The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2003 06 09CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Todd Hoffman, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam, and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Judy Christensen Uli Sacchet Jim Bohn Alex Shaine Melissa Gilman 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7100 Utica Lane Planning Commission EDA Lakeshore Weekly News Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RECOGNITION OF BOKOO BIKES FOR TRAIL MAP PARTNERSHIP. Mayor Furlong: If I could have, I think Mr. Vigil is here this evening. If he could join us down in front, Mr. Hoffman. Good evening. Thank you. Mr. Vigil, you're the owner of Bokoo Bikes? Ed Vigil: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And as part of our, with the City of Chanhassen park and rec, your company contributed approximately half the cost of us putting this together. It was one of the largest, if not the largest corporate contribution that the city has received, and on behalf of the city and the residents, thank you for your contributed not only day to day with your business and services you provide our residents, but also here working in a collaborative effort with our park and rec department. As a way of saying thank you, Mr. Hoffman, Director of Parks and Rec, we've provided a framed copy of the map. This is a map that was sent out to all the residents of the city showing the various trails and parks within our city so thank you very much. Ed Vigil: Thank you. Well I'd just like to thank for the opportunity to be part of this project, which it was a lot of fun for us because we were able to contribute with the trails and everything that we do and be part of the community as well, so thank you for giving us the opportunity. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager's recommendations: City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Approval of Preliminary and Final plat to Replat Two Lots into Three Single Family Lots with Variances, 185 Pleasant View Road and 6430 Pleasant View Lane, Schroeder Addition, Larry & Doug Schroeder and Linda Peterson. Approval of Minutes: -Verbatim City Council Minutes dated May 12, 2003 -City Council Executive Session Minutes dated May 27, 2003 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 27, 2003 -Verbatim City Council Minutes dated May 27, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Verbatim Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 2003 d. Approval of Stipulation of Settlement and Order for Judgment, Tax Increment Financing District 2-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: There' s also, from an agenda item, there' s request from the Director of Finance to include a resolution regarding general obligation equipment certificates. This is actually a modified resolution from something passed prior. If there's no objection we'll include that as item 8 on the agenda. Councilman Labatt: And number 7 is the school board? Mayor Furlong: Number 7 is the consent agenda item l(a). Councilman Labatt: Okay, then are we going to add the resolution on the school board that we discussed at our work session under new business also? Mayor Furlong: Without objection we'll add that as number 9. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Are there any other items off the consent agenda or adjustments to the published agenda? VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Judy Christensen: I'm Judy Christensen. I live at 7100 Utica Lane in Chanhassen. Tonight I am coming before the board to let you know that I have just gone ahead and been given an opportunity to be one of the citizens that's going to work on the referendum coming up this fall for the School District 112. I'd like to have a chance to learn a little bit more as to what your position is on Chanhassen supporting a site located in the school district, and also located in the city of Chanhassen. The rumblings that I'm hearing from a lot of different people from the elementary schools, all the way out to the middle schools and the high schools is that they would love to have something here so I'm very anxious to hear what your discussion is going to be about tonight. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that based on your decision this evening and future decisions, I would like to have an opportunity to relay information out to the public. Get that grapevine working for you so that we can get as much support as we can out there. City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Are there any other visitor presentations this evening? REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN EXCESS OF II000 CUBIC YARDS~ 6421 DISTRICT 276. Public Present: HAZELTINE BOULEVARD~ Name Address MINNETONKA SCHOOL Mike Remington Mike Condon Inspec, Inc. Minnetonka Schools Matt Saam: Thank you Mayor Furlong, Council members. As you stated, this is an interim use permit request or an IUP. The request is for the Minnetonka Junior High School site in town. The site, zoom in maybe a little. Thank you. The site, if you already don't know, is located on the east side of Highway 41, just south of Highway 7 and Chaska Road in Chanhassen. The Interim Use Permit request deals with site improvements to the existing parking area on the junior high site. Also deals with the installation of a pond on the site, and a trail to take students from the school north to Melody Hill Road. The plans as I have them here include removal of the existing bituminous pavement in the driveway and parking lot areas. They're also going to be realigning the bus pick-up and drop-off areas to separate them from the car parking in this area. Right now they're experiencing congestion in the times of pick-up and drop off with buses and cars interacting so to avoid that they're going to separate those with curbing and a revised parking lot layout. The permit request is fairly straight forward. One of the things I would like to highlight is the inclusion of this proposed pond. Staff sees that as a big plus with this project. Right now on the site there really isn't any storm water treatment per se. The runoff just flows over land down the existing swale here and into the MnDot ditch along Highway 41. With the proposed improvements storm water from all of this impervious area will be collected in these catch basins, routed into the pond for treatment and then discharged into the swale so like I said, we see this as a big plus. We're going from a site where we really don't have any storm water treatment, to one with storm water treatment. Another thing I'd like to mention is staff is recommending the installation of a 4 foot high chain link fence along the proposed bituminous trail. There is an elevation difference of approximately 15 feet from the trail down to the water level of the pond, going down at a 3 to 1 slope. So to avoid accident situations with children falling into the pond, we are recommending the installation of a 4 foot high chain link fence. The only other thing I'd like to comment on is to update you on the revised alignment. Previously the school had submitted a plan that showed 45 degree angle parking for the buses in this area, adjacent to a two way drive aisle. Currently that isn't allowed by city code and would have required a variance. After speaking with the school district, they have submitted a revised plan which I believe was included with your packet, which now shows a one way drive aisle adjacent to the 45 degree angle bus parking, which just goes around the perimeter of the car parking areas. Still keeps the bus traffic and the car traffic separate from each other. The last thing, at the Planning Commission meeting some neighbors brought up an existing erosion or drainage problem at the south property line of the school, not shown on this plan. Just to let you know, staff is going to be meeting with the school and the neighbors tomorrow to address that situation. With that we are recommending approval of this. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take them. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: With regard to the mosquito control, it mentions in the packet that the school would be willing to respond to that issue, one. Two, mosquito activity, the problems with mosquitoes, West Nile Virus and so forth has been brought up. Not too long ago we re-instituted mosquito control in the city of Chanhassen, am I correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilman Ayotte: And with the introduction, why is the school involved with that control rather than the other agency that we had? Matt Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. I'll just briefly speak on mosquito control but to answer your question, it's a private pond. The pond that's shown here. If it was a public pond, with public easements to give us access, I guess we would. The responsibility would fall on us to spray for the mosquitoes but since it's a private on site pond within the school district's private property, the city doesn't get involved in that. Councilman Ayotte: I do not suspect that the mosquitoes know that it's a private piece of property, nor that mosquitoes may go from private to public, so what sort of ability do we have to make sure that if there is a concern, since it's private, that we can assure our citizens contiguous to the area, that there will not be a mosquito problem. Matt Saam: What we can do within our right-of-way and jurisdiction is to continue to control the mosquitoes using whatever means we have right now to do that. Spraying, that sort of thing. As far as to guarantee the citizens that nothing's going to happen, I think that might be a question we pose to the school district. At the Planning Commission meeting they said that they would be willing to address it if there was a problem, but they said there's a f'me balance between spraying too little and spraying too much, depending on who you are. If they spray too much they might offend some parents or children who would be affected by the spraying. Councilman Ayotte: I guess my only concern, the reason why I bring it up and I don't want to over state it or hold this up for that point but it seems to me we ought to talk to the point of a mechanism to be able to say that if it does get to a problem that we view as being a concern, even though it's a private pond, I think we owe it to the residents of that area to have some ability to influence that's my only point. I don't know what parameters or. Todd Gerhardt: And that condition allows you to do that because it's school property, Minnesota Mosquito Control cannot go in and spray. We have allowed them to go onto our public properties to spray and put the briquettes out, so school property, the Mosquito Control Agency does not have the authority to go on there. This condition allows us to make them go in and spray those mosquitoes if we see that there is a problem for that. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Todd, what condition was that? I don't see it in the 1 through 21. Todd Gerhardt: Was it, Matt I assume that was a condition of approval. Matt Saam: There's no such condition which specifically states anything dealing with mosquito spraying. There are conditions which state they have to abide by MPCA and EPA regulations. That sort of thing but I guess it's difficulty to quantify, but we could sure state, include a City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 condition which says they have to do X amount of spraying. To me that's hard to quantify though. How do we do that? Poll of public opinion if residents are calling in? I'm not sure how we say you have to do this much spraying. Councilman Ayotte: How does the agency that is involved with mosquito control gauge whether or not an area needs to be sprayed, or do they do it on a scheduled basis? Matt Saam: I don't know the exact mode of operation. I would assume they do it on a scheduled basis, similar to the city and how the school district does it. Thc school district currently sprays, so let's make sure everybody understands that point. It's not like they never spray. Councilman Ayotte: But it's going to be a new pond and new costs and so forth. I was wondering if we could put a condition that they would have a schedule that'd be comparable to X agency so that we could have a template for it and that way at least it's called out and we satisfy that resident's concern, and other residents that don't know about the problem that so when it does occur we have something to reference. That's my only point. Matt Saam: And that'd be a great condition to put in there. Mayor Furlong: I guess a follow up question. You said they currently are spraying so they have, they do have a program of scheduled spraying on school property. Matt Saam: Yes. That's what they stated at the Planning Commission meeting, yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I guess the question would be do we want to do something different than what they're doing or do we know if what they're doing is acceptable? Matt Saam: I guess we could review that. I think that's what Councilman Ayotte was getting. Maybe they submit what their schedule is. We compare that to the accepted norm and go from there. Councilman Ayotte: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is a representative of Minnetonka School District here this evening? Would you like to address the council? Mike Condon: Sure. My name is Mike Condon. I'm the Building and Grounds Supervisor for Minnetonka Schools. I'm happy to be here. What I'd like to say quickly about the mosquito control is we work hand in hand with the Minnesota Mosquito Control. We actually, they land on most of our sites. West is outside of the Minnetonka area and in Chan. We would more than willingly work again with them, and even allowing them to land again in our area to be able to keep that property treated, just like we do with the rest of our sites. Any other questions? Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any other questions for the, no. Okay, thank you. Mike Condon: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: With that I' 11 bring it to the council for discussion. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Another thing, condition that I would like to add along with the mosquitoes that Councilman Ayotte was referring to, is we have these opportunities when we City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 have issues that people come in for permits that allows us sometimes to mitigate other circumstances that exist, and I think we have one here with the neighbors to the south, the Mancino's that have concerns and voiced them at the Planning Commission. Although they're not attached directly to the project necessarily, this is an opportunity I believe for us to put a little bit of teeth into some resolution of their issues and I would like to add as a condition of approval that the Minnetonka School District lead a reasonable effort to resolve the drainage and trash issues brought forth by the Mancino' s, added by Chanhassen city staff as necessary. And I know that Matt, you've taken lead on that already to meet tomorrow I think you said with the Mancino's and the school, and I commend you for that. But I would like to, in addition to that, put the onus back on the school district to lead that effort as well. I don't want it to be a carte blanche for the Mancino's to get you know hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work done or anything like that but I think we need to do a little bit better job than just saying something there without a little bit of teeth there. I'm concerned that the issue might not be addressed adequately. Mayor Furlong: Other items of discussion. Councilman Peterson: I agree with both conditions that are being added. Other than that I think it' s reasonable. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion? Councilman Labatt: Well you know how I am on last minute add on's so I won't say any more about that. I disagree with it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. For my comments, generally I think while we have a couple items here that we're talking about this evening, generally I think I was pleased with the Planning Commission and their process that they took in terms of addressing many of the issues and raising issues that are available for the council to consider this evening so I think from that standpoint it went well. With that I think the overall request for the permit is fair and reasonable. It's going to be a good improvement for safety standpoint and grounds and maintenance for the schools so I think overall it's something that we should support. With that, is there a motion? Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Matt Saam: If I could just add one reminder note dealing with the mosquitoes. These 1UP's remain in effect, this one says one year, so anything you add with the mosquito control, really we only have jurisdiction for the one year, unless they would come in to extend the permit. So I just wanted to make you all aware of that. Councilman Labatt: So that'd be the same for all the conditions? Even the new ones we just added. Matt Saam: Yes, all the conditions. Most of the other ones though only relate to the site improvements which will be done this summer, but the mosquito one could go on. Councilman Ayotte: Could I ask one other question? Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: In order to get this moving along, because we don't want to tie it up too much, could we just state that the conditions that we would add would be as a result of the staff recommendations worked out in the case of your meeting tomorrow, and the case of what the city manager had indicated what would be an acceptable schedule. Matt Saam: That'd be fine. Councilman Ayotte: Do it that way so that we don't word smith it to death, is that doable? Mayor Furlong: Sure. We don't have an official motion yet. Somebody needs to word something. Councilman Ayotte: I'm ready. Mayor Furlong: Alright, Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: I recommend that we approve staffs recommendation with an additional point. Point 22. That 276 introduce a mosquito control plan that would be acceptable to both the school and what the city staff recommends, based on what' s an acceptable norm. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second? Okay, is there a second to the motion? Councilman Peterson: Well why don't we do a friendly amendment first? Councilman Lundquist: Friendly amendment for condition number 23. That the Minnetonka School District lead a reasonable effort to resolve the drainage and trash issues brought forth by the Mancino' s, aided by Chanhassen city staff as necessary. Accept that amendment? Councilman Ayotte: I accept that amendment. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Alright, it's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Sir. Mike Remington: Good evening. I'm Mike Remington with Inspec. I'm the Senior Project Engineer working for Minnetonka Schools on this design. I just wanted to raise one potential request for a change to the conditions after reviewing them. We fully support them. The one we are asking, appealing for a modification is item number 12. Limiting the contractor to trucking material in and out of the site between the hours of 8:30 and 3:30. While it's understandable why that would be desired, our concern is number one to get the project done on time so that the project's done before school opens up in August. And secondly, a potential increase in cost from the contractor back to the school district related to the narrowing of those working hours as far as trucking down to a 7 hour timeframe. Their haul site is, they would exit the site, go north on 41 to Highway 7 and then go ~A of a mile west and it's right along Highway 7 there. In my experience they're going to try to avoid the rush hour traffic anyhow. I just wanted to take this opportunity to try to appeal and see if that condition can be changed. Councilman Ayotte: To what timeframe? City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Mike Remington: I think even just the standard working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would be preferred. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion? Councilman Ayotte: I'd kind of like to know how staff feels about that. Matt Saam: This condition highlighted in bold restricting the hours from 8:30 to 3:30 was added as a result of the Planning Commission. Originally staff didn't have any limitations on the hours of operation. However, if you note we do have in there, or as approved by the City Engineer, so if we do see a problem out there, we can limit the hours at that time. That's typically how we handle these things. I mean Highway 41 and Highway 7 are both highways in nature. They're not going through residential areas. So I don't see limiting the hours as a big issue, but again if it would become a problem we could certainly do that. Councilman Ayotte: Mayor, we have a planning commissioner here, can we? Mayor Furlong: We think alike. Mr. Sacchet, do you have any comment or, with regard to the sense of the Planning Commission? Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I'm with the Planning Commission. We felt very strongly that for safety reason, that it should not be allowed the hauling during the rush hour because it' s, I'm not the expert. One of the people, Steve on the Planning Commission calculated this is like 500 trucks, so really a large number of trucking' s and therefore that it should be put onto the time when it's not a safety issue and not a traffic issue. That's basically where we were coming from. And we had pretty strong consensus amongst us about that. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there other discussion? Councilman Ayotte: Well is off hours is a concern for safety purposes, is coming way early in the morning an okay thing, or way late at night? Councilman Lundquist: That would require a variance from our normal operating times. Councilman Ayotte: That's my point. So I don't want to drive the costs up. We don't want 276 to be coming up with another referendum too. Councilman Labatt: Well I think Mr. Remington brings up a point. If we condense his hours, we're just going to maybe prolong the project. They want to get this done before school's out~ I don't know, I can't imagine our rush hour here at 3:30 is that busy. 4:00 to 4:30 rush hour in downtown Minneapolis is when the traffic picks up but out here, I don't think it hits us til 5:00 so if we want to extend it a little bit, that's fine but I would be in favor of looking at our normal hours of hauling in order to get the hauling done quicker. Rather than prolong it. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, what are the normal hours? Matt Saam: Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 6:00 and then 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday's° No haulings on Sunday's or holidays. City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong: So to would be the same as, all hours of operating would be the hauling hours then. Matt Saam: Correct, yep. Councilman Lundquist: Excuse me Mayor, the way I read this now, the hauling operations would be allowed from 8:30 to 3:30 Monday through Friday, or as approved by the City Engineer and/or MnDot. Does the way this condition is worded now allow, I read that as it allows the City Engineer to expand that if required as well as restrict it. Mayor Furlong: So if there are issues of safety, or traffic, leave it to the discretion of the City Engineer? Councilman Ayotte: Why don't we do it the other way and say, normal hours, what did you say 8:00 to 6:00 Matt? Matt Saam: 7:00 to 6:00. Councilman Ayotte: And in fact we discover that there is issue, that then we restrict. Go the other way. So that would still meet the Planning Commission's intent. It would require staff to monitor it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: That would have to be offered as an amendment. Mayor Furlong: To the motion, that's fine. Is there an amendment to the motion then with regard to item 127 Hauling hours. Councilman Labatt: I would move that we amend item 12 to read, hauling operations will be allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 Monday through Friday, or as approved by the City Engineer. And leave it at that. Take MnDot out. Is that okay to take MnDot out? Matt Saam: Yeah, the only reason MnDot's in there, Highway 41 and 7 are both state highways so they have jurisdiction over those. So they could limit the hours of hauling operations also if they see a problem. That' s why we have them in there. So I' d recommend leaving them in. Councilman Labatt: And MnDot then. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second to that amendment. Councilman Ayotte: I'll second that. Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any discussion on the amendment? If there's none we'll vote on the amendment to change item 12 to read, hauling hours will be allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or as approved by the City Engineer and/or MnDot. We'll call the question on that. Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor, one other note. Do we want to allow any on Saturdays? Right now we do but your motion didn't say Saturday. City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Councilman Labatt: I just changed the bold, and I left the top three sentences as they were. And I just changed the bold. Is that okay? Matt Saam: I guess I would just add 9:00 to 5:00 Saturdays. Mayor Furlong: Might I make a suggestion. It's been made and seconded. Let's do an amendment to the amendment. Perhaps if I can offer a suggestion. Since those are the hours of operation noted at the beginning, hauling operations will be allowed from, during hours of operation. Or as approved by the City Manager. If I could offer that amendment to your amendment. Councilman Labatt: Sure, I'll take it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second to the amendment to the amendment? Without getting bogged down here. Is there any discussion? I'll second that. Is there any discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to approve the amendment to the amendment that the hauling operations will be consistent with the hours of operation, or as approved by the City Manager. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion on the amendment? I can't ask for seconds so quickly. If there's none I'll vote on the amendment. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the amendment to condition 12 to read as follows: Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, and prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. Hauling operations will be consistent with the hours of operation, or as approved by the City Manager. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: The motion prevails. Now the original motion in front of us with items 22 and 23 having been added. Is there any further discussion? In the original motion? If there's none we' 11 call the question. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Interim Use Permit g03-02 with the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $8,400 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the interim use permit. The applicant must also pay the City an administration fee of $296 prior to the City signing the permit. . Storm sewer sizing calculations will have to be provided for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. . If excess material will be hauled to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. 10 City Council Meeting -June 9, 2003 o . o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. A rock construction entrance must be installed at the beginning of the driveway construction. Add a four foot high chain link fence to the west side of the proposed bituminous path along the entire length of the pond. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed District and MnDot, if applicable. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Top soiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. Hours of operation and hauling operations are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, and prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. In addition, if any dirt or debris is tracked onto Highway 41, the applicant will be required to sweep the road as necessary. Use the City's standard outlet control structure for the pond outlet, as per City Detail Plate #3109. Also, add the other following Detail Plates to the plans: 5300 & 5301. Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed pond. Show the proposed grading for the new bituminous path for the entire distance to Melody Hill Road. Revise the drive aisle widths of the eastern parking lot to be 26 feet in width, as per city code. Building Official conditions: bo The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. Provide plans and details of the accessible parking space signage for review. A plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning work on the site utilities. 11 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 19. The applicant shall verify the hawthorns planted on the south side of the parking lot have adequate growing space and protection if planted within the sidewalk. 20. The applicant shall make the minimum inside width of all landscape islands 10 feet. 21. An on-site water truck is required for daily dust control. 22. Minnetonka School District 276 introduce a mosquito control plan that would be acceptable to both the school and what the city staff recommends, based on what's an acceptable norm. 23. The Minnetonka School District lead a reasonable effort to resolve the drainage and trash issues brought forth by the Mancino' s, aided by Chanhassen city staff as necessary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR LAKESHORE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS~ LOT AREA WIDTH AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES~ 9221 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD~ TOM AND SUE SUTER. Public Present: Name Address Jim Hamilton Tom and Sue Suter 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, Council. The Suter's are requesting a variance to a lakeshore lot. A lot of record that has a home on the lot. This item appeared before the Planning Commission twice. The fa:st time on April 15th, at which time they were directed to make some changes. And then most recently on May 20th. At that time the Board of Adjustment is required to have a 4/5 or 75 percent vote. The Planning Commission made a 5 to 2 vote, therefore under the rules of the city code that recommendation, the Planning Commission's findings move forward as a recommendation so it's before you tonight as the Suter's are still pursuing their request. So again it was 5 to 2. Then this is the existing home on the lot. It's a lakeshore lot. It does not meet the lakeshore setbacks. It is the Suter's desire to tear the house down. Leave the garage and build a new home. The existing buildable area, as per ordinance is shown in green right here. In trying to work with the existing structure of the garage and stay consistent with the home that' s on the size of the home, modifying it. Two story with the second tucked in under the roof line. They came back with their first proposal. At that time the Planning Commission had some concerns about the amount of impervious surface had gone up. The clear directive at that time was to stay at the 35 percent impervious surface and the Suter's in their due diligence worked to pursue that and came back their second meeting with the revised. Again the home that was shown on the front is going away, so one of the goals in staff supporting the request is that they're moving the house back from the lakeshore, which is for us always a good thing and maintaining that impervious surface the same. The other issue was improving the sight lines for the other property owners. This is kind of anomaly sticking out. We're trying to the lakeshore, maintain that integrity and they've also worked hard to provide lakescape, which is another modeling technique that we're trying to work on. One of the issues I think the Planning Commission struggled with is trying to maintain the existing home is further back on the one side. The lot does taper as you go back to the existing garage and so that became kind of a 12 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 concern for some of the Planning Commissioners that we couldn't maintain that 8 foot, and again staying within the integrity of the square footage. If you want to go to your staff report, right behind the minutes on page 3 there's a table kind of showing the movement the applicant has pursued on the lot. Again maintain the existing 35 percent. The other issue too is we did measure the eaves of the house. Sometimes when you do a steep pitched roof you can kind of capture additional setback actually because the roof line is dripping close to the property line, so that was articulated and shown on this plan by the red showing that. Again the Planning Commission, with a 5 to 2 vote, but the planning staff also supported the recommendation so it's moving forward with a favorable recommendation and with the conditions outlined in the staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: I assume you have no reservations at all? Kate Aanenson: Staff?. No. I think you know, they've been great to work with. They've addressed the issues. They went back, brought in the technical people that we had concerns with the lakescape and the setbacks. Again looking at the buildable area, it is a 6,000 square foot lot. The home is a little bit bigger than the one that' s there but trying to keep the integrity of making it narrow. I think they did their good faith effort to try to find an architect that can meet that. Councilman Peterson: Good, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Other questions, if any. No. Mr. Suter, the applicants here? Tom Suter: My name is Tom Suter at 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard. Appreciate the opportunity. I submitted to you a two page handout which I'd like to reference. I'm not going to read through it. The first document is what I consider the summary of the variance approval process that we went through. It highlights a chain of events and the actions that we took in order to meet the recommendations and the suggestions of the Planning Commission as well as staff. This process for us started back in March. We contracted with, as Kate mentioned, an architectural firm who's one, very accustomed to building on small, challenged lots and I think we've attempted to try to compact the home into as small of a footprint as we can and still maintain a usable structure and size. We're not trying to build a large home. In addition to that, one of the key things that came out was the hard cover issue, as lakescaping issue. As I mentioned to Uli earlier this evening, what I think the Planning Commission did for us at the first meeting was really forced us to go back and do some further due diligence. As a result of that we contracted with an environmental design team by the name of Kestrel Design and the gentleman who founded that company, Peter McDonough. Very accustomed to dealing with lakeshore opportunities. Wetlands as well as lake restoration projects. They helped us understand what we need to do from a lakescaping perspective, which we're lay people at. He helped us understand how to deal with hard cover as it relates to utilization of rain gardens and the ability to mitigate runoff and try to maintain a more environmentally friendly environment, as well as meeting aesthetic requirements that we're trying to do for both side yard neighbors. One of the things that came up that was highlighted was, at the prior Planning Commission meeting we did have one of our neighbors present. It was the Baker's. They were able to attend. Hamilton's were not due to personal commitments. Hamilton's have shown up this evening so they can speak on this topic, if you'd like their opinion to be heard. So from a variance process, that's what we've addressed. What I'd like to do then is reference second page which is really the summary of the document. What we attempted to do, and what we have done is, at this point is move the home from approximately 28 feet off the lake today, to 57 feet. And in fact if you normalize that and you take out that little jet in area, if you 13 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 look on the drawing, we actually go well into the 60 plus foot range off of the lake, which deals with both the environmental issues as well as the aesthetic issues for our neighbors. We did improve the east side setback from the current home which is 3 feet 3 inches. We've moved that to the 6 foot mark, and 5 foot if you factor the eaves in. On the west side, which is the Hamilton side, we currently have a variance that we submit that was granted back in the early 90's for the garage. That is a 4 foot 4 inch, or a 3 foot 4 inch with eaves factored in. From the prior meeting what we would actually like to do is request that we have a little bit of flexibility with that setback. Today we brought that in for the, as you can see here. From this distance here, which is the back of the garage to the front, we brought that in an additional foot and a half to get us to a 6 foot or a 5 foot with eaves. One of the things we'd like to do is have a little bit of flexibility with that so we can work with the architect to do some interesting scaling on that side wall if you will. Not to move the entire wall out but do some scaling so that we can attempt to create a little more interest on that side, and not have it be a large fiat linear surface, which will be more I think appealing to Hamilton's which are on the west side of the home. We did, and we want to be held accountable to hard cover percentage of 35 percent so anything that we would from a foundation perspective, move in on that site. We have to take out somewhere else. We want to be held accountable to that number. The other thing we've done is we will and have moved ahead with implementing the lakescaping design concept and like I said, we've retained Kestrel Design to do that. We also suggested and have recommended, we'd like to turn our home into a demonstration site to try to promote more lakescaping concepts on the lake. In fact we had a neighbor call this evening complaining about erosion and wave control issues. One of the things we're going to do when we get together is talk a little bit about the notion of lakescaping and some alternatives to just putting in boulder retaining walls in that area. As I mentioned to Uli this evening, I'm going to talk to Peter McDonough and see if he's willing to offer his assistance to even put on a mini- seminar for lake owners. Homeowners on the lake in an effort to educate people on the whole concept of lakescaping and doing things for an environmental perspective. And I guess in closing we have talked to neighbors, the Hamilton's, the Yetzen's and the Pothoff' s to the west. We've talked to the Baker's and the Hastings to the east. And we have, I think safe to say full support from all five of our side immediate neighbors in support of our project. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Tom Suter: Any questions? Mayor Furlong: No. Thank you. Appreciate your efforts. Kate, I guess I'll ask the question. The item that Mr. Suter brought up with regard to flexibility along that west side. How do we define flexibility? Kate Aanenson: Well we've changed the code on that. We were giving variances then we found out the ordinance, our city code does allow for extended encroachments into that side yard setback. For example bay window. Those sort of things. A box. So what we were finding is people were getting a variance and then they were capitalizing and actually taking that additional setback, so we changed the code to say, if you've got a variance you can't use that, built in flexibility. Certainly I think the neighbors concern is the aesthetics on that wall. I think we'd like to work with them but staff would like some definitive direction on how much flexibility you're willing to give so we don't offend anybody as far as you know, that certain percentage of that wall or something like that. I think that'd be helpful for us. Tom Suter: Great point Kate. I apologize for not mentioning it. We would be happy to once we know we've got the go ahead, when we get the architectural drawings back we'd be happy to work with staff and we'll continue to work with our neighbors, which is what we've had. Which 14 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 is what we've done up to this point already. Shown them the drawings as well as incorporating their ideas and thoughts into the landscaping strategies as well because of the constraints on the sidewalks. So we have no issue working with staff and coming up with an acceptable solution so we can get around that flexibility topic as well as the neighbors. Kate Aanenson: Again, because this is a variance, we need something quantitative to say a certain percentage to encroach, otherwise I just want to make clear for the record what that would be. I mean are we talking. Mayor Furlong: So working with staff, you're not comfortable just working with staff? Kate Aanenson: I think that's a little ambiguous. I can check with the city attorney but it is a variance. Roger Knutson: Just help me understand it. Are we talking about not an encroachment of the foundation but an encroachment of cantilevered something or other? Kate Aanenson: What we're talking about this fascia right here. Tom Suter: Yes. Kate Aanenson: And they would like the opportunity, again our code doesn't allow for encroachments on a variance. Roger Knutson: Right, encroachment of what though? Kate Aanenson: I'm assuming a bay window or? Tom Suter: It could be a bay window, and actually if we did do a bay window, if it only extends out a foot, we're still within the eaves so we're okay on that. But there could be some additional dormers that we want to do on the roofline which could extend out which are going to be up at the top level. Or we may decide to do some other you know on this comer right here, we may decide from aesthetics perspective to bring a slight wing wall out so that it helps to widen the face to the lake a little bit so it doesn't look tall and narrow. Those are the types of things, and if we said I think somebody said a percentage. If that's acceptable we could say no more than 20 percent, 25 percent on that wall. Roger Knutson: I mean you could, what I would suggest is you list the types of things and it could be as generic or as general as, you'll allow additional encroachment for items that do not extend to the foundation such as dormers and windows. And the encroachment may not exceed, I'm very reluctant to throw out numbers. I don't know what the right number is, that's your job. I' 11 just throw something out, one foot? Kate Aanenson: I think he needs more than one foot. Roger Knutson: Two feet? I have no idea what we're talking about. Kate Aanenson: ...beyond the eave line would be enough? Tom Suter: Yes. 15 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Okay, one foot. Roger Knutson: One foot? Is that, one foot. Councilman Ayotte: I heard what the lawyer said, did you Craig? Councilman Peterson: Yes I did. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Mayor Furlong: We're working on the advice of the lawyer here? Councilman Peterson: For the first time, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Well, might as well try something different. Roger Knutson: So you allow encroachments of items that do not go down to the foundation up to one foot. Mayor Furlong: Is there any need, I mean the idea is to break up the straight wall but again. Kate Aanenson: Right. It might be good to have an intent statement, going back to the way Roger figured, maybe for architectural interest so it's clear what the intent is. Roger Knutson: Right, so the whole thing doesn't cantilever over. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: That's a good point. Roger Knutson: Doors, windows, he said wing wall. Kate Aanenson: He said wing wall. Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what a wing wall is but okay. Wing wall. Architectural features and similar architectural features that do not extend to the foundation. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we're getting them all. Alright. Where are we? We've had the staff report and the applicants. Discussion for the council. Anybody want to start? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think that we always look for a couple things, or at least I do. I think we all do generally. Improving the lakeshore. We've accomplished that. We've got a building that we're going to be improving and we've got the setback clearly that is going to be better. Neighbors are all okay with it. Staff is okay with it. This is one of those what I would consider kind of a no brainer. The only thing I'm struggling with is how I'm going to word that condition. So I'm comfortable with it and I'm comfortable with the condition as we've tried to articulate thus far so. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion? Councilman Labatt: I would agree with Craig. This is an area of Chanhassen that some of us in 16 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 the next 4 years will see a couple more of these variances. And the one that we had was Brendan Witt that...the City and we really did a great job down there on the end of Lake Riley Boulevard so this is obviously, I would think all five of us would approve this. I'll just throw out a possible wording here. I scribbled out here that we would allow encroachments on the west wall of the residence of non-foundation items such as dormers, bay windows, wing walls of up to one foot or 12 inches beyond that line. Councilman Peterson: Beyond the eaves. Councilman Labatt: Beyond the eaves, yeah. That's what I mean. I just scribbled that out. Mayor Furlong: Can they pick either the one foot or the 12 inches? Councilman Labatt: I was just clarifying it for Ayotte. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Ayotte: 12 inches to me is pretty damn long. Mayor Furlong: Alright, other discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I would second the opinions of Mr. Peterson and Labatt and commend the Suter's for their work and going, being flexible enough to go back and address the initial concerns of the Planning Commission and the city and to the Planning Commission as well I think, I recognize their 5 to 2 vote and where they were at by reading through the minutes and I think it's an example of the process working well. And although it might have taken a little longer than maybe we would have liked, I think that we had done the due diligence so I think it's a great plan. Mayor Furlong: Good. Mr. Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Well one comment. I really appreciate the fact that you complimented the Planning Commission because they do...in the city and they don't get enough nods so I think we all appreciate that because they do work hard, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Well I'll just, I won't take any time but job well done by the applicant, the Planning Commission, staff, everybody. It's nice to see all this effort done up front because I think we're going to have a much, you're going to have a much nicer home and it's going to meet everybody's needs going forward so with that, is there a motion. Mr. Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Sure. I would move that we approve the conditions outlined in the staff report, subject to 1 through 6 as staff has indicated and I'll add number 7. That we allow encroachments on the west side of the residence of non-foundation items, an example dormers, bay windows, wing walls, of up to 12 inches beyond the eaves. Clear? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Second. 17 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? If there's no amendments. If there is no other discussion, we' 11 call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve Variance 92003-7 for a 13,535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first 11.5 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to 5 feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the reconstruction of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and based upon the following conditions: A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. . The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north arrow; show a 12 inch or greater trees on the site and along the neighboring property lines; and the existing shed to the east. No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type m silt fence must be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. . As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. o The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prepared for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan. . Encroachments on the west side of the residence of non-foundation items, i.e. dormers, bay windows, wing walls, of up to 12 inches beyond the eaves will be acceptable. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN EXCESS OF 1~000 CUBIC YARDS~ 1916 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE~ BRIAN CARNEY. Matt Saam: Thank you Mayor Furlong, council members. The applicant is requesting an IUP to bring in approximately 1,900 cubic yards of fill. The site located on the monitor, or on the monitor just, it's located on the east side of Galpin Boulevard, north of Lake Lucy and just south of Crestview Circle in Chanhassen. We do have a plan for the permit, and just to bring you up to speed quickly on the existing site conditions and what is proposed. The site drops off quickly. There's a steep slope going down to the east off of Galpin Boulevard. There is an existing creek, or drainage way which goes through the site, flowing from north to south. The applicant is proposing to utilize a 24 inch culvert to deal with the creek drainage. Because of the steep slopes coming down off Galpin, the applicant is proposing steep slopes along both sides of the driveway. 18 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 In addition to two 4 foot tall retaining walls, double retaining walls for a total of 8 feet in height on both the north and south side of the driveway. There are really three main issues or concerns that were raised at Planning Commission. Those were the location of the access point or driveway to the site. Whether it came off of Crestview or Galpin. The second would be sight distance. Existing sight distance on Galpin Boulevard. And lastly the safety of the proposed driveway. First off the site access location. The applicant has been working and meeting with his neighbors to the north here at 1961 Crestview and just to the east of him at 1951 Crestview Circle, to see about the viability of accessing his lot through their property to Crestview Circle. That would require a private easement across his neighbors lots. I spoke with the applicant prior to tonight's meeting. No headway really has been made. No agreement has been reached to allow the driveway off of Crestview Circle. So without the driveway off of Crestview Circle, the only access point left would be off of Galpin Boulevard. Now the County, Galpin is a County road. They do have jurisdiction over that road and they have approved a driveway permit for the applicant so he has the legal right to access his site off Galpin. Second issue was existing sight distance on Galpin. I was out to the site, and if you're standing on the curb line, like a car would be as it comes down to Galpin and you look to the north or to the right, you can see a very far distance. There's sufficient sight distance to the north. It's when you turn to your left to look to the south, there's a hill just to the south of the site that obstructs your view of an oncoming car when it' s on the downstream side of that hill. Interestingly when I was out at the site, if we could zoom in on this. This is a plan of Galpin Boulevard. Here's the property in question. There is an existing driveway directly across the street from the site so there is precedence. We wouldn't be setting new precedence here. An existing lot is accessing onto Galpin right across the street so I find it difficult to deny this applicant the right to do the same thing. And lastly, the safety of the proposed driveway was an issue at the Planning Commission. Their thinking was, when people are either coming in to the site or leaving, we have steep slopes on each side of the driveway with an 8 foot retaining walls with nothing to prevent cars in a winter condition from sliding off the slope. The site does slope in off of Galpin Boulevard, so a condition has been added and the applicant agrees with it to construct either a fence or guardrail to prevent cars from sliding off of the driveway. With that we are recommending approval and I'd be happy to take any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: The only one that I have is, and I'm cautious to do it, is outside my realm but 24 inch culvert seems awful small for a creek. I haven't driven by this spot to see a creek, but during a 100 year rain, is 24 inches going to handle it? Matt Saam: Well we have added a condition that the applicant supply drainage calculations from engineer, someone like that to prove that the culvert would be sized big enough. He hasn't done that as of yet so when he does that, we'll review it and ensure that it's sized or it's got to be bigger. Councilman Peterson: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Is there anything Matt with regard, maybe you could talk a little bit about the creek and wetlands. Part of, residents need access to their property, but with the steep fall off and just looking at the plan, there's a significant portion of what's currently woods and the creek down there that will be covered. Did you, was consideration given to try to mitigate the area of coverage from the fill standpoint, given the topography? Matt Saam: Yes. I'll answer that in two parts. First off the applicant has obtained wetland permit to do that filling because it is filling of the creek. He's gone through the process. Loft 19 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator has approved that. I believe the amount of fill is under the 2,000 deminimus so I don't think he had to go through the core and those sorts of things, but Lori has looked at it. It was delineated so he did his due diligence that way. In regards to minimizing the amount of fill, I believe the applicant is doing that. Without the retaining walls, you would need to extend the slope down to the south, going down at 3 to 1 so we'd be doing more filling. Same thing on the north side, so I think he's really doing about the best he can with the situation he has. It' s really a tough site if you've been out there so. Mayor Furlong: Yep. And I guess that's the question. Is this the best that can be done to minimize the fill and minimize the, in terms of the location. Location of the driveway and. Matt Saam: Well location, I think everybody's in agreement we'd like to see it come off Crestview Circle. You know we'd like to see something in this pattern. But again, without the permission of the neighbors, he's really left with only the one access point. I think he's doing about the best job he can to minimize the fill, without constructing taller retaining walls. He could do that to minimize the fill but then I don't know what that gets you. It's more costly and so it' s, six one way half a dozen the other. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I' ve got one more question. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: What about in years past, in other things we've always had them supply a route of which they're going to be hauling. I don't see that, is that a condition in here? Unless I missed it. Matt Saam: Yeah, there should be a condition stating that. I reviewed the staff report right before, and let me grab mine. Yes, a haul route has to be provided. I have spoke with the applicant. He told me where he's getting the dirt from. It's another active construction site down Lake Lucy on a residential street. So, but he will have to submit that in writing. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So I take it, it's coming from in Chan? Matt Saam: Yep. Councilman Labatt: And it's going to get dumped in Chan. Matt Saam: It is coming from Chanhassen. We will review that. Councilman Labatt: So why don't we then, similar to what we did with Minnetonka School, add a condition about dust control and clean-up the road. If it' s on our streets, and it' s a rainy, muddy day and they' re going to haul and fling mud down the road, and we as residents drive down Lake Lucy and hit all these chunks of mud as go up to our homes, we should have the authority to shut them down until they clean the road or the weather changes. Matt Saam: Yes, we could add that condition. That's certainly something that we will do. I guess my thinking was whether it's an actual condition or not. Staff, the City Engineer has the right I'll call it to shut down hauling operations if they're dirtying the streets. But we can certainly add that condition to this interim use permit now if you'd like to. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, don't you think we'd like to? I mean Lake Lucy gets a lot of traffic. 20 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Matt Saam: Another thing to keep in mind, this is different from the school site. It's about a quarter of the amount of grading so it's a relatively small site, but I think it's a good point that you raise. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I mean if it's that small a site, the chance of a lot of dirt and clunks going back and forth just add up to me so. I'd like to add it as 26 and come up with something. Mayor Furlong: If I may add, are you speaking to condition 13 on the Minnetonka permit? Councilman Labatt: Let me look at your's real quick. Mayor Furlong: Change out Highway 41. Is that the issue? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, although that's in here. Where'd I read it? That's in here as 15. The applicant is responsible for any damage sustained from truck hauling. I'd like to just make it a separate one. Just take 13 from the Minnetonka and why don't you go ahead and make that as an amendment when I make the motion. Mayor Furlong: Maybe you can just add it in, in your motion. I don't want amendments. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So that's my only comment so we'll have an additional coming down the shoot here. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Don't turn that page man. Put a marker there or something. Okay, that's my only comments. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Sir, would you like to address the council? Brian Carney: My name's Brian Carney. I live on 6566 Shadow Lane. About a halfa mile from the site. I guess my only comment would be this stream that runs through this lot is nothing more than a little drainage trough that's been probably eroded there over the years. I think it's runoff from the street and there's actually a little percolating water on the neighbor's yard that adds to this. I don't know how much water ever goes through there but it doesn't seem like, I've never seen much go through there, even on heavy rains. I'm just trying to minimize my cost on this piece of property because I don't want to get upside down on it so I just ask that we try to stay as realistic as we can on some of these conditions. That's all I have to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions? Thank you sir. Bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: I think it's reasonable. Let's go ahead. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there' s no discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: I would move that we approve Interim Use Permit ~)3-1 subject to the following conditions as laid out in the staff report, 1 through 25. And we'll add number 26 to read, the applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from truck hauling and construction services. And in addition, if any dirt or debris is tracked onto Highway 41, or 21 City Council Meeting -June 9, 2003 Lake Lucy or any residential streets, including Galpin Boulevard, the applicant will be required to sweep the road as necessary. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve Interim Use Permit g03-1, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the Interim Use Permit. 2. Culvert sizing calculations will have to be provided for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. , If fill is coming from another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. , All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. , The applicant shall pay the City an administration fee of $208 prior to the City signing the permit. 7. An erosion control blanket must be installed on the south side of the driveway slope. 8. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey. Comply with the Carver County conditions of approval letter dated April 11, 2002 for a driveway access permit to the site. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed District. 11. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. 12. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disc mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 13. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid by the applicant. 22 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 14. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 16. The applicant shall construct and maintain a rock gravel construction access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. 17. Building Official conditions: a. do The retaining walls must be designed by a professional engineer. Soil and compaction testing is required on the proposed building site if any fill will be placed there, the results must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. If city sewer service is not available to the property, two (2) acceptable on-site sewage treatment sites must be located by a licensed professional and the information must be submitted to the Inspections Division. The sites must be marked and protected to prevent damage from the grading activity. The address for the property shall be 6591 Galpin Boulevard. 18. The applicant shall plant a minimum of five trees and shrubs and 20 shrubs on the slopes of the proposed drive to help minimize run-off and improve erosion control. The tree species shall be deciduous and a minimum 1 inch diameter for the trees. Shrubs shall be at least 2 feet high when planted. Proposed planting sites and species selection shall be approved by the city prior to planting. 19. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to minimize the slope. 20. The driveway will be revised to have a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacent to Galpin. 21. Submit fill material types and borrow sources to the city for approval. 22. Add a turn around to the driveway. 23. Submit an as-built survey to the city upon completion. 24. The applicant will work with staff on the installation of a barrier along the north and south side of the driveway. 25. The driveway shall line up with the driveway on the opposite side of Galpin Boulevard. 26. If any dirt or debris is tracked onto Lake Lucy or any residential streets, including Galpin Boulevard, the applicant will be required to sweep the road as necessary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 23 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY; REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A 427 UNIT TOWNHOME PRO,IECT ON 94.8 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, EAST OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK; TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