-Jaff: These are permits that are required of every project that goes through the city. The wetland alteration will require DNR approval. Watershed, any subdivision that comes through the city would need to receive a watershed permit. Aanenson: Just to add onto that. The Watershed District generally doesn't give approval until the city's given a preliminary approval so this is the first step. Obviously if the other permits are not granted, then that project stops. Sidney: Okay. Do you see any problem with that or any red flags at this point? Aanenson: It has been sent around for comments as part of the original application it has been sent out and those comments that we've received to date are included in your packet. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. I mostly have comments but I would like to clarify a few points at this point. In the staff report it mentions that some mature trees might be saved. That the applicant' s making an effort to save those trees. Do we know where they are? Which trees it is? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A14aff: What you see highlighted in green is area proposed to be saved. This is a bluff right here and there are a few trees surrounding it within the 20 foot no touch zone that's being saved. The majority of this is bluff and again you've got the 20 foot impact zone that cannot be graded or touchecL And of course this area. There are a few scattered trees here and there that we questioned whether they can be saved. Our experience when you have trees within a front yard, they don't always survive but this is the main area that is proposed to be saved. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking, you mentioned that too in your summary, that revisions that are required based on the conditions may le.~l to the loss of some lives or a reconfiguration to some extent of the plat. Do we have some sort of an understanding how many lots would be less or what the reconfiguration is? That's totally open at this point? Okay. Then staff report also points out that wetland mitigation is only about half as much as it should be. Do we have any discussion or idea where the other half of the mitigation could be accommodated? A14aff: There are different options. Different alternatives that the applicant could pursue. The first, wetlands are required to be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. The first one of the two has to be a wetland. The second one of the two will have, can be, let me point to that one. And this is based upon the Wetland Conservation Act. For instance, this storm pond, 75% of the storm pond could be calculated as wetland replacement. Another option would be to provide a 16 ½ foot wetland buffer around the replacement section, so again there are different options that the applicant could pursue. Sacchet: But they haven't been clarified at this point? Al4aff: No. We haven't, and again. Looking at it we think it's doable but we don't know how it will be done yet. Sacchet: And then with the trees, I was a little confused about the numbem in the staff report. In one place it says the minimum coverage, canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on the next page it says it's 35%. Is there, like if you look on page 11 it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on page 12, in the second block of their information it says ~ canopy coverage allowed is 35. A14aff: Okay. In our opinion we looked.at some aerial photos and we believe that there may be more trees than is shown on the plans. Based upon your exisfi~.g canopy, that percentage changes. Sacchet: Then that also changes the number of trees to be planted from 117 to 1557 A14aff: Correct. Sacchet: So we still have, would have to determine which one is actually accumm then? Al4aff: Correct. Sacchet: So that's an open ended thing too still. And then my final question is actually 2 questions. That area is considered environmentally sensitive, correct? AIJaff: Yes. Sacchet: Reasonably so. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: You've got the wetlands, the natural wetland and bluffs. Sacchet: Is the alignment of the road, does it follow somewhat the natural contours or is just plowed in there? Al-$aff: If you follow contours, there's potential that you may lose some lots. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Thank you. That's all my questions. Blaekowiak: Thanks. Bruce, any questions? Feik: Yeah, I had one. If all the regulations regarding the retaining walls and the walking paths, and then all the necessary setbacks and the buffer zones were imposed, how many lots specifically if you know that, are in jeopardy? If you were to take the map that we just saw and overlay exact, and forced the retaining walls and the walkways to conform to the codes, how many lots would be in jeopardy? A1-Jaff: You can reconfigure things. Feik: I'm just, as configured. Aanenson: I don't think, we've worked this so many different ways and I guess we're uncomfortable saying that. Feik: I guess where I'm leading to is if those were to be enforced, does the plan in it's entirety materially change? In which case we would be looking at a very different project. I don't know. I'm trying to, I look at the one sidewalk which goes along the entire east side and the retaining wall on the second lot coming from the north side, and I'm trying to understand how much of this project. Aanenson: This one? Feilc Yes. How much of this project is in jeopardy if those buffers and codes are enforced? Aanenson: Well if you look at the one I just pointed to, that may be one lot that needs to be combined. Feik: And that's the only one that. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure. We're not sure what the implications of moving the trail out would be and how much things shift so, it could be another 1 or 2 possibly. Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if the plan would materially change. In which case we would want to see it again. The public may want to see it again. Aanenson: The applicant may be able to answer that more specifically too, yeah. Feik: That's my big question for now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions from you? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: Madam Chair. The Lake Lucy Highlands, the large lot portion of this parcel is currently landlocked, is that correct? AI-Jaff: That's a fair statement. Kind: So the only access to it really is this access point up here, and if that was to be developed in the future you would need to get some sort of cross access agreement or something like that. An easement. Okay. Let me see what else I have. Oh! The grading is quite extensive on here. I was wondering how this compares to other subdivisions that we've approved recently. Does any come to mind that has had this much grading? Aanenson: Yes, this has some other encumbrances with it, wetlands and trees but yes. We've got other projects that do to make it work. Kind: The only one I could think of would be maybe the Pulte project which has extensive grading but the trade off there was that we were preserving a lot of open space and that sort of thing but there's really no trade off here for this grading. Al4aff:: Ashling Meadow to the west of this site had some grading on it as well. The vegetation, many of the trees were moved from one area to the other. That site, the Ashling Meadows site was initially a landscape business. But again a lot of the trees were moved from one area to the other. Kind: What was the net'density of Ashling Meadows? Do you remember? Aanenson: I think the average lot size was a little bigger. AI-Jaff: Yeah. The average lot size in that subdivision was around 18. Kind: Well that's what it is here too though. AI-Jaff: I don't recall, I'm sorry. Kind: Okay. On Lot 1, Block 3, this is the. lot right next to the one that's too narrow. That one also appears to me to be too narrow and I'm wondering if the Calculations'are based on it being on a curve. Al-$aff: Yes. Kind: And to me that curve seems pretty much of a joke. To be calling that a curve. I mean isn't it reasonable to require the frontage to be 90 feet on something like that? Aanenson: ...by sliding different lot lines. Ab/afl: Yes. Kind: We already talked about the wetlands. Where would they go? Oh, the retaining wall by the pond, the newly created retention pond, what is the height of that? I tried to, I think my calculations, just based on the topographical map here, plat, shows the trail at 968 and then the wetland is at 960 so am I to assume it's about an 8 foot wall? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Saam: Yeah, 8 to 9 feet. Kind: Okay. And that is higher than our 4 foot requirement so that they would need to be engineered. Saarm Exactly. Kind: Yeah. And we've got a condition about that. I was just curious what the height was because the chain link fence that is being proposed to be at the top of it, is that a city requirement or is that? Saarm Yes, I believe where pedestrians could potentially harm themselves so where it's shown along a trail, I believe that is a building department requirement. Kind: So if the trail moves then that chain link fence at the top of that retaining wall would not be necessary. Saam: Exactly, yep. Kind: And do we know what the material for the retaining wall is proposed to be? Saam: No. I'd suggest that you ask the applicant. Kind: I will. The utilities on page 9 of the staff report it talks about, there's no public sanitary sewer available to the site so could a case be made that this development is premature? Saam: It could be. As I stated in the staff report, we have received an application, or a petition I should say from the applicant to extend sewer to his site as a public improvement project. It has received council approval for the feasibility stage so we've been approved to go out and have a feasibility study done on doing that. One of the conditions of that approval was that this preliminary plat be brought before the Planning Commission. Have a public hearing heard on it so we're still working with the applicant on the sewer issue as I refer to in the staff report. Kind: Thank you. One piece I could not find in my packet was a lighting plan. Is that proposed? AI-Jaff: We've added a condition. Aanenson: Three conditions. AI-Jaff: Three conditions actually. I put them in front of you and I'm sorry I did not mention them earlier. We've added 3 conditions. First one, remove retaining wall from the right-of-way. Kind: On the back of that? Sorry, sorry. Here we go. A1-Jaff.' Located north of LOt 8, Block 3. I'll point to it. There's a retaining wall proposed within the right-of-way. Staff is recommending it be removed. There's an existing house on the site as well as accessory structures, they need to be shown on the plan. And then street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac. Kind: Okay. And I'm assuming it shall comply with our roles as far as 90 degree cut off?. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Al4aff: Correct. If I may, an earlier question was the average lot size for Ashling Meadow. I said 18,000. It' s actually 28,000. Kind: And the reason for the bigger lots in Ashling Meadows is to acco~ 3 car garages or?. A1-Jaff: Most developments have, what we see is typically a 3 car garage and the type of home that they design requires the additional width, additional depth on the lots. Kind: So is it safe to assume that the developers for this project is envisioning a different type of home than what would be in Ashling Meadows7 Aanenson: Well the ordinance requires a 60 x 60 pad. That's what they have to show and if it meets that then it's demonstrated to be a lot. It meets the 15,000. Kind: Gotch ya. The horizontal curves on the south end of Lake, let's see. Of Lucy Ridge Lane, with the sharp curve that would need to be posted at a lower ~eed. I've never seen that in a staff report before that we allow having a slower speed area. Saam: If you remember Marsh Glen, that development just north of Mission IT_fils. As you come into it, there's a sharp curve there. I believe we had a sign posted there. That's the only one that comes to mind. We would post it 25 probably. Kind: So we do allow it? Saam: Yes. Kind: Page 11, they're talking about trails. The trail that goes along the wetland. There's really no good way to access that trail on the south side of this development. I'm assuming that there will be in the future if the parcel to the south develops. AI-Jaff: If you look at this area, you truly have some steep'slopes. So there isn't a logical place to extend that connection, but as it extends in the future, most probably. Yes there will be. Kind: In the comp plan it shows further south that there would be a future trail. Okay. And then I'm assuming that based on the land cost that none of these lots would meet affordable criteria for owner occupied homes, which our comp plan calls for I believe it's 30% of owner occupied, yeah. Aanenson: No. Kind: So that would need to be made up in a multi-family development somewhere else. And there's one other quick question. Condition number 20 on page 18 talks about discharge and having a drain tile system behind the curbs. That's the first time I've seen that in a staff report. Saam: That's standard, yep. In all the low points within streets under the curbs we require. Kind: Is it normally on the builder's plans and that's why I've never seen it as a condition before? Saam: Yeah, it may not have been shown on a preliminary plat before but we require it on the final plat. We consider it a minor detail so. Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Kind: I think it' s great, I just never saw it before on any others. And that' s all. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions at this time? Claybaugh: Yes I do. I'd like to come back and revisit the statement that you've been working with the developer for probably a little better than a year. It seems like there's quite a number of outstanding issues after 12 months of negotiation and dialogue to be coming in front of us right now. That's a substantial concern. Question for engineering. The storm water talc's, any concern that those aren't forth coming yet? Saarm We've received some pond calculations. However they do not meet the NURP criteria which we require in town. That's why I said we'll require additional storm water eale's. I have no reason to believe that we won't obtain those. Claybaugh: It seems like there's a lot of smaller items or things being portrayed as smaller issues that by the sheer quantity of then have the ability to greatly affect the overall layout of the subdivision. You've got substantial calc's for the NURP pond. I don't know how that affects in terms of the size of the retention pond. Saam: That could potentially be a major issue. Claybaugh: You've got a number of buffer areas that potentially are going to encroach on the lots. The fact that they've been in negotiation for over a year, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly that this has been revised and the number of lots have come down since the original plans have come into the city or is this pretty similar to what came in the door the first go around? A1-Jaff: Initially when we met with the applicant, and I have to go through some paperwork to find when we started this process...not part of this development. And then at a later point the applicant acquired this Outlot A. But it's always been 22. Claybaugh: It has always been 22? I was just wondering from the development cost standpoint divided by the number of lots how they're being affected there. Has the forester been out to take a look at the property? Aanenson: (Yes). Claybaugh: Okay. Most the questions have been asked. I'd just like to reiterate the concern that this amount of time has passed and there's still quite a few issues outstanding yet that should be incorporated at this point in my opinion in the preliminary. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have too many additional questions. Wetland replacement sheets. We don't have sheets yet. I still haven't seen anything tonight, okay. And you said the forester had been out to the site so the numbers that are in here, the staff numbers are her numbers? She's comfortable with them? Aanenson: That's her recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Her recomn~ndation, okay. And how bout the Water Resources ~? I didn't see any specific I guess conditions from her. That had her name on them I guess. AI-Jaff: They're under the wetland alteration. Blackowiak: Okay. Are those all. Al4aff: Page 22 and they came out a, b, c, d through i. Blackowiak: Okay, so those are all from her? From Loft? Al4aff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Those are the questions I have at this point. Uli. Sacchet: May I add one more question? Blackowiak: Sure. We've got a couple more here. Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: Real quick. The grading is relatively extensive. Now you pointed out those areas where the trees are supposed to be preserved as part of this color green on the drawing up on the table. There is no grading happening in those areas that are colored green? Al4aff: Not according to the grading plan. Sacchet: Okay, because I had a little hard time with the grading plan has so much on it. It was really hard for me to decipher where the grading takes place. So as far as your undemanding there's no grading in those areas? Al4aff: Not according to the plans that were submitted. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Oka~ Rich, do you have another question? Slagle: ...question Chairman. Since the applicant made their original intent known to staff, how many plans have you seen? I mean is a lot or are we looking at just a few? Al-/aff: 4 or 5. I would have to go through the file. Slagle: And the reason I'm asking is, per Craig's question you stated that it stayed at 22 basically from the onset. Number of sites. Al4aff: When we first met with the applicant Ouflot A was not part of it. Slagle: I understand. I got that part. Al4aff: At that point I believe the number of lots were 17. Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Slagle: Okay, so Outlot, that addition of land in addition to Outlot A is that it's added 57 Al-Jaff.' Yeah. Slagle: Okay. Since that point, what I'm trying to gauge is what kind of conversations and communications and let's just call it partnering has happened since that point, and I need your viewpoint as well because we're going to ask the applicant that, and I think it's fair to hear both sides. Aanenson: Okay. I think our staff report speaks to what we believe is to make it work. Okay, and we've laid those out in conditions that we say the retaining walls have to come out. We need better storm water talc' s. Looking at if those things can be addressed'then we believe we have a site plan that meets city ordinance. What the implications of those, we're not all sure yet. I think if we listen to the applicant's presentation they may be able to address those but if we can, if these changes were incorporated into the plan, the subdivision, then we would have a project that meets city ordinance. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. Now would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker. Blackowiak: Excuse me, do you want to just. grab the microphone and so we can all hear. Thank you. Randy Noecker: My name is. Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I am the applicant. I'm going to be highlighting a number of things about the plan and then for more detail I'm going to introduce my engineer, Tedd Mattke...in this process. To begin with let me make a few general comments. One of them being that this is a, has been a very complex site and because of it's nature, basically rising about, I think it' s 59 or 60 feet above Lake Lucy Road, it makes it extremely difficult to develop. And we' ve brought revisions to the staff on numerous occasions, like Sharmin indicates, and I've had several conversations with Teresa and other staff members concerning this site. Some of the main issues that we ran into were road alignment because initially before we even brought a concept plan to the city we had looked at a different road alignment but it just caused such a hug amount of tree loss that we basically stuck with the plan that we've had, and although there is a significant amount of tree loss on this site, we've tried to minimize it as much as possible given the conditions that we've been working with on the huge topography changes. Also we've had one of the things that I approached, I live on a street that has teenagers and I'm the ninth house in on the street and it's nothing for teenagers in my community to be hitting 50 miles an hour before they get to the stop sign. And with a, we basically are maxed out at a 7% grade on this site to make things work and we even then couldn't achieve the desired flatness of the close to stop signs that we would like to have achieved. And so I approached Matt one day and I said hey, would it be possible that we minimize these curves somewhat because it will help slow down traffic. And if you've got a 700 foot mn at the top of that'hill - down to the stop sign, dime to donuts somebody's going to go sliding through that stop sign in the wintertime so that's one of the, I know one of the comments were made about those curves and that was why we had done that. The other thing also is we had looked at, in one of the, in some of the previous plans we had looked at bringing the trail up through the cul-de-sac and trying to minimize the impact on the wetlands. So the trail and the associated home ownership of the people that were living there by having that trail come up through the cul-de-sac. Todd Hoffman indicated that that just was something that they would prefer not to see. They'd like to keep the trail along the wetlands. And in so doing it' s, 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 maybe I can summarize this a little bit by saying, if you check my track history you'll find that my developments are a little bit above neighboring developments if you will, and I'm somewhat particular about the land that I purchase and in so doing, try to achieve and create developments that are upscale if you will. And I've already met with several builders for thi~ development. Charles Cudd and just a number of them without naming a whole bunch of names, but they are very interested in acquiring this property, or acquiring the lots in the property and would be building homes probably in the 700 plns range. And there has been discussions about having a model at 1.1 with one of the builders. So it's a very high caliber neighborhood if you will and we're very, we tried to save as many trees as we possibly could. We originally identified that we had about 98 trees to replace and I made a proposal that we put in 114 and then calculations that Sharmin has come up with is different than what we had. One of the, and I'm not saying that it's even my engineer or Sharmin is off but I will say this. One of the problems in looking at aerial topography is that when you do that you pick up shadows of trees instead of the trees themselves and some~ you calculate different amounts than you would really if you did not look at the shadows of the trees. So this may or may not be a problem at thi~ point, I don't know but whatever the case, we're in agree~t to conform to what we need to to achieve this development. I've literally practically got it all sold out before it's even built. There's a high demand fox this area. There will be many beautiful lots overlooking the lake and be able to have that many beautiful homes associated therewith. I'm going to let Tedd go into a little bit more detail here on the plan. And feel free if you have any questions now or later if you'd like to ask me and glad to answer. Blackowiak: I think we'll hear the entire presentation and then maybe we'll call you back up if that's alright. Thanks. Randy Noecker: Alright. Tedd Mattke: My narre is Tedd Mattke. Mattke Surveying and En~n~g. There are I think 3 parts that we probably should talk about The reason why we don't have the buffer that we're supposed to have along the wetland is that we didn't understand what we were required to do. What we have shown is an 8 foot wide bituminous trail that's right along the side of the property lines of the lots that would be created and then between the bituminous trail and the wetland we're showing something in the ranges between 10 feet and about 50 feet that we thought was considered buffer. We now understand that the requirement is that there be a 20 foot trail easement that does not count as the buffer and that the trail is supposed to go down the middle of that and apparently the city is going to be mowing it or something like that on both sides and then the buffer is outside of th~. So in order to create the trail accord~g to the requirements, we will have to lose a lot, 1 lot from those 6 lots that are facing towards the wetland on the east. We looked at that earlier and that's the number that we come up with in order to have the area that meets the city requirements there. As far as the wetland mitigation, we're showing wetland mitigation in the northwest corner of the site. We can also provide the public value credits with the pond and the buffer area. So as far as how you want to designate that, which part goes to achieve the wetland mitigation public value credits, we're going to have more than what we need with this project as it is right now and with the trail we'll have even more beyond what is requirecL As far as the pond sizing goes, we do meet, in my opinion, meet the NURP size requirements but we don't have the 10 foot bench in there right now and that's a requirement but that would increase the size of the pond in the, also be using up some of that area of that lot that we're going to lose so we're going to end up with a project here that's 21 lots, not 22 and we can accommodate the requirements for the NURP requirements and also the trail setback requirements for the buffer along side the wetland as we now understand it to be. Discussion about the trees is I guess the other issue. The shading that you see on there that shows trees, a lot of those trees are buckthorn and box elder and small 3 inch, 2 inch diameter trees that provide canopy right now but they're not significant trees and there's a lot of open space on that site too. And a majority 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 of our grading is in that open space and taking out those small trees and then we have to replace therm Randy pointed out that in looking at the aerial photos you may over judge the area that is canopy based on shadows and so forth. We had discussions at the time of what we were supposed to include as canopy and some of the discussion included, well do you want the little brushy trees? The willows that are down next to the wetland and so forth, are they supposed to count7 And our understanding was that they weren't supposed to count but if the forester wants to count them, Randy's willing to accept that too. It's not a deal breaker I guess. Nothing in this project is a deal breaker. We'd been working with staff as Sharmin has said, and Randy has noted also and we're willing to continue to do that to meet these latest things that staff has come up with. I point out that this is the first real full scale review we've had because in the past we've been dealing with issues such as will you allow a steeper grade than 7% to save some more trees? And it was decided by staff, no we want to stick to 7%. The question came UP about those retaining walls. The retaining walls are far enough away from the pads right now that we can move them so that, and meet the 30 foot setback. We didn't understand that the retaining walls were considered structures when it came to the setback from the wetland buffer. So it's another misunderstanding on our pm and we'll just move therm The reason we have a retaining wail shown right now, I believe it's shown on the edge of the right-of-way rather than in the right-of-way. If it's shown in the right-of-way, then it has to be moved or eliminated and the reason for that retaining wail is to save a large white pine. As fax as grades go, this site is, I don't think it's that difficult a site other than you've got a lot of topography going across it and so you have to make fiat areas for the pads and staff takes a conservative view in caiculating what we're losing in terms of trees by saying that anything that's within, I think she said 10 feet Sharmin, of the pad area we considered as a lost tree? A1-Jaff: What we've done in the past is looked at 20 feet. Based upon our experience those are the trees that typically get removed. Tedd Mattke: Okay, so we accept that calculation. It's our intent when we go out on the site and begin grading to try to save more than that. We don't get credit for those that We save but it's our intent to save them and let the homeowners take them out if they have to. After they see how their house sits on a lot, so this is a worst case scenario that you're looking at in terms of the trees that will be lost. One finai thing I guess is that the Lake Lucy has riparian fights and the initial intent was to try to get a couple lots that could have lake frontage and docks and so forth and the city wants to have a trail that goes along the wetlands. They didn't want the trail to go up to the cul-de-sac. They wanted the trail down aiong the lake and so the city acquires those riparian rights which are significantly valuable, let's put it that way.. And so the public gets to use that trail and if there's a dock or something put in there, down there on that southeast comer, it's a public doclc It's not a dock that is owned by the person on the last lot down there. I think there's been, and one final thing I guess. In crossing the wetland on the north end where, we're filling above the area of a house, about 4,000 square feet, and it' s a requirement that we go out to Lake Lucy Road by the city. We have to go out there and that's the only place we can cross without filling more than 4,000 square feet so we're doing the minimum, or holding it to a minimum that we can and we're trying to do it in a way that the city wants us to do it. And now I guess, unless Randy has something more to add, I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Noecker, do you have anything else you'd like to add right now? Randy Noecker: Not right now unless you have any questions. Blackowiak: No. Well why don't we start with Mr. MaRke then. Any questions, engineering type I'm assuming. If anybody has any. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: Just a couple questions. Randy mentioned that there was an alternative route you looked at. Blackowiak: Say Rick, can we just leave him up there. We'll do, for Mr. Mattke the engineering questions first. Slagle: I think he can answer it but Randy's the one that mentioned it. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: There was an alternative mute that you guys discussed that you looked at first. My question is where would that have gone? Tedd Mattke: The city indicated they wanted a wad that went around the wetland and Randy indicated that he would like it to come up to the cul-de-sac and follow. Slagle: No, road. Tedd Matlke: The road? Slagle: Yeah. Tedd Mattke: We had, one of our originally...a road coming like straight .across. Slagle: On that road that goes into Asbling Meadows? The road. ' Tedd Mattke: Correct. And stuff didn't like that. Staff decided that it would be better to have a T intersection here. Make this one come through with the curves. We also considered having a cul-de-sac here. It was desired that this road continue on through. We didn't want to get into the bluffs so there's been shifting back and forth here in this way to avoid the trees and to hold the houses back away from the significant trees. There's been shifting of the road in through here and curving of the road to avoid the significant trees that are in here and that make the grades work and still avoid the bluff and have buildable lots in there. This road here has had some shifting in through here. In the end it's been pulled back as a result of comments and to avoid the bluff and a number of things. To basically fine ttming this thing as far as we could go so. We've been, there's only one way really to develop this property in the manner that is being proposed and that's like it's shown right here. If you want to achieve the things that the staff wants to achieve and Randy wants to achieve. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Sorry Rich. I just want us to keep one up at a time. Any other questions for him? No? Feik: No engineering. Blackowiak: No engineering. Deb? Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Is Sharmin's recollection that before Outlot A was included that there were about 17 lots and that the addition of Outlot A allowed the addition of 57 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Tedd Mattke: I wasn't involved in it at that time so I couldn't comment on what happened back before Ouflot A was added. Kind: I'll ask when Randy's back up there. Blaekowiak: Okay. Kind: Yeah, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, any engineering questions? Claybaugh: Yeah I had one question. The alignment for the proposed road off Lake Lucy, how consistent is that with the existing drive that's them now serving the property? Tedd Mattke: It's pretty much laying right over the top of it. Claybaugh: Okay. So there's no, that's already substantially degraded in that area so, okay. That was my only question. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. And I don't have any questions of you right now, thanks. Your turn. Alright, questions of the applicant. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: Randy you had mentioned that you had developments that you've done before. Just a couple examples of those just for my own frame of mind. Randy Noecker: Eden Prairie, Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Foxbriar Ridge in Maple Grove. Wildwood Village in Blaine. Goodview Ridge in Wyoming, which is a couple miles north of Forest Lake. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: And I've got some preliminary stuff on 80 acres in Shakopee and I have another 20 house, 20 townhome house development unnamed in Blaine that's going on, and another 10 acre parcel in Blaine. Slagle: Okay. That's all for right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yes, one question from the applicant. I'm very perplexed about this, I have to admit. How can you fit a million dollar house on a 15,000 square foot lot please? Randy Noecker: I should probably have Charles Cudd here. From a square footage perspective it's very easy. The ones, some of the requirements inside my development are 3 car garages. I am debating between requiring a 10:12 pitch on all roof lines, but I think I'm going to go back to 8:12. In previous developments I required ramblers to be at 6:12 and 2 stories, especially gables that face the street to be 8:12 or higher. In a development like this you're going to see a lot of 10:12's and 12:12 pitch roofs. Then you'll have, it will almost, I have about 25 residents from Chanhassen that are waiting for this approval because I have one advantage that other developers may or may not have. I can sell a lot to a private party and they can use their own builder and there's a fair number of people that don't want to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 build with the national builders if you will because they force you to build with them on their land so I don't build with sticks. I create developments and put in the in/cra~uctu~ and sell the lots and it's not a, I have met with almost 2 handfuls of builders and not one of them has talked about putting a model up less than 700. Sacchet: On the 15,000 square feet roughly? Randy Noecker: Yeah. Most of the time, you're basically not going to have any problem when you get to about 16,000 square feet. You may have a little problem depending on the width of the sidewalk and how much blacktop they want to put in, and maybe the size of the patio in the back, but you're, the impervious area does create a factor because you've got that 25% rule here in Chanhassen. Sacchet: Okay. I'll have comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Bruce? Feik: Yes. Have you read the staff report yourself? Randy Noecker: I've glanced through it. I did not have a chance to read it in detail. Feilc Have you read each and every one of the staff recommendations for approval that would be required for approval? Randy Noecker. No. Feik: I guess I'm wondering from your perspective then, based upon staff's recommendations, how doable those recommendations are and to what degree it would change the project. But if you haven't reviewed them- Randy Noecken I kind of handed the football off to Tedd and when I delivered the comments to him and I said go over this and let me know where we are in detail and he's basically indicated to me that we are, because of the increase in the pond and the trail issues that we would likely lose 1 lot. It's based on what the other comments are in the staff report.that I saw and that he commented on, it doesn't appe~ that we're going to lose more than 1 lot. I may be wrong on that but. Aanenson: Can staff comment on that? Feik: Please. Aanenson: Just to make sure something's not being misrepresented, because we've been trying to articulate this over the last couple of months. The trail impact issue. I'm not sure the engineer still has the setback correct. We're not sure that only 1 lot is going to solve that problem. Feile Okay. Aanenson: And he's still not interpreting it correctly, although we've'been trying over several months through written correspondence documented to explain to him what the setback is. That's why we're at this point tonight. 15 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Feik: Thank you. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions? Kind: Yes. The retaining wall near the entrance, what's the proposed material for that and did I calculate the height fight at about 8 feet? Randy Noecker: I thought it was. about 6 but maybe it is higher than that. And the material would be Keystone more than likely. Kind: And if the trail is moved to be not along that retaining wall, I'm assuming the chainli~ fence would go away? That' s on top of that retaining wall. Randy Noecker: I don't know about that for certain. I would, depending on the situation. I assume the premise that the city doesn't want kids playing in the wetlands so I kind of assume that nobody should be there but there is a safety issue involved that we'd have to look at you know and if in fact the wall is 8 or 9 feet high, I think just for sheer safety issues I would have some kind of fence up there. Kind: Even if there is no trail? Randy Noecker: Yeah. You'd have to think of public safety. Kind: Okay. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig do you have any questions for the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. You commented on some of the previous subdivisions you've done. Do you typically do infill type subdivisions? Is that what you'd considered your nitch or? Randy Noecker: I guess I don't sense it that way. I'm real sensitive about the parcel that I acquire. I look at it in detail. This one here I happened to pick up in 1996 under an option agreement and I currently am the fee owner on Outlot A. Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to try and comment if you can, I understand it may be difficult- about some of the miscommunications that seem to have taken place between the correspondence and yourself and your representative over the course of the last year, and if you can, go ahead. Randy Noecker: I don't know if it's, let me say that every community does things a little bit differently. Tedd has been with me for a number of projects and we are used to, and that's our fault. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying but we're used to putting a plan into the city and then in a short time thereafter we get comments and we revise those plans and then it goes onto a first planning commission so we have an opportunity to get, I say clean up the plan, but the city of Chanhassen chooses to do it without that step in it. And so when I sensed that I ended up having 1 or 2 more plans submissions trying to get comments from the staff as much as possible. But seeing that they preferred to do the methodology in this fashion we ended up submitting as best we could based on the conditions that we understand and from there we're basically getting our first full blown report baclc We haven't had that opportunity to get that back before. Aanenson: May I comment on that? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: I think we've given them written comments. We've met with them numerous firms. Engineering, the forester, the wetland to try to give them direction. It wasn't a complete application. We will not bring a project to you until it's a complete application. And whether it does or doesn't meet all the design things, often the applicant' s looking for a recommendation of approval to go forward so we have to have at least a subdivision that's close to meeting it. Again; even looking at this, with the numerous numbers of modifications that we're recomxmnding, you can see that there's some differences of interpretation of the city ordinances. And how they impact Although we have tried diligently to explain that. I'm not sure it's been communicatext what those standards are. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And again it's complex because of the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. Those are limiting factors that affect the layout and that's what we're trying to work on. What the city ordinances are. Where the Park and Rec wants the trail which they direct and those sort of things. Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. Craig, any other questions? Claybaugh: No. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot to ask my question about the before Outlot A and after Outlot A, how many more lots were you able to work into your plan? Randy Noecker: In my original plan that L my concept plan that I put together prior to acquiring Outlot A, and I might add without even contacting the city other than the only 2 factors that I knew were that you needed to have a 90 foot frontage and you needed to have 15,000 square feet and I just went off of a blow-up on a half section map and I acq~ I think 21 or 22 lots there. Then I acquired the 6 or 7 acre parcel of Ouflot A, which only has about an acre, acre and a half buildable, but by acquiring that Ouflot A I was then able to basically put in a cul-de-sac, which I really wanted to do fi'om the beginning, and I had negotiated for several years on Ot~ot A but was unsuce~sful until recently. Kind: So in your opinion Outlot A did not allow you to add'any more lots? Randy Noecker. No. Aanenson: We would concur with that. I think his objective has always been to try to get 22 lots. But as he stated, when he came in he ignored the topography, the wetland issues and that sort of thing. He just went with the minimum lot requirements. Kind: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Okay, and at this point I don't have any questions of the applicant so what I will do, unless anybody has more questions, I will open the public hearing. This is a time when public can get up and make comments on this project, so step up to the microphone. State your harm and address for the record please and like I said, we may ask a question or two so we fully understand your concerns but feel free to come up to the microphone. 17 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane, and I'm representing for the members of Greenwood Shores and I have read this report several times myself since getting it last Friday and I guess a red flag came up to me immediately with the amount of recommendations that are still not met after months and months since this proposal has been made. And I think that we feel the main goal here, if you read my e-mail that I sent out today, is that it appears the objective is to get as many homes in as is possible and the topography of this land, as the applicant sated himself, this land is laid out in such a way that it is difficult to develop and I think that screams in itself to keep it's integrity as it is. And the amount of trees that are on the lots aren't as numerous. I' walked back there last weekend. It's a beautiful site and I think that the amount of trees that will be lost is significant and will increase light and noise pollution and the amount of lots is just too great. The amount of vegetation loss is too great, so I think we would like the request for large lot residential to Iow density be denied to preserve the integrity of that land and perhaps limit the amount of lots that we could be developed. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin, can I just ask that a copy of this go to the council in the packet when this does move forward. Okay, thank you. John Waldron: Hi. My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road, just to the west and on the north side of I.ake Lucy. When I went through the report from staff I thought it'd be awful hard to... whole lot of public comment because if you make all these changes or recommendations that it calls for in here, I don't think this is all going to look the same way. And so it's kind of hard to say and give a comment on what the end result's going to end up looking like so I would hope that you...table it this evening and have it re-worked and brought back. And the other thing is when I look at the plat I have a visual of coming down Lake Lucy Road going to the west and right now you see lots of trees and some big white pine and a lot of more wooded areas...coming down Lake Lucy Road and now if you come around that curve, right where you see this property, you could end up seeing this 8-9 foot ret~fining wall fight in the middle of the wetlands. Then you're going to have a 6 foot chainlink fence fight on top of it, and with the amount of grading that you've got from one side of this parcel to the other, I think we've got about 66 feet and so it's getting scraped off one side and pushed over on the other side and I think it's in, I guess this is Block l, Lot 1 over here. If I look right it's about 18 feet. Probably mitigated wetland up to the pad and so that's awful dam steep in my book for having a house sitting fight out there. So you're going to have not only this retaining wall and a chainlink fence sitting fight there as you drive down Lake Lucy Road. You're going to have a couple of these houses sitting fight out there that's going to be right on the edge of a steep bluff and the amount of grading that' s going to happen in there, you'll have a hard time seeing how you're going to save a whole lot of trees so. So I would ask that the city end up having the plat, something at least all the different buffers for the slopes and wetlands. And I'm not against somebody developing the site but I think...development this drastic that having any trees saved is such a hard thing to do. Plus the fact, on small lots like that, homeowners have lots of choices and the house they buy and I heard the number for some of the lots of $300,000 for a lot. Well you can usually figure that the lot's 25% of the price of the house. That's a million 2 house and there's a lot of people, there are a lot of places somebody can go to get a million 2 house rather than on this size lot with possibly only a 2 car garage so my request would be that, you have...and have it fit into the area it is and save as many trees as you can. And table it for now, bring it back so we can give public comment on what something's really going to look like. The way it's actually going to be built. Thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dale Carlson: Hi. I'm Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane. Certainly there's a lot of things that disturb me about this, having lived on Lake Lucy for 30 years. But I guess a couple of questions I have and I don't know if you can answer them necessarily for me but they're questions. When we moved there, all that 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Nove~ 20, 2001 property around Lake Lucy was in fact zoned as residential large lot. Why do we bother doing this sometimes if all we're going to do is turn it into residential low density? When we bought out there we thought our lots were going to be good sized and now somebody comes along and says I can't develop this property and make 10 million dollars off of it so you've got to make it low density so I can develop. I don't understand. I'm confused about that. Secondly is that, if I'm undemanding this right, there is no sewer going through there so I assume it's septic. Is that true? Blackowiak: No. Well Kate, go ahead. Aanenson: Let me answer both questions. That ~ is guided for low density residential. The sewer just came through, or will be coming through as Lundgren also which was zoned similarly large lot because there was no sewer in that area. Those in the Steller Addition because they're larger lots will remain septic and well, but this area was guided for low density. It was left rural or large lot because there is no sewer and water. This project anticipates bringing sewer and water to it. Dale Carlson: At what time will that happen? Aanenson: With the subdivision. When it's approved. They have to wait for it to come. It's on the eastern side, adjacent to Cralpin as it's coming across with the second phase oftbe Lundgren subdivision. Dale Carlson: Okay that answers my question because I know that when the sewer went through in '75 on the east side, we had no choice. We had just put in a new septic system 2 years earlier. We had no choice but to hook up to sewer. Why? Lake Lucy so that's going to happen I guess, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin and I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property on the plan, if it's possible to show where my lot is here. This gray shaded area is this outlot and this here is the lot that's up for review tonight. My lot is this one. Right here this 10 acre parcel. So I'm quite affected by the outcome of this. In past life, when I first moved here 13 years ago, when I built my house there, I got together with the lake homeowners and helped form the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. With Dale Carlson being a co, hair person. I can't speak for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association tonight because we didn't have a meeting but I do want to historically say that in all the years we l~ave been having issues come and go, that we've all concur one sure thing and that is we would like to see the ouflot there remain a natural amenity for the lake. There was a proposal 9 years ago by the Hennepin County l_atkes Board to try and clean up the chain of lakes and this issue came up in public meetings. What to do with this outlot. The city was going to toy around buying it but they didn't have any money at the time the debate was going on whether they should put on a dock And the trail seemed to be a sure thing and nobody seemed to object to that. I don't object to it pemonally now. The lot itself, it's my understanding, is this dotted line, where is the edge of the outlot on the western edge? Can you explain that to me on this plan? AI-Jaff: It's right here. Eric Rivkin: So there are some houses. Al-Jaff.' There are 2 houses proposed within this area. There is a corner of a house in this area and another comer in that area. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Eric Rivldn: Okay, thank you. As Mr. Waldron has indicated, and I also know from historical history that when we first were buying these lots 14-15 years ago the l. ake Lucy Highlands had 19 homeowners there. That we were all sold on the basis that this ouflot would remain an ouflot. That' s, you know it's designated legally as an ouflot and here we are looking at a zoning variance and I oppose any change in doing anything to this as an ouflot. There are trees that grew up and yes there are 2 inch trees. There was nothing there before but now nature's taken over, as it gloriously does and provided lots of buffer visually and naturally to help build up grasses, savannah and natural woods that allow you know prevention of your erosion and sedimentation and nutrient loading into the lake coming down from, washed out from the slope. There's already considerable amount of, I did a lot of research with the homeowners association regarding lake water quality and always come to these meetings whenever there's a development going around the lake to try and preserve what I can of the lake water quality. Lake Lucy, as you know, is a headwaters and the water clarity is cleaner than Iatke Ann from time to time. Most of the time actually, according to the records. We have a lot of springs that are around the lake that feed into there naturally and this wetland here is fed by at least 2 natural springs year round. And it' s clean water coming out of the ground. By adding nutrients from runoff, storms, rooftops, whatever, streets, we're stressing it already. There's already rakish water that is on a sedimentation pond located right here that the city has not cleaned out according to an agreement by the Merle Steller, the land developer when it was developed and that should be taken care of. As a result, the vegetation around here in this area as large just kind of goes down. It's kind of a filter. Kind of like the Everglades. Just kind of filters right through. And we're going to add to that and there's a lot of weed growth right here right now that hasn't come up in past years. It used to be fairly dean here and now it's becoming stressed because of the nutrient loading coming off these developments all the way to Galpin. Galpin Boulevard to the west. So anyway, I think that because the number of houses here. really severely stresses the landform and stresses the amount of trees and natural amenities, this kind of thing to me belongs on a fiat lot. It doesn't belong on something that's very hilly, difficult to grade and to try to keep natural amenities. It seems to be very forced. I agree with Mr. Waldron about the million dollar houses on small lots. I don't think it's going to, it just is incongruous there. I think in my opinion that these houses along here should be eliminated. This road should be eliminated and the remaining 17 houses be spread out and relaxed in such a way that fits the land. Fits the natural amenity of the area. There's already high density going on to the west. We've got 2 ½ acre to 10 acre large lot going on over here. I think it would be best to compromise and do something inbetween the density so that things are relaxed here. It's just too tense, so I think that it should be tabled and I think that the plan come back and have less density. I also want to thank the lady here for mustering up a petition. That's the kind of thing I used to do all the time on things like this, Ms. Sather, and Mr. Waldron for coming to speak up. And I concur. I signed Ms. Sather's petition which she circulated this evening. Thank you very much and I concur with everything on it and so I wanted to add some, a little bit of historical perspective as to why in my own personal opinion why it should be tabled. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just bring up a point of clarification on the outlot. Blackowiak: Certainly. Aanenson: The outlot that we're talking about as a part of the Steller Addition, was given outlot status until such time that the infill sites could be determined. I've been with the city 10 years. The first few years I was here we, Mr. Herbst did try to develop this property working out a wetland alteration permit. Whether you choose not to rezone this, we would still make this develop, provide access. There is buildable area on this site. Whether it's a septic, I guess our preference would be that if it can be 2O Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 provided sewer and water, that would be our first choice. Whether it's one lot, or if it's included in this, but for this to get access, and that's part of our job is to make sure that instead of having 2 access points on Lake Lucy, the better planning way would be again, regardless if this was included in the plat, that this project provide access, I hate to use the word, possibly a driveway. Private drive to provide access to that lot. So when we add~ to it, the mix, that's some of the discussion that we had with the applicant. How do we make that work because there is development of an area up there. It was just a matter of gelling access and that was part of the issue to come across this. Now we'd have 2 close driveways on Lake Lucy which would not be our preference. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vernon Hall: Hi. My nan~ is Vernon Hall and I would just like to speak from an integrity standpoint. Fm hearing the applicant come in here with a lot of conflict it sounds like with the city and beating that and also I mean I'm here and I agree with what's being addressed. I'm on the petition here. But from the fact that if I from a business perspective was an issue, he's coming here and not even knowing clearly what the city has made amendments and those who don't, even aren't on this today that I don't understand how that it could even be any more than tabled and looked at further down the road. How can we progress with any plan in progress when there's not even anything complete or near accurate to look at from my understanding without even looking at the .complete report. So that concerns me as being a neighbor, and a neighbor but the builders building there with what I perceive as a lack of strong integrity and especially again in a wetlands area with concerns of the lake and the issues that surround that. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone who would like to'speak? Okay seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make comments. Craig, do you want to start? Claybaugh: Why don't you go ahead and start with Rich. Slagle: I can start. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question if I may to staff. The comment was brought up that we had to go through or the recommendation by staff was to go through Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: If I can have a little clarification as to why that is. And let me preface that question by saying this. I live in a development, Forest Meadows that we have to go through Longacres to get to our 18-19- 20 homes. My question is, why wouldn't we have just gone through Ashling Meadows to get to here. Aanenson: It's vice versa. Ashling Meadows does not have the aox, ess point. You remember they wanted the one lot that had the wetland in front that we said no. That they wanted that lot adjacent to. This is an access point also for Ashling Meadows to come out this way.- Slagle: Okay, but I guess I'm asking why couldn't everything come out Galpin. 21 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Al-Jaff: You will have an extremely long cul-de-sac. There are 50 plus home sites on the Ashling Meadows site. Add another potentially 20, 22, whatever that number. That's a large number and a fairly long cul-de-sac. You need a second access. Slagle: I might concur. The intent though when we're stopping the road down at the south end of this property, is your intent to take Lucy Ridge Lane further south and to the land that's going to be at some point developed maybe? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So you're going to have sort of a curvy road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to have that answered since that came up. Here's my thoughts. First of all I think this is premature. I don't think it's complete, and I would just ask as best you can as a staff to try and do everything you can to prevent this, these situations from coming up where there's just numerous questions. I just wouldn't feel, as this gentleman alluded to earlier, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal given what's come before us. And I'll mention a few things. Septic system. My gosh, if we have a situation next to this lake and we are advocating some homes having a septic system, and I understand the logistics behind it, my recommendation would be that this needs to wait for sewer. Next, the assessments have not been paid, at least from what I read. I don't need to get into that, the assessments based upon what's been happening so far and I don't need an answer for that but I just have concerns about that when I first see that assessments have not been paid. Tree preservation plan is sort of, we heard some thoughts but I don't see anything definitive in that. The areas retaining wall, bluff setback, absence of wetland buffer. The question about Outlot A, and there's a lot. I mean this is a mouthful or handful, however you want to describe it, of things that come up in front of this group that I think in some respects I don't think it should come before us to be quite honest. I think it should have been addressed and if the need was to come to us to ask the applicant to modify some of these things, then great. I mean you're hearing us. We hope you build and I hope this is a desirable development but there's just a lot of questions I don't think as a commissioner or a citizen that I could vote on so with that, that's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Saarm Madam Chair, could I add just a point of clarification? Blackowiak: Yeah, on the septic. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Saam: Every lot is intended to be on city sewer and water so there will be no septic out there. The only question is whether it's a city project that brings the sewer to his lot line or whether he waits for Lundgren to extend it through Ashling Meadows. That's the only issue right now. Slagle: But is, if I can ask Matt, is the concept though that them would be homes built with septic until sewer came? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Aanenson: No. Saarm No. A14aff.' No. Slagle: Okay, so there's no septic's planned to be built at all. Al-Jaff: No. Saam: No. Aanenson: Let me, the point of clarification was the one lot that was originally owned by Mr. Dirks, that was the outlot. When they acquired the rights to include that in the plat, Mr. Rivkin brought up the point that those were left to be large lot. Our recommendation is if we would provide, ask that this developer provide access to it, and because he's doing that, we'd also recommend that sewer be extended to that lot rather than, if it being left in it's current large lot and given septic and well, we think it's better environmentally to put it on municipal services. Slagle: Absolutely, so basically you're agreeing with me. Aanenson: Right. Right. I just want to make sure it's clear because there is the one large lot that we had' included in the rezoning. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay, I agree it's a complex site. It's environmentally sensitive so it does need special treamnent. I do concur with the comments that I heard that we have a large number of conditions assigned to this application and it seems like a very large number for the type and size of development so it does point to the fact that we have a lot of outstanding issues. And I think.l~g at the number of' recommendations we're supposed to make, the preliminary plat stands out as the one which needs the most work obviously and needs to he od_dressed. And I would hope that if we table this that whoever makes that motion that we really call out all of the conditions which we would like addressed. And I checked off a number of these, you know starting from retaining wall, number one to remove the retaining wall to also have a canopy coverage calculations completed and on and on and on. And I think that needs to he delineated specifically for the applicant to address. And if those things can be shown and put into a form which resembles an application that we could review again, I guess I'd entertain that but I don't feel it should move forward at this point Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. It has no credibility. It's full of holes. It says the applicant makes an effort to preserve mature trees, but then on the other hand we have massive grading going on. We're cutting to 15 feet on the one side. We are in 15 feet on the other. We have retaining walls that are 6, 9 feet tall. We have several retaining walls. We don't have enough buffer. We don't have enough wetland mitigation. And in terms of the credibility Mr. Noecker, I really 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 appreciate your intent to be real sensitive about your parcel, but I don't see any evidence in here of that. I'm sorry. I don't see any credibility for that. I consider this an extremely insensitive, environmentally insensitive proposal. Besides the fact that it's totally incomplete. I agree with Commissioner Slagle that this shouldn't even come in front of us. This is not even nearly cooked and I find it very disturbing hearing from the presentation that you seem not to really pay attention to what staff is asking from you. You say well they're misunderstandings and, given. I mean everybody has misunderstandings and wants to clear those up, but it looks like these misunderstandings have been going on for something in the neighborhood of a year and there's just way too many in there. Staff finding on page 15 to the subdivision, staff finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage. However, staff is recommending some modification to help to minimize impacts. I don't think that mitigation that's proposed comes even close to make this anything near environmentally sensitive as far as I'm concerned. There is way too much damage being done to that environment and the main thing that why I say this is not credible, in all due respect, I cannot envision how you can put a house that's more than a million dollars or even a million dollar or in the neighborhood of a million dollar on a 15,000 square foot lot, or 16,000 for that matter. It doesn't make a difference. I just recently built a house in a neighborhood where the average lot size is around 3040,000 square feet and the price range around 4 to maybe $600,000 of those houses. It does incredible impact on the nature of place. It' s, the forest, nature is extremely reduced. If you want to have houses twice as expensive on lots that are half the size, there's no space for anything natural. Based on how I see this. You want to do a neighborhood that is above standards of neighboring neighborhoods. Ashling Meadows, with 28,000 square foot average per lot, I cannot believe how you want to be in a higher standard if you make your lots that much smaller and at the same time expect to put an expensive structure on it. The road alignment, I don't know how sensitive it is to the contour of the environment. I don't think it is. On that basis, I would want to deny this. The land use amendment for the outlot, I think that outlot is a wonderful buffer towards the large lot on the other side. The naturally sensitive area of the wetlands. I do think it makes sense to include it to have sewer but I don't think it makes sense to include it to ram in 22 minimally sized lots to put huge structures on. The land use therefore I would recommend to deny. The rezoning I would deny because of the environmental damage. I think it's way too much and that's a finding that could be positive to move that forward. The preliminary plat I would want to deny because there's just way too many loose ends. There are at least 20 items that are blatantly unresolved. That have not been paid attention to and therefore I don't think it should be even tabled. It should be denied. The wetland alteration permit, I think that needs to be worked out in more detail that it shows the sensitivity and where all these things are. It's wide open loose ends so also there I would want to deny. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty Craig, your turn. Claybaugh: I concur with the other fellow commissioners that it is premature. I don't feel as strongly as Commissioner Sacchet does that it's as environmentally insensitive as he does but I do feel that it's premature at this time and as such would move to table the issue. I think it's imperative that the developer get together with the city staff and really communicate and listen to one another and try and incorporate those things in a timely fashion and bring a completed package in front of the commission so we can take action on it in the future. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree that this should be tabled for many of the outstanding issues. I'd like to see a plan that incorporates all of these conditions because I think they're going to really impact what we're looking at and have another opportunity for the public to comment on what the new plan looks like. And those, my favorites that I would like to see addressed are the bluff setbacks, the wetland 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 setbacks, the retention pond. Where would it be and what size would it be. A lighting plan. Lot widths need to comply. Tree canopy calculations per the city forester's calculations. I think that's what we need to go by. And retaining walls and I would also like to see the existing house and driveway shown on these plans so we can get our bearings a little bit more clearly. And I would like knowing that this technically meets ordinance and all of our rules for square footage and such, I would like the applicant to consider larger lot sizes that are more fitting with neighboring Ashling Meadows and really take into consideration the topography of the land and see if it can be improved and less grading. And my hot button, which I'm sure you could tell is that entry feature. Consider maybe using a natural material, boulders versus a Keystone and see if there's a way to avoid having a chainlink fence at that entry area. I think we need to table it and I think we need to table all 3. I think we need to keep this bundled together. Blackowialc Okay, Brace. Feik: I will be brief. I agree with much of what was said tonight. It is a beautiful site, I'll give you that. It will not ever be able to be developed without significant alterations to the site, and I agree. You cannot develop that in any way, shape or form. I've walked it at length without knocking down a significant number of trees and moving a lot of dirt. Be that said though, I am very uncomfortable with approving a plan then having the staff have to work out this many details after the fact. I don't think that's fair to staff or the process and based on that I would also agree that we should table this tonight. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I really have nothing new'to add. I agree with my commissioners who were kind of tending towards tabling it. I believe that we've got a lot of direction for you and some of the key issues that we feel the need to be addressed before we see it again. One thing .Mr. Noecker you said that you wanted an opportunity to clean up the plan and I think you're going to get it so I hope you've gotten adequate direction. Please take the time to review staff's report, and I'm assuming Kate you will supply, or Sharmin will supply minutes with specific directions and comments. Aanenson: Just for point of clarification. I think Commissioner Sidney alluded to it. We would like specific direction given to the applicant and I think that's where she was going and that's part of why we're here tonight. To make sure that you've all given comments but we want to make sure that that's articulated exactly what your expectations are so we're not back at this same juncture in a funa~ meeting. So if you can summarize that in a motion, that would be .helpful for us. Blackowialc I think we can but also if we can just refer to the minutes and in our comments I think take' a look at what everybody has said because I think among us all we have hit most of the issues, and I wrote you know mine were specifically, let me go back. Grading, trail, buffers, fence, retaining walls, wetland issues, canopy coverage, storm water calculations, no wetland replacement documentation. So those, and a couple... Aaneuson: ...for the record and make sure it's clear on the record because it's still not being understood. That it was where the location of the trail should be. Can we read that for the record? Just to make sure they understand. The trail location outside the wetland buffer language. Blackowiak: Okay now, is that in a condition? AI-Jaff: It is as a condition. Aanenson: But I'm not sure they understand the implications of that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: There will be a wetland buffer that is an average of 20 feet so it can be 10 feet, it could be 30 feet. The average is 20 feet. The trail will be outside the buffer. The other thing that I wanted to point out is, and it depends on what method of replacement~ wetland replacement they follow. One of the options that are available to them is creating a 16 ½ foot natural buffer and then from that point, so 16 ½ feet and then from that point you'd take the setback. So the setback, the wetland setback will be in addition to the buffer. I just wanted to clarify. Aanenson: We wanted that on the record, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to the applicant. Is there anything that we're saying that needs more specificity'/ I mean I'm hoping that based upon what we've talked about, the opportunity to work with staff in a real partnership is here. Is that, may I ask that'/ I mean I just want to make sure, staff is asking that. I just want to make sure I hear it from the applicant. One way or the other. Randy Noecker: One of the things that I'm, I guess I'm not grasping is they're talking about the trail being outside the buffer. We've recognized that and by, keep in mind we just found out about ail these issues on Friday. We weren't aware that we had to move the retaining wail out. We weren't aware of any of this stuff until last Friday, okay. Aanenson: You know what, I have to say something on that. Blackowiak: I understand but, okay Kate. Aanens0n: It was given to you in writing on a letter dated September 10t~ and that's why we're at this juncture. Randy Noecker: Okay well, if we had a retaining wall in the right-of-way marked it was unintended, airight. We thought we had on the edge of the right-of-way. Apparently we had it inside according to your caiculations. But as it be, if you have a trail between the pond and the wetland, is not the pond defined as wetland? So then does the trail go on the south side of the pond or is it okay to leave the trail there? Slagle: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll defer to these folks but here's my just question to ail of you. Is could we take this plan, along with Matt and the planning group and just provide them where it could go, and then you can sort of say yeah/nay. I mean because if there' s still some questions as to where it has to go, I think staff could show you where it could go and hopefully that would be the beginning, if not the end of sort of the placement of that path. Or at least a start. I mean there shouldn't be after the folks, all you meet, there shouldn't be a lot of ambiguities after that meeting, is that safe to say? Randy Noecker: Yeah, if we have caused confusion or in any way caused a problem, we were unaware of it on our side. I mean I had made calls after I submitted this plat to see if there were any changes you'd like to see made but we received no response along those lines so I just thought that was the methodology that Chanhassen chose to work their plan through. Blackowiak: Well I think at this point you've got lots of responses and some direction and. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Randy Noecker: I would like to say, we're going to try to aeco~te all of them- Blackowiak: Good, okay. We'd like to see that. So at this point we'd like to have a motion please. And good luck to whoever makes it because we're going to have to muddle through this but I want to try to get all the hot buttons and all the direction for the applicant that we possibly can in this motion. I'm assuming it will be a motion to table and LuAun, are you? I thought you were volunteering. Sidney: I will. I have a question about whether or not we need 4 motions or not? Blackowiak: Kate what's the7 Aanenson: You can make it all in one. Blackowialc Motion to table. Aanenson: ...all requests. Blackowiak: All requests and then direction to the applicant specifically, you know but not limited to Sidney: Well help me out. I'll take a shot at it here. Okay I'll make the motion that Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning of the 18.57 acres of ~ as shown in the staff report. Also to table the request for preliminary plat to replat a 7.07 acre outlot, as shown on the - staff report. Also to table the wetland alteration permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. And also to" table the land use plan amendment from residential large lot to residential low density. In terms of the preliminary plat, I'd like to give direction to the applicant to work on several points and as I said, I think it's important to be very specific about this in terms of the conditions that are outlined in the staff report I would welcome friendly amendments as we go along here. I'm going to go down the list because this is very important so that we have a clean proposal next time around. Recommendation 1. One of the conditions is to remove the retaining wall. I'd like to see that done. As Deb pointed out, we need to show the existing house and accessory stmcun~ on the plans. A condition 4. We need the applicant to resubmit canopy coverage calculations. As shown in condition 5, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the city for approval. And I'm going to move to condition 11. We have a recommendation from staff, and I concur I should say, that the proposed outlot structure of the-pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and etc as shown in that condition. Also condition 12. We do need some ponding calculations and we need storm sewer design calculations as shown on condition 13. Okay, and condition 18. We'd like to see a preliminary utility plan. And also let's see, condition 25. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. We'll need to have the retaining wall eliminated or moved as indicated in that condition. 28. A big one in my boole We'd like to see revised grading plans as shown. We've got several points here. Show all existing utilities. Show the proposed NWL and HWL of the pond and silt fence. Revise the contours. Add a legend, etc. Also condition 30. We have a wetland buffer issue here that needs to be worked on and that impacts the trail ali~ment. And I guess the big one that really is going to affect the plat itserf is that the retaining walls be located outside the buffer areas. That's condition 31. And we have storm water calculations that need to be submitted. Condition 34. And also following the park and mc conditions to make sure that the trail alignment meets the requirements suggested in that condition. So I'll leave it at that I guess. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I'll second that motion. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded and do we have any amendments to the motion? Kind: I might have a friendly amendment or two. I'm not sure. Did you touch on the wetland replacement documentation? Was that one of those? Sidney: No, you can add that. Kind: I would add that we'd like that documentation provided. And condition number, where'd it go? Let's see, 44. I'd like that one added to make sure that all of the lots maintain that 90 foot width. I question, especially I would add Lot number I on Block 3 to that condition. So it'd be lots I and 2 on Block 3. I third<just a minor curve in the road does not put a lot on the curve. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Amendment accepted? Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the Land Use Plan Amendment #01-4; Rezoning #01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres; Wetland Alteration Permit ~1-3; and the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision ~01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans received October 24, 2001, with the following direction to the applicant before the item is brought back before the Planning Commission: 1. The retaining wall be removed. 2. Show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. 3. The applicant shall resubmit the tree canopy coverage calculations. 4. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with a 3: I side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. The proposed outer structure of the pond shall be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-circuiting and to outer the treated water to the eastem wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant shall provide additional information and revision for the ponding calculations~ 1 Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 gl 1 I0. Il. 12. 13. 14. 15. The applicant shall submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. Revise the grading plan as follows: a. Show all existing utilities including thc storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert. b. Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond. c. Add silt fence along the south property line of LOt 13, Block 3. d. Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3:1. e. Add a legend, survey, benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the plan. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland I and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 2. Wetland buffer areas shall.. be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's we~and ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before. construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign. All retaining walls shall be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall also be located outside of required buffer areas. All'other structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Park and Rect~tion conditions: The following conditions need to be met for the trail ali~t to be acceptable. a. A 20 foot trail easement must be identified. b. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetlalld buffer. c. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail ali~t, nment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines. d. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 16. The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda, which will be? Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made. Blaekowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December. Aanenson: Probably January. Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for coming and I urge you to follow this item We will be getting another mailing out to you when the next meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received. And also I'd like to recommend that for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES WITI~IN TI-IF. DEVELOPMENT SIMII.AR TO TI-W. PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Address J. Polster Joe Smith Fred Richter 681 August Drive, Chaska 3610 County Road 101, Minnetonka 3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a half. One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we want to make that an exclusion.* Could we specify that. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Generous: Part of my view that I was thinking along the lines of a Dunwoody where we'd have a non- profit that would come in there. It is conceivable that if they went into an individual building, training type school would be appropriate and maybe that's something that we can look at. I set this up more for discussion to see what the policy of the Planning Commission and Council would like to go with that. The applicant I know has.some comments on that also and so. Sacchet: That's my half question, which is really more a question for the applicant but from your view, do the suggested alterations to the PUD, do they meet the applicant's current need? Generous: Except for, let him bring it up. Sacchet: We'll let him talk about it. Yeah, okay. Generous: His discussions were on well what if a business had a training component to that, would we consider that a vocational school and so that became a classification discussion. Sacchet: But other than that you think it is. Generous: And then the bakery, well the food processing. He said that in other industrial buildings they have, they have bakeries that come into an individual unit and they're as concerned as the city would be for any off-site impacts with that because of the multi-tenant buildings and so that might be an issue he'll bring up. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions for staff?. Feik: A real quick one. Getting back to the vocational portion. If you did put in vocational in there, how would that impact parking? I mean it could impact them on a very, very large... Aanenson: Right, and there's an EAW that was done on this site that's traffic driven too so I think at that point. Generous: Yeah, we'd have to look at it. As an office user, it depends upon. Feik: We've got existing drawings, existing parking that's based on industrial use. Generous: Right, with 30% office use and then the rest warehouse... Feilc If I can say, if I can jump to the conclusion if you put in a true vocational type school you would be maxed out on parking. Generous: Depends on the size. There might be a limitation that you put on that, and that's something that he may address. Oh, there is Madam Chair. One addition under the prohibited uses I included public buildings. However the city currently owns Ouflot A and B and we should put an exception to that because I believe in the future we may look at providing an interpretative building or something on those ouflots and so that was a sheet I gave you. Additionally I pulled out the definitions of public land, public and vocational schools from the ordinance. That's part of the reason why I was directed into recommending a prohibition against vocational school. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The health club concept, I understand that these are all multi-tenant buildings right now and that it could never be a large scale thing but what if large scale health club was interested, a non-profit for instance, interested in one of those buildings and just taking out all the dividing walls? If we make this land use change to the PUD, they would be allowed to do that. Generous: Potentially yes. Kind: So would it be reasonable to put a limitation that as long as they're part of a multi-use building. Generous: Sure. That's a tool for prescribing that we be the whole building, sure. Kind: What do you think of that? Generous: It's probably work, yeah. Kind: Do you think that's a good idea? Aanenson: Well the reason why the non-profit issue was put in there, that was a large TIF district and that was an issue of discussion of putting that together. The city is desirous of the taxable property so as Bob said, is there a way to prescribe it, could you say a percentage of any one. building or something like that, that may be more and you'd give the council some direction. Or some suggestions of how to limit that prescribed use. If you want to give us some direction too. It might be to say a percentage or square footage of any one building or that it maintain at least another use or something like that. Forward that onto the council with some recommendations. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Bob, I just have one question. And health clubs, there's a category called outdoor health ' and recreation clubs that is listed in the lOP as a conditional use. Said not addressed, not permitted in Arboretum, but I don't see mention of it anywhere. Should that be added onto the prohibited uses then since you added everything else that was classified as not addressed, not permitted? Generous: Well it could but then do we get into the issue of that they have outdoor facilities? Is that, and tie it into our trail system. Would we want to prohibit it? Blackowiak: Well I don't know. I'm just sort of wondering why one is permitted and one is conditional. And why we're addressing one, the indoor health club, but not the outdoor health club. We're just sort of leaving that out totally. Generous: Well the ones I was prohibiting are the ones that really struck me as we didn't want to have in there per se and the other ones we didn't address so they're not permitted. I suppose. Aanenson: For clarity sure, if you want to add it. Blackowialc Well I was just curious because the others that were categorized as not addressed, not permitted such as food processing, public buildings, you know there was some that specifically said not 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 addressed, not permi~e~l~. Off premises parking lots and they were all listed under prohibited uses. Except I don't see, no I don't see parking lots. Hold on. Generous: Yeah, because that's really an ancillary use to that~ We permit that, and they can have shared parking opportunities for some of the sites, but not as a primary use. Blackowialc So do we just want to not address them, is that what you're saying? Not address, not permitted? Leave it at that? Generous: Not address, not permitted. Aanenson: That's the official interpretation of the code. Anybody aggrieved with our interpretation is going to come and ask permission and then they would appeal it to the City Council. Blackowialc Oh good. Aanenson: The way it's written. Blackowiak: If it's not, if you don't say yes, it's no? Aanenson: Correct. If it's not specifically listed, then it would be no. Blackowiak: Okay, that's simple enough isn't it? Okay. Thanks. A..t .this point, anything ~lse to add? No? Okay. Would the applicant or the designee like to make a presentation? Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Blackowiak: You know you can swing that mie around. Go right .ahead. Fred Richter. Okay, how's that? Blackowiak: Little mom. Little more. Kind: It's bugging me. Blackowialc Thank you. Fred Richter: Now. Kind: Oh it's been bugging me. Fred Richter: Okay. Fred Richter with Steiner Development. And what we have in front of us this evening is dealing with 5 existing buildings. 3 which we own, and the gist of this is brought on by our leasing needs, and with me tonight is Joe Smith in charge of our leasing. And he deals in a world that reacts quite quickly to the market and he's in charge of leasing almost 2 ½ million square feet throughout the metro area, and what we're trying to accomplish is get our wording such that he can lease a multi- tenant building, a space 6,000, 12,000 square feet and not have to take the 60 day review that we're going through tonight. So our goal is not to deal with undeveloped sites. Our goal is not to deal with actually Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 the physical make-up of the building. The buildings are up. They're done. Parking's in. It's really to provide a viable business park that meets our objectives as the building owners to keep them full. It meets the city's objective to provide, in many cases, incubator space for new businesses. Employment and so on. To that effect staff has agreed, and kind of forwarded this proposal and we think we're very dose. But I think that background's very important. We also have one tenant that is driving this, and Chris Polster is here tonight representing that, and Joe is working with him to move into our Arboretum 1II building. So with that in mind we're in total agreement with the terminology. We would offer, maybe a little more flexibility on the vocational school and the food processing. When I say flexibility, maybe something such as prohibited. Now there's a prohibited use of vocational school. That's fine but maybe precluding educational uses within a multi-tenant building. There are a lot of examples. One thing about our buildings, it' s amazing the variety of potential tenants that are out there. Because that's our business is providing space for businesses to start, grow and prosper and there are training companies that are fled in with distribution and that that might fall under some type of educational use within the building. And albeit our parking ratios and all that is kind of precluded by the physical layout. We park ratios of 2 ½ per 1,000 and some buildings have up to 5 per 1,000 so as a building owner we know we have to provide the parking, and Joe negotiates that right with the tenant up front. It's a pretty sophisticated world out there for the marketplace meeting the demands and it all ends up working. The same thing would be with food processing. We have no intention of doing a full food processing building but we do have terumts in our portfolio that are small. There was an ice cream cone manufacturer in one. Bakery in another. Pizza dough maker. So Joe might have an opportunity, and you'd hate to have to say oh, got to get back to you in 60 days because I've got to go to the Chanhassen City Council through the Planning Commission to answer that question. So that's why we're here tonight to get as much flexibility as we can in our PUD as close to the IO district as possible. So my suggestion there might be the food processing, precluding food processing in a multi tenant building. Something like that. With that in mind, I really have no other comment. Joe, do you? I guess as a point of clarification, the Sites that are all built on, we worked out with staff that we would add the All About Lights building and the building that's under construction now which is a corporate owned Parker-Hannifen. That's kind of just an academic add-on to our 3 multi tenant buildings which are Arboretum I, II and 111, which total about 275,000 square feet of multi-tenant space and our tenants range from 6,000 to I think the largest is about 70,000 square feet. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, have any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yes. I've got a question for you here. On these 3 multi-tenant building.s, how many tenants are in each of those buildings appioximately?. Fred Richter: About 4 or 5 in each of them. Joe Smith: Arboretum I has 4 tenants. Arboretum 11 has 6. Fred Richter: And Arboretum 1]/, we're trying to get 1 in. There's no tenants in Arboretum 111. Claybaugh: What are you anticipating for that building? I'm assuming you've got 2 end caps and what have you got in the middle? Joe Smith: Oh, we build these buildings for 4 or 5. Claybaugh: 4 or 5, okay. Where I was headed with that is just in terms of assigning some kind of percentage with relation to the buildings so the premise is good but there's some vehicle to contain it on the back end. You said there's 5 buildings. Two that Steiner doesn't own? 34 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Fred Richter:. We own, one's All About Lights, which is the one up on 41 which there's a theme to it and has some office/showroom constraints in it's PUD. And the Parker-Hannffen's just a, they're just concerned that they're owned by the corporation and they'll just keep it that use unless they were to sell Claybaugh: Again, I didn't have any concerns about the in-house education. That makes perfect sense. However the food processing, I'm struggling with that a little bit on how to strike a reasonable balance. Fred Richter. ...context. Our property managers are, we're motivated to have happy tenants. If we were to bring a food processor in, odors and that we would have a lot of thought given to making sure it doesn't disrupt our own buildings. Also, this business park you know is bordered by the ~ on the west, the industrial are~ of Chaska on the south, the wetlands and park on the east. Highway 5, and soon to be townhouses of PuRe to the north. So there is, you know we're as landlords with our tenants are the ones that will face any negative imp, acts the most. Claybaugh: At the appropriate time, I don't know if this is, F d like staff to comment on that. That' s all the questions I personally had so. Feik: I've got one for the applicant as well. Blackowiak: Bruce. Feilc Going a little bit further on the percentage, from a landlord's perspective and leasing perspective. There's a couple of items in here as it relates to indoor recreation and food processing and a couple others. Would you feel more comfortable with the percentage of a single building or'a square foot limitation? How can we put that in here so that quite frankly it is workable going forward? I don't want to say just a multi-tenant building because you could easily have a 50,000 square foot building with 2,000 square feet of storage out in the backside and technically it's multi-tenant. Fred Richter: We're willing to accept that. Feik: ...so what would be. Joe Smith: A lot of things, a lot of what drives the type of tenants that we have is the parking requirements. As owners of 30 buildings throughout the Twin Cities, we're not going to get a tenant or we're not going to pursue a tenant that's going to over park our business or our business park to create problems for additional tenants. Our buildings are all multi-tenant with the exception of one. And we're very sensitive to that as far as odors and things like that. Our lease states that the tenant cannot create additional odors and things like that that affect the other tenants. Feik: I understand that. I'm looking for a little direction how we can give you what you want and quantify... Fred Richter. If we took our existing buildings that are built out, in no case, there's another issue that happens in the marketplace. The lease rolls over. Rollovers are always kind of at different times so it's very difficult for someone to take over a total building. I mean it can happen. It'd be almost like a vacant building but most likely a space is built out at 12,000 square feet...on the market and we back fill it with a new use. In our existing buildings. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Joe Smith: One tenant takes 70%...70% of a 100,000 square foot building. Fred Richter: Is there a number you feel comfortable with? I mean where you're coming from, you would like to make sure our buildings remain multi-tenant. Feilc Well I'm trying to give you reasonable parameters that you can work with that are...versus just saying multi-tenant. That's a little... Fred Richter: Well one would be no more than 70%. That'd be the worst case. And the other building. Joe Smith: ...continues to grow and displace smaller tenants. There may be a possibility that... Aanenson: Let me clarify. Joe Smith: Our goal as a landlord is to continue to grow with our tenants. Is to grow with them and displace the other ones in... Aanenson: My understanding of that question is if we had a single user, for example the YMCA that bought a building. So when they come in for a building permit and there' s a change of occupancy, then it goes to planning and we would check the parking. Then we ask for the mix. We ask the owner of the building to go back, show us the mix within the building, because we do have that happen very frequently in industrial parks. Where there's a mix that's not working. We have one right now, it's a temporary situation. But if that's the question, then if we just say no single building, entire building, would that solve the problem. Should it be a health club. Not one entire building. Then it couldn't be. Feik: Is there street parking at all out there? Aanenson: Pardon me? Feik: Is there any street parking available? Fred Richter: And we really don't need it. Feik: It's current not allowed is what I guess I'm saying. Fred Richter: Right. And again we would ask for proof of parking, if it was a mix that we saw that may exceed the parking ratios. If they have a user that' s using less, that' s great. Then they can pick it up on the other side and that' s the beauty of the PUD. It allows that flexibility to balance the parking and it happens all the time. You've got a user that' s, has more warehouse and the other user has more employees. Joe Smith: My concern with that is as we continue to grow, and couldn't accommodate them in an existing building and they ask us to build them another building on one of our big lots and they occupy it 100% of that building, then we'd be in violation. Fred Richter: Well, but our point is that we would be going through site plan review. On our undeveloped lots we're willing to come in, because we know we have to go through this process. It's 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 really the existing. And it's more of the quick turnover ones. Even if we ended up with a large tenant, there would probably be enough time to. Aanenson: That's not the issue. The issue is if the intent was that we would not have non-profits only in single buildings. That's the issue. If you built them an entire building and it's Northwest Racquet Club, that's not a problem. The problem is if it becomes a non-profit. That's how the original PUD was set up and that was the direction from the City Council at that tim~, Now there might be different feelings but that was the direction at the time. Feik: I didn't understand that. Aanenson: Right, so that's what we're trying to solve. Fred Richter: And we're not at odds with that. Aanenson: ...is to get that language in place. And I mean if we want to be as specific to say that, Fm not sure how we can put that in the text. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. You said this is driven somewhat by a specific applicant, but I missed, did you say what the use actually will be of this applicant? Fred Richter. The specific applicant is a Fungo and'they're a start-up company that is going to cater to youth and recreation. Batting cages and sports affiliated with that and. Joe Smith: Chris, would you like to speak to that at all? Chris Polster: Chris Polster. Fred Richter: Just briefly describe your proposed operation to us. Chris Polsten Okay. Essentially what it is, it' s a youth recreation center and development. Actually we. consider it a development center using sports among other activities. Youth development activities to foster youth development. Included are batting cages and courts that can be used for basketball, volleyball, badminton, whatever the kids want to do so it will have those courts and then it will also have meeting rooms and a training center for the organizations to use. Organizations in our community. Someplace where they can come in and actually call headqua~ers. Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: If I may ask, is it internal? Nothing outside? No batting cages or anything? Fred Richter: Totally inside. As a matter of fact I don't think: it's almost like we don't, you can't have storage yards. I don't think we could have outside batting cages. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point I will open this item up for a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this, please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. LuAnn: anything? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Sidney: Don't have a problem with the suggestions that staff mado. Blackowiak: So as staff recommended? Sidney: Y~. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: I think it's a pretty straight forward situation. I certainly don't have a problem with the vocational school element. I'm hesitant about the food processing. I had to drive by a chocolate factory in Switzerland on the way to high school once or twice, or 3 or 4 times a day, and the first 2 times I thought urn, this smells wonderful but after having driven past it for a couple of weeks, it was very unpleasant. But what I'm straggling with is to what extent this needs to be regulated. I mean I understand with the PUD we do have some control built in and that's the purpose of the PUD to have an agreement and dialogue between the city and the place. Personally I would expect that a lot of these things would be regulated by the market forces. Even the odor concern. Because you don't want to have something with an odor because you have other tenants. So I don't really have any really strong feelings about that. I could go either way if we put it into the proper framework with that. But generally I agree with what's in front of us. Blackowialc Okay. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: I agree with Uli. One thing that stuck with me is the food processing; I guess I would like some verbiage attached to it to, if nothing else, establish some parameters. I know it' s market driven. I realize that but also. Blackowiak: So do you agree with the, the recommendation by staff right now bands food processing. Prohibits it. So do you agree with that or disagree with that? Claybaugh: I think I agree with that. Blackowiak: Okay, so no food processing. Claybaugh: I agree with the education but I don't see a function of in-house food processing. It's just an out and out business period. Blackowiak: Okay. So then you would take vocational school off the prohibited list? Because right now it's under prohibited uses. Claybaugh: That's what we talked about in terms of possibly assigning some kind of percentage of space for use or, and perhaps maybe staff can speak to it. Maybe I'm not understanding the situation clearly. Aanenson: Well we would clearly define vocational uses as separate from someone that's doing in-house training. I don't see that as, a vocational use as defined by the standard industrial classification has different implications. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Claybaugh: So for them to do in-house education, there is no need to address the verbiage of vocational training7 Aanenson: Right. Claybaugh: That's just a given with the industry that's in there that they're going to have to train the individuals. So by definition you don't. Aanenson: Right...a specific real estate school. If it was a restaurant school. I mean those are specific vocational type schools. If it's someone that's doing in-house training associated with their business sort of thing, I'm not sure that again the...classification would come into play. That's how we would interpret it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree with staff's recommendation. I think it makes sense to give some flexibility to the applicant. I'd like to see us maintain the integrity of limiting the amount of non-profit health club space. I think that's the reason why it wasn't allowed, if I'm understanding the intent there. And perhaps limit non-profits may occupy up to 30% of multi-tenant buildings only? Give me a number. What do you think guys? Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's a percentage. Again, it's the owner, the owner of the building. If they own the building. I guess we would like to look towards the city attorney tg.giye us some ~cific language. Kind: Okay. So maybe just leave that in as a concern that needs to be saa~essed before going to council or something. And then I agree that education and training t!acility should be allowed in multi-tenant buildings. I agree with leaving the vocational schools on the prohibited list but adding a permitted use of education and training facilities are allowed in multi-tenant buildings... That would be a pretty good use there. Aanenson: Well I can give you the list that the cit code says and you guys have a copy of that. I mean is it nursing school, real estate? I mean those, that's what it's defined as. Kind: Truck driving. Aanenson: Right. If someone's doing computer classes, if it's on a small scale, you know depending on the size. Blackowiak: I'd just like to clarify. I would interject, in-house training is different than a school. Aanenson: A school, I would agree. Blackowiak: h-house is like Fm an employee of this company and I'm going to learn their new computer system. I have no problem with that....I don't feel we do either. Vocational is I'm paying you money. Kind: Some of these vocational uses I think are okay though if they're on a small scale. I agree we don't want a large Dunwoody taking over a whole building. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Feik: But then you've got a limited square footage now for sale. You can't say 30% of a 100,000 square foot building is... Claybaugh: It may remain that there are going to be some uses that they're going to have to come back in front of us. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Kind: Let's leave that off. Blackowiak: Yeah, no percentages. Okay. Kind: And then Alison, what do you think about the outdoor health facility thing? Blackowiak: I say we leave it off because if it' s not addressed, it' s not permitted and. Kind: Just leave it. You don't want to add it to the prohibited list7 Blackowiak: Nope. Kind: Okay. Feik: My concerns were answered and I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation. Blackowiak: I agree. I fully support the staff recommendation and don't have any changes to suggest to those. Alright with that I'd like a motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, PUD g92-6. Development design standards Section b as follows. And then the staff report pages 8 through 9 and then new page number 10, which was provided tonight. And that's my motion. I' 11 save my comment for after the motion. Biackowiak: Sure, yep. There's beena motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Blackowiak: Okay moved and seconded. Any amendments for the motion7 Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD g92-6) development design standards, Section b as follows: b. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The use shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different blocks and lots for which they axe specified below. The blocks and lots specified below 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The block and lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may different from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the lots identified in the PUD plan. L/ght Ind~- The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, printing or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed stmctum,'with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding ~nvironm~tal by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5, Block 4, and the Wrase property). Warehoushtg- Means the commercial storage of merchandise and pe~onal property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4). O. ffice - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; LOt 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property). Health Services - Establishments primarily 'engaged in famishing medical, sm'gical and other health services to persons. (Ix)ts 1 and 2, Block I; Lot 1, Block 3; and LOt 4, Block 4). Conferences/Convention Center - Establishments designed to accornrruxlate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4). Indoor Recreation/Health C/ub - Establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, . spas and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; LOt 1, Block 3; and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 4). Hotel/Motd- Establishments engaged in furnishing lod~ng, or lodging and meals to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2; and 3, Block 4, and the Wrase property). Recording Studio - Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 2 and 3, Block 4. Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box). . o . . Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restamant). Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet on LOt 1 or 2, Block 1 only. (One convenience store). Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots I and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Day Care - Establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) {amended 8/13/01). Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use). 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 . Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center). Showroom - Showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. (for entire development). (Amended 8/25/97). Telecommunication towers and antennas by conditional use permit only. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. Day care. Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: 1 The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited Uses. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Contractors Yard Lumber Yard Home Improvement/Building Supply Garden Center Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01). Home furnishings and equipment stores. General Merchandise Store. Vocational School. Public buildings. Screened outdoor storage. Food processing. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-1. Uli, would you like to comment? Sacchet: I would allow the vocational schools. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have a comment to add? Kind: I would like to direct staff to check with Roger about non-profits in this PUD. Have Roger address that. Blackowiak: Okay. This item goes to City Council on December l0th. PUBLIC HEARING: 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 CONSmER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 2~.S7S AND 2~.595 REOUIRING ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRE DENSITY FOR SUBDIVISIONS OUTSIDE ~ METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREA (MUSA). Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, so basically Bob you're just telling me this is a housekeeping amendment. It doesn't change anything? Generous: No. Aanonson: This is how we've been interpreting, just to get clarity. Right now there's a lot of pressure for properties that are close to the urban service area and just to give clarity. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, any questions7 Feik: One quick one. Just a point of curiosity. What is the significance of January 15m '87. Just for my own edification. Generous: That was the original agreement under the Met Council. Aanenson: Met Council date. Feile That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Question. Sacchet: Yeah. It took me a while to understand what this really was. Actually I n~ded Sharmin to be the translator. I was trying to reach you Bob. Blackowiak: You needed that one sentence version, right? Sacchet: It took me a while but after Sharmin was translating this to me, it actually made sense. I however have one question. In your groan, one senten/:e with the two, that repeats itself twice, it still refers in both cases to Section 20-906. And 20-906 has these bullets 1 through 7. And it appears that bullet l, at least the first half of bullet 4 and about the first 2/3 of bullet 5 are repeated in those groan one sentences. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Are they still there in addition? Generous: Yes. That would be the alternative if someone wanted. Sacchet: They're both them. Generous: Yes, they're both them. Sacchet: Why do we need them both places? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Generous: Well if someone wanted to take a land outside the urban service area. Let's say they had 30 acres, and it's guided for low density residential so in the future we anticipate a more suburban type development, they could get their 3 units out of it, but go down to the 15,000 square foot and not, and sort of ghost plat the rest of it to show how. Sacchet: Right, I understand that part. Generous: So we had to leave that alternative in because people may still want to do that, and we don't want to preclude them from that ability. Sacchet: So there's a good reason to have it 3 places actually. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Well that was my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? No? Okay. This item, is it a public hearing? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes it is. This item is open for a public hearing. Anybody would like to speak on this item, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any additional comments to make before we vote? Okay. I need a motion. Sacchet: I would like to make a motion that, where is it? That the Planning Commission, are we recommending approval? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amendment amending Section 20-575 and 20-595 as specified in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to approve the attached ordinance amending Sections 20-575 and 20-595. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Okay, would somebody please note the minutes. Aanenson: All 81 pages. Blackowiak: All 81 pages. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, I note the minutes with one comment and one question. I have a question about ~ form and one about, and then a comment about on page 34. From the bottom, 1, 2, 3, fourth paragraph. I was quoted stating something about, I say something about flag lots. That should have said less lots because flag lots don't come into the picture at all with the Rossavik thing. Now the other thing is indeed a legal question. On page 19, I'm quoted saying why the heck. I just would like to know whether that's stretching the limits of proper form. Am I going to muzzled or what or whether thi~ is acceptable form. Slagie: Madam Chair, if I may. Can we vote on Uli's request? I'm not sure it will go throngh~ UIi Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16, 2001 as amended on page 34. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Just to let you know, we have a meeting in December. There's nothing on the agenda. The only thing would be the subdivision we tabled tonight, but since there wasn't a lot of notes taken, we'll probably have to wait, by the applicant, for the minutes to come back verbatim_ And that's going to take over a week so. Blackowiak: Because offices are closed Thursday and Friday, correct? Aanenson: Right. But even yeah. Nann may be working on those days. But we'H'have to have verbatim minutes I'm assuming since they weren't taking notes. I don't think we can. make that deadline for us to . get a staff report and them to make the changes. And the next meeting, I've never scheduled a second' one in December because it' s so close to a lot of other activities which would be Dece~nber 18~. The other important item is, the next meeting in January would be the first, but that is a holiday. So the long and the short of it is, our next meeting is January 15~. We will have some application. We do not have anything in right now. We're not backing anybody up. The only one would be the tabled, but there are applications that we are working with. Site plans that we anficipate~just so you're aware, it may be a longer meeting. We'll try not to get you to midnight We will try to stagger those so we're not packing them all on, but you will probably have a pretty good agenda on that . Blackowiak: Kate, just I guess this is kind of a theoretical question. The last.meeting was rather long, and you know 11:30 gets late and it's, I think it's unfair for everybody to be asked to stay that late. Do you think it's better to put the big items on first? Is it easier to table smaller items? Or to reschedule smaller items or what's your feeling on that? I mean I just. Aanenson: I guess what we try to do too, similar to tonighL When we know there's applicants, residents that are there. People have babysitters and the like. We try to give courtesy to the residents here that are going to have a lot of comments so we put that one on first. The other ones we could have gotten in and out but we're making other people wait so we try to get those out. We try to anticipate, based on the calls that we're getting, which is going to have a lot of people and try to get those people out of the room quickly. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I just thought that the last time when we had the applicant that was, when did they start? After I0:00. Kind: Yeah, Presbyterian Homes. 45 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Yeah. And there was people there that were interested in hearing that too and I thought that that was just. Aanenson: It was. Blackowiak: I mean I knew it was going to be a late one and I wanted to let them speak. Aanenson: ...and I'm not sure if the Presbyterian Homes, if we had bumped that one up til 10:00 too and I think that's something that we'll be working on in a work session. Efficiency and I appreciate the...in opening the meeting and something I think that we can talk about in our work session. Comments, repeating comments and that...work on that. It's a tough one. Blaekowiak: Yeah it is and I don't have the answer so I'm just. Aanenson: There's the 60 day rule. We try to stagger them and sometimes we think something's complete and it's not. Blackowialc Okay. Alrighty. Any other ongoing items? Aanenson: That's all I had. Kind: I just wanted to say thank you for the design standards. They look good. And also for the direct dial phone numbers. I'm loving that. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m; Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 46 C]~$~]HASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMI~ION RF~ULAR M~-TING NOVEMBER 27, 2001 Chalrwonmn Lash called the meeting to order at 7'30 pan. MEMBER~ PRI~ENT: Jan La~ Rod Franks, Mike Howe, Dave Moes, Tom Kelly, Jack Spizale, and Jay Xarlovich ~WI'AFF PREsqENT: Todd Hoffmnn, Park and Rec Director, Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent PUBLIC ANNOUNCI~tiO~T~__- None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONN: Non~ F.~rABLISH 2002 PI~NIC RF.~VATION F63~, ~ Ruegeme~. We have, like you said, on an annual basis the Park and Recreati~n 'Commission does'~iew the picnic fees. I typically like to bring those up in November-December. I have booked picnics alre~y for next year with graduations and a wedding alre~y, so I'd like to get'those establish6d as soon as we' can h~e ju~ ~ make sum ~u~ we ~ ~e appmpr!~e fe~ ~~ ~ ~e picnic people f~ next y'ea~.- Again, this year we did have 90 total ~ons With a total revenue of just a little bit 0ve~ $8,000.'" That was down a little bit from last year's totaLs, both in number of reservnti0ns and'revenues.- So again Pm going to come here again tonight and say that I think we should hold pat with our picnie fees and I don't want to see a declining factc~r I guess because of the fee~ increase so that's my reco~on tonight. That we approve the fees as they were in 2001.for the picnic schedule season for 200-~ . . · . . ~ Do you have any idea why we would be down? Ruegeme::. Not that you can certainly pin point. I mean tlmre certainly is~ you know with layoffs 'and tight money, I know people are starting to kind of cut back On company functions. Hoffman: It wasn't anythi,g dramatic. Rue~ Nothi.g dramatic no, buL Hoffman: lust seasonal flu~ Lastc okay. But we didn't have any kind of bad feedback or anything like that about any pa~i~ Frank~ Well fees have always been the major complaint Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Ruegemec. Excuse me? Franks: Fees have always been the complaint. Karlovich: And you strongly feel they're as high as they can go right now? Ruegemec. Right. Yeah we are significantly higher for non-resident, businesses. Much higher than Hennepin Parks and other. Karlovich: How much do we get for the wedding? Can we charge more for the wedding? I'm just Hoffman: For the level of amenities that we offer, these fees are very adequate. Lash: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Franks: I'd move that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the fees, park fees for 2002 which are consistent and the same as the 2001 picnic fees. Lash: Is there a second to that? Spizale: FII second that. Franks moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the picnic fees for 2002 to be consistent with the 2001 picnic fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: Okay, and I forgot to call for a motion on the minutes. Sorry. Can somebody make a motion to approve the minutes? Kar~vich: F 11 make a motion to approve the minutes. Lash: Is there a second? Moes: I second. Karlovich moved~ Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commi~lon meeting dated October 23, 2001 amended to change Frank Spizale to Jack Spizale. ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION PRO_.QJECT UPDATE. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. What you have in your packet is the information which was distributed by Deanna Bunkelman to the City Council at a recent City Council meeting. And action taken as a result of that conversation that evening included council's continuing interest in moving forward with the renovation by the committee, but they do want to see that a joint powers agreement be formulated between the City and the Committee to specify responsibilities of the Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 City and responsibilities of that neighborhood group. And one of the primary points of that agreement will be that the $25,000 in city money is not the first money invested. That some number will be set, say $10,000 that would need to be raised by the cornm~ity in cash or in kind services and be invested in the project prior to the City's $25,000 being kicked in to assist with the project. T-q.~h: That's a condition of the City Council? Hoffman: Yes. Karlovich: And they're saying $10,0007 Hoffman: That would be, it's going to take more than $35,000 to finish the project and so the community gets the I0 in there fight upfront and we get the city money involved, they're still going to have to raise more money or in kind services to finish it off. Lash: So it could be donations of materials, labor or cash? Hoffman: The way I'm addressing it. Lash: That would be full $10,000. HoffTaan: I can't say if that's going to satisfy the'council but that's the way I'm approaching the joint powers. Karlovich: And I don't know, just as a general observation_ To raise $10,000, that would be quite a feat for this group and is the city at least contemplating chipping in additional funds beyond the 25? It just .~- Hoffman: The City Council is not anticipating chipping in more money than that. Karlovich: How much do you think there needs to be to make it a go or make it happen? Hoffman: Well if you recall the bid which was rejected was over $100,000 and so the neighborhood thinks they can accomplish it at a lower cost than that But if it is at $50,000 in cash and in kind or $60,000, I can't tell you because I'm not sure what their thoughts are. They're keeping the same plan that was developed. The architectural plans and they're actually looking at going beyond that because they would like to put restroom facilities inside the building. Karlovich: That's just going to be how much extra? Franks: How much money can go into a project before it needs a competitive bid? I~sh: Didn't you say 50? Hoffman: For $50,000 now, yeah. Franks: 50,000 now. Is that per year or for the entirety of project? Park and Rex: Commission - November 27, 2001 Hoffman: That'd be the entirety of the project and I don't believe that will include in kind contributions so I don't think we're going to hit that. Then once this joint powers is discussed and drafted by our city attorney's office, that would be presented to the City Council probably at their December meeting for additional conversation and then hopefully approval by the City Council. Lash: So for their $10,000, can that just be commitments or. So say someone is saying I'm willing to do the plumbing for free when it comes time to do the restrooms. But that's not going to come until way down the plan. Can they count that money or does it have to be something that's upfront? Hoffman: I don't know. I don't know. I'll talk with Tom about that on Friday. How we want to present that to the City Council. The City Council is somewhat apprehensive about the project so they're going to want some pretty concrete guaranmes from this committee that they're going to come forward. What the City Council does not want to see happen is that the city invests the $25,000 and the project falls flat on it's face and we're left holding the bag on the project so, and I think we can understand that from the City Council's perspective so. Lash: Tom who? Hoffman: Excuse me? Lash: You said Torn. Hoffman: Oh, Tom Scott from the City Attorney's office. And Deanna Bunkelman and I will meet on Friday. And Tom has done these before for similar projects. He's confident he can write it and make it reasonable and that it will make sense to both sides. And this will help the committee as well because they need to know in black and white paper what the City's role is going to be prior to making commitments and going out and selling the pr0ject. Lash: Okay. Anybody else have anything? That particular night for the City Council meeting, Michael and I came but we got there just as they finished so we didn'.t get to hear anything but we did have a chance to talk with Mrs. Carlson and Mr. Kling out in the chambers for a little bit and they gave us a copy of this so. They said that they thought it went well and that they were given the extension based on some certain conditions that they thought they could meet so they were feeling good about it. REPORTS: RECREATION PROGRAMS. 2001 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY AND 2001 HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION. Lash: Under reports we have rex: program~, and that's Corey's things. Like the tree lighting and the Halloween party. Jerry, are you representing Corey or are we just supposed to do it on our own or what? Ruegemen. I am representing Corey. Just give you a little update on the tree lighting ceremony. That is coming up again this coming Saturday. There has been a change of location. It will not be down south, fight down here by City Hall. It will be back at the clock tower. Just east of the Medical Arts Building. You know where the clock tower, little plaza is there? Then refreshments. Bonfire will be on the other side. Refreshments will be served down at the Old Village Hall, which is the Chamber office. And they'll have a little bonfire and stuff where the old Pony-Pauly's establishments were. At that area so just keep that in mind. That's the only change. It will be similar to last year. Santa will be making a Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 visit and have some refreshments and just kind of kick off the holiday season. Chamber's involved with that again this year with us so. A lot going on in town that day. ].ask Anybody have anything on the tree lighting? Okay. Franks: Is that the same day that Market Boulevard's having their big deal? Hoffman: And then Breakfast with Santa is Sunday. Sunday, 8:00 to noon at the Rec Center. Lash: Okay. And then how about the Halloween Pa~ evaluation. Ruegemec. It seems so long ago. We did have a pretty decent amount of kids and parents out there again this year. Around 700. It just seemed like everything was very again relaxed. We didn't have real massive you know groups of people coming in. It wasn't crazy. Just seemed to be a very nice steady flow throughout the course of the night. A lot of people were on the hayrides and it was a lot of fun again this year. It was, gave people an opporttmity to socialize with neighbors maybe they haven't seen for a while and it's just a real fun, kind of a community event. It worked out very good again having the Bluff Creek school gym again. Have the games and kind of spread things out. I think the games were very well received as well. Gives kids an opportunity to play some games. Get some cool lillle, fun little prizes and get a lot of candy. No hard candy of course but they do have fun at the event and we do. We had a great representation from the Boy Scouts again. The Chaska Key Club. I think they sent 30 or 40 volunteers so that pretty much takes care of all the volunteers. They come and help with games and wiping down tables and hayrides and so it's Corey's really found some very good volunteers thei~ so. Anybody have any questions at all? Lash: No, I was there. Thought it was great. I agree with everything you said. one Woman walked through and said, to me, who puts this on? I said why do you ask? Howe: What's your motive? Lash: Once I established that she was friendly, because She just thought it was great and she wanted to make sure to pass onto to whoever put it together that she just thought it was just absolutely great. So then I told her it was the Park and Rec. Who are all these people? I said it's all volunteers. Park and Rec Commissioners. Staff and I didn't know who all else so I just gave it to us but she was very pleased. Ruegerr~r:. Thanks to all the commissioners that were there as well. Lash: And tell Corey thanks. He did a good job. Okay. Anything else under the party? No? Okay. .ADM TRATFv'E: FQX TRA L PRO _ r UPDATE. Hoffman: Has anyone been out there? Photos do it justice? It's very nice.' " Lash: Can I just ask, you know me. I never know my way around. Is this little group of pine trees, this right here? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: Okay. Just wanted to make sure I had my bearings. Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Hoffman: Just going up the stairs. So I think what really brought this project to a conclusion was the meeting in the cul-de-sac and Mike was there, so very similar to the referendum. When the referendum was passed by a vote and people said, these trails are going to go in and we know they're going through people's front-yards and side yards, but you know what the community has said that it's going to happen. Same thing needed to happen here. Because this was very controversial. Going through side yards, front yards. Going through a park which was formerly used as people's front yards, but when all the neighbors met in the cul-de-sac and they argued out the points and they stood in front of the neighbor and the other neighbor and they said you know what, we know you're affected by this but this is what we paid for. This is what we bought into. This is why our property values are the way they are, and this is what we expect for services and it's going to go in and so the construction went very smooth. The two property owners obviously at the top of the cul-de-sac were very involved in the construction process and keeping in tune to what was going on. And the trails could only be 4 feet and when they smashed it out with the paver it was 4 foot 9 inches and they were right there to make sure that that contractor cut that 9 inches off so, but there was some of that going on out at the project. And the restoration was nearly complete. They did go out there and work yesterday. The day it snowed and they could not find sod. They contacted 10 places to try to find sod so they'll come back in the spring and do a little restoration and the path will be complete and it's just a beautiful walk along the lake. The remaining lakeshore that you see there on the right hand side, you can see at the top picture how the vegetation stops. That's because those property owners maintain right down to the lake which was causing erosion and so we will post our little signs which say, do not mow and allow that vegetation to grow back and hold that bank to stabilize it. Other than that, management of it will not change a great deal. We will continue to mow and there will be, you know where the property, private property owners come down to you and then where we start. If you look to the left of the picture, the city property goes a long ways up that hillside and so it's, that's up quite a ways and what formerly was mowed from the folks that were utilizing that shoreline there. The spur you see on the top picture is for the dock, and so that's a spur that goes down to the fishing dock, into the lake and just the project went very smoothly and the response has been positive. Lash: So once though it went in, you know between those 2 houses, did it end up going over on the lot where it wasn't right next to the house? You know what I'm talking about? If you're, facing where the trail was going to go, the house on the right. Hoffman: No. It went on the lot, the closest alignment. Lash: It did? Hoffmam Yep. Lash: And then it went across the back of the other one? Hoffman: Yep. And it takes a very hard 90 degree mm which is not navigable but I did offer the Hedlund's $1,000 to purchase an easement there and they didn't want to get involved in it. People are still going to cut the comer I think unless they put a fence up. Lash: Okay. Anybody else have anything on that? Franks: It does look very nice. Moes: h docs. Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Hoffman: It's really a nice addition. I don't like to say take back but to utilize that remaining parkland is a nice thing for the city and it's residents. Franks: The one thing I can't tell Todd is on the stairway. Is it limestone inbetween the risers or7 Hoffman: Yep, rock. Franks: Rock. Lash: So not really bicycle or. Hoffman: Sorry, I ran out of disc space before I got to the top but they're going to cut out the same way they did before. And so the bikes are going to come down through the 2 houses and they're going to cut out onto Mohawk. There were 2 alignments. Either we go straight through to Mohawk or we take the stairway. So bikes are continuing to go straight through just like they did before. And that's allowable because our easement abuts right up to street right-of-way and so it's really 2 different trails. Lash: Okay. SKATE PARK IMPROVEMEN'I~. Hoffman: The second one we talked a little bit about tonight. This was basically generated out Of the fact that okay, the ramps are in. $30,000. This site is popular. We've invested money in the .. infrastructure. The tar and 'the lights. Now let's see what .we can do to make sure that our'front lawn maintains a nice appearan~ The stairway is directly across from a crosswalk, and the concrete walk is to get the users from the parking lot up into the skate park. One. thing I think we can do with the fence in addressing that is to make it like a tennis court fence. We'd have to take a jog in them anyway, and so fight at the top of the stairs, where it hits the asphalt. Currently the fence stops right over here and you have to take it and start it so we can box in this whole thing so as the fence comes down.here, we'll do one of these jogs and then do the same thing up in here. Where you hit the top of the stairs, you have to': go around to get in and then there can't be'this activity where... We have to make an adjustmem anyway because our fence is coming hem and we have to get to here so before we just contemplated an angle. Instead of doing that we'll create this tennis court ~ of approach. Franks: And is there anyway to make that jog narrow enough to disallow or the corner sharp enough so that people can get their bikes around that. Lash: That's what I was thinking too. Hoffman: We could do it, if we do it here we have to do it on the other side and we certainly could. Franks: I would just suggest that. Since you're going 10 foot c~ fence, right? Well let's. Hoffman: ...chainlink that's out there is 6 foot. Franks: 6 foot? It's not 10. Oh. Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Hoffman: 6 foot fence around this thing. One thing that we'll have to take, we have a gate over here and I believe it's paddle locked. We have to have ambulance access to the site and so currently they drive on the trail and come fight through the fence. If we're going to gate both of these up, we'll probably have to start leaving this open and then on weekends there will be some activity where the vehicles back out of there but we have to maintain ambulance access to the site so there's got to be a gate somewhere. Franks: I suppose you don't want to invest in a remote lock. You know a gated ambulance site with a remote unlock. Hoffman: Fm not sure. I'll talk with the ambulance folks and see what they want me to do. They can also park. Franks: But you can't get a stretcher out one of those things though. Lash: No, but can't, I mean can't the key be somewhere that they. Hoffman: Oh the fire...and you don't want to restrict yourself to where we have a problen~ We can deal with that. Franks: Just a thought. Hoffman: They're not, an ambulance is not going to get in one of these gates whether we make it tennis court, without bike proof or not so we'll have to deal with that. Lash: What's the snow fence around? Hoffman: Oh, footings for the shelter. So there's a park shelter there. A covered shelter that will go up. Lash: Inside of the skate park? Franks: Well the hockey boards are just right out of the picture, fight? Hoffman: Yep. Franks: The hockey board wall. Ruegemer. To the left. Lash: This is just a little shelter for the skate park? I didn't know we were putting that in. When did we decide to do that? Hoffman: Well I think it was labeled skate park improvements, $30,000. Lash: When you were saying that tonight I thought you were talking about the picnic, the big shelter was going in someday. Karlovich: I thought that was the foundation for more equipment. Ruegemen That's for the garbage cans. Park and Rec Cowmission - November 27, 2001 Hoffnm~: Yeah, there's 7 ~4 thousand for additional equipment for next year. This shelter will have picnic tables, which are chained onto the surface and then it's to encourage, the biggest complaint we received from parents is they don't have a place to sit and they don't want to sit up there in the sun. And so this will allow for some seating. The big beaufi~ maple tree is in jeopardy of dying and that was where most of the spectawrs spent their time was under that big maple tree. It's got some disease showing up on the upper reaches of it so. Lash: Okay. Anybody have anything else on that? Franks: Just a quick comment about shelters. Now are we considering putting in any other shelters in any of the neighborhood parks that we did before7 Do we have any7 Hoffman: Nothing's scheduled in the CIP. Franks: Nothing is scheduled in the CIP. Hoffman: We did 3 or 4 with the referendum. Hoffman: And I'll continue to he an advocate for them. They're a great focal point. I walk through Meadow Green and there happened to be some tournament activity going on and there was rain and you · know they had a hundred people underneath that shelter and it's the tournament headquarters and it was the refreshment headquarters and it's just, when you put these things in these parks, they really create a nice atmasphere for different activities. Karlovich: A/ter our meeting tonight do we need to take any action or direct city staff to facilita~ the parents or a skate park association or additional police or drug enforcement in the area? Hoffman: Only if you want. It's up to the commission. Karlovich: What do you think Chair? Lash: Well I think that's our obvious next step. I think what we need to do is have Todd look over the notes that he took tonight. He was busy writing down all the ideas, and put it together in some kind of form for us and either bring it back at the next meeting or the January meeting or whatever, and hash it over and decide where we want to go with it and what we want to do and make a recommendation to the City Council that we pursue some of these options. Franks: Fd prefer that Todd takes, or staff takes some time to come up with a plan in a thoughtful way, since the pressure's off right now anyway. Hoffman: Season's over. Franks: I meam we have what, 6-7 months. Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Lash: Yeah, but it takes a while to get something like this going. Franks: Right that's what I mean, but let's. Lash: Yeah. But I mean if we want to say an example is to do an association, that's going to take a few months to get off the ground. Hoffman: I think in this effort, that association can be key because those people, you know just getting this thing in the paper and so I go over and I talk with the sergeant and I talk with the deputies and we talk about the skate park and wouldn't it be great if you guys could stop up there and talk with these kids. And they say on fine you know. The Park Director would like to see that happen. These are contractual employees of the city. They're not my peers and it's not like I'm walking over there and talking to a town cop. It's different and that's something that I don't think a lot of people recognize in the community. They're responsive but it's not, it's just not the same. And I know many of them, I know most of them on a first name basis and, but if you have an association that says you know what, we're taking a vested interest here and they meet with these people and they say you know...help us out and then they see it in the paper and they say oh. The community's kind of taking an interest and there's a lot of people out there that say boy, we want to be creative. The police would have a presence there. That's just going to take on a whole new value m these folks and they're going to be able to pay more attention to it. And that's why I think the group community effort is the way to go. It's not government take care of it. Solve our problems. Watch our kids. Make sure that nobody misbehaves, but it takes some responsibility on everybody's part so. We talked about this during the parent, and there was interest. Mr .... , he expressed his doubt that such an association could operate or get off the ground because it's difficult enough in organized sports. I said well, I mean look at the number of parents, there's a lot of users over there. Lots of kids over there and those parents are going to be, they'll respond to that so I think it will be successful. Lash: And if they don't make it into some huge complex organization with a whole ton of by-laws and elected officers and required meetings, if they could try and keep it informal the way the whole structure is here, I think it might have a shot. Karlovich: Just after hearing that young gentleman though, it would be nice if there were some type of drug law enforcement or you know undercover. Hoffman: There is. They've been active at the skate park. Karlovich: Have they? Karlovich: Okay. Hoffman: These things aren't, that kid didn't tell the police anything they didn't know. Lash: The mom that was here, seemed supportive of the association thing. So maybe we have a shot. She said to check with the kids because I said do you know of other parents who would be interested and she said check with the kids. They'd have the best sense of. 10 Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Hoffman: Well we'd just post a flyer at the skate park. Have an organizational meeting and start fixym Lash: Okay. Anything else on the skate park? Franks: What about developing a contact in the Chamber? You know, I mean this is just such a project. Hoffman: Jerry, which commi~...was formed to deal with specific issues specifically to the downtown? Franks: Because you know, they're indirect beneficiary of this facility. Hoffman: Huge economic im,m~ct to this community. Franks: Right. Lash: Well plus all the skate~ are off their sidewal~. Franks: Right. No. But they definitely have an interest as a stakeholder as well. Karlovich: What was your opinion on the immovable trash receptacles? Is that doable? Hoffman: Yeah, we have additional dollars budgeted in 2002. If they make it through the budget we'll go ahead and. Karlovich: Can't we use the old blue one as jumps? Hoffmau: The old blue's are being phased out. Lash: Here's just an idea. Ii'you can get any buy in from some of the businesses like Subway or any of those other places, if we had some kind of a little event or competition or something, maybe they'd be willing to donate little prizes. You know say .here's a way that you can show. Hoffman: That would be up to that association to go ahead and those are the type of things. The skate park is so successful and yeah it'd be great to put on these events and it's something we've been talking about and we can take a look at but if there's other volunteers out there to do it, we're going to let them ~be. on that duty. It'd be really fun. They could use it as a fundraiser actually. Franks: What I find interesting is being the old former YMCA program director, it was always my goal to go where the kids were and it just shocks me that people who, you know it's kind of their idea to work with that age group are not going there. That's where I would be once a day if that place like that, well I was at places like that. Once a day, every day. Stopped by. Talking to the kids. Lash: If you were the officer? Franks: Well or like the church youth directors or the whatever it is that are out in this community that are doing that kind of worl~ They must be here. Hoffman: They're here. Il Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Franks: Yeah, well they're here but they're not here and so Fm wondering, it's something about skateboard as a sub-culture. It's that. Hoffman: We have one church that organized an activity up there so they did, actually a fairly large exhibition and so the youth person recognized that as a place to go to reach the kids and so we have some of that taking place. Lash: Okay. I don't think we have any committees, do we? Okay. We'd better start making some up, fight Hoffman: Skam park committee. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Kell~ I just want to say that I went to the Minnewashta meeting last month and there were a few people there. A couple dog owners that were there to promote using part of Minnewashta for a dog park. There was a resident there that pointed out that I guess pheasants nest on the ground and that he was afraid the dogs would trample over the nest But the commission seems open to having a dog park at Minnewashta. They're looking for a way to attract people to come to their park as opposed to the other regional parks or Carver Park and they think a dog park would be something that they could offer that nobody else could offer. One resident said he would prefer paying a $25.00 annual fee as opposed to paying $25.00 every time he was caught with his dog off the leash. And they actually had a good idea. The commissioners said to a couple of these residents. They said why don't you go out to the dog park in Minneapolis or St. Paul and go there and see how it's set up because the commission really has no idea how to set up a dog. park. What works. What doesn't so they kind of threw it back to the residents to say, hey if you are really interested in a dog park at Minnewashta, we'll listen but come back to us with some concrete ideas so I think the idea of a dog park was well received by the Minnewashta Commission so that may solve the problem. Hoffman: Thanks for going to that Tom. Lash: Anybody else have anything? Hoffman: Many Walsh, the Parks Director really appreciates the input from this commission because he feels a responsibility to the community as a park that's within the city limits of Chanhassen so any input you can give to Many and the park commission there in Carver County would be appreciated. Lash: That's nice to hear. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Spizale: I have one thing. Are they thinking about closing the rec center on Sundays? Hoffman: Yes. Spizale: Would that be a seasonal thing or permanent year long? Hoffman: Permanent. 12 Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Karlovich: Is that something new or when did that come about? Hoffman: As part of the budget talks. Budget reductions. Sundays are, I'm not necessarily in support of the closing on Sundays. What you.have is a facility which is open to your residents who are off on weekends, and you close it one day out of the week but the reality is, Sunday's are used very lightly and we lose money on Sundays so is it worth continuing to have it open?- It's one of those things where public perception I think would be very bad. Here we have a recreation facility that's closed on one half of the weekends so what's the deal with that7 Karlovich: Yeah I don't think you have to make money on every day. I me, an close the rec center on the weekend, it just doesn't seem fight. I personally know Linda Ctan~r and I just, hopefully there's others out there that agree with her. Kelly: On the flip side it's nice to go to the rec center on Sundays because it's not jam packed yeah, and it gives me the only opportunity I can watch the NFL pre-game shows without interruption so I'm hoping that it does stay open. They do line up for the aerobics class. I know I've gotten there a couple times at 10:00 and there was half a dozen people lined up for the doors to open to take that 10:00 class. Hoffman: If the commission has a desire to send a resolution to the attention of the staff and council, have at it. Lash: Well has the City Council already acted on this or is this just a suggestion? · · . . Hoffman: No. Suggestion. They'll act on the b .udget later in Decemlz~. Franks: What kind of moneta~ impact are we talking about here? Hoffman: About 4 grand. Franks: In how long of a period of time? Hoffman: A year. Franks: Have we been, I can't remember our budget talks but are we making movement still towards that break even point or? Hoffman: We're stopped at $175,000 revenue, $250,000 expense, And we feel that's. Franks: About where it's going to he? Hoffman: Yep. For a facility that size it seemed very well. · -' Franks: And this part of the, what was the number, 200,000 or something that was asked to he cut from? Hoffman: Yep. Directive by the city manager to cut 10%? Ruegemer:. 10% from this year's budget. 13 Park and Rex: Commission - November 27, 2001 Spizale: Am the fees going to remain the same or is there talk about maybe raising the fees 50 cents or a buck every time? Lash: We just raised the fees. Hoffinan: Yeah, we just raised them. Franks: Well personally, just my personal feeling is if we're going to go ahead and up the fees, which we just did and then cut services, it's a pretty sad message to send. I can understand the monetary reasoning behind it but you know we didn't set this thing up ever to be a money maker. At best it was always going to be a break even proposition. Karlovich: What are the alternatives to meet your budget goals as opposed to, where can the $4,000 come from as opposed to closing the recreation center on a weekend day? I guess is what I would be interested as to what are some other options. If you have to meet that budget it just seems goofy to have a community recreation center that isn't open on the weekend day. Hoffraan: Okay. Everybody agree? Franks: Absolutely. And the reason why I'm agreeing too is I was one of the people way back that said we should get rid of the daycare because it was losing money and a little bit of creativity was applied to what was I thought a bad situation and it turned around. And so maybe what that same approach is needed here on Sunday. Lash: Now can't, aren't there organized, aren't there practices? Aren't there dance classes? Aren't there? Hoffmaa: Sunday's not that popular. Ruegemer. We schedule pretty light. Well not with anticipation but just not knowing. So with the community based community hours on the weekends, we just did it for like Saturdays and Saturday nights and did nothing as of right now on Sundays. Karlovich: Is there an option? What m the hours on Sunday? Are there just some really dead hours on Sunday as opposed to the closing of the whole day? Lash: Could it open at, what are the hours? Ruegemen 10:00 to 4:00. 10:00 to 5:00. Lash: Well what if we opened at noon? Do that many people go in the mornings? I would guess most people wouldn't go in the morning. Franks: Look at it more creatively, that's what I'd prefer. Lash: Put MaryAnn's Dance class in there. That brings people at least. I mean if I have to take my kid for dance lessons, then I might go use the fitness room instead of sitting around or driving around or something. I don't know. But you can't do that until you know, I mean you can't start scheduling winter session stuff for Sundays unless the City Council acts on it so. It's kind of a catch 22. 14 Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Karlovich: The other question I had about the administrative packet. This Ingraham and Associates, type of park dedication survey. Is it telling us we're too high? Too low or what was our opinion on that? Hoffman: It's done every other year and it always tells us that we're in the top 10% and that we're where we should be. We have some of the highest land values in the melxopolitan area and we continue to move it higher. ! ~.~h: They keep coming. Hoffmam Yep. Lash: It's the place to be. Hoffman: Based on the, how the ordinance is writmm it could go considerably higher and still be defended so we'll continue to move it_ Lash: Does anybody else have anything on the packet? No7 Anybody have anything else on anything7 Hoffman: Deceml~ meeting, coming up quickly. 101 feasibility study will be presented by the consultant for the trail. Lash: The meeting is what date7 Hoffman: 12~/ 14m? Franks: 101 North? Hoffman: 101 North. 101 North. I looked at two different budget numbers. $920,000 and $1.1 some million, and there's $800,000 that's on the line for park dedication- Franks: What's the stares of that turnback? Hoffman: I don't know. That's a good, they're dual-tracking. The tumback and the trail development and so they need to move forward and decisions to be rrmdv, based on information on both sides of the issues. Feasibility studies for 101 South and the two trail connections will be in December so those budget numbers can move forward in the CIP for the council And then the semina~ and the property owner has put together a very nice video presentation and DNR's again showing interest in the lXope~ and so if we have time we'll show portions of that in December as well. Karlovich: What is the date again? Hoffman: Excuse me? Karlovich: What is the date again? Lash: Is it the 18~ or the 11th?. Hoffman: I 1a. Second Tuesday. 15 Park and Rec Commission - November 27, 2001 Lash.- Okay, that'd be fine. I'll be gone next w~k. Karlovich: I might not be there. Fm not sure how that works. Hoffman: Second Tuesday in Dece~r. Lash: Is that going to be holiday...? Jay... Karlovich: Schedules just get all mixed up in December. Lash: Okay. Anybody have anything else? If not, is there a motion to adjourn? Karlovich moved, Moes seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 16 C1TYOF CHANHASSD PO B~ I47 7]~ ~ 55317 1~ 952.937.1900 952.937.5739 952.93Z9152 952.93d~.524 Wt~ Site MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: Sharmin AI-JatT, Senior Planner Decemlw~ 6, 2001 ~ · Partial Release of Contract for Private Redevelopment Partial Release of Site Plan Agmemem Lot 3, Block 1, Park One 4th Addition BACKGROUND On July 11, 1994, the City Council approved the final plat for Park One Fourth Addition. Previously, on June 13, 1994, the City Cotmcil approved Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit applications for Kind~ Care with conditi~. The developer proposed to build the Kinder Caredaycare facility onLot 3, Block 1, Park One Fourth Additiom AContract for Privat~ Redevelopment, a Conditional Use Permit and a Si~ Plan Agre~zaent were. On October 22, 2001, the City Council. approved Site Plan Review ~01-12 for a 20,785 . square foot Office Building, Dell Prof-e~onal Building. A Condition of approval was that The prope~ owner shall agree to release the existing site p.lan and conditional use permit agree~n~ associated-with ~ Kimter Care building. constructi~ has not taken place within one year. Therefore, no additional action is required for the Conditional Use tMnnit The developer has met all obligations for the Contract.for Pfiv~ Redevelopnzm and Sim Plan Agn~ment and reque,~ that ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ eacumbram~. ~~ATION ATrACHMENTS , Partial Release of Conlract for Private Redevelopment, Lot 3, Block 1, Park One 4th Addition. Partial Release of Site Plan Agree~t, Lot 3, Block 1, Park One 4th Addition. PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVEI~PIvI~NT PARTIAL RELI~.ASE OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPNfE~ granted this __ day of December, 2001, by the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITAI~ WHEREAS, the City and THE PRF_~S, a division of Banta Direct Marketing, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 21, 1994, and recorded February 17, 1995, as Document No. 6399350 in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder ("Contract"); and WHEREAS, the City has been requested to grant a release for Lot 3, Block 1, PARK ONE FOURTH ADDITION from the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF CHANIIASSEN CITY COUNCIL: 1. That Lot 3, Block 1, PARK ONE FOURTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby released from the Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 21, 1994 and recorded February 17, 1995, as Document No. 6399350 in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) BY: Linda C. Jansen, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of December, 2001, by Linda C. Sansen and Todd Gerhard~ the Mayor and City Manager of tho City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public -DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Of Ylce Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 PARTIAL RELEASE OF SITE PLAN AGREEMENT THIS PARTIAL RELEASE OF SITE PLAN AGREEMENT ("Release") granted this day of December, 2001, by the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and TI-[E PRESS, a division of BANTA CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, entered into a Site Plan Agreement dated December 21, 1994, and recorded December 30, 1994 as Document No. 6381813 in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City has been requested to grant a release for Lot 3, Block 1, PARK ONE FOURTH ADDITION from the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL: That Lot 3, Block 1, PARK ONE FOURTH ADDITION, acc0r.ding to the .............. recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby released from the Site Plan Agreement dated December 21, 1994, and recorded December 30, 1994 as Document No. 6381813 in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAX,) BY: Linda C. Jansen, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNF. SOTA COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me this ~ day of December, 2001, by Linda C. Jansen and Todd Gerhardt, tho Mayor and City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL I~NUTSON Professional ,4ssociation 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN :5:5121 Telephone: (6:51) 4:52-:5000 Memo To: From: Data: Mayor City Council Sgt. Dave Potts 12-05-01 Re: Items for December Council Meeting . . . sheriffs Office Area Report- November. Attached - Work Plan 2001, year end summary: Attached Miscellaneous Items: I will have brief information on recent activities of possible interest to the Council. · Robbery Seminar held December 4 Office of County Sheriff Bud Olson, Sheriff ~ Carver Count.,.' Government Ccn[er Emergency: 911 ~ Justice Center . Sheriff Admi'n: (952'~ 361-1212 CARVER 600 East Fourth'Street ................................................ Admin:"Fax: ....... (952) 36t'-11229 ....... ....... COUNTY'"'~aSi~.",'i i~ii~n';sot~5,~l~-2bo . ~ _~D~patch: (952) 361-1231 Criminal Assault Burglary Drug Violation Homicide Traffic/Alcohol Lock ou~ Missing Persons/Runaway Animal Medical House/Business Cheek Assist oth~ Agency Fire Call Prowler .... Mental-Health Altercation between_~~here actual physical harm occurred Breaking into a resi~~.~ness All drug violation~-i'lp~[[ll[~)i~', sale of, manufacture of or under the influence of. Taking of a persor~."~~_? ' raffle stops or acc[c~~'~ving a driver under the influence Minor offenses which include order of protection violations, warrant service, threats Pro -- D Your t_>tjnilless t~~~~or~g good for the er~vironrnent ~o[~[y. j.~urc-I~c-l:;e<t c,nvi~R~~~~t~,~~~~ costs. ~ex ~rlme '_" ' .-'tQ~;S~/~ ¢ ~~~sexual aouse..mcl( nt . , . file Vehicle Theft I:offtm~r~/t~~lfil/teolnd ora Op~lJCClTiOr~, vJsJf Non-Criminal v.~ww,c;i,chcar~hcassor~,~nr~,us, ©r coil Jill SJnc;Ic~jr ot Disturb Peace/Privacy' ' Noise, harassing phone calls, .............. Mi .s~......N..0.n C..ri.'...m!.n...a! ............ .D...%c.~[~..~i.~.~~.~~L~t~z~ll~tlbreementquestions; civil ......... matters, delivery of council packets, juvenile disciplinary problems etc, Verbal argument between parties Assist persons with medical issues, natural cause deaths Cheek 6n houses or b~ul~~'when owners are away from property Assist other law e~~~z es; state patrol or govemmerit departments Fires and assist fire~,.e~~t~'_"~ Person on property ~~.~/t.., "~belong .... Suicides, 72 hr holds i"EiX/ti'--~n~l health issues. Affirmative Action/Equal.Opportunir).' Employer PHnted on 10% Po~t-~q,r~, ~.er R¢cy,~lcd,.P,..qp.e,r .... :., · -' ,'- ": - ' I .... ' --", i .... !~ :"- i . ',..,,--'-'.", ,', i ': .Ddt-J'-.If,L.- · ': t,., - .'., : '; - ' '- , , ; 41 ~.: . : ' -, . Civil Process Service of civil oaoers, assist wifla.eivil stand.la, situations., ...... . Transport ',:our business IT~[~~~~~di'lr~[}~J go-oo-rormo env,ronmem Warrant Service iifis yuor -Slaef~el~~lttJiqOaC~lffi~lli~$ffnl4t.;li~da~rchosod Boat and Water Aibi~l~w~ierdi~ii~ trimadhl~ducts, etc. Snowmobile~-.,OT" ' r-eco.cjniz~if~j~dl!~j~j08J~t~~ilr~er~t by applying for tine Gun Permit/Acq)/i~, Envirol ~r~[t~ ~,~q~ 13F~ {rl~fl~¢$1:~ C, ity of Ct'~anhossel Gun Permit/Car~.'-"'~ l:~Stht'~J~;d?~EE~aCg.~ .li~%~pli¢;cn'ion, visit IJ DUll S ¢ Dlat , ~o~ ~o~ 0~ wv¢¢x.ci,~:~~r~~, ~~ gill ~ir~olc~ir ~1' Suspicious Activi~ - ~u~c~~o~~ or vemc~es ~n dom U~~~ ~~~~~einbe,' 31,2001. ......... ~o Aecd..~-D~.ge ............. aum-acc~d~rWh'en'on~'p~Op'0~"d~'ag~ 68'6~'d ........................................................ Auto Accd-Inj~ Auto accident when inju~ ~d pmpe~ dmage occumed Arno Ae~ -Fatal Auto accident in which a fa~li~ occu~ed Tr~c Ali ~c stops ~d ~1~, ~lled vehicles, debris on ~e roadway .......... ~pe.~J. aJ T~c. ............................ Rad~--wagon~--s~eiat-~edemils ............. : ............................................................................................. CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AREA REPORT FOR CITY OF CHANHASSEN CALLS FOR SERVICE FOR MONTH OF NOVEMBER CRIMINAL 2001 2001 2000 MONTHLY YTD MONTHLY 2000 YTD Assault 41 39 Drug Violation 2 27 2 Homcide 0 0 0 Tmffic/AJcohol 12 149 5 Misc. Criminal 18 235 12 48 39 24 0 137 289 Pm Dama e Sex Crime 40 Vehicle Theft 327 3 15 0 Theft 30 406 38 ~---~"~--~-~ 6 31 3 3 25 0 TOTAL. CRIMINAL 439 118 1300 115 22 405 21 16 NON-CRIMINAL Disturb Peace/Priva Mlsc/Non criminal Lock out 31 43 455 691 569 31 AJarm 53 834 72 Domestic 9 131 3 10 76 8 0 45 1 25 312 35 33 27 11 Missin Person/Runawa Child Abuse/Neglect Animal Medical 379 414 29 74 242 House/Business Check ~ist other ~ Call 18 19 .: 37 10 18 Prowler 3 13 2 ~ Health 3 38 2 Civil Process 0 2 0 Tansp t 1' 6 o Warrant Service 2 43 1 Boat & Water 0 51 1 Snowmobile 3 23 0 111 398 640 534 815 Gun Permit/ u I~Aca,.~~ Lock Post Office Auto Accd- Prop Dam Auto Accd -Injury Fatal Auto Accd 93 102 51 23O " 373' 411 39' 93 243 35 34 2 24 20 37 0 75 I 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 75 819 48 584 22 55 1 .... 58 ...... 10 92 I 2 0 Traffic 187 2396 121 8409 0 Spec~a~ Tram~ TOTAL NON-CRIM 14 ...... 451 ........... 93 0 1387 0 6783 Work Plan 2001 City Of Chanhassen Introduction The Work Plan is designed as a guide for the delivery of law enforcement services and coordination with city resources. The work plan allows for input from the City and Sheriff's Office to develop a list of goals, objectives, work direction and/or focus areas. The Work Plan is not meant to be all inclusive of the law enforcement mission in Chanhassen, but instead, helps identify specific work direction, concerns, priorities, or areas of interest brought forth by City and Sheriff's Office officials and personnel. 2001 Plan ! The Work Plan has been divided into four main categories: CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION - Goals, objectives, work direction, or focus areas related to administration of the police contract and the work conducted by the Contract Supervisor. LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS - Goals, objectives, work direction, or focus areas related to the work conducted by the contract deputies and other services provided by the Sheriff's Office. CRIME PREVENTION / PUBLIC SAFETY EDUCATION - Goals, objectives, work direction, or focus areas related to the coordination of work conducted by the city Crime Prevention/Public Safety Education Specialist with the Sheriff's Office. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT / PARTICIPATION - Goals, objectives, work direction, or focus areas related to citizen involvement in law enforcement and crime prevention efforts. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Law Enforcement Records/Reports VV'~ the scheduled installation of the new records software at the Shedff's Office, the Contract Supervisor and the Crime Prevention Specialist will evaluate the current monthly reports and make recommendations. An assessment will be done with the goal of updating the monthly report for the City Council, as well as developing reports for use in crime prevention programs, deputy and community service officer updates, Project LeadFoot, etc. Summary: The new records software was installed during 2001, and is currently in use. The monthly area report for cities is now generated by the system, rather than an employee filtering through the numbers. However, the ability to access information and generate other reports has been limited. The monthly citation report has not been available. Assessment and updating of report formats will take place 'during 2002 as the records division increases its capabilities,, and training for employees becomes available. Coordination of Efforts The Contract Supervisor will work to maintain coordination of the City Cdme Prevention Specialist and Community Service Officer efforts and needs with the Shedff's Office law enforcement efforts. Summary: Sergeant Ports, Crime Prevention Specialist Hoiseth, and Community Service Officer Meixner meet regularly. Crossover information exchange is maintained through discussion, review of reports, and use of a county voice mailbox that has been setup for use by Hoiseth and Meixner. Chanhassen deputies, exchange information between shifts through voice mail distribution, which Hoiseth and Meixner have access to. Sgt. Ports helps to coordinate deputy response with regard to ongoing enforcement issues, and in situations where crime prevention and community service officer efforts may be involved. Project LeadFoot The Contract Supervisor and Crime Prevention Specialist will continue promotion of Project LeadFoot. Adjustments made to the program will be implemented this year, and monitored for effectiveness. Summary: Residents interested in Project LeadFoot had many questions after receiving the program brochure. An information packet was developed that more fully explains the program options and includes examples of neighborhood fliers, yard signs and letters. The packet is sent or given out to concerned citizens, along with the brochure. Initially, Project LeadFoot required 30% neighborhood attendance at a meeting and 70% neighborhood support before the program would be fully implemented. This component of the program was found to be unnecessary and was eliminated. · Our records for 2001 show activity on 40 streets, 36 citizen contacts, and 26 LeadFoot packets given or sent out. Use of the traffic counters for speed surveys has been a great help in obtaining accurate, objective speed and traffic volume data to sham with residents. The data helps to educate residents who sometimes misperceive the speed of vehicles in their neighborhood. City Sponsored Events Chanhassen is host to public events each year, including: Feb Fest, July 3rd and 4th Activities, National Night Out, Safety Camp, Huffman Race, Fire Dept Open House. Discussion needs to take place regarding law enforcement staffing needs and related costs. Summary: This item is a current discussion item between the Sheriff's Office and contracting cities. Historically, the Sheriff's Office has supplied personnel as best possible for special functions. Sheriff Olson has touched on the cost issue with contracting cities, and further discussions will need to take place. · In 2001 the Sheriff's Office was able to supply adequate law enforcement personnel for all requested events in Chanhassen. LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS Traffic Enforcement Growth in Chanhassen has brought increased traffic ani:l increased concern for traffic safety. An increase in overall enforcement of traffic laws has been identified as a priority. As time and staffing allows, problem areas will be (argeted for enforcement attention. The Project LeadFoot program will be used in neighborhood areas. Summary: Although the citation report from records is currently not available, Sgt. Ports believes the deputies have done a good job overall in traffic enforcement. The City and Sheriff's Office receive a large number of traffic and speeding complaints each year. The assessment part of Project LeadFoot has allowed us to prioritize areas for enforcement attention. New in .2001, a 'Traffic Sheet,. was developed that lists streets where complaints have been received, and/or a traffic problem has been identified. The streets are prioritized based-on traffic volumes and level of speeding or other problem. In addition, deputies were asked to begin conducting stationary spot checks of the listed streets, logging the location and enforcement results into the computer system. The practice shows promise for coordinating targeted enforcement efforts and Will continue into 2002. Juvenile Violations A high percentage of vandalism and theft occurring in Chanhassen is the type often perpetrated by young people. The general practice by deputies to follow through with juvenile violations, particularly curfew violations will continue; At a minimum deputies will make contact with parents where possible, and take enforcement action where necessary. Summary: Deputies regularly cite curfew violators, instead of advising or warning them. This practice ensures parent notification, and should help to spread the word to potential criminal youth to avoid getting into trouble in Chanhassen. Parks Chanhassen's busy city parks bring of large mix of people and activities. The Skate Park, in particular, hosts a wide mix of young people. High visibility of deputies in parks will help to stem problems, while offering the opportunity for building positive public relations. Deputies will be encouraged to mix with park goers during their shift as time allows. Summary: Deputies and the Community Service Officer patrolled city parks frequently. Violations of park ordinances, particularly park hours, were enforced regularly through citation, rather than warnings. The benefit over time should be fewer violations and fewer incidents of damage or theft in city parks. CRIME PREVENTION ! PUBLIC SAFETY EDUCATION Programs Through the work of the Crime Prevention / Public Safety Education Specialist, Chanhassen participates in a variety of standardized and/or customized programs. The Contract Supervisor will coordinate Sheriff's Office resources to assist with and participate in these programs. Summary: Sheriff's Office personnel assisted with crime prevention programs as requested by CPS Hoiseth. Sgt. Potts coordinated assignment of several deputies for participation in National Night Out, Safety Camp, Neighborhood Crime Watch meetings, as well as other smaller public events or appearances associated with city programs. · National Night Out was the same evening a Chaska Police Officer was shot, necessitating deputies leave the program early to assist Chaska P. D. Crime Free Multi-Housing Program The Crime Prevention Specialist and Contract Supervisor have attended training in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. The Cdme Prevention Specialist will author a recommendation regarding this program to the Mayor and City Council for review. Summary: CPS Hoiseth recommended to Council, and implemented, a locally customized version of the standard CFMH program. The multi-housing training highlighted for CPS Hoiseth and Sgt. Ports certain problems that other cities struggle with. Rather than fight the same battles as other cities, CPS Hoiseth selected the best components of the program for use in Chanhassen. The most valuable part of the program has been the regular contact CPS Hoiseth has with apartment managers, and the sharing of information on law enforcement activity at the apartment complexes. Chanhassen Crime Information Network This new program, under development by the Cdme Prevention Specialist; allows crime alerts, updates, prevention information to be distributed through email bulletins. The program objectives are to promote community awareness and assist with law enforcement efforts. To start, the program will be limited to local businesses and current neighborhood watch coordinators. Evaluation of the program and changes, or expansion, will be ongoing. Summary: CPS Hoiseth reports that promotion of this program is currently on hold. Response to the initial promotion was not overwhelming. CPS Hoiseth is reviewing how best to communicate with the business community. Efforts are also underway to identify and catalog Chanhassen businesses. It was leamed that neither the City or local business organizations maintain a complete list of Chanhassen businesses. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT / PARTICIPATION Citizen Committee Consider ways to involve the community in identifying work plan initiatives. This could be accomplished by organizing single focus work groups, task forces or a contract oversight committee. This concept would need city council, city manager, and sheriff's office participation. The public could assist in identifying concerns or avenues for participation with the law enforcement mission. Some ideas could include: · Evaluate/conduct a community survey on community attitudes toward policing · Establish a crime fund for crime prevention activities or rewards · Identifying volunteer opportunities for the public to assist law enforcement · Look for ideas to promote a closer identity with the law enforcement mission in the City Summary: In discussion with the City Administrator, it was determined that this work plan item will be used on a "as needed" basis when the City and Sheriff's Office identify a particular area of interest or concern that would benefit from the formation of a community committee or work group. Submitted by: Sgt. Dave Potts 12-05-01 ~ORANDUM CT 0F PFmn$ot~ 55317 952,93Z1900 952937.5739 952.93Z9152 ~52.9M.2524 unv. ad.~~.mn.m FROM: DATE: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist SUBJ: Carver County Household Hazardous Waste Facility Carver County Environmental Services has requested that the City of Chanhassen provide input on the type of services that will be offered at their Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Facility. The county is interested in commellts from city residents as well as the Envirtmmental Commission in 8d_0ition to those provided by the City Council. I am attaching a document from Environmental Services that lists the proposed. services. The items accepted at the facility will be the same as what is being offered at the current facility, Field of Dreams Recycling Center. Additional proposed services would include a products exchange area where reaidents and businesses can drop off or pick up products that can be mused, such as leftover paint or cleaners; an educational center where users can pick up information on variety of solid waste issue'and the county programs; and HHW Collection for Very Small Quanfityx3-enerators (VSQG). The contract with Field of Dream Recycling Center expires on June 30, 2002 at which time the county's new facility will open. Staff recommends that the Council consider advising the county that the fees charged for certain items reflect the prices used at our Special Waste Collection Days. These were reduced fees from the Usual ones charged at the Field.of Dreams Recycling Center. Additionally, the facility .should be staffed and operated at a level consistent with the Field of Dreams ogemfion. This includes Monday through Friday hours, including evening hours, and Saturday mornings. Please note: The City Council has been invited to tour the new facility on' December 12 at 7 p.m. as a part of the Environmental Commission's regular. meeting. Sw Cs In July of 2001 Chaska Sanitation sold it business including thc recycling center to Waste Management. Waste Management informed the County it would be willing to sell the Recycling Center to County. County Applied for $300,000 Office of Environmental Assistance Grant to help purchase facility. Em In September 2001 Waste Management decided to keep building and use it as a truck garage. 2001 Proposed Carver County Environmental Center In an effort to gain greater efficiency and provide the highest quality of service to residents the County is pursuing a facility that would combine both the Household Hazardous Waste, Recycling and Special Waste Collection and Environmental Education. PROPOSED SERVICES FOR THE ENVIRONMNETAL CENTER Convenient site for Carver county residents, businesses to manage: A. Household Hazardous Waste B. Very Small Quantity Generatoi' (VSQG) Hazardous Waste C. Recyclables D. Problem Matefial~ E. Bulky Items ( mattresses, furniture) F. Construction material G. Yard waste Materials accepted at no cost to residents: · aluminum · anti-freeze · car batteries, household batteries ,cardboard · clothing · magazines ° newsprint · office paper · oil filters · plastic (HDPE and PET) · polystyrene ° scrap iron ,steel ,waste oil ,glass ,fluorescent light bulbs ,household hazardous waste V= VII_ Materials ~t~l for fee: · appliances .brush tires · yard waste · furniture .mattresses .pallets .carp~g · wood waste .electronics *VSQG (business hazardous waste) Assist small business in their waste abatement and recycling programs such as VSQG collection. ttHW Product Reuse Program A. By offering product exchange at the Environmental Center participation will in~e. B. Reduce waste disposal costs. Operate an environmental education clearing house which will supply education material on all environmental Services programs. Operate aluminum can redemption dayS. CITYOF P011~c147 ~ ~t~ 55317 952.93Z1900 952.93Z5739 952.93Z9152 9529342524 TO: Mayor City Council FROM: DATE: Bruce M. DeJong, Fimmce Director December 6, 2001 2002 Budget Adoption The City Council held the Truth in Taxation hearing on December 3, at which time staff presented the 2002 budget and tax levy. The City Council rec~ved input from one citizen who recommended increasing the budget for park personnel at Lotus Lake. At the work session following the hearing, tt/e Council asked for'some adjustments to the tax levy and budget that Were not previously includetL The additions to the proposed budget are $5,000 in Recre~on'Cent~r staffing for Sundays and $6,000 for ln~'tion s~m.ffovertime and ~nal labor.- The aalm-y · for the Assistant City ~ posifion'ha~ been Cut by $30,000 to reflect hiring at a lower level than what Mr. Gedmrdt was e~axing in the position. The net effect, of these change~ is to reduce total expenditures by $26,284. I have taken the liberty of reducing the proposed tax levy by an amount that will balance I believe this is a respondble budget. The budget revenues match expenditures in the General Fund, but significant fund balan~ are being used in the Environmental Protection Fund. The net reduction in fund balance projected for the special revenue funds in 2002 is $74,840. This budget does not add new programs or increase the total number of staff. The fund balance in the general fund will also be reduca~ by the $418,000 necessary to pay for calling the two tax- supported bond issues. Staff continues to feel it is prudent to main~ a reasonable fund balance while we continue to sort out our TIF problems. This budget meets the operational needs.ofthe city.- I recommend.approval of tho enclosed budget as submitted. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 10, 2001 RESOLUTION NO: 2001- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2002 BUDGET, AND ESTABLISHING TAX LEVIES FOR 2001, COLLECTIBLE IN 2002 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen that the 2002 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted in the aggregate revenue and expenditure amounts for the General Fund and the Special Revenue Funds of $8,280,724 and $8,355,564, respectively, which are detailed in the 2002 Budget which is made part of this motion by reference; and BE IT RESOLVED that the following sums of money have been scheduled as "Certified Levies" as a part of the bond resolutions originally passed for each bond issue to be levied in 2001 for collection in 2002 upon the taxable property in the City of Chanhassen and as shown in this resolution; and BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen determines that certain bonded indebtedness levies are hereby adopted to meet current and future bond requirements and that the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to increase or reduce the previously adopted bonded debt levies as shown on the attached Tax Levy. Certification document. NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLED that the City of Chanhassen authorizes the County Auditor to levy the amounts shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document upon taxable property in the City of Chanhassen in 2001 for collection in 2002, as set forth in the attached Tax Levy Certification document. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of December, 2001. . ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Linda Jansen, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2OO2 BUDGET 101 1110 General Fund Leg~lat~e ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INCI(DEC) 4020 4030 4050 Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 2,000 - '-'-' :-.2,..~.D."/'. 2,000 loo -'-::.::-.':":'i':-.?~Obi! lOO 27,300 27,300 27,300 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4110 4210 4300 4310 4330 4340 4360 4370 4375 4483 Supplies-Office Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Postage Pdnting & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense Insurance-General Liability TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78O '270 1,050 . . 15,000... 40,000- '17;000 ~0,000' 1,50~ ..2!.~000 119,880 ', .' :.. '.r '-...'~: .~ I ~1 -.. ~-..'.. '"' :i i.-....:.:' .'.~ 2,?.' 0" -';_~. :-:--':..¥~ ~.";-:27_0 ;.':. .. 270 270 . .- .. .. -.-- - ~i.:" '"i';:.'-.'-.-':i';'~.'!'.-'"'4.0t3.'-. · '. .-5,.500;.? i:: '--'.'-'..--"-".41500-:' · : . - :--.,: .:, .~ . ." ' .' ,. L,.': - ;', .. -..','~... -"-'.,4,!i',4o0'i:. :-~--.-:-':'-':'. 41; .o0o':- · . :'.:-:~7;b~'i.':- !.-::_:.'i?!.~{,'bO0':?. · .-' -. :,,. ~ .'_'.;'._~..; ~- -% :-:.'--...,g,:,-.*.-'-,-~-., ;, · .._-'-:'.lOi~j<~ .,-:,...+..~_..~_-.,.~-6iO00j:: '-':' .21,'000-:.' 111,760 144,900 0.0% 0:0% 0.0% 11.1% (18.2%) (!.o%) 23.5% (4o.o%) 33.3% 161.9% 29.7% ** TOTAL LEGISLATIVE 148,210 139,330 172,470 23.8% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1120 General Fund Administration ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2OOO BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 174,000 22,300 13,100 300 209,700 260,000 5,500 34,000 25,000 400 324,900 278,000 5,500' 36,700 3..4,1oo 7OO 355,000 6.9% 7.9% 36.4% 75.0% 9.3% 4110 4120 4130 4170 4210 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 24,000 20O 100 9OO 100 25,300 2OO 100 150 450- 200 100 200 500 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 11.1% 4300 4310 4330 4340 4360 4370 4380 4410 4440 4530 Fees, Services Telephone Postage Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage Rental-Equipment License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Equip TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500 1,250 12,000 600 3,500 6,000 7,200 27,300 80o 60,150 1;500 1,250 12,000 1,000 5,000 6,000 7,400 27,300 100 8OO 62,350 1,500 ilooo iO,O00 i,O00 5,000 6,000 6,400 18,000 100 500 49,500 0.0% (20.0%) (16.7%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (13.5%) (34.1%) (37.5%) (20.6%) 4703 Office Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0.0% 0.0% ** TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 296,150 388,700 405,000 4.5% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1130 General Fund Finance ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2OOO BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2OO2 % INC/(DEC) 4010 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 139,000 17,900 8,200 3OO 165,400 187,000 24,00O 17,000 300 228,300 146,000 19,200 12,000 4O0 177,600 (21.9%) (20.0%) (29.4%) 33.3% (22.2%) 4110 4120 4130 4210 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES ....~ '2,5_'00. ·350.: 5,350 350_-.' 1,150 1:2oo : 0.0% 14.3% 4.3% 4300 4301 4310 4340 4360 4370 4530 Fees, Services Fees, Financial/Audit Telephone Pdnting & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Repair & Maintenance-Equip TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES '16,100' -. '27.~000-- ' --100-' 4,OOO .. ·-700 . -.. -..- ... 5,6oo ' 54,000 "' !6;100: -' 3~,000' ' .-..--. 30i000.' "-. : 32,000.? :~'" '"-'"': ~ ':""25:.' '.'..'.'.' '.:-':'~. · : '300 .' 300 -'- -:.5;o00' '.' ~7,oo0. 500' " '5O0, 54,425 82,300 86.3% 6.7% (100.0%) 0.0% 0.0% 240.0% 0.0% 51.2% 4703 Office Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY . · 1,000: 1,000 ".i!000' .. '-.' 1,000.' 1,000 1,000 0.0% 0.0% ** TOTAL FINANCE 226,750 284,875 262,100 (8.0%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1140 General Fund Legal ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % i~ 4302 Fees, Legal TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90,000 90,000 o3,000 93,000 100,000 100,000 7.5% 7.5% ** TOTAL LEGAL 90,000 93,000 100,000 7.5% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 20O2 BUDGET 101 1150 General Fund Property Assessment ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INC/(DEC) 4300 4340 Fees, Services Printing & Publishing TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES "67;000-~. 