The URL can be used to link to this page

1i Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 25, 2002 Mayor Jansen e. ailed the work session to order at 5:35 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRF~ENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRE~ENT: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Bob Generous, Kate Aaneuson, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Dale Gregory, Bruce DcJong, Teresa Burgess, and Richard Rice C0UN~3L MEMBER~ ELECT P~NT: Tom Furlong and Brian Lundquist A. IJ'PDATE ON REVISION~ TO ~ ~ (~)DE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this imm, stating most revisions were in response to changes in state law. Kate Aanenson stated staff was looking for philosophical direction'from the City Council. Councilman Labatt asked about solicitors having photocopied permits. Staff was also looking for direction on the noise ordinance, specifically related to animal noise, and house moving permit regulations. Councilman Peterson requested a black line copy showing the requested changes. Councilman Ayotte asked that a more in depth study be made on cable service and enviromnental concerns. Be . UPDATE ON INTERIM USE PRRMiT, MISS R0~m'S I~,~L Susan McAllister from Miss Rosie's Farm was present for this imm. Bob Generdus infom~ the council that the conditions placed in.the Interim Use Permit had been substantially met-by the November l, 2002 deadline, but that no construction had yet taken place. The question was whether the council wanted to force Miss lVlcAilister to make the i .mpmve~ts and start the business. Mayor Jansen stated that the health and safety concerns had been met by the deadline and that all improvements needed to be made prior to the business starting operations, and asked Miss McAllister if she understood this, which she stated she did. C. 2003 BI,/DGET DI~C~IQN. Todd Gerhardt gave a power point presentation showing the comparison of Chanhassen with other Key Financial Strategy cities on levy limits, summary 6f new or expanded programs in 2003, financial impact on homeowners, and for every $100,000 taken out of the budget, the dollar impact on homeowners. Councilman Ayotte expressed that Chanhassen r~idents need to realize that reduction in taxes means a reduction in services. Mayor Jan.oa~n stat~ thftt tl~ c. otmcil could not ignore the community survey results which stated that the residents did not want to see the service levels in the city go down. Todd Gerhardt then showed the i .mpact of a 3.4% budget cut across the board, and 10% cut. He explained that residers are looking to the city to be more efficient in the services they provide rather than cutting services. Councilman Boyle asked about a reduction in city street lighting. Councilman Peterson asked to e 'hminate doing the community survey'every 2 years and instead do it every 3 or 4 years and cutting the Chanhassen newsletter to twice a year rather than quarterly. Councilman Ayotte stated that unless Park and Rec can generate more revenue, he was in favor of making cuts in the Park and Rec budget. Bruce City Council Work Session - November 25, 2002 DeJong went over a handout showing available cash versus commitments. Staff's recommendation was to leave the levy as is. Mayor Jansen recessed the City Council work session at 6:$5 p.m. for the regular City Council meeting. The work session was reeonvened at 8:25 p.m. Teresa Burgess went over a handout on employee comparisons with other cities for street, utilities and park maintenance. Councilman Peterson asked for staff clarification on a number of line items in the budget. Capital Plan. Todd Gerhardt compared levying versus bonding for capital expenditures. Bruce De.long passed out a handout showing items that could potentially be pushed out on the capital plan. Mayor Jansen went over the schedule for budget approval. Councilman Ayotte stated he was in favor of reduction in the Park and Recreation budget as incentive for revenue generators. Mayor Jansen stated that the Park and Recreation Commission has set up a committee to investigate revenue generation. Councilman Peterson stated that he was missing a simple review of the revenue sunumry totals, revenues versus expenditures, and asked about using reserves for debt reduction. Mayor Jansen recapped for the council what actions City Council have taken to date and asked that the individual council members be real clear on what they want to accomplish with the budget at the public hearing on December 9t~. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANI-IASSEN CITY COUNCIL I1F~ULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. GQIJ'N~ MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor 1ansen, Councilman Iadmtt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson ~TAFF PRF~ENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Hoffman, Justin Miller, and Teresa Burgess PUBLIC PRE~ENT FOR ALL ITEM~: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen Denny Nystrom Tom Furlong LuAnn Sidney Tim Braff Brian Lundquist 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 l. aredo Drive 1800 Flying Cloud Drive 1841 Ringneck Drive 2431 Bridle Creek Trail 7410 Minnewashta Parkway 7281 Conestoga Court PUBLII~ ANNOUNCEMENT~: None. ;.. CONSENT AGENDA: Coon_eHman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of 2003 Prosecution Contract with Carver County. b. Approve Temporary Trail Construction Work Agreements and Payments, TH 101 Trail Project 97-12-3. c. Approve DNR Easement #133-27-0156 for the Highway 101 Trail Project 97-12-3. e. Adoption of Public Purpose Expenditure Policy. L Approval of Bills. g, Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 12, 2002 - City Council Minutes dated Nove~ 12, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 22, 2002 h. Request for a Variance Extension, 1800 Flying Cloud Drive., Dennis Nystrom. Approval of a Permit for the Filling of 8,320 square feet (0.2 acres) of Wetland for Trail Construction; Located along the West Side of TH 101, NoF, J~ Of TH 5. City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 j. Approve Certificate of Compliance, Permag Corp, Addition LUR ~90-21. k. Approve Certificate of Compliance, Park One 3~ Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. L, APPROVE ACCF-~$ EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SUNRISE HILI~ HOMEOWNEI~ ASSO~IATION AND (~0MPEN~ATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $20~000. Mayor Jansen: Is this a lengthy conversation to move to the end or? Councilman Labatt: No, just a quick one. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: I'm just wondering why we are doing what we're doing here, and going to compensate $20,000 plus installing a brick paver surface. What kind of precedence are we setting here? Mayor Jansen: I see Teresa entering the room, and she can answer that question for us. Teresa Burgess: I'm sorry, I missed the question on my way down. Mayor'Jansen: Thank you. 'Councilman Labatt: On 1(1). The Sunrise Hills. As long as you're here, $20,000 in exchange for an access easement. How does that relate to what we've given to other property owners in the past.* For this amount of property. Teresa Burgess: What we did is we valued the property based on previous lot sales in the area, not with properties that we had purchased but properties that have been purchased by private property owners and we used that to calculate a value on the land. We then calculated based on request by the property owners, in this case the homeowners association, for the improvements for the paver block instead of putting in grass paver asphalt. And we deducted that value from what we would have normally paid out. That's a standard procedure for us. People will ask for something above and beyond what we were going to do. We deduct it from the dollar value and say it's an in kind purchase instead of a tax purchase. So what we are paying to the neighborhood. is the difference between the cost of the improvement and the dollar value of the land that we are taking based on our normal calculation, very similar to what we did out on Highway 101 trail improvements and what we did on the BC-7 and 8 improvements when we took utility easements out there. Councilman Labatt: So, and then, so how much of it was deducted and how much brick paver surface will there be7 Teresa Burgess: The brick paver area I can't give you a square footage but it's the area from the existing gravel drive to the lift station that right now is a grassed area. We've torn it up several times in the last 2 or 3 years and the estimates the last time we tore it up were, would have been about $10,000 to repair the damage. Rather than do that we rough graded it using city staff and put down seed, but that is not to the level it should have been. The brick pavers are slightly more City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 expensive than asphalt would have been, bht less expensive than the grass paved that the city originally proposed, and I don't have those numbers in front of me. I can certainly get that to the council if you'd like to have that information, but it was inbetween the two costs. We had originally proposed grass pave as a solution for the neighborhood and they felt that they did not want that. They wanted brick pavers instead because they felt that the grass pave was not a good solution for what they use this site for. Mayor Jansen: And the brick pavers you just said is less expensive. Teresa Burgess: The brick pavers are less expensive than grass pave but I don't remember the exact dollar amounts. Todd Gerhardt: There's an ongoing maintenance savings on this too. Teresa says we ripped it up the last 3 years. I think we rip it up every spring because we have to go in there and we take in the vac truck and mt up this entire area so we have to come back, re-grade it, seed it every year and this again is an ongoing maintenance issue and we can get you those numbers if you'd like to see that. On what the savings would be. Councilman Labatt: So is this brick paver going to be driven on by the trucks then? Teresa Burgess: The brick paver will be designed, right now we haven't done the designs yet but it will be designed for, to hold the level of weight of our vactor Iruclc It will be able to hold that track. Councilman Labatt: I just think, I'd like to wait and get a spreadsheet on what the actual, the whole breakdown of the cost here. Mayor Jansen: This has been a rather lengthy negotiation and I know it's been on and off of our agenda several times. I think over the course of that, I know I was asking questions as it popped on the agenda a few times, as to what was going on, and I would just as soon try to get this passed this evening, though I understand you'd like to see more of the detail. Wha~ I'm hearing Teresa say is that this was negotiated in the city's best interest as well as trying to accommndate what the neighborhood was looking for, but where they were upgrading, you were then deducting from what the city was paying for the property, so it's a give and take. Teresa Burgess: The property was valued at approximately $40,000 and we have reduced that to $20,000 based on the improvements that we were offering above and beyond gravel or bituminous. It was a negotiated settlement between the neighborhood and the city. We did approach this just like we would any other property owner, and I can certainly get you that information. Councilman Labatt: Well I don't think any of the property owners are going to get a brick paver road down their property and we have to maintain this too now. I think, what's our recurring maintenance going to be on it? Do we have any projections on that and things like that. You know I'm only one voice up here and I think we know which way I'm going to vote so whatever you want to do. Councilman Peterson: Teresa, this is the same one that we talked about some kind of creative drivable grass, wasn't it? Isn't that the one. City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Teresa Burgess: The grass paver. We had talked about grass paver as a solution. The neighborhood rejected that as an alternative. They felt that it would not provide the type of surface that they wanted in that area and were concerned that it would become a maintenance hazard or a maintenance headache. Quite often with the grass paved, because you put the gravel underneath it, you have problems with keeping it green. It will brown out because it doesn't have anything to hold moisture... Councilman Peterson: Either way this is not improving their property, which is now our property but. Teresa Burgess: It will be the easement that will be paved. They preferred the brick paver look to asphalt, which would have been our first choice. For surfacing and we did reduce the cost. We did not take into account additional maintenance cost as Steve brought up. But at the time we were trying to negotiate an easement and we did approach it, we have had property owners request substantial improvements to their property in lieu of payment. A perfect example would be when we recently did the Tanadoona Road improvements. We ended up seeding a large area of wild flower in exchange, instead of paying the property owner for land that we needed for temporary easement. He requested landscaping that we put in instead so we do that as a common practice. We try to value what we're going to do as an improvement against what the dollar value of the property is and reduce the dollar value that we are paying. We don't do an improvement above and beyond what we have for dollars. Councilman Ayotte: I think Councilman Labatt's request to see what the recunSng costs are for life cycle is a reasonable request. :.. Councilman Boyle: May I say something? If you do that, you're dealing with a homeowners association of 50 some different families. Each time there's a change, you've got to go back. They've got to call meetings. This will go on for another year. Trust me I know this has been going a long time and it kept going off because they had, you have to get this 50 families to agree on this every time. And even if you saw the increase in cost, these are costs that's being associated because the city needs it to get the track to the lift station. It's not the homeowners requesting it. Councilman Peterson: The homeowners then. Councilman Boyle: And we are paying them 50 percent. We the city are paying the homeowners 50 percent of what the appraised value was. Councilman Peterson: The homeowners would prefer to have us not be there. Councilman Boyle: That's correct. Todd Gerhardt: Well that's not a choice. Councilman Labatt: Well our lift station's there. We can abandon the lift station I suppose. I don't know. Councilman Peterson: I'm just making a reference to the fact that. Councilman Boyle: They won't like that either. City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Labatt: No they won't. Councilman Peterson: They'd prefer not to have anything so. Todd Gerhardt: That's a stinky option. Councilman Peterson: Steve, is your only question really pavers versus asphalt or7 Councilman Labatt: My whole point is, I meam Mr. Boyle's point is, this is 50 families but we've got 7,000 other households that axe going to be paying for this and setting this p~nce city wide. And you know, if we're going to build a paver roadway that will handle our vac track, in essence we're going to be building how big of a, how many ton mad down this property and service it with paver stones7 Teresa Burgess: A 7 ton. Councilman Labatt: A 7 ton paver road you know. Mayor Jansen: And you've subtracted the cost of that from the value of the property that we're . paying for. Teresa Burgess: We've subtracted the cost of construction. We have not taken into account maintenance costs. Councilman Labatt: I'd like to look at the maintenance costs. Councilman Boyle: Well I would venture to say, I can't guarantee this, but they pay for maintenance down there so currently there's no maintenance on the city and there probably won't be because 'of the fact that they have somebody taking care of the baseline. Teresa Burgess: The city maintains the easement. Once we put in paver. Councilman Boyle: Well you're supposed to. Teresa Burgess: No, we have historically. This is the first year we have not maintained the easement. Even though we did not have it, we have historically maintained the gravel road out to the lift station because we needed the access. Councilman Boyle: Oh gotch ya. Yeah, from the street down you mean. Teresa Burgess: We do not maintain the grass areas but we maintain the gravel roadway. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Again, this has been on and off our'agenda a couple of times and though I hear the concern, I'm also hearing what I heard throughout the negotiation and that's that staff has looked for an equality to how they have negotiated these things in the past. You're not setting a precedent. You're following the same guidelines that you have throughout all of these types of negotiations as far as land value determination and for the upscaling of the type of material you're then deducting that from the cost of land, so you're following prior practice, correct? City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Teresa Burgess: We're following our standard practice. If this is not settled and it's decided to not do brick pavers, we would have to go back to the neighborhood and start negotiations. We have actually been at this nearly 2 years and so we would like to get it settled, but if council' s uncomfortable, then we can gather that information and bring it back on December 9~. We can turn it around that fast. Councilman Boyle: Just a ballpark, do you have a ballpark on what the difference between the pave, just a guess, do you recall? Teresa Burgess: I have it up in my files but off the top of my head I don't. Councilman Boyle: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just let us put a cost benefit, a short cost benefit analysis. I don't think the neighborhood's going to walk away if we don't approve it tonight. As long as they get what's in this agreement. I'm sure that we can show the justification for this proposal and showing the operational cost. We can put this back on for our next meeting and we need a majority vote on this. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Jansen: And a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the access easement agreement with Sunrise Hills HomeoWners Association to the December 9, 2002 City Council meeting, Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Cindy Skack: Good evening. My name is Cindy Skack, and I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I live at 2209 Lukewood Drive and I would like to address the council and the mayor on the topic of the community center research that' s going on. This is a topic that' s been going in the city. I was one of the participants in the community center focus group and you're going to hear their report, the official report later on, but I did have just a couple observations and suggestions going forward about the community center research that's going on. So first let me start by saying that I don't favor, and I'm not opposed to community center. In fact after going through this process with the focus group, I realize that I certainly don't have enough information to even make an intelligent choice and you know, I did some research on my own as well as participating in the focus group. So given that, I'm not really sure how much research has gone on by all of you but I would strongly urge you to carefully consider whatever next steps you take in this process. And I would like to outline three specific items. The first one being the process that we went through in the focus group. Secondly, some of the recommendations and thirdly, suggestions going forward. So first of all, just as background. I work in the technology field and I have a lot of experience in marketing, finance, project management, business case development, things like that. A lot of return on investment analysis. While, and I think the focus group engaged in a very useful discussion. There are a lot of ideas brought up about features and amenities that would be City Council Meeting- November 25, 2002 desirable in that community center. I don't think that the focus group's report should become the sole factor or a major factor even in your decision to move forward or not on investigating a community center. And the reason that I say that is, the decision should really rest in the hands of the citizens of Chanhassen, not just a select group of a few people who got together for 3 hours and talked about this. So you know, I mean first of all the group was not even statistically valid to be considered like a scientific study, if you will, but I do think there was value in the group and that's why I want to talk about some of the things, some of the conclusions and the suggestions I would have after going through this process. Mayor Jansen: Excuse me Cindy, what I'm wondering is ff you wouldn't mind, since this item is on our agenda and we will be being presented the report. Rather than have you pre-empt the report, and everyone who's listening, not have the opportunity of hearing that, perhaps if you wouldn't mind, and our agenda's very light. We just have one other presentation and we're right to the community center, and if we could have you be a part of that, if you wouldn't mind. I think having the. Cindy Skack: I'd be glad to do that. Mayor Jansen: I appreciate that... Cindy Skack: What I'll do is just kind of mark off where I was in my comments and I'll just sort of pick up from there. Mayor Jansen: Sure. · . Cindy Skack: ...cover all the other stuff, sure. Mayor Jansen: Thanks Cindy. Appreciate it. Cindy Skack: Sure. Mayor Jansen: Is there anyone else under visitor presentations that has an item that you'd like to bring to the council's attention? LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Dave Ports: Good evening Mayor, Council members. For October, referring to my memo items 1 through 4, I have the area reports, citation list, community service officer info and just some recent performance trackers for some of the officers in Chanhassem I don't have any comments on those other than the issue of citations that was brought up at last council meeting in October. The numbers show a substantial drop August-September and then October as well on your most recent report. And while staff is currently in the process of updating those numbers, as well as answering a number of other questions that Councilman Labatt brought up. I was told . verbally today that those numbers once updated will be in line with the previous months that you see in the report. That they are still back logged or you know whatever verbiage you want to use on entering some of that information. So that will be forthcoming as well as on the other questions that Councilman Labatt had asked since that time. But with that, questions or comments from council. Mayor Jansen: Any questions or comments for the sergeant? City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: I have a couple. Mayor Jansen: Bob. Councilman Ayotte: What I see happening is we're getting data, not information. I don't see that we have a fact finding function associated with the information, the data that we're given. And I don't see any analysis or trend reporting. And I make that point because at another point I want to have a discussion with respect to public safety, if we have that oppommity, and to bring as a matter of public record, the need to consider public safety commission as a go between the council as the policy setting body, and the staff as providing the service. We need that bridge for analysis, fact finding and determining what the trends are and to formulate recommendations to the council for policy setting. I don't see it. I want to make it as a matter of public record, and I want to state publicly that I think we have a dire need for a public safety commission, not just with respect to the contract adherence with Carver County Sheriff, and other public safety issues associated with the city and other agencies that support the city. Mayor Jansen: Okay. We have had several conversations about that topic and Sergeant Potts doesn't specifically of course address your information so we'll have that conversation as a council but if you'd like, if there's anything else to share with us this evening, that would be good. Sgt. Dave Potts: Just under the miscellaneous items, I had planned to give you an update on the alcohol compliance checks for the year. Those were to have been completed for the year last week, but they had a scheduling problem and weren't able to complete those so once they do, they'll'be giving me information that I can pass onto the council regarding those compliance checks. The other item under Neighborhood Watch coordinator recognition, we held that on November 14th. This. was the first one and Beth and I both hope to make it an annual event. Just recognizing our block coordinators from our Neighborhood Watch groups. It was intended tO be just a fun evening in recognition of their efforts and kind of pump them up as well as publicize the Neighborhood Crime Watch program and hopefully get more people involved. And what we had for that evening was some dinner for the folks involved. We had 24 coordinators signed up for that event, and we had them down at the sheriff's office tn our main training room, and then from them they went on tours of our dispatch center and the crime lab. And all of the positive, or all the comments from the group were very positive. They enjoyed the evening quite well, and we didn't intend to discuss specifically Neighborhood Watch issues but of course you put a group like that together, and it's going to come up. And probably the primary piece of information that we heard from folks is that they really like the e-mail notification on crime alerts and that type of thing. Number one of course is the speed. They get it immediately and for many of them they're starting their own distribution lists in their neighborhood so they can pass that e-mail right onto their neighbors and have the information go out real quickly, whereas other people do do the door to door flyer thing which is a little bit slower at times. But that was a real nice evening and kind of a real perk for the program that I hope to keep going as the years continue. Mayor Jansen: That's great. I'm glad you had such good turn out for the coordinators to come to have that kind of interest in your program. Sgt. Dave Potts: Well we're hoping word will spread and the turn out will be even larger next time so. Mayor Jansen: Well good, thank you. City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Peterson: 24 out of how man~,7 Sgt. Dave Potts: Beth has a rather complicated answer for that but there's approximamly 15 Neighborhood Watch groups in the city currently. Made a note of the business watch presentation at the Chamber of Commerce. This is tomorrow mm'ning at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Both Beth and I will be on hand there to give a brief presentation on the business watch crime prevention strategies, as well as just update the business community on local crimes and that type of thing as well, so something coming up tomorrow. That was all I had for council this evening. Any other comments or questions? Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Sergeant? Councilman Labatt: No, I had sent that e-mail to you Todd to forward down. Is there any update on when I might get my answers to the 5 questions I had? Todd Gerhardt: The sheriff and Sergeant Ports were out on Friday so I got a message this afternoon from the sheriff in that he would put that work order in and get it to you as soon as possible. He did not specify a time or a date. Sgt. Dave Potts: And that's what I was referring to earlier, that staff is currently working on those questions and getting data gathered together, but it is kind of time consuming. It's not something they can simply punch up quickly on the computer and print it out. Todd Gerhardt: Dave, do you think we could have it by our next council meeting in Deceralxx 9th? ... Sgt. Dave Potts: I would say easily by then, and that's you know my guess or opinion at this point. I had talked to Leslie Mitchell, in charge of our records division, two different times today and not specifically on that issue but in talking about that she had made a lot of progress in just, you know between the two different times I spoke to her today so I anticipate it relatively soon or quickly. Councilman Labatt: And then also, if we can get an update on when they think they might have the August, September, October, November's update then. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, that would all be part of that research that's being done. Councilman Labatt: And if that, well. We'll wait for the updates to happen and see how that's Mayor Jansen: Okay, anything else for Dave? Alright. Thank you for the update. Appreciate it. I don't see a representative from the Fire Department. Todd Gerhardt: I know John Wolff was out of town and I thought Greg was going to step in for him but we can get him on for the next council meeting. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright, thank you. City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 REPORT FROM COMMUNITY CENTER FOCUS GROUP, ROBERT LAPRADE, Mayor Jansen: I don't know, staff did you want to initially do a staff report or we'll move right onto, is it Laprade? Mr. Laprade. Thanks for joining us this evening. Robert Laprade: Okay, thank you for having me here. Todd had a copy of my e-mail report and this is just a written copy, in case you didn't get that. And what I'm reporting on is on a summary of the Chanhassen Community Center Focus Group. We had two separate meetings that were set up, each about 2 hours where 18 different members of the community were present at this, as well as some different members from the city government. And at the meeting we tried to summarize the two things that you asked us to do, was to try to determine the preferred components to look at the potentially organization structure, and also to see whether people in town really wanted a community center. And in our fu'st meeting, in general, probably out of the 18 people there, about 16 or 17 felt pretty strongly that we needed a community center. And the general focus on that was that most people thought we needed something that really was unique to Chanhassen, if we could do that. Instead of having a generic community center, which had an outside fitness area, and didn't represent us, but try to have something that we could actually come together as a community and meet together and have a central focus. In addition we all decided on what areas we could potentially have in the ideal community center, and' we came up with a big list which is on the back of the page. And our second meeting we tried to focus down and determine what were the main components that everybody felt would be necessary for this community center, and the main things that we arrived at were an outdoor water park, a fitness center, indoor pool, a performing arts center and an ice arena, And those 5 set up a clear demarcation between the top 5 and th~ next 5 down so those were the ones that most people felt were necessary. And in general those are about the same things that were on the community survey from 1997. It was almost those same 5, so it seems to fit with this group of citizens we have which were pretty diverse and from different areas of the community so we seem to coordinate the findings of the previous survey and we didn't really look at it that much. We just kind of brainstormed and we came to the same general areas. The other 5 items that were listed were the field house, a multi-use gym, which was defined as like an aerobics or a dance type floor, a banquet and meeting space, because of some of the difficulty in getting that in town. An indoor track and a teen center. So in general I think what the results of our focus group is that we felt that Chanhassen did need a community center of some sort and we'd like to have something that's unique for our community. And the second thing that we focused on was what components were on there and that was the top 5 that's listed there. And then finally we weren't able to reach much of a consensus in terms of the second pan of our mission in terms of trying to find an organizational structure because there's so many different areas with that where we could partner with different health clubs for a fitness center, but there's some areas that we felt we should go alone as a city like an outdoor water park. So our recommendation is, that's probably the goal of future focus groups or future work groups to try to figure out how to have a different type of partnership between the public and private sector in trying to bring this all together. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Excellent, thank you. Appreciate all the hours and time the group put in on this and for you for preparing the report then back from the group. We very much appreciate their participation. Robert Laprade: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for Mr. Laprade? 10 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to, do you want to go fu'st? Councilman Peterson: Go ahead. Councilman Ayotte: Basically what I heard you say is that, the group validated what was contained in the survey. Robert Laprade: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: That's the essence of. Robert Laprade: Yeah, independently we came up with the same recommendations. Councilman Ayotte: ...validated, so was there any discussion with respect to how we would get there? Robert Laprade: Well we did go into that somewhat, but it was such a diverse, different area to look at. You know if we're looking at an outdoor water park, where most other community centers that we visited, they're some of the most financially secure areas to go into because most. of them are paying off within a year or two. And then you have axea~ like an ice arena where you really have to have a commitment from different groups to be able to make that financially secure over time. There was some controversy between different people about the fitness center, and that was probably the main use area that people would have. If you look at having a private group come in, versus having the city support it, there's a big difference probably in potential prices and also the way it's set up. And I think what most of us were looking at is we want to be able to have something that we can go in as a family and use a fimess center rather than having a more of a club type atmosphere and that was the general feeling in that regard. Councilman Ayotte: One more question. As a result of what you presented, what was the group's supposition that it wanted the council to do as a result of what you did? What was it that you thought the council should be doing with what you provided to us7 Robert Laprade: I think the one area that one, that some of us discussed is that even if we don't decide to build a community center at this point in time, most of us felt that having a central location, close to downtown was important so at a mini~ trying to get the space set aside for a future community center before that space is lost. So that was the one thing that we felt was important, if we don't go ahead with it at this point in time because that will be something we'll probably want to do in the future. But I think most of us felt that the time is right to start looking at a community center, with all the communities around us that are building them. Shakopee and Waconia and other areas that are going forward with community centers and we're kind of getting isolated in our own way and that's a lot of us have heard discussions fi'om different groups of people in town that we'd like to have something that we can all come together as a community and bond some more with some of our neighbors. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Laprade? Councilman Peterson: Just one. You noted performing arts center. Could you elaborate a little bit about what they envisioned when you were talking about that? 11 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Robert Laprade: Yeah, this isn't my area of strength but what most people felt is that there isn't a lot of facilities in town similar to the Chaska Performing Arts Center where the students that are involved in performing arts and plays and things like that, have an opportunity to do that so it was a really strong group of people that felt that we are lacking that area in town right now, and that was necessary in the community center to help pull everything together. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: No. Councilman Boyle: I have just one. Obviously it' s going to cost money to build the community center, and that money's going to have to come from the taxpayers. Was there some discussion regarding how the group felt that would be received? Robert Laprade: We didn't go into that in specifics but a lot of individual discussions were carried out, and especially the second night about the fiscal responsibility of that and that's why we couldn't really achieve a tree statement that was representative for all of us because everybody had such diverse findings. There were some people that felt it should only be the city that should set it up, and others that felt that if you didn't do it with other members of the community, be it a public with a high school or something like that, or doing it with an athletic club, that we couldn't achieve it. So we just couldn't arrive at a definitive answer but I think most of us felt in general that we had to have a combination of public/private groups working together' to be able to .make it responsible. Councilman Boyle: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that. You certainly followed the goals and the results that the council was looking for as far as the feedback that you've given us. As you know, we axe so early in this whole process of trying to figure out what and where and who. Having the 18 of you come together and 'at least throw out some additional components for us to maybe investigate. Where we are currently in the whole process was having submitted out to the private sector a request for information just to see who might be interested in coming in. We felt as though it was a charge from our residents through the community survey that we see what kind of parmerships we might be able to develop because we have the majority of the residents wanting a community center, and then of course in another separate discussion, not wanting to pay for it, which kind of puts you in that position of them looking for those private partnerships. So we do have a nice list of private organizations that are interested in partnering with us on some of these components. You' ye, as a group, brought up a few that we really hadn't had a conversation around, that might just default into something that if the public would like to see a performing arts center, for one, it might just naturally default into it having to go out to the public to see you know, what kind of financial support the community might want to see the city commit to that part of the project. We're trying to do it as financially frugally as we can by looking for the private partners, but at the same time we' ve had extensive discussions around alternative revenue sources and to your point that you mentioned with the water parks. That is a question as to what pieces or components of a community center the city can look to as potential revenue generators versus just turning' it over to the private sector so there are a multitude of questions that still remain to be answered, but your group has certainly given us that little bit broader segment of input as to where we might go next. We have had some preliminary conversation around doing a more specific community survey list of questions around the center to see, like you've pulled together, 12 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 what components might be of interest to the general public. So it will remain to be seen whether that survey in fact becomes part of this whole process, but we will be continuing to have some conversations around what do we do now. An informal survey going around door knocking recently as part of the campaign, I was posing that question to our residents as far as pulling together a community survey and what they would be interested in, and of the thousands of homes that I managed to find people home at, and I'm estimating it was probably 2,000. About half of those I knocked on where home, I only had 2 residents that said they couldn't support seeing a community center in Chanhassen, but that was with the full explanation of looking for private partners to work with us on it. It certainly wasn't at all communicating that it would be, you know a city built facility, having what our taxpayers are saying about our taxes. So with that said, we are very early in the process. We appreciate your input and the group's input. We'll certainly make sure we get some thank you's out to everyone for that, and keep you included in the process as we figure out what that is and move forward with some of the brainaorming. It's just nice to have a group of people willing to come together and do some brainstorming with us to give us some additional ideas. And like I said, some of the things that you bubbled up, you know the performing arts center having landed in your top 5 is intriguing to me. I don't know that that was on our 2000 survey. Was performing arts part of our 2000 survey question? I know it was 1997. Councilman Peterson: It wasn't on 2000 1 don't think. Mayor Jansen: I don't think it was on 2000. So it would be a good one for us to go back and maybe re-visit as a broader question on where that constant might go. And I did hear some comment from the group, and you brought it up again here this evening. Wanting to have that sense 6f community. A place where you can come together, and I was hearing if not a daycare center, you know, it was, at least a daycare center. But then you've got the older kids that people are also wanting to be able to maybe drop off, and that's where I was hearing more of a YMCA type program and to what you spoke to this evening, you know maybe some hesitation about it being truly a private club, because you can't necessarily drop the kids off. Was'that crux of that piece of your comment? Robert Laprade: Yeah. I think it was, there was a lot of support for a YMCA'type program, especially with the building to have different programs for families where you can have different areas set up for the different age groups, all the way up through. But I think it was more of the, more upper scale clubs that there was some concern about. Whether that would be the true community center that we want to see for Chanhassen. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And did it need to be the club that necessarily, the fimess center that had that community feel or a component of the complex? Robert Lapracle: I think it was the whole component is just, we wanted to be able to have a central gathering place where people would go to do things and if you look at what's on the list from a performing arts center to an ice arena to a fitness center, there's a lot there. And being able to have someplace to be able to go together and meet your neighbors and interact was irnportant. Mayor Jansen: Okay. That's good feedback. I guess that was one point that stood out in what Mr. Laprade said that I hadn't really thought about as far as having a community area. I was thinking of course of families being able to all go out in the evening, and you know take the kids with and be able to head for a facility but to have a true gathering area I think is very significant. We as a council had done a tour of different facilities and it was intriguing to see just how many 13 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 families were in these different facilities in the evenings and just how busy they .were, You know you look around and at that point you don't know people because you're not in your own community but I can imagine if you had something like that right here and you were able to see your friends and neighbors it would be a nice experience. Robert Laprade: Especially in the winter. Mayor Jansen: Especially in the winter. So like I said, we're real early on in the process. Council will need to have some more discussion around what the next steps are that we take and we'll certainly make sure that Mr. Hoffman's communicating that back to the group as to where we're going and some of the things we're looking at so, thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate it. Robert Laprade: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Cindy. If you'd like to continue with your comments, I appreciate your waiting til now. Cindy Skack: I guess the point I was at in my comments was that, I was thinking about this whole topic and I think there are a few facts that we know. The 2001 survey, the residents said the number one issue facing the city was taxes. When they asked if they were, about needed recreational facilities, 59 percent said none were needed. Only 9 percent said a community center was needed. But on the other hand when they were asked about the concept of would they support a community center, 65 percent said yes. So to me there is a conflict between what the citizens 'will fund and what they support in concept. And in my mind that's the crux of the issue. And so whatever you decide to do going forward, when you bring it to the residents to ask us what we support and ~vhat we don't, because ultimately that's the decision. I ~ we can talk about nice visions all day long, but ultimately when you bring it to the residents I think what you need to do is bring a well thought out, complete picture of the vision, the amenities, the fiscal model, the unique features, the cost to join, you know all of those things and say would you support this basket of goods and services with this price tag, and maybe have several models for them to choose from. Because there were a lot of comments about what' s the cost for this? What is the cost for that? I'm being asked to vote on this. I don't know the relative cost of this option versus that. The value of this versus that, and that's really how we all make decisions about this. I mean it's all about how are we going to expend our resources to get the goods and services that we need and, as a city and to build our community. And so really my comment is that there was a suggestion well maybe we should set aside the land. Well, there's a cost associated with that. If the city's going to give the land or set it aside for a tax, you know there's a tax consequences with that. Some of the partners, the YMCA offered to help participate coming up with scenarios. Fine. If all these companies axe you know beating down our door, or organizations to set up shop in Chanhassen, why not engage them in the process and let them do a little bit of the legwork for us if they're to benefit downstream as well. So I mean there were a lot of creative ideas that came out of this group and I just, my concern was, I didn't really know how much weight this focus group's results would be given in your decision making process going forward, but to me it was a great conversation. A lot of good ideas. Not a lot of data or solid conclusions and whatever you do going forward, I urge you to include that because it is really about this cost versus concept and what will the people support. Mayor Jansen: Absolutely, and we intentionally left the data part out because we are so very early in the process, as I mentioned. What we were looking for was a pretty loose brainstorming effort from the residents so we could see what some of the points were, and the validity of 14 City Council Meeting - Novemt~ 25, 2002 moving forward. We had contact with the/se various organizations, and we're excited that they're interested to come into Chanhassen and now they at least know that we're engaged in these conversations as a community. So certainly now that they know that we're speaking, they should be more interested in coming in and having some of these discussions. Now numerous of them are obviously competitors to each other which is a positive for the city because it should in fact generate some good corn~fifion as far as getting the best product in here. Medical was another piece that I don't see on the list that came through from the task force, but we had 3 or 4 of our medicfl providers step up and say that they'd like to put sport medicine into a facility like this, So there's even broader issues that we're exploring so you're correct. The data part of it and being able to pull together more specific information is the part of the process that we'll be p~ing with in the future based on some of this information we were shared with, so appreciate your taking the time and being on the task force and giving us that input as well as giving us your input here this evening, so we'll make sure that you stay informed as to what we're doing and what's happening. Cindy Skack: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thanks a lot Cindy. With that, is there anyone else present this evening that would like to comn~nt on this agenda item? You're'certainly welcome to. Otherwise seeing no one, I'll bring it back to council. Council, any additional conversation at thi~ point? Councilman Ayotte: Question? Mayor Jansen: Sure, question. Councilman Ayotte: Question directed primarily to Roger. With the passing of a referendum and based on the point that...can a referendum include recurring costs to support an activity? Louder. Roger Knutson: I don't think so. It's capital costs. I've never heard anyone trying to cover operating costs with a referendum. Mayor Jansen: It needs to be communicated as part of the package that is being presented to the public so that they're aware that there are then those reoccurring costs. Councilman Ayotte: But he just said that you can't do that. Mayor Jansen: You can't ask for the funding is what I'm hearing Roger say. Roger Knutson: I believe that's, I've never heatrd of anyone a__tte-mpting to cover operating costs. Mayor Jansen: Right. Roger Knutson: I believe that. Councilman Labatt: Except the school districts. Roger Knutson: You can have well, school districts have operating levies. Councilman Labatt: You could do that Bob. Put an operating levy on this, but I... Mayor Jansen: No. Roger's saying no. 15 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Peterson: It would cost 100K a year to... Councilman Ayotte: My friend brought up a point up. So as a part of communication as something that doesn't always occur, we ought to make sure that the public know that there are operating costs associated with the referendum and what those operating costs could be, and that they would probably surface in, what's the word? Councilman Peterson: Levy. Councilman Ayotte: Levy. So that folks understand it, and I want to bring that point up because a lot of times it's cost over, thank you Mayor. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. And we did that as part of the library referendum, though it's difficult on a new building before you have i'm numbers to know what those implications are. It was also communicated at that time that the County would be funding what went into that particular building, so it was a pretty broad communication that we were trying to share with the public so they'd know exactly what was going on with that. Any other comments council? As far as where we go with this process, we had had that conversation about possibly expanding the questions in the community survey. The next one, if you do one next year to maybe hammer out what some of the additional issues are so that you can get more specific and touch a broader segment than of the community in a statistically accurate survey as to some of the, and once you get, you almost have to figure out what those components are that you want to know more information about. If it' s a performing arts center as a part of that, and seeing what kind of support there is. What I'm also thinking you need to have better determined is the private sector support of the different components, and I'm wondering if you shouldn't be having a conversation rather soon about doing an RFP with these private companies that have already come back and said that they would be interested in participating in a project like this. Now you might want to get to the level of okay, what exactly are they willing to commit to in coming in on a project like this, because even if it doesn't turn into a full blown community center, as we've tried to envision it, we are hearing that the community would like more of a full service fitness facility, and you've got medical as well as the fitness providers and the pool provider that should maybe be sitting at a table and having a conversation as private entities as to how they might help pull it together. I've always envisioned this whole process as the city being the facilitator of these conversations, so at least we' re bringing all the parties into and around the table to have the conversation of what, where, when, how, and the possibility of pulling it together and, even though the school district has now come out and said that they' re not going to look at a second high school until further down the line, and that's been ruled out. Is there that potential for another community school7 Obviously there's going to be a need for a middle school or an elementary school, however you slice it. We're such a big part of the population. They are going to be building new buildings, and which ones would then be compatible with this type of a facility and enable still for there to be a partnership of some sort? As well as then what you do to transition the other rex: center. I don't think it's ever been envisioned that you would end up with a community center and the existing rec center, but if you stay in the discussions with the school district, there has been an interest on their part in that part of that building, so there would be that opportunity to, as you were to move out, potentially have them take over that other part of the building as part of that joint powers agreement. But I think you're probably at a point potentially of wanting to bring in some of the private interests and get them into discussions, one way or the other and I'm assuming staff would potentially recommend an RFP just to see who that key, who the key players from each of the segments might be to bring in for those discussions. I don't see four fitness facilities sitting around the table with the city and negotiating but. Any other thoughts on that as a part of your future process? 16 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: Well I think that's the next step we're at, just to see what kind of interest is out there and commitment on the private sector side. And the non-profit. I wouldn't exclude the Mayor Jansen: I didn't mean to leave that out, yep. Todd Gerhardt: And see what they can bring to the table. I think you're going to need to know that information as you move ahead. Mayor Jansen: And especially if you're going to get more specific out to the public as to what kind of package you're putting together. If you're being asked to financially or physically be a part of the partnership to be able to better communicate that specifically as a part of the information, even in the community survey. If you did it quick enough. Okay. Councilman Labatt: So are we going to keep this same group of people on line, or on call if something else comes up here in the next first quarter of 20037 Mayor Jansen: I think it would be good to keep the same group that has the. Councilman Peterson: It depends upon the questions that come up. Councilman Labatt: Well I think this group of 25 should, I mean I hate to keep bringing up a new task force or new focus group every time we have a question come up. If we relay to these people with Mr. Hoffman sending them a letter you know, we appreciate the initial work they've done bat we're going to have more questions that will come up and more studying that will need to be done and we still want to retain your voluntary services. Councilman Ayotte: Is there, and I don't remember when we asked these good folks to step up, was there a' provision made to bring in fiscal experts as an example or people, did we talk about that? If the question necessitates a certain skill set, how do we bring that in? Mayor Jansen: Yeah, at this level of the project, we limited it to more of a brainstorming session with the group to see what would bubble up. To your point then as you move through the process, that certainly could be a part of it as if you have them help formulate potentially some of the questions that you might be putting out to the public. Find out what additional questions they as a broader group might want to have answered for them were they to be receiving the survey, whether it's data, tax information, you know whatever they bring up. Councilman Labatt: Revenue. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Exactly. Councilman Labatt: Revenue generators. Mayor Jansen: But even around the park and trail referendum there was a task force that organized of residents because the city can't organize a Vote Yes group if you would. So it was a task force and potentially this group being knowledgeable and having spoken already with their neighbors, if, and I want to emphasize if there's a need for a referendum, I would think that you'd want to organize a group like that. There was also one that organiTed around the library as far as helping with the educational piece of it to your point, needing to get the education out there and the communication. 17 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Ayotte: This is where I'm worried. Right now our parks and mc budget, $1.7 mil. Operating cost. And it's a big part of the city's cost. And as this group goes forward, as we go forward along the path, not just this group but this whole effort. I really think it's important to, in the early part of the game, identify opportunities for revenue and identify the liabilities with respect to operational costs. And I don't know how to do that but that's a concern I have because when we get up and talk towards these things, the reality of cost and economic constraint I would like to have accompanied with the good things. The fun things, and I don't know how we get to that point, but I just wish that we could, as we go along the path, have those reminders in parallel with the frosting. Mayor Jansen: Well I think just having the other models available to us in the other communities, to be able to rely on them for their revenue and expense information. You know it's certainly out there and can be modeled around whatever we decide to put together as a complex. Todd Gerhardt: It depends on what venue you select and how you negotiate these agreements with the private sector. Roger sat through a couple of these already and that's a big thing to look at the long range operational costs and who's side of the ledge it's going to go on. Mayor Jansen: A lot to work on. Councilman Labatt: I' ve got a question for Todd Hoffman, if I can. Todd, one of these groups that we' ye mentioned here is in the process of working with the City of Elk River. Do you know any status on that project up there and their joint venture? Todd Hoffman: One of the private health groups.9 Councilman Labatt: Non-profit. Todd Hoffman: Non-profit. The YMCA? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Todd Hoffman: I've not heard about that specific one. Councilman Labatt: Maybe you can look into that. I read about it in Roger's newspaper the other night. Big article on the front page...their potential willingness down here. Todd Hoffrnan: There's also a YMCA that's opening in Willmar, brand new facility there as well so we can check on both of those. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Jansen: Great, anything else? Okay, why don't we move on the agenda. Thank you again. Appreciate all the information Mr. Laprade and Cindy. COUNCIL PRESE~ATIONS. Mayor Jansen: Any council members with meeting feedback reports? Southwest Metro? 18 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Southwest Metro we've got a, the parking lot dedication is December 12'h. I don't think the exact time has been set yet, but there will be some dignitaries there and should be kind of a fun event. Mayor Jansen: This is the parking lot or the parking ramp? Councilman Peterson: Parking ramp. Mayor Jansen: The ramp, yeah. Councilman Peterson: The parking lot is probably still sinking so we're trying not to do anything about that, but that's going to... Mayor Jansen: Is the ramp near done then? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Jansen: When does it open for use? Councilman Peterson: Three levels are open now. I think they're only waiting on the fifth level because of some inspection issues, but it will be ready by next week. Mayor Jansen: Great. Great. Councilman Peterson: It's aiready, it's basically full already. Mayor Jansen: The three levels that are already open are full? Councilman Peterson: The four levels that are open are full. The fifth level will be full When it opens so it's... Mayor Jansen: That's tremendous. That's great. How's the rest of the development going for the commercial? Councilman Peterson: They're grading from virtually all of the area. All the building plans have been improved through the city of Eden Prairie so people are just ready to put footings in and go. So they're racing against the clock. Mayor Jansen: I know they were waiting for that ramp for the parking space so, that's great. Okay. Anything else? Councilman Peterson: Nope. Mayor Jansen: Any other council members with reports? Councilman Ayotte: No. Mayor Jansen: Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESE~A~ON$. 19 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: I have nothing to report at this time. However I think Bob wanted to add an item to the agenda or discussion. This would be the opportunity to do that. Councilman Ayotte: I'd just like to, if I may. Mayor Jansen: Certainly, go ahead. Councilman Ayotte: On the public safety issue, what I'd like to do is make it as a matter of public record so people can chomp on it. We have, I think a disconnect between City Council, the community and those activities that involve public safety. Public safety having a broad spectrum of definition, not limited to policing. Also OSHA, EPA, now Homeland Defense. And I think it's important that we consider, and I know we can't do it this evening, but I am definitely going to work towards presenting it at the next council meeting, the thought of having a public safety commission with possibly an horizon date for it's existence. Once it works through some fact finding on behalf of the council, so that the council can establish some policy setting with respect to public safety, starting with our contract with the sheriff's office. I've written down some notes with respect to it. I'm hoping that we eventually can reinstate the public safety commission, with a revisit of it's composition and charter and with it's possible termination once it's goals are achieved. And I'm hoping that those goals would include the 7 person body reviewing our contract and the quality assurance measures we have for the enforcement of that contract. And what staff support is desirable for the support of that conu'act. I would also ask that eventually we may have a public safety commission to investigate targets of opportunity such as Homeland Defense, OSHA, EPA compliance, and local ordinance compliance. So I'm going to be formulating that at a point for this council's consideration prior to the new council stepping in, largely because I think this council's been seasoned through recent events with the public · safety situation with the sheriffs office and with some other things that have surfaced up with, for example mosquito control and the void we have in local ordinance. So that's m~ pitch for this evening and I will definitely be working towards formulation of a motion for the next meeting. Mayor Jansen: Okay. ! guess what I basically heard this evening was a reiteration of what we've had as far as what the three conversations now as a council around this particular issue. Where we haven't really come to a conclusion as to the best way to proceed. And I did not refer to my notes from the last meeting as to what our, in fact I don't think we had an anticipated next conversation at the end of that discussion. It just ended. So as to how to follow up Bob's comments, if anyone here would care to add to that. Otherwise I don't have anything else to add other than that we had left it indecisive after the last conversation. And what you might need in order to be able to reach a decision, if in fact there is going to be something on the December, what is it 8th or 9th agenda. If we could have something beforehand in our packets so that everyone can give it dual consideration and be ready for discussion. Councilman Ayotte: Please forgive me, I just want to get it off the dime. I usually am not impetuous but I just can't let it... Councilm_an Peterson: You're usually not what? Mayor Jansen: Offthe dime's one thing. It's that we've talked about it 3 times and I'm not quite clear on exactly where we're going, and I think we all need to see that based upon those conversations. Something more solid in writing as to what we're doing, and proposing. Councilman Peterson: I think there's discussion, we just don't have consensus yet. I think that's, we discussed...Bob is asking that either we get consensus or not. 2O City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Labatt: I think that the e-mail that I sent through Todd to Sheriff Olson and Mr. Ports, the 5 questions on there will help answer those quality assurance questions as Bob's going to have. They're either going to say that we have a problem or we don't have a problem. Councilman Peterson: Can you e-mail that to us? Councilman Labatt: I'm hoping he'll. Todd Gerhardt: I will. Mayor Jansen: The 5 questions? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Labatt: I didn't want to, I just sent it to him and, but. Mayor Jansen: Which was appropriate. Councilman Labatt: So I think if maybe Mr. Gerhardt can send a message to Mr. Olson that that report should be here as soon as possible and not on the eve of December 8t~, to help us answer these questions we're going to be faced with on the 9z. Councilman Peterson: I think telling him that the information within that is helping us determine a, whether or not a public safety commission is going to move ahead or a task force or whatever you want to call that, that should certainly motivate him to respond. Councilman Labatt: Well, but and I think part of the information we have is in here, in the list and looking at what we have, who' s working here and what's being done. Part of our Q and A is already answered in here and realize it's not. So the 5 questions and the answers to those 5 questions will be what else is going on other than what we already know about. What other areas are they failing in? So. Councilman Peterson: So noted. Councilman Boyle: Steve, wouldn't that, what you're referring to would only be one segment of their scope of responsibility? The commission's scope of responsibility? Councilman Labatt: Right, yeah. Councilman Boyle: And we really haven't determined what their functions would be yet, or how we would prioritize it, and I think we really need that step at some point in time. Councilman Labatt: Well I think you look at needed right here and we say well here we have a contract here for $1.4 million and are we getting the quality of what we expect and what we demand, and we don't have any of those measures right now in place to look at and the 5 questions will answer those. Councilman Boyle: And that's fine. Obviously you see that as the primary responsibility of this commission. 21 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Labatt: No. It's one of the things. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, because we also, and again I didn't bring my notes from the last discussion. A lot of the contract analysis we had said would really fall on council versus having the commission actually do contract review that a lot of that would have to come from council as far as direction on where you want the contract focused and so forth. I thought more our conversations were the public input piece of it. Let's go back to our notes. I mean if Councilman Ayotte's going to pull something together with time for us to be able to really look at it and come with our own comments. I mean that's the problem. We're all coming from different directions and we need to, somebody needs to funnel it all into one statement as well as staff input then and direction on how it's going to be staffed and who's going to be responsible for staff wise serving this commission because each of the commission's has a staff liaison in charge of the different projects and it's more of a shot gun blast at this point because of all the different areas that this covers. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council members. What I heard, we expressed concerns to the sheriff, who's the administrator of the contract on his side. And one of the things that we should hear back from him is how is he going to respond to our request, so I think we should get a written response back from him on what he would propose and addressing the issues that we laid out during our work session. Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the contract? Todd Gerhardt: Everything. You know how would he address everything that we've talked about. "Trends. Analysis. How is he going to address our concerns as our chief law enforcement officer for the community, and I think he needs to respond to us in writing on those. If it' s a public safety commission, how would he envision that committee operating. Or if it' s a task force or whatever it might be, let him respond and then we kind of tear that apart and see how it works for us. Councilman Peterson: Well I think we need to give him more succinct questions to answer because I don't think we left him that evening with a clear question in hand, other than maybe just the contract and how that would work so. Mayor Jansen: We had more so left his reporting with council and more his direct input with the council piece of the function and he's only one part of the breath of issues the council has raised that would fall potentially under the umbrella of this public safety commission. It's not just the contract. Todd Gerhardt: So maybe on the 9th do a brainstorming session. Just drop out everything and, that you think is an issue or something that you'd like to see him address and. Councilman Peterson: That are under his purview certainly, yeah. I think we get Bob's information. We'll have Steve's information and let's dedicate time to assimilating those, and then giving further direction to Bud and further conversation about the legitimacy of a public safety commission. Councilman Ayotte: The only thing I want to put a caveat is that, Sheriff Olson is responsible for the policing as we've hired him for the service. And I don't want to lose the fact that we have other public safety issues that I want to put on a piece of paper that may not necessarily be his business but it's our business. 22 City Council Meeting - November 25, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Well I agree. That's why I said, taking your information and the information we're getting from Steve and so. Mayor Jansen: And then we'll be sure we bring it to Bob's point, he wants a vote on it as far as if we can reach some sort of consensus, but we've talked about this a lot. Okay. Alright. Anything else this evening? Otherwise. Councilman Labatt: What's the update on the library, anything? I was just reading some of the meeting minutes in there and. Todd Gerhardt: Making good progress. A lot of steel going in place. You can see now why the walls have not gone up is the steel's going in place and we still are behind schedule, but I'm looking at 40 degree weather next weelc As long as it's dry they can work and get it enclosed and. Councilman Labatt: When are they hoping to have it enclosed by? Todd Gerhardt: January is, January. First week in January is the last deadline I heard. Councilman Peterson: E1 Nino. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. The parking deck has been laid, if you saw the huge crane that was in here. It took 7 semi's to bring that crane in. ... Councilman Labatt: And how many to take out, 67 Todd Gerhardt: No, 7. No major accidents, knock on wood. So the deck is pretty much in place fight now and there will be a decorative railing that goes on top. There's some additional brick work that needs to be done but you can start seeing the stairs that bring you up to the deck, or if you're parking on the deck, down to get into the library. So it's starting to take shape. You will see some additional change orders. Still run into some poor soils once in a while, but as we get it enclosed and the walls go up, I see the change orders going down in a dollar amount~ Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great. Anything else? Then we'll be continuing our budget discussion upstairs after this as part of our work session that we did not get completed so if I could have a motion to adjourn. Councilman Ayotte moved, Co.n~Um~ Boyle seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carriec~ The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Chairwoman BLackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Bruce Feik, Craig Claybaugh, Uli Sacchet, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRF_$ENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, Loft Haak, Water Resource Coordinator, Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FQR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE APPLICATION QF THE (~ITY OF CHAN'HA~SEN REQIff_,~TING A PER1VHT FOR THE FILLING OF 8,320 SO. FI'. (0.2 ACRF_~) OF WETLAND FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION LOCATED ALONG TI:iF. WEST SIDE OF Todd Hoffm~n: 101~ NORTH OF HWY. 5. Public Present: Name Address Scott Mitchell Karen Risch Debralynn Geary Char & Rich Borotz (952-294-9818) Charles R. Klingelhutz Steve Brachman (952-934-0972) Mark Perkins 6517 Gray Fox Curve 6745 West 192~d Avenue 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie 6750 Brule Circle 6570 Chanhassen Road 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie 160 South Shore Court Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Biackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff? LuAnn, go ahead. Sidney: One question Madam Chair. Loft, would it be okay if we add a condition or amend condition 1 to say that replacement shall be at the ratio of 2.5 to 17 I guess I'd like to have some numbers in the conditions just to restate that. Haak: Absolute, that would be fine. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Uli, question? Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Sacchet: Yeah, two quick questions. First of all, this looks very familiar. I mean this did come through the Planning Commission as something, didn't it? Haak: The trail project did. The wetland alteration permit was not a part of it. Sacchet: Right, the trail did come through. That's basically what we saw before. Haak: Right. Sacchet: Now could you, one thing I didn't get out of this report is where actually the replacement took place. Haak: Sure. This is the large upland knoll. Let's see if I can get both of these to work at once. There's an upland knoll just south of Gray Fox Curve, and actually this is north so it goes like that. And the wetland mitigation, actually part of the impact occurs along the wetland here on the west side of 101. And then the mitigation is actually currently being constructed. If you've noticed, if you've driven 101 north or south recently you may have noticed the excavation that's occurred around this upland knoll, so in addition to the excavation for the new wetland credit, there's also buffer proposed which is the difference in shading here, which is the public value credit that's noted in the report. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions of staff?. Claybaugh: Yes I have a question. Yes. The monitoring for the re-establishment of the expanded wetlands or the replacement wetlands, is that part of the MR-84207 Is that under that Act? I-Iaak: Yes, it's required under the Conservation Act, correct. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: Why would the city not want to bank these excess credits that are above the 2 to 1 ratio rather than just say it's at a 2.5 to 1 ratio? Is it because it's such an insignificant mount? I-Iaak: Right, and yeah. It's a little bit extra paperwork for the banking and since we are doing it after the fact it's kind of, as I see it, it's a good faith increase. Lillehaug: Okay. And what are or were the increased costs to the city due to any necessary plan revisions or were there any plan revisions to accommodate this? I-Iaak: No, no. It was incorporated in the original project but it didn't come forward for the public hearing process for the wetland alteration permit. Usually we wrap both of those together. In addition there's some additional notice requirements that are in place because of the Wetland Conservation Act so we made sure that those were fulfilled prior to bringing this back to the Planning Commission. Lillehaug: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Questions? Feik: No questions. Blackowiak: No. I just have one question. Is this consistent with what any private party would have to do? So what if a private party failed to get a permit? Would they just do the same process in terms of coming back after the fact to request it? Haak: Right. If it was a project that was still ongoing, if it was something that was a violation sort oL if it was a violation situation where they had unintended wetland impacts, then it would be a 4 to I replacement which is punitive. Blackowiak: Right, which this is not. Haak: Correct. And this is something that, like I said, it was due to a mistmde~tanding and so we're trying to make good with it. Blackowiak: Okay, well just I just want to make sure that everybody's just being treated fairly and as long as we're doing what, you know the city's doing what they should do, I'm comfortable with that. Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and s_d_dress for the Steve Brachman: Good evening. My name is Steve Brachman and I'm a resident ofF_den Prairie. I live directly across from the marsh and got notice of this recently. We had been talking to Teresa Burgess about it just to kind of stay informed of what was going on. I was quite surprised at the significant amount of fill that was going into the marsh, and I was wondering if any study had been done on the environmental impacts, the ecological impacts to Lotus Lake from all of the fill. Because it just seemed to me to be more than is necessary to actually put the bicycle trail in. Blackowiak: Lori, would you like to answer that please. Haak: Certainly. There was no environmental impact statement, study as such necessary for this project. It is standard procedure to minimize the amount of wetland impact associated with any project, whether it' s a city project or a private development project. So in staff looking at this it' s, I don't believe the amount of wetland impact is extravagant by any means. It is complicated a little bit by the fact that this is a linear project along an existing highway, so their options for minimizing or avoiding wetland impact are very limited. We had a place that, it's often the case also with road expansions or things like that. It's pretty unavoidable impact. You'd like to stay in the same corridor, both for acquisition reasons as well as just, it actually does minimize i .mpact over time. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve Brachman: I had one other question. Would there be any attempt to try to restore the original or the natural settings of the marsh? Blackowiak: Loft, I'll defer to you again. Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Haak: I'm sorry, I' ve got a couple things rolling around. Could you repeat your question please? Steve Brachman: I was wondering if, with all of the fill that's going on, I was wondering what type of landscaping is going to be done. Is there any attempt to try to restore the natural grasses that are already growing in the marsh and on the knoll area? There was a lot of very nice natural grasses that I think probably benefit the whole marsh and the lake and that area so I was just wondering if there's any plans to restore that or if it's going to be landscaped and other means. Haak: Sure. The wetland replacement plan does include re-planting of the new wetland areas with native species as well as a buffer area, which I think will address some of those concerns. There' s no, we don't have any long term plans of improving the other wetland area. It' s actually a mono type of reed canary grass which is an invasive species that's very difficult to control, so we don't have any long term plans for that, well that I'm aware of and involved in. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you Lori. Steve Brachman: Okay, that's all the questions. Thank you very much. Charles Klingelhutz: Good evening residents. I live at 6570 Chanhassen Road. My name is Charles Klingelhutz and I was wondering what's going to be happening with this marsh over . there. Is it going to remain a marsh? The wetland area. Is it going to remain wetland or is it going to be filled in with houses? Blackowiak: Okay, could we look at the map. I don't know Kate or Lori, who'd like to address this one. Is there a map that would show kind of where Mr. Klingelhutz lives on that. Charles Klingelhutz: I live slightly north to the wetland. Blackowiak: Okay. You know what, if you could help us out, if you see where the map is right down on the table. If you could kind of point out at all, just for ail of us so we can kind of get a feel for where you are. Charles Klingelhutz: Okay, I live right about there. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Charles Klingelhutz: Which is roughly about a block south, block and a half south of Pleasant View Road on the west side of 101. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thanks. I don't know Lori or Kate, do you want to address, if you could address his question please. Haak: There's no plans for changes in the marsh area. There's no, the only change that will occur to the upland area is a path to the upland area and potentially a bench. That was ail proposed as a part of the I01 trail project. This project does not propose any additionai wetland fill other than what was done with the trail project, and no changes to the wetland aside fi.om the creation of a mitigation area so basically creating about 16,000 more square feet of wetland. Charles Klingelhutz: Okay. Number two question is, I noticed the DNR was involved in this too. I would imagine this is mainly because of the tree taking out because of the bicycle path. Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Haak: No. The letter from the DNR in the staff report was related to DNR water's permitting which would have come into play if the city was doing any work below the ordinary high water level of Lotus Lake, which we were not. Charles Klingelhutz: Okay. Number three question is, why did the City, County and State agree to put the bicycle path by a busy highway like 101 which is a State Highway? Aanenson: I'm not going to answer that question at this point because I think that's a decision that the council made to put the trail in. That's really not pertinent to the discussion we're having tonight. And I just want to make one other clarification, I was trying to get with Lori is, the part that's being filled is the upland portion and then there's new wetland being created. So not the marsh is being filled, it's the upland portion adjacent to the marsh. It's not our intent to fill the marsh or change the wetland. I just want to make sure that' s clear for the record. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Yeah, but whether the trail that was done by the city engineering department. This process that we're going through tonight, which there's additional questions on the wetland, that's what we're here to talk about tonight. The decision of that trail was a separate process. We can't comn~nt on that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Charles Klingelhutz: Next question to his point. They took excessive property on the west side of 101. Are the homeowners or residents along there going to be compensated for it? Aanenson: Again that's a question for the City Engineer. Blackowiak: Yeah tonight we're just talking about the Wetland Alteration Permit, and that's any other questions regarding property specifics would be more the council level than at the Planning Commission because tonight we're just talking about the Wetland Alteration Permit. Thank you. Scott Mitchell: Hi, my name is Scott Mitchell. I live at 6517 Gray Fox Curve, just on the other side of where the, where this is all happening. We have, and you know we have the channel, little part that comes into our back yard and with the filling of this, is that going to affect the water level that will be my back yard? Because right now that's where the drain tile comes out, fight into my yard so I have a concern. I can walk to where this whole area is and what's being filled, so we've been just a little concerned after we saw that and then heard that they were filling a large area. I mean what will that do to the water level that's being pushed through this area? Because I'm right. Blackowiak: So you're kind of north of where Mr. Klingelhutz was? Scott Mitchell: I live on Gray Fox Curve. I can walk across the deer path to where all the, where that knoll is. Haak: So you're north of that? Your property lies north of that, of the knoll? Scott Mitchell: Or south. Haak: The wetland comes out to here. Planning Commission Meeting -- November 19, 2002 Scott Mitchell: Okay. So where's like Fox Hollow? ...so where are they filling, that was my question exactly. Haak: Again, the wetland fill runs south of the knoll. This is actually excavation. Scott Mitchell: Right, which they're already doing. I-Iaak: Creation of a new wetland, and actually any fill here, because they're mitigating 2 to 1 at approximately the same elevatioa, you would actually be gaining some storage of water in these areas because it will be more than it is currently. Scott Mitchell: That was my concern, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Dee CJeary Brachman: Good evening. My name is Dee Geary Brachman and I'm the wife of Steve, and we live on 101 and Duck Lake Trail and our view is the marsh. We bought the house 12 years ago because of the view and the sunsets, and I had called Teresa Burgess in October concerned about the overkill on this development of the bike path. I'm very happy about the bike path because it's an access for me to get to Chanhassen, but my concern was the knoll. I didn't understand why they had to put so much fill in there and raise the knoll up. I can see the trapping of the water. It's already accumulating. I just think it's a detriment to the marsh. And if they were going to go ahead and put that little bench there, couldn't they have just done it in a limestone path instead of an asphalt path and make it so harsh? It's really destroyed our view. It's not as pleasant as it used to be. I know it's an aesthetic thing from my point of view, and I know I' m on the other side of the county and I don't really have too much of a say but I think what happened is I may have opened the Pandora Box by calling Teresa and asking her, how come as a neighbor and a community member, why we weren't contacted on the extreme renovation of this marsh. It's just an opinion and I just wanted to place that this evening. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Lori, I have a question. Now was the knoll actually increased in size? Did the knoll, the height of the knoll get how much taller? Haak: I couldn't say. That's another question for engineering. Blackowiak: For engineering. Haak: Right. Blackowiak: But there was some increase in the size of the knoll, correct? Haak: That's what I'm hearing... Blackowiak: I'm unclear I guess. I wasn't sure based on what I saw. I-Iaak: The size of the knoll has very little to do with the wetland and that's what we're here tonight addressing so, those are the concerns that I'm heating by and large from the residents are related to the overall project which I would direct to Teresa. Blackowiak: Right, and so this is specific to the wetland mitigation, creation. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Haak: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Dee Geary Brachrnan: And then when I did call here, I did ask if an environmental impact statement had been made on that, because I was under the estimation and I've called every year because of my concerns, of whether or not that wetland is being protected because that is a drainage of our property that goes into the lake and it's a filtering system, and I feel that that's been disrupted and that was my concern with my call, and that's kind of interesting why we had been presented to come to this meeting this evening, because of the fact that we are 500 feet from that marsh. So I just think it's kind of all kind of fluky and I just want to place my opinion this evening. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Lori or Kate, environmental impact statement. What is the requirement in terms of size? I'm assuming that this is just so small that it doesn't even trigger any type of review, but what would, how big would it have to be? Aanenson: Typically it's based on square footage or number of dwelling units. Again, I couldn't respond to why or why not the decision was made. Again I'll go back to the point that Ix~xi's trying to make is that we're increasing some of the storage capacity as that water's moving through Lotus. That's certainly a concern that we have a pre-treatment before it even gets into the. Blackowiak: Into the lake. Aanenson: No, no, the marsh itself. It's getting pre-treated before it's even going into the marsh and so some of those sediments as it' s moving across the road are, and that's what that increased pond that Lori was talking about, that they've already, the neighbors have already said is already holding water so it's actually getting pm-treated before it's going across the marsh which is filtering it before it goes into the lake. Some of these questions, if people have signed up, we can try to get some answers back from Teresa on the height of the berm and some of that so. Or Mr. Klingelhutz' questions too. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, thank you. So anybody else who'd like to comment on this issue? Okay seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners. Does anyone have conm~nts? I'm waiting with you Uli. Let's start, anyone down here, any comments? Claybaugh: No, I don't have any comments. Lillehaug: Well I do. One quick question would be, is this area where the wetland was mitigated at, is this, was it previously considered an upland buffer area so we mitigated in a buffer area? Is that correct9. Haak: I don't think you could consider it a buffer area because there's really nothing to buffer. Prior to the trail and the bench being out there, there was really no use of this property except, no, it was passive use if any and so I think that might be giving it a little more credit than what it really deserves so I think what we're doing is creating wetland in an area that has a really good chance of being decent wetland. Because it wasn't functioning as a buffer before, and now with the use there, we' 11 definitely have a buffer. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Lillehaug: Okay. And then my comments would be, is there's a grading plan in our packet here and it shows on that knoll that the existing elevations shouldn't have been disturbed so I guess I would ask engineering to send in inspectors out there and conf'u'm that there was no fill placed on that knoll as it wasn't part of the plans here. So if it's in the plans not to be modified, I don't think we should be impacting it per the plans. And I guess I would support this. I mean it's after the fact. The wetlands constructed. So I'm generally in support of this. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, any. comments? Feik: I have no concerns with the application. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I guess just one comment. I guess a few of the residents were talking about drainage and was wondering if engineering could add a little section into the staff report just discussing the drainage issues, non-issues or whatever. It seems to be important since we potentially could have an impact on Lotus Lake. Otherwise I don't have any problems with the application. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, any comments? Sacchet: Yeah, also a brief question. I'm a little confused. I hear the residents talking about a significant modification of this marsh, of this wetland, and I really want to thank you for that. I think it's great that you have a concern about wetland and the drainage and all that. The staff report says it's .2 acres. Point 2 acres, that's about how many square feet? Haak: 8,000. Blackowiak: 8,000 roughly. Sacchet: About 8,000 square feet. That doesn't seem to be that tremendously big an area to fill. It might look bigger than that, but that's really the whole impact on the wetland is only this .2 acres. And it may look bigger because of the mitigation requires twice as much wetland being created, and I would conclude, and I'm not an expert at this but I would conclude that this creation of the twice as much wetland is actually an improvement of the environmental quality of that place. Plus there is a significant buffer added on that's going to protect the wetland so it has even a higher quality, higher chance to be a real asset to you and the community. And I do want to second what you comment Steve that according to the plan there should not have to be any fill put on that knoll so that's something that we look at. But I have a hard time putting in context that it sounds from you people that live out there that it's such a tremendous impact, and when I look at the numbers, it seems like 2/3 or even more than 2/3 of the impact that's being done there is actually to improve the situation. To make it more precious in terms of the environment so you seem to disagree with that, but based on the report that's what I hear here, and I think that's a great thing to support from that angle. If that's not the case, it needs to be verified and that's in the hands of the staff of course. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich, any comments? Slagle: I have one comment. I'm okay with the request, but I would add onto Commissioner Sacchet's comments regarding the neighbors and dove tailing earlier with the comment that Teresa will look into this. Make sure you folks have your name and addresses on that sign-up Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 sheet and telephone numbers so staff can get back to you with answers to your questions regarding fill and so forth. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have much to add. I believe this is the right thing to do according to all the rules the city is doing exactly what they need to do, as they would require of anybody else. I think part of the problem right now is that it's still in the construction phase and it might look a little more ominous than it really is going to be. I think that once things settle down and construction is completed, I think it's going to look a lot different and I think tha~ overall it's going to be a definite improvement to this area. And I think the trail is somethin~ we've all, and especially the people that live up there, I'm sure you've waited for that for years so I think that's going to be a nice asset to the community as well. That being said, I would like a motion please. Slagle: I'll make a motion. I recommend the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit ~2002-5 subject to the following conditions 1 through 4, again with just the recommendation and thank you to staff for getting Teresa's input. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second, and a friendly amendment, just to add in to condition 1. At a ratio of 2.5 to 1 per the staff report. Slagle: I'm okay with that. Blackowiak: Great. Motion and a second. Slagle moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commi.,~i_ on recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit ~v2002-5, subject to the following conditions: Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2.5 to 1. . Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City. Buffers shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. , Type 1II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot Seed Mix 25A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Blackowiak: I don't see a council date on this. Haak: This will be going to the council, the next council meeting. Next Monday. Blackowiak: Next Monday, so that would be the 25'h. Okay, so those of you who are interested, I would suggest maybe attending the council meeting on Monday or making some phone calls or something just to make sure that your opinions are heard. And the minutes of this will also go to the council members as well so. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A ~I(~N HEIGHT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MONUMENT LED DISPLAY SIGN FOR THE AMERICAN I,EGIQN PO~T 5~0 ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY (~ORRIDQR DISTRICT 1 AND (~,ENTRAIo BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 290 LAKE DRIVE EAST Public Present: Name Address Bob Kane Jack Kreger 7321 Washington Avenue So. 7606 Kiowa Avenue Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Before we go on Sharmeen, I'd just like you to talk a little bit about this handout we got. Al-~laff: Sure. Commissioner Sacchet spoke to staff earlier and requested a comparison of what is permitted on different, within different districts as far as signage. And what I did is just compile monument as well as pylon signs, and what you see before you is the height of signs within that district. For instance within residential districts you're only allowed monument signs not to exceed 5 feet. BN, which is this district, again 5 feet. No pylon signs. When you get into the Highway Business, General B, Central Business District, you're allowed pylon signs as well as monument signs. The height in this case goes up to anywhere between 8 and l0 feet. And with pylon signs you need to be along Highway 5. So just, it was a request that. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Great, no thank you. I just wanted to kind of clarify that. Commissioners, any questions of staff?. Slagle: I've got one. I can start. Sharrneen. A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Could you take out or show up on the table the map that shows sort of the downtown or Highway 5 area. Let's see. More the area itself. Like we have on. Sacchet: Like this. Slagle: Yeah. And my question is, is how close would the next zoning district that would allow them, because their building I think is less than 50,000 square feet, how close is that? Where would be the nearest sign if you will, that would be 8 feet and that would be allowed? A1-Jaff: Across the street. The Hanus. Aanenson: Well right next door, Park Nicollet also can have a sign. AI-Jaff: Oh, Park Nicollet is, will be coming in in the future. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Slagle: Okay. And their monument sign would be. Al4aff: It should be 5 feet. Not to exceed 5 feet. Aanenson: No, he's asking how close for the setback from the property line, is it 10 feet? Blackowiak: Oh no, no, no. Slagle: Here's what I'm asking. Is I'm asking, since their, since thc, you can have an 8 foot monument sign for buildings less than 50,000 square feet in some of the zones that you've listed on the sheet for Commissioner Sacchet, where would the proximity be to this sign? I mean could it be that this building just has the ill fortune of being in a Neighborhood Business district with someone 200 feet away is quote unquote zoned whatever, and they have an 8 foot sign. Al-Jaff: If you look across the street at the I4_anus building, it is in a Highway Business District. They do have a sign that is, I believe it's 8 feet. Slagle: 8 or 10. AI-Jaff: 8 or 10, yes. Slagle: Okay. So then a key here, in my opinion, is sticking to the zoning ordinance and the mason it's zoned Neighborhood Business is because of the homes to the south. Fair statement? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. So then it's a question in my mind is, how much impact of the residents, and just travel with me here, going to have on a sign whether it's 5 feet or 8 feet, when all the signs around it, assuming they're zoned in the other zoning, are 8 to 10 feet. Okay. Just want to see if I was asking the fight question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Alfight. Questions down here. Sacchet: Well, why do we need a conditional use permit for that moving letter sign. I was kind of surprised by that. Al-laff: That's how the ordinance reads. Sacchet: Because the ordinance requests it? Okay. Is there a reason why we would want to restrict those or control those? Do you know where that comes from? Aanenson: Actually the conditional use for there is, you can't have a movable sign. This would give an exemption. It also, some of the conditions that they actually do sometimes community events on their signs which I think in the past hasn't been a problem but sometimes that's a condition of approval too that they advertise community events. Whether it's Feb Festival or the 4~' of July activities or something. I know the Clum Bank does. Slagle: Or pancake breakfast for Santa on December 1~t from 8:00 to 1:00, Chan Rec Center. Blackowiak: You got your plug in there fight? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Aanenson: Something for the Rotary and the Chamber, correct. Blackowiak: Any questions at all? Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: Any questions down here? Feik: Yes I have one. Had they come in with a request to put the sign on the building itself, on the roof, on the fascia, something higher, what would be the constraints at that point? Al-$aff: That was something that we discussed when their site plan came in, and part of the discussion was they would give up the signage that faces Highway $. In return they would have a wall mounted sign. Actually this is the location of the wall mounted sign. Feik: Which is not visible from the highway. Al-$aff: No it's not because they were going to have the monument. Feik: But had they not done the monument, and put something on the roof line or the fascia on the highway side. A1Jaff: They're allowed one sign. Feik: Because of the square footage. Al-$aff: And it was a choice that they made. Feilc Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Steve? Lillehaug: No questions. Claybaugh: I have a question. Is there any information or is there, Sharrneen? I'm sorry, is there any information or is there a benchmark for the topography on that? Is that pretty fiat landscape where that's going in or is it. Sacchet: It's slightly sloped isn't it. Claybaugh: Is that on the edge of a berm or. Okay, so it's pretty flat. Okay. So the property directly to the east, that's also Business Neighborhood? Al-$aff: Yes. This entire piece right here. Claybaugh: It's all Business Neighborhood. Al-Jarl: It's all Neighborhood Business. Northcott is here. Legion and you have the clinic that will be coming in in the near future. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Lillehaug: And I do have one question, now that I saw that picture. Sharmeen, could you comment on this drawing here where it says the ground low profile sign to be centered on high point of berm. And then there's a new location that's highlighted. What you show there was that the high point location, so in essence the sign will actually, what they're requesting now is to be located on the bottom of the berm? Al-laff: Actually, if you go out them today, there is footings that show the location of the sign and there isn't a berm. Blackowiak: There's brick. I mean the base is there. Aanenson: The footings are there. Al-$aff: The footings are. Aanenson: The footings are. Blackowiak: Okay, I thought it was actually the base. We'll ask the applicant. ! mean I think the, I think of footings as down in the ground. AIJaff: Yes, there should be a lip showing. Blackowiak: Oh, I thought that it was much higher than a lip. Feik: It's a big lip. Blackowiak: It's a big lip, yes. Claybaugh: About a 27 inch lip? Blackowiak: Something like that, yeah. I was going to say 3 feet but I could be wrong. Okay, we'll ask the applicant. Okay, any other questions? Okay. At this point I'd like to open this item for a public hearing. Oh that's right, excuse me. Let the applicant come up and make their presentation first. And I would like to know about how big a lip thi~ is. Bob Kane: My name is Bob Kane, and I work at Serigraphics Sign Systems. We'll be putting the sign together. Slagle: Could you pull that mic towards you. Bob Kane: Serigraphics Sign Systems will be constructing the sign, except for the programmable unit. That's a Dactronics unit. And it's identical to the one that's in the Chanhassen Cinema. That's a Dactronics 3060 unit and that's what's going in this one too. Originally we were going rectangular because of the square footage but we wanted to put an angled roof on there to tie it in with the looks of the building but the square footage wouldn't, was pushing it but we were able to work that in because of an architectural advantage to make it tie in with the building. And we wanted to get it up 8 feet because the bottom of the sign, if it's down as low as 10 inches above the grade, snow will definitely be higher than that and will get into the filtering system and the air system of the electronic unit. So we wanted to get that up higher. The alternative is to shovel away and keep the snow shoveled away from that, but there's a number of people at the American 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Legion that are above the age of 50 and some have pace makers and they don't want to be out there shoveling and it might be something of a liability asset too for the city if they have to go to that clinic that's next door because they've been out there shoveling. Blackowiak: Oh I think that they could be enticed into buying a snow blower don't you? Guys and power tools, you know any excuse. Go ahead, I'm sorry. That'd be my husband. Let me tell you, any time he can buy some new toy. Claybaugh: To digress. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, we are digressing. Lillehaug: This won't help but I'm a member and I'm only, and I'm pretty young. Blackowiak: Do you're shoveling, is that what you're saying? Lillehaug: I guess I might have to volunteer. Blackowiak: So I'm sorry, let's get back to the sign. Do you know about the base size? I'll just ask a quick question. Bob Kane: The base. Blackowiak: I mean I kind of assumed that there was. Bob Kane: Those would be 27 inches above the grade. Blackowiak: So that's what's currently there, 27 inches? Roughly. Bob Kane: Yeah. The construction company put that in because of faith that you would go. Aanenson: Yeah, they were not given approval for that. We authorized the footing only so. Bob Kane: Right. They moved ahead and put that in, hoping that it would be, not have to be knocked down. And the reasoning behind that was because of construction issues and if they didn't get it before the freeze and things and it wouldn't be able to go in so. It was not my recommendation. Blackowiak: Okay. Claybaugh: So pacemakers and masonry, go ahead. Blackowiak: Alright. Did you have anything further or should we open this up for questions? Bob Kane: You can open it up for questions. Blackowiak: Great. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yes I do. Even without the pedestal, the 27 inch pedestal that the Dactronics and the main signage is on, you're still pushing in excess of 5 feet, even without it being up on a pedestal. What other alternatives had they looked at at this stage? 14 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Bob Kane: Well, they're only allowed 24 square foot of signage. Claybaugh: Correct. Bob Kane: And the sign itself was taking up about 20, just under 23 square feet. And to have it to fit into there, that would be a rectangular sign and it could only have a 10 inch brick work underneath there, because to get your square footage, and to meet the 5 foot, you're restricted to a 10 foot, 10 inches of brick. And that gets it pretty low to the. Claybaugh: That was my comment that even without the pedesud the signage itself is a combination of 47 inches plus 18, so that in and of itself is in excess of 5 feet. At least on the sketch that I have in front of me. Bob Kane: Right. The original sketch didn't have that additional 18 inches. Claybaugh: Okay. The Dactronics sign or the portion of that sign, I forget what you said the dimensions of that unit are but what are the variations or what's the next size down for that or do they offer a size down from that, that would be a possibility? Not necessarily as... Bob Kane: For the Dactronics unit? Claybaugh: Yes. Bob Kane: I would not recommend getting any smaller. The other alternative would be, removing, making the American Legion area smaller. That LED, the Dactronics in it is really the smallest that you're going to want anywhere because of traveling purposes. You're not going to read very much if that thing's any smaller. It's already pushing it with trying to maintain a 24 square feet. Claybaugh: Not to get into the design of the sign but had they considered putting the American Legion emblem or that language down on the masoI~ and being able to bring that down to get that more into conformance. Did you look at that alternative? Bob Kane: Yeah, that wasn't brought up but it could be arranged that way but on the bottom of the LED there needs to be at least a minimum of 3 inches of space because the air filter has to drop down and pull out for cleaning. Claybaugh: I'm just looking if you've got a 27 inch pedestal down there, if you took the American Legion Post 580 down, put that down. Kept the architectural feature for the pitch and the logo up above your digital element there. Bob Kane: It certainly could be. It could be. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Feik: I have no questions for the applicant, thanks. Blackowiak: Questions? Uli. Rich. Slagle: No questions. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: No questions, thank you. Bob Kane: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, at this point I will open the item up for a public hearing. So anybody wishing to comment, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jack Kreger: Good evening. My name is Jack Kreger. I'm from the American Legion and I was on the building committee. I wasn't really involved with the, most of the sign work but we feel that to get, if the sign is down below, the snow is going to be a factor. And as you come from the east and come under the bridge, if it's up a little higher, you're going to have a little better visibility. And as far as the read-out on it, we are planning on using it for community events and whatever the city has some request for that so we would, I would sure appreciate it if you'd approve this. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Jack, I've got a question if I may. I just have to ask, do you have any explanation as to how the brick got up? Jack Kreger: They went ahead and did it. They didn't ask us. They had the bricklayers there at the time and they went ahead and did it because they, in order to get them back it would cost them just as much as it is if you want to tear it down if they have to. That was the explanation that they gave to us. Blackowiak: Thanks. Anyone else like to comment on this issue? If not, I will close the public hearing. Time for comments. Commissioners. Start at this end. Slagle: Thank you Chair. I'm in support of granting the variance, Not that I don't appreciate exactly what staff is suggesting, but I think in that area with multiple zoning areas, districts, I just think this is going to fit in just fine. I'm disappointed, as you can imagine, on the fact that there are bricks, but I appreciate the honest answer so I'm going to put those two things separate and just to let you know that I will support the request for a variance. The LED sign I also will support. I don't have an issue with that at all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, any comments? Sacchet: Yeah. I'm in agreement with the conditional use permit for the LED sign. I don't see a problem with that at all. I'm a little bit tom about the variance because if I think back, and I've been on this commission for what, about 2 years. 2 ¢'2 years. And I didn't tally it up but I think when variances come before us we probably approved at least half, or certainly more...less of the variances, and that is just not the function of a Planning Commission. That's not the function of ordinances. I mean if we give everybody every variance they come ask for, we, our ordinance, there's something wrong with our ordinances. I do see that there are some circumstances that speak in your favor. Snow. Have a little more visibility. Across the street it wouldn't be an issue. However the ordinance states that in this place, there's a restriction and myself as Uli, I wouldn't think twice. Go do it. It's a reasonable thing, but I think in my responsibility to the city as a planning commissioner, at some point we have to start tightening this a little bit. A variance should be an exception and not the rule and in this body I come to the conclusion it's almost more or less the rule. And you can always go to the City Council, which from our experience is very 16 Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 likely going to allow it. That's probably inappropriate for me to make that comxmnt but I think it's the truth so that's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I guess I don't have a problem with the LED conditional use permit. I do agree with staff's analysis that this application doesn't meet the requirements of a variance. I don't really see any undue hardship in this case. Snow can be removed and heating tape can be put around places or whatever so that there shouldn't be any problem in that regard. Other businesses have met the 5 foot requirement in height so I just don't see that we need to, I guess I just don't see the need here. There's no compelling reason to grant a variance in this case. The applicant can construct a sign, it's just a matter of re-designing it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments. Feilc Yes. I generally support the variance. I'm looking at this and saying, I think the signage is in keeping with what's going on on the Highway 5 corridor there. Had it been on the south side of the parcel which faces the neighborhood, and it would be a neighborhood sign in the business neighborhood kind of thing, I would have a great different opinion. I look across the street to what's going on with the lube shop and Brown's and everything else. I look back down the street towards the west, and I don't see that this is not in keeping with what else is going on in the overall neighborhood, and I'm spreading the neighborhood out beyond the 3 parcels here in question. And so I would support both. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: My only comment is I'll be abstaining from voting since I am a member. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig. Claybaugh: I agree with Commissioner Sacchet. I could see us sitting here in the fumm having this same discussion about Park Nicollet. Though I would like to in that it's, I think that the American Legion does a lot of good work for the community, I lack to see a compelling reason to do it. I wish that they had held off obviously on putting in the footings. As Commissioner Lillehaug had pointed out, there is a note on here that identifies that the profile sign to be centered on the high point of the berm. I think a combination of raising up a berm in that area and raising that roof and possibly doing some slight modifications to the sign would address the problem- Unfortunately you no longer have that luxury because the footings are in and you've left with what you've got. The digital element of it I think is an asset. I have no problem with that whatsoever but with respect to the variance, I agree with Commissioner Sacchet that I don't see any compelling reason to approve it. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. As to the T.~I') display, I would certainly go ahead and recom, n~nd approval for that with the condition that we do see some community events displayed on that. I think that's a nice featm~. The variance, I really snuggled with this because again I don't know that we have seen a hardship. The only hardship I can see is the fact that the zoning district is BN, whereas across the highway you've got BH and that would be the only way I could look at it in terms of a hardship. As it comes down to it, I would actually be able to support the sign as an 8 foot sign simply because it is along Highway 5 and as Commissioner Feik said, not along the south side of the building. And the fact that their zoning is such that the south side of Highway 5 only gets the 5 feet, whereas the north side gets more than 5. So I'm kind of looking 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 at the hardship as being the zoning of this area and the different sign requirements in different zoning, so with that I would support the variance. I need a motion then. Feik: I' ye got a motion. I recommend that the City Council approve. Blackowiak: The Planning Commission? Feik: Excuse me. I'm reading what it says City Council, but it should have been Planning Commission. Approve the request for a 3 foot sign variance and for the construction of an 8 foot monument sign based upon, monument sign period. I think that would be the end of it. Aanenson: Can we for the record just summarize if you're recommending approval, the rationale so we can forward those to the City Council. If I could just summarize what I heard you say is that based on the multiple zoning districts in the area, adjacency to Highway 5 and it's not visible from the neighborhood. Feik: And I think it' s inconsistent with what the chaxacter is of what else is going on. Aanenson: Okay, I just wanted those for the record so we can forward those... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Yes, if I can just throw out my thought is the neighborhood business district zoning signage, you know especially on a highway would not have been a, would be the forceful consideration. It would be the consideration towards the homes, the residents... Feik: Yes, that's what I would say. So that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the request for a 3 foot variance for the construction of an 8 foot monument sign. Feik, Slagle and Blackowiak voted in favor, Sacchet, Sidney and Claybaugh voted against, and Lillehaug abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 3-3-1. Blackowiak: Okay the motion is split 3-3 and can we just forward it onto City Council as it is? Okay, thank you. I need another motion please for the conditional use permit. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval for the conditional use permit of the LED display within a monument ground low profile sign. Blaekowiak: And did you have any conditions to add, maybe about community events? Sacchet: No, I leave that open ended. That's in good hands. Blackowiak: Alright thank you, a motion. Is there a second? Feik: Second. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Sacchet moved, Felk seconded that the Planning Commission r~ommends the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for the LED display within a monument ground Iow profile sign. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. Blackowiak: Motion carries and I'll just say for the record that Commissioner Lillehaug abstained on both of those votes due to his membership in the American Legion. This item will go to the City Council on? AI-Jaff.' December 9m. Blackowiak: Wow, that's way out there. I thought maybe we, 2003. Wow. December 9~h. Aanenson: 2002. That's the wrong. Blackowiak: It is December, okay. It's not, oh it's not February? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: So it's December 9m, 2002. Okay. Because I looked at that and thought wow, that's okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay I've been requested that we take a 5 minute recess so we' 11 take a quick 5 minute recess and we'll be right back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ARiz. QUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TI:IREE-~TQRY~ 70~873 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUII.DING CONSI~TII~(~ OF A 76 IJNIT H OTEL~ A RESTAURANT AND MULTI-TENANT RETAH. SPACE WITH VARIANg:ES FOR SIGNAGE AND BUILDING MATERIALS QN 2.7 A~,ES OF PROPERT~r ZONED PUD~ BRUCE BISSQNNETTE~ NQRTHCQT1~ INN AND SUITES: Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff?. Feik: I' ve got a couple. In the staff report you mentioned that two properties within the Villages exceed the EIFS requirement. One is Bokoo, or Bokoo, and one is Bell Mortgage. What are those percentages? Generous: The Bokoo Bikes is approximately 60 percent. Feik: 6-0? Generous: Yes. It's a predominant material on that building, and Bell Mortgage I believe it was 18 percent. Feik: So just slightly. Generous: Yes. And then we had the bank building which was approved previously had 16.1 percent EIFS. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Feik: The other question I'd like to speak with you about is, as it relates to the rooftop units screening. They are currently being screened by the parapet. Essentially no additional screening is being added, is that correct? Generous: That's correct. Feik: My question is more of a code definition, interpretation for you at this point. Had this been a one story building you would probably have required additional screening. Generous: Higher screening, yes because the visual angles would have been. Feik: But the visual angles are measured, is that a standard measurement from where you measure the visual angles or is that more arbitrary? I guess my point is, if you step back fi.om this building not all too far, those roof top units might be visible. Generous: Correct. Feik: So my question is, is it a standard as far as where that visual element is measured from? Or is it a more loose interpretation than that? Generous: It's more interpretative. The ordinance says from public views. Feik: But public could be necessarily the Presbyterian Homes across the street could be public use. Generous: Yes. Above grade. Feik: Right. Generous: And what I had them do is show an elevation with the sight line, someone in I.ake Drive and Main Street to see what they would see if they were standing there. Yeah, I could have pushed them out farther. Part of the, this project is, you're going to have these tall buildings around it. Unless you complete change it, you'll always see that your three stories are above you because you'd be looking down on this. Feik: But many municipalities require screening irrespective of how high the building is. Aanenson: That's correct, and I think we' ve taken a little bit different tact on that. For example if you look at the National Weather Service, which is sitting below the grade of Audubon, and sometimes in trying to screening it you're actually drawing more attention to it. I think in the past what we' ye tried to do, similar to what we' ye done on, even on Chapel Hill, we tried to have the roof top equipment sometimes even match the color of the building. The same thing was done on St. Hubert's church where you have large pieces of equipment and there's homes behind there that we actually tried to blend the colors, because sometimes putting a fence around it, that ends up being a maintenance problem. Actually draws away fi.om the architecture. It ends up being a snow catch and that sort of thing so we tried to move from that. That is, was in the past a standard that a lot of communities use and we found that it doesn't always work and we're trying to do some other techniques. It's a good question. Feik: Thank you. 2O Planning Commission Meeting -Novemlx~ 19, 2002 Lillehaug: I have a couple questions for staff. One would be, if you have the overatl plan that you could show up there. It was a smaller sketch with, you show, there's parking fight inbetween Bokoo Bikes, right across the street to the east there that's shown on that plan I think. Generous: Yes. Lillehaug: That' s not reflected on the plan that's in front of us tonight though. Generous: Yeah, this was the concept plan previously. What they've done is shorten, actually shorten up this building so that the ramp down into the underground parking would work. We need, they can't exceed 10 percent on that and so they provided parking in that area that used to be building. Lillehaug: Okay, so shared parking, I assume that this would be a portion of it. I mean there's several stalls that are considered shared parking. Generous: Yes. Well the four, this is one that we'd probably share with the Bokoo Bikes but we're looking mom towards the north. They'd pick up additional parking, and on Lake Street and Main Street. Lake Drive and Main Street. Lillehaug: Okay. And then there's a cross access, it'd be condition number 28. There's a cross access agreement between parcels. Is there also a cross parking agreement or is that? Generous: Yes. Under the overall PUD, that was a requirement that they establish that. Lillehaug: So the cross parking agreement is in place? Generous: Yes. And we'll reiterate that when they plat this. Or final plat this I should say. Because right now it's in an outlot status and so it needs to be final platted before they can go forward with the building permit. Lillehaug: Okay. And then a quick detailed comment, and this would be directed possibly towards engineering. A portion of the grading in the parking lot, if you look at the grade, the water's going to flow out into the, I guess it's not a public street but out into the street. Would this be something that we'd want to address and revise the elevations in their parking? And it'd be in the east side of the parking lot. It appeam that a portion of that parking lot is going to drain into the street. I realize it's a private street but I think we should probably main~ the same standards and I think that the City would concur on that that wouldn't be typical. Sweidan: Mainly most of the grading like it's happening from inside the limit of the lot towards inside that most of it. Now if it is coming from the slxeet, there are catch basins along the street itself like from the north side of it, out along into the car park. Lillehaug: And I'm talking specifically on the east side of the parking lot. Or the west side, I'm sorry. And the west side, it appears that it drains onto the street. Just, I guess take a look at it and work with the applicant and ensure that's what we want to see there. And that would be will I guess. Sweidan: Okay, yeah we'd look at it. Blackowiak: Craig, any questions? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Claybaugh: Yeah, Bob. On your revised recommendations on page 15, your condition 15 called for 7 accessible parking spaces be provided. I was just looking through here. I believe they're showing 4. Them accomplishing those 7, do you feel that it could potentially have any adverse affect on your overall ability to achieve those 241 spaces or is that... Generous: No, because they can. The shared parking opportunities are very fluid in this and they're providing 92 percent of the required parking on site. It's just located and basically the code requires it be close to an entrance and so we may look at something spreading out more. Claybaugh: Sometimes we should almost come in more than what's required is all I was asking about. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Lthamn? Sidney: Yes, on page 9. I hate to bring this up again but on the project numbers for the various square footages. I guess I'm confused because I'm looking at the Northcott Inn and Suites and yet we have two floors of hotel space, and one of retail but yet these numbers are equivalent. Slagle: LuAnn, can you speak in your mic? Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. Slagle: We're getting gestures from the crowd. Sidney: Oh, okay. What gestures? Are they good gestures? Blackowiak: Fair question. Sidney: Okay, sorry about that. I know that's something that people mention, I don't speak up enough. If you look at the columns for commercial and office service, I guess just over, you know when I look at it we have approximately the same square footage, but still we axe talking about two floors of hotel space so is that, are these calculations correct? Generous: Part of the calculations, the hotel room space we were counting as more service or allocating to service. If this doesn't work, what would be re-use of this and office space. Sidney: Then you should so the same with the Americlnn. You know I guess it doesn't jive. Generous: Except for that's the, when we did it back then, that's just how they allocated it. It could, we could split it up again. They'd have more square footages but we counted it all against the commercial. That was the first real commercial building that went in there. We didn't have this refined then. Sidney: Yeah, I guess it just doesn't seem consistent in this case so if you could look at that because it just isn't. Generous: Sure we could split it up more proportionately. Sidney: Yeah, because it doesn't make sense. Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Sidney: No. Blackowiak: Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yes, I have a couple of questions. Some more trivial than others. On the site plan, and I don't know whether you can answer that. ff not, the applicant probably will. On the site plan it has on the west side there in this parking lot, this additional parking lot Rich is talking about, has this box that says trans. What is that? Generous: Transformer. Sacchet: Transformer, as in electrical transformer? Alfight. That answers that one. There is a letter in there by Mika Milo and he takes issues with some of the colors. Could you point out which are what Mika Milo calls not a pleasant one. A greenish yellow as well as a too dark and brown green stone. Generous: It doesn't, it's the computer enhanced colors that he got that makes, well. If you look at, it makes that look greenish yellow. Sacchet: Yeah, I can see how he calls that unpleasant. And what was the response to. Generous: He was talking about this one. Sacchet: Okay. So it's really not that green. Generous: No it's not. Sacchet: And the two dark brown green stone? Generous: That's the bottom elevation which would be the block. The oak. It didn't reproduce well on the computers and then copied and so. Saechet: Okay. So this is a reproduction problem then? Generous: That's one of the reasons we, yes. Saechet: Alright, that's a good answer. On the elevation you were pointing out the three window groupings located below the shaker, the shake dormers. Are we talking about the second or third floor, and all these windows or exactly which ones are we saying should be replaced by 6 panel windows? Could you be specific about that please? Generous: Yes. It would be the three panel windows on the second and third floor. In this area. There's two locations on the. Saeehet: On the other side is a similar thing. Generous: Yeah, Iaflte Street elevation is, or Lake Drive there's another one of these elements. Sacchet: So we're talking all these windows but only second and third. Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Generous: Well the first floor already has 6 panel windows. Sacchet: Well it doesn't show. Generous: ...that pattern, the upper level's at a smaller scale. Sacchet: Oh it has, yeah I see. There's a line through them because they're taller. Okay, I didn't catch that. So that's them. And then when you say you have windows in the flat roof section with more accents, are we talking all three sides of the two twice? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. The end as well as, all three sides... Generous: That they look at, and they don't all, we're not saying that they all have to be the same and you know it could be something subtle. Sacchet: Some variety, yes. Generous: Yes, just so that you have a different architectural feel on each of those elements of the building. Sacchet: Okay. And then you talk about benches on Lake Drive and two on Main Street, two on Lake Drive. Where would those fit in, do we know*. I know this is kind of nit picking but I'm curious. Generous: The original streetscape called them, for them down on this end. And some place on this end of the building. Sacchet: So at this point it's not really, they're not placed in no specific place. Generous: No. Sacchet: That's something that would have to still be working on, okay. Generous: ...and also they're going to have a feature out at the comer that would have benches on it too. With landscaping in the middle. Sacchet: Then on page 8 of the staff report, I' m talking about the landscaping. There' s this short paragraph. Staff recommends that all landscaping islands and peninsulas be a minimum of 10 feet wide and then also that's evergreens be located outside of sight triangle. I don't see a condition, and you say recommend. Is that really what it is, is a recommendation7 It's not something we want to make a condition out of?. Generous: No, it should be in the conditions. Sacchet: Was it hiding? Maybe it's in there and I didn't see it. So it should actually be a condition. Generous: Yes it should have been in there. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Sacchet: I may have overlooked it but I didn't see it. Blackowiak: You'll have to go and double check that one. Sacchet: Then the same thing, there is in utilities it says Minnegasco is requiting that a private utility easement be created. That I'm sure I doubled checked. There's no condition in there. Generous: Right. That we'll cover as part of the final platting of this project. Sacchet: So that's alright that there is no condition for that one. Generous: Correct...as more our subdivision condition. Sacchet: Okay. And then I've got one for the applicant. Now the ~IFS, here all the I:~S, goodness gracious EIFS. You said 6-0 for Bokoo Bikes. Generous: Pardon me? Sacchet: You said 60, 6-0 for Bokoo Bikes. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Just to clear of that. Again that was before the revised design standards. Sacchet: Oh, that was done before we did the design standards, because that was exactly my question. Aanenson: Just to be fair to the developer, they did raise that issue that the designs had changed and right. Sacchet: So that was done before we had the nde, alright. That's my questions, thank you. Slagle: I just have a couple. Bob...that parking area that would be on the southwest comer. Directly across from Bokoo Bikes. Do we foresee any problems with people coming out of there? With people backing up from Bokoo? Generous: Not really. I talked with the owner of Bokoo Bikes and he anticipates that would be for his employee parking, and so they wouldn't be moving in and out most of the day. It' s fixed time~. Slagle: And so, I mean is that, I mean that comment, would that be okay with these owners of this building that they're adjacent lot would be filled with employees of the building across the street? Generous: Well it's part of the overall subdivision... Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. I want to commend Bob, you and the applicant on the pedeslxian ramps. Walking through this parking lot, the question is, is there's been consideration of another one to the west because you've got a fair amount of parking area to the west and I'm just wondering if you park, you're one of those business travelers like we maybe all have been and Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 you get to the hotel at 11:00 at night and it's snowing and you park the second parking spot to the northwest. Basically you're going to be cutting across a lot of cars to get to the door, so I'm just wondering, is there enough parking spaces to make another pedestrian ramp going north/south. Generous: Dedicated, it'd be difficult to do. Slagle: Just throwing it out for consideration. And then lastly, or actually two more. We do not have a sidewalk going down the west hand side of this property that I can tell. Generous: It's across the street. Slagle: Okay, but. Talking about sidewalks, pedestrian friendly environment. Is there a reason we can't run a sidewalk that runs the north side of the block, take it down through that, what I'll call the grassy area? You know again, going down. I mean because I understand. I mean believe me but you know, we' ye got discussion about neighborhoods. Some streets have one sidewalk on one side and you wonder why it wasn't on the other side, and if it's a minimal cost perhaps, it's something to raise. You know. I mean if there was ever a pedestrian area that we have in our city, then this would be it. I would almost hope that there's overkill on sidewalks. And are we interested in the applicant's answer, and hopefully it's not just cost. Okay? Last thing is on lights. And I'm just throwing out the question. I'm looking for lights and I see two or three going down Main Street. I'll count the one that's down in the southeast comer. I don't see any on the north side of the hotel. Or restaurant I guess that would be right there. And then I'm trying to figure out where the lights are in the parking area. At least based upon this legend, looking for light poles. Again I'm just trying to think of a dark, you know safety issue. Generous: Yeah, the existing Main Street and Lake Drive lights are in place. Those were done with the overall development. They're providing a lighting in the parking lot. Slagle: Are those black things. Claybaugh: Those are the shoebox fixtures. Slagle: Okay, those are the lights? Okay. I'm sorry. Then I was reading the legend. Alright, so that would be fine. And then my only question would be, do you think there's any need for a light on the north comer of the property? And I'm talking sort of where that 5 foot concrete sidewalk, just to the right of that towards the east. And I just throw that out. Because you've got one down at the southeast comer and. Aanenson: How about if we look at what lighting's on the building for downcast lighting because there is retail on that and what's across the street, but we'll clarify that. Just to make sure it's appropriate. Slagle: That's it. Blackowiak: Thank you. I just have actually one question. All my other ones were answered, but I'd like to hear from engineering standpoint. I too would like to see a sidewalk on that west end. I think that you're dumping out, you've got these concrete sidewalks that dump out, they go east/west and they just dump out on the street and I really feel that we need to have something on what would be the east side of that street so from an engineering standpoint, can it be done? Sweidan: I guess so, yes we can. 26 Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, that's the answer I wanted. Alright. Aanenson: Just to clarify, the staff when we looked at this with the applicant too is, we looked at where would the most likely destination be if you're in this hotel and we looked at the restaurant and that's why it kind of got centered towards the middle. That'd probably be the most frequent path would be probably in this, if you're in this area towards Houlihan's. Or you could be going back to the east but, you may go to the American Inn, but you could still cut through middle of that building. That's I guess what we looked at then, and try to keep that edge streetscape. Just for clarification. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay. One more question? Sure. Claybaugh: Yeah, was there any photometrics done? Aanenson: That's why I think we need to get clarification on it. Claybaugh: Okay. Usually we see them and that's why I was just asking. Slagle: What was that question? Claybaugh: Photornetrics to piggy back on what you were talking about there. Blackowiak: Alright. Now's the time for the applicant or their designee. Truman Howell: My name is Truman Howell with Truman Howell Architects. We're the architects of the project, and we would say that we would agree that the mustard is not our preferred color. The real colors are in fact here. And they would be consistent throughout the building. And therefore we're quite comfortable in showing those as opposed to computer work. However, computers do help us a great deal. Basically one of the comments I would make about the landscaping, or I should say the hardscaping around the buildings, is that a lot of that, and I' m not trying to absolve us of responsibility but a lot of that was predetermined when we came to the scene and therefore some of the things in terms of the lighting, in terms of the benches and those kinds of things have been somewhat predetermined. We certainly will give our input as to suggestions, that kind of thing. However we, you know engineers, architects don't go and tell engineers what to do, you understand so these guys were already here so we will make our comments and our opinions known. The other thing, I believe there was a question in terms of visibility of the equipment on the rooftop. Would that be of help if we tried to answer that briefly? We were told that this would in fact be a consideration. Does that show? They said it does show. Blackowiak: I think that's in our packet as well. Truman Howell: Right. I believe it's Sheet 2., A2.4. The drawing actually show both sections through both sides of the building, and you can see from across the street is basically as far as we got away. Obviously the dashed line that you see is the, based on where that view is taken, is the area that would still be invisible from that particular location on the street. However, I certainly would agree if you find a certain distance and a certain height away, then in fact you would see them. No question about that. However we do feel that there's quite a bit of flexibility here in terms of it being a 3 story building, that would protect the visibility for quite a ways away. Are there any other questions that I can answer for you? Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Well I can think of one. Can you just speak to the sidewalk issue along the west end of the parking lot? Truman Howell: That's one of the things I was saying that was kind of a given at the time. The, obviously as much planting as possible, I'm assuming you're talking about, if I may. You're talking about this area here? Blackowiak: Right. Truman Howell: Okay. Again, those were given to us. We planted that area obviously to get as much vegetation as possible. We did not suggest an additional sidewalk be put in there, though I'm assuming that that can be done. Blackowiak: Okay, would you consider that as a possibility? Truman Howell: Pardon me? Blackowiak: Would you consider that as a possibility? Truman Howell: Well we can consider anything of course. Blackowiak: Wrong question I guess, I'm sorry. Truman Howell: Let me suggest that obviously we can draw it on there. It's a cost issue. Obviously the owner has some serious input about costs. So as, is it possible to do? Absolutely. Blackowiak: Okay. Well as long as we know we can put a condition on, that's, okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? Claybaugh: I had some questions here. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: With respect to the. Slagle: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: If you'd like to come up to the microphone so everyone can hear. Thank you. Mark Clarey: I just wanted to, I'm Mark Clarey. I'm with Northcott Company and I just wanted to answer a couple questions that I heard so far. We did originally when we were working, even with Mika on the original concept stage, give consideration to having the sidewalk on the west side. Staff made a reference to it earlier. We felt that as the operators of the business out them, that we feel most of the traffic is going to be coming between the hotels and along the Main Street drive avenue. We don't feel that there's going to be that much traffic coming from Bokoo Bikes and back up to Houlihan's or back from the restaurant where people would head out of the restaurant, walk over to Bokoo Bikes, given the time of night, and head up. We wanted to keep as much greenscape within there. To be quite frank with you, you can put the sidewalk in there cheaper than we can probably put all the landscaping in there so, I don't have an issue with Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 that but I think it's going to look more like a concrete jungle for lack of a better term at this point than what you're going to want to see with greenscape out there. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Do you want to start with questions? Claybaugh: Questions, yeah. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: I'm assuming you've seen the recommendations with the conditions set forth by the city staff. Mark Clarey: We have seen them, yes. Claybaugh: Okay. Is them anything in them, in the 41 conditions that was an issue? For the applicant I should say. Mark Clarey: Since I'm the one with the money, I guess I'll, and it's not totally money. I think that architectural taste are each individual's taste, no difference than houses, em, and our past work with the community and with the city, I think we've delivered pretty nice projects out here between the Americlnn and Houlihan' s, as well as Northcott building and our goal is to put in projects that are feasible and aesthetically fitting into the area and I know it's a common goal. Our CEO, that's how he directs me all the time. I will tell you that this was the third attempt at drawing this building so far to date and we have financially performed it the three separate times prior and each time it did not perform. We think that we've got a project now that's going to be financially feasible, given it's current state. We're in the middle of financially proving that again. We're actually taking out through a separate set of contractors again trying to verify that. I don't have an issue in seeing the staff's comments of all of the, I'm going to call them the A windows on each of the two dormer elevations, below the shake shingles. I go back, our CEO, Lou Crowler is from New York so I' ye made a few visits out there and typically when I see the old retail sections in town there, the lower levels are completely differentiated from the upper two levels, but I can see where staff is talking about here, that it would help pronounce that area more than what' s currently shown. The other items on the flat roof issues, I personally had a lot of input into the whole design and I like those on the other end. That's again just personal opinion. As far as the overall portion of the EIFS on the building, I don't know why the change came in. My understanding is that was about a year ago or so that the change was adopted for the 15 percent requirement. Originally when EIFS first came in there was some problems with EIFS across the country. It's a substantially better product than what it was. Without a doubt there are some class action lawsuits taking place in the southeast and in the northwest over EIFS products. You don't see those in the Midwest, and from a long term and maintenance aspect around hem and particularly in this climate, they're a very good product. I think we're well within the guidelines of what's been approved out within the project so far, and the other thing that frankly I didn't notice before in the staff report was the downward shining only lighting on the building. We're not intending to light the sky and put an airport runway out there, as you can see with our office building. Our new prototypes on our hospitality concepts, it's similar to what we're doing in the last Houlihan's that we've gotten through. The ground lighting that we're using is aimed up at the cornice on the rooL The portion where the roof overhang and the walls come together so that you get a bounce back, just like our office building, and it illuminates in a strong characteristic the entire facade of the building as well as giving more of that lighting that we're talking about down onto the sidewalk. It doesn't shine up and over the roof elements of the building. What it also does is that we're finding out that when you have soffit lighting on a 29 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 building of this height, it's a real nightmare to maintain it. You can imagine trying to get someone out there as lamps go out of lights and the building's got 2 or 3 on any one elevation. Now trying to get someone out there in the middle of winter to keep those changed. It's pretty hard to do. You need special pieces of equipment whereas if you have the lighting mounted as we're showing on the plan at approximately the 15 foot range, you can get out there with a common step ladders and change those lamps and you' re not having them all on all the time. Other than that I didn't have too many issues. See I think it's a nice looking project but obviously I would, but I'm trying to get it go through. Blackowiak: Alrighty, thank you. Claybaugh: Well I' 11 come back to the question. What we have in front of us is a recommendation with the 41 conditions so that's why I want to specifically ask you about those. With respect to the up lighting there, was there any information forwarded to the city or available to us with respect to the fixtures and the lumens that they're proposing? Mark Clarey: We do have those available and we can certainly bring them to the city. Claybaugh: Okay. And if in fact we do not approve the 26 percent E]FS, had they considered what the alternative would be at this point or is that premature? Mark Clarey: No we have not. Frankly if you look at how the building is broke at those points, it' s a natural point to break the materials and looking at it right here, if you take that front to back where the break lines are on your drawing, the EIFS stands out there at the ends of the building. The flat roof portion of the building are basically the portions of the building that have the EIFS on them. Thank you. No, I'm not quite sure where we're going to go about mixing it up again and trying to eliminate that. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have for the applicant. Blackowiak: Thank you. Lillehaug: I do have some questions. There's a note on Sheet C-1 that refers to concrete driveway entrances. I don't see any shown. I'm wondering if you're anticipating installing any. Mark Clarey: Frankly I don't remember the note quite frankly but the parking lot, paved parking lot and if he's talking about a concrete approach. I'm not familiar that we've got concrete approaches in any of the PUD areas... Lillehaug: It's on Sheet C-1 and it's probably about the third note down. Truman Howell: All curb and gutter be concrete? Mark Clarey: Is that what it is, all the curb and gutter? Lillehaug: No, it's about the seventh one down. Mark Clarey: Oh I see it now. I do see concrete aprons to be installed for all access drives onto public streets. 30 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Truman Howell: That's only when you change from the concrete to a, I'm sure the civil engineer put a standard piece of insulation around it. Typically when you go from a different material to a bituminous material, you put a concrete apron in there to, so when the trunk of the cars or the tracks or what have you are turning, there's heavier wear at that location. Therefore that's typically...completely concrete surface... Lillehaug: Okay. And then I'm looking at the construction plan on that same sheet. Promenade, that'd be that north private road there. I am wondering, the north road, north of. Truman Howell: On Promenade? Lillehaug: Right. It appears that you'll be constructing a curb and gutter on the south side of that road. There's a segment missing on the north side, which is east of Houlilum's. Mark Clarey: We're actually planning on trying to take care of tha~ next year. Lillehaug: Excellent. Mark Clarey: We don't like it either. Lillehaug: Okay, then since you don't like that, what do you think about a little further to the east there, the little modified traffic circle there. It' s got some very ugly settlement. I-Iea~g of the concrete. I think they're cobblestones. Very bad settlement. Do you anticipate incorporating any repairs of that in the project? Mark Clarey: No. We' ve written a letter and had conversations with the head of the association out there. Right now it's currently nm in the association and that's the goal is the entire development is progressing ahead and now there's more people involved and we believe it's something to be taken this spring out there. We're in conversation with the people leading the association out there right now. Lillehaug: One more settlement issue. In the southeast comer, and it'd be on Main Street, there's another segment of curb that's settled so maybe bring that to light. The very southeast there's a catch basin there in the comer parking lot. It's in the south east on Main Street in the parking lot. A comer. A diagonal comer stall. There's settlement issues out there around. Mark Clarey: Until the final lifts go in in that roadway, there's probably going to be a few more given the underlying soils out there. Lillehaug: And I hope we address them at this time so it doesn't get pushed to the wayside here. What else do I have here? There's some other notes on there. It says 18 foot depth of a few parking stalls. And it's not really clear which ones are going to be 18 foot. Truman Howell: Typically it would be all of them. All of the parking stalls. Lillehaug: Okay, I think we, I think the city would want to see 19 foot, if I could get a comment on that from staff. Generous: The standards are 62 feet total, so that's two 18's and a 26. Lillehaug: Okay. That ends my comments. 31 Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Blaekowiak: Thank you. Feik: I have a quick question. Would you be amenable to providing additional screening around the roof tops? The Pres Homes is going to be up fairly quickly. It will be a residence living across the street, both to the south and then to the new facility which is also going to be to the east. I think it's a very nice roof line overall. I do like the flat roof portion of it. I would like your opinion as to whether or not you would be amenable to some additional screening on the roof top units. Mark Clarey: Frankly I would not, and I've taken a look at where the elevations even where Pres Homes is. It's quite a ways away and it's, depending on where you're going in the current city of Chanhassen, you can always see, as Bob will say, any of the roof tops. I can drive down Highway 5 and look at roof tops on any one story project, and even some of your two story projects, including the Target. You know the buildings. That was one of the reasons, considerations in the conversation with staff originally when we were going through the design elements. Feik: So I'd take that as a no. Mark Clarey: Yes. Feik: Thank you. Mark Clarey: Without a doubt, Feik: That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: I guess one question about signage. Wondering if you could address the staff's recommendation to deny a variance for signage in excess of 20 feet in height. Mark Clarey: The only two locations where, other than the tower sign, where we felt that the signage would need to be above the 20 foot zones, do you have an elevation of the building? Truman Howell: This is actually on the restaurant end, which as you can see has the access into the parking ramp below. And the signage is here approximately 22 to 28 feet to the top of the sign. On the other side is the end of the swimming pool. There again it's about 22 to 28 feet. Just because quite frankly the visibility within the sign band, from the surrounding area is going to be... being able to see it, especially important at the restaurant so... Mark Clarey: The main retail ones, if you look at, this example has got the picture. Now the main retail runs lend themselves to only the signage coming in the band between the bottom and second floor windows and down to the top of the first floor windows anyway, so if you look at the signage of the 20 foot range on those elevations, the hotel pool will be in the fax north end of the building, so on the two, I always get these streets confused out there but between Lake Drive and Main Street, those two elevations primary would not have anything where the actual signage would be above 20 feet. The restaurant, given the entrance into the site and without visibility from Highway 5, we felt it was a good opportunity to have that be noticeable for anyone that's 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 coming around the comer. Obviously you want the restaurant to have the best possibility of a success entity out there. Slagle: One last question. This un-named mad, which would be on the west side of the property. Mark, would you agree that that is probably the most heavily traveled road if you're getting to Houlihan's and American Inn? Mark Clarey: Currently I would, and prior to Culver's I would have, but now with Culver's in there I'm seeing a lot of traffic coming down the Promenade road. Obviously I go over there for lunch every day so I see quite a bit, and I'm there for dinner a lot of times, but otherwise without a doubt, between Pond Promenade and that one currently, yes. I think it would be a bank building just completed on main drive through the property is going to be the primary road through the PUD. Slagle: Okay. And I'm not going down this path, we talked sidewalk or anything but just a question that seems to be, it seems like it's going to be pretty tight with, and I don't want to say, tight's probably the wrong word. But it's going to be a busy little road, wouldn't you think? Okay. I'm just asking for your, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yeah, to follow up on LuAnn's question about the signs. Just to be clear. What would be on those two signs and what would be on the signs in the tower? I meam what's your plans? The restaurant, the hotel or what? Truman Howell: Probably be the name of the restaurant, whatever that might be... Sacchet: Oh, at the end where the restaurant is? On the other side? Truman Howell: Probably the name of the hotel. Sacchet: On the tower? Truman Howell: On the tower, I'm not sure yet. Sacchet: You don't know yet. Mark Clarey: We're considering a couple different things. Right now we would like to have the name of the overall hotel on the tower, or something W the effect of Northcott Inn Center or something along those lines. Sacchet: The name of the place, okay. Okay. And the purpose would be, that from the tower to see it from Highway 5 or? Truman Howell: Yes. Sacchet: And on the north side also, to see it from Highway 5? Truman Howell: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Sacchet: And that would be the hotel side. And then the restaurant side would really not be visible fi.om the Highway 5 anyhow. Truman Howell: Not from Highway 5, no. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have any questions for the applicant right now. Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to comment on this, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Vernelle Clayton: Madam Chairman, I'm Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. Another one of these sexy voices. I'm not getting too close to anybody. I'm here again to support two things that I supported a few weeks ago. A month or so ago when we did the, what we call the C Building. One is, as you know, and I think Mika made it very clear, that we are at Village on the Ponds, and those of us that have been involved now for a few years in the project are very strong supporters of the variety and the character that we think the EIFS product brings to our project. It's been made pretty clear that a nice looking building can be EIFS. In the Bokoo Bikes building we used it to great advantage in the building that we call the silo building where we got about, we divided the building into three, one of which was EIFS, one brick and one siding. There aren't an awful lot of choices for people to use. If this group is precluded fi'om using EIFS in the area where they want to use it, one of the, my fear is that one of the obvious choices that would be to go to more siding and I think in part as a result of recent attempts to accommodate this new requirement, that we limit EIFS. We're very close to having too much siding in the Village on the Pond to continue to have a creative and exciting movement of materials and design. What I guess I should have said is very close to becoming monotonous from that perspective. I'm not saying that that's what they would do, but I think that if we say they can't do what they want to do, that's obviously a risk. I'm also here to support on behalf of the Village on the Ponds project, their request for the higher signs. We had, at the outset of the project the requirement that certain areas could have higher signs, particularly if they were put in an architectural element of the building, and we were somewhat arbitrary about where that could be. We said it could be, if it were along Highway 5. I think now though we' ve seen enough of the project so that there is not a chance that if a few signs that are higher than 20 feet are put in, it will set a trend for the rest of the project. We know where we have them. We know what buildings are left to come. Currently there is only one large building and that's nearly as large as either of the other 3 corners of the Lake and Main intersection, that hasn't been approved. There's another smaller building that will, or could be about 18,000 square feet in one or two buildings that would be brought to you, that will be across the street to the south of the silo one building. That will be a low building. It's limited to two stories, so it's not at this point, I can't see that there are many opportunities for enormously high signs that might be requested there. So I think that we've, the requirement, the limitation has served it's purpose. We don't have a proliferation of an awful lot of high signs. We have tasteful signs where we have them, and I think that their request for these signs in the three locations are tasteful. That the request, the result will be tasteful. And so I would encourage you to grant that variance. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you Vernelle. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this issue? Seeing no one, I' 11 close the public hearing and I will open it up for commissioners comments. Why don't we start down with Commissioner Slagle. Slagle: I would throw out quickly that I think project by project, we have started to see, I shouldn't say start to see. Have seen a very nice development take place. I'm very happy with Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 what I've seen, and I'd have to apologize to staffif I voted for the EmS limitation at 15. If I had a chance to vote over again, I might go for a little bit more, just to let you know. So I'm going to go with that variance request. I would say this. That I think going back to the Culver's which was one of my first projects to sit on, there's been a strong resignation on my part for pedestrian safety in this area since it is defined as a pedestrian friendly area. And to me, from one person's viewpoint, that is son of going beyond, if you will, the extras to help with that safety because there are a lot of cars, and there's going to be more cars with the development, and we all hope it succeeds. So I would just like to state again that I hope that we can work with the sidewalk. I'm going to ask for that as a condition. I'm going to also ask for at least, not so much a condition but request that there be dialogue between staff and the applicant for the additional pedestrian ramp in the parking lot, if that works. I' I1 leave the light stuff to you guys. ff you think there's need for more light, great. But other than that, I'm okay with the signage. I'm fine, especially hearing after Vemelle, by the way I hoe you feel better, that there's not going to be lots of opportunities for more signage that high. So I'm very favorable towards this application. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: I think it's a great project. I mean it's really fantastic what's happening there. I think it' s very well designed. I like the variety. I like the looks of it. There's a couple of issues. The EIFS is obviously one of therm I don't know how logical it is to replace EIFS with siding. I would think stucco would probably be the more logical choice, but I'm not an expert so I don't know. It's tricky. I mean I like to be the good guy too, but then on the other hand by the rules that I'm given to look at, it's, I don't think it's my place at this point, sitting here in this chair, to evaluate whether the 15 percent ordinance is conexc~ or not. Nor is it my prerogative to look at and see whether I like it or not. I have to look at the context and the context is pretty clearly defined. I mean is there a hardship? I can't see a hardship by having to use let's say stucco instead of EIFS. And the same applies to the si~s. There's another element that we have to look at in our criteria. Is it applicable to other properties. Well it is applicable given it's in that area, it's probably the last major piece in that particular Village development, but it's applicable to the rest of the city. So looking at these criteria, I have a hard time supporting this variance and personally I think permissiveness is not a good thing. I mean we have to try to stick with the rules, and I would be inconsistent with the position I took with the previous variance with the sign height if I would turn around and support it here. As a matter of fact it'd probably be more appropriate to have supported it in the previous case because it's right next to the highway. This one is not. So I agree with the staff recommendations, with the conditions. I would like to suggest that we add a couple of the specifics that I'm not sm'e are in there, like in terms of adding a little more interest to those windows, but generally I agree with the staff recommendation. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Yes, I' m generally in favor of this project. I think the idea of the building, placement of the building, height of the building, I agree with. I guess I'm having some trouble with the architecture and I believe staff has been working with the applicant to increase the architecumfl interest of the building. I do have some concerns because we're going to be across the street from Building C, which I believe in terms of what we've seen, was a magnificent building. It had a lot of interesting European flare to it. In this case I just don't see those elements presented in this application and I would re. ally encourage the applicant to work with staff to try to incorporate some of those features from Building C into this building. I guess in looking at the elevation it just looks unfinished...interest in the building. I think that is somewhat given in the PUD design guidelines. If you look at, under building materials and design, point 10. We're looking to avoid Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 extreme variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors, and that should be prohibited to extreme variations, and I don't know if I'd put this building in terms of an extreme variation but I would like to see, like I said, more elements of Building C incorporated into this design. So I guess those are my major comments. Oh, I guess I should comment about the variances. I think we just don't see a case for a hardship in this case. The architect can design the building without the use of more than 15 percent EIFS and I'd like to follow the signage guidelines as given in the ordinances. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: Yes. I very much like the project as a whole. The way things are going. I do have some concerns. One is, I'll agree with the sidewalk issue on the west side. I would be willing to give up parking in exchange for sidewalk, quite frankly. The whole idea of the ponds was to be friendly and allow the people to mingle and wander around the project, not necessarily on one side of the sidewalk or the other so I would certainly be willing to give up parking in exchange for sidewalk. I'm not sure I'd want to give up the landscaping though. I just want to make that real clear. But definitely I would like to see that sidewalk on the left side. I think, I must be the only one here that's concerned with the roof. The units, but I'll voice my opinion one more time. We are going to have residential tenants in the neighborhood that will be able to see quite frankly the roof top units, as well as signage, and what's going to happen out their windows. And so I guess I would really, and I guess I'm the only one up here but ! would really would have liked to have seen the roof top screened full height to the top of the unit. I know there' s difficulties in doing that, but I know it also can be done. Thirdly, signage as per the variance. I don't see a large compelling reason to approve a variance on signage. And the same thing with the EIFS. I think comments have been made that I can just agree with that have been made thus far so I don't support the variance for either the signage or the EIFS. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Lillehaug: I also generally support this project. There will be a few conditions that I would like to add, and I do support the EIFS variance and I do agree with staff on not supporting the sign variance. I don't think there's a compelling mason for that. And then I would like to just make a few other statements. A few weeks back we sat here and we critiqued a concept PUD for not being complete as it didn't contain what was expected. Again the word concept sticks in my mind. Here we have a final site plan. There's 41 plus conditions. More than half of these conditions are specific code requirements that are not contained in these site plans. I just feel with this many conditions that some of these might not get implemented. I would not like to think that but that's how I feel. Conditions I believe in granting approval to site and building plans, they're meant to promote city ordinances and protect the adjacent properties. Not to just have a proliferation of reiterating what's in the codes. This is the final Planning Commission tool that we have in review of the site plan, and I'm just seeing not enough information in the site plan, and what this does to me is it, it's hard for me to just overlook all these other issues. Storm sewer's incomplete to me and I do rely heavily on staff to ensure that this is complete but it should already be complete at this stage. There's a couple things I would like to add as conditions because I feel they're in absence here. We need to include a pavement section. We have poor soils out there and I don't think I stumbled across a pavement section in these plans so I would like to have the applicant work with staff on an approved pavement section. And I think one other thing is, I do strongly support staff' s recommendation for the aesthetic conditions that were set forth in the conditions here, and that would end my comments, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. 36 Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I generally like the project as it's set forth. The things that I feel I can support would be the EIFS variance. The reason being for that is that I believe it's a natural break at those lines and proportions on those building segments to break the materials there. I understand that the cost of brick is going to be in excess of 30 percent more, but with that I would like to see some information sent forward to City Council on the drainage system behind that EIFS to assure that the best system is being set forth to mitigate the problems of the past. With respect to staff's recommendation to eliminate the up lighting, again I don't feel that we had sufficient information provided for us here with respect to the lumens and the fixture cuts to make that decision but again I wanted to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, but I would suspect that information, along with the drainage information would be sent forward to the City Council. The signage variance I could support from the standpoint of the west elevation and the north elevation, and my reason for being able to support that is that I don't think anything is gained architecturally or otherwise by trying to force those proportions down within the 20 foot range on how those buildings are designed. I cannot support the variance for the signage on the tower, 54 feet. I think that's excessive and unnecessary and unlike the previous applicant that we denied it on, or split our vote on, I feel they have more latitude with respect to the designing that sign. It's difficult to design a building around the signage. Their's was an extemai monument so I perceive those differently. I believe that the staff's architectural suggestion Should be incorporated. I feel strongly about that. Just as a point, I did not see a shingle selection displayed. That's of interest and with respect to what Commissioner Slagle brought up, and was reiterated by Commissioner Feik, the sidewalk on the west side is again an i ,topoi'rant issue to me. I believe the pedestrian aspect of the development is often overlooked, and that's typically one of the large elements that come to mind when you go out there to use the particular development and different facilities that are there. That's the extent of my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. My conunents, for the most part have already been voiced by my fellow commissioners. I certainly agree with a majority of what's been said, including the addition of conditions for a sidewalk and approved pavement section- Kate, before we go ahead with the vote, I do have a question. Would it be possible for us to split the vote for the variance and make two variance votes? One for the EIFS and one for the sign? Okay, I think that that might give us a little. Aanenson: If you could put your findings, what your basis is for that recommendation too. Blackowiak: The reconunendation that we're splitting? Aanenson: What the rationale is for whatever your motion is as a part of that. So we have some findings, some basis for that, that's fine. Blackowiak: Okay. We can do that I think. At this point, the EIFS variance I don't see a hardship for. We' ve got a standard and again we look for a compelling reason, we look for hardship and I'm not seeing it. On the signage, I am agreeing with Craig, and we're not going to go down this road. I know last time we had the signage vote that was never ending and we're not doing that again. But I would like to say, I do agree with his comment that the tower sign I think is excessive. I certainly could support the west end sign by the restatmmt. That makes perfect sense based on how it's laid out. The north end as well, I can see that, but the tower sign I don't think is necessary so that would be my feeling on the signage. We need a vote so let's start with our site plan. I' 11 need a motion. Feik: Question I believe at the end. Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: Just to avoid the signage vote again, would it be worth considering voting on each of the signs? Or splitting them into two. I'm just throwing it out. Sacchet: Let me think about while we do the site plan, how about that Madam Chair? Feik: How about we come back to that. Blackowiak: Yeah, let's come back to that. That's a good thought. I don't know. I mean we could just vote endlessly. Let's just start with the site plan and see where we get from there. Sacchet: Alright. May I make a motion then? Blackowiak: Please go ahead. Sacchet: I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan ~r2002-9, plans prepared by Truman Howell Architects and Associates/nc dated October 18, 2002 for a 70,873 square foot three story building consisting of street level commercial and upper level hotel rooms subject to the following conditions. 1 through 41. Feik: Got to take 3 and 4 out. Sacchet: 3 and 4? Oh because we take those, I don't want to take. Blackowiak: Not 3. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't want to take 3 out. But we take 4 out. Feik: I thought we do that separate, alright. Sacchet: Because we do that separate, okay. 4 gets taken out because it talks about separate. I would like to modify. Blackowiak: You know what, excuse me. Can I just ask a question? Kate, should we leave 4 in? We leave it in the site plan as is and then if the variance, that would supercede the site plan, is that correct? Generous: I would think that would cover it, yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: So we leave it in? Blackowiak: Let's leave it in, and then if the variance should pass, then that would supercede it. Sacchet: Then it would supercede it. So we leave it in now, and then make a variance that...I like that. Blackowiak: Okay, so. Sorry. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Sacchet: Alright, number 3 and 4 are as is. Number 8, I like to say additional differentiation shall be provided around the windows in the flat roofed sections of the building on all three sides, both ends of the building. And then it's basically work with staff to work out something. I mean it is a whole range of possibilities that can be worked on. Then condition number 10. Oh actually there's something, condition number 7 too. Each of the windows located below the shake dormers on the second and third floor shall be placed with six panels on both the Lake Drive and Main Street building and elevations for second and third floor. ~ to be specific. Condition number 10, the applicant shall revise all plan sheets to incorporate the landscape islands within the parking lot, with a minimum of 10 feet wide. I think that's what it said in the report. And evergreens outside the sight triangle. Then I like to delete condition number 33 because it's covered in condition number 12. And I let you guys add 42 and 43. That's my motion. Lillehaug: I would like to comment on 12 and 33. One's for the plan sheets and one is for the building. Sacchet: They're not the same? It looked like the same to me but that might just be my ignorance. Blackowiak: Well, plan sheets. I think they're different. Lillehaug: Do you consider them the same? Sacchet: Are they the same? 12 and 33. 12 is a little longer so I figured if we leave that one. Blackowiak: More is better? Are they the same? Saam: They're going to be signed the same. Sacchet: They've got to be signed, right. I mean if they're not the same by all means but if they're the same. Lillehaug: So that's fine. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Alright. Motion open for second and then friendly amendments. Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion, is there a second? Lillehaug: I' 11 second it with a friendly amendment. Referring to the, having the design pavement section. Sacchet: That's acceptable. Blackowiak: Okay, and then also. Sacchet: That's Rich. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: What's that? Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Sacchet: Sidewalk. Blackowiak: Do you have a friendly amendment? Slagle: Yeah, I actually had a few. One would be, and I don't know if we want to add it into condition number 9, or just a new one, to install a sidewalk running north/south on the western edge of the property. I'll leave that up to staff. Sacchet: Make it a new one. Blackowiak: Make it stand out. Slagle: Okay. And then the other one would be, I shouldn't say conditions but if you guys thing it should be a condition, I'm just thinking about that additional pedestrian ramp. Sacchet: Work with staff maybe. Blackowiak: Work with staff recommendation. Slagle: If that works. Blackowiak: Okay, did you accept those? Sacchet: That's, so we have one about the staff approved pavement section. We have the one about the sidewalk to the west. And then work with staff to consider pedestrian. Blackowiak: Ramp. Slagle: Do you want it as a condition or9. Aanenson: I think probably work with staff. Sacchet: Work with staff is fine. Blackowiak: Comment Brace? Feik: And I would like to add a friendly amendment. I'm going to throw it out and test the waters on this one. That the roof top units be screened to the full height of the unit. Sacchet: I think I reject that Bruce. Feik: Thought I'd try. Blackowiak: Or work with applicant, staff. Sacchet: Staff. Well, the reason why I rejected it is, I mean. Feik: That doesn't mean anything... Sacchet: ...much flatter than working. I think it's fine. Sorry, I don't share that with. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 Lillehaug: I would like one more friendly amendment here. The sidewalks, I would like to see them incorporate enhanced pavers as did Building C I think is what they're calling it? Sacchet: Work with staff maybe. Do you want to be specific? The dipped one? Lillehaug: The enhanced pavers I think it covered the entire sidewalks adjacent to Main Street. Sacchet: We want to be consistent. Slagle: But just on Main, right? Aanenson: On the street side. Blackowiak: On the street side. Slagle: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's fine. Slagle: You're not talking parking. Lillehaug: No. Blackowiak: No. So just to be consistent with what's already been approved. Sacchet: To be consistent, that's hard to disagree with that. Definitely. Claybaugh: How do I work towards a clarification on item number 5? Which is the exterior building lighting shall be revised to shine downward only. Aanenson: That's city ordinance. They're going to have to give us photometrics. If they want to do something else, they may have to come back for a variance because city ordinance says all lighting shall be downcast so anything else would probably have to come back to you. Claybaugh: Then that would be my clarification. I thank you. Blackowiak: So we're clarified. So there's been a motion. There's been a second. There have been several friendly amendments. Claybaugh: A couple not so friendly. Slagle: ...on number 4, by leaving it in, okay. Am I, if I'm in agreement with the variance. Biackowiak: You vote yes on the variance request then. Slagle: But is this going to come first? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: No, this variance is going to supercede this. 41 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Slagle: So I could theoretically vote for this, even though it says signage shall comply with the Village on the Ponds design standards, and then on the variance vote yes and that will supercede this? Blackowiak: Correct. Sacchet: Correct, that's my understanding. Blackowiak: That was my understanding as well. Aanenson: You know what, I think it's, I'm with Rich. It's just clearer if you leave it out because there is some ambiguity. Blackowiak: Okay, so then we'll leave on a friendly amendment. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't want to leave it out. If we want to do something about it, I think we should say signage shall comply with variance decision. Subsequent variance decision, something like that. It needs to be linked. Aanenson: Then you need to do the ordinance, you need to vote on the variance first. If you're not going to have concurrence on the variance. Sacchet: Scratch it. Yeah, because it could really shape the whole thing. Aanenson: Well you might not have concurrence on the variance. Sacchet: Right. You're right. You're right. So I withdraw my motion. We do the variance first, is that what we want to do Madam Chair? Blackowiak: No. Aanenson: ...take the condition out and vote on it separately. Sacchet: Vote it separately. That's acceptable to me. Blackowiak: Okay, so we'll remove condition 4 at this point and after the variance vote we will have a separate vote on that condition alone, is that what you're saying? Aanenson: That's what I would suggest. Sacchet: Yes, that's fine. Blackowiak: Alright, so there's been a motion and a second. Several friendly amendments. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan g2002-9, plans prepared by Truman Howell Architects & Associates, Inc., dated October 18, 2002 for a 70,873 square foot, three story building consisting of street level commercial and upper level hotel rooms, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 . . . , . , . , 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds Addition to a block and lot designation. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards and city code. (Voted as a separate motion.) The exterior building lighting shall be revised to shine downward only. The overhead doors at both the garage entrance and trash storage shall be painted a similar color to the surrounding material. Each of the windows located below the shake dormers on the second and third floors shall be replaced with six-panel windows on both the Lake Drive and Main Street building elevations for the second and third level. Additional differentiation shall be provided around the windows in the flat roofed sections of the building on all three sides on both ends of the building. This could be done through the use of window accents, such as plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes, and different types of windows such as bay, multi-paned, angular, square, rectangular, half-round, round, Italianate. The developer shall be required to install the streetscape in compliance with the streetscape plan approved for Villages on the Ponds. The applicant shall revise all plan sheets to incorporate the landscape islands within the parking lot a minlm~rm of 10 feet wide and evergreens outside the sight triangle. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The building must be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Note: The International Building Code will probably be adopted by the State at the time the building is constructed.) An accessible route must be provided to the building, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. Seven accessible parking spaces must be provided on the site. Accessible guestrooms must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be reviewed and discussed. Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 18. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance//9-1. 19. All radius tums shall be designed to accommodate the turning of Chanhassen Fire Department's largest apparatus. Submit radius tums and dimensions to the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshall for review and approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3. 20. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 21. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the fire water line coming into the building. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location. 22. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 904.1. 23. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. 24. The building must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of a domestic water line on a combination water sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 25. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy//29-1992. 26. With referencing proposed restaurant, the builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy referencing cooking equipment exhaust hood requirements. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division Policy #35-1994. 27. A private easement will be required for the storm sewer which hms off site to the west. 28. A cross-access agreement between parcels must be recorded. 29. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event with drainage flow map. 30. Add the current version of the City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 3101, 3102, 3104, 3107, 3108, 5203, 5300, 5301, and 5302. 31. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regulatory agency permits, including but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 42. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height must be designed by a registered en~neer and requires an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. Add a minimum 75 foot long rock consmmion entrance and revise the note from 50 feet to 75 feet. Add a storm ~ewer ~chedule to the plato. Type II silt fence shall be used around the grading area. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers, (see City Detail Pate No. 5302). Revised the legends to match the plan drawings. On the site plan, revise the dimension of the north access entrance width to 26 feet. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owners. On the grading plan: · Show all existing and proposed easements. · Add a benchmark. · Differentiate between existing and proposed storm sewer lines. · Show Type II silt fence around the perimeter of the grading area and Type llI adjacent to the pond. · Show the construction rock entrance minimum of 75 feet. · Show the building basement elevation and how it will drain. · CBMH #101 must be with sump. · Show the existing and proposed storm sewer flow direction. · Show the proposed storm sewer class. · Show all existing pipe information including pipe type, slope, class and size. · Designate which parking stalls are meant to be handicap accessible. On the utility plan: · Differentiate between existing and proposed utility lines. · Add note "Any connection to existing stmcUnv,,s must be core drilled". · Show all existing and proposed utilities sewer type, class, size, length, flow direction, slope. · The existing water and sanitary stubs off of Lake Drive are shown incorrectly. Verify locations with as-builts. · Show the location of existing ate valves on the water service lines. The applicant shall include a design pavement secflom The applicant install a sidewalk running north/south on the western edge of the property. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 2002 43. To be consistent with Building C, the applicant shall include incorporate enhanced pavers with the sidewalk on Main Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Blackowiak: Motion carries 7-0. Now we will go to the variance votes. We'll do variance vote number 1. May I have a motion regarding the 15 percent EIFS please. Feik: I' 11 make a motion. Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of more than 15 percent EIFS. Period. I have to drop the second portion of that which deals with the signage. Blackowiak: Correct. Or you could just add based on findings. Feik: Based upon findings of the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I second that. Feik moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of more than 15 percent EIFS based on the findings in the staff report. Ali voted in favor, except Slagle, Claybaugh and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 4-3. Sacchet: Is that a can'y? Blackowiak: Yes. Generous: It matches the recommendation. Sacchet: Recommendation to council, okay. Blackowiak: Okay. These dam signs. You know what, I'm just going to keep it as one vote and recognizing that there is a difference of opinion and for example I personally would like 2 but not 3, but just recognizing that there's a difference of opinion, I'm just going to keep it separate. Otherwise you could have so many possible permutations and combinations, I don't even want to go there. So I'd like a motion for the signage variance please. Sidney: Madam Chair, I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the building based on the findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Been a motion. Is them a second? Feilc Second. Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the building based on the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Siagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. 46 Planning Commission Meeting- November 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 6-1. Now, back to site, don't we have to do. Sacchet: Condition 4. Slagle: Why do we need to do? Blackowiak: We pulled the signage. Generous: It would normally have to comply. Blackowialc But it's no longer a condition because we pulled it. We pulled number 4 out, correct. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: So now we have to vote on condition number 4 for the site plan, correct? Claybaugh: Well that's per code anyways. The reason the condition was there because of the extenuating circumstances. Those have been removed. Blackowiak: Right, but I mean I want to make sm'e that the condition is back in and that signage comply. Sacchet: We can amend, right? Aanenson: Yes...motion. Blackowiak: Add this? Okay, so we'll add. Sacchet: So I make the motion that the Planning Commission adds condition 4 of the site plan ~e2002-9 as it was proposed by staff. Blackowiak: Okay, been a motion. Is there a second? Feilc Second. Sae,.het moved, Feik seconded that the Planntng Commts~d_ on adds condition number 4 which reads, signage shall comply with the ¥ffiages on the Ponds design standards and ctty code, to Site Plan #2002-9. All ,oted in favor, except Slagte who opposed, and the motion carried 6-1. Blackowiak: Alright, we muddled through that one. This item goes before the City Council on December 9~. Thank you. Yes and Commissioners, do we want to leave plans and hard copies up here? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, why don't we all leave those. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 15, 2002 as presented. Planning Commission Meeting -November 19, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson : Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim