Loading...
CC 2004 05 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen Melissa Gilman Dan Keefe 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Villager Planning Commission Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody that's here this evening and for those watching at home as well. Appreciate you joining us. Are there any additions or modifications to the agenda as presented, or distributed with the packet? If not the agenda will stand as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 10, 2004 -City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 10, 2004 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 5, 2004 -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated April 27, 2004 b. Accept $1,000 Donation from the Chan-o-laires Chorus Group for the Senior Center. Resolution #2004-33: Award of Bid for Furniture, Lower Level Remodeling Project. e. Approval of Change Orders, Lower Level Remodeling Project. City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Fourth of July Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club. g. Approval of Purchase Agreement with Plowshares, Inc. Approval of Amendment to Development Contract for Burlwood, Project No. 03- 10. Approval of Comment Letter for TH 41 Over the Minnesota River Scoping Document/Draft Scoping Decision Document, PW067E2. Resolution #2004-34: Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment to Re-Guide Property from Public/Semi-Public and Residential-Medium Density (Net Density Range 4-8 units/acre) to Residential-Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2-4 units/acre); Located South of Minnewashta Regional Park Between Highway 41 and Lake Minnewashta (Ches Mar Area). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Co APPROVAL OF PLANS, BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, HIGHWAY 41 TRAIL CONNECTION PROJECT. Councilman Ayotte: I'd just like to make a point that on occasion we'll see, not this particular vendor but a consistent number of vendors that come up more than once so there appears to be that we're moving towards a sole source, smaller vendor base. In some cases I'm wondering whether or not the control assurance measures are in place for qualifying vendors so we do not have the tendency for low balling, as an example could someone from staff address that please. Paul Oehme: Thank you. We are currently again working with our consultants and the pool that we currently have here on staff, and again we look at bids, RFP's as they come in on a project by project basis and try to ensure that we are getting the best dollar, best bang for our buck more or less. So we have on occasion not awarded contracts to low consultant bidders based upon maybe their work experience or our comfort level with maybe them not performing in the past, so we do look at them on a case by case basis so that's what we're trying to achieve is making sure that we, you know what we're getting paid for. Getting what we paid for. Councilman Ayotte: Alright. I would ask and possibly Todd, you and I have talked about this in the past. If we could consider the establishment of qualifying a vendor base so that a vendor base, a vendor may know that when they do not adhere to certain performance requirements, that they may fall off of that vendor base. So we could still develop the relationships with vendors but that we look at a qualification. Is that a reasonable thing to ask? 2 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We look at price, experience that we've had with the vendor. How they performed. There's been several projects that we've not selected a certain engineer planner because they haven't had the experience that we expected on that project, so we take that into account with every project that we do. And we'll continue to do that. Councilman Ayotte: The reason why ! pulled this particular vendor is because we have had issues in the past. ! suspect that there's resolution coming soon. Todd Gerhardt: With this one, the engineer, we had a bad experience working on a storm water project. We've had excellent experience in most of the trail systems that we've worked with them on. There was one segment where we did have a problem but Todd, you can correct me if I'm wrong but it was kind of a joint effort between a planning professional that we used and the engineering firm and who's role and responsibility it truly was in meeting the specs for that project. So in the past ! think we've had a good experience with this engineering firm on trail projects. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So it was an anomaly sort of?. Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion or is there a motion to approve? Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2004-35: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the plans, budget amendment and authorize advertising for bids, Highway 41 trail connection project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: One of the items that we just approved on our consent agenda was the acceptance, the formal acceptance of a donation of $1,000 from the Chan-o-laires Chorus Group to the City in particular for the Chanhassen Senior Center. Jackie Kurvers who's a member of the group is here this evening. I'd like to ask her to come up and I'll come down and meet you in the center and we'll accept the check. Jackie Kurvers: Mayor Furlong and fellow council members. My name is Jackie Kurvers and I'm a member of the Chan-o-laires chorus group and this is our director, Marion Peck and on behalf of the Chan-o-laires and Marion we'd like to present you with $1,000 for anything that can be used for the new senior center. Okay, you bet. Thank you. City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Resident: I'm curious, will I have an opportunity to speak? We're here about the special assessment hearing. Will we get an opportunity to speak at that time? Mayor Furlong: Yes sir. Resident: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Tonight you're going to be addressing two different code ordinance changes, and I'm looking at the letter from Bob Generous to Todd that was in your packet. ! know one of the reasons stated in here, in the background is to make the code easier to understand and to use by addressing problems in the code. And about 2 or 3 years ago some of you were on council then. Some of you weren't. You addressed something similar for a private street. Private street. You have identified, have a right-of-way. Have a certain pavement width. Have standards in terms of how they must be constructed. They must be approved by an engineer. All these standards you put in place, yet on page 2 of this report, under Section 55 in the last paragraph, in the second to the last sentence it says the attorney also stated that the 20 foot setback from right-of-way line of town road, public streets or other roads or streets not classified does not include private streets which are merely driveways serving more than one home. Private streets are not merely driveways serving more than one home. There is a e-mail correspondence that Jan will hand out that says the DNR considered the private street a street not classified. That's really, I'm bringing this up because it's really important when you're considering the setback issue pertinent to private streets and the code you're addressing. It's one of the ambiguities still present and ! don't believe this document really clears it up and ! hope you will ask pertinent questions relative to the changes that the Paulsen's also have identified in the code. ! thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And staff, if we can just be sure to address that issue when we bring that up later in our meeting. Janet Paulsen: I'm Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive and I would like to address as a council several issues on Chapter 18 and Chapter 20. First of all on Chapter 20, Section 20-43. It has to do with lakeshore notification of any development that's going on in a lakeshore lot. Currently anyone within 500 feet and just a regular lot has to be notified and on lakeshore if it's within 500 feet and all people who live on the lake. If we change this code from that, then the people that live on the lake, they would only be getting half the notification. It's a 500 foot circumference of a lake lot. Half of that or more is water. They should be notified all around the lake. It's not onerous to have to do that. Anyone who is developing on a lakeshore has plenty of money to pay for notification of people living on the lakeshore. It may be troublesome but it's worthwhile and it's letting the citizens know what's going on. The second one is Section 481, having to do with setbacks from private streets. Currently our code states that it has to be 20 feet from streets not classified. According to the DNR that includes private streets. If we 4 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 take out the word additional, which is what is proposed, then it will no longer be the exact DNR wording and I cannot refer to the DNR as stating that it has to be from a private street. So if you make this change you're reducing standards. I would like you to consider why it's not necessary to have a setback for a structure 20 feet from the right-of- way line of a private street. Think about the purpose of this law. It's to provide for runoff. The closer the homes are together and the more runoff there is, goes into the street and down into the lake. We want to have more space for the runoff to be absorbed by the ground. And that's the purpose of the law. So let's not defeat the purpose. Let's maintain our standards. And then the other issue is on Chapter 18 that you were discussing previous to this meeting about calculating tree removal area. Well 60 by 60 isn't really meant to be calculating tree removal area. It's a design standard. So if we're not going to have a 60 by 60 and we're only requiring 15,000 square feet for a lot, what are the lot building area dimensions that are required? Is it along their lot? What are we requiring for dimensions? Width and length. It hasn't been addressed and there's no standard set up now for RSF at all, unless you're on a wetland or a PUD. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And Kate if we can be sure to address those, bring those up as well. We're still within visitor presentations, if anyone else would like to come forward and address it to the council on any matters, this would be an opportunity to do that. If there is no one then I'll close visitor presentations and we'll move on with our agenda. Sir? Yes sir, this would be your time. Michael Kohane: Just two issues very quickly. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address at the mic. Thanks. Michael Kohane: Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Just two quick issues. We appealed a variance on a property at 795 Ponderosa Drive in Chanhassen which was a small lot and the community and my wife were concerned about the future. There are a number of small lots in the Carver Beach area so we just want to draw your attention to two things. What can the City do to sort of help preserve some of these lots? They're treed lots and they're usually, I suppose less than about 9,000 square feet. And what can the community do? Can we do something through a housing association? Can we do something through other issues so we wondered if the City could look at maybe typing up some zoning laws whereby the old grandfathering idea where you looked around the neighborhood and saw that this was a small lot and the others were comparable and it's okay to build, is there something that the city can do legally with that or the other issue we had was that we can do something through the community, through the housing association or establish a housing association so that's the two issues. Is it possible for the city to look at maybe redoing the zoning laws or something that could preserve the smaller, what we think are non-buildable lots in that area. I don't know exactly where they all are. We'd have to look into that, but I just bring that up for the city to look at and then we can look at that from a community point of view through the housing association. That's the first issue. The second one's a brief one in relation to today's paper. Changes in ATV use around the state seems to be that they can now use wetlands with reasonable use concept. We just would like the city to address, if possible, City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 the Carver Beach area. This last year there was significant use of ATV's along the trails and even down the hillside just at the Lotus trail area along the Carver Beach, and as a local resident ! was a bit concerned with that. ! don't know where you stand as a city with respect to ATV use in city parks. If the park is a city park. So the only other, that's our second issue. We'd like the city to maybe look at some possibility of restricting use or maybe education or something like that with respect to the ATV's. This last winter certainly they would use downhill sides. There's significant rutting on the hillsides and with the rain that you've seen in the last few days, there's runoff directly into the lake. And the same with the snowmobiles. It's only a small park that runs Lotus Trail and ! would just like clarification on that in the future. As for the next winter. Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess with regard to your first issue, I don't know if Kate or Todd, either of you want to address that. ! mean ! think zoning and buildable lots are something that. Kate Aanenson: Sure, ! can address the first one. As far as lots of records that are existing lots, there is some obligation to provide, to make them buildable. But ! think the second component that was addressed as far as preservation. We certainly can identify some of those lots and if those neighbors want to get together and look at some. Other communities have done trusts where they've actually tried to buy property and we can certainly go that direction, but as far as telling somebody, by changing the rules and making it more restrictive, that has some other legal implications but ! think the other one, it certainly has some merit and we'd be happy to work with the neighbors and kind of see what we can do there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Mr. Hoffman, do you want to address the issue with regard to motorized vehicles, ATV's in our parks and trails? Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. ! believe we had a phone conversation with you this winter talking about the ATV's and the snowmobiles within the park. Motorized vehicles are not permitted within the city's park system and so it comes down to an enforcement issue and we did dispatch deputies on a couple of occasions and believe either the deputies or some neighbors made contact with the homeowner and the occupants of that dwelling that were conducting those activities, and so it was one or two individuals riding their ATV's up and down that park shore and so it's again a continued enforcement. It's not currently wide spread. Snowmobiles are harder to deal with because they come onto the lake and off the lake in a variety of the locations and the damage which occurs is just random and it's difficult to track. As our community becomes more and more urbanized, these activities tend to soften but again, or go down, lessen but lake area when you have frozen surface you tend to get that activity so it comes down to an enforcement issue and we did respond at the time of the calls. City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council through visitor presentations this evening? If not we'll close visitor presentations and move on. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATES. Sgt. Jim Olson: Hello. I'd like to introduce Deputy Mike Stultz to the City Council this evening. Deputy Stultz started with the Carver County Sheriff's office in 2000 and has worked in Chanhassen for approximately the past 3 lA years. Before coming to Carver County Mike worked in Clara City for approximately 2 lA years. Mike is a field training officer. He trains new deputies. He's also involved with the Carver County Sheriff's Emergency Response Team, and is a training officer with them as well. Mike's also with the National Guard and has been with the National Guard since 1994 and is a Sergeant with them. Mike was actually ready to be deployed to go overseas a few months ago and during one of our sheriff emergency response team training sessions he hurt his knee pretty bad and ended up not being able to go. But Mike is a very knowledgeable and consistent officer and does a very good job for us and I'll let Mike say a few words here. Mike Stultz: Thanks Jim. Mayor Furlong, members of the council, appreciate being here today. As Sergeant Olson said, I've been working in Chanhassen for 3 lA years, and that's by choice. I've had other opportunities to work in other areas of the county but ! keep wanting to come back here. This is a very fun place to work. It's enjoyable, both personally and professionally. ! like the type of law enforcement that is required here. It's been a very big help with members of the council working through Sergeant Olson and Beth Hoiseth. I've noticed in the past year a definite improvement in the flow of information down to the patrol deputies in locating troubled areas, especially in relation to the traffic issues. This is a growing community. Everybody knows that traffic is probably the big factor around here and collectively, myself and the other members of the office are doing what we can to improve that situation. But ! thank the members of the council and the mayor for this opportunity to stand before you and thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. We appreciate your efforts and your years of service and glad that you're here so thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks for serving in the Guard too. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Mike Stultz: Thank you. Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you very much. I'm happy to say that it's been a relatively quiet past month and that certainly is a good thing. Deputies have been concentrating as much as they can on traffic issues in the city and traffic continues to be one of the probably number one complaint that ! receive throughout the month and year. In my packet I've got the sheriff' s office area report for the month of April, the area citation list and a copy of your crime alert that Beth Hoiseth put out. A community service officer report that is City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 in there, and ! also have a couple of other miscellaneous items for the council. For the month, total calls for service were up for 82, or up by 82 compared to last year and for the year they're up by 257 compared to last year. DWI's were up from 12 to 19 for the month of April, and for the year they're up from 28 to 64 so they've really been doing a good job with DWI's in the city. Damage to property calls are down, or were down for the month of April. 