70,000 7O,3O0 70,100 0.0% (68.7%) (O.3%) ** TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 70,000 70~t00 70,100 (0.3%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1160 General Fund M.I.S. ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2O0O BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC)I 4010 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 56,000 7,100 2,950 3,600 69,650 95,000 12,500 13,400 2OO 121,100 110,000 14,500 12,400 300 137,200 15.8% 16.0% (7.5%) 50.0% 13.3% 4110 4150 4210 422O 4260 Supplies-Office Maintenance Materials Books & Periodicals Software Licenses Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 6,500 400 400 . 600 7,900 1,000 710 27,800 750 30,260 1,160 610 26,130 42O 28,320 16.0% (14.1%) (44.0%) (6.4%) 4300 4310 4320 4370 4440 4530 Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Travel & Training License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Equip TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69,100 6OO 36,900 20,800 6,000 133,400 71,945 600. 30,150 5,000 107,695 60,785 1,500 15,600 20,925 103,810 (15.5%) 150.0% (30.6%) 0.0% (3.6%) 47O3 Office Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 72, oo 72,600 78,100 78,100 59,900 59,900 (23.3%) (23.3%) ** TOTAL M.I.S. 283,550 337,155 329,230 (2.4%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1170 General Fund City Hall ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 . 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INCI(DEC) 4010 4011 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4140 4150 4170 4260 4300 4310 4320 4350 4370 4375 ~0 4483 4510 4520 4530 4531 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Motor Fuels & Lubricants Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Cleaning & Waste Removal Travel & Training Promotional Expense License & Registration Insurance-General Liability Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40,000 42,000 44,000 4.8% - 1,000 1,000 5,100 5,400 5,800 7.4% 2,900 3,850 4,500 16.9% 1,000 1,400 27100 50.0% 49,000 53,650 57,400 7.0% · . .-:.:;': '~-.'.:-~8;0-~.'~-- ".'.-.: ?.-.. ::.!:2~'i.',, ??;:'-'.; -. ' ";'.':;~6';00~.:" ~-'.?~i;.:-.3,i;bi~.! :'-' ':--; ;.' :-3.:i ' '"':'" :; · - ";":'"-5OD':' -::';i.',: ' .-L - -' - -".-- -. ;..:;~?':~100'..; ... ..,, .- ,.._- .. ,~ -.....,.. · .-. . .... ..:..'.._....--,-:. ~.....,:_.-.:i.].?...~ :~:[.: - 200.-'.-..---.-..-.,~ ~-.--..- ....... · ,..- ,. · .- . ... '!- .-... ,. ,' .-.,_,- ' '"':'"" 100- '-' '."':-:':i00':" · L-'lO0:-~ . .... - · ..'.'- /~.'..:.4,~o '_':.'..' .'..];:.~:.5;o0.:. ..... -'..: :: ',-'...-.- -" 500- .".-," '...-..50Q' -: :..-i:; .].-500:_;. · ' :.~ '..__.- ._.... . ......:.-..5,soo.- ".::-;'":.'-S,5'~.':. ....' .';.-.. :.. --'" i'~ '500 ~.: -::.-:-;.::~00. -;-~'--;:---; '.'."::".400~ 191,800 189,200 189,100 (15.6%) 0.0% 0.0%' (17.5%) (100.0%) .0.0.% (15.2%) 8.3% 4.2% 0.0% -(6.5%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (20.0%) (o.1%) 4705 Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 500 500 500 0.0% ** TOTAL CITY HALL 255,660 297,800 293,200 (1.5%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1180 General Fund Elections ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INCI{DEC) 4020 4030 4050 Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 25,000 2,000 100 27,100 5,000 4OO 100 5,500 22,000' 1,700 250 23,950 340.0% 325.0% 150.0% 335.5% 4110 Supplies-Office TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 4300 4330 4340 4370 4380 4560 Fees, Services Postage Printing & Publishing Travel & Training Mileage Repair & Maintenance-Signs TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,000 2,000 4OO 3OO 100 20O 16,000 2,000 100 100 100 2,300 .. 11,000 100 2OO 100 100 11,500 450.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 400.0% ** TOTAL ELECTIONS 45,100 7,800 36,950 373.7% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 20O2 BUDGET 101 1210 General Fund Police Admlnl~ratlon 2001 TO IACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 20002 % INC/(DEC) 4010 4011 4030 4040 4050 lb 4300 4375 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Conl~ibutions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Fees, Services Promotional Expense TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 62,500 8,100 4,300 900 77,801 58,500 61,800 738,184 ' 800,0CJ0: :::.-'-'::'---'94"5;000:- - '-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::.::"'- ;-"::':.:':: :- 4.2% 6.6% 15.4% 60.0% 5.6% 18.1% 738,184 800,000 949,000 18.6% ** TOTAL POLICE ADMINISTRATION 815,985 858,500 1,010,800 - t01 1220 ACCOUNT 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4130 4140 4150 4170 4210 4240 4260 4290 4300 4310 4320 4330 4350 4360 4370 4375 4410 4440 4483 4510 4520 4530 4531 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET General Fund Fire Prevention Administration DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET Salaries & Wages-Reg Salades & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing Small Tools & Equipment Misc. Materials & Supplies TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Postage Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense Rental-Equipment License & Registration Insurance-General Liability Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $117,000 145,000 22,200 9,200 7,600 301,000 $124,000 145,000 107,200 $12,500 $7,600 396,300 2,500 6,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 3,500 400 10,000 6,000 2r500 41,900 6,000 5,000 6,000 1,000 3,600 400 10,000 6,000 2,500 40,500 15,000 4,000 16,000 500 4,500 1,500 20,000 8,500 15,000 4,000 16,000 300 6,075 1,500 22,500 '9,000- 2,000 50 1,800 6,000 7,000 4,200 5,000 96,050 2,000 50 1,800 6,000 7,000 4,200 5,000· 100,425 $133,000 ~45,000 142,500 14,600 11,000 446,100 6;000 .5;000 7,0o0 '1,0o0. .. 4oo 11,500 .6,000'. 2,500· 39,400 · 16;000- 4;000 · 16,64o'. 3O0 .61300' - 2,750 .25,000 'g,ooo. 2,oo0 100 · 6,000 7,OOO 5,000 5,000· 106,890 2001 TO 2002 % INCI(DEC)I 7.3% 0.0% 32.9% 16.8% 44.7% 12.6% #DIV/01 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% (100.0%) 0.0% 15.0% . 0.0% 0.0% (2.7%) 6.7% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.7% 83.3% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 0.0% 6.4% TOTAL FIRE PREVENTION ADMIN 438,950 637,225 592,390 10.3% 101 1250 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET General Fund Code Enforcement 200t TO IACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2002 INC/(DEC) 4010 4011 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 448,000 $475,000 $505,000 8,000 ...,.? ..... '. _---: . --. ~, ' - · ..-.--:'.':'-., '.:'-,z-'-,--. 15,000 '.':'--'1.5. i000-:.~ :.~'";'.?.-'?i'~j,~~ 57,700 5g,000 66,500 44,300 58,000 68,000 3,900 3,800 5,900 576,900 618,800 668,400 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 17.2% 55.3% 8.0% 4110 4120 4130 4140 4170 4210 4240 4260 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Supplies-Vehicles Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,700 · "-'- .. . .' .....-. , 1,700 -.. -' ;1,700· '.-.-.--"--~4.,:2~.' 3,000 ' ":'" '2,000. ., ...' "--'"".'2;5100.;-' 5,400 '" ;'i5,400" :" .-."".':':'.:".'::!"-"~:!?. 3,000 -.-: 4,500'.' .:." . 4i'500.:~ 2,250 ' - 2;250 i' ..'!...:-': .'.-~b~O:~:~ 300 'i.'. 20,100 17,850 12,000 (11.8%) (29.4%) 25.0% (100.0%) 0.0% (11.1%) 0.0% (32.8%) 4300 4310 4340 4360 4370 4375 ~.~.~.O 4520 4530 4531 Fees, Services Telephone Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense License &. Registration Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,000 1,600 3,500 1,500 11,000 5OO 2O0 3,000 5O0 500 26,300 .' .:.~ .'... 1,600' "-~ '~,200'~. ..:"i'"'"'i:' '4,500' ." '!:~:,-~_:.Ob'~;: -- 1 0o '- '.- 'i-.. :.. :-: - : .'.... ., . . /:.':- ] '. ...... .- .- · · " 1.1;ooo --. .... ..1~-io007: '..-' 2C~0 ..-.- --..':.::200~ '" 3,00..0..' ':'""-" ':.' ':~i~.~O~.-:.'i · :. ' "-2.,.7.00. · ..... :.? :'-2,-gO0? '600 I '' ' '' ' I'"' '" '~'~' '" ~7,600 2g,800 (25.0%) 225.0% 0.0% (33.3%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% (100.0%) 8.O% ** TOTAL CODE ENFORCEMENT 623,300 664,250 710,200 6.9% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1260 General Fund Community Service ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 200t BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC)I 4010 4011 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salades & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salades & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 1,000 15,000 2,200 300 500 19,000 $25,000 1,000 3,300 3,700 600 33,600 $27,000 '_ 1,000 3,500 4,400 1,000 36,900 8.0% 0.0% 6.1% 18.9% 66.7% 9.8% 4110 4120 4130 4140 4170 4210 4240 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Supplies-Vehicles Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 700 800 800 700 2,000 250 3,500 8,750 5OO 8OO 70O 2,000 3OO , 3,500 7,800 500 500 700 300 21500 4,500 0.0% (37.5%) 0.0% (100.0%) 0.0% (28.6%) (42.3%) 4300 4310 4340 4360 4370 4520 4530 4531 Fees, Services Telephone Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000 1,400 800 150 2,000 700 400 400 7,850 4,000 1,400 800 400 1,500 700 400 400 9,600 4,000 1,4o0 8OO 4OO 1,000 7O0 40O 4OO 9,100 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (33.3%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (5.2%) 4705 Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 (lOO.O%) (lOO.O%) ** TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICE 36,600 52,000 50,$00 (2.9%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2O02 BUDGET 101 1310 General Fund Engineering 2000 2001 2002 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC)I ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 4010 4011 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Conbibuflons-Retimment Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 280,000 $359,000 $349,000 (2.8%) 1,ooo :".. '.'.'.:".~,'o,'.0i~. '~.).-,-'.~':.i~.ii':~iobo.? 0.0% 6,400 :..-.-.',':i'!:-~,~i~" -::i!:.i'?;"'.:.-.:'.'-i~,'~..bi.~',~ 0.0% 35,600 46,000 46,000 0.0% 15,700 28,000 32,200 15.0% 2,050 2,800 4,000 42.9% 340,750 443,200 438,600 (1.0%) 4110 4120 4140 4170 4210 43O0 4310 4330 4340 4360 4370 4380 ~.~.~.0 4520 453O 4531 4540 4705 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Vehicles Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Postage Pdnfing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios Repair & Maintenance-Streets TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 5,200. 35O 6OO 95O 250 7,350 ' 3,000 800 i ,500 2,000 3,400 200 100 500 2,700 150 235,000 5.00'L-;:-.:.. ..... 250'.- (50.0%) ...-~_5o"' '~:" L...;.: .~?.._ ..: (lO0.O%) .-..-3s-O?-' .:.::.~.i'-...-:;?-::i50":..- ' ' 0.0% 2,150 ~ 2,100. (2.3%) .. . -.:: ... -1,650' .- ' ";. · .. .'--200..': -- . lO0." ,, .. - 2,700: '"- :- .~50: - . .. 2:~5,000".:. -"'. -.:'-2;500- ':':-': .":..!.-..... '.'-15.0i' · ..---.- -.,-.100-:- .'-'....,5007 ... · .. 3,ooo · · '- 150-. :'..-, "' 235,06b~_ 249,350 263,110 261,750 500 500 597,950 (6:3%) (12:3%) .. 10.0% (12.1%) (39.0%) '(25.0%) 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% (0.5%) -500'-~ '-. 500· 0.0% 500 500 0.0% ** TOTAL ENGINEERING 708,960 702,950 (0.8%) 101 1320 General Fund Street Maintenance CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 200t BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INC/(DEC)I 4010 4011 4020 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4140 4150 4160 4170 4210 4240 4260 43OO 4310 4340 4350 436O 437O 4380 4410 4440 4510 4520 4530 4531 4540 4560 4703 4705 4933 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Chemicals Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage Rental-Equipment License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios Repair & Maintenance-Streets Repair & Maintenance-Signs TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Office Equipment Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY Sales Tax on Purchases TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE 380,000 7,000 13,500 50,700 33,100 9,600 493,900 800 53,000 26,000 94,000 100 32,000 400 3,600 1,500 211,400 14,000 1,500 7OO 2OO 5OO 3,600 100 2,500 50O 1,000 6,000 7,000 1,700 19,000 58,300 500 1,500 2,000 765,600 $375,000 ..7,500 6,200 48,2OO 43,000 9,200 489,100 $394,000 7,500 6,200 51,900 51,000 14,500 525,100 1,000 1,550 3OO 210 52O 2,5O0 . 1,500 520 1,000 6,200 7,200 1,700 500 ....... 16,500- 53,000 55,000 25,000 25,000 · 97,200 125,000' 100 '. 100 33,120 - 410 '400 3,700 3,700 1~500 2,500 214,030 211,700 1,000 1,500 -- 250 300 2,500 1,500' 520 500 6,500 7,500 1,700 500· 15,500 41,200 500 · 1,500 2,000 746,330 39,770 500 1,500 2,000 600 600 779,170 5.1% 0.0% O.O% 7.7% 18.6% 57.6% 7.4% 3.8% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% (100.0%) (2.4%) 0.0% 66.7% (1.1%) 0.0% (3.2%) (lOO.O%) 19.0% (42.3%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (50.0%) 4.8% 4.2% 0.0% (6.1%) (3.5%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1350 General Fund Street LlghUng & Signals ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2O02 INCI(DEC) 4120 Supplies-Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 2,400 2,480 1,500 (39.5%) (30.5%) 4300 4310 4320 4410 4530 4550 4565 Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Rental-Equipment Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Utility Repair & Maintenance-Lights&Signals TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TOTAL STREET LIGHT & SIGNALS · .' 800 .".'~i~'i~.'_--~8~ '-~..'--'~::" .'2:.' ';-500: 255,00b-._' ""'" ..... * '- '':: '~'~":'"~" .... -"" .... : '"--: 26~930., .',~:~'.-...245,000.- 3'00 - ' ' '-'"" '-' ;;~ ?3~d'::.: .: i'?'-".::- - -"::-::i " ': "v :3i3D".- ~ '-' r.'+~f,,,=__,:. - .'~'- · '. ' Z"" "'- '-' ", - "317.00'...- :: ..--..'."~.3:830-.-. :- ,:-: ," ':.3,500.-: 21000" '? 8,o-0o_ .":."-:-:"-"? ~:; : '"--':~.'--'-':.:-.-----:':' 272,300 279,480 257,600 (88.4%) (39.8%) (7.2%) 0.0% (8.6%) 0.0% (7.8%) 274,700 281,960 269,100 (8:1%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1370 General Fund City Garage ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2O02 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INCI(DEC)I 4010 4011 4020 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4140 4150 4170 424O 4260 4300 4310 4320 4340 4350 4360 4370 4410 4440 4510 4520 4530 4531 4703 4705 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Motor Fuels & Lubricants Uniforms & Clothing Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Rental-Equipment License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Office Equipment Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 174,200 6,000 6,000 22,400 15,400 6,800 230,800 2,000 3,300 8OO 1,400 45O 1,100 3,500 12,550 1,200 5,100 15,000 100 5,500 150 3,000 1,000 200 4,800 250 4,000 300 40,600 500 6,000 6,500 290,450 $159 000 7 000 -5 000' 21 000 19 000 7 000 218 000 3,300 2O0 1,oo0- 45O 1,130 31700' 9,780 8OO 5,280 16,100 100 5,500 160 2,8OO 1,000 200 3,000 30O 4,500'.. 3OO 40,040 5OO 6,000 6,500 274,320 $165,000 7,000' 5,000. 21,800 23,100 10,700 232,600 · . -' 3',300 4OO 1,000 68,000 1,150 '4,000 77,850 .. . 7O0 1',0oo 35,O0O lO0 5,600 160 3,000 50O 2O0 3,200 300 4,500 30O 54,560 500 6,000 6,500 371,510 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 21.6% 52.9% 6.7% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 15011-.1% 1.8% 8.1% 696.0% (12.5%) (81.1%) 117.4% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 7.1% (50.0%) 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL CITY GARAGE 35.4% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1410 ACCOUNT General Fund Planning Commission DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2OO2 2001 TO I 2002 I % INC/(DEC)I BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 4110 4210 Supplies-Office Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 200 100 100 0.0% 0.0% 4300 4340 4360 4370 dr Fees, Services Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES -200.' " 200' '" . '" 200 .. ': 2;000 '2,000' .:" ""':~;0'_0~ 500', 500 :'-'"' ' '500:"- .soo'. :- 3,700 3,200 3,200 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ** TOTAL PLANNING COMMISSION 3,900 3,300 3,300 0.0% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1420 General Fund Planning Administration ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 200t TO 2002 % NC (DEC) 4010 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 178,000 22,800 13,000 300 214,100 $218,000 28,000 21,000 350 267,350 $227,000 29,800 27,900 500 285,200 4.1% 6.4% 32.9% 42.9% 6.7% 4110 4120 4130 4140 4170 4210 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Supplies-Vehicles Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,500 3OO 100 100 25O 150 2,400 3OO 100 100 25O 150 9OO 30O 100 100 .- 2O0 700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (100.0%) 33.3% (22.2%) 4300 4310 4340 4360 4370 4440 4520 Fees, Services Telephone Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,000 2OO 3,000 1,500 4,500 200 14,400 5,000 200 2,000 1,500 4,500 14 200 13,414 25,000 2O0 2,000 1,500. 4,5OO' · ' 14 2OO 33,414 400.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 149.1% ** TOTAL PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 230,900 281,664 319,314 13.4% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1430 General Fund Senior Facility Commission ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2O02 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INC/(DEC) 4010 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 12,000 1,600 800 100 14,500 .'i-::.~::-".:.'! !i-~.:~! .-:..~.~'~],! 1, lOO lo.o% 15,720 16,950 7.8% 4110 4210 Supplies-Office · Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 50 .."-' .:'. L.-?:.-i.'::~50~. -"; :" ';:-'100 · 200 '50_ 100 100.0% 100.0% 4300 4340 4370 4375 Fees, Services Printing & Publishing Travel & Training Promotional Expense TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,500 500. 150 750' 7,900 . · . . . . -. - · . ..., ?..-,2,00,0~. .-- . :.. .:.-... :-:.:,'.. ~'sO..::' '--' 1.5.o_'-' b:--.'-! ';:'.~'.'?;.':.L.5DD.'i '" '~ '- - 500-. - i' ' ' 6,650 1,050 (90.0%) (100.0%) 0.0% O.O% (84.2%) TOTAL SR. FACILITY COMMISSION 22,600 22~20 -18,100 (19.3%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 10t 1510 General Fund Park & Rec Commission ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 200t BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 4110 4130 4210 Supplies-Office Supplies-Program Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 250 50 75 375 .. 50 50 75 ..'.-- 75 125 125 #DIV/01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4300 4340 4360 4370 Fees, Services Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500 400 700 400 4,000 2,000 - · 400 700 400 3,500 2,000 400 -. 700 400 3,500 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ** TOTAL PARK & REC COMMISSION 4,375 3,626 3,625 0.0% 101 1520 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET General Fund Park & Rec AdmlnlstraUon ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 200t TO 2OO2 INC/(DEC 4010 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 97,000 $72,000 $75,000 4.2% 12,400 9,200 9,800 6.5% 9,700 $6,800 $8,000 17.6% 150 150 200 33.3% 119,250 88,150 93,000 5.5% 4110 4120 4130 4210 4240 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES · '1,750 · 20b ..--200' '. 100'- 2,450 -,'-''e~L'', , .'""-L - ."!-:".- · - : ".' ':-' '7~--2.,.v~,~:.: V,',. :-c::,~¥.~-x'~0.0 ,~ '. , ' , - · :- ,' , -- : :,.'-,';.:..-~.~'..~ a '-~-z~'"-'"_ · "-~ '":'-"' ' ;'~ ~_¢--., ~ .-',¢-',-..,- ,' ...', :, ' . :-- · '.-'-..- :'..: · ',--~OP_~, ~:;.-..~:~;.?:-.i:-," .-..;.-.~g~; -'"'.'='i '.:~ "."100',~ ~-%>::~'::. ~.'.-1,00.-:' · :.--- -.f.- .-. 'l.-r ~"-'-' .'.-. : .' "--" ' :. :;'72'0~?::-: .?..-G.':..-'E :v.'.' ;.'~::200_-- 700 700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4300 4310 4330 4340 4360 4370 4380 4440 Fees, Services Telephone Postage Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage License & Registration TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7;500- ~ .800.' '.~1,000'. 2,000 - ~450 .3;400 lp0 2O0 15,450 ,:.':: .:;.' '~;:. :'~8010!~ '-::~',;.,'-~..:;:;-;.'~ .. :. -' "':55~':i; :/ .i~.?-..".:,'.:::;'.'.e_OP,. :. -' · :.::-:,._..'" ;,:.....-.,-;.';: : ..-:...,.,-,....--.-,.---..- ...:.,.;.:.,......r. . :....., ;,, ;.¢ i ..' : -'.- -. · .-r.. .. .-: ".,2b.~.-.;. .r 10,150 16,200 200.0% O.O% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.9% (100.0% 59.6% ** TOTAL PARK & REC ADMINISTRATION t37,150 99,000 109,900 11.0% 101 1530 ACCOUNT 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4130 4150 4210 4240 4300 4310 4320 4330 4340 4350 4360 4370 4375 4410 4510 4530 459O General Fund Recreation Center CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 30,000 124,300 19,500 2,500 4,000 180,300 $36,000 124,300 14,100 3,800 4,000 182,200 $39,000 130,000' 14,800 4,50O 4,800 193,100 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Maintenance Materials Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 3,000 9,200 4,000 1,000 250 900 18,350 9,000 4,000 1,000 250 600 14,850 4,000 9,000' 1,000 250 600. 14,850 Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Postage Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense Rental-Equipment Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Equip Misc. Contractual Services TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000 4,000 24,000 5O0 7,000 5OO 5O0 5OO 1,500 5,000 1,000 3,000 5OO 49,000 2,000 2,000 26,000 500 7,000 500 500 500 1,500 2,500 1,000 2,000 500 46,500 1,50o 1,000 28,000 500 500 300 500 2,000 3,200 500 2,000 500 40,500 2001 TO 2002 8.3% 4.6% 5.0% 18.4% 20.0% 6.0% (55.6% 125.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (25.0% (50.0% 7.7% 0.0% (100.0% 0.0% (40.0% 0.0% 33.3% 28.0% (50.0% 0.0% O.O% (12.9% TOTAL RECREATION CENTER 247,650 243,550 248,450 2.0% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1540 General Fund Lake Ann Park OpemtJons ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INCI(DEC 4020 4021 4030 4050 Salaries & Wages-Temp Overtime-Temp Contributions-Retirement Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 6,750 $9,300 $9,300 - 300 300 600 600 600 200 300 300 7,550 10,500 10,500 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4110 4120 4130 4240 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES ;"- ' 41400. · -~ ' '.500 14,650. :::" "" .":';4,400':' .-.:.-';- :, '.: i.-!.-:-:.:-~:-'."~'- -.. -~i950" ..,".:';' '~'10;:55'0':, ' ', .'?': - . i" :' 14,840 11,040 (100.0% 6.0% 0.0% (25.6% 430O 4310 432O 4340 Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Pdnting & Publishing TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES "' . 221645- 24,580 24,800 -'-i- ''~'':2~9'50;' ' ' 2,9.5P':'; :::': ". "'2;-050,'.- -': i'. '-i--::!'::.. 550 '-::' "-.'.._ ,':'550~;'- :. '.'.'..'.": i:'1'25Q,,' 35,695 37,430 36,150 .0.9% 0,0% (12.8% (54.5% (3.4% ** TOTAL LAKE ANN PARK OPERATIONS 57,896 62,770 57,690 (8.1% 101 1550 General Fund Park Maintenance CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 4010 4011 4020 4021 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4140 4150 4151 4170 4240 4260 4290 4300 4310 4320 4340 4350 4360 4370 4400 4410 4440 4510 4520 4530 4531 4540 4560 4705 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Salades & Wages-Temp Overtime-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Irrigation Materials Motor Fuels & Lubricants Uniforms & Clothing Small Tools & Equipment Misc. Materials & Supplies TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Rental-Land & Buildings Rental-Equipment License & Registration Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios Repair & Maintenance-Streets Repair & Maintenance-Signs TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Other Equipment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 322,000 10,000 65,600 . 46,3OO 30,600 9,000 483,500 1,000 28,000 8,000 48,000 5,500 .10,500 3,800 2,500 5OO 107,800 30,000 1,600 6,100 1,000 7,000 350 2,900 25,000 4,OOO 5OO 21,000 4,500- 7,00O' 1,000 32,000 1,500 145,450 11,200 11,200 747,950 $342,000 5,000 71,000 '3,000 44,000 42,O0O 8,4OO 515,400 .. 35,000 8,000 57,000 5,500 11,500 3,800' 3,500" -- 500 124,800 20,000 2,600 10,500 100 7,500 350 2,900 25,000 4,000 700 11,000 4,500' ........ 7;500 1,000 30,000 2,000 129,650 14,000 14,000 783,850 $360,000 ..5,0QO 72,000 3,000- 53,000 50,000 12~900 555,900 35,000. 8,000 57,000 4,000 · . 3,800 3,500. 500 111,800 20,000 5,700 10,500 4OO 9,000 35O 2,g00 25,000. 3,000 700 11,000 4,500 ..... 7;500-' 1,000. 30,000 21000 133,550 16,500 16,500 817,750 5.3% 0.0% 1.4% 20.5% 19.0% 53.6% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (27.3% (lOO.O% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (10.4% 0.0% 119.2% 0.0% 300.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 17.9% 17.9% TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE 4.3% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET t01 1560 General Fund Senior Citizens Center ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2OO2 INC~(DEC 4010 4030 4040 4050 'lb Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 21,000 $23,000 $25,000 2,700 2,900 3,300 250 250 300 250 230 400 24,200 26,380 29,000 8.7% 13.8% 73.9% 9.9% 4110 4120 4130 4240 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES · .,'.. '.-'..~L.:.,~.' -'- ~ ~.:-- 5,ooo .- 4,000:? - · , i" '" '.-.: .~.:':-'-'~'- ' ' · ' ...... 50 ::~..::-:.-'.:.~:.?.:::..:50:i ":"- "".. -50' 5,525 .. 5,700 4,550" .. . (23.1%. (20.0%' 0.0% .(20.2% 4300 4310 4330 4340 4350 4360 4370 4375 4380 Fees, Services Telephone Postage Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense Mileage TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7dO" 300 -"- -50· 10,485 · 4.7% (50.0.% (100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 600.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% . . ** TOTAL SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER 34,900 41,916 44,036 5.1% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 t600 General Fund Recreation Programs 200t TO IACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2002 % INC/IDEC 4010 4020 4021 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Overtime-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 68,500 19,200 10,250 4,600 1,750 104,300 $70,000 .531220. 200 13,100 6,200 3,000 145,720 $74,000 58,270' 200. 14,200 7,200 1,500 155,370 5.7% 9.5% 8.4% 16.1% (50.0% 6.6% 4110 4120 4130 4240 Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,500 4,4O0 9,300 1,050 16,250 8,035 10,650 1,100 19,785 4,000 9,500 900 14,400 (50.2% (10.8% (18.2% (27.2% 4300 4310 4320 4330 4340 4360 4370 4380 4400 4410 Fees, Services Telephone Utilities Postage Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage Rental-Land & Buildings Rental-Equipment TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 47,200 3,800 4,000 150 8,300 850 500 2,200 13,300 80,300 51,000 3,580 1,600 '. :150 9,300 160 850 500 2,200 14,000 83,340 41,000 3,640 · 5,100 150 4,80.0 '. 160 850 500 2,200 14,000 72,400 (19.6% 1.7% 218.8% 0.0% (48.4% 0.0% O.0% 0.0% O.O% (13.1% ** TOTAL RECREATION PROGRAMS 200,850 248,845 242,170 (2.7% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 101 1700 General Fund Self-Supporting Programs ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $17,200 3,450 1,150 90O 39,050 $18,000 $10,000 3,600 3,700 1,600 1,800 900 420 40,450 41,320 5.6% 0.3% 2.8% 12.5% (53.3% 2.2% 4120 4130 4240 Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Uniforms & Clothing TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 550 · , '9,300. ---.. .100' 9,950 17,235 .,' :..' .--.'~- . -_'..:£ ~ :.- .-..,'-: · ~ .-r' , I-i :_ ..~. '.L'"-~- '" -~ ~ - 12,.500 (9.1% (27.6% (100.0% (27.5% 4300 Fees, Services TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 32,300' ' ' ~i61014:::. -i-~i-~ -. i.;.35,00.0'? 32,300 46,014 35,'000 · (23.9% (23.9% ** TOTAL SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS 81,300 103,699 88,820 (14.3% 210 Cable TV Fund CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 200t BUDGET 2002 BUDGET REVENUE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX 3080 Franchise Fees * TOTAL GENERAL PROPERTY TAX OTHER REVENUE 3801 Interest Earnings * TOTAL OTHER REVENUE ** TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 4010 Salaries & Wages-Reg 4030 Contributions-Retirement 4040 Contributions-Insurance 4050 Workers Compensation * TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 4110 Supplies-Office 4120 Supplies-Equipment * TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4300 Fees, Services 4340 Printing & Publishing 4370 Travel & Training * TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY 4705 Other Equipment * TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ** TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 73,000 73,000 6,000 6,000 79,000 63,000 8,100 6,600 300 78,000 100 3OO 400 18,000 100 100 18,200 10,000 10,000 106,600 (27,S00) 1251000 125,000 7,000 7,000 132,000 67,000 8,500 9,000 270 84,770 3OO 30O 15,000 500 100 15,600 101000 10,000 110,670 21,330 125,000 125,000 71000 7,000 132,000 $74,000 9,700 10,600 2OO 94,500 3OO 3OO 15,000 500' 100 15,600 10,000 10,000 120,400 11,600 2001 TO 2002 INCI(DEC) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 14.1% 17.8% (25.9%) 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 45.6% 211 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Environmental Protection ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC) REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3520 Grants-County * TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV 14,000 14,000 (35.7%) (35.7%) CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES 3640 Community Garden Plot Rental 3650 Sale of Recyclables * TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES OTHER REVENUE 3801 Interest Earnings * TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 28,000 -28,000. 28,00.0 28,000 .28,000f: 28,000 0.0% 0.0% ~ TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 42,000 42,000 37,000 - (11.9%) (73,200) (82,400) (86,440) 4.9% (31,200) (40,400) (49,440) 22.4% CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 211 2310 Environmental Protection Fund Recycling ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 2002 BUD~ 4010 4030 4O40 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 27,000 3,500 3,100 200 33,800 '28,000 $26,000 (7.1%) _3,500 3,400 (2.9%) 4,300 5,000 16.3% 200 - (100.0%) 36,000 34,400 (4.4%) 4110 4130 4210 '4260 Supplies-Office Supplies-Program Books & Periodicals Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,000 4,000 -- 50 100 5,150 4,000 4,000 0.0% 50 100 100.0% 100 100 0.0% 4,150 4,200 1.2% 4300 4340 4350 4360 4370 Fees, Services Printing & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,000 '. 7,000 1,700 -1,700' 500 500 150 150 100 .:. 100 9,450 9,450 . 8,350 1,700 500 200 100 10,850 19.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 14.8% ** TOTAL RECYCLING 48,400 49,600 49,450 (0.3%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 211 235O Environmental Protection Fund Lake Management ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INC/(DEC) 4300 4340 4360 4370 4380 Fees, Services Pdnting & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Mileage TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,000 1,000 50 50 50 8,150 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1.8% TOTAL LAKE MANAGEMENT 8,150 8,i50 8,3OO 1.8%' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET 211 2360 Environmental Protection Fund Reforestation ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC) 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 18,000 1,000- 2,400 2,400 300 24,100 $19,000 · . 2,500 3,300 2,300 27,100 $17,000 · . 2,200 3,900 300 23,400 (lO.5%) (12.0%) 18.2% (87.0%) (13.7%) 4110 4130 4260 Supplies-Office Supplies-Program Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 5O 3,500 250 3,800 3,500' 25O 3,750 5,'000 ' 300 5,300 42.9% 20.0% 41.3% 4300 4320 4360 4370 4375 Fees, Services Community Garden Water Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Promotional Expense TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,000 . 100 650 30,750 35,000 100 800. 2,000 37,900 35,000· 1,040 '150 800 36,990 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% (2.4%) ** TOTAL REFORESTATION 58,650 68,750 65,690 (4.5%) 7OO CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ENTERPRISE FUNDS Sewer & Water Enterprlee Fund ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 200t TO 2002 % ~NC~(DEC) REVENUE PERMITS 3315 3321 ~b Sewer Permit Water Permit TOTAL PERMITS · -" ~,S00. '.: -.-.?.:?:...-:,~00-...-,',, .-'_-.---~:2,0,0, 7,000 2,400 2,400 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES 3660 3861 3662 3663 3664 3667 Sewer Customers Water Customers Utility Penalties Customer Service Sale of Meters & Parts Certification Fee TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 1,500,000. .... : 1,0.o0,000.. 45~000 :' .... . . 1,000' 5o,o00::- -4,000:. 2,600~000 ..-' ~1.,500,.000 ,' 1 ,ooo,ooo ,..--45,000 . . .. . . . · . ,.-' '-.5.5;000. -...'-'... 4:o0o 2,604,000 2,604;000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIVI01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% OTHER REVENUE 3801 Interest Earnings 3829 Interest/Penalties-Other * TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 87,000 91,000 91,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ** TOTAL REVENUE 2,61M,000 2,697,400 2,697,400 0.0% REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES #~:~EF! ;N~EFI ~REF! #REF! CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ENTERPRISE FUNDS Sewer & Water Operations ACCOUNT 2000 2001 2002 DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 4010 4011 4012 4020 4030 4040 4050 4110 4120 4130 4140 4150 4160 4170 4210 4240 4250 4260 Salaries & Wages-Reg Overtime-Reg Stand-By Pay Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Supplies-Vehicles Maintenance Materials Chemicals Motor Fuels & Lubricants Books & Periodicals Uniforms & Clothing Merchandise for Resale Small Tools & Equipment TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 435 000 18 000 11 500 13 500 60 500 34 000 10 300 582 800 2 30O 12 000 1 500 10 500 32 000 12 000 10 000 7OO 2,600 40,000 124,800 $455,000 18,000 - . 11.,500 .19,000.. 63,600 35,400 12,100 614,600 2,300 12;000 1,500' 12,000 36,000 14,000 10,000 700. 2,800 lO0,OOO 1500.-' 192,800 $404,000 ..-.12,000- "19;200 55,000 51,200 '--.15,300.'. 575,200 ~'3,500 1,000 12,000 20,000'. 16,000 13,000 500 2,8O0 105,000 1,500 185,300 (11.2%) 2.8% 4.3% 1.1% (13.5%) 44.6% 26.4% (6.4%) (100.0%) 12.5% (33.3%) 0.0% (44.4%) 14.3% 30.0% (28.6%) 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% (3.9%) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ENTERPRISE FUNDS Sewer & Water Operations (Continued) ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2000 2001 2002 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC) 4300 4301 4310 4320 4330 4340 4350 4360 4370 4410 ~.~.~.0 4483 4509 4510 4520 4530 4531 4550 4551 4703 4705 4769 Fees, Services Auditing Telephone Utilities Postage Pdnting & Publishing Cleaning & Waste Removal Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Rental-Equipment License & Registration Insurance-General Liability Remit to 'Other Agencies Repair & Maintenance-Building Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Repair & Maintenance-Equip Repair & Maintenance-Radios Repair & Maintenance-Water Repair & Maintenance-Sewer TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES' Office Equipment Other Equipment Other Acquisition Costs TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ; .,14-~000-.=. 1'.65,,0007 7,500 "3,0".0~:'.: · ". 2' ..~ i · · ....-.:700~, ': s.;OoO, i '('.-:":-.-'~'~;~i!:i.,~£~ii':':'-~'~'~.:....-...., i..'..:-'::.' .!~:-_-'-~-5::~.-~..:.~..~. :"'":;::" "-~,~..~.:..:..~~':-?':: ...... ~" ." . : -.-.~ .... ' · .'- :- :--' -',.-' -.": ...v - -.-,' ~ 3.' ,~ -.-: :-,. .... ..-..5;00_ 0~ ;~i':~' ~:' .13'/.0~3.' ~ · .... '. :-.. , ,. , .._. ...-, .:..-:: q-'.-'- ..:.-. ~..~-. .... . .'..... "'-", .... 100..;:~:~'.,', ~::'..:-'~ .el:-1013:,':: ': " -' - ---- _'- _ -.. - -.- . . '...r'. ,.-..:~-~ .-' - ..,~-.=.r ._ -- .-.., ;:'. ,.'-.+-'.._-~... ~- ---.: .,'-.-.-..:', 600,.-: :-: :;-..-. ~. :-.: ~:...~. ~ i':-.. :-:'.'-i~;~? :.,,:..~'i.:~-'?.':. ::!i~i~6=-..'.- 'i5,ooo'-" ::.'.: .... .i~i0~.'" :.L:';:.:--.-.";.ii~';.~;~ 1,4t0;(J00", -::'"' .i'135i~;~]'- "'.'".1i:~1'~{~.:,:;." · .2,bO0' '"- ..; -':3,00'~;';..."' .':-:. '.2,,~00". · ,'" 2;5b.0!1" ;4':;" 'i:-.;'"';~',~'.~.'::'-' 16,000': : . : 26~0~3.0:.' :";,: '..-"-".',~5~000.;': '. ':.'7.o.o '. '... i": :::' ii ;:. :. 40,000' .... -45,000.::.-L;;:..' ,i~--65';000'.', "..: "'-".:- ... ._:'-' '""':'. .. -: .'-".~'.':.)rff:,o~'--;: 1,713,400 1,675,300 1,773,800 15,oob ..- 15,000 2,000 20,000 200.0% (0.5%) 3.0% (6.7%) 160.0% 0.0% 0.0% (6.3%) 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 111.5% 0.0% 44.4% 5.9% 300.0% 900.0% TOTAL S & W OPERATIONS 2,436,000 2,484,700 2,564,300 2.8% 720 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ENTERPRISE FUNDS Surface Water Management Fund ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2O0O BUDGET 2001 BUDGET 2002 BUDGET 2001 TO 2002 INCI(DEC) REVENUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3510 Grants-State * TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 100,000 100,000 #DIV/O! CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES 3660 Sewer Customers 3662 Utility Penalties 3667 Certification Fee 3806 Connection Charges * TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 230,000 2,500 1,000 100,000 333,500 230,000 .2,500- 1,000 100,000 333,500 230,000 2,500 1,000 100;000 333,500 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% OTHER REVENUE 3801 Interest Earnings * TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 · . 50,000- 50,000 150.0% 150.0% ** TOTAL REVENUE 453,500 353,500 383,500 8.5% 72O CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2002 BUDGET ENTERPRISE FUNDS Surface Water Management Fund 2000 2001 2002 2001 TO 2002 % INC/(DEC)I IACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET. BUDGET EXPENDITURES PERSONAL SERVICES 4010 4020 4030 4040 4050 * Salaries & Wages-Reg Salaries & Wages-Temp Contributions-Retirement Contributions-Insurance Workers Compensation TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 4110 4120 4130 4150 4210 * Supplies-Office Supplies-Equipment Supplies-Program Maintenance Materials Books & Periodicals TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4300 4301 4340 4360 4370 4410 * Fees, Services Fees, Financial/Audit Printing & Publishing Subscriptions & Memberships Travel & Training Rental-Equipment TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY 4701 Land, Purchase & Impmv. * TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 70,000 7,500 9,600 4,600 17000 92,700 am '- '1,'000 ::.- -2,o0o $75,000 $71,000 . ' ~ 0' ~0. .~. m:~l~l~:~m: .': m Ii: mB '~'~ ~ ~ 10,500 9,500 4,800 7,000 · . - '8o0- :.:-'". i!:..:: :-~.'~-~;5(~,'i:i 101,100 98,000 ' 1,o0o, "-.:':':::'.-'.'--~;00~:-" · :...: .'.' . · _ .. -, . . '2,000' --.... _2,00.0: '- v.'.- '.':--' :':-..:"'i:':i'150:-." .3,700 - 3,450 3,450 338,300 70,000 70,000 · 300 -' '-' ::'.':'--.'-':-.':-500':~- .. -. . - . :- :-: -2,500 ' ..' .2;-50.0:~- ....~ .-.-'-':-..".' :.:'.i;'~'. 234,300 223,000 70,000 '- -.'-. 70,000 .70,000..... 70,000 (5.3%) 0.0% (9.5%) 45.8% (37.5%) (3.1%) (lOO.O%) 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% . (5:6%) 0.0% 20.0% 66.7% 0.0% (4.8%) 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 504,700 408,850 31M~450 .............. (3.s%) REVENUE OVERJ(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,500 2,500 2,500 0.0% C YOF TO: Mayor City Council FROM: DATE: Bruce M_. DeJong, F~ December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: 2002-2006 Capital l ~mprovement Program Adoption The City Council held severn1 work sessions to discuss the CIP and made several changes. The latest changes are reflected in the enclosed revised summary tables. The two projects changed last Monday are shown on the enclosed detail pages. The duplicate Bandimere Park to Ctmnhassem Hills trail segment was nmmned as the City Centel' Commons and moved to 2002. The rescue boat for the Fire Department was postponed one year for ftuther deh'bea~on~ No othe~ changes were noted at this meeting. I re~mmgnd approval of tho CIP as liq/bmitted. CAPITAL PLAN City of Chanhassen, MN 2002 thru Z'rojut # EQ-002 ~ole~ ~me Boat/Trailer/Motor Replacement 2006 Contact Department M~or Equipment Type Equipment Useful Life Category Fir= Equipment Prtorlty n/n Involves adding a dive/rescue boat, trniler and motor. This wntcrcr~ is the primary response unit for dive=related emergencies in the lakes and the Minnesota River. It is used to trnnspozt rescuers and remove victims in near-drowning and drowning incidents, for fast water rc~u~ in the Minnesota River, recovery activities, dive t~am support, access to fllooded areas during high wat~ emergencies, etc. The dive team needs a boat for their operations. NOTE: Fire Depamnent recommends moving up schedule ~om 2003 at $10,000.00 to 2002. Justification - in water-related fatalities in year ending 2000 and 2001, the Fire Department has initiated aggressive restructuring, training and certifying new divers. By year's end the Fire Department will have 15 certified divers. Part of the equipment for a safe dive operation is adding a zodiak boat, new motor and trailer. The estimated cost is $10,000.00 Expenditures 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Maintenance Equipment 10,000 10,000 Total . 10~)00 10~0 Funding Sources 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Capital Replacement Fund 10,000 10,000 Total , 10,000 10,~0 ;Operational Impact/Other jNegligible additional operating costs are anticipated. CAPITAL PLAN City of Chauhasse~ MN 2002 thr~ 2006 Project# Project Name PK&T-028 City Center Commons Contact 30 Years Expenditures 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Total '200~0 200~00 Funding Sources 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Totnl F'~rk Dedk:atkm Fund Total CAPITAL PLAN City of Chanhassen, MN DEPARTMENT SUMMARY 2002 thru 2006 Department 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Major Equipment 597,600 616,700 457,200 631,600 495,000 2,798,100 Idunlc~oal Buildings 6,031,000 100,000 400,000 1,700,000 8,231,000 Pa~ & Trail Imlxoveme~ts 1,595,500 865,000 225,000 175,000 2,860,500 Sanitary Sewa' Improvements 695,000 690,000 370,000 520,000 120,000 2,395,000 Street Improvements 673,000 435,000 4,300,000 275,000 285,000 5,998,000 Surface Wa~ Managernent 560,000 415,000 450,000 1,425,000 Water Systsm Improvements 1,555,000 3,630,000 1,607,000 4,175,000 1,252,0b0 12,219,000 Total 11,707,100 6,751,700 7,409,200 6,176,600 3,852,000 35,896,600 Page 1 of I Thursday, December 06, 2001 City of Chanhassen, MN PROJECTS BY DEPAR~ 2002 ~ru 2006 Department M~Jor Equipment T~ T~~ T~ U~ 217 ~ ~ ~T~ ~T~~ T~ ~ F~ ~ ~T~~~ ProJec~ Prior/ty 2002 EC.O01 EC.002 E¢.003 EC405 EC.007 EC.iXI9 EC-010 EC.011 EQ.013 EQ.014 EQ.015 EQ-016 EQ-017 EQ-019 EQ.021 EQ.022 EQ.023 EQ.034 EQ4)35 EQ4}36 EQ.037 EQ.038 EQ.039 EQ.042 EQ.043 EQ-045 2004 200~ 2006 Total 140,0(X) lO,000 7,000 41~X~) 18,0(X) 24,00O Pllgt I of 4 ~; ~ O~ 2001 Department Recr~k~ ca~ Carpet Replacement Caner Cou~y Co~n~n~y oemog~ ~~ ~jor ~m~t T~ Municipal Buildings Ubra~ ~~ Public Wo~ Fadllty F. xpamlon Senior cant~r F_xperelo~ Enr~,~l Salt a Sand ~e Fadl~ F~ ~ 1 and 2 Refurl~hlng Municipal Buildin~ Total Park & Trnfl Improvements ImFovetaeat~: Bandlmete Community Pat Playground Equipment: Curry Farms Park Slgnage: Kerber Po~d Park Improvema~: Meadow Green Pm'k Roundhouse Renovation: Roundhouse Park Trail: Bandlmem Park I~ Chanhassen Hnls TraE ~ 101 (S. Shorn Dr. to Townline Dr.) Road & Trail R~: Lake Ann Park Mar~ Glen Trail Connector Tree Plantings Park Shelt~':. Bandlmere Community Pad( Half Court Baakd~l.' Bandlmem Heights Park Ska~Pm~ Trash Recepacm Pe~nanent Park Benches and Tables T~~ Hwy 5 at Rky Creek Trail Connect. Hwy 5 at Bluff Creek C~y can~ Commo~ Park & Trail Improvmxm~ Total Projectg Priority 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total EQ-046 3 5,000 EQ-047 0 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 EQ-048 0 100,0(10 100,000 EQ-049 0 75,1X10 75,000 MB-O01 MB-O03 IV~O04 IV~-O08 PK&T-O01 PK&T-O03 PK&T-O04 PK&T-005 PK&T-006 PK&T-009 PK&T-012 PK&T-013 PK&T-014 PK&T-015 PK&T-018 PK&T-021 PK&T-022 PK&T-023 PK&T-024 PK&T-025 PK&T-026 PK&T-027 PK&T-028 597,600 616,700 451,200 631,600 495,000 2,798,100 6,000,000 6,000,000 200,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 31,000 31,000 6,031,000 100,000 400,000 1,700,000 8,23t,000 0 25,000 40,000 65,000 0 275,000 100,000 375,000 0 40,000 40,000 0 10,1)00 10,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 485,000 485,000 0 68,00O 88,000 0 15,000 15,000 2 175,000 175,000 3 15,000 15,000 1 7,500 7,500 1 20,000 20,000 40,000 2 10,000 10,000 1 100,000 100,000 1 75,000 75,000 1,585,500 865,000 225,000 175,000 2,860,500 Pag~ 2 of 4 Thursda); December 06, 2001 Dezmrtme~t Sanftary Sewer Improvements Santa~ Se~c a~9 Sump~mp~ C~enea~ ~~~ ero]ectO Surface Water Management La~e Rle~ Wstrmed Lake ~ Watmzh~ 8urfac~ Warn- ~ Total Priority 2002 2003 :2004 200S 200~ Total 0 zx)~0 200~X) 0 ,l(X)~m0 400,OO0 0 315,000 315,000 0 8O,OOO :)50,000 430~)00 0 25,O(O 25,OOO 25.(X)0 25,0OO 100,000 0 120.(K)0 120,000 120,000 360000 0 4O,OOO 4O,OOO 0 3.ocx),ooo 3.0oo,ooo 0 95,O0O 05,O0O 0 18.0(X) 18,000 0 140,000 140,OO0 0 11O,OO0 110,CXX) 0 15,C)(X) 15,0(X) 0 170.__n00 170,0(X) 0 125,000 125,000 0 2~,C)(X) z~.O(X) 2'/5._m0__. 275~xx) 2i5~x)0 1,355,0(X) -. 1.~).000 210,000 1~0~0 150,000 150.0(X) 175,000 175~X)0 200~XX) 210~lO0 2150(0 215,000 275.0(X) ~ 50~X)0 50~00 Page3 of 4 Department ProjecOf Priority Water System Improvements Well ~9 W-O01 0 Well #10 W-002 0 Well #11 W-O03 0 Wate~ Tower (2MG): Lyman Blvd. W-004 0 Lake Riley Trunk II W-005 0 Water Imixovementt: TH 41 W-006 0 Water ImFovemenlr IVlandlester Dr. W-007 0 Wal~" Improvea~entr Mlnnewashtn Loop W-008 0 Watsr Improvem~.Yz: BC-1 (TC&W- Lynlarl) W-009 0 Water Improvemenlr Lyman, Audubon, Powe~ W-010 0 Water Treatment Plant 1 W-011 0 General Water Sy~nm Repal~ W-013 0 SC, ADA System UpgradeUlVlalntenance W-014 0 Repalrfdng: West 761fl SL Wal~r Tower W-015 0 u,~ E.~. s,.zy w-o~7 o Well #12 W-018 0 Water Treatment Plant II W-019 0 W~r srst~n ~mr~ownen~ To~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 70,000 630,000 700,000 72,000 530,000 602,000 75,000 675,000 750,000 75,000 3,300,000 3,375,000 110,000 110,000 130,000 130,000 270,000 270,000 370,000 210,000 580,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 195,000 100,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1~,000 25,000 25,000 1,,555,000 3,630,000 1,607,000 4,175,000 1,252,000 12219,000 GRAND TOTAL · 11,707,100 6,751,700 7,409,200 6,176,600 3,852,000 35,896,600 Page 4 of 4 Thur, nta.); December 06. 2001 City of Chanhasse~, MN SOURCES OF REVENUE SUMMARY 2002 thru 2006 560.0(}0 415~0 IOJX}O 10,000 10,0~0 10,000 10,000 0 Tot~! 4,096,700 1,713,4iX) 4,573,00O 2,l~0~ 3.170,0(10 10,~,~00 1.637.000 1,425.000 50,OiXI 0 P8~I of ! ~, Decomber 05, 2001 CAPITAL PLAN City of Chanhassen, ~ PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE 2002 thru 2006 Source Bond Proceeds Roundhot~e Renova~on: Roundhotlse Park Bo~ ~ T~ Project// Priority MB-001 0 PK&T-O09 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 6,000,000 6,000,000 0 0 6,000,000 0 6,000,000 Page I of 5 Thur~kO; December 06, 2001 Cspi~! Replscement Fund 100~ ~d~ L~k~~ EQ~)01 0 ~~~ E~ 0 ~:~~~ ~ 0 ~~~~~ E~ 0 ~~1~~ E~ 0 ~ ~: ~ ~ E~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ff~) ~0 0 ~~~~~~ E~11 0 T~ ~~ E~14 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ E~15 0 ~ T~ ~~ E~16 0 ~~ ~17 0 ~ ~ ~ E~19 0 ~T~ E~ 0 T=~ ~ 0 ~~~ E~ 0 ~~ ~ 0 ~~ E~ 0 ~~ E~ 0 ~~ ~T~ E~ 0 ~~~ E~- 0 T~~ E~I 0 ~ E~ 0 ~~~ ~ 0 T~ E~ 0 T~~ E~ 0 T~ E~ 0 ~~~(1~ E~ 0 U~ ~7 ~ ~ ~ T~ E~ 0 ~T~~ ~ 0 T~~F~~~ ~ 0 ~T~~~ E~ 4 ~~ E~ 0 ~~~ ~ 0 ~~1~2~ ~ 0 36,00O 10,000 100,000 20~30 2,000 1.,000 1,000 1,000 15,000 l~.__mO_ 15,000 15,000 9,20O 0 10,000 0 0 22,00O 24,00O 25,00O 100,000 15,0~0 115.000 113,0G0 116,000 0 7~00 41,0(O 6~)00 6.O0O 12000 12,000 10,000 100.000 31,000 22~0 21~0 40~0 0 Tobd 10,000 150.000 20J~0 50~00 9.2OO 10,000 140.000 21,000 115,000 0 30,000 47.,0OO 7JX)O 41,000 IO0,OO0 76,000 0 31,000 Pn~2of 5 December Source General Fund Computer Pu~asen/Upgrades Raa~at~ Center Carpet Replacement Cawer County Community Demographic Partnership Annual Slmet Improvement Program Project~ EQ-013 EQ-046 EQ.047 $T-012 Priority 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 0 59,900 65,700 72,200 65,600 70,000 333300 3 5,000 5,00O 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 0 255,000 265,000 275,000 275,000 285,000 1,355,000 Genera] Ptmd Total 319,900 335,700 352,200 345,600 360,000 1,713,400 MSA Lyman Blvcl (West City Limits to TH 101) Bitumlnou~ Overly. Lake Lucy Rd. 9~m~ ~ Lake Ddve/Lake Drive East BIMninous Overly. Audubon Rd. Bltumlnoo. Ovef~. Coulter Blvd. Blttmlhlous OvedaF. Wast 78th St. Bltm~lnous Ovnfla~. I~newashla Parkway MSA Total ST-004 ST-005 ST-006 ST..00? ST-008 ST-009 ST-010 ST-011 PK&T-001 PK&T-003 PK&T-~ PK&T-005 PK&T-006 PK&T-008 PK&T-009 PK&T-011 PK&T-012 PK&T-013 PK&T-014 PK&T-015 PK&T-018 PK&T-021 PK&T-022 PK&T-023 PK&T-024 PK&T-025 PK&T-026 PK&T-027 PK&T-028 Park Dedication Fund Impmvem~ Be~lmem Community Park Playground Equipment: Curry Farms Park Slgnage: ~ Pond Park Improvement: Meadow Green Park Play Area: Power Hnl Park Roundhouse Renovation: Roundhouse Park Troll: Whlte~ Ridge Ct to Lake Lucy tn. Trail: Bandimere Park to C.,hanhassen Hills Trait: I..Iwy 101 (S. Sh<xe Dr. to Townllne Dr.) Road & Tral Rac~n~: Lake Ann Park Ma~h Glen Trail Cmnector T~ Piantlr~ ~ Shel~. Bendtmere Community Park I-lalfCourt Beskelball: Bandlmem Heights Park Ske'e Park Ramp Tr,~ R~act. Permanent Park Benches and Tables Tral Connector:. Hwy 5 at Riley Creek Tra~ Connector:. Hwy 5 at Bluff Creek C~y Cee~ Co,,~o~ Park Dedication Fund Total 95,000 18,000 140,000 110,000 15,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 95,000 18,000 140,000 110,000 15,000 170,000 170,000 125,000 125,000 378,000 170,000 4,025,000 4,573,000 15,000 7,500 20,000 10,000 100,000 75,000 200,000 25,000 40,000 275,000 100,000 40,000 10,000 50,000 0 30,000 0 485.000 20,000 175,000 65,000 375,000 40,000 10,000 50,000 0 0 175,000 7~500 10,000 100,000 75,o00 1,595,5C)0 865,000 225,000 175,000 2,860,500 Page 3 of 5 Thursda): December 06, 2001 Priority ?J~2 ?.003 ?.004 2005 ?.006 Total 0 200Ao0 0 400,~0 400~)0 0 315,000 315,000 0 8O, OOO 3~0~)00 430~)00 0 110,000 110,{~0 0 335~X) 335.(~0 0 130A00 130,000 0 ~ 0 ~00~00 400~00 0 370,0~0 210~00 Sewer & Water Expansion Fund Putm:wa~ Facm~ ~ m-oo3 sc.~d~ Symm __i~?t & Mdnteomm SS~10 Wei/g W-O01 WeltlO W-O02 Welt11 W4)03 Watm'Tott~' (2MG): Lyman B~. W-004 Walm'T~ Hast 1 W-011 ~: Wmt 791h St. Watm'Tomar W-015 Sewer & Water Utility Fund S~V P~p m~ns SSO~ C~m~ sm~n ~~ SS4~ T~ Sm~r tJnss ~4X)8 ~~~~ w~3 ~ ~ ~ W~14 ~~~ W~7 ~ ~2 W~ 8 ~T~ ~ II W~19 ~&W~~~T~ 100.__n00 10.__n00 10~00 10~00 l~._n00 25~00 77~00 77~00 50~000 500~00 Street Assessments Pa~ 4 of 5 ~. ~ 06, 2001 Source Project# Priority 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Surface Water Utility Fund Bluff Creek: ~ Existing Poecls Bluff Creek: Alter Ex. rig Ponds BMr Creek Create Storrm~ter Ponds Bluff Creek: Create Stonm~tsr Ponds Sttrfaco Water Utility Fund Total Television (Cable) Fund AudloNisaal Equlprnalt Television (Cable) Fund Total Youth Sports Ass'n Contribution Improvemenls: BandYnere Community Park Youth Sport~ A~ Contribution Total SWMP-O03 SWMP-O04 SWMP..O05 SWIVP-O06 SWMP-O08 SWMP-O09 SWI~-010 SWUP-011 EQ-026 200,000 210,000 150,000 175,000 215,000 275,000 50,000 150,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 210,000 215,000 275,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 t0,000 10,000 50,000 P~T-001 0 0 0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL ! 11,709,100 6,751,700 7,,409,200 6,176,500 3,826,000 35,872,600. Pago 5 of 5 Thurzda); December 06, 2001 CITYOF CHANHA S P011~147 ~ ~ 55317 952.93Z1900 952.93Z5739 952.93Z9152 9JP.9342J24 uno~d~mn.,u TO.' Mayor City Council FROM: DATE: Todd C_~dmrdt, City Manager SUB J: Attached please find the Design Committee's recommended interior finish materials for the Chanhassen Librm'y project (Attachment # 1). I. mmne Larson, MS & R's Interior Design Specialist will be present at Monday's meeting to present the committee's findings. I have also asked MS & R to update the City Council on the changes to the interior and exterior layout of the li .brary (Attachment fi2). .. .- . - .. . · Staff is looking for Council endorsement of the recommended mnterials. A "show and tell" presen.tati0n has been scheduled for the public on.Thursday, December 20 at 7:00 p.m, in the City Council Chamber...-- '..' "' . . . · . A~FA~S Interior Finish Selections Exterior and Interior Floor Pla~s S~rrsWm Ha'ne TtANsrr November 13, 2001 Todd Gerhnrdt City of Chnnlms~m 690 City Center Drive Chanlmssen, ~ 55317 Rig: Appointment to the Southwest Metro Transit Comml,slon Dear Todd, The City Council of Chanhassen will need to appoint one member to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Thc term of Mayor Jansen expires on December 31, 2001. The new three-_ ~ term will start January 1, 2002 and will end on December 31, 2004. The position must be filled by the mayor or Ifyou have any questions, please give me a call at 974-3104. Sincerely, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION ///F~ecative Director NOV J. 3 2001 CiTY OF CITYOF PO Bar l4'/ ~ ~ 5i~17 Fj2.93ZIgO0 9.f2.95Z5739 952.93Z91.f2 9~934.2~24 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBS: Teresa $. Burgess, Public Works Director/City December $, 2001 Water Treatme~ Project Advisory Committee - PW024P Requested Council Action Appoint the members of the Water TreaIment Project Advisory Committee. Discussion In addition to the members appointed tonight, a member of the City Council and City Staff will be members of the PAC. Staff is requesting that 3-4 of the PAC applicants be named to assist City Staff in inte~dewing consultants for the project. Staff-feels it is necessary to keep the PAC small during this phase of the project since it will need to meet frequently during the interview process. A lm'ger group is difficult to schedule. . . Staff is requesting that a total Of 8-9 memb~ be named to the PAC (incl~ the initial 3-4 members that will assist with the inte~ri~.~ving). The PAC will advise the consultant and act as neighborhood liaison during the study, design, and implementation of water treatmenL - . . Copies of the applications are attached to the woficsesdon staff report .regarding the PAC selection. Reeommend~ Motion Move that , , , and be appointed to the Water consultant firms, recommend a firm for considm~on by the City Council, advise addition, , , are also named to serve on the Project Advisory Committoo to adviso tho ¢: Kelley lanes, Utility Superintende~ PAC Applicants O.-~N~Ws~- Tmmm~a~ ~m~- 1 ~ 10-01 b. doe ~ from Bill Jensen, Mediacom. F'uvSRescue Calls for week of November 19-25, 2001. Memo from Greg Hayes re: Emergency Management Update dated Novembe~ 19, 2001. 2001 Elected Offici~l~ Salary Survey. Letter from Jim Stark, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District ~ November 26, 2001. Fax from D~nni~ & Sue Scheppmann re: tax ~ ~ De.tuber 3, 2001. Letter from Shawn Wini~ Mn Dept of Revenue Property Tax Division. rlst_,~d November 27, 2001. Memo from Todd Hoff'man re: Feasibility Report Hwy 101 Trail Project dated December 4, 2001. Letter from Joe Hiller, Mn Dept of Natural Resources dated November 30, 2001. Mediaco C~ of Clmdm~ Reglonal Manager Dear City Manaser Scott Botcher: As you know, Mediacom has invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years to aggressively upgrade and rebuild its cable systems. As a result, Mediacom has been able to deliver state-of-the-art broadband services, including high-speed Internet access, to the residents of your community. Mediacong like many cable service providers, contracts for broadband Internet access through one of the two leading national service providers, Ex~ome. Bankruptcy proceedings involving Exci~ome were rece~y fled, and we wanted to ensure that you were aware of these proceedings, their possible implications and Mediacom's plans. Despite the bankruptcy proceeding, Ex~ome today continues to provide service to our customers. Efforts are underway by AT&T Corporation to acquire certain assets of Excite(~Home and continue providing service to Mediacom and other large cable providers. The crediwrs of Exdte(~-Iome, however, have opposed AT&T's efforts to acquire the Exci~ome assets and have secured a hearing in bankruptcy court this Friday, November 30, 2001, which could result in a service interruption or shutdown of Excit~ome service. If this happens, all ofMediacom's Internet service customers, as well as the Internet service customers of other large cable providers, including AT&T Broadband, Comcast and Cox, will lose the Excit~ome service. Mediacom and other cable businesses are fighting to prevent this from happenin$ and remain hopeful that no service interru~om or shutdown will occur; however, the decision is in the hands of the bankru~ court and Exci~ome creditors, and it is possible that a service interru~on or shutdown will occur on November 30, 2001, or shortly thereat'ocr. Regardless of the outcome of Friday's bankru~ hearing, Mediacom continues to diligently pursue alternate service arrangements so that we can resume offering our customers Internet access service if an interruption or shutdown does occur. These altmmtive arrangements, however, will take time. We will keep you updated on any significant developments in this matter. In the interim, if you have any questions regarding these latest developments, please call me st 507- 835-2356. Sincerely, Mediacom Communications Corporation 1504 2nd Street, S.E. · Waseca, MN 56093 · 507-835-2356 · Fax 507.835-4567 Men Men Tues Tues Tues Weds Weds Weds Sat Sun Nov 19 3:45 AM Nov 19 2:18 PM Nov 20 9:56 AM Nov 20 1:40 PM Nov 20 3:05 PM Nov 21 4:30 PM Nov 21 5:09 PM Nov 21 7:19 PM Nov 24 9~34 AM. Nov 25 2:15 PM CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT FIR.E/RF~~ WEEK OF NOVEMBER 19 - NOVEMBER 25, 2001 Longacres Drive Lake Drive East Lake Susan Hills Drive Lakeview Road West 78 Chaska Fire Dept Hunter Drive Highway 5 & Powers Blvd Highway 101 & Highway 5 Highway 5 & Highway 4 Medical-poss~le heart'attack, cancelled Possible dumpster fire, unfounded Medical- person fell Medical - dh~cuRy breathing Medical - seizures Mutual Aid - assist Medical- broken arm Car aecid~t with injuries Car accident- cancelled, no injuries. JOSEPH F. SANZONE, BCE Director METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT METRO COUNTIES GOVERNMENT CENTER 2099 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA55104-3431 651-645-9149 · FAX 651-645-3246 TTY use Minnesota Relay Service w.J. CAESAR Business Admin. November 26, 2001 Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen City Manager 690 Center Drive Chanhasse~ MN 55317 Dear Mr. Gerhardt: The Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (MMCD) is primarily a region-wide larval control program that targets immature mosquitoes and biting gnats while they are still developing in the water. In early spring and after each significant summer rain, MMCD treats ~he worst mosquito production areas within the District with a natural soil bacteria (BtO. The same soil bacteria is used to control immature biting gnats in the rivers and streams of the metro area. These treatments prevent billions of immature mosquitoes and biting gnats from hatching into adults. The result is significantly fewer mosquitoes and gnats within the District compared to areas that do not receive control. · Control of adult mosquitoes is conducted when there is a risk of mosquito-borne disease, and when adult mosquito populations interfere with outdoor activities. MMCD treats parks and recreational areas along with neighborhoods where infestations of mosquitoes have been identified. MMCD uses resmethrin and permethrin to control adult mosquitoes. LaCrosse encephalitis (LAC) is a viral disease transmitted by a species of mosquito that develops in old tires, artificial containers and areas in trees that hold water. MMCD monitors both larval and adult populations of this mosquito, and provides control when risk is high or cases are reported. The District also conducts an aggressive public information program designed to enlist' citizens' help in reducing the risk of this disease. In 2001 there were seven cases of LAC reported in or near the metropolitan area. MMCD also monitors mosquito and bird populations for the presence of West Nile vires - a newly introduced disease which has spread from the east coast to the Midwest in just three years. This mosquito transmitted vires is maintained in the wild bird population and passed to horses and humans through the bite of an infected mosquito. American crows seem to be most affected AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EM PLOYER by the virus, and the reporting of dead birds will be important in iden~ affected areas next M2vtCD also works to prevent Lyme disease in the metro area. The District monitors the distribution of deer ticks that can carry this bacterial infection throughout the metropolitan are~ In addition, MMCD works closely with the Minnesota Departme~tt of Health in providing information designed to reduce risk. MMCD is governed by a board of seventeen metro county commissioners. The District budget comes from real estate taxes collected within the control area. Enclosed is a summary of work done by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (M~CD) within your community during the 2001 mosquito control season. If you have any questions about our program, or would like a presentation ofthig information, please contact me. Sincerely, Jim Stark (651) 643-8363 jims"mrk(~risi.com Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Services Summary of 2001 services provided in Chanhmssen: 1. Control of immature mosquitoes in Chanhassen wetlands: # site inspections: 1612 treatments made by helicopter: 2012 acres treatments made by hand: 196 acres 2. Control of adult mosquitoes: Special Events: Areas Regularly Monitored and Treated: No adult control done on city property at the request of the city. 3. Control of biting gnats: The Minnesota River is checked on a weekly basis throughout the summer and treated with a natural soil bacteria (BtO when immature biting gnat populations exceed a predetermined threshold. The Minnesota River was treated once during the 2001 season. 4. Mosquito-bome disease: # of LaCrosse encephalitis larval inspections 71 # of LaCrosse encephalitis adult inspections 42 # of waste tires removed 26 Calls from citizens: 39 Dec 03 01 0'7: 1Sa ~enn~s Scheppmann 7 -7~X~ MINNESOTA Department of Revenue Property Tax Division Mail Station 3340 Phone: (651) 296-3394 TDD: (651) 215-0069 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 Fax: (651) 297-2166 November 27, 2001 Mr. Scott Botcher City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Botcher: We have received the necessary forms from you to apply for the T1F grant program. TIF grants may be paid to municipalities for deficits in tax increment financing districts caused by property tax classification law changes. This program only applies to those districts with a certification request date prior to June 2, 1997. After reviewing these forms, it was determined that there was an overall combined deficit for all of the qualifying TIF districts within your municipality. The maximum grant that a municipality may receive in 2001 is determined in total for all qualified TI7 districts and is the lesser of the 2000 "overall combined TIF deficit" for the qualified TIF districts or the "payable 2000 TIF property tax loss" for all of the qualified TIF districts within the municipality. Enclosed is a breakdown of this determ/nation. This grant payment is for 2001 only, and will be made along with the December 26, 2001 aid payment. You will need to reapply for future years. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel fi'ee to contact me. Very .truly yours, Shawn Wink, Research Property Tax Division Enclosure An equal opportunity employer TDD: (651) 297-2196 I I I I I 1 ! I I. I ! 1 i I I I I I CITYOF CHAI SE 690 C/tI Center Dr/ye PO Box147 Chanham~, Mimmota 55317 PJIont 952.93Z1900 fieneral fax 952.93Z5739 £ng~ee,'i,g Depa~ent 952.937.9152 Building Depamnent Fax 952.934.25?4 IVeb Site TO: FROM: Park and Recreation Commission Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: December 4, 2001 SUB J: Presentation of Feasibility Report, Highway 101 Trail Project North of Highway 5, HTPG, Inc. Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer, has arranged for representatives of HTPO, Inc. to attend your December 11th meeting. HTPO will be reviewing with you the results of a report they prepared for the City Council. The report was completed to determine the feasibility of constructin.~ a minimal impact trail along Hwy 101 from Pleasant View Road to West 78~ Street. This work represents one of two "planning tracts" that the council is studying. The Second planning tract 'would include the construction of the trail in connection with a road improvement project. The stand-alone trail project may necessitate an $850,000 contribution from the city's park and trail fund. In the event that the trail is constructed as part of the road project, the cost to the park and trail fund would decrease due to a transfer in cost sharing. The City Council has elected to move forward with a dual tract schedule to assure that the trail is built even in the event that the road prg. ject fails to materialize. C: City Council Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent O:~parkAth~feasibilityreportmemohwy 101 ...... State of Minnesota Department of Finance 400 ~~A] B~a~g St. Panl, lvlinne~out $5155 Voice: (651) 296-5900 - Fax: (~51) 296-8685 TI'Y: 1-800-ti~/-3529 DATE: TO: FROM: November 20, 2001 Commissioners and Agency Heads ?am?la Wheeloek/ Commission,r{/ Grant ~e~~_ As a follow-up to the November 6, 2001, meeting regarding the likely budget, shortfall I want to take this opportunity to underscore the serious situation that the Administration faces and the need to take immediate action to manage spending. Effective immediatoly, agencies may not enter into any new grant agreements. This includes any agreement that is not yet fully executed. I understand that this may create some difficult situations for agencies and intended grant recipients, but the action is being taken fo preserve our options, as we look to manage all state spending. A sizable portion of the budget p~sses from state agencies to other recipients in the form of grants. To be clear, no determination has been marie to permanently cut tliese.area~ as part of a broader budget solution. Rather, this is an interim step to. be sure that we have the Illaximum flexibility when developing options to recommeald tO tho C.,ovelmor. In the event that this interim measure presents serious hardship to a specific grant arrangement,, please call your Executive Budget Officer. Steven Bosacker Paul Aasen John Wodele Deputy Commi.~sioners Budget Directors AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrTY EMPLOYER Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5DO Lafil)'clle Road St. l)acll. Minn¢.sola 55155-4010 November 30, 2001 Ms. Jill Sinclair Env. Res. Spec City of Chanhasson 6.9_0 City Center Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: CP02-6.15, Bluff Creek Restoration Dear Ms. Sinclair' The state Commissioner of Finance has instructed all state agencies to avoid entering into any new grant agreements, including any agreement that has been initiated but not fully executed. We understand that this refers to any agreement that does not have the final required signature by the state contracting authority. At this time, this restriction applies to both state and federal grants. if you have begun to Incur costs for a project prior to completion of a fully executed grant agreement, we recommend that you avoid incurring any additional costs until we receive further clarification on these restrictions or until the grant freeze is terminated. A copy of the notice from the Commissioner of Finance is attached. if you have any questions about the status of the grant agreement for your project, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, ~Joe Hiller, Grants Manager Local Grants Program RECEIVED 0EC 0 5 2001 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Attachment DNR Information: 651-296-6157 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 Pflnted on Recycled Psper Containing a Minimum of 101, Post-Consumer Waste CITYOF CHANHg EN PO Box I 47 ~ Minm, sota 55317 Phone 952.93Z1900 952.93Z5739 Engineering Department Fax 952.93Z9152 Building De~mnent Fax 952.934.2524 ~b Site wwu~d, chanhassen, mn. us lVOqMOR~UM TO: Todd Gerh~t, City Manager FROM: Karo Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: December 6, 2001 SUBJ: Blueprint 2030 Attached is the Framework for the Metropolitan Council Blueprint 2030. This document recommends policy changes from the regional growth strategies. It is being proposed for adoption in Dece~. The City of Chanhassen has an approved comprehensive plan that provides for the ultimate growth for the year 2020. The 2030 Blueprint anticipates that growth projection for the region will be higher than anticipated. The city's plan would only have to be amended if one of the four metropolitan sys.tems is amended. These systems include airports, parks and open space, transportation and wastewater management. I do not anticipate systems changes that would affect the city of Chanhassen plan~ The city is already consistent with the propo~ new goals for Livable Communities. The, Se goals include Design for People (walkable), Protect and Enhance Natural Features, Providing. Housing Choices, and Encouraging Mixed Uses. The Metropolitan Council will be holding a series of "dialogues" in February and March to discuss forecasts for 2030 population, households and employments with local communities. Staff will provide the City Council 'any changes. Staff believes that our projections for population, households and employment will be consistent with the Met Council Forecasts. Fl~e Ci C~,d~n. A ~tvine coramunitv with clean lakes, amdit~ schools, a ~mine downunvn, dnivin~r businexu~ and beamKul tulrks. A ~,reat olaee to live. work. and ~ Framework for the September 26, 2001 Metropolitan Council Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1--Working Draft Publication No. 78-01-041 Mears Park Centre, 230 East 5th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101 Contents Introduction Part I: Key Principles Part II: Blueprint 2030- Outline Part III: Policy Development Calendar Part IV: Public Involvement Part V: Frequently Asked Questions Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper I - Working Draft 9.26.0 ! 2 14 Introduction The Twin Cities metropolitan area is one of the nation's steadiest success stories. It is widely recognized for its high quality of life. Its economy is broad-based and boasts a long string of growth years. It is home to one of the nation's best-prepared work forces. Low unemployment rates have underscored the underlying strength of the economy. Homing affordability has historically been in the top three in makings of the largest 25 metro areas. Mobility here remains better than most metro areas of similar size. The core of the region maintains a strong tradition of neighborhoods. The late 1990s saw considerable progress in arresting the decline of the poorest parts of the region, and both downtowns are enjoying the dividends of massive reinvestment over the past decade. But clear trends are converging that may have the impact of a m-wreck, throwing this long- playing success story off track. Congestion is finally growing more serious. Mobility, long taken for granted, is eroding. Housing markets are tight, rental-vacancy rates are chronically low, and prices of new homes are rising rapidly. The pattern of growth threatens remaining natural resources in an urban region that has outgrown its seven-county jurisdictional definition. And, while overall the residents of the region are receptive and supportive of growth, there is increasing resistance at the neighborhood and community levels. With a half million more people slated to live here by 2020, along with an increase of more than a quarter million new jobs, the key strategic question is not if we will grow, but how. How we grow will determine whether housing is affordable, whether getting from place to place every day is manageable, whether we will have vibrant, interesting downtowns and livable neighborhoods, and easy access to well-maintained lakes, parks, and open spaces. As current census data show, it is clear that the region's population will be significantly different in 2020-- older and more diverse-and their housing and services needs may be different as well. In response to the challenges facing the region, the Metropolitan Council is engaged in a two- year, interactive public process to revise and expand the time-horizon to 2030 of its overall growth and investment strategy for the Twin Cities metropolitan areamthe Regional Blueprint. The Blueprint is the Council's action plan for the region, with short and long-term strategies to meet the challenges of enhancing economic growth and development, bolstering reinvestment, strengthening environmental protection, and building vital local and regional communities. The primary focus of the revised action plan---Blueprint 2030---will be plan implementation and action steps. ...... Blueprint 2030, slated for adoption in December 2002, builds on and incorporates a number of activities: · The revision to the Environment Policy Plan which is on a parallel timeline to the Blueprint. · The updated Regional Transportation Policy Plan which incorporated the Council's Transit 2020 strategy, Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper ! - Working Draft 9.26.01 3 · The updated Regional Parks and Open Space Policy Plan, which includes policy direction to help implement Smart Growth principles, so that that parks planning is integrated with homing, transportation and other local planning, · The Smart Growth Twin Cities initiative that includes activities to engage citizens and stakeholders in a discussion about growth and development, · "An Agenda for Regional Action," a white paper concerning regional growth that reflects a dialogue among representatives from the homebuild~s, the environmental community, the cities, and the M~litan Council. · The overall picture created by the updated comprehensive plans of all local governments in the region_ The general directions of Blueprint 2030 reveal a number of diff~~ from previous approaches: More closely align the environmental, transportation, and community development goals, objectives, and policies. This approach will move the regional growth strategy emphasis from the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and a concentric- development expansion model to a more comprehensive strategy that focuses on centers and corridors, increasing emphasis on rcinvestment and infill. · Take greater advantage of transportation investments as a shaper of development, to increase transpo.rtation choices and to link centers to adjacent areas. Protect significant natural systems, environmental features, and agricultural lands, using natural features to shape development decisions and developing a network of- parks, natural areas and open space corridors. Enhance community flvability, choices and opportunities throughout the region by using community development investments and programs to promote efficient use of infras~'ucture and land to serve as models of Smart GrowtlL Set priorities and align regional investment to maximize the benefits of the limited public resources. Engage citizens, stakeholder groups in shaping policy and implementation tools. This paper is the first in a series of publications by the Council regarding the revision of the Blueprint. This paper sets out the key principles guiding the development of the Blueprint 2030 plan, provides an outline for the plan, lays out the calendar of activities, describes the public involvement process, and addresses a number of frequently asked questions. Blueprint 2030 Discusaion Paper ! - Working Draft 9.26.01 4 I. Key · Integrate land use, transportation and natural resources · Balance job growth and housing · Protect agricultural land, open space, rural character, aggregate and environmental resources · Integrate the Natural Resource Inventory into the Blueprint 2030 · Reinvest to assure regional and community vitality · Provide parks, open space and lamils in redevelopment · Focus regional land use patterns to enhance community character and quality · Provide cost effective and efficient services Coordinate and build partnerships with citizens, local government, adjacem counties, state and federal agencies and the private and non-profit sectors Principles Focus development in centers along corridors. Use transportation infrastructure and investments to shape development, to increase transportation choices and to link centers to adjacent neighborhood areas via an interconnected system of streets, pedestrian pathways and bikeways. The region has areas of prime agricultural land that merit protection. Use environmental features to shape development decisions and choices to promote efficient use of land and infrastructure and to afford residents access to a variety of open spaces--natural areas, rural and agricultural landscape, parks, parkways. Protect significant natural features and provide for connections. A keystone of the Blueprint is reinvestment. The Council intends to build on existing investments, to revitalize older declining neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas, to enhance transit markets, to avert unwarranted growth at the edge, to build capacity in older, developed centers and to offer the greatest access and choice for housing and jobs for people of all incomes. How the land is used, the age and development stage of a community (community lifecycle) and the development pattern that is mated affects the quality of life enjoyed today and sets the framework as to how well the region will respond to future needs and circumstances. Getting projects built that demonstrate new models of growth and reinvestment is essential. Partnerships, technical assistance and tools are important. Develop the Blueprint mindful of the broader context--the economic region, the watersheds and natural system, and multimodal transportation systems all extend well beyond the seven-county area. Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 5 II. Blueprint 2030 - Outline L Introduction--Key Policies and Goals Focus: 1. Articulate fundamental Council policies for guiding growth and change in the region; and 2. Establish strategic goals for regional and community frameworks to guide growth and change with specific attention on the intensification of centers along corridors. · Integrate transportation and land use · Protect agriculture, rural character, and environmental resourc~ · Reinvest in developed communities · Influence land use patterns to achieve smart growth · Implement through coordination and partnerships. Growth and Development Frameworks A~ Regional Frameworks Focus: 1. Increase housing choices by type,, price and location while main~ existing housing stock; 2. Use natural features and Systems to help structure .devel .opmen~ 3. Integrate land use, natural resource protection and transportation to improve quality of life and economic vitality; and 4. Institute a flexible approach that recogni?es subregional needs and opportunities. · Guide forecasted growth integrating jobs, housing, transportation and open space to build more livable communities (policy-based forecasts, housing need and demand) · Shape overall land use patterns in the region integrating environment (NRI), current land use (2000), and regional systems (transportation, airports, parks and sewers existing and planned) to provide the physical frameworks for reinvestment and growth (including housing policy) · Develop the region within the broader economic and intergovernmental contexts~ building relationships and partnerships with adjacent counties and state agencies. B. 2030 Regional Growth Strategy Focus: 1. Articulate a balanced regional framework for accommodating growth; and 2. Set the structure for regional form, natural resource protection and infrastructure investment. · 2020 Comprehensive Plan Scenario base, case scenario, composite map of local comprehensive plans for 2020 (future land use of plans) Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper ! - Working Draft 9.26.01 6 · Smart Growth Twin Cities 2020 Regional Scenario(s)~based on public and community input Smart Growth Twin Cities regional scenario process 2001-2002 · Blueprint 2030 Regional Growth Strategy--policy based forecasts, investment strategy, subregional policy areas, and designated regional priorities. C. Community Frameworks Focus: Principles and development guidelines to be used to guide regional/local development and funding decisions. Local community development principles Local community development guidelines for locations in communities, neighborhoods and centers along corridors IlL Implementation Strategies A. Regional Implementation Focus: How the Council will review proposals to implement smart growth principles. · Regional capital investments review process · Adjacent counties and state relationships · Metropolitan Significance B. Livable Community Implementation FOCUS: 1. Tools and incentives geared to the local level; and 2. Regional/Local growth management partnership for carrying out a new growth strategy recognizing subregional differences, complimentary to the intensification of centers and corridors, to protecting environmental resources and to preserving agricultural lands and rural character. Tools and incentives ,/' Reinvestment strategies and tools v' Alignment of incentives and resources (e.g., Livable Communities Act programs and other incentive programs) Comprehensive plan implementation and technical assistance ,/' New regional urban services area policy ,/' Comprehensive plan v' Handbooks (comprehensive plans, review process, incentives, environmental resources for local communities) IVm Regional and Community Benchmarks · Development monitoring procedures Bhteprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 7 m. Policy Development Calendar Metropolitan Council Discussion & Decision Sequence Policy Questions Key Points for Public & 'Stakeholder Input 2001 Sept 26 Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 Nov 7 Integrating regional System investments and Services Dec Runfl Issues Work Group Dec5 & 19 Regional Frameworks-- guiding forecasted growth To focus regional growth manag~ on implementation and prodncfio~ what changes and additions are needed in the regional growth stodgy to have along corridors, protect significant reinvestment? What should the public involvement process be? How can regional capital burets, incentives, and programs be more effectively integrated with regional development goals? With increasing pressures for development what solutions/actions need to be undm'mken to preserve rural character and protect agric~dtuxal lands and aggregate resources? What is the role of rural centers ia accommodating growth? BP2030 Discussion Paper 1 Access: data center, mailing website, public comme~ ~_g!l!i!!gl: Policy Advisors; See BP2030 Discussion Paper 3: Implementation Rural Issues Workshops (6) August/September BP2030 Discussion Paper 2 Regional Frameworks (Forecasts & Physical Frameworks for guiding to local govemmeat con~ intereat~ parties, website, public commeat li~ ~: Policy Advisors; BP 2030 Dialogl~ WorkahoR: Feb/Mar 2002 Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper ! - Working Draft 9.26.01 8 2002 San 16 &30 Feb 6 & 20 Regional Frameworks: Shaping overall regional land use and growth pattems Implementing the Blueprint Via the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) Mar 6 Livable Community Frameworks March 20 Reinvestment Where and how should forecasted growth to 2030 be guided? What are the loeational implications for growth from information and data contained in the regional natural resources inventory? 2000 land use data? Local comprehensive plans?'2000 housing and job locations7 "- Reinvestrnent/greenfield development balance? Rural area character and agficulfural protection? And regional systems? ' What changes/improvements in plan guidelines, process, procedures, and technical assistance are needed to more effectively implement regional and local development goals, visions and plans? For communities, neighborhoods, and centers along corridors what development principles and development guidelines are needed to achieve smart growth goals? How should the region support reuse, minvestment, infill, and land recycling, brownfield clean up and reclamation? BP2030 Discussion Paper 2 Regional Frameworks (Forecasts & Physical Frameworks for guiding Access: data center, mailing to local government contacts/interested parties, website, public comment line Meetings: Policy Advisors; interested parties as requested BP 2030 Dialogue: Feb/Mar 2002 See BP Discussion Paper 3: Implementation See BP2030 Discussion Paper 3: Implementation BP Discussion Paper 3: Implementation (MLPA, Livable Community Frameworks, Reinvestment, Integrating regional system inveslrnents) Access: data center, mailing to local government contacts/interested parties, website, public comment line Meetings: Policy Advisors; interested parties as requested BP 2030 Dialogue: April Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 9 ,A.~r Smart Growth Twin Cities (SGTC) Six Opportunity Sites May 1 & 2030 Regional Growth 15 Strategy June 19 Draft Blueprint 2030 July 17 Draft Blueprint 2030 Aug 7 & 21 Draft Blueprint 2030 What do smart growth projects look like on-the-ground and how can the Metropolitan Council create replicable models that dem~ smart growth . --- -'.. ' ':. ;' ',.m' -',-.'- .':. :~,..;, ~' .,. ~ ~z~.'c-';i %~-~,'.~'~:-', :- :' I ! ~ ..... '.'.--~- .... C.' --''.:- ""'-": '-T "-'*" ~':-* '"" '~':-"' - '~:-,-.¥'.'?'"-'-'!?::i '-'.-...:'-':'~.:'-;'::.-,.-";':~-~}';-::J::-~--'.:. :--!"-"' - -'..,' :--2 .'r;'l: .~.- .-2.'1':' *. -.?-. ~,..- ?! ~-..; ....... :~.~,,~---..-; _;'. · .~,, .... - ......... ... ' ' - ' - .............-.-., -- ': -- -~ .... c 2-- : -" ;.'~ -'-.--,-'-::. "qX--'--:-. g'&~:~-f~, e~ .--~.~.'~--.:.--;:-.'~.F.-.-';.-:n-.,": '- .... ~"---.-' --;-'~-, ..':";-" ' --'--'-;' :' :~.-: :~2' :.--t'-- ..... . ' - -" '" w--- ' --~':.'..'~---r--.-r~ -> :.'-7~ "?.c" :' % .? ~-' '"' . .- "~ : ~ ..... y.-' ': '2.',-:5,~" · .'~: ~-fY:.- .... :, .'' ' .'-' -. . - '- .... - : -.'--2 .-..-.,:,'.- ~'-..-_ ;----~';. ' : .~'~.- - ' ' '-' ' '/'"' '. :'-: '.'q'".'; .:': "' .~'"- -'C ' -.i :.,. ' ~:, .... i-' '. '.-. '. '.-.",'£,". '-~'-~--"-" ..... ~. :. . ~ . . ~ .~ .: ..., .. ~ ...... t~....~..._. ~r:-...:-. r. .: -, .* . ...-......:...-.-....-.~ -.. :....--.. -:...,.--...:.:-.: .%: '{..~.--.. ;: ~','.}( -.~ f:..-.-.¥ ;' " '- '. '- "" ':- · ' ' '-' ":-" : -"~'~-'-~- -.5 "-'~-'"- '..'-- . . . . -...,, . : ~ .~'_ - ~:.~.-.......~. :- . . -- ..- . ' .'."' ' .:.'-: '..' '."'.~ :i"~-. -'2.:". "- ' '' ' ' ' '.' " '"-"".'. ---'-' ~-'--'1-'- ~ '-"" :. .... . -: ~, - .... -~.. ·--.., -. -.. -' . .... .-....--..-:.:,.. 3'..; -'...~ ....- ._ -.- .... -....-'..'. . . :: .- ...... ~..- .... . -' ~ - --: .' ' "· ' ' ~. ~-'-~ ',~.'i' .. -.,. '... ' ' .".'.. -, ..--., ' { .'-'~.~,..', ..c-'.'.'.-' .' '.... . "' . : . - ..:::' "-}.¥:".: ;.. '4-.'¢:%c,?. :.;:~, 'v.-.... . '." ·-.. - 5-."' :. j': .. : 7.'~'? '::~ ': ...' .'.. '. :' - . '.- .'. ..... ..... -..~...'. --... .:...-: ., -. . ~. ... ... .~ ...... ._..~.~ :..'. ~ ..': ....... - . . '. ' ' ?-' .'-' - .".:":-:' ':..ir2'.-' "'..'...'.'~i ~:".~:_'"'"Y.'~,'..' ~.z....~....,..- ... .... .. : : .... 2""-. W""'. 'i~'" .... ~..~.(~,;... -..:.::'~r.:.-..~. -. "'":';ii :! "' . -J .' ".'-"-',..-'"'--,'-" :':_2': :!:-"...':-' '.Y-': '"' '. ,.' .": .... ':" --" Iw-.'.'...(.'.':.. Conduct Community Workshops (Apr/Oct 2001); Formulate altexnatives and conduct open houses (May/Nov 2001); Evaluate options (Sept/Dec 2001); Prepare site plans (Nov/April 2002) SGTC Stakeholder Workshop (May 3) & 9 Regio~ Workshops (May/ June 2001) BP2030 Dialogue Paper 4: Regional Scenarios -Smart scemrios (including transportation analyses) and 2030 Regional Map and policy areas. Access: data center, mailing to local government website: public comment line Policy Advisors; BP 2030 Dialog~: May/June Access: data center, mailing to local ~ contacts/interested parties, website, public comment line ~: Policy Advisors; interested parties as Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper ! - Working Draft 9.26.01 10 Aug 28 Sept/Oct Oct 23 Nov 6 Dec 4 Adopt for purposes of Public hearing Blueprint 2O30 draft Informational community meetings public hearing draft Blueprint 2030 Public Hearing Public Hearing record Closes Consideration of public hearing comments Dec 18 ADOPTION Blueprint 2030 Public Hearing Draft Blueprint 2030 Access: data center, rrmiling to local government contacts/interested parties, website, public comment line ~: Policy Advisors; interested parties as requested 2003 Jan + Blueprint 2030: legislation, implementation of action steps, and community technical assistance Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 11 IV. Public Involvement The Council has embarked on a multi-faceted public involvement proce~ for the Blueprint 2030 involving workshops, community dialogues, task forces, work groups, advisory committees, surveys, newsletters, and interactive website discussions. There are four groupings of public engagement activities: policy advisors, community dialogues, public input and lastly a public hearing. This process is designed so that a thorough discussion of information, issues and options occurs l~¢fore actual dmf~g of the Blueprint 2030 document. First, thc Council is using several existing advisory boards and comm{~ that have diverse memberships (local elected officials and professional sta~, business, and civic, development and citizen/community advocacy organizations) to be policy advisors. Since thc Council's goal is to have an integrated policy guide for region's continued growth and change, each policy advisory group will look at all discussion papers and not just their primary areas of interest. 1. Policy Advisors for the Blueprint 2030 Policy Advisory Groups Business Housing & Regional Transporta Real Estate Roundtable Land Use Environmental lion Devdopment Stakeholder focus Advisory Partnership -Advi~ry Houdng Committ~ (REP) Board Advi~or~ Committee convenor) Regional Business & Labor Leadership Environmental Groups 4 and Organizations Municipal, County & Community Leadership Housing & Community Advocacy Groups Metropolitan Council 4 Members Real Estate/Development 4 Professionals State Agency Leadership Transportation Interest 4 Groups Council Liaisons for Blueprint 2030 Policy Advisors Communication Coordinator: Leigh Homstad--Public Involvement Coordinator: Klm Austrian · TAB--staff: Carl Ohm, Jan Gusmfson Council: Mary Hill Smith · REP~: Judy Sventek, Kristina Smitten Council: Roger Williams · HLUAC~staff: John Karl, Ann Beckman Council: Carolyn Rodriguez · Real Estate, Development, Housing Advisors (ULI convertor) o--taft: Car~ Dewar, Joanne Barron Council: Lee Pao Xiong · Business Roundtable~staff: Caren Dewar, Bill Byers Council: Ted Mondale Blueprint 2030 Di~ci~ssion Paper I - Working Draft 9.26.01 12 2. Blueprint 2030 Community Dialogues A series of community dialogues will be scheduled during the first half of 2002. As major work elements come together and integrated they will be the focus for these community dialogues. The input will be used to flesh out the policies and strategies. The first set of dialogues in February and March 2002 will focus on future growth (preliminary forecasts for 2030 for population, households and employment) and the factors that will determine where the growth locate (natural resource inventory, existing land use, infrastructure). A second set of dialogues will address implementation how can and should the region and local government guide furore growth? This set of workshops in April will address comprehensive plans, reinvestment strategies, and the use of incentives and regional system investments. The final set of dialogues will take place in May and June. These will focus on several alternative regional scenarios for furore regional land use and their implications for a new regional growth strategy map. The alternatives will be based on information gathered in the ten Smart Growth Twin Cities workshops conducted in May and June as well as an analysis of alternative scenario based on a composite all the local comprehensive plans. 3. Public Input In addition to the dialogues, the Council will carry out a broad public communication process. Informational updates concerning the Blueprint will be featured regularly in the Directions newsletter (hardeopy and electronic versions). The Council's website will be used. The following groups and interested parties form the initial list to receive Blueprint information: · Key contacts in all units of local government (county, municipal and township) · Community planning officials and professionals (state, county, city and township; and adjacent counties) · Council task forces, work groups and advisory groups: TAB Technical Advisory Committee, Rural Issues Work Group, Livable Communities Advisory Committee, Mayors Housing Task Force, Regional Environmental Partnership (REP) · Regional Commissions: Parks and Open Space, Metropolitan Airports Commission · Public and interested parties: for example, participants in Smart Growth Twin Cities regional and mml area workshops, Alliance for Metro Stability, MICAH, ISAIAH, chambers of commerce, Citizens League, League of Women Voters, agricultural groups, transportation groups Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 13 V. Frequently Asked Questions What happens to the recently updated local comprehensive plans? The Council's adoption of a new Blueprint will not trigger an across the board major plan update by communities. The Blueprint 2030 will provide the basis the next round of plan updates due in 2008 with forecasts for 2030 and revisions likely for 2020 (2000 census shows higher numbers than current forecasts project). Future regional systems needs and capacities will need to be assessed for impacts of the updated 2020 and 2030 forecasts. There may be adjustments required in some local plans. Under provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) plan amendments are triggered if some local response for consistency is needed when one of the four metropolitan 'sys _t~n~ plans is amended (airports, parks and open space, transportation or wastewater management). These amendments are required to bring the affec~ local plans into conformance with the amended system plan. Local plans are to be reviewed and updated as necessary at least once every ten years or by 2008. The Council will assess needs for possible changes in its administrative procedures and plan content guidelines as to how the MLPA is implemented. The objective is to make the comprehensive plan a more a flexible tool and one that is goal-oriented and tailored to the various types of communities (e.g., small communities, nn'al COmmunities, high growth communities, developed communities needing reinvestment and maintenance). The Council is looking for ways to assist local communities implement their local plans, to align investments and incentives to achieve regional development objectives, to support reinvestment~ and to protect regionally significant natural areas and conn~ greenways. How will the Natural Resource Inventory be used? The natural resource inventory is a multi-faceted effort to comprehensively integrate development and natural resources. The materials developed will inform the regional planning process through policy development for the Blueprint update and will be timber defined in the Environment Policy Plan. Additionally, guidance and'tools will be provided to local units of government to encourage implementation. The intent is to inventory natural features and provide leadership direction for their long-term management. Strategy for Completion: . An inventory will be conducted at the regional scale Of multiple natural and cultural resource features. Resource maps will be available for use by any interested partner (local government, agency, developer, etc.). This compiled information will provide the initial foundation for analysis of region-wide resource priority areas including habitat nodes and connecting corridors. The inventory will show aras that are currently regulated and therefore unavailable Blueprint 2030 Di~cu~ion Paper I - Working Draft 9.26.01 14 . , for development. Also it will describe areas where resource features may present inherent limits to development (e.g. groundwater recharge areas). This will be available by the end of December 2001. Sub-teams will provide the analysis and technical expertise in a variety of areas (e.g., soils, watersheds, and vegetation). This analysis will be used by the Council to identify regional priority areas, develop regional policy and provide a methodology for local units of government to use to define local priority areas. This will be completed by January 2002. A regional "green infrastructure" (system of habitat nodes and connecting corridors) will be defined and mapped for the use in defining the how and where forecasted growth should be guided. Resource policies will be developed and planning relationships examined. This will be completed in draft form by January 2002. , In the areas experiencing the greatest pressures of growth, financial assistance will be available for local units of government to identify resources at a local scale. Details of timing and process will be determined by June 2002. , Technical assistance will be provided through a partner-developed education program that will help communities interpret resource features and further understand the relationship of development activities on those resource features. Guidance will be provided on the applicability of implementation tools in each community's setting. This program is currently being developed; date of availability is undetermined at this time. Is the MUSA line going to be abandoned? No, there will always be an outer edge or line where sewer service and high levels of' transportation service are available. This is a physical fact as well as a fiscal necessity--the region and local government can't afford to carry the cost of having too much unused and unproductive infrastructure. Local governments have set in their plans a 2020 MUSA and its staging. The Council is committed to providing services to these mutually agreed to areas and to providing flexibility over time as circumstances change. The emphasis for regional infrastructure management and investment is being refocused on questions of how and where the region wants to grow and how to balance potentially conflicting objectives--for example how to take full advantage of'" existing public and private investments, address subregional market desires, and respect sensitive environmental resources. The concept of the region expanding in contiguous, concentric rings is maturing into more of a radial corridor concept. This would increase the development, expansion and reinvestment in centers of various sizes along corridors using two primary structural elements~the natural resources base and transit service--to help guide land uses. Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper I - Working Draft 9.26.01 15 For the various subregions, a joint regional/loc, al strategy will be to identify and support both (1) the centers and corridors that connect them and (2) the permanently protected green spaces (e.g. regional parks; rivers, lakes and streams; agricultural lands) and networks of greenways linking them (e.g. parkways, trails, conservation easements, planned and sensitively sited lower density/intensity developments). Overall, this means increased attention on: (a) linking transportation and land use (transit and highway corridors), (b) expanding the urban service area more along transp~on exxfidors (protecting natural areas and agricultmal lands), (c) providing regional wastewater services based on growth demands, transportation corridors, and natmal resourea/agricultural protection needs (e.g. supporting additional non-contiguous regional urban service areas similar to Stillwater-Oak Park Heights-Bayport and Hastings and, if current policy is changed, rural centers), and (d) pursuing reinvestment, infill and intensification inside the current urban services area. The net result of this more comprehensive strategy is to have.an adequate supply of land in a variety of settings~greenfield, infill and redevelopment. The Council will work with local government, builders; environmetttal interests, homing advocates on how a more flexible sta~ng policy should be carried out~ How is affordable housing going to be addressed? The Blueprint 2030 will lay out a 15amework and implementation strategy for a more systematic-approach to providing affordable housing that links housing to transportation, jobs, parks and open space. The magnitude of the affordable housing crisis and the limited subsidy dollars demand that the region move from a focus solely on housing subsidies and production of units to a more integrated, comprehensive approach. This systems approach will link funding with strategies to encourage the private sector to invest where there are regional investments. For example, the Blueprint 2030 will encourage affordable and mixed-income housing in centem with an emphasis in transit corridors. The Blueprint 2030 revisions will address the issue of continued and expanded affordable and life cycle housing goals and expectations for communities throughout the region. · Blueprint 2030 implementation will emphasize housing as a component of livable communities~places close to services, green spaces, employment and transit. Blueprint 2030 will include a framework for periodic revision of affordable housing goals for communities in the region since the Blueprint revision is on a completion schedule that likely precedes the receipt and analysis of 2000 census dab The census provides the most comprehensive set of information needed to determine Blueprint 2050 Discussion Paper ! -Workin8 Dratt 9.26.01 16 housing need and allocate local share of that need. Therefore, the Blueprint 2030 will at a minimum discuss the various factors and criteria to be used in determining local goal numbers. Once these goals are set they will be used for both the amendments, as needed, of the housing element of local comprehensive plans and for participation in Livable Community Act programs. These factors and criteria will be developed collaboratively with local government, affordable housing funders and housing advocates. What is ahead for the mml/a~culmral areas? The Council's Rural Issues Work Group has sponsored six rural issues workshops to gain further insights into the diversity and variety of challenges and issues facing the rural parts of the region and the solutions needed to address these issues. While the Work Group intends to revisit current policy, the focus of the workshops is on identifying potential tools and technical assistance needs. The Work Group will make its recommendations to the Council in December 2001. Some of these suggested solutions may be presented to the 2002 Minnesota Legislature and a larger number will be incorporated into the Blueprint 2030. Key topics being considered by the Work Group are: (a) Stronger, more effective agricultural protection measures (e.g., changes to the Agricultural Preserves program, transfer or purchase of development rights) (b) Steps to help rural centers grow, relieving development pressures on agriculture or rural areas and ways to help mml centers with limited growth plans/expectations maintain, replace infrastructure (e.g., financial, technical, and economic development assistance). (e) Maintaining rural "character" and the mml landscape by providing greater flexibility via performance standards for density of rural developments and more effective tools for guiding growth in the permanent rural area (e.g., measures to protect natural, cultural and agricultural resources, stronger performance standards for on-site sewer systems, levels of service for rural transportation facilities that supports rural/agricultural needs over those of commuters) (d) Greater coordination between the region and surrounding areas, since rural development and activity in the metropolitan area is strongly influenced by land use policy and development in the surrounding counties and state. How are the Smart Growth Twin Cities regional scenarios going to be used? A major set of activities has been undertaken by the Council with the support of the McKnight Foundation--the Smart Growth Twin Cities (SGTC) initiative--to engage citizens in designing the region. A consultant group, Calthorpe Associates, has been engaged to assist with the SGTC initiative. At the metropolitan-wide scale, ten regional scenario workshops were conducted in May and June to identify values and preferences regarding regional growth and development patterns and to help fashion region-wide land use strategies that more effectively take advantage of existing and planned transportation networks and that protect the environment. Bhteprint 2030 Discussion Paper I - Working Draft 9.26.01 17 During the fall of this year, Calthorpe Associates is analyzing the base maps from the workshops to identify common patterns. Also this fall several alternatives for 2020, including a basecase scenario based on the mosaic of local comprehensive plans, will be developed and tested for environmental and transpo~tion implications. In April 2002 the alternatives for 2020 and the impact analysis comparing the alternatives will be presented to the Council. A hybrid scenario will be developed as the conceptual framework for Blu~rint 2030's new growth strategy map. How do the Smart Growth Twin Cities Opportunity Sites relate to the Blueprint update? Six opportunity site projects, also pm't of the SGTC initiative, have been selected by the Council to demonstrate smart growth principles on the ground in the Twin Cities. The opporUmity sites range in size, development/reinvestment focus, and location across the region. Residents, business and property owners, and public officials are engaged in development planning workshops, and in evaluating and selecting alternatives. Designing implementation strategies will be part of the site planning. The lessons learned from these six sites will be incorporated in Blueprint 2030. · Four building blocks for building communities that work will be. incorporated into the Blueprint 2030 in the Livable Community Framework section: Design (a) (c) (d) for People · Provide mobility options: transit, walk, bike or drive. Use physical layout to ensure that walking, bicycling and using transit are safe and pleasant alternatives to driving. Design walkable streets with buildings fronting the street in ways that favor pedestrians as well as cars. Provide civic places, urban parks and s .quares for events and informal gatherings. Protect and Enhance Natural Resour~ Drain, filter and retain storm water in innovative ways that maximize use of (b) Maximize use of native trees and wildflOwers. (c) Tap natural resources to create community amenities---smch as restoration of buried creeks and wetlands. (d) Provide green spaces for recreation and views. Provide Housing Choices (a) Include single-family homes, condomininm.q and apartments in a variety of architectural styles and prices to meet the needs of people of all ages and incomes. Co) Mix different housing prices and styles in the same building or bloclc (c) Focus affordable housing near jobs. Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper i - Working Draft 9.26.01 18 Encoura eg~Mixed Uses (a) Locate housing, workplaces, shopping, schools, civic centers, parks and public facilities to create multipurpose destinations. (b) Cluster diverse, complementary uses within walking distance to allow people to stroll, shop, meet, greet and eat. (c) Connect rather than separate uses to allow functional relationships between them. What's "alignment"? The Metropolitan Council is responsible for planning and managing regional growth within the seven-county metropolitan area. As part of its duties, the Council operates the wastewater treatment system and the transit system, oversees the metropolitan airports systems, oversees and provides funding for the regional park system, and provides incentives to local communities through such programs the Livable Communities Act demonstration accounts, the TEA-21 program, and MetroEnvironmetal Partnership grants. Aligmnent refers to focusing resources and incentives across programs to help achieve regional goals. What is the "white paper" on regional growth? The Council in late 2000 and continuing into 2001 participated with a core group of organizations representing diverse viewpoints--homebuilders, environmental interests, and citiesmto discuss the regional growth and investment issues. "An Agenda for Regional Action" was developed in May 2001 to frame the dialogue for a new regional growth management accord. The white paper laid out a broad outline of actions that will now be refined and incorporated into an expanded discussion. The recommendations include: (a) Clarify at both the regional and local scales about how the balancing of protection of natural resources and development/redevelopment will be accomplished. (b) Ensure an adequate supply of serviced land to afford communities and builders/ developers more flexibility and locational choices in accommodating growth and building communities that work for citizens, business and industry. (e) Take advantage of transportation investments as a shaper of development and to increase transportation choices. (d) Make substantial, new regional investments and incentives to ensure that growth can be efficiently accommodated and to encourage redevelopment and in_fill. Blueprint 2030 Discussion Paper 1 - Working Draft 9.26.01 19 CTrYOF December 4, 2001 Dennis and Sue Scheppmann 6740 Lakeway Drive Excelsior, MN 55317 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Scheppm~n: Thank you for your fax regarding the city's property tax levy. It gives me an opportunity to explain why the taxes are in~g at such a high rate and why their effect on overall property taxes will be ~. The City of Chanhassen is a growing community. The estimated number of households went up from 6,541 to 6,914, an increase of 5.7%. All those new residents want the same city services provided to them as are provided to existing residents, so our expenses go up on a proportional basis. Our expenditures for personnel, goods and services to serve that population are estimated to incre~e by 6.4% for next year, which includes a modest inflation factor. There are no new programs or services included in the 2002 budgeC Just how does that translate into a 28% tax increase? 'Well, it doesn't. The original proposal, adopted by the City Council in September, was for the tax levy to increase by 24%. This seem_ ~ exorbitant until you look at three factors. Previous city councils set a schedule for repaying several bond issues tlaat require tax support. Those issues were scheduled to come due as TIF districts were added back to the tax rolls. We had a scheduled increase of almost $800,000 (46%) in. our debt service tax levy. Through creative use of fund balances, the city council has called some of this debt early in order to decrease that .expense. We will. reduce that $800,000 by at least $170,000 for next year. Two TIN. districts are being added back to the tax roles for next year and that additional property value will offset the increa~se. The city council last year reduced the tax levy by $200,000 on a one-time basis because the general fund balance exceeded the amount set by council policy. Unfortunately, they did not cut exp'~es by $200,000. That means in order to match revenues and expenditures this year requires a $200,000 in~e in the general fund tax levy. The effect of this transaction is that our reserve funds are $200,000 lower than they would be and this year's taxpayers paid $200,000 less than was otherwise required. The third factor, and most important, is the dramatic change in state tax law. The legislature decided to pay for the basic operations of every school district in the state and used city aid programs to do it. We were scheduled to receive over $1,000,000 in Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (I-IACA) in 2002. The legislature took that funding away from us and a lot of other cities in order to fully fund the basic school aid formula. The legislature intended for city taxes to rise dramatically this year. They want local citizens to see the full cost of running both cities and counties on their property tax bills. The net effect of these changes are that the current proposal before the City Council is to increase the total property tax levy from $6,307,375 to $7,661,566, and increase of 21.5%. All of the increase in city tax levies is offset by reductions in the school tax levy. The estimate of total property taxes paid by an existing property shows reductions ranging from 6% to 26% depending on the value of the home. The legislature's plan worked. Property taxes across the state are substantially lower than they would have been without the law changes. The tax law changes were justified, even though it causes an increase in city tax levies for next year. Cities have been good stewards'of the public's money and welcome the chance to show their accountability. Sincerely, Finance Director C~ City Council Todd Gerhardt, City Manager m~ Z Z IA~ CD CD z z ~0 CiD ,r'- CiD ~ CD t'~ CD :2: 0 Z Z Z