The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2009 05 26 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2009 Deputy Tjornhom called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Tjornhom, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst and Councilman McDonald COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Furlong STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Elliott Knetsch, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you and for those watching at home and in the audience, you are in the right spot and you’re on the right channel. I am Bethany Tjornhom, filling in for Tom Furlong tonight. He had a family emergency and could not make it. So getting on with the agenda, public announcements. We have the presentation of commission awards for public service. PRESENTATION OF COMMISSION AWARDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE: Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Tonight we’ll be awarding Dan Champion and Ron Olsen. So if we can have Dan Champion come. Dan Champion has worked as a Park and Recreation Commissioner for 2 years beginning in April of 2007. In 2005 Dan and his family relocated to Chanhassen from California and immediately were impressed with the people and the amenities in the area. With a desire to contribute towards keeping the good things going Dan ought out a position on a city commission. During his tenure on the Park and Recreation Commission Dan helped guide significant expansions in the city’s park and trail system, including 4 miles of new trails associated with the Highway 212 project. The new Lake Ann Park pavilion shelter and the Kerber Pond Park stormwater improvement project. Dan was a pleasure to be around and his leadership and guidance will be missed as the city moves forward in developing it’s parks, trails and recreational programs…also thank you for your service and time in leaving your little girl. I know…our parks and trails we’ll be thinking of you and we appreciate your service. Next we’d like Ron Olsen from the Environmental Commission. Ron Olsen was appointed to the Environmental Commission in 2002. He served as the Chair of the commission for most of his second term and brought passion, dedication and humor to the commission. I love that. During his 7 years the commission accomplished a number of projects which included the research of solar water heaters and green construction, Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum and the landscape class series at the Arboretum, Environmental Excellence Awards and the annual city Arbor Day th events and participation in the 4 of July parade. A job well done. Thank you once again for your service. Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Ron Olsen: Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to approve the following items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 11, 2009 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated May 11, 2009 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated May 5, 2009 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 28, 2009 Resolution #2009-41: b. Sealcoat Project 09-05: Approve Quotes. c. Dell Road Mill and Overlay Project: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie. Resolution #2009-42: d. Gateway North, Project 06-10: Accept Streets and Utilities. Resolution #2009-43: e. Public Works Salt Storage Facility: Approve Quotes. f. Lake Minnewashta Fireworks Committee: Approve Fireworks Permit for July 4. g. Ambrosen-Senn Hardcover Surface Variance: Approval of Time Extension to Remove and Revegetate Area and Submittal of As-Built Survey. h. Chanhassen Rotary Club: Approval of Temporary Consumption and Display Permit, Community Bank Customer Appreciation Celebration, July 2. Resolution #2009-44: i. Tax Forfeited Lands: Approve Purchase of Lot 643, Carver Beach; Lot 673, Carver Beach, Outlot A, Country Oaks; and Outlot C, Mission Hills. Resolution #2009-45: j. Resolution Accepting the Donation of the Veterans Monument from Chanhassen American Legion Post 580. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Lt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Vice Mayor or Deputy Mayor and council. Before you this evening I’ve got my packet in which I have the sheriff’s office area report for the month of April. The citation listing, the community service officer report and I also have a couple of other items of interest that I’d like to speak about. Any questions at all with reference to my area report for the 2 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 month? Okay. I want to talk briefly about a burglary that we had earlier in the month of May. There was a burglary in Longacres and thanks to quick thinking and actions by the adult son of the homeowner, as well as some good police work by Deputy Ryan Thiel, we were able to arrest the suspect that same day. This was a crime of opportunity. The suspect was out driving around looking for a place to burglarize. He drove through this neighborhood. Went past this house and suddenly he stopped. So what was it about this house that caused him to stop at this particular house? The garage door was open. There weren’t any cars in the driveway or the garage, and it looked like there wasn’t anybody home. He checked the door. Or excuse me, he rang the door bell and nobody came to the door at all. He checked the door and found it unlocked. He opened it, went inside and went upstairs and started going through some drawers. Somebody was home though. The adult son was downstairs and he was busy and did not answer the door bell when it rang. The son heard him upstairs and ran upstairs and confronted the homeowner as he was going through some drawers. The suspect gave a story of looking for his dog and left. The son followed him outside and gave us a very good description of both the vehicle as well as the suspect and that helped us to arrest him. We were fortunate that nobody was hurt in this incident. There wasn’t any kind of a physical altercation or anything, and the suspect did leave. First off I want to thank the victim for his quick thinking and actions. It worked for him and it worked for us, but I have to caution people about confronting burglars in their home. I would hate to see somebody get hurt because of possessions. Stuff can be replaced so you know everybody needs to make that decision on their own but going outside and giving us a call by phone is always a good option as well. And I know I sound like a broken record with this but I strongly recommend and encourage residents to close your garage doors, lock your doors. Help us to help you. You know again this was a crime of opportunity. He was driving around looking for a place he could hit. He found this one and he chose this one because of those things I talked about earlier. Help us to help you. The second thing I wanted to talk about was, we’ve been having a problem around the metro area with thefts at, expensive alcohol from liquor stores. In fact the Villager ran a story on this a couple weeks ago. Detective Bob Zydowsky, through some good police work, was able to identify and charge two more people involved in stealing alcohol from one of our businesses. These thefts have been a problem for our business owners. These types of crimes are priority for us and we will do everything we can to charge and/or arrest the people involved. It’s important for people to know that. Last thing I want to talk about, finally school is almost out and I would ask that motorists be careful when they’re driving through neighborhoods. The children are out and about and we have put quite a few pedestrians and bicyclists with this nice weather that are out on the roadway. Slow down a little bit when you’re driving through some neighborhoods. Are there any other questions for the sheriff’s office at all? Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Does the council have any questions? Councilman Litsey: I just had one on the school liaison position. Lt. Jim Olson: Yes sir. Councilman Litsey: The City’s going to be partially funding that starting school year this fall. Lt. Jim Olson: Yes. 3 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Councilman Litsey: How’s that progressing and how’s that going to be implemented? Lt. Jim Olson: It’s progressing very well. We’ve been meeting with them monthly. Putting that plan into place. Detective Bob Zydowsky will actually be our school resource officer that will be taking over there. We have chosen a new detective that will be in the city, and that will be actually Deputy Ryan Thiel. Ryan was involved with catching the burglar that I just talked about. He’s been around for 4 years working the city of Chanhassen and does a wonderful job. We get a lot of very positive comments, as well as the City gets a lot of positive comments about him too so he will be one that will be taking over Detective Zydowsky’s job. Councilman Litsey: No, that’s great to have a seasoned person in that position to start it off right and I think it’s going to be a great position so I’m looking forward to hearing how it works out so thanks for your efforts on that. Lt. Jim Olson: Absolutely, thank you. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Any other comments or questions? Alright, thank you so much. Lt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a good evening. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: And Chief Geske will not be here tonight. The fire department is on a call so we will hear from him next time. 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD, APPLICANT/OWNER JOHN COLFORD: APPEAL DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGARDING MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON A SINGLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF). Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This application appearing before you tonight is actually an appeal of an administrative decision. So the applicant requested a different interpretation from the staff so therefore the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment made a recommendation to you regarding the interpretation of the ordinance. On th May 5 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5 to 1 to affirm the staff’s interpretation regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot. The Planning Commission did discuss non-conformity of two dwelling units on the lot by increasing the square footage or adding to the site, and they did spend quite a bit of time taking public comment regarding this issue. Currently Lot 6 and 7, which I’ll show you in a moment are under one single PID. However staff was unable to document the combining of these two for zoning law purposes. Several of the residents that spoke at the public hearing were in favor of removal of the main house and the construction of the new house. Although they were concerned about rental. Continued rental of the structure. So with that I’ll go through the request in itself. Again this isn’t a variance. It’s an appeal of an administrative decision. The applicant at 7470 Chanhassen Road, which is Lot 6 and 7 of Sunset New Addition. So there are two homes on the lot, which I’ll show here. Currently. Most of these lots, most of these homes are rental. There’s two rental units in the larger house. One on the first floor and one on the lower level, and then the second 4 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 rental unit. All of the structures, including the garage, are non-conforming by the fact that one, by the fact that they are, don’t meet the setback requirements. And two, that there’s more than two structures on the lot. This is, the dashed line shows the two lots. And this is the applicable regulations. Again our interpretation of a dwelling unit, which these both are independent units. Actually there’s the two and one, and what would be a principle dwelling. So our interpretation is if you’re building a newer home than the two existing, non-conformities, should be removed. Because our ordinance says one home per lot. So on this, the appeal here is, the request to demo the building to, demo one building. This is the applicant’s requesting to build a new home, which would be the larger of the two and he wants to maintain the smaller dwelling unit. Their original request was to remove the kitchen or something that would make it non-rental, and the staff’s opinion on that is, it still has everything else and that really it still a rental unit and go ahead. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Can you designate what’s Building A and what’s Building B? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I can’t point to them from here but…the mouse. There you go. Thank you. That’s the larger building. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: That would be demoed? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And then that’s the garage. The smaller building is that one and then the garage is towards the front. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So the applicant’s requesting they keep the non-conforming garage and the other building non-conforming and build a larger house. So I think the original applicant’s interpretation is if I take out the kitchen then it’s no longer a dwelling unit. But really it still has everything else. It’s fully plumbed and heating system and the like. So this was the applicant’s request then to come in, leave the existing structure. The smaller unit on there and build a new house. You know we looked at could the houses be, could the lot be re-subdivided to meet the ordinance? It can’t. Even under our flag lot situation so now you have two dwelling units on one lot, and that’s where the staff said, if you’re going to re-build on that, that you should remove the other dwelling unit. And also some of the discussion that came up at the Planning Commission was by the fact that you keep that existing home, it pushes the new house, this area is older. Most of those houses sit up closer to the road. That it also pushes the house to the north because you have to get around, put the round about to get to the setback. The separation between the two structures. So in fact the house could move towards the center of the lot or back up the slope a little bit more, so there was some discussion on that point too. If everybody’s tracking me on that one. So again, the ordinance states he has the use to remodel the existing structure. The non-conformity could remain if you remodeled the existing footprint. The applicant is choosing not to remodel the existing footprint. Wants to tear that house down and 5 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 make a whole new house so therefore that’s where our interpretation that it’s expanding the non- conformity because they’re tearing that house down. Now you need to make everything correct and not have two structures on there. So this would be the staff’s recommendation. To eliminate that non-conformity. And again here’s the applicant keeping the existing house. And then the interpretation then would be the city would affirm the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the case, and the interpretation is that you’d have multiple dwellings on one single family lot, so again it’s not a variance for setbacks or anything. It’s interpretation of whether or not both of those homes, having two houses on there meets that definition. And again the Planning Commission recommended 5 to 1 on that. I did pass out an additional letter that we received today from a neighbor. McHugh’s regarding the rental units. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Questions for staff. Councilman McDonald: Kate, I’ve got a question for you. If you go back to the existing drawing that shows, yeah the current houses that are on there. The two lots. At one time then, this is Lots 5 and 6. Where’s the lot line? Is it kind of between the two buildings? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that dash line. Correct, it’s the dash line between the two. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Right so the one structure goes over that line and so it’s non-conforming in both scenarios. Over the setback line and then over the property line, that one does correct. Councilman McDonald: And so then when the structures were built, they were built upon two separate lots and later combined into one lot? Kate Aanenson: That’s what, there’s no record of that. But that would be our best assumption. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s all I had. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Any other questions for staff? Councilwoman Ernst: So Kate why, so you’re saying we don’t have any record of it. Why, wouldn’t we typically have a record of that? Kate Aanenson: Well it probably pre-dates, they’re probably built in the you know, and if they were built in the 30’s or 40’s, we wouldn’t have those records of when, how they were combined. If they were under two owners had combined those or when the houses were built. Councilwoman Ernst: And they don’t have the documentation either? Kate Aanenson: No. So one of the recommendations that we would have is that when the new house gets built we, one of the conditions was that it be combined as one zoning lot, so it’s one lot. 6 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: I heard you mention that they could remodel. A recommendation was that they remodel. Kate Aanenson: Right, the ordinance says if you have a non-conformity you can maintain that non-conformity so they would stay within that building envelope and that building footprint which would be remodel the existing home, but that’s not their desire. Their desire is to build a lake home closer to the lake. A larger home. Councilwoman Ernst: So they’d remodel the existing home and then, which would be, is that A? Is that House? Kate Aanenson: That’s the one they would like to keep as yeah. The applicant has stated that they would like to keep that home and, for their purposes. Todd Gerhardt: Not that one. The littler one. Kate Aanenson: The smaller one, correct. Yeah. Smaller one. And that would be removed. That one would be removed. Todd Gerhardt: Do you have the. Kate Aanenson: Or the applicant’s. This is the applicant’s request. To remove that one house. Move their new house closer to the lake and keep the existing smaller house. Councilwoman Ernst: But either way you’re saying that this existing smaller house has to come off? Kate Aanenson: Our ordinance says you can have one principle dwelling on a lot. So there’s one lot and the new house would make the principle dwelling. And it’s because they’re changing the situation. Making a bigger house. So now you’re bringing it into conformity. As I explained to the Planning Commission, you have, this is your opportunity to bring it into conformance. So if you don’t do it at this point, and then it will stay there. So the non- conforming, to address the time of non-conforming is when you have a situation that you can remove it, and because someone wants to tear the house down to build a new house, your opportunity to remove the non-conforming situation would be at this point. Otherwise there would be no opportunity in the future to change that. Councilwoman Ernst: And I missed it. Did you say the house was being rented now? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well I’ll let the applicant address that but there is the potential licensing for 3 units. One in the small and the larger house, the larger house there’s an upper level and a lower level. There’s 3. So a total of 3 on the property. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. 7 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. John Colford: John Colford and we bought this actually in November of 2008. I think one of the sheets said 2007. If that had happened I’d be living in a new house on the property. The staff’s recommendation for the new house closer to the lake and elimination of the guest house or the south structure, the B structure, that’s been appraised. That’s what I’m trying to do and that’s $200,000 under water. The value that it appraises at is less than what it would cost to build. So it’s not really a choice of mine. A bank won’t lend me the money to do that, and that’d be relatively irresponsible to do anyway getting under water, you know properties that are under water are sort of a problem now. So that’s not really a choice that I have. That’s a non starter that won’t happen. So, the you know keeping the guest house is a way to maintain value on the property and to try and counteract or a counter balance to the under valuation of the project and to make it economically feasible. The, I mean you have to buy a viable rental property with 3 dwelling units that you can rent out for about $3,500 a month. You have to buy that and eat the equity in 2 houses to be able to convert this to a single family dwelling zoned you know house and place. And so somebody has to eat that equity and go in the hole and you know as I said, I can’t do it. You know the bank’s not going to lend me the money. You know someone with a lot of money down who’s willing to make a pile of cash that’s $200,000 and light it on fire, you know if somebody’s out there who can do that, you know maybe I can sell this to them but I can’t. The purpose of the non-conformity code is to encourage the elimination of non- conformities. I’m not sure I’d use the word encourage. What I’d like to do, what I would propose to do would be to reduce the non-conforming number of dwellings from 3 to 2. I would eliminate a 2 dwelling residential building. Create a residential single family detached dwelling with a single dwelling unit. I would eliminate the non-conforming setback to the north. And I would eliminate the non-conforming hard cover and bring that into conformity. So yes, I would like to expand the square footage of the new principle building. That would be conforming in every way. And somehow that’s the thing that seems to be stopping this. That that’s intensifying the non-conformity of having 2 principle dwellings. Well, the existing house to the south is clearly the secondary dwelling, you know what I would like to make a guest house. You know that’s, that would not change and you know the fact that, that the code says not more than one principle dwelling. Well, I would think you would have one principle dwelling that would be conforming before you would have a second principle dwelling that would violate that code, and that’s all an existing non-conformity here. You know I think it’s well intended and the neighbors have this fear and the Planning Commission has this fear that the existing house to the south B would be continued to be rented out. I mean as it stands now it’s a viable rental property. $3,500 will cover the mortgage. Cover the taxes. Cover utilities. Cover upkeep outside of disasters. Not particularly profitable from month to month but you know you’re going to come out ahead. You’re going to pay down the mortgage. There’s going to be some accrual of value. When you eliminate the building A, the main building, the building with 2 dwelling units in it, that’s $2,500 of the rent. You’re down to $900 or $1,000 in that guest house. After utilities and upkeep, you’re talking about $500 a month. And if you put you know an $850,000 house on this, you make it a $1.3 million dollar property where your principal and interest is $6,000 a month, give or take a thousand depending upon where the interest rate falls. Getting $500 a month from that to the south, I mean that’s 6-7 percent of the principal and interest payment. I mean is that a viable business model? I mean are you going to share your lake home 8 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 and your lakeshore with the riff raff from Craig’s List and you know questionable characters? I mean that’s, really doesn’t pass the common sense test. I mean that doesn’t strike me as a reasonable fear. If somebody buys this in 15 or 20 years is going to pay 7 figures for their lake home, you know are they going to share, you know are they going to rent out their guest house for a couple hundred dollars a month? I think that’s really unlikely and that’s the fear that’s driving this decision I think, and I think that’s an unreasonable fear. And you know the proposed conditions I think that’s a win for the city. We’re getting rid of a relatively unattractive, multi dwelling, rental unit. It’s going to be somebody’s house. It’s going to be a very attractive house on a lake. You know designed by the Alexander Design Group. She’s got a bunch of houses on Lake Minnetonka. You know I think it’s going to be a lot more tax income. I mean my goodness, I mean just think how much that little house the Carver County Assessor could think that that was worth and tax accordingly. You know I, the days where knock down’s were paid for by large year after year accumulations of value, you know that ship has sailed. This isn’t going to go up by 7 or 8 percent a year. This is, this property is going to go down in value over a year, over the next 2 years and then it’s going to stabilize for a couple years, and then hopefully we, real estate prices will return to moderate sustainable growth. I mean this real estate bubble that makes this a viable you know, makes knock down construction viable, I don’t see that environment returning probably I don’t know a generation before we forget that lesson of history. I don’t know. It’s going to be a long time. And I think, you know remodeling a house that’s existing, that would cost a lot to remodel turning basically a duplex into a single family home. You know the houses around it right now don’t sell for $600,000 and $700,000 so it probably wouldn’t even be worth that. I’m not sure that’s economically feasible. That’s number one. Number two, if you remodel that house you’ve got no incentive to get rid of the guest house. The structure B. No incentive. If you’ve got $900,000 you can build a house closer to the lake at the same square footage of what’s allowed under the staff’s interpretation, you’ve got no incentive to get rid of building B. The only incentive is when you know someone who’s going to come by and put a ton of money down and it’s going to be worth a lot more than the project I proposed. I’m not sure that’s going to happen because that would be the biggest, most expensive house on the lake and it would be 2 and 3 times the value of the houses around it, which is pretty hard to sustain. So what you’d want is probably something along the resources of what I’m proposing. I can handle eating the equity of one house. I don’t think I can handle, well I’m sure I can’t handle, I’ve tried. I can’t handle, that’s not going to happen eating the equity of both houses and I would propose keeping that second house, making it a guest house. It’s a swanky place to leave your, or have your out of town friends and relatives stay. It’s not you know, I appreciate how many problems the city and the neighbors have had with the rentals, but I mean that’s just not, it’s not a viable business model. It doesn’t pass the common sense test. I mean I think that’s an unreasonable fear. If I can’t make this work, I mean it’s guaranteed to stay rental. It’s guaranteed to stay a 2 or 3 dwelling rental. And I think that it’s going to be a persistent, practical and financial barrier to the redevelopment of this lot. You know this, that there’s no way to sort of hand onto some of the equity in the house. Try and reduce, I mean I’ve reduced as many non-conformities as I can. I’ve reduced the number of dwellings. I’ve eliminated a multi unit dwelling. I’ve eliminated the non-conforming setback to the north. Bring the hard cover into non-conformity. Those are the non-conformities I can reduce and eliminate and still make it economically feasible. You know much past that I think we’re, I mean I can’t make it happen. Can’t make it happen so, I mean I think this is a win. It’s not, it’s not a financially a win for me. I will barely keep my value. I mean I’ll probably at the water 9 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 level or a little bit below it over the next couple years so this isn’t a money grab on my part. It’s about feasibility. I mean it’s a perfect spot, location for me. For my work and, I don’t know. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay, thank you very much for your, are there any questions? Councilman Litsey: I do. When you purchased this property, you said it was in 2008. Not 2007. Did you do your due diligence at that time and check with the City to see what your options were in terms of how this land could be used? John Colford: I did. I did. I called the regular office and asked who could I talk to about doing this sort of thing and they sent me to the building department. Not necessarily the planning department and they said an existing non-conformity like that would be grandfathered in. And I asked. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. If you left it just the way it is, it is correct. You could remodel those two. John Colford: Well the way I framed it is we’d like to build a bigger house near the lake and were wondering if we’d be able to keep the guest house. I mean I framed the question to the building department exactly like that and I was told that it was an existing non-conformity and was grandfathered in. Councilman Litsey: But you didn’t take it a step further? I mean talk to the planning department or. John Colford: Well, I mean I called the City and asked who would I talk to for you know, you know who could tell me what my options were with that, and they sent me to the building department as opposed to the planning department so. Councilman Litsey: The other thing is, I can appreciate your economic considerations here but you understand that we’re looking at it from what’s in the ordinance and so forth and we’re not here to try to make a business plan work for you. We’re trying to do what’s right in terms of. John Colford: Right. Councilman Litsey: Okay so, so it’s not that I’m not sympathetic to that but we have to look at it from a little different perspective obviously. It just seems if you’re going to be making a business decision like that, perhaps you might carry it one step further and really research that out but at least you called the city. That was a good thing so. John Colford: Yeah and I, you know the ordinance that is being intensified here is discussing the number of dwellings. I’m reducing the number of dwellings and I’m keeping the number of principle structures the same. That code doesn’t really describe square footage. In fact there’s another part of the code where square footage is specifically allowed to be expanded as long as the non-conformity is not increased. I believe that’s sub-section (d). Yeah. Sub-section (d) under Section 20-72. A non-conforming use may be altered or expanded provided that the non- 10 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 conformity may not be increased. I’m expanding the square footage and I’m either leaving all the non-conformities static, I’m reducing them or I’m eliminating them. You know I’m not increasing the number of dwellings. I’m reducing them. I’m not increasing the number of buildings. I’m keeping that static. I’m eliminating the non-conformity to the north and I’m eliminating the non-conformity of hard cover. So I, there’s that. I think the merit of that argument is valid but I mean maybe my best chance is the, notwithstanding the prohibitions approved by the City Council, a use of, a non-conforming use of less intensity can be approved if it’s in the public interest. Well, I mean I propose to get rid of a three dwelling rental unit that’s caused the neighbors and the city a lot of problems and put my wife and two, and three kids there and live there for the next 30 years. And provide a much better, stable environment. Raise the value of the houses around me. Increase the tax value of my property and the property around it. Increase the tax revenue so. I don’t think it could be argued that what I’ve proposed is a non- conformity of less intensity. Whether it’s in the public interest or not that’s for you to decide but I think I’ve got a reasonable argument that I’m not intensifying a non-conformity either but. Obviously people disagree with that. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Are there any questions for the applicant? Councilman McDonald: I’ve got a couple. Can you explain, you mention something about the financial impact of this as to why you can’t tear down building B. I’m not quite sure I understand that. You talk about the equity but yet these buildings are not at the level of what you’re planning on building. Why isn’t the equity just swapped from one place to the other? John Colford: You know if you could convince a bank and an appraiser of that, I wouldn’t be here. I’d be, if that appraisal had worked, if that had appraised for the cost of the lot and, you know I don’t know why. And all I know is that that has been rejected. I would have thought it would have worked but we did try that and it didn’t and what I did, and we went with a little less expensive builder. We’ve eliminated a lot of things like building cabinetry inside that you know won’t necessarily effect the appraised value to try and bring the cost down. If we shrink it then we start hitting the appraised value and we still have this gap. We can relatively easily remodel it to make it look as nice as the new house will look. You know that’s some siding and some upgrades on the inside, and that we can do relatively cheaply and maintain a lot of value. A lot of bang for our buck on the lot. So that’s why you know trying to hand onto that, to the guest house to the south is you know essentially the thing that’s going to make this project appraise at cost and be able to make it economically feasible. And I don’t see how we’re going to return to you know that situation where you know we’re going to have these year upon year increases in value that make it economically feasible. I think if this sort of thing doesn’t happen then it’s going to be a rental property until I can sell it and then it’s going to be a rental property and there’s going to be that persistent financial barrier to the redevelopment of that property so. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and then let me ask a couple more questions because I want to follow down this line about the due diligence and everything. Did you by any chance consult with an attorney before you bought this? John Colford: No. No, not an attorney. 11 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Councilman McDonald: Are you aware of, there’s been a number of statutes passed about grandfathering in cabins on lakefront property and what you can and cannot do as far as rebuilding on the non-conforming lots there which would apply here. Has anyone ever talked to you about any of those? John Colford: And that would be at the State level? Councilman McDonald: Well there are laws that govern on rebuilding cabins up on lakefront property as to what you can and cannot expand, and it’s the same thing about rebuilding upon a non-conforming land. Can you expand and get a better cabin than what you had before and the answer has always come out no. John Colford: Right. Okay. Councilman McDonald: And that’s part of what you’re facing here also and I just, I mean I can appreciate you trying to understand what the statute says but without actually going in and looking at how it’s been defined within the courts, that’s where you’ll run into a problem and it’s pretty well defined as to what you can and cannot do on non-conforming property with a cabins on lakes and everything. So as Councilman Litsey has stated, and part of what we have to look at is again conformance within the law of what we can and cannot do on these lots. You talk about the rental and everything. I’m sure councils before us were given the same assurances about this property because it used to be a single family and circumstances happen. All of a sudden it becomes rental. There is nothing we can do about it at that point and yeah, that’s why we’re doing our due diligence to make sure that we take care of this problem. So I think that’s part of what our decision’s going to be based upon. John Colford: Sure. Sure and I, you know I don’t have a cabin so I hadn’t realized or appreciated any of those issues. You know again I just called the city and had assumed that was a reasonable answer. But yeah, I mean I can appreciate that but I, I mean I’m having a hard time envisioning someone again paying 7 figures in 20 years, $2 million dollars for this property to sort of turn around and rent out the guest house. I just, I just, I don’t know. That seems unlikely to say the least but. Councilman McDonald: I have no further questions. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: And this question’s probably more for Kate. Kate while we don’t, I keep going back to the comment where we don’t have any documentation of combining the two, or combining the parcels. Do we have the documentation that says that it is one principle dwelling? Kate Aanenson: Well it’s under one ownership. It’s two lots under one ownership so. So there’s Lot 6 and 7 but it’s under one PID for tax purposes. So to the best of our knowledge the houses were built in the 30’s. Somehow the plat got platted. These are probably older cabins in the 50’s. 12 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Todd Gerhardt: Deputy Mayor, Council. If you look at the existing house and the second house, they both sit on the two lots of record, so they basically you know kind of met the ordinance. The problem is, is he wants a larger house that cannot fit on one, or either of the two lots. It’s got to sit on both. So today, with the exception of the setbacks from the lot line, they do kind of meet the intent of being on a separate lot of record. We’re looking at the remodeled on. If you go to the existing. This shows a wooden deck which goes across the lot line. So they did meet the requirements back then. Just what they didn’t have back then was site coverage and some setback issues. Kate Aanenson: Right, and riparian lots are required to be larger now than they were at the time. Councilwoman Ernst: But when you were talking about, Mr. Colford when you were speaking to the fact that you won’t remodel the house, is that correct? You want to make it bigger. John Colford: Yeah. Well I’ve got 3 kids under 5 so we’re sort of looking for a two story with 4 bedrooms up on top so you can’t have a, you know, prefer not have a younger child on a different floor. So yeah the, that’s sort of, I mean it’s basically a duplex right now and trying to cram in 4 bedrooms on one or the other floor is not, doesn’t really work from that standpoint and you know again remodeling that existing house, you know the house just to the north of it that’s nicer is not, hasn’t sold for 3 years at $600,000 so I would be under water in a house I didn’t really like. I mean that really doesn’t solve the major fear of this, that the house to the south will be used as a rental property and that would, if someone remodels that house to the north they’ve got much more incentive to continue renting that house to…than anyone who has the house I propose. You know that would not be our preference and I mean I would probably, if I can’t build I will probably keep that as a rental until I could sell it and so something else. Councilwoman Ernst: Well that’s where I’m a little bit unclear because I heard Mr. Gerhardt talk about the fact that you wanted to expand the house. John Colford: Yep. Councilwoman Ernst: But I thought that we were talking about the existing house that’s on there, and not the one that you’re talking about expanding. Is that correct or am I incorrect on that? John Colford: Well, if we could go to my, yeah. So the new house is towards the lake from the roundabout and that has a bigger square footage than that existing house up towards the road. The existing house B is about a 900 square foot house that you know I would just turn into a guest house and you know fix it up and make it look nice. So I mean that’s what we’re proposing to do and I’m barely hanging onto you know building B or the existing house there to make it a guest house to try and. Councilwoman Ernst: So you still have 2 dwellings? 13 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 John Colford: Yes. Which is the status of what it is now. It’s 2 dwellings. Well, 2 buildings with 3 dwellings and I would propose to make 2 buildings with 2 dwellings. So actually reduce the number of dwellings. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you Mr. Colford. Is there anyone else who would like to discuss this issue tonight? Seeing no one I’ll bring it back to council and comments and thoughts. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I, you know I’ve heard a lot of things and I’ve thought through everything that’s been said and really putting all the economic piece of it aside and going with what we have in front of us today being the documentation, the way that the site is today, I really feel that this is very subjective in terms of not having that documentation and I feel that it, because we don’t have that I feel that it really favors the request of the constituent and unless I’m missing something it just feels like we should have that, and Todd I think that you mentioned at the time that he did this that probably was the ordinance. But things have changed and again you called the City and they said that you were probably, you were grandfathered in with the way that this site was at that time. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that’s a correct statement. He’s grandfathered in. It’s when you tear down a structure and try to rebuild over a property line that you have 2 structures on a lot. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. And that’s the piece that I don’t support so. Kate Aanenson: But even if they hadn’t combined them they’re still building over a lot line so there’s a lot line there he’s building over. Because there’s 2 lots. Councilman Litsey: The documentation to me seems somewhat irrelevant because even if it was 2 lots you still couldn’t make it fit. Kate Aanenson: Correct, because it would only have 50 feet of frontage. He couldn’t fit that house on the one. If he tore the one house down, it doesn’t fit on his. Councilman Litsey: On that lot right so, so to me that document, I mean the way I look at it with that documentation, if I’m looking at it right, is kind of irrelevant. You couldn’t make it work anyway. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. With the 100 foot, yeah. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: But at the time it was okay. The time that the lot was built. I mean that they put those dwellings on there. As I understand it it was okay to do that. Councilman McDonald: Right, but they put houses on there that met the lot requirement. 14 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Councilwoman Ernst: Right, but he didn’t do it. Councilman Litsey: Oh I’m sorry, but I was just going to say well, so if that’s the case that doesn’t really change anything because if it was left the way it was, you couldn’t fit this house on it back then and you can’t do it now. It wouldn’t really matter. Either way you couldn’t make this work. Within our, the ordinance then or now. Councilwoman Ernst: With our ordinance now. Councilman Litsey: Well even back then I don’t think it would have fit. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, it wouldn’t have fit. It wouldn’t have fit back then. It wouldn’t fit today. The house is substantially larger than the lot. Councilman McDonald: You would have had to straddle lot lines and you can’t do that. Kate Aanenson: The lots aren’t that wide. Councilwoman Ernst: But I guess my concern though is, even if it wasn’t at that time, why are we holding, why are we holding this constituent responsible for what was then? Councilman McDonald: But I’m not sure. Councilwoman Ernst: Because he hasn’t built any additional buildings on it. Councilman McDonald: I’m not sure what was done then. Back then everything was done according to whatever the code or whatever it was for the lot. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Councilman McDonald: You had 2 residences that were built on 2 lots. At some point in time they’re combined into 1 lot. In order for him to build the type of house he wants he needs 2 lots anyway so he has to build upon the 2 lots and he has to combine those now into 1 lot. That’s what he’s looking at doing. Councilwoman Ernst: But if he didn’t do that, to Kate’s point, he would be fine. Councilman McDonald: He would be fine but that means he can’t build a house that he’s proposing. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Councilman McDonald: All he could do is take the existing structures and go with those. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 15 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: He can improve upon those. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Ernst: Well he can take the one down if he wants too, right? Kate Aanenson: Or make it fit, and make it skinny on the lot. There’d be a, it’d kind of be what we call a shot gun style house. We looked at all those iterations. We looked at trying to do a flag lot. We looked at all the possibilities of trying to make it fit to create another lot but it wouldn’t meet, then he’d need variances to make all that work. We looked at all those iterations. It’s narrow. To meet the, it’s only 105 feet at the lake frontage which is you know 90 feet, and you need to add that, the building setback. So for that size home, if you look at kind of what we’ve approved recently, that would be pretty typical. Councilwoman Ernst: And that’s not something that was considered to? Kate Aanenson: We approached that. Councilwoman Ernst: No, but I mean the constituent. John Colford: To build on one of the 2 lots? Councilwoman Ernst: To take the one, the one dwelling. Or the one house and expand it, Kate maybe you can explain it better than I can. Kate Aanenson: Sure. If you look at the building envelope, maybe Laurie if you could help me. On the north of black, go to the north line. Black line. That would be the building envelope and then that dotted line where she’s pointing right now, so you’d have to maintain 30 feet from that line and so you’re looking at, I think we measured that, probably about 50 feet at best wide or 40 feet so it becomes a very narrow, to make it fit on the lot and meet the setbacks. Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: I think Councilmember Ernst’s question is, you have 2 lots of record and you could build on those 2 lots of record. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. Todd Gerhardt: You could keep the existing lot to the south and tear down the bigger house to the north and build on that lot but you would have to comply with the setbacks and what Kate is saying, it would be a long skinny house and that is not the type of house they’re looking for, is my guess. John Colford: Yeah, I wasn’t aware of the possibility but yeah. All of the discussions were with, it’s not actually subdividable because then there would not be… 16 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: You know what, excuse me. Do you mind stepping back up to the podium. John Colford: Oh, I’m sorry. I was told the lots were not subdividable because they would not create 2 lots with 20,000 square feet. Because the square footage is 36,000 and the minimum for a lake lot was 20,000 so, or so I was told. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. No. Well we looked at that and we looked at doing a flag lot too but it, they’re not, by the time you get the setbacks they’re, like I said, 40 feet in width. Todd Gerhardt: So it kind of gets then, do you want a 40 foot wide house? John Colford: Well I mean the separation I had proposed would be to leave all the lakeshore with you know the 20,000 foot lot and then create a non-lakeshore, 15,000 foot lot with the existing house on it, and that would be altering the lot lines which is also not a possibility so. Kate Aanenson: Neither one of those lots would meet the requirement. We did look at that too. We looked at every iteration so. John Colford: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: But you know you’ve got 2 existing lots today and they’re lots of record and you can build on those as long as you comply with the ordinance as it is today and that would get you a 40 foot wide house by however long setbacks would be. Councilwoman Ernst: It’s not giving you what you want but it’s giving you an option. John Colford: Right, yeah. Yeah, and I, yeah. I mean re-subdividing died an early, you know that, it seemed impossible for all the reasons that we’ve stated so we didn’t really go down that path. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, this wouldn’t be a subdivision. You have 2 lots of record right now. John Colford: Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: And when you have 2 lots of record you have the legal right to build something on one of the 2 lots or both lots. But it’s got to meet the city setbacks. They’re not very wide lots so you’re limited to the building pad area for your home. Does that make sense? John Colford: Well all except for the building on both lots. I can build a structure on both lots because that’s what I thought I was trying to do. Todd Gerhardt: You could build one structure on one lot and another structure on the second lot. But you have to meet today’s setbacks and conditions that are in the ordinance today. 17 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 John Colford: But again I thought, I mean I was told I could not do that specifically because of the minimum acreage requirements. That the 2 lots would not have 20,000 square feet each. Todd Gerhardt: No. Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman McDonald: I know but the two lots already exist. Todd Gerhardt: They exist. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. John Colford: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: They’re 2 lots of record. Councilman McDonald: You couldn’t, the problem you’re having is trying to create 2 lots. Out of the 2 lots that are there, if you try to again create a separate lot for building B, that’s where you’re running into problems. You can’t get enough land to meet the acreage requirement. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Well and you also can’t have 2 dwellings on 1 lot. Councilman McDonald: Well there would be 2 lots. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: But if you combined the 2 lots into 1. Councilman McDonald: But okay, what he would need to do is do away with the diagonal line. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Exactly. Councilman McDonald: And now somehow surround Lot B with a new lot and there’s not enough land to do that. You can’t meet the requirements. Kate Aanenson: Now we’re subdividing. Either the lot stays, line stays where it is and we stay within that framework or we do something else. You know we looked at this. Because now you’ve got to meet all the new litmus test on the lot square footage once you change that line and we looked at all that and I believe Angie went through that with you and it doesn’t work so. Unless you choose a shot gun style house but it was our understanding that… Councilwoman Ernst: Really my point was, is just, to Todd’s point is giving you that option to do with what is existing today and again it’s not getting you what you want but it’s something more than what you have been, than what’s being proposed. John Colford: Sure. 18 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay moving on. Other comments. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess the only thing that I would look at is, we’ve had a couple of other proposals come before us about the 2 residences on one lot and we have not granted any of those for the particular reasons of what the ordinance states. In order to grant what he’s asking for here, I think that we’re setting a precedent on a number of lots, and especially upon some of these lake lots as to what’s going to happen there. And just because of that, I couldn’t support it. And to, I mean you can give us all the assurances you want but again all we have to do is look back at recent history and circumstances change. Once it’s approved out of here it’s your property and unless you violate some ordinance or something, everything can be rented out. It can go right back the way it was so. John Colford: I mean the current rental license is up for expiration. I mean there are ordinances that govern rental properties and those ordinance are enforceable. And to, I mean the non- conformity is being eliminated to make that basically easier. That’s a pretty substantial current and future value to be, to deprive a constituent because you know this fear that it would be rented in the future when there are ordinances that govern that and I mean when your license is expired you’re not allowed to rent and that’s an enforceable action. I mean you know. Councilman McDonald: Well my understanding is the people that were there before weren’t exactly following the ordinances either and once you get in, it becomes very difficult to start enforcing all these ordinances. What I’m saying is, is that you know if we allow you to have that at some point in the future it could be rented. That’s what everybody’s fear is. That’s what’s happened before. That’s what we’re trying to eliminate so based upon that, you know again our interpretation would be that once you start to tear down one of the non-conformities in order to do what you’re doing, you have to tear down everything. I mean that’s kind of our reading and that’s been consistent throughout I think everybody you talk to and so, yeah we can look at other options because again you do have 2 lots. You could tear down building A. You could build upon that lot and as long as it met all the requirements, everything’s fine. You can keep building B. That’s no problem. I appreciate the problem you’re having with the bank. I guess the only thing I would look at there is if you’re going to build the type of house you’re looking at, that equity’s got to shift to that. I mean it’s lakefront property. It’s worth something. I’m not sure if your taxes are going down next year or not according to the assessor, because it is on the lake but that’s next year’s problem. I don’t know what to tell ya. I mean that’s kind of the perspective that I look at this from is you know what are we doing as far as the ordinance and our interpretation within the city’s been pretty consistent there. I mean one of the things you brought up is that yeah, for a public good but the burden’s upon you to show how it’s a public good. And just eliminating you know the supposed rentals, again that probably doesn’t meet the burden. I appreciate the problem you’ve got but I’m afraid we can’t do things to help you from a financial standpoint just because the bank doesn’t see things quite the same way that everyone else does. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay, thank you. You can have a seat. Bryan. Councilman Litsey: Actually I agree with what Councilman McDonald said. I don’t have a whole lot to add. I mean you have some options here. Maybe look at those but I think what you’re trying to do here is simply it’s just not going to work within the ordinance and so forth so 19 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 I don’t have much more to comment. Like I said Councilmember McDonald laid it out pretty well so. Councilwoman Ernst: The only thing now that we’ve come up with this other option I would totally consider, encourage you to at least talk with staff about that option and I would actually go along with Councilman Litsey and Councilman McDonald with what we have in front of us today. But again taking a look at those options. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you. Yeah I’m going to go back to actually what the request is tonight because we’ve been talking about a lot of different things and so just for clarity so we all know what we’re voting on and what’s being discussed. The applicant is requesting that, let’s see. The applicant is appealing staff’s decision regarding multiple dwellings on a single lot on property zoned single family residential and so that’s really what the issue is at hand. Is if we as a council feel it is beneficial or not beneficial to the city to allow 2 dwelling spots on one lot. And so while we’ve heard discussion about the financial problems, we all understand those at this point. If you can figure out the market and real estate then you know I think maybe you’d make enough money to buy all the lakeshore on Lotus Lake and live there but unfortunately you know it’s a mystery to us all why some bankers render the decisions they do and as a council I don’t think it’s our job or it’s in our best interest to start dealing with financial matters and so I think it’s important to stay with the matter that’s at hand and the ordinance does state that with a single lot there should be done dwelling and so I am going to agree with the rest of the council members tonight that we should go along with staff’s recommendation. So do I have a motion? Councilman Litsey: I’ll make a motion. That the City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staff’s interpretation of Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit and combine Lots 6 and 7 into a single zoning lot. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you. Was there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second. Councilman Litsey moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council affirms the Planning Commission and staff’s interpretation of Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires the applicant to remove buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit and combine Lots 6 and 7 into a single zoning lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. POWERS CROSSING PROFESSIONAL CENTER: OUTLOT A, BUTTERNUT RIDGE (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 212); APPLICANTS: UNITED PROPERTIES, LLC/TIMOTHY AND DAWNE ERHART. 20 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 ? REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; ? SUBDIVISION INTO ONE LOT, OUTLOTS AND DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; ? REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO OFFICE/ INSTITUTIONAL (OI); ? SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A TWO-PHASE, THREE- STORY, 160,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL CENTER; UP TO A 731 STALL, FIVE LEVEL PARKING RAMP; AND SIGNAGE. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item has numerous requests before you tonight. The Powers Office Professional Center is located off of the new 212 interchange and Powers Boulevard. The applicant is requesting to rezone Lot 1, Block 1, also a conditional use permit, subdivision, site plan with variances and a variance to the sign request. This property has been under consideration for a number of years. When we did the comp plan we actually went out and looked at this. We worked with SRF to envision Mr. Erhart’s property. How that would best lay out and continuation of the street between 101, which is tied into the alignment of the new 101 alignment. That access point touch down by Bandimere Park and then the access point onto Mr. Erhart’s property onto Powers Boulevard so in the future that will be a through street but we’re not reviewing all that right now but this connection with this project will provide the opportunity to connect that street into the future. So in looking at this property we contemplated some office. Since this drawing was done the, the size of the office park that we envisioned there moved from 3 to 4 acres to the 10 that we’re looking at today. So again this is…as I stated. The conditional use with variance for development within the Bluff Creek. The rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. Subdivision of one lot and two outlots and dedication of public right-of- way. The site plan with variances for the two phased, three story office building. Professional office building. In the future a five level parking ramp and then the sign variance. And again when we looked at the zoning for this property there was a number of choices. Office institutional or office industrial and the staff had recommended at this time, based on the neighboring uses there, there is a significant neighborhood to the south of this that we recommended the pure office zoning district. With that, in order to accommodate some of the uses on this is why there’s variances, but again we wanted to go with the office zoning in the fact that it limited. If it was industrial type or kind of the uses that may have more truck activity or just traffic…we thought the office would be more compatible with the residential that was developed in the rest of the area. Again in this district the principle structure is two stories and the accessory structure is one story so herein lies the rub with the ordinance. We could have done a PUD and in looking at this we felt that in measuring that that it’d be more appropriate just to go with the straight OI zoning district and then allow for the variance. So in this property is showing the overlay district. This is one of the requests right here. The Bluff Creek Overlay District which runs through this property going all the way up to Lyman Boulevard on the north and going all the way down to Pioneer Trail on the south, and the red is the larger portion of Mr. Erhart’s property which we are looking at the most westerly portion for this project. So the encroachment into the overlay district is the area shown in red and for the mitigation of that we’re recommending a conservation easement on the top of the bluff. That would be this area here so that would be a preserve area to mitigate the impact into the bluff itself. With the subdivision application you can see Outlot A would be the remaining portion of the lot. Lot 1 21 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 would be the professional office building and Outlot B would be where the storm water pond would be, and there’s dedication of the right-of-way off Powers Boulevard between the two properties. The grading plan you can see in kind of the Phase I and Phase II shown on the site plan with the potential future parking ramp adjacent to the off ramp. The parking would be then adjacent to Powers Boulevard. I think we probably spent the most time trying to organize what would be the best location of the building itself. Staff wanted to build it towards the street with the parking to the back. We went through a lot of iterations but ultimately this seemed to be where it landed. They are going ahead with the first phase and then the second phase would trigger the parking ramp, so you can see the blue line is where the overlay district falls in and the grading. So you can see here the storm water pond. Mr. Oehme would you mind putting the mouse on there? Thank you. And that’s the storm water pond in that area right there, and then the future dedication of that public street has a cul-de-sac on the end right there and that street will be extended in the future as I showed on that plan that we had put together with the comp plan with SRF. That street will be extended to, ultimately all the way up to 101 but as development occurs we’ll decide the best location for that and let development kind of drive that. Access off of that street will be behind the office building there will be parking to get to the ramp and then also in the front so there’s actually two access points off of that street. Public street. And then in addition there’s turn lanes off of Powers Boulevard. We do have the traffic study and I’ll comment on that in a minute kind of looking at the ultimate traffic study for movement into this area. This street, private street could also be a T intersection as it provides access to the Laurent property across the street. So this would be Phase I, and you can see the driveway’s a little bit more clearly here, and you can see the turn, the T kind of intersection to that property, the Laurent property across the street which is also guided for office. The building itself, I have the materials. Maybe if somebody could hit the camera to go to the table. Thank you. Highly articulated with very nice materials. The Planning Commission complimented on the design on the building itself. Again meets all the design standards and when we talked about what the presence that we wanted coming down the street, the entrance to Chanhassen, this certainly meets the city staff’s desire to see that highly articulated building which does meet those standards. You can go back to the power point. Thank you. The parking ramp, as shown here, that would be with Phase II. Again uncertain on the timing on that but when that comes in, in order to accommodate that additional square footage of parking ramp would be put in place. And as we were talking earlier in our work session as we see some of that area down in that we anticipate additional parking ramps to accommodate the maximum development of those properties. So that is anticipated with Phase II. Then the sign variance itself. The office zoning district only allows for 5 foot and we spent a lot of time talking about, you know the visual impact of that so we did, because it is one lot, we did recommend a variance on the sign. If it was again if it was an office industrial district it would allow an 8 foot sign so we did agree that that seemed to make some sense to allow for the 8 foot high sign, and that would allow for the identification of the building itself and individual tenants. They also would be allowed the wall signs for whatever anchor tenant would be in that building also. So with that, there is some conditions I want to modify in your staff report. For clarification. Again it does meet all the standards of the city’s zoning ordinance so we are recommending approval of all the conditions, and I’ll start on page 38 of 44 on our’s which would be condition number 23. The first sentence in there should be, have a strike through the double left turn lane. What condition number 23 should state would be the developer must ensure that all traffic study data is provided to Carver County for their review and must incorporate Carver County and MnDOT’s comments into their 22 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 plan. Again access into that driveway coming off of a county road and off of State Highway 212, they would have some jurisdiction on that so they must meet their’s. I think contemplating the original development may have required a double left lane and we’re kind of backing off from that now and just letting the county re-evaluate that. And then the other condition that needs modification would be number 46. In order for this project to proceed it will be before you with the final plat for the subdivision and I’ll let the applicant speak to that. At the time of final plat some of these conditions may be modified as the traffic study or the lift station that needs to be built in order to accommodate that, an additional lift station to service this lower area needs to be provided so condition number 46 says that, I’d like to modify that to say the developer shall finance the cost or a portion of the cost of the two 2010 MUSA trunk lift station and enter into an agreement with the City at the time of final plat. So that could be some time in the future, a preliminary plat runs for a year so it may be a while before they come back and then we’ll have a better idea that we’re saying do we want to modify that language. So that would be our recommendation for approval of all those requests and if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Questions for staff. Any questions for staff? Councilman Litsey: None here. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay. We’ll move onto the applicant. Do you want to state your name and address. Bill Katter: Good evening council members and staff. Bill Katter, United Properties. How are you? Pleasure to be here with this project. Uncertain economic times here so I wish we could say we were ready to break ground on this project this year. That’s probably not a likelihood but in any event let me just say a little bit about United Properties. We’ve been in the Twin Cities in business since 1916. Have a lot of projects that we’ve developed in this town. Some of our signature projects are Centennial Lakes Office Park in Edina and a portion of Normandale Lakes Office Park in Bloomington so we’re very active, and particularly in the southwestern Twin Cities and so we are very interested in doing development in Chanhassen and this new 212 corridor presented a bunch of opportunity for the development community and we’re not exception to that so a customer of our’s, Fairview Southdale Hospitals had approached us back in 2007 to extend their reach into the lake and south lake communities out here as a feeder into their Southdale Hospital and to provide additional services in your community. In fact I think you may all know this. They’ve been looking in this community for some time and for a while were fixated on some sites on Highway 5 but when the new 212 corridor opened up, this is really where they wanted to be and through that process we identified Powers Boulevard as the primary interchange that they would like to be located on and I mentioned this at planning commission. This Powers Boulevard is very important because it’s a connection all the way up to South Lake Minnetonka and then down into Pioneer Trail and serves as a feeder road into this new freeway system through really the entire southwest communities here so we’re very excited about having an arrangement with Mr. Erhart to develop this property. Worked with Fairview very closely for the last year to make this a reality and bring this project forward to you and then as soon as that happened the economy fell apart so we don’t have a project we’re ready to break ground on yet and Fairview has put us on hold but we anticipate they’ll come back to the table. You know in 23 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 the long run they do want to be out here and so I think patience here will reward all of us, and if you were to approve this project we would hope to bring something forward here within the next year. So if not, if Fairview for some reason doesn’t come back to the plate, this site plan and the project has enough flexibility to service a professional or office setting. We think would be very attractive to a number of corporate users in this area. You know significant names out in this area. Emerson, Super Valu, major employers who may have an interest in expanding on this site, so that’s what we do is we work to attract these big corporations to site and this is a real high quality site here with a great natural setting and great access to the freeway so. With that I guess I won’t go into much of the architectural and civil comments. I think I will say this has been a very complicated application. Staff has shown a great deal of flexibility in working with us. There were some difficult issues to get to the point we’re at tonight and I think we’ve read all these conditions and we’re in agreement with them and we’re just hoping that we can get an economy back here and a tenant to make the project a reality so with that I’ll open myself up to questions. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, at this point then I take it you’re not building it for a client, which would have been the hospital. You say that you know maybe it becomes viable for a corporate headquarters. If that were the case would you look at developing more of the land besides just the two buildings you’ve shown us at this point? Bill Katter: The request on this application is just for the 10 acres and the two buildings so I think the maximum density is what’s represented here. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Bill Katter: Just a quick note. If it went to corporate office instead of more of a medical focus, we probably wouldn’t need as much parking and our site plan shows the parking deck with Phase II is a 5 level deck, but 3 of those 5 levels, or 2 of the 5 levels at the top are proof of parking and I would guess if we went more to a corporate use we wouldn’t need the proof of parking levels at all to meet city codes. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s mine. Councilman Litsey: Well I don’t know, maybe more, this is more of a question for Kate but I’m still a little concerned about the mitigation plan for the Bluff Creek Overlay and how that’s going to accommodate the storm water runoff. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think we’ve walked the site. The Planning Commission walked the site. I think we really have accomplished what our goal is and that is preservation of some areas. The Planning Commission did spend some time and they’re aware of it, regarding a little bit of drainage that runs on the MnDOT right-of-way but I think we’ve got that resolved. We had time to work through that. The other issue is just…planning real quick. Again we’re feeling pretty 24 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 comfortable about that lower, or the upper level draining to the back of those walls and how they accommodate that and through the engineering, engineering staff’s confident that they can make that happen too, but getting the trade off for that preservation area to the north, making that transition. Actually butts up against some city property. Makes a nice open corridor and ultimately when the sewer line gets put through that area going up to the trunk, that will be a trail through that area tying into the city’s property so if you go back to…go back to that original. You can see where our park property is and then if you go behind that, right in that triangle, you can see that trail going through the preserve area. That goes back up into the city park which will be a really nice amenity, even for the corporate people that are there to get out and walk on the trails so I think we’ve accomplished that. I think the Planning Commission was surprised at the little amount of comment, as Mr. Katter testified. There was a lot of teeth gnashing a lot of that we worked to get a really good project so by the time it got to this, all the hard work was done. We spent a lot of time working through all these issues so I think the Planning Commission was pleasantly surprised that there was a lack of disagreement but I think we had all those worked out. And we did modify some of the conditions. We met after the Planning Commission to get, do some word smithing of things that were ambiguous to the applicant so they can put it out in the marketplace and so I think we clarified that. Councilman Litsey: No, it’s a neat piece of property and a lot of it is preserved here. I just want to make sure you feel comfortable. There’s enough flexibility in there that you can deal with that mitigation plan? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: One of the things that I think I’d like to address from either Kate or the applicant is the conditional use permit and the statement that the developer is encouraged to meet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Green building rating systems. Can we talk a little bit about that because I think that’s kind of a new thing that we’re trying to do or. Kate Aanenson: And there’s different ways. With LEED’s there’s different criteria. Some of it could be the lighting. We talked about that with LED. The storm water management. The type of construction so we’ve talked to them about that. It’s not going to be mandatory but depending on their client, we would certainly encourage them to have that discussion. We thought certainly if it was busy that they might consider that as a model prototype but the goal is to encourage them to use some of those standards. Todd Gerhardt: Deputy Mayor, council members. If you go to page 36 of 44, it’s stated in there that the developer is encouraged to meet design standards so as we’ve talked in the past, we’ll work with the developer on meeting the LEED standards. There’s huge advantages for the developer to do that. To use the most energy efficient heating and air conditioning systems is one of the criteria. Most contractors, building owners want to follow those conditions. 25 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Bill Katter: We just finished the development of the 8200 tower at Normandale Lake Office Park, council members and it’s a LEED gold project so we are incorporating that LEED sustainable design into all of our office projects these days, so I think the request here that we try to do that is not unreasonable and we intend to do it. We recognize it’s something that you’d like to see in return for the flexibility on the conditional use permit here. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright, thank you. Then if there’s nothing else then I think I’ll bring it back to council. Oh, do you have a question? Sorry. Councilman McDonald: Public hearing, don’t. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Oh, do we have a public hearing? Kate Aanenson: It’s not a public hearing. You can open it for comments. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: I guess I could open it, thank you very much. Bill Katter: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: I could open it for public comments at this point. Sorry. Seeing none I’ll bring it back to council. Council, thoughts and comments. Councilman McDonald: Well I can start. Yeah, it looks as though it’s a good plan. It would be nice to bring something such as this in, especially on 212. It kind of gives people a good first impression of Chanhassen and with what we’re looking to do within that corridor, I think it’s a very good addition. And you know it definitely helps project the image that I think we’re looking to project for our city so I’d be in favor of you doing the project. Yeah, I understand that economic times being what they are, this is probably a project in search of a client but I have great faith you’ll find the client. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I think it’s a great addition as well and I think not only for our current state that we’re in but also for future development and I would totally support it. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Councilmember Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I just, could I ask one quick follow up question? In terms of you know we’ve soften the language some from shall and encouraged in spots and if the intent is to do it, why offer that flexibility? Kate Aanenson: Well we talked about that too. I mean sometimes we’ve learned, if you have shared storm water ponding, sometimes that can affect your points so if you don’t have total control of everything so we don’t want to say that we wouldn’t approve their project if they can’t meet all of it but it’s their intent and we have good faith that they’re going to follow through and try to meet as many as they can, but if it doesn’t become LEED certified through some action 26 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 that we don’t want to make that a default of it. But they’ve agreed that they want to do that so I just don’t want to say that if it’s some issue that they don’t have control over. Councilman Litsey: And you’re confident in working with them that you’ve got a good relationship and that the intent is to follow through with that? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Bill Katter: Can I make a comment to that? Councilman Litsey: Sure. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Yes, please. Bill Katter: One of the problems with that LEED process is that you don’t know if you end up getting certification until it’s already built and so we could be in a position where we build it thinking we are, we don’t and then we’ve got a technical default so it’s sometimes it’s impossible to, actually it is impossible to tell you for sure we’ll meet it until the project’s already done. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that’s why we didn’t want to hold them to that standard. Their goal is to try to get there and if for some reason it doesn’t happen we don’t want to put that project in default. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, that makes sense. Councilwoman Ernst: Kate one of the things. Councilman Litsey: I’m finished. Councilwoman Ernst: Go ahead. One of the things we talked about was, when we get these types of projects and we get that, and the developers get that LEED certification. How can we, how can we make that really open to the public so that they know that you know we’re doing those sorts of things and the developer’s… Kate Aanenson: Well I think, right. I think that’s one of the things that we talked about and marketing some of our developers in multi family use energy star appliances and they market those so I think that would be something that we’d certainly want to advertise and that’s something that the Environmental Commission will certainly undertake as far as some of their awards and that’s how we try to market, help those people market it. I think that’s something the Environmental Commission is working on too. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. 27 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Todd Gerhardt: And I think there’s just a huge savings for the developers in today’s market to take advantage of these LEED opportunities and it saves money in the long run. As long as it can show a cost benefit, that’s why if you read in the paper people are following it weekly on these projects. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright Vicki, and I would concur with everything. These projects are always kind of perplexing because you can see all the work that’s been put into them and they get to council and it kind of you know, 20 minutes later it’s done. You think boy that was easy, but obviously there’s been a lot of work and effort put into it from everybody and so I would thank you and this is one of the projects that as a council we talk about with our strategic initiative. Encouraging businesses to come and looking with, that’s what’s going to make us a viable city in the future and so I want to thank everybody for all the work they did on, with this and welcome to Chanhassen. How should we proceed with the motion? We have a bunch of them here. Councilwoman Ernst: We have two amendments, right? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if you would just want to read the motion’s that on the front page and then reference staff’s proposed changes, that will be fine. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Okay. Do I have someone who’s willing to start the motion? Councilman Litsey: I did the first. That’s why I did the other one. Councilman McDonald: I’ll do it. Todd Gerhardt: It was 2 pages. I got them down to one. s Councilman McDonald: Okay. The Chanhassen City Council approve the, well I guess first of all I make the motion that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional District, OI. Also that the s Chanhassen City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with Variancesto encroach into the primary zone and required bufferfor development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; subject to conditions 1 through 10 on page 36 of the staff report. Also that the Chanhassen City Council s approve the Subdivision (Preliminary Plat) creating one lot, two outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to conditions 1 through 46 on pages 37-41 of the staff report. Also that the Chanhassen s City Council approve the Site Plan with Variancesfor building height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for Planning Case #09-06, for a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office center, and up to a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to conditions 1 through 29 on pages 41 through 43 of the staff s report. Also that the Chanhassen City Council approve a sign size variance request to permit an eight (8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area, subject to conditions 1 through 5 on page 43 of the staff’s report. And finally City Council also adopts the attached findings of fact to the report along with the recommendations made by staff. Good enough? 28 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional District, OI. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit with Variances to encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; subject to the following conditions: 1.The property line may be revised to incorporate the reconveyed property from MnDOT to the developer. 2.The developer is encouraged tomeet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (MSBG). 3.To mitigate for the effects of development within the primary corridor, the developer should be encouragedto meet green construction standards for the whole site. 4.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be mowed or managed as turf areas. 5.Evaluate other site designs, stormwater management techniques and low-impact development practices for their benefit in reducing impacts to the primary and secondary zones of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 6.Reforest those areas disturbed to grade the site but do not have structures on them. The reforestation should be done with deciduous tree species representative of the existing species composition. The forested areas are dominated by bur oak. 7.Maintain the natural drainage patterns. 8.The applicant must clearly illustrate how impacts to the primary zone are to be mitigated. This mitigation must consider all benefits derived from the primary zone as described in Article XXXI of the Chanhassen City Code. 29 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 9.The area east of Lot 1 within Outlot A within the primary corridor of Bluff Creek shall be covered by a conservation easement. This easement shall restrict activities within the area and prohibit any development. The City shall have final approval of the easement restrictions. Any wetland mitigation activities that are required within this area shall have final approval by City staff. No additional activities shall be allowed within this area and access to the mitigation site shall be the existing path. 10.The wooded areas of Lot 1 and Outlot B within the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be covered by a conservation easement that restricts specific activities and prohibits any further development within the area.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating one lot, two outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following conditions: 1.The developer shall either dedicate/donate an Outlot or record a conservation easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary zone north of the road right-of-way in Outlot A. This area of Outlot A is undevelopable and the land within the conservation easement could not be used in future phases for density transfer purposes. A conservation easement shall be recorded over the Bluff Creek Primary zone located within Lot 1 and Outlot B. This easement shall restrict activities within the area and prohibit any development. The City shall have final approval of the easement restrictions. The easement shall be recorded with the first phase of the development. 2.Submit proposed names for street labeled “Access Road” on plans for approval. 3.The drainage report and plans must be revised to address comments from MnDOT. 4.The applicant must obtain a MnDOT drainage permit. 5.The drainage report and plans must be modified so that the peak discharge rate to the off-site wetland does not increase under fully developed conditions. 6.The plans must be revised to provide either an overland emergency overflow or an additional outlet control structure at a higher elevation. 7.The developer must submit a letter from an engineer stating that the retaining wall east of the building can accommodate temporary ponding behind the wall. 8.The alignment of the bypass storm sewer pipe must be redesigned to eliminate excess cover over the pipe. 30 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 9.If MnDOT allows a connection to the Highway 212 storm pipe, then show the existing pipe on the plan sheets. 10.Building permits are required for retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 11.A manhole must be installed at the terminus of the sanitary sewer. 12.All sanitary sewer and watermain within Lot 1, Block 1 shall be privately owned and maintained. 13.The storm sewer that will convey runoff from the drainageway to the east of the property shall also be privately owned and maintained, including those portions that lie within public right-of-way and the City owned outlot. 14.The 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shown on the preliminary plat over this storm sewer must be deleted. 15.Delete the 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement for the future watermain. 16.Provide a temporary blanket drainage and utility easement – or similar mechanism acceptable - to the Cityover the proposed forcemain corridor. The temporary easement shall not encroach into the building envelope as shown on the site plan. 17.A permanent 20-foot wide easement will be required over the final forcemain alignment. 18.Each new lot will be subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees will be collected with the building permit, subject to the rates in effect at the time of building permit, and shall be based on the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ SAC unit determination. 19.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20.All public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District. 21.Upon project completion as-built drawings must be submitted for the private utilities. 22.The developer must ensure that all traffic study data is provided to Carver County for their review and must incorporate Carver County and MnDOT’s comments into the plan. 31 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 23. An updated traffic study must be submitted with Phase 2 improvements. Powers Crossing’s financial obligations with respect to the signal installation will be determined at that time and incorporated into the Site Plan Agreement for Phase 2. 24.A temporary roadway, drainage and utility easement must be provided over the cul-de-sac at the east end of the access road. 25.This property is subject to the Arterial Collector Fee which is $3,600 per developable acre. The acreage used in this calculation shall include the right-of-way turnback from both Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard. This fee shall be paid in cash with the final plat 26.The RIM and Flowage Easements need to be indicated on the plat. This should include the document number 10-05-87-1. 27.The wetland mitigation area in Outlot A needs to be created. A Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants needs to be executed and recorded with Carver County. This document number needs to be included on the plat. 28.The remaining conditions of approval for WAP #2006-32 need to be met: a.The plans shall be revised to show how M-1 will be accessed. The access route shall be stable, shall avoid damage to significant trees (greater than 10” DBH) and shall avoid impacts to natural drainageways and any jurisdictional wetlands that may exist on site that were not delineated by Westwood Professional Services in August 2006. b.A planting plan for M-1, including invasive vegetation management techniques, species to be planted, proposed planting rates, and the approach to upland buffer restoration, shall be submitted prior to final City Council approval. c.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. d.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 29.The legal wetland boundary of the RIM wetland was not delineated in the Westwood Wetland Delineation Report dated August of 2006. This boundary must be delineated and wetland impacts avoided where possible. 32 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 30.Because of the perpetual RIM and flowage easements the plans must be provided to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for review and comment. Any comments from the NRCS must be made available to the City. 31.Drainage to the RIM wetland from the south flows through a defined swale. The conveyance of this flow must be maintained under the proposed road extension. 32.Erosion Control plan needs to be updated per the July comments: a.Show a 75-foot rock construction entrance. b.Show rounding of corners for proposed grades. c.Erosion control blanket shall be shown on all slopes east of the proposed building and adjacent to the pond. d.An NPDES permit must be obtained prior to any site grading and a SWPPP must be provided to the City for review and comment. e.Replace MnDOT 340 mix with a modified BWSR U7 seed mix. 33.Estimated SWMP fees due at the time of final plat are $271,506.20. 34.The development must comply with Carver Soil and Water Conservation District comments. 35.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be mowed or managed as turf areas. 36.The following practices are required in order to insure the best chance of survival for the highlighted oaks to be preserved along the east side of the development: a.Understory trees near the oaks shall be preserved. b.Roots at the grading limits shall be cut cleanly with a trencher or vibratory plow. c.Tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to any grading. d.Trees shall be thoroughly watered during dry periods. 37.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved. 38.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. 39.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/06/08, will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 40.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued. 33 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 41.The developer shall pay the full park dedication fee in force at the time of final plat approval and prior to recording. 42.Construction of the 10-ft. wide bituminous access road trail and the North Trail. The North Trail plans shall be modified dedicating a permanent 20-foot wide trail easement to allow for appropriate separation from adjoining improvements and boulevard areas for winter plowing, snow storage and aesthetics. 43.Dedication of a permanent triangular shaped trail easement at the South East corner of Lot 1, Block 1. The triangle shall be 50’ in length on its South side and 200’ in length on its East side. 44.The developer shall finance the cost or a portion of the 2010 MUSA trunk lift station and enter into an agreement with the City for repayment at the time of final plat.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves the Site Plan with Variances for building height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for Planning Case #08-16, for a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office building, and up to a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following conditions: 1.The final plat for the development shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2.The full buildout is predicated upon a turnback to the land owner of MnDOT right-of-way. In the event that this turnback does not occur, the applicant may build a four-story building totaling 112,000 square feet subject to parking compliance with City Code. 3.The developer is encouraged tomeet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, MSBG. 4.The developer shall continue the architectural detailing through the use of the three brick colors as well as the use of stone and metal on the garage structure. 5.The developer shall provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage (within 200 yards of a building entrance) for 5% or more of all building users (measured at peak periods), and provide shower and changing facilities in the building. The developer should also provide benches throughout the site as well as tables and chairs in the patio area. 6.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 34 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 7.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 8.Accessible routes must be provided between commercial building(s), parking facilities and public transportation stops. 9.All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking. 10.The developer shall comply with the minimum parking setback requirement and install appropriate berming and or landscaping to allow the 10 feet setback. 11.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 12.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be mowed or managed as turf areas. 13.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved. 14.The applicant does not meet required landscape quantities for parking lot trees and islands/peninsulas in both phases. The applicant must meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees and landscape islands/peninsulas. 15.Phase I: The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for either of the bufferyard areas. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements. 16.Phase II: The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard areas. The applicant shall increase the plantings to meet minimum requirements. 17.The applicant must replace the Colorado spruce with other approved species in the plant schedule. 18.All transplanted materials must be pre-approved by the City. Transplanted trees will not be accepted if substituted without City approval. If approved for transplanting, the material must be warranted for a minimum of one year. If transplanted materials die, they must be replaced with nursery stock. 19.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. 20.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 04/01/09, will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 35 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 21.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued. 22.The North Trail plans or parking lot design shall be modified to allow for appropriate boulevard areas for winter plowing, snow storage and aesthetics. 23.A 3-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, and nothing shall be placed in front of the hydrant outlets, connections, fire protection control valves that would interfere with fire fighter operations. Section 508.5 MN. Fire Code and Sec. 508.5.4. 24.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be removed or chipped on site. 25.Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations of “No Parking Fire Lane” signage, and locations of curbing to be painted yellow. MN Fire Code Sec. 503.3. 26.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. MSFC sec 501.4. 27.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. MSFC Sec. 503.2.3. 28.Due to the unknown timeframe associated with the signal installation, an updated traffic study must be submitted with Phase 2 improvements. Powers Crossing’s financial obligations with respect to the signal installation will be determined at that time and incorporated into the Site Plan Agreement for Phase 2.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves a sign size Variance request to permit an eight (8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area, subject to the following conditions: 1.Separate sign permits shall be required for each sign. 2.The development name in the monument sign shall be individual dimensioned letters with a minimum ½-inch projection. 3.Only one monument sign shall be permitted for the Powers Crossing Professional Center site. 4.The sign height for the directional signs shall be reduced to five feet. The display area for sign #2 shall be reduced to four square feet. 5.The sign location shall meet all setback and site triangle requirements.” 36 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you very much. Todd Gerhardt: Deputy Mayor, council members. I just want to recognize Tim Erhart. He was the property owner on this facility and I know it was his vision with this site for a long time. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: He’s leaving you. Todd Gerhardt: I’ll give my speech Thursday so. Talking about your vision for this corner and that you know for the past like 20 years you’ve owned the property, plus. Tim Erhart: Yeah, 1980. Todd Gerhardt: And this is really going to be setting the tone along 212. Tim started this process probably 3 years in the making here and to see it come to this, it’s exciting and we’ve talked a lot over the last couple years about the project and we’re excited. I think Tim is excited and again it’s just going to be a fantastic project. First one along the 212 corridor of this size and I think it’s a great stepping stone on what’s going to occur in that area. Tim Erhart: I think Bill understated a little bit Fairview’s commitment because they’ve paid for $250,000 worth of engineering and architectural… I think there’s a very, very strong desire and what a great tenant for our community. I think the location just is wonderful. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah to have Fairview out here, what always makes a city great is the medical service that is provided in that community and having Fairview and the services that they’re going to provide, the quality of the residents in Chanhassen is just going to go up dramatically to have that great service so close. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: And also I think the employment that it will bring also for people. Todd Gerhardt: Oh yeah. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Is a big factor. Very good. Thank you. Tim Erhart: Thanks, yeah it’s been fun. Actually it’s been fun after 29 years. It’s something to go there and how it will work and again staff did a great, a marvelous job of seeing through with just a lot of detailed issues and getting it to this point and it’s really, really, really exciting. Thanks. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Thank you. No cake I guess. Councilman Litsey: Oh, we don’t have that every meeting now? 37 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: If I was mayor there would be. Tim Erhart: Am I excused now Todd? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. You’re excused. You can go now. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright moving on now to council presentations. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman McDonald: Well if I could, I just want to say something about the Memorial Day and one of the things that I took away from it was, it is a good example of I think what happens when an organization works in concert with the City to basically put something in place that is of benefit to all the residents. I just want to again thank the Legion and all their partners and everybody that worked with the City to put this great monument in place but again it could not have been done without the cooperation of a local group stepping forward to fill a need and to take the kind of bull by the horns and to take the leadership position of getting this done, and that’s not to say the City didn’t provide leadership but again our role was not so much to oversee the project as it was to assist in getting it done and I just want to thank everybody that was involved. I believe that you know we have something that will for generations we will be very proud of within this city and I want to thank all the residents that participated and their time and efforts of giving of their money and their time and resources to help get this done. I want to thank the City and staff especially for again providing the location and kind of cutting through the red tape to get everything put together. I’m sure you must have been violating a lot of code and things with that crane but we won’t discuss that but yeah, I just wanted to bring that up because again I just think that is a great example of what I have been trying to say within council for a long time about the City is not here to really oppose things. The City is here to assist people in their great ideas and the monument is a perfect example of that. Thanks. Councilwoman Ernst: I concur with everything that Councilman McDonald talked about. I mean really everyone that put so much energy and so much of their time into it. What an awesome memorial and the dedication service was fabulous. I got there actually 5 minutes early thinking I’d have all kinds of room to stand but there really wasn’t, and that was a good thing so, but I think really Mark Undestad really deserves a special thank you for everything that he did for that so. I really want to thank him. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I echo those same feelings. The things that have already been said. What a truly great night and I have to say that’s one of the few things my 6 year old has actually been kind of spellbound and sat through and listened to so it was, that’s a tribute to what a great program they put on. It was a lot of fun. And then the picnic afterwards was a nice way for people to kind of chat and stuff too so all the great work and everybody in the city and the community really pulled together and made this a truly remarkable night really. I mean the weather was, other than the wind was a little strong but it was a great night and just really made you feel proud to be part of this whole effort and to live in such a great community. 38 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Yeah I think I can echo what everyone has talked about. I’m not going to say it again but what gets me excited is showing up and seeing almost a thousand people from town, and we’re all friends you know. We’re all standing around our neighbors and our friends and we are dedicating this monument that we all worked, everyone worked hard to bring about and so I think that is one of the, I always say you know why would you want to leave Chanhassen? And this is just another reason why you know. We’re a great community and we have great pride and just something else to be proud of so. With that, any other comments? Todd Gerhardt: Deputy Mayor, council members. I want to thank everybody too. All city staff that was involved. They really were out there helping from day one and I especially want to thank Todd Hoffman. Todd just did an unbelievable job of coaching and sticking with this project. This has been his baby from day one and you know he was out there laying bricks. Digging foundations and working with all the different trades and coaching them along. A lot of the volunteers, personally friends of Todd’s and without his efforts the cost of this project would be substantially high and through his relationships and connections he made this project really special and he needs a big thanks for that. Councilwoman Ernst: Thanks Todd. Todd Hoffman: You’re welcome. Councilman McDonald: Thank you Todd. Councilman Litsey: And I noticed you were there several hours afterwards doing the, picking up lawn chairs and I would have been, my excuse was I had to get my son home to bed. I don’t know if that works or not but. Thank you very much. Todd Hoffman: You’re welcome. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Alright, you know I have to agree. I was downtown Saturday night and there was Todd. Todd and Mark Undestad and his wife I think laying sod or doing something you know, so really it’s amazing all the work you did and thank you so much for everything. Pretty soon we’ll have to have a monument to you… ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well we have Elliott Knetsch here tonight and Elliott is our prosecutor so I asked Elliott if he would be able to give a little update on our prosecution contract and services he’s been providing us for the last year and Elliott. Elliott Knetsch: Well thank you. The update would be short. I think it’s, things are going well. The only mishap that I know of was when the court rooms were under construction and the court staff had to cancel one of our arraignment calendars and they sent the notice directly to me instead of my secretary so of course I didn’t get it. It was sent to me so I went out there and said how come nobody’s here but, on a more serious note I guess, things are going well. I think you have some excellent deputies patrolling Chanhassen. They do a good job. Our court schedule 39 Chanhassen City Council - May 26, 2009 has been ironed out and it has been for I guess more than a year now so we’re just going out there one day a week on Mondays. The occasional trials that we get, require another appearance but that’s the way it is for everybody. They only do trials on certain days of the week. So really the move to the Monday calendar I think really kind of streamlined things. It made it more efficient for the city resources that go onto the prosecution. You know we have a new judge with the passing of Judge Davies and that’s about it I guess. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think the relationship between court services and the City of Chanhassen and our contract with Campbell-Knutson is strong and it’s just been a great relationship I think this past year and a half since we had our little meeting so things are going smooth. It’s nice to see that you know we can go to an outside service for this and Elliott provides a great service for us, and I’m proud to have him down there representing the City of Chanhassen so I just wanted him to give a little update for the council. Councilman Litsey: Well I appreciate that. I’m glad to hear that some of the scheduling issues, I know that was kind of, had to get worked out with the court but I’m glad it’s going smoothly now so. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, I think it was just a thing where you know for maybe the last 100 years they were just dealing with one prosecutor and you know, so that was a bit of an adjustment there but I do thank Todd for those kind words. Things have been very solid and the last, at least over the past year and I do think that it fits your budget well too. Your number of cases has remained fairly constant and the fine revenue has remained fairly constant. It’s in the $10,000 or so per month range. You know I think if you crunch the numbers you would find out that under the County contract you would be paying more so I think it’s working out well for everyone. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Yeah, I think we are unique in Carver County where we do have our own prosecuting attorney and from what I’ve always known it’s worked out well so it’s good to have you here to give us a report on what’s going on and how things are going so thank you very much for that. Keep up the good work. Elliott Knetsch: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: Go get them. Elliott Knetsch: We do. Deputy Mayor Tjornhom: And with that we can move onto the correspondence discussion. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 40