28 last year to 18 this year, and for the year they're down from 97 to 75. Thefts were up slightly for the month. ! think they're up by 1 compared to last year and they're down slightly for the year so that certainly is a good thing. If you take a look at traffic stops, traffic stops were up from 233 last year to 292 this year, and for the year they're up from 783 to 892. And then citations for the month of April were 182 and that compares to 158 last year. And year to date for this year is 744 and that compares to 697 for last year. So they are writing quite a few more citations this year and last year and was actually up substantially over 2002. Any questions at all on the monthly numbers? Councilman Ayotte: It didn't specify that there was a garage door opener taken. You know Edina had a lot of theft of breaking in the cars and taking the garage door openers and going to the garages and ripping off the garages. Have you had any of that flow over to us, even though that monthly report didn't say garage door openers, is there any information associated with car break-in's and taking garage door openers and going into the houses and so forth. Any of that? Sgt. Jim Olson: No. Not that ! have read in the reports recently in the past month or recently at all. That certainly is an issue, and people should take, and it's real easy to leave your garage door opener on your visor or wherever you've got it but that does allow access into your home. Many people close their garage door. Leave the door leading into their house open inside that garage, so if they can access that garage, they can get into your house and that certainly is an important issue for people to remember with that. Anything else on the monthly numbers? I've got a couple other things I'd like to go over though. Okay. ! want to talk about the electric scooters briefly. Some of them are battery powered, electric, gas powered. They cannot be driven on the streets, the trails or the sidewalks in the city of Chanhassen. Your driveways, you can certainly drive them on but in other areas you cannot use them and parents need to be aware of that as well as the kids and talk to their kids about that. And boy there's a lot of retail establishments that are selling those but it's an important thing to remember. You cannot drive them on the streets. Internet fraud. ! want to talk briefly about internet fraud. ! took a report from a city resident, oh ! think it was last week or the week before. He received an e-mail from a company that he thought was Ebay and it, ! saw a copy of the e-mail. It looked legitimate. He responded to the e-mail and in the e-mail it asked him for credit card information as his account was about to expire. ! don't remember the exact wording on it but it asked him for his credit card information. He sent it over the internet to this company that said that they were Ebay and shortly after that he received a call from his charge card company wondering about some large transactions that were on his charge card. Needless to say it was not Ebay. He contacted Ebay after he got the call and that was not a legitimate e-mail that was sent out. You know they come up with what looks like an official looking web page from Ebay but when you send it, it goes actually somewhere else and he was a victim of that. ! also saw another one that an employee City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 from Chanhassen received earlier and this was from Pay Pal, which is associated somehow or another with Ebay. The employee had some real big questions about this and ! agreed with them and they contacted Pay Pal and that actually turned out to be a legitimate, it was from Pay Pal. They didn't ask for a charge card but they asked for a little bit of information from the charge card. It's important to check, ! mean if you get anything like that, to make sure that you check with the company through another avenue besides the e-mail they sent you to find out if that was a legitimate e-mail or not. That's very important. There has been a rash of that, not only around here but also nation wide. ! know Beth has put some out crime alerts and some different things in the paper as well about that so ! just want to warn residents to be very careful about sending any personal information over the internet. Neighborhood Watch. We had a Neighborhood Watch meeting with Longacres division last week. There are some people there that are in the process of starting a Neighborhood Watch. If you'd like more information about that, please contact Beth Hoiseth, Chanhassen's Crime Prevention Officer and her number is 952-227-1610. And that is all from me. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson. Back to the scooter thing. Clarification. What's the difference between that and a bicycle? Sgt. Jim Olson: It is gas, a bicycle is self propelled. A scooter, electric scooter, battery operated scooter, it is not self propelled. Councilman Lundquist: So essentially just to clarify your comment, it's basically driveway only? Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct. Yes. Councilman Lundquist: No streets, no sidewalks, no trails. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. And ! had talked to the city attorney about this issue also and he also does say that that is, it is under current state statute that's classified as a motor vehicle so it needs to be licensed and have all sorts of other things. You can't drive them on the streets. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Sergeant Olson, one other thing and it's something that occurred as ! was preparing for the council meeting. And Ms. Aanenson, something for you too. At the Planning Commission meeting, or reading through the notes with one of the items that we're actually going to talk about tonight, one of the residents came up and talked about traffic problems on a particular street. This happened to be Coulter, which ! think has been an issue before, but is there a mechanism or can we make a habit of, ! think if somebody comes forward at a council meeting, it's pretty easy to get that information back to you. But if it comes forward at a Planning Commission meeting, can we try to City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 make sure that Sergeant Olson hears about that and whether we get the speed trailer out there or put it in our list of special assignments, because even though it's not at the council meetings, if we can try to... let's do that. Sgt. Jim Olson: Absolutely, and if people do have concerns, they can certainly contact either myself or Beth Hoiseth. Again her number is 952-227-1610 or my number is 952- 227-1601. They can certainly give us a call direct also or anyone, Kate or Todd in the park commission or they certainly can contact us. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you sir. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you, have a nice evening. Mayor Furlong: We also received a report this evening from Chief Geske with the Fire Department. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. I guess first of all I'd like to talk about last month's council update. I wasn't here of course at last month's council meeting. I was in Indianapolis at the Fire Department Instructor's Conference. Last month I talked about an ISO audit that we were doing in the city here and been done on our fire department, and about a week and a half ago Channel 9 News did a story on the Brooklyn Park Fire Department Chief being on administrative leave due to possible inappropriate activities during the ISO audit that they had done 2 years ago so I don't know if any of you had saw that or any of the residents but I did want to mention that story brought up questions that could be going on in your own city and it did not go on during our audit. In Brooklyn Park there were allegations that they had used a truck that they had planned on getting rid of to get points for the ISO audit. They also had moved, allegations that they had moved equipment from station to station during the audit so that they could get more points for equipment that they had, but I want to assure you that when the audit went on here at our city, we just accounted for the equipment that we had and we didn't borrow any from any other fire departments for that so I just wanted to cover that. You may have noticed our marquee sign out in front of our fire department with, it had a welcome home Gordo posted on it, and that was one of our fire fighters, Gordon Ross had just returned from 9 months of active duty in Afghanistan so Gordon's a military policeman with the Army Reserve and we're just happy to have him safe, his safe return back to the fire department for us so wanted to mention that. Yesterday we co-hosted a pancake breakfast with the Chanhassen Lions. There was a smaller turn out. Mayor, you were there and I saw the council members there but it's a nice opportunity I guess for a couple years ago the Lions came to us for additional help and a place to host it and I guess it's just a nice opportunity for us to meet the public, along with our open house that we have in the fall. Most of the time we meet the public's a lot unhappier times that we get a chance to meet them so it was a good opportunity for a lot of fire fighters to meet with the public there so. Call numbers are down as I mentioned there. We're at 226 calls for the year as of May 13th, and that's down 74 from the 300 for the same time, 2003 so that's good. I think any time we can keep those numbers down. We did have mention 10 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 that we have been busy responding for mutual aid. Last Saturday night we also had a fire that we responded to in Eden Prairie off of Dell Road for a house fire so that's about it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions. I'll just say I'm glad you mentioned the pancake breakfast yesterday. It was a lot of fun ! know and a good value, especially for large groups so ! would encourage anybody to go, and most importantly it's good to see, and I'd like to say thank you and please pass this along to the other members of the department that not only are they giving of their time to be part of the department but they're giving back and working with the Lions in this case and giving back to the community so we appreciate that. So thank you. Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR 2004 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 04-02. Public Present: Name Address Jack Atkins Paul Eidem Brian Nustad Gene O'Brien 220 West 78th Street 7727 Frontier Trail 7791 Erie Avenue Chapel Hill Academy Mayor Furlong: We'll move on now to the next item. We'll move into public hearings. We have a hearing tonight, public hearing tonight for special assessment of the 2004 MSA street improvement projects. We'll also be considering award of bids under the next item so there may be some questions if it's appropriate we can address it at the same time here if that's okay. But let's move in with item number 3 and if some of the questions from 4 come in at this point, for clarification purposes, if that's okay with staff. Paul Oehme: Sure. That's fine, thanks. Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Again this item is to consider the adoption of assessment roll for the 2004 MSA street improvement project. At the September 22, 2003 council meeting, just for historical reference, a public hearing was held and the council adopted the resolution approving the feasibility report from the area assessment roll and approval of preparation of plans and specifications for this project. And one other note, on February 24th of this year an open house was held for the residents to again make comments on this project before the project was let out for bid. On April 26th of this year bids were received for this project and the assessments from the preliminary assessment roll were adjusted based upon these bids. Notifications to all the property owners for the improvements and to be assessed have been mailed and were notified of tonight's meeting. The project itself is shown on this sheet here. Again it's a street rehabilitation project. It's more or less a mill and overlay, what we call. It's shown here in the red and the construction limits are from along 78th Street from Market Boulevard out to Trunk Highway 101 and 79th Street from 11 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Market Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard. And we're also considering Market Boulevard from 78th Street down to Trunk Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard from 78th Street to Trunk Highway 5 as well. So these improvements again are, it's a resurfacing project and what staff is considering is to mill out the, approximately 2 inches of the existing asphalt and repave it with new wear surface. Our pavement management surveys that we've taken care of in the past indicate these streets are in need of resurfacing at this time and the project as proposed will hopefully lengthen the life expectancy of these streets between 5 and 10 years. In conjunction with the project we are also considering spot repairs to the sidewalks, concrete curb and gutter and we are also looking at improving the storm sewer, catch basins and storm sewer lines on 79th Street, more or less over by Market Boulevard. Another item that we are considering is the improvements at the railroad crossings and Market Boulevard and at Great Plains Boulevard. That was not in the original bid. That will be handled through the railroad contract. The funding for the project is shown on this sheet and again the assessments that were proposed are from the bids received and indirect costs associated with the project. Assessments are estimated, or are at $327,329.07. We are also looking at tapping into the state fund. Turn back funds for, this used to be 101. Trunk Highway 101 so the state has budgeted $207,000 for that, and we also are looking at our state aid account. Municipal state aid account and we are looking at an estimated amount of $284,003.94 for that. From that fund. In total, the total project cost as stated are $818,324.00. Of that the assessments were again based on benefiting property owners and were calculated on an area basis. And for commercial properties, we are looking at a $6,994.23 assessment per acre to the benefiting property owners and then for residential area, acreage we are at $3,916.17 for the residential properties along this project area. The length of the assessments, we are proposing an 8 year assessment at 6 percent interest, and the completion date of the assessment process, if everything would be approved tonight would be July 26th, 2004. The property owners may choose to pay off this assessment earlier than that prior to the July 26th date without interest. The county auditor would certify the assessments on or about the first of November, and the assessments would be payable in 2005. Property owners here that wish to contest their assessment should, we should give the city notification on or prior to this public hearing and to date ! just have received 2 assessment objections for this project. With that said ! stand for questions and ! would recommend that the public hearing be opened at this time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff?. Councilman Ayotte: Please. Under the scope of work under additional comments, are all of those points, the 2 inches of bituminous paving and overlay and so forth, removal and preparing curb gutter sections and storm sewer improvements along 79th, are all of these being paid by the assessment and the other sources of funding that you'd identified, or are there other sources of funding that are being made available to cover them? Paul Oehme: No, it's all through assessments. Trunk Highway state aid turn back and our state aid account. 12 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And the other point, we had discussed at a point, and ! don't recollect specifically but we had indicated the impact on cost to wait. Do you recall what that was by chance? ! mean if we were to, if there was further degradation ! thought that we had talked about some numbers of how bad it could be. Does anyone? Todd Gerhardt: Oh, if we waited how much would you see these property owners paying if it had to go to a total reconstruct versus. Paul Oehme: Yeah, under the state or our city practice currently, ! mean for typical reconstruction project we're estimating, ! would estimate at least probably 4 or 5 times as much as this project. The street reconstruction project that we're considering for this year, that would, ! think it's coming forward next month is you know between $6,000 and $7,000 we're estimating right now so, for just street reconstruction so it is a significant amount of money more than what we are talking about here. Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification. The 6,000 or 7,000 that you just mentioned, that's not a per acre cost is it? Paul Oehme: No, that's a per lot cost. Or per parcel. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, so let's re-state it so people understand that you have about a 500 to 600 percent increase if degradation would be allowed to occur and we would have to reconstruct the road. Paul Oehme: Correct. If property regular maintenance were not implemented and we're just fixing the potholes and minimal maintenance is involved, yes you would be looking at a significant amount more of assessment under the city' s practice currently. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the staff at this time? Okay. If not, just for clarification, if somebody wishes to object, they need to file a written objection or while speaking at the public hearing is certainly input for the council for it's decision, but they also need to provide a written objection if they're here this evening and give it to yourself or city manager or someone so they can be on record, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Thank you, yes it is. Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Kelly, if you could just. Tom Scott: Scott. Mayor Furlong: Oh Mr. Scott, I'm sorry. Name, address, property address. What do they need for the objection to count? 13 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Tom Scott: Yeah, to be very simple. Just that they object and identify who they are. That will suffice at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. If there are no other questions, ! will open up the public hearing and invite people that wish to comment on this issue to please come forward. This would be your time. Jack Atkins: We have our written objections. ! have one for Ryan Gakes there and for Lyle Buschkowsky and for myself. Mayor Furlong: Okay, if you could state your name and address too please. Jack Atkins: Okay, John Atkins. I go by Jack. And with my wife Paula we live at 220 West 78th Street. Since 1987. ! had a couple of questions also that maybe could be addressed for myself but as ! recall West 78th Street in front of our house, could we have that map up there. ! need visual aids. Okay, so we live right here on the corner of Erie and West 78th Street. And my recollection is that 1973 this road was completely replaced from this intersection to here when they realigned it. When they moved 101. In 1993. I'm sorry, in 1993. The rest of this was all done back in the mid 80's sometime and ! walked our road and there, ! could not find a single pothole that's ever been filled. There's a crack in the road every several hundred feet straight across the road that's been filled with that thick tar stuff but there's no degradation or cracking of the road whatsoever. In comparison the rest of these roads are in significantly worst condition and so that's my first objection is that they're repairing a road that's in perfect condition. Now ! understand that it might cost more to do it later, okay but if you walk the rest of the roads in Chanhassen. You walk Laredo. You walk Frontier. Santa Vera. All of the roads are in much worst condition than our road so, excuse me. So I'm wondering why we're being forced to pay to uphold a street standard that's higher than everybody else's street standard. And especially since we don't consider it our street. We live on Erie. Our address is on West 78th Street but we're not a beneficiary of that street. The City is. It's a major artery way into the city of Chanhassen and there's thousands of cars coming in on that road weekly. ! could use a drink of water here but. So that's the other point is we're not the beneficiaries of that road. It's actually a huge impact on our quality of life along that road and I'm sure all of my neighbors will attest to that as well. We can't pull out onto these roads. We end up driving back roads because the traffic's so bad between 4:00 and 6:00 and 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. People that are turning onto Erie when they're eastbound here, turning onto our street, they'll see cars. Councilman Ayotte: Could you, cameraman's not, do it again. Jack Atkins: Yes. When people are eastbound on this road, they'll see traffic coming here and they're going to turn onto northbound Erie and to beat the traffic they'll cut this wide and actually come and clip our corner as they turn northbound at 30 miles per hour. So ! mean the entire road is a detriment to our quality of life. And now we're being asked to pay apparently so that all these people can, it's really a, we don't consider it a road. We consider it a landing strip for people who are coming in to do business in 14 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Chanhassen and that's what the way it's treated, so I guess that's the root of my objections. And I'd like those addressed if possible. And the other thing was when this road was completely redone just 10 years ago, the city and the state paid all the costs. So we thought that there was a precedent there that they were going to maintain that road because we certainly didn't want it improved. The better it is, the faster the traffic is. We'd prefer that it was dead ended right here so everybody would take State Highway 5 into town, okay. And let's see. ! think that's most of my points. And who gets these? Thank you. Any questions for me? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Ayotte: ! have it for staff. ! just need to restate, whoever can answer the question. That portion of the road that was redone in '93 is what percentage of the total project? Jason Sprague: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Jason Sprague. I'm a project manager for SEH on this particular project tonight. ! believe the portion of roadway that the gentleman is referring to is probably about, of the total project length, my guess is, if you include between Great Plains and Trunk Highway 101, probably 20 to 25 percent. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. Of West 78th? Jason Sprague: Of the total project. 79th, 78th, Great Plains and Market Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: It's about 25 percent of the total project. Jason Sprague: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Sorry. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And with regard to typical life line for a road, in terms of life cycle. Jason Sprague: Right. Again, streets wear out and the life cycle cost again of a street such as this, you're looking at between 10 and 15 years before you want to do an overlay again. This section of the street, yeah it may not have as many potholes and is not maybe as many alligatored areas but from a cost efficiency standpoint, where we have a large project going on just adjacent to this, it makes sense to get in there and do the work at this time, and also again we have funds available to us to help us out with Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street from the state in terms of their turn back funds so we wanted to utilize those before we give them up. 15 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: What was the, for the 75 percent delta, what's the age of the 75 percent delta. How old was it before it was. Jason Sprague: Those segments vary. I guess you're looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 years depending on whether the 79, Market or Great Plains. There's different sections built in different times. I recall seeing the as built drawings. Mid 80's, late 80's on most of them. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, so it's safe to say at this particular 20-25 percent segment is probably 5 to 8 years newer than the balance of the. Jason Sprague: Yes. If memory serves I think it was done when MnDot turned that portion back and that's typically a MnDot process that they will upgrade the facility prior to turn them back to a county or municipality so that was probably done by MnDot and paid for by MnDot. Councilman Ayotte: Is any portion of the storm sewer activity in the area that this gentleman lives? Jason Sprague: There is a small storm sewer improvements right near 101. There we go. There's an additional catch basin we'll be putting in. Still get some drainage at the intersection of 101 so we don't have water running across the intersection but other than that, not on 78th, no. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Jack Atkins: Would somebody address why it's being approved when other roads are much older and in worst condition than it. ! mean if it makes sense to do it now, why don't we do Frontier is in dreadful condition and Laredo are. Those people are not being assessed right now and ! am for a perfectly good road that ! don't want. I'd rather it ended so would somebody address why that inequity exists and why that's being proposed of myself and my neighbors. Paul Oehme: Again Laredo is not in the project area. Huron. Some of those other streets up in that area too are in significantly degraded state at this time. Obviously we don't, these streets are not MSA segments and as ! showed you in the cost assessment. Cost breakdown for this project. We have funds available for these projects. It makes sense to do the project at this time just due to the fact what again the life cycle cost of the street. We want to keep them up in as good a shape as we can because that improves or lengthens the longevity of the streets. Laredo, some of those other streets in that area, they are not MSA street segments. We do not have funds available, or at this time for those streets. We are looking at streets in the future. Laredo is one of them to...but in terms of funding, they have not been identified at this time. Jack Atkins: Could you explain to me how... 16 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Sir? We'll try to keep, we got your comments. ! think we'll ask some questions if we can. I'm sorry, go ahead. Councilman Ayotte: I don't know if I understood you Paul. So are you saying there are not funds available for other projects at this point from outside agents. There are funds available at this point for this project and that's the reason why we're looking at this project even though degradation on some of the other roads may be greater. Paul Oehme: That's correct. ! mean we're looking at a total reconstruction for those streets that the gentleman had just identified. It would have to be totally 100 percent city funded plus assessments as well. Councilman Ayotte: So it's safe to say that the roads that need to be reconstructed will be at a 500 to 600 percent greater assessment than this road? Paul Oehme: Correct. ! mean we're looking at again a total reconstruction. Our typical city practice has been to assess a large portion of that 40 percent to the benefiting property owners on those reconstruction areas, and the other portion would be at city cost. City debt basically would pay for the rest of those, the portion of this project. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions right now. I guess I have one, if I may with regard to, and just so ! understand correctly what you're saying. You're saying that there's a potential that we could lose some funding if we don't do it now. Could you clarify that so ! understand it please. Paul Oehme: Yeah, sure. For state turn back funds, they are, they come available, they have programmed over a 20 year cycle. We, the state has identified this money to be spent right now so if we don't use it now, we could end up losing it in the future. It's not to say we can't postpone the project but there are other projects behind us that would love to take our money and use it for other projects so the state's funds as you all know, is very tight at this time and there are a lot of street projects that other communities would like to do. Mayor Furlong: And are those funds specific to this section of the project or would they be applicable to the remaining 75 percent of the project? Paul Oehme: No, they're only applicable to, well West 78th Street and ! believe Great Plains Boulevard. Those two. Same as the streets are, can be used for state aid turn back funds. Mayor Furlong: And at the time that it was turned back, and if ! understood correctly they probably didn't overlay at that point. That's what Mr. Atkins was referring to with regard to '93. ! guess it surprises me that the work that they would do for a turn back would only last 10 years. You said 10 to 15. 17 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Paul Oehme: It's again, we're looking at a rehabilitation project. It's not a total reconstruction. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Paul Oehme: We're just bringing the pavement condition back up to a better level than it currently is. Mayor Furlong: And you're saying the work that they do at the time of the turn back, which is a similar type of project to what we're describing here, correct? A mill and overlay or do we know what they did? Paul Oehme: ! believe that portion of 78th Street was a reconstruction. Mayor Furlong: Back in '93? Paul Oehme: Back in '93 so. Councilman Ayotte: It was full upgrade construction is what ! heard. Paul Oehme: Right, ! believe it was fully reconstructed at that time, so and again we're, you know 10 to 15 years for typical street sections. You want to identify an overlay project for those type of street projects, just to make sure that your wear course is, just for the life cycle costs of the street section. You want to try to keep that wear surface as good a condition as you can so you don't have the oxidation of the pavement surface and water impeding into the sub-base. That's where their costs will come in when you get the water and the asphalt actually starting to oxidize. Mayor Furlong: Absent the loss of the state funding dollars, would this section of road meet the criteria for a mill and overlay? Paul Oehme: It's right on the cusp. ! mean it's at the lower tier of meeting mill and overlay project but it's, ! think it's warranted at this time. There are potholes again, few and far between but just for the continuity of the pavement section, it makes sense from the staff' s perspective to get in there and do it all at once, as long as we have the funds available. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Not to put the contractor on the spot, aw what the hell. So are there other things that could be done in terms of a scope of work that would equalize the life of how the road network for that 25 percent? You understand the question? Jason Sprague: No sir I don't. 18 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Ayotte: Okay. If you take the 25 percent that we're talking towards. Jason Sprague: Yes sir. Councilman Ayotte: And if we were to address that portion with a lesser scope of work than the 75 percent...on the existing scope of work. Then if you were to have a line item for the balance of the 25 percent to make the life somewhat equal to offset the fact that it was reconstructed in 1993, what would that scope of work be? No coaching Paul. Jason Sprague: If ! understand the question correctly, you're referring to what is the actual construction cost on that segment, is that? Councilman Ayotte: No, what I'm saying is, if you had the ability to affect the scope of work and to do something differently for that 25 percent, which would not be as aggressive as the 75 percent, what would that scope of work be? Jason Sprague: Actually the scope of work is exactly similar to the balance of the 75 percent. There is a small reconstruction area, as we've talked about before. A complete reconstruction area on 79th Street. However the 2 inch mill and overlay is about as a minimum. Councilman Ayotte: As nominal as you can get. Jason Sprague: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Except for filling potholes. Jason Sprague: Correct. Correct. And it's based on demographic volumes on municipal state aid streets, 10 years might be on the lower end but if the traffic is, as this gentleman has discussed, rather heavy, which it sounds like it is, especially in the peak hours. The evening rushes, the morning rushes, it's not surprising that we would see the minor wheel...that we're seen out there and the transverse packing at 100-150 foot dimensions. That's what we saw when we walked the road. It does make sense to do it at this time. Councilman Ayotte: Has anyone besides the residents, and this is not for you but for the staff. Has anyone besides the residents seen the traffic pattern as being a concern in that area over time and has anything been done about it? Paul Oehme: Yeah. West 78th Street is a high volume collector roadway. Councilman Ayotte: I'm talking about the turn off's and... Paul Oehme: At those intersections I'm not aware of any traffic issues. I haven't been aware of any residential concerns. Councilman Ayotte: So we haven't been getting a lot of complaints from that area? 19 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Paul Oehme: Not that I'm aware of. Mayor Furlong: Okay. There may be some additional questions but this is a public hearing. Please come forward. If you could state your name and address. Paul Eidem: Paul Eidem, 7727 Frontier Trail. Just a question on the turn back from the state. It's about $200,000 roughly. And that's to pay for the West 78th Street portion a little bit more. Than doesn't that cover the 25 percent of that cost? Paul Oehme: Again, it covers well, the 25 percent that he's referring to is just West 78th Street. We also have Great Plains Boulevard that we have to add in there so ! would, it appears to me that it's maybe a portion of 45 percent mark of the total project cost so, again it's turn back funds. If we want to theorize, you know the assessments in that area plus the state aid turn back would fund probably 100 percent of that portion of the project. Again it's state aid municipal, state aid funds would cover more or less the 79th Street and the Market Boulevard and 78th Street west of Great Plains so, you know it depends how you want to look at it but the assessments are needed to pay for that portion of the roadway. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, let me ask a clarifying question to make sure. ! think what the gentleman was asking is, is looking at the total project cost of $800,000 and the state turn back is $200,000. 25 percent of that total. We're saying that 25 percent of the roadway just got re-built recently, and that's the part that's eligible for state turn back so when we put this project cost together, are you taking total project cost minus MSA and state turn back and then dividing by the number of properties and that's how you get your assessment rolls or are you doing it specific to pieces of roadway? Paul Oehme: No, ! believe it was done in aggregate. Over the entire project cost so it was all one lumped together. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So they're in effect, they're paying for storm sewer and improvements on West 79th Street as well? Paul Oehme: Well no. ! mean they're, and ! don't know how that breaks down but that $200,000 mark that also pays for the engineering and some of the other indirect costs associated with the project too so ! would, ! would have to ask our consultant here but ! don't believe that $200,000 would cover all the improvements on 78th Street west of Great Plains plus Great Plains. That's what is eligible ! believe for the state aid turn back funds. Mayor Furlong: Is the 207 the maximum amount that's available for state aid? Paul Oehme: That's the maximum that we were indicated to us by the state. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 20 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: Back to the storm sewer improvements on 79th Street then, those are also lumped in an aggregate and going against the total project cost as well then, correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct. And again those storm sewer costs are state eligible. Councilman Ayotte: Say it again Paul? Paul Oehme: Are state aid eligible. Councilman Lundquist: Oh they are, okay. Paul Oehme: Yes, so those are included in the MSA and the.., costs as well. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Peterson: ! guess now ! have a question based upon Brian's comment now. Are the residents being assessed the partial cost of West 79th Street or not? Paul Oehme: No. Again, ! think the assessments again are based upon the benefit to the property owners but the $200,000 that we have identified as state aid turn back funds will not cover the costs for the improvements on Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street east of 78th Street, so ! don't have those numbers in front of me to break it out but. Councilman Lundquist: Let's use a numerical example. Because I'm not sure that ! quite understand either. You've got, let's say the project costs $100 and you've got 10 properties. 3 of the properties are getting storm sewer, 7 of them aren't. Do you take the $100, divide it by 10 properties, everybody pays 10 bucks? Or do you get, as your portion of the assessment, are those 3 people that are getting the storm sewer paying more than the other 7 or does everybody pay 10 bucks and away you go? Paul Oehme: Well everybody pay, again the city practice has been to assess 40 percent of the cost of the project to the benefiting property owners. The storm sewer costs are somewhat separate because those are state aid eligible. We haven't assessed for storm sewer ! think on other projects so ! think those were taken out of the project costs, but in terms of the curb and gutter, the sidewalk improvements, the mill and overlay, those are included in the assessment amount. Councilman Lundquist: So the storm sewer in this project is not included in that assessment amount? Paul Oehme: ! don't believe it is. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. 21 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Maybe a question to help me understand. The proposed assessment rate is different between the commercial and residential properties. Can you explain how you calculated that or came up with that relationship? Paul Oehme: It's, it was based on I believe a previous project that we have also worked upon. It's similar to other city projects that I've worked on in the past and it's typically based upon your traffic volumes for commercial vehicles are typically about double what you would anticipate for a residential. For a square unit basis so those were based upon ! think historical precedence that the city has also put in place and it's also kind of a practice that other cities have put in place too and ! think the, it's about 56 percent, the commercial rate is about 56 percent above the residential rate. Councilman Ayotte: In terms of the traffic that goes to this area, is it safe to say that the preponderance of traffic activity as stated by the residents in what you've alluded to, could it conceivably be heavier for the commercial benefit, even though you have this number which you say is historical. It seems to me, and ! have no traffic data to support it or studies to support it but could it be even more benefiting the commercial side rather than this value that we have depicted here? Paul Oehme: It definitely could be, right. And again it was based upon historical assessment amounts. There was no traffic study done. There was no limited appraisal done for this project. It was a typical assessment practice that has been in place in this community and other communities that ! have... Councilman Ayotte: Is it doable to somehow assess the traffic flow in this area and to come up with some sort of empirical data to indicate whether or not that 6994 should be 7,000 or 7,500 or maybe 6,000. Is there any way to determine that? Paul Oehme: It would take a lot of computation to figure out exactly where the traffic's coming and going and who benefits from that traffic amount. Obviously it's a collector street. There's a lot of traffic that's not just utilizing these streets for the commercial properties in this area. They're going through. They're going over to Powers or wherever. Or residential areas north of here so it's very hard to quantify how that would... Councilman Ayotte: But if we took a population count of the residents and if we took a total count of the vehicles, we could make a supposition that in all probability that that delta would be probably commercial. Paul Oehme: Yeah, probably. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We're still in a public hearing here, if anybody else would like to come forward, please do so. Could you state your name and address sir. Gene O'Brien: Good evening, my name is Gene O'Brien and I'm a board member at Chapel Hill Academy and ! want to thank you guys for your service here at this board, 22 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 and ! really have just one question to you gentlemen, which is you know Chapel Hill Academy, we know, we recognize we're a big user in the area and ! hope our people are driving safely and respectfully among people. My concern really is into that picture of here's a new road, or 10 or 11 years old. No contractor would have stood up here in his right mind and said to you guys, 11 years from now I'm going to propose a project that resurfaces this brand new state road. ! think as I'm hearing the discussion, it was an add on because it gave weight to the project and allowed some state funds to roll back in. Funds that you and ! all pay. And are those funds best spent on a road that's already in okay shape? Better than okay according to one resident. No potholes at all. So ! would ask the question, what portion, if in fact the West 78th portion out to 101 were excluded from the project, what specific portion of state turn back funds or MSA street funds would come out of the project? And then how would that project look then after that section was removed. Thank you. Jason Sprague: Well speaking to numbers directly, we talk about 25 percent and I don't know immediately based off the assessment practice but if we just talk in ballpark numbers, we'd probably, I would say maybe 50 percent of the MSA money. Without looking at specifics and breaking it down right now I'm just trying to give a ballpark answer. Mayor Furlong: And I'm sorry, what was that 15 or 50? Jason Sprague: 50. I'd say 50 if we're referring to Great Plains and 78th here, is that correct? That's where we have the turn back funds, okay. And like ! say, that's just a rough estimate to try to throw a number out there. Mayor Furlong: Would those funds still be available in the same amount if this section wasn't included in the project? Jason Sprague: Which section, I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Well ! think the section that's been brought up here at the public hearing is the section that was reconstructed back in '93. Paul Oehme: You know the $207,000, it would not be available in that amount. ! think Great Plains, there would still be some funds available for that. That's in that other segment of that street so there would be some. ! don't know how much though. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. This is still a public hearing if anybody else would like to come forward. Speak at this time. Again ! would, sir. Paul Eidem: One more comment. The notice that got sent out it says properties to be assessed are those deriving direct benefits from this project. Specifically it's those properties abutting or accessing from the following street sections. Why are we deriving direct benefits just because my house is next to it? 23 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Paul Oehme: Benefits are related to, and typically assessments of benefits are related to cost evaluation of your property. You would reconstruct or in this case the street in front of your house would see a benefit to your property value based upon those improvements and the way the assessments are structured, it's staff's belief that the benefits to the property owners would be realized if that property owner would turn around and sell his property, say right after the project and receive those benefits for the assessment amounts. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If you could come to the microphone please Paul. Paul Eidem: It says direct benefits. Now all the commercial properties such as Target, Byerly's are not included in this but ! can guarantee you that people use that road to go to those stores. Why that is a direct benefit to them, why are they not included? Jason Sprague: Quite frankly it's unfortunate it comes down to geography. Who is adjacent to the project? You talk about trying to figure out, the individuals using the roadways and where they're going. Without doing a rather detailed origination destination study, which would cost a number of dollars as well, it's really difficult to tell. So basically in nature of fairness it's who the property owners are adjacent to the project, and picking up the tab. As ! look at the assessment rates ! can tell you working with other cities and other City Council's, these are not high and they're not low. They're somewhere in the middle. That comes from experience working with the City of Minnetonka, City of Eden Prairie, City of Long Lake. I've certainly seen higher ones. ! have seen some lower ones. These are on the lower end because it's a maintenance project in this perspective. We mentioned before complete reconstruct. ! think we proposed a project where we came in about $600,000 on this project. If a complete reconstruct project occurs, in this segment we're looking at about, over 2 million. Probably 2.2, maybe 2.4 million dollars. As you can see with some of the assessments would be significantly higher with respect to that, but to answer the gentleman's question, it's unfortunately it's geography. Paul Oehme: I'd just like to add to that too. And again the city, we're not picking up, the residents aren't picking up the whole tab on this project. Again it's the city practices of 40 percent of the project cost to be put on assessments to these benefiting property owners. And for this residential area too, ! think the assessments range between about 700 and 800 dollars per property so just giving you an idea of how much we're talking about here. Mayor Furlong: 700 to 800 for the residential properties? Paul Oehme: That's correct. And again it's based upon square...acreage. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Still public hearing. Please come forward. Brian Nustad: Hi. My name is Brian Nustad. I live at 7791 Erie Avenue. My question is regarding to the geography as we're discussing here. Are all property owners 24 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 residential being charged in that span? And that shot I saw Paul had earlier, I saw a property line that was not highlighted so they're not being charged for anything. Mayor Furlong: Could you identify the map? Brian Nustad: The highlighted map... Paul Oehme: Oh, okay. Brian Nustad: And are there any other property owners first of all that are not being charged? ! live on Erie Avenue. ! live right here. There's my neighbor. There's a property owner right here. He has about 80 feet, 90 feet of property along the road. Right here. ! live here. This is the next neighbor here. This is the next neighbor here. He has about 85 feet of property going along West 78th Street. And he's not being assessed anything so is there anyone else here being assessed that they should be or should not be? Jason Sprague: That would be the... Brian Nustad: Are we missing anybody is what I'm asking. Or why are we not selecting people? Paul Oehme: Again, the assessment area was based upon the project limits and they were set in September of 2000, or September 22, 2003. ! don't know, in that particular case if that said that property accesses onto 78th Street or not. I'm not aware of why that property would not be in this project area. ! definitely will take a look at that. Research that some more. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Brian Nustad: ! do not have a driveway on West 78th Street. This property does. He has a full driveway accessing West 78th SO. Todd Gerhardt: Paul, are you taking into account corner lots then that may access on a different road but have frontage on West 78th? Paul Oehme: I believe that's the way the assessment roll was put together. Mayor Furlong: Okay. This is still a public hearing. Anybody else would like to come forward. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. First comment, and it kind of concerns me to see a decision made on the basis that the money is available rather than on the need to do the work. If that's the gist of some of this that ! understand. Secondly I'm walking on tip toes. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop as ! mention Laredo Drive. We have an obstacle course coming up to the city from our area and we're anticipating some kind 25 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 of repair in the future at a cost obviously. The cause of that was construction to a certain extent last summer in our area and Laredo was the primary route for those trucks. Cement trucks, etc, etc. Lastly, if there's a traffic problem, people diverting down the city streets where they shouldn't be going, consider making them one way perhaps to avert that. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: If there's anybody else. Jack Atkins: Yeah, Jack Atkins at 220 West 78th. I appreciate how problematic it is going through this assessment process and trying to assign assessments to property owners and coming up with formulas that are reasonable and everything's changing all the time and ! appreciate your listening to our comments tonight. And ! appreciate how difficult a problem it is for you. ! just hope you understand how inherently unfair it seems to us as property owners to being assessed. ! mean it doesn't make sense to us and he can say that well we're, our property value goes up but we all know and the truth of the matter is that if that road was complete potholes and chasms, that our property value would soar because we would not have that tremendous traffic load there so, you can't, he can say that, ! mean ! understand that he says well it's unfortunate and he's saying that well, you're, our property value went up when you did this project. Well anyway, thanks for putting up with us tonight. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to the council through the public hearing. If not ! guess ! want to make sure that everybody that's spoken this evening realizes they need to have their objections in in written form if they want to preserve the rights, is that correct sir? And so if you haven't done that, please do so right now. Is there anybody that still needs to do that that was here this evening? Councilman Ayotte: Geno, did you hear that? Mayor Furlong: So we got everybody, everybody that spoke this evening has gotten their objections in in written form Paul? Okay. Alright, very good. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward to speak at the public hearing? If not, then ! will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to council for either additional questions or comments. Councilman Ayotte: Well I'll start if no one else will. On this council I've been known as the life cycle Nazi, but ! do have with, as we've gone through this and I've felt very, very positive towards the beginning. ! feel less positive now because of the factor of possibly re-doing a road that may not need to get done, and one of the discussion points we've had previously is the need for core samples and so forth to really validate predictably what a road's life can be. Number two, and for my brethren in arms that I've served with in the past, the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps turns back money every year out of it's budget and it's the only service that does it and it doesn't give a darn as to what the other services do so in their budget they'll turn it back. Number three, there's some ambiguity with how much money would have, would we not acquire should we reduce the project. For the contractor's benefit, ! don't know what that contractor's 26 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 economy of scale is with regard to being healthy with the project and not having a scope reduction or alteration. So right now I've got to say, and even though the project may not be considered low or high, with what I've heard here, knowing that staff is doing due diligence. Knowing that staff wants to do the right thing, I'm concerned that we may not be as fair as we need to be representing our residents right now. I'm a little worried about that and the demographics and the layout of where our target is, ! still have a, not a very good comfort level as to whether or not the assessment for commercial vis a vis the assessment for residential is correct. ! just, ! am no longer comfortable. Therefore I'm not as in favor of this project as ! was in the beginning because of the life cycle issue and because of the reconstruction of road. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to comment or do you have a question? Comment? Councilman Lundquist: Comment. ! can wait. Mayor Furlong: Okay, can I ask a question first for clarification? I think something I'm thinking of as Councilman Ayotte was giving his comments. We have the allocation between the per acre rate of commercial and residential. Do you have a break out of the total assessment portion? How much of that is being assessed to commercial and how much is being assessed to the residential properties? Is that on this sheet somewhere? Paul Oehme: It's not broken out. ! do have the assessment. Mayor Furlong: You have a per property but does it break it out between resident and commercial? Paul Oehme: There's about 60, sorry. There's 66 properties that are being proposed for assessment, and of those let's see. It appears to me there are only 6 residential properties that are being assessed. Mayor Furlong: 6 out of 667 Paul Oehme: Yep. So all the other ones are at the commercial rate and the residential, yeah of the, so that's about $3,800 of the total project cost will be assessed to them. To the residential property owners. Mayor Furlong: That's my question. Now you can go on with your comments. Councilman Lundquist: Similar feelings to Councilman Ayotte as far as I think there's a few questions that ! struggle with is that the road was reconstructed in '93. We know from our things that we've done with different consultants on our pavement management thing as we're going through, we should expect every 10 to 15 years to do mills and overlays to extend the life of the road to keep that going longer. The issue's going to be if we don't do the whole project now for continuity, in 4 years we're going to be coming back here saying we're going to do a quarter mile stretch of the road and not the rest of it, 27 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 so I think in the grand scheme of things this is a good way to get it all at the same speed, at the same time and it will all have been done together and when it comes back again, we can look at the whole section as one. These are always difficult things because it's always kind of a touch and go on the property value and it's obviously opinion based and... ! think given the information that ! have right now, I'm ready to go forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilman Labatt: Quick question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Labatt: Paul ! realize you weren't here in 1993. Mayor Furlong: He wasn't here in September, but go ahead. Councilman Labatt: Were you guys assessed in '93? Residents: No. Councilman Labatt: No. Zero. Okay. Councilman Peterson: That was the turn back from the state was the issue there. Councilman Lundquist: The State built the road. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay. And I'm still confused on the answer. The question that was asked is these 6 residential properties, are they, in their assessment of anywhere from 700 to 1,400 it looks like, is any of their money going to pay for the curb and gutter or anything that backs down on West 79th? We talked about those improvements on the curb and gutter. Paul Oehme: Well the way these assessments were set up, again is looked in aggregate. And it wasn't done on a per block basis. It's looked at as an assessment of the total project cost, excluding a few miscellaneous items. So ! guess in actuality, maybe you can look at it that way but in terms of a segment by segment basis, cost analysis for the project, it was looked at in aggregate. Councilman Labatt: Okay. ! guess my only. Paul Oehme: I'm sorry, and again I'm sorry go ahead. Councilman Lundquist: But that's different than, when ! thought the way ! understood it before it was that the curb and gutter was removed from that assessment piece first and then ! think what ! just heard you say was that it's an aggregate divided by the parcels. 28 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Paul Oehme: Again, I'm sorry. The improvements to the curb and gutter and the sidewalk and the mill and overlay, that's pretty much standard throughout the project again. Those are the improvements that we're looking at for assessing. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, the storm sewer is the one I think on 79th Street that Steve and I had a question. Paul Oehme: Yeah, and I believe that was taken out. Councilman Lundquist: Taken out, okay. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead. Well I have a clarifying question and maybe this speaks to it. The issue is part of the assessment dollar's going to be used elsewhere than on the street in front of the resident's homes and the question ! would ask is to the turn back dollars, which would be applied to the street. Do they cover the entire cost of the mill and overlay associated with the turn back roads? Paul Oehme: I guess I need to ask Jason Sprague that question because I don't know the exact dollar amounts. Jason Sprague: If we use the 25 percent number we talked about earlier, saying that that portion of 78th Street is 25 percent of the total project, right or wrong let's use the 25 percent. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Jason Sprague: If we use the 25 percent of the turn back money, the 25 percent of the available state aid funds, ! would have to believe based on construction costs, if we were to just leave that one segment and leave the 6 property owners to pay for that segment of roadway, their assessments would go significantly higher. So when you say are they paying for an improvement on 79th? Yes, but ! think the folks on 79th are going to be paying a lot larger segment for their part in front of their home. Todd Gerhardt: And you've got to look at it the other way around too. That the commercial property is also paying for the blacktop that's going along West 78th Street that goes by these individual's homes. That's a larger percentage so it works both ways. ! mean you put it all in one big pot but the commercial properties are paying almost 70 percent of the cost of the entire project, so they're paying for 70 percent of the blacktop that goes by the residential homes too. Jason Sprague: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Well if for clarification, if the 6 residential properties are paying under 10,000 and we're saying maybe 3 to 5. Out of the total assessments being proposed to all 29 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 property owners, all 66 of 327,000, is that right? So on a percent of the total project it's much smaller. Still real money to the residents. Todd Gerhardt: But then you've got to look at it by a per acre basis is how the assessment roll was based, and these are very small lots so their percentage is even decreased dramatically based on a per acre basis. You know typically a home will have 15,000 square feet. These lots have to be somewhere around 10 to 8. So it's 8,000 to 7,000. Mayor Furlong: And ! want to hold my comments to this point but ! guess part of my concern is the benefiting properties on collector roads. ! think the issue here that we're struggling with is it's a collector road. It's not a neighborhood street where you have all residents there benefiting from wherever the storm water catch basin happens to be. Everybody's storm water runs to it so they all get it. Here the issue is it's a collector road and so are the residential property owners benefiting to the level of the proposed assessment versus a commercial property owner? So ! guess that's what ! see as really the question in front of us. Todd Gerhardt: But they still are generating storm water runoff. And they benefit from the overall drainage area of the downtown. So they've got a 7,000 square foot lot, a driveway. That water needs to be pre-treated. It's got to go somewhere. So they do benefit from the storm water. And then it goes back to our assessment roll that we talked about. If you've got a typical residential neighborhood, you know you've got a street so they may be coming onto a collector road but they still have to pay their pro-rated amount if they would have had a regular street. Councilman Labatt: Those are just my questions, thanks. ! kind of agree with Mr. Lundquist and his position so that's where ! sit on the side of the fence here. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson, thoughts? Councilman Peterson: ! started with three issues and ! think ! finally after this last discussion got the assessment issue in my mind. ! think it's appropriate that we're not, that it is appropriate and we're not putting onus on one resident over picking up West 79th Street and that whole scenario so I'll let that go. My only concern, substantial concern is we've got a road that is 11 years old, 10 years old and it has 5 to 6 years of life that a mill and overlay would still be all that's required. We're doing it 5 or 6 years early. Because money's available and ! find that a little disturbing because that's doing it potentially 50 percent faster than we need to, and historically we're always pushing the envelope the other way. So now all of a sudden you know we're going the other way and ! don't like to do that. ! like consistency and approach the residents and provide the residents consistency and we're not doing that here. And ! don't know why, and ! haven't got a good answer for that yet. So what I'd like to see is, if we wait 5 years and let's say that we all agree that 5 years we'll still be able to do a mill and overlay and not a reconstruction. ! don't care of the road looks different. ! don't give a squat about continuity. ! give a squat about spending money and spending it wisely. And I'd like to 30 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 see an analysis of if we wait 5 years, and I understand if it costs more because it was a quarter mile, you've got to bring the equipment in, but ! don't know why we couldn't coordinate it and bid that out with another project that we'd be doing that year in the city, so that concerns me greatly. And again continuity is not something ! really care about. And then lastly ! want to be sure that all the landowners that if we go ahead with this, ! want to be sure that all the landowners are assessed appropriately. That we haven't forgotten somebody so let's certainly verify that so. I'm not ready to approve this tonight based upon those comments. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, ! would concur with you Councilman Peterson. The one that stuck in my craw in the need for work and even before ! was elected to the council ! was at that podium when my neighborhood was being assessed for work and ! along with all my neighbors came up and said it doesn't need to be done yet. Well they went forward. I've got a problem when that's the case. We're being inefficient here in that these should have been questions that were raised when the feasibility study was done instead of now. But ! don't think that that suggests that we should go forward now because we didn't raise the questions back then when we had that public hearing. Doing work that's not necessary to be done doesn't make sense to me. And if that means we lose some state dollars, ! don't want to go about losing money that's available to us but ! don't want to be spending money, whether it's state money, city money or our residents money that doesn't need to be spent, and so I'm concurring with you on that. If that means we have to, because we want to still try to get the rest of the project done, ! didn't hear anything tonight that suggests that other parts of West 78th, West 79th, Great Plains or Market don't need to be done. ! think they need to be done. ! think we need to try to get them in for this year so it may need a quick turn around here as to what is going to be, what part of the road that was done in '93, you know does that really need to be done? And if it doesn't need to be done, just because we're going to lose money, then ! would say let's not do it. And if we get criticized for being inefficient 4 years from now because we're doing something and you just did it 4-5 years ago, I'll take that criticism because we're spending the money better. So ! guess ! would challenge staff and the gentleman from SEH, if indeed either be able to support why that section of the road needs to be done now for something besides the availability of money. Because the merits of the road require it at this point. Or will require it soon, and by soon ! mean in a year or two. ! think generally we tend to stretch these out longer than 4-5 years within the 15 years and so that says we might be even looking at a 7 or 8 if we're consistent so, and ! would hope that staff can do that relatively quickly. Obviously not in front of us this evening but, unless you. Jason Sprague: IfI might just respond. I know we did talk about the money is available. Yes, that is part of the equation and you talk about the feasibility study that was completed last fall. And that is between SEH and staff, we did analyze the suggestion about...pavement management program and concurred with some of the outcomes. Now, can ! predict the future? No. If ! was, ! probably wouldn't be in this business but it'd be very difficult for me to come to you in 2 or 3 years, after seeing like ! say, some of the transverse cracking. Some of those, the rutting, the wheel paths. Those type of things. Having known that now to come back in 2 to 3 years when we do have a 31 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 deterioration situation which warrants full reconstruction, I know that I would have a difficult time coming before you to present that. And that's what we are seeing. That's what we did present in the feasibility study. That we do believe it warrants that. Is there money available? Yes, but that is kind of on the back side of the equation. That does make it a little easier if you will. ! know when you're looking at an assessment, nothing is easy. ! agree with that. But it does make the bottom line easier when there are those turn back funds available, but ! just want to make clear on behalf of staff that that was not the impetus of this project. The money was available so let's do it .... project was the project needed to be done based on the condition of the road and we concur with what we've seen. ! walked every inch of that project with one of my engineers, and like ! say can ! tell you in 3 years it's going to be rubble? ! can't tell you that. ! can tell you what I've seen in other cities with similar problems. ! can tell you that I've seen it happen within 3 years. ! can also tell you I've seen it not happen. It's just like ! say, from our perspective, from staff's perspective to come back to you in 3 years and not have the funding mechanism available and have to approach the same residents, when you're talking about unit cost. We will more than likely be able to lump it into another project. ! don't think that other than standard inflation costs that we'd have to incur. ! don't think we're going to see a significant rise. So that's not the issue. It's just coming back and saying okay, staff doesn't have the funds available from turn back dollars. We're looking at something that, as we look at the $207,000 and 25 percent of that, that 50,000 isn't available. Then we're going to have to look at it in other places such as the assessments. And ! know that's not going to make folks real happy. Mayor Furlong: Then I guess the follow-up question I would have, and this gets back to Councilman Peterson's comments ! think. 10 years ago it was reconstructed. Jason Sprague: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And if we're looking at a 10 or 15 year life, are you telling us now that if we don't do the mill and overlay now that this road will not be able, will degradate to the point where it will require a full reconstruction in a matter of a few years? Jason Sprague: ...future if! knew that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Jason Sprague: Based on the symptoms that we see out there, like I say. Engineering 101, you will have rutting. You see transverse cracks. Paul alluded to the fact that you get water into the sub-grade, it degrades the sub-grade which then further accelerates the deterioration of the pavement structure. Can ! draw a direct correlation? No. No, ! cannot. Does this, are these preliminary signs of further deterioration and what is that time frame? Yes it is, and typically we're looking at anywhere from 2 to 5 years. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Ayotte: Mayor, may ! have a follow on question to Paul? 32 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: Paul, was there any core samples done? Paul Oehme: No, there was not any core samples done. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Legal counsel. Is there a way, if we were to demonstrate that so much percentage of the downtown outside of geographic boundaries gained from this, that they could be included in the assessment? Could we, if we were to determine it. ! know that he doesn't have a crystal ball but ! know how bright Paul is, if we could demonstrate that a large number of the road traffic goes to Target, is there a way that we could extend our assessment base? Sorry. Tom Scott: No, that's quite okay. It would be very difficult. Councilman Ayotte: But would it be legal if we could do it? Tom Scott: Well, you have to, as has been alluded to. The question is whether or not there's a special benefit to a particular property. Now the traditional way of doing road projects has been to assess the abutting properties. There are situations where you can in the right circumstances, you can expand that beyond the abutting property. That's again the most typical way of doing it is the abutting property owners. To do that you'd have to be able to identify a special benefit. Not just a general benefit that properties generally get from public improvement projects. So when you're talking about Target's or stores like that that are kind of generally in the community you get to a real issue over whether or not they're receiving some sort of a special benefit that's not more of a general community benefit. You also get into then of how do you draw the boundaries because you'd have to include properties that are receiving the special benefit and not excluding others that are also so it becomes really problematic when you try to include non abutting property owners, from that standpoint. Secondly, from the standpoint of this particular project where last fall you set the assessment area and then to, you really almost have to go back and almost start over to expand the assessment area because if folks weren't notified last September, they didn't have the opportunity to come in and object to the project as some one who might potentially be assessed. Now there is a procedure where there's one property that may have been overlooked. There is a way if it's an omitted property where you may be able to go back and include it, but as far as expanding the general assessment area after you've had your feasibility study and ordered the project, that's... Councilman Ayotte: But if we can...that feasibility study possibly to be fall short and we may have determined that this evening. Tom Scott: So then basically again you'd be terminating, you'd basically go back and start the project over. 33 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Is there a, next item on our agenda is going to be consider awarding a contract for this project. Is there a time specific issue there versus a couple weeks from now, if we approve that? Jason Sprague: Yeah, typically 60 days from the bid opening. Mayor Furlong: And when was that? Jason Sprague: April 23rd. Mayor Furlong: April 23rd SO that gives us til June 23rd that the bids are valid. I'm sitting here, and maybe my preference would be to review that feasibility study. It wasn't included in our packet here and take a look at that, because ! think Councilman Peterson is going to help us answer the question, does this need to be done? In this section of the road. Councilman Peterson: ! think one of the things I'll be looking at staff from is if we don't do this section now and do it in 3 years, what will the cost be, assuming we don't get matching funds so ! can go to the residents and say alright, if we do it now it's going to be $700. If we wait 3 years when it absolutely needs to be done, it will be $1,800. So that's one of the things I'll be looking for from staff. Councilman Ayotte: One of the problems I've got here, and I'm a little miffed because I've asked more than once on other projects. I've asked this question, have we done bore samples. Bore samples is a destructive test that can in fact substantiate whether or not we have an issue, and if we built a road in 1993 and someone didn't have the fore thought to go ahead and do some bore samples to see if we in fact can anticipate further degradation, then ! don't think we've done a good job of assessing the need. I'm not talking about assessing in terms of assessment but really validating particularly that road that was reconstructed in 1993. And although I'm old and feeble, ! recall very specifically asking the question of bore samples over and over again. Mayor Furlong: And is that something Councilman Ayotte you'd expect at a feasibility study level or when would you? Councilman Ayotte: Well ! would think that if we were to go forward, either the contractor, if we knew that a road was built in 1993 and to substantiate based on the feasibility study the need to do what we're proposing right now, and it's not out of normal procedure to do that. ! mean you know, you do that. Same thing like when you do, on a roof. Same kind of problem you have on a roof. You x-ray the roof. You do things like that before you spend the money. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. 34 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: I would suggest that we table this item. Give staff the opportunity to sit down with the neighborhood. Talk with them. Take a look at the inventory of the street section again and bring this back in 3 weeks. ! think we meet June 14th. We're still within the time frames. We've got to be prepared to sign a contract if we're going to go ahead with this probably that next week so we should start working on making sure we've got a contract that is executable that we, allow staff an opportunity to sit down with maybe a couple of the neighborhood individuals and talk about this. Mayor Furlong: ! think that's a good idea because ! think it would, there have been some questions raised here that ! think would give all of us, both those of us up here and those in the audience a little more comfort, if that's acceptable. Is there a. Councilman Lundquist: One comment? Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Or direction to staff, if other people have comments. Councilman Lundquist: No, ! think it's probably just a comment to council here is that, ! guess I'm a little bit, well I'm a lot disappointed at the discussions we've had tonight on the feasibility of this project because on September of last year, which all 5 of us were on the council then. We accepted the feasibility study which basically said it's okay to do this project. It needs to be done and let's go ahead and find out how much it's going to cost and do the assessment piece. Now we're saying well, maybe not. But so ! guess we've raised some valid questions. My disappointment is we should have done it in September because we've lost a lot of time and just disappointed in the way that the 5 of us have handled that process. Councilman Peterson: ! think the process worked. ! mean we've gotten new information. More information. We evaluate it and ! don't disagree with you in theory but ! think this discussion is good because it's based upon more information than we had before. Specifically the residents. Mayor Furlong: And ultimately I want to do what's right and I think as all of us do up here. ! think that's what our fiduciary responsibility is and if it takes a few more weeks to get it right, then ! think we should do that so ! understand your thoughts and comments but again, confirm with Councilman Peterson, you know let's get it right rather than moving forward if there are concerns so. Do we need a motion to table? Is that appropriate? Councilman Labatt: Move to table. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Todd Gerhardt: Do you need a motion to close the public hearing? 35 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: I said it, we close the public hearing. Is that sufficient? Tom Scott: That's fine. Mayor Furlong: Alright. So the public hearing has been closed earlier before our comments. There's a motion to table. It's been seconded. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the special assessment hearing for 2004 MSA street improvements, Project 04-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AWARD OF BIDS FOR 2004 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 04- 02. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion to table? Councilman Labatt: Move to table. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the award of bids for 2004 MSA street improvements, Project 04-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your comments. REOUEST TO REPLAT eUTLeT B, BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER INTO 26 LOTS AND 2 eUTLeTS AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE 3-UNIT AND TWO 5-UNIT OFFICE BUILDINGS ON 13.43 ACRES; STONE CREEK TOWN OFFICES, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. As you indicated there's two action items before you tonight. One is the replat of a subdivision, and the other is a site plan review. The site is located just south of Highway 5, north of Coulter as part of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center. Family of Christ Church sits kitty corner, and then you have Bluff Creek Elementary. This site right here went to the Planning Commission as Advance Fitness and you will be seeing that site shortly. It's bounded on either side by a creek. Again the applicant is requesting the replat of 13 acres into 26 lots and 2 outlots and they'll be subdivided into 25, if you can back out of that just a pinch. 25 corporate office buildings. Individual buildings. This original PUD was put together with design standards and a shared parking requirement that I'll discuss in a minute in 1998. It does require, as we reviewed the Highway 5 standards have now been woven into the overall design standards for the city and also the PUD standards for the site, which it does meet. 36 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Material proposed for the project is fiber cement siding with simulated stone wainscoting on the lower level of the buildings. On the lower portions here. Pitched roofs. Again the staff believes with the visibility, which it has high visibility from Highway 5, that it's very well conceived and works well. There's also no loading docks with this based on the fact that it's really more kind of incubator, small businesses. Again it works really well with high visibility from Highway 5. They are slab on grade buildings and they'll be two stories high. Again it fits well within that corridor. One of the issues that came up with this PUD was the fact that there was some shared parking. When we put the PUD together for the church. Similar to what we did on Villages on the Pond. When you have a higher use on certain times and the offices are lower peak. The applicant, Mr. Undestad has worked with the church to provide some shared parking on those peak hours and that's shown on this site plan here. One of the issues that the Planning Commission had as this project moved forward was the trails shown on this purple side is the perimeter trails. The Planning Commission asked for additional trail along this side. There is an existing cul-de-sac. That cul-de-sac will be moved further to the north. The planning staff originally felt that access could be achieved going along this sidewalk and just walking down. The Planning Commission felt that this would probably be a good addition. The applicant has agreed to do that. The other concern was the view from Highway 5 and berming. Again the staff' s position was that the landscaping will provide adequate berming. A parking lot, which is what we tried to screen is the parking lot, not necessarily buildings. Certainly there's visibility and there will be signage along those fronts of the buildings so ! didn't bring those to you. The applicant is prepared to come back at final, which you would see in a few weeks. Those plans have been made, making the parking, or the landscaping area along here approximately 7 feet. Now it's closer to 15 feet. Quite a bit additional landscaping so again that would provide the screening for the cars, which was the intent of the design standards. Not necessarily buildings, and that was a concern that the Planning Commission had so we believe that that's been adequately addressed. In your staff report there are the conditions of approval. Again the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on May 4th and did recommend approval of this application. There was a couple of, there's two motions again the preliminary plat and the site plan. The Planning Commission originally thought that there may have been some conditions missed, so I'd like to, if you want to turn to page 15 on the conditions of approval. We did note that some of the conditions had been duplicated. So 13 and 14, so if you want to re-number your conditions, there's actually only 15 conditions. The trash containers have been moved already on the revised site plan. Again that was a concern of where they're relocated, so with that, staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approval and we believe it's a well conceived plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and just for clarification. Staff is saying to, from page 15 to remove conditions 13 and 14. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And renumber 15, 16 and 17. 13 through 15 appropriately. 37 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Kate, sidewalks was an issue brought up by the Planning Commission. Can you help clarify what the issue was. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was the one on this one. On this plan right here. Staff had felt that in order to get over to the street, if you were at maybe parking, shared parking with the church. A way to make that work and Mr. Undestad's already made that change. Moving this handicap parking access so actually it provides a better walk through between this parking, and going along this existing sidewalk and coming down onto the cul-de-sac, if you were going to do the shared parking. The Planning Commission felt it'd be better just to continue and have an additional trail along here. Both work. We're always concerned about over duplicating. Just in the fact that it's a nice landscape area too to create some of that buffer... Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt: Has that been maintained in the winter time by the property owner? Kate Aanenson: ! believe it's called a trail but it's actually a side. Councilman Labatt: Pardon? Kate Aanenson: It's going to be a sidewalk. Councilman Labatt: So that will be maintained by the property? Kate Aanenson: Correct. It wouldn't be a city trail. Councilman Labatt: It will not be a city trail? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: There is a trail that goes up. This is this trail right here that goes, ties into the Bluff Creek Elementary School site and goes underneath Highway 5. There would be access that way. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Kate ! missed, did you say that there was going to be a berm? Kate Aanenson: No, the Planning Commission was concerned about the way they left it was to work with the staff and MnDot. You're close to the MnDot right-of-way to 38 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 provide screening. The way our ordinance reads is that the screening should be for parking lot. It wasn't our intent to screen the building. It's a very nice building. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, that was my point. Let's not cover up good architecture. Kate Aanenson: Right, and staff concurs with that. What's been done, Mr. Undestad's already made the changes to that and there's additional planting area that's wider and additional trees. Quite a significant amount of trees and you'll see that when it comes back for final plat. We just got those changes today so we believe that meets the intent which is to screen the parked cars. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? ! see Mr. Undestad is here, the applicant. Would you like to address the council or? Here's your opportunity. It's not a requirement but. Councilman Peterson: He had a board. Bring your board with. Mayor Furlong: You've got a nice board. Mark Undestad: The board's kind of the same picture... Just a bigger picture .... been fun working on it and putting it together. It's getting a lot of interest from local businesses. Who are ready to kind of move out of their basements and homes... 25 units on there. ! think by the time we get through our final plat it will probably be close to 50 percent full. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions? No? Thank you. I'll bring it back to council for comments. Discussion. Councilman Labatt: This is one of these developers who always brings in a quality project and ! can remember last year or two years ago when ! asked the same question tonight is why this just isn't on the consent agenda. This is going to be a great addition to Chan. Thanks Mark. Councilman Peterson: Yeah ! agree with Steve. ! think the interesting thing, and ! try not to compliment Mark more than ! should perhaps but ! just like the idea that you guys put together a plan that's unique to the city and unique to the area, and ! think that as, do more stuff out of the box because ! think regardless of how nice a project looks, it's a nice project but it's a unique project that's going to bring potential different kinds of businesses to the city so that ! think is worthy of bringing it off the consent agenda to make that comment. Councilman Lundquist: You would have pulled it off anyway, is that what you're saying? Councilman Peterson: No ! wouldn't. 39 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: I would have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with the ones before too. As I was reading through the packet I think it peaked my interest. Interesting and it fits really well with what's going on there as well, especially right next to the church and everything too so it' s, I will be, I am excited to see it on here and it will be fun to see it come to life. Mayor Furlong: So thank you. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Can't add to those comments. Thank you very much for all your hard work. Appreciate it. Mayor Furlong: Yep. As well. It's a neat product. It's going to benefit the city and we appreciate that and all your work throughout the city and prior development. I concur with other statements. Councilman Ayotte: I wonder if this will pass. Mayor Furlong: I don't know. We only need a simple majority, right. With that, the motions begin on page 10. Since you know the page, go ahead. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices shown on the plans received April 13, '04 subject to conditions 1 through 19. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you do the second one at the same time. Councilman Lundquist: And that the City Council approve Site Plan Case 04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices shown on the plans received April 13, '04 subject to conditions 1 through 15 as modified by staff. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $64,268. 2. A park fee of $94,010 shall be paid for the 13.43 acres at the time of the replat. 40 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 10. 11. Submit a private cross-access and cross-parking easement against all lots at time of final plat recording. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against all lots. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1004,1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2103, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5302. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Prior to final plating, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm pond and creek. Any off site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. The site has previously been assessed for utility and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $103,521.12. This assessment may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis or paid at the time of final platting. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will also be applicable for the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain. The hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the public utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that public utility improvements will require a pre- construction meeting before building permit issuance. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and the Watershed District. 41 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. On the utility plan: a. Show the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Add a storm sewer schedule. c. Revise the Sewer Note No. 1 to be, "All sanitary services shall be 6"PVC SDR26. d. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled." e. Remove the existing 24 inch storm stub to the north and bulkhead the invert at the manhole. f. Delete the sanitary sewer connection at the southwest corner of the site and utilize the existing sanitary stub in the cul-de-sac. g. Revise the proposed storm sewer within the cul-de-sac from a 12 inch to a 15 inch pipe. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the northeast side of the parking lot and at the southeasterly corner of Lot 25. The 8 inch water and sewer mains will be considered public utility lines since they serve multiple lots. As such, minimum 30 foot wide public easements will be required over the portion of the public utility lines that are outside of the right- of-way. The Stone Creek Drive cul-de-sac must be built with a 48 foot radius and B-618 concrete curb and gutter. The private street must be built to a 9 ton design, paved to a 26 foot width, and contained within a 40 foot private easement. The developer will be required to submit certification reports from a soil testing company which show that the private street was built to these standards. Lot 26 may be used for parking purposes only. The applicant shall execute a cross parking agreement with the Family of Christ Lutheran Church which shall encompass the 60 parking spaces shown in Attachment 7. The applicant shall execute a cross parking agreement with the Family of Christ Lutheran Church which shall encompass the 60 parking spaces shown in Attachment 6. 42 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan Case #04-15 for Stone Creek Town Offices as shown on the plans received April 13, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in buffer yards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. b. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 36 overstory trees in the parking lot to meet minimum requirements. c. Norway maple shall be replaced by a more suitable tree selection. 2. Building Official conditions: a. Buildings (units) over 2,000 square feet in gross floor area are required to be protected with automatic fire sprinklers. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. An accessible route must be provided from the accessible parking spaces to the entrances of all units. The maximum slope of the accessible route is 1/20. d. Separate water, sewer and fire protection services must be provided for each piece of property. e. Exterior walls less than ten (10) feet from property lines must be of fire resistive rated construction in accordance with IBC Chapter 6 and terminate in accordance with IBC Chapter 7. f. Separate male and female restrooms must be provided in each unit with an occupant load greater than 15, as determined by IBC Table 1003.2.2.2. g. Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. h. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to begin the preliminary plan review process to discuss permit procedures. 3. On the site plan: a. Revise the scale from 1"=20' to 1"=40'. b. Show the existing and proposed trail/sidewalk adjacent to the site. c. Show all dimensions for the improvements, i.e. drive aisle width, cul-de-sac radius, curb return radii, stall lengths and widths, etc. 4. No direct access to Highway 5 is allowed. 43 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 10. 11. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time flames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can Remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch, or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and comply with their conditions of approval. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. The applicant shall provide a second trash enclosure area south of Lot 5 and relocate the proposed trash enclosure to the south of Lot 18. Fire Marshal conditions: A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Three additional fire hydrants will be required. Install one southwest of Lot 11 in the parking island. Install one southeast of Lot 6 in the parking island. Install one in the island between Lots 20 and 21 on the south side of the building. If necessary, please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location. Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. Extend the sidewalks and relocate accessible parking access aisle as shown in Attachment 1. 44 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 12. The applicant to work with staff to provide a walk on the south end skirting the parking lot and over to the cul-de-sac, then loop around the cul-de-sac to the north to connect up with the existing trail system. 13. If entrances are granted on both sides of the southern buildings, there should be a walk on the north side of the building 14. The applicant will work with staff and MnDot to provide additional screening and berming along Highway 5. 15. Turning radiuses on the site shall accommodate fire fighting vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY CODE AMENDMENTS; INCLUDING SUMMARY ORDINANCES FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES: CHAPTER 20, ZONING. Kate Aanenson: Again, as pointed out in your cover letter, the purpose of these code amendments is to make it more user friendly. We provided in your report a summary of the changes. The major changes. Again this is Chapter 20. The other one, minor one that you'll be seeing 18. The Planning Commission did spend a lot of time going through these changes. Asking us, challenging us. Looking at other cities. And how it works. The problems and concerns. ! can go through by section each of those but ! guess I'll leave it up to you and ! think I'd like to start with maybe addressing some of the questions that came up from the visitor presentation. The first one ! believe was the public hearing notification for lakeshore development. Again our ordinance supercedes the state law requiring, you know the state law is 350 feet. We use 500 feet. When you're on a lakeshore we certainly think it's important that we notify someone if there's a conditional use or changes to the lakeshore. But we have applicants that are doing minor modifications that have no impact to the lakeshore that have to notify 300-400 people on a lake and we believe that's onerous when they're being charged per label. So we talked to the Planning Commission about this. Certainly the people that spoke at visitor presentation made this same appeal to the Planning Commission. And again, these aren't developers. Certainly a development we would certainly would say would have an impact on the change of character of the lake if they're adding additional homes. That would be of significant impact and we would notify people but this is someone who's doing an addition that may not increase the setback to the lake. May not increase the impervious surface, so it's kind of a discernment decision to say you know really it's not that big of an impact. You certainly, everyone within 500 feet would still get notified but the Planning Commission concurred that they felt that notifying within 500 feet was sufficient for those typically who, but something that would have an impact to the lake, then we would notify everybody on the lake. Any questions on that? 45 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Questions on that one? I guess a question I have, is there, and I'm trying to find the exact wording here. Do you know which page that's on in the proposed ordinance? Councilman Lundquist: Somewhere in the highlights in the first pages. First couple pages. Mayor Furlong: Oh okay, yep. Councilman Lundquist: ! remember reading it. Talking about the planning director. Mayor Furlong: As these proposed amendments are right now it would be the discretion of the Community Development Director? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Certainly, ! believe any subdivision would be an impact and a change to the character of the lake because you're adding additional lots. Therefore you're changing the character of the lake because there's going to be an additional dock. That's a significant change. So if you're not changing the character of the lake by doing an addition that doesn't increase the impervious surface, all you're doing is adding significant expense to. Mayor Furlong: Would a variance on impervious surface then also be considered? Kate Aanenson: Right, right. Right. Mayor Furlong: ! guess maybe the question is, what's the standard, since you're in that current position. What are the types of things that would require. Kate Aanenson: Because right now if you're a lakeshore lot and you're doing an addition to the front of the house which wouldn't increase the impervious or get additional setback, then you're not changing the character. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so it's a change in character. Kate Aanenson: Additional impact or impact to the lake. Correct. If it's already legal on, if it's non-conforming but you're going up. You're not increasing the impervious but because you're going up, which that happens a lot. People put a second story on. The way it reads now, you're required to notify everybody on the lake and we're saying well you're not increasing the impervious so. Mayor Furlong: So it may change the sight lines, or views. Kate Aanenson: Right, and people on either side would be notified of that, right. Mayor Furlong: Within the city standard of 500 feet. 46 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Versus the state standard of 350. Kate Aanenson: Right. Now, having said that, I've been here a number of years and we notify everybody on the lake. Rarely, the people that most are likely to come when it's just a minor variance are the people on either side most impacted. Not if it's an additional beachlot, something like that. Certainly then there might be some other people on the lake so. It just seems again trying to make it for the person that's doing the application, not so onerous. It's not an intent to impede anybody's right to appeal or to come speak at a hearing. They certainly still could. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: It's still published in the paper. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Then the second one was the shoreland setback. Included in your packet that went out to you tonight with a summary, there is a letter from the DNR. And that letter is dated May 12th. That's got your last sheet on your packet. Again the staff's interpretation or concern we had about additional structure setback. Additional means added to. There seems to be some ambiguity on that. We worked through the attorney's office on that. Felt it wasn't appropriate to take out the word additional. The DNR in that letter concurred that that was acceptable to them. So again that issue was also raised at the Planning Commission and we did confer with the city attorney on that one. And I believe the city attorney also addressed in that same letter the setback and how you interpret a private street. That issue's been addressed numerous times in opinions from the city attorney on going back over the last few years. The building setback, if we took out the 60 by 60 pad. The way the lots are configured right now, or how you find a buildable lot is there are already standards for height, bulk, that sort of thing, and then it's for in the RSF or whatever district there are minimum lengths and widths of lots. For example on the RSF, 125 by 90 is a minimum lot size. Within that they're required setbacks. Within that there's a minimum house size. All that drives the buildable area, so actually by using the 60 by 60, that was where the rug came in with the tree ordinance because actually it was too small because what we find is our typical is actually probably closer to 40 by 80. House size. A lot of people are going to the 3 car garage. So if you actually use the buildable area, for what we're talking about kind of leading into the tree ordinance, including all that front area, is actually probably a better standard so this, there is requirements of place for lot sizes and that's with every zoning district. And then the final buildable areas you have within that, you have a certain square footage requirement of two story, a split or a rambler, and those are all identified in the city code. Mayor Furlong: So if a subdivision is proposed and it meets the dimension requirements of the lot size, and you have, and proposed building meets the requirements for code in terms of the size of the building, and it's within the setbacks, you can put it anywhere within the setbacks. 47 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's, exactly. Let me just, for clarification. Assuming this is your lot, okay. That's your RSF lot. Within that you'd have 30 foot front yard, 30 foot rear yard. 10 on the sides. So that becomes technically, that's your buildable area. Now what we've done, if you look at most of the subdivision plats that come in, the builder or some are plunked in there a 60 by 60 pad. But that can slide around so... Now is every lot that comes in square? No. There's all different iterations of how that works and that's our job is when we're reviewing that to look to make sure a reasonable house pad, and that somehow how the 60 by 60 came to be. Now within the PUD ordinance there was also a requirement to show, and that would be on the lot size where we've gone down to small as 11,000 square feet in traditional PUD. If you remember we had that discussion that as a staff, when you go to 11,000 square foot and try to put a 3 car garage on there, we haven't applied that PUD with that application in the last number of years because what we're finding is you end up with a smaller lot but people want to do a traditional type home on there. It doesn't work. So again, we believe the standards they have for each zoning district, with the buildable area and the house size meets that requirement. And moving with the new tree requirements, there really isn't any reason. The Planning Commission struggled with that, the 60 by 60 too. There seems to be some comfort and attachment to that but what we're saying is nobody stays within that box so if gives people comfort to still leave it in there, it's not a subdivision requirement. It's a tree calculation requirement. So it's not in the right place but if people are, have an affinity towards it, you know again Section 905 has the minimum lot size and the building square footage size so. Mayor Furlong: And is that 60 by 60 elsewhere within the code? You mentioned PUD. Kate Aanenson: The PUD has a 40 by 60, yes. Mayor Furlong: And why do we include a 40 by 60 in PUD versus. Kate Aanenson: At one time it was felt again to, for the, to add a deck on and then you'd have a certain square footage. Mayor Furlong: But was it again for tree calculation or is it? Kate Aanenson: At that time under the PUD was to guarantee you get a certain square footage of houses, but if you look at how we've applied the PUD, those are all approved with the site plan. Now traditionally again, if you think of that type of product, that would be similar to Longacres where you have some lots that are as small as 11 and go up to 30 some square feet. They're all close to different sizes, and that's where we've had more of the rubbers where they're some of the bigger homes try to fit on the smaller lots. Then they max out impervious and we tried not to move that way because it causes problems. But if you look at the other application, which is a better use of the PUD where you've got houses that are less flexible in design, because when you get a traditional house, those are the most fluid because people's lifestyle change. They want to add a pool. They want to add on another bedroom. Another garage. But if you look at 48 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 different type of product in a PUD zone, which is a better use of the PUD zone, those tend to be people that have a product that are, or a lifestyle that's, they may not add on. Maybe they've enclosed a screen porch but if it's a small lot, like Walnut Grove, a small lot. A 3,000-4,000 square foot lot with those individual small, those typically don't get added on in the same way traditional single family does. So we don't even apply that same standard on those types of lots so we're saying you approve a site plan. You approve those setbacks on that building envelope with each PUD you have that contract zoning. So again we're not certain that it's necessary. ! think that was the questions that ! had written down. There may be two more. Councilman Ayotte: Can I ask a question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: The Paulsen e-mail that we received late this afternoon, were any of the points that they brought up in that e-mail, because ! didn't have a chance to go over it, addressing anything in 7A? Kate Aanenson: Addressing? Councilman Lundquist: Section 20. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. ! think all of them are. Councilman Ayotte: So all of the points made in. Kate Aanenson: Except for, if you're talking about there was one that was brought up by, ! didn't hear about it tonight again, that was regarding retaining walls within a 10 foot easement. Again our easement treats retaining walls like fences. If it's over 4 feet. Certainly a fence, if a fence was to go into an active easement, whether it's a drainage or an active storm water pond, they'd have to get an encroachment agreement. So if it's a drainage swale, engineering typically reviews those and decides whether or not they want to allow to alter it to affect drainage patterns so just like any other fence permit, they get routed around. Someone investigates that so we don't believe that on a retaining wall issue. We believe the way it's written works and that's the way we treat them now. Councilman Ayotte: Okay so under Chapter 20, would everything except retaining wall point, everything was addressed, everything was applicable to Chapter 20? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Even the retaining wall's in Chapter 20. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. So that entire e-mail addressed Chapter 20. Nothing on Chapter 18? Kate Aanenson: No. The last one, definitions. That's in their e-mail addressed that, we moved all the definitions to Chapter 1 so that doesn't apply to Chapter 20. Again we 49 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 moved them all to that. What we found, and again this is in reviewing, in working with the city attorney that we just thought that were was, each chapter had their own set of definitions. Sometimes they conflicted. By putting them all at one spot, to make sure that whether it reflected nuisance or building code or engineering definitions. How they interpret, they're all in one spot and there is uniform definitions. And again, that's to make sure there's no conflict. That was a goal to reduce conflict within certain chapters, which we found there was a lot of, and that was part of the reason why that was done. So on the last one does refer to Chapter 1. On their comments. Otherwise ! believe I've addressed all those. With that maybe just take a minute to you know, ! don't know if you want to just talk about some of the main points but ! believe actually the Planning Commission, while they spent a lot of time and reviewed those, they held a public hearing. Opened twice. We had numerous work sessions. ! think they felt very comfortable and we did have those same work sessions with the City Council, kind of in those areas that we felt were kind of, maybe the biggest change are areas that we felt there were some rubs that we wanted to get concurrence on. So ! guess I'll leave it up to you as to what direction you'd like the staff to present that. Mayor Furlong: Questions or comments. If you want to deal with specific questions on the issues? Since it's so voluminous in this chapter. If there are any specific questions. Kate, one if you could point me to the right place. One of the bullet points talks about prohibiting lighting directed to the skyward except on American flags. One of the projects that came through, Market Street Station had some up lighting but we required it to be shielded. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was a variance that was specifically noted as a variance and that was shielded, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so by doing this, we would, we could still consider it as a variance as opposed to putting it in the code because it's allowed with the property. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And the industry trend now is that it not be directed clearly up, or directly into the sky. Industry trend right now is to kind of shine up and down. Certainly ! know Jack was here earlier, was a big proponent on the night sky and so were some of the previous City Council persons so if it's bouncing off of an eave or something like that, just so it's not spilling into the sky so that's the intent. Mayor Furlong: So ! guess my question is then, as this ordinance is written, and maybe we can look at that. They'd have to apply for a variance? Kate Aanenson: If they were to do it similar to what the theater was doing, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so the architecture desire meet the standard for hardship under a variance? Kate Aanenson: ! think going back to the rationale why you granted the variance, that's kind of the, your justification or your findings on that was the fact that this was kind of 50 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 the central market place. It was a cinema. It was a show place, based on the marquee and the presence and for that reason you felt that your finding was that it justified that, and ! guess we look at each situation as such. That that was kind of a gathering place with Southwest Metro and it deserved that kind of a treatment so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: So Kate, if we take the church over by, ! can't remember the name. Councilman Lundquist: Family of Christ. Councilman Labatt: Family of Christ. Brian's church, yeah. They're up pointing on the cross. That is something we're trying to. Kate Aanenson: That got fixed. Councilman Labatt: It got fixed but that wouldn't flow with this ordinance. Kate Aanenson: It didn't with the past ordinance either. Right. They came back for a variance, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: You know ! don't know if you want me to read some of these just for the record but ! think you know we have talked about all those again. Trying to additional buffering for the wetlands. Gosh, ! think it could take a long time to go through them all specifically. ! guess my preference would be if there's some specific questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions or desire, if there's no specific questions, don't know that we need to take the time to read through what was distributed in the packet. Public record. If not, I'll bring it back to council for any comments. Are we generally comfortable with these? Councilman Lundquist: Of any chapter, this is the one that's had the most effort, work. Time. ! mean it's the most complicated probably you could argue too, so that's good but we've had several work sessions. The Planning Commission's had several meetings. Several work sessions. So many of them, ! think this probably is the tightest one of any that we've seen of the 20. Or 20 however many other. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And ! think you know, to the extent that comments have been raised by residents. ! think while they are valid comments and I'm glad that they came forward, ! think ! can concur with staff on the one issue, you know in terms of notification of lakeshore. There's going to have to be a standard, a discretion ! guess on staff' s part to apply that standard consistently and at an appropriate level. And ! think as 51 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 a council if we don't think it's the right standard, we can let you know or through the city manager as well. Kate Aanenson: Sure, we can put a policy together and make sure you're comfortable with that. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, that might be helpful. To get some guidelines so that we're not guessing each time and at least there's some basis for which that. ! think too it would be helpful for the applicants when they come in to see how they meet it so. If there's any additional discussion. If not, is there a motion to approve the. Councilman Ayotte: Just one other comment. The only thing that ! was uncomfortable about originally is ! got late information from residents and ! wasn't certain at that point whether or not all of those points were addressed, and since that time Kate you've told me but in the future ! hope that when we do have a late flag, that we somehow be assured that those points are addressed so that we can... Kate Aanenson: The flag, yeah I wasn't, it wasn't sent to me. I appreciate the fact that it was forwarded to me but these were addressed at the Planning Commission. Certainly they're still following through and. Councilman Ayotte: And the Planning Commission was. Kate Aanenson: Did address all those. Yes, they have been addressed and rightly so they're addressing them again to you. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Discussion. If not, is there a motion to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 20. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Is this also a motion to adopt the approval of the summary ordinance for publication purposes? Councilman Lundquist: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And the second as well. Councilman Labatt: Yes sir. 52 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt Chapter 20, Chanhassen City Code, Zoning, and approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY CODE AMENDMENTS; INCLUDING SUMMARY ORDINANCES FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES: CHAPTER 18, TREE PRESERVATION. Mayor Furlong: Move on to consideration to amendments to Chapter 18. Staff report please. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. In your work session earlier this evening the City Forester, Jill Sinclair went through kind of the iteration that we're moving to with the tree ordinance. Again we did invite the Planning Commission to kind of see how that would apply by looking at an existing subdivision. And again as we talked about, we took out calling all the species. We're leaving it up to the applicants to put together the species. Certainly we're seeing a few more evergreens in front yards. We have a few concerns about that. As they grow bigger and they start blocking things out. So we're working on that but again the goal here was, to get an ordinance that works for the developer, residents. The owners once they get in the property, because it' s not just the developers themselves. It's once you get the owners on the property and managing that, and then also that's manageable for our staff review. Working with, there's so many different levels. ! mean you would walk it the first time. Put up construction fence and make sure everything's treed off and then as development occurs, constantly managing it so we believe that this is the best way, you know after we've worked on this for a number of years. Different iterations. Probably fifth or sixth iteration of the tree ordinance. Getting smarter. Again Jill attached in here some of the documentation that the Planning Commission again, they spent a lot of time on this. Looking at what other cities do and we were pretty surprised that how onerous and restrictive our tree ordinance is. Actually ! think Eden Prairie was surprised and they were concerned about the tree loss, that actually we're holding up more trees on Settlers West than the original development, so we do have a good tree ordinance and the intent is not to dilute but to make it workable for everybody so we're not raising false expectations. So we hope this works. We believe it's going to work better but again we'll come back and confirm that as we work through some projects and kind of go back and evaluate. But with that we are recommending approval with the modifications on Chapter 18. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Discussion. Questions? ! guess questions for staff at this point. Clarification on this 105. Maybe this is a comment as well. Really what we're doing is changing the way we calculate tree replacement in a subdivision and as we talked about, while we're saying that for ease of calculation and based upon our past experience as a city, the first 105 feet approximately, all the trees go anyway. Or the 53 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 majority. If the developer can save trees up there, that just adds incremental value to the lot likely, but it wouldn't be counted as part of the tree replacement calculations. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And that 105 foot isn't necessarily everything behind that isn't necessarily preserved. Kate Aanenson: No. That's a project by project basis. That's just for calculating the loss. Mayor Furlong: Calculating loss so that we have a standard. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions or discussion on this item? Again we've discussed this a few times and ! think we're gaining some comfort with where it's going, is my sense. If there is no discussion, is there a motion to approve the proposed amendments as well as to approve the summary ordinance for publication purposes. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the amendments to the ordinance and summary ordinance for publication purposes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt Chapter 18, Chanhassen City Code, Subdivision, and approval of summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Labatt: Thanks Kate. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Kate. Lots of work with this and a lot of time. Kate Aanenson: Bob spent a lot of time working on this so. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And good discussion and it was worthwhile taking the time to get those right so thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. 54 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: FINANCE DIRECTOR. UPDATE ON 2004 BOND SALE, Bruce DeJong: Good evening council members. Got a memo in front of you that ! wrote up and as you can tell some of this is a moving target still as we're discussion what exactly we should bond for in 2004, but I'd like to talk a little bit about where we started out from. Some important considerations and some timing issues and then we can discuss as much or as little as you'd like about particular projects and dollar amounts associated with them. We started out preparing the capital improvement plan really last August-September-October kind of a time frame, and put that together before we had final numbers on ! guess a number of issues. We hadn't at that point completed our utility rate study. We certainly didn't have any preliminary information on the ultimate treatment plant type of sizing or locational issues so we tried to make a stab at what we would need in total for bonding and came up with about 7 million dollars worth of projects. That includes about $800,000 for street related projects. Someplace in the neighborhood of a million dollars for equipment and city hall related projects, and the remainder of it, about $5.4 million was for the utility portion. Which includes the treatment plant and a well. Now when we were putting this together there are some things that we have to consider. There's a couple of major thresholds on bond issues that finance directors and bonding consultants like to look at. One of those is whether we have to pay arbitrage or pay attention to arbitrage requirements, and that is cities are restricted from issuing debt merely to take advantage of low interest rates on the debt to being able to invest it at higher interest rates. Certainly under current conditions that's not a possibility but if you issue less than $5 million dollars worth of bonds in an individual year you are not required to follow those arbitrage rules. If you issue under $10 million dollars in debt in a given year, then you can issue the bank, bonds under what's called bank qualification. And bank qualification means that when banks buy municipal bonds, they don't have to pay tax on the interest earnings from those bonds, which really expands the market of people who are interested in buying our bonds and it tends to drive down the cost to the city. Someplace between 5 to 10, maybe even up to 15 basis points depending on the market. So what we've got is for 2004 we are probably over the $5 million dollars which is the arbitrage threshold, but preliminarily we look like we're under the 10 million for the bank qualification. Now we've gone through and just received some information from SEH based on their pilot water plant study that we may be more effectively served by a different type of treatment plant rather than being a pressure plant, which is a smaller that we may be more effectively served by a larger gravity plant, and ! included those costs in here just for comparison sake. We have not completely run that through the analysis that we did for our rate study, which was completed back in January for utility rates for both water and sewer but it does look like on a preliminary basis, if we were to increase that from the $4.5 million dollars that we had included, up to the approximately $10.5 million which is included in this analysis, we would have to increase rates about 12 percent again next year on the water side, and we continue to see increases on the hook-up charges for water above and beyond what was included in that original rate study. We'll be prepared to provide you with thorough information on that a little bit later. The next step in how we have to go about issuing these is that generally we can issue debt on a fairly rapid basis, but we are remodeling 55 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 city hall and we're planning on issuing bonds for that. Approximately $230,000 worth of construction costs and when we made the additional last minute of about $50,000 worth of furniture. What has to happen with that portion of it is, it's under some special state regulations which require us to publish a notice of a public hearing and then have a 30 day period after the public hearing where the residents can put together a petition which would be a reverse referendum requiring a vote on that project. So in order to issue bonds under that statute, we really need to have a public hearing and then let that 30 day time period lapse before we would actually issue the bonds. What that means is we've kind of backed into that process so we are publishing a notice of that hearing and ! believe that Mr. Gerhardt had a little conversation today with you regarding that. That we would need to have that on a fairly quick basis, probably putting together a special meeting on June l0th for the public hearing. Or maybe we didn't. Councilman Peterson: That was going to be the next point in administrative discussions. Todd Gerhardt: Haven't gotten to my items yet. If I can just interrupt. We're going to need at least 3 people to attend that June 10th meeting to formally hold the public hearing, as Bruce is stating. We're trying to meet the guidelines of this new statute and you have to give anywhere from 14 to 28 days for a public hearing and then up to 30 days after that for a reverse referendum, and that will take us into July before we can have that bond sale, so we're trying to move this along as quickly as possible and to do that we need a special council meeting on June l0th, and if ! could have 3 representatives for that meeting, ! would really appreciate it. Councilman Peterson: What's the day? Councilman Lundquist: Thursday. Todd Gerhardt: And we can do it early in the morning. We can do it middle of the afternoon. We could do it at lunch, but it would have to be here at city hall. Mayor Furlong: And this would just be for that. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, ! would expect 10 minutes at the most. Mayor Furlong: Plus any public input on the issue, yes. Todd Gerhardt: Any public input, yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Sorry to interrupt Bruce. Mayor Furlong: No, that's fine. Why don't you keep going Bruce and we'll. Bruce DeJong: Sorry to surprise you with that one. 56 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: No, it was a good segway I think. Bruce DeJong: The reason that we want to push this along is because, as you may have noticed, interest rates are rising at this point and when they start to go up, they can sometimes go up rather rapidly. I think we've seen an increase of someplace around 30 to 40, maybe even 50 basis points depending on specific maturities in just the last 6 weeks. So that drives up the interest cost on all of these projects and we'd like to move as fast as we can as a staff to get these bonds locked in at the low interest rates before the federal reserve starts raising their interest rates and the market starts responding aggressively to that. I guess having said that then we start looking at specific projects and costs that would be related to that and you know beyond what was included in the CIP, I've kind of printed that out here for you. I apologize I did not adjust the grand total appropriately for the change in the water treatment plant, but when you look at the page that's labeled capital improvement program projects by funding source, you can see one of those identifies that we put in there. The only changes are the water treatment plant under revenue bonds. The treatment plant land acquisition, which staff has thought about advancing to try and pick a site someplace in that high zone area for treatment plant before the available land is gone, since we do need a significant amount of space there. Estimates around, someplace around the 7 to 10 acres I believe is the estimate for. Todd Gerhardt: 3 to 5. Bruce DeJong: 4 to 5, okay. But that's still a significant dollar amount. And then we do have one part of the water trunk main that could be extended this year to serve Klingelhutz property down around the 212 corridor and Mr. Oehme has indicated that it makes sense to do that before we begin some of the 212 related construction in that area. So I've included those. And then under the Certificates of Indebtedness I have advanced one project that I think we can still get in under the dollar figure that we had proposed in total to be bonding for this year, but that's the City Council data tablates that would allow you to have internet access for council agenda packets and stuff like that so those are really the projects and I'm ready to take any questions that you may have. Todd Gerhardt: Bruce, did you talk about the two TIF notes. Bruce DeJong: Oh, I did not. Todd Gerhardt: This wasn't enough so we thought we needed to add more. Bruce DeJong: In our entertainment district we have two separate tax increment notes that are coming along at 9 percent interest. Those notes are, one is the Frontier note and one is for Chanhassen Properties. The total principle that's outstanding on those looks to be someplace in the neighborhood of about $1.1 million dollars and we've had Ehlers run a preliminary estimate that shows we'd be issuing notes in the amount, principle of $1,145,000 which would include payment of the notes immediately and refinancing them at the current interest rates. If we were to go do that over the life of the notes, we would 57 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 end up saving approximately half a million dollars worth of interest payments on those two notes. They run out for not quite another 20 years. They run through 2022 would be the final payment on those notes, but it would make sense to refinance those and be able to save that money. Perhaps retiring that entertainment district and putting it back on the tax rolls faster. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the refinance bonds are the bonds used for refinancing might be paid off sooner than the current TIF district notes would be paid off. To bring it back on faster. Wouldn't those notes have to be paid off?. Councilman Lundquist: You could take the interest savings and put them against the principle is what you're talking about Bruce? Bruce DeJong: Yeah. Running out bonds over a 20 year life. ! would anticipate that we'd put in some type of a call provision. You know there is a slight penalty for having a call provision in there but to be able to pay those off on an earlier basis would be well worth it in this case. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Todd Gerhardt: And the revenue source Mayor, council members, if ! can add to that, would be from that TIF district from the cinema. What was that, Southwest Station development would go towards paying off these bonds. The increment derived from those developments and we anticipate when Southwest Station gets built, that increment should double in there, if not even more than that but you know we could see a pay off within probably 10 years or less based on that development. Mayor Furlong: Southwest or Market Street? Todd Gerhardt: Market Street Station, sorry. Got the two mixed up. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. A lot of numbers. Questions? Councilman Peterson: The only one that ! had was, walk me through again, and you probably talked about it before but the Klingelhutz property and $150,000 for watermain service. Bruce DeJong: I'd defer to Mr. Oehme on that. Paul Oehme: Thank you Councilmember Peterson. What that project entails is currently there's a 16 inch watermain that runs along Lyman Boulevard and services the property south. South of Lyman Boulevard and east of 101. And also all of North Bay, residential property units out there. Okay, that's the only feeder main that currently services those properties. Under normal engineering practices you want to try to loop that watermain if at all possible because if that one trunk line breaks, basically over 200 units of households would be out of water. What this project entails, and it's in the comp plan, is 58 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 to extend water from 86th Street down and across 212 and then connect into North Bay. And in conjunction with the 212 project MnDot would be putting in a segment of that portion, but if from a staff's perspective we'd like to get that portion that's south of 212 and then over to North Bay put in prior to the 212 construction project so what we'd like to have to do to put that leg ofwatermain in before they even start with their bridge work or their other portion of the work because there' s a lot of other construction that' s going to be taking place in that area and along 212 or 101 and we would like to try to get that to use just to protect that neighborhood, and back feed it in case that 16 inch watermain is disrupted at some point. Councilman Peterson: Got it, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist or Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I'm the shorter of the two. Mayor Furlong: But better looking. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Is the water treatment project 04-08, has your scheduled been updated and is that schedule in sync with the bond sale requirements? Want to do that again? Okay. Things have changed a bit in our water treatment approach based on the testing you've done. Therefore your schedule of need will probably change. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: Is what Bruce is presenting, is his schedule of bond sale in tandem, in concert, synchronized with your requirements? Paul Oehme: Yes. Based upon our conversations and documentation that SEH has provided for us, they have also been involved with the pilot plant at the Lotus Lake well field. Those are the recommendations from our consultant to move forward on the. Councilman Ayotte: So the $10 million dollars is addressed and the schedule of the need for that $10 million is addressed. Paul Oehme: That's correct, and we'll discuss that on our next thing. Councilman Ayotte: And 12 percent for utility that you talked towards Bruce, an increase. To a typical household what can that mean? Bruce DeJong: To a typical residential household it'd probably mean, let me page through here. Probably, not seeing the dollar figure exactly here in the preliminary information I've gotten back from Ehlers, but ! would guess someplace in the 10 to 15 dollar per quarter range. Todd Gerhardt: Wasn't it like a $120 a quarter? 59 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Bruce DeJong: It was a little over a $100 a quarter. So this is on the water side. It wouldn't have the impact on the sewer side, so I'm guessing someplace in that. Councilman Ayotte: And we won't anticipate any other spikes like that for a while? Bruce DeJong: Well there would continue to be a need for increasing the connection charges on the water, which we've already identified. Councilman Ayotte: But we're not talking about, I know the change. It's what we've stated before. Bruce DeJong: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: I guess to follow up on that. When we did the rate study, did we include, what ! understand here in reading the memo is that we're basically saying rather than doing one now, based on what we need, and then expanding that in the future based upon adding wells, we're going to do all of it now. Right? The concept here that we're looking at. And if that's the case, wasn't that addition in the future, wasn't that going to be funded through development fees? Through hook-up's and such like that. So ! guess I'm concerned why, and maybe we'll deal with this, we might have to review the rate study but if we're just accelerating something, ! guess I'll be interested in understanding how that affects current residents rates rather than just maybe funding that acceleration with cash balances available now to be paid off with hook-up charges later. But that's something not germane to this necessarily but how we're going to pay that back. If all we're doing is accelerating. If we're expanding, that might be a different story. Expanding need. Councilman Lundquist: We're not, we're changing the way you're proposing to do water treatment, right. It's not combining, originally you had phase ! that's going to be now and then phase I! that's going to be 5 or 6 years down the road. You're not talking about doing them all together are you? You're talking about a difference? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Just reading in the memo here, it's talking about originally issuing 4.5 for the water treatment following SEH recommendations of the type of plant. It can handle ultimate build out for this section. It's not the entire city. It's just the low pressure zone. So that's why I'm raising the question because ! think we tried to allocate fairly the usage rates with the hook-up charges so that the current residents pay for what, for our benefit and future residents pay for their demand on the bigger system. So ! guess that's something that we can address at that point, that we can look at in terms of repaying these. Todd Gerhardt: Well ifI remember, a portion of the second plant still was going to treat some of the existing households, so that's where you saw the portion of the rate increase. Mayor Furlong: In the low zone? 60 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Todd Gerhardt: In the high zone. Mayor Furlong: The high zone, that's the, that's the second plant. But what ! understand is that the low zone plant would be expanded to handle ultimate build out and the low zone is, then the high zone would be a second plant. That's what we're looking at. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I'd have to go back and check those numbers. Mayor Furlong: We've got to check it and just make sure that we're looking at the numbers correctly and fairly allocating the cost. Todd Gerhardt: All we did was pull out the sheets. Brian asked what if we did the ultimate build out so we used those percentages from that sheet. Mayor Furlong: Just for estimates at this point? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Because we figured that question may come up. Mayor Furlong: And you're not as good looking as Councilman Ayotte. Okay, that's my thought. You know, we'll be talking about the need here. The question ! have is if we go forward, what you're looking for tonight is direction. Does this make sense to go forward knowing that we're going to fill in some blanks. The issues we tabled tonight directly impact the actual dollar amounts. As we issue bonds or go forward with the bonds, if we end up not using as much money, how does that, do we draw against these essentially if we get the money now and is there a time period in which we need to use them. Bruce DeJong: Well there are significantly fewer restrictions on utility revenue bonds than there are on bonds that will be paid back through property tax. So you know you could essentially issue bonds in this case without having identified specific projects that are necessary to bond. Mayor Furlong: You're saying the revenue bonds. Bruce DeJong: On the revenue side so you know if you don't use them, you could just use that to pay back that service. The only requirement is that you don't go out and try to make money on the debt that you issue that you don't need. If there's any excess interest earnings on that above and beyond the debt service payments, we have to repay that to the IRS. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that's, it's the revenue bonds that are the bulk of this, and specifically the water treatment. Bruce DeJong: Correct. 61 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Bruce your list, I don't see the $800,000 for the SCADA on the revenue bonds. That well 9, the water treatment plant and the Klingelhutz trunk main, but ! don't see the 800K for SCADA on the list. Bruce DeJong: No, you're right in the sense that ! have to apologize because ! put this together and then came up in talking with Todd about this, that oops the water treatment has changed. So in my memo I've addressed the fact that Well 9 was supposed to be paid for with cash out of the utility system based on the rate study, and that when we'd be putting the SCADA system in, bonding for that. So essentially there's a wash there between that Well 9 item for $900,000 and the SCADA system for $800,000. Councilman Lundquist: So if we just cross that Well 9 under revenue bonds and put SCADA under there, it would be essentially the same. Bruce DeJong: That would drop to $500,000. That's, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: And then how does this $9 million dollars in 2005 MUSA stuff factor in? Bruce DeJong: Beats me other than providing you with an update on what may potentially be out there to be bonded. Councilman Lundquist: But those are assessments that we would go back, is that what that's saying? Bruce DeJong: It's possible that those would be assessments, if the city were to issue the debt and then assess developers back for them. We've also discussed having the developers up front the money with repayment agreements for other properties inbetween such as if you had a parcel on the south end of that 2005 MUSA that wanted to developer faster than a property that's closer to the existing utility systems, then you'd have to have the developer up front that and get paid back when the other property inbetween develops. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So overall, bottom line how does this impact our, the CIP that we passed back in December is obviously substantially different than this, so what's the bottom line impact dollar wise, what does this do to us in repayments or other. Bruce DeJong: Actually ! think that the amount of money supported by the tax levy is going to be lower than what ! gave you in the 2004 budget estimate. Councilman Lundquist: Shifting some of it to revenue. The bulk of it's revenue instead? Bruce DeJong: Yeah. The vast majority of the changes are in the utility which is really affected by the utility rates and the connection charges for hooking up. 62 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Lundquist: For enterprise funds of one way, shape or form or another. Bruce DeJong: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Of staff. Comments. Is there any reason they shouldn't go forward with this and pursue it, including the TIF refinancing, which I think makes a lot of sense. Councilman Lundquist: I think as long as we're careful with Ehlers, which I'm sure we will be, and make sure we don't get ourselves over that magic ratio of total indebtedness that we want to watch out for .... I'm sure that Bruce is number one. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, anything else on this? Are you comfortable? Bruce DeJong: Thank you for the direction. Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I need a commitment from somebody on June l0th. We may need EDA action that day also if we're going to refinance those TIF notes. Councilman Ayotte: What time are we targeting? Todd Gerhardt: I'm flexible. Whatever works. You want to do it morning. Afternoon. Mayor Furlong: 5:30? You can do that now. Councilman Labatt: Well I can do it at 3:00 now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so a 5:30 start be sufficient for everybody? We could also do an EDA. Councilman Labatt: 5:007 Councilman Peterson: I haven't got my calendar with so. Councilman Lundquist: The later the better. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Let's do this. Can we, without violating any open meeting laws, because I don't want to propose that. Can we get our calendars to Mr. Gerhardt and he can pick a time when most can attend and then let everybody know what that time would be. Okay? Does that work for people. Bruce DeJong: The caveat Mayor Furlong is that I have to have that notice into the paper by 9:00 tomorrow morning. Mayor Furlong: By 9:00 tomorrow morning? 63 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Bruce DeJong: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Labatt: I'm good for any time. I'll make it work. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: I'd prefer lunch or around noon. ! don't care about eating but. Mayor Furlong: Does that work, that doesn't work for you? Councilman Lundquist: No. That's no good for me. Todd Gerhardt: ! only need 3 right. For 10 minutes. Bruce DeJong: We need 3/5 vote of the council. Councilman Labatt: What about you? Councilman Ayotte: ! can do it later in the day but not noon. Councilman Labatt: Okay, but are you okay for 5:30? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: Then I'll do 5:30. Mayor Furlong: Does that work for you Mr. Lundquist? Councilman Labatt: Craig, you're okay with 5:307 Councilman Lundquist: You don't need me if it doesn't so it doesn't matter. Councilman Labatt: Tom, you're okay with 5:30. I'm okay, so that makes 4. Let's go. Mayor Furlong: We'll do 5:30. Councilman Ayotte: How about 6:00? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: What, you're not okay with 6:00? Councilman Labatt: I'm okay. 64 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Mayor Furlong: You prefer 5:30. Councilman Labatt: You know it doesn't matter. I'm so flexible right now. Mayor Furlong: You are. I've always said that about you. Alright, let's say 5:30 on the l0th' Councilman Peterson: Somebody send an e-mail, would you? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. You'll get a packet too. Mayor Furlong: Alright, and that will be here in the council chambers. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With an EDA meeting to follow most likely do you think? Todd Gerhardt: ! think we're going to need EDA action on those TIF notes. Mayor Furlong: So we do either that then or on the 14th. Bruce DeJong: ! don't think that there's the same requirement that you have a public hearing on refinancing those TIF notes for the EDA so I'll check into that. Mayor Furlong: Or we could just do the EDA on the night of the 14th, which would be our next regular meeting. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We could do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, anything else for administrative presentations? Todd Gerhardt: Just that ! am working on a public safety study, meeting with Mr. Setter. Previous Police Chief from Minnetonka. And see if he can help us out. Jim Proeser from Ehlers is also going to be involved in that. He's worked on a couple of these and so we're going to meet next Thursday at 2:00 and then on June 14th we have the 2005 Land Use update coming to you. And then EDA meeting also that evening to consider purchase agreement for old Village Hall addition, Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus site. So that's all ! have. Over by old St. Hubert's. The daycare and coffee shop. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Good, any other questions of the city manager? If not, any discussion on the correspondence packet? Hearing none, if there's nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? CORRESPONDENCE PACKET. None. 65 City Council Meeting - May 24, 2004 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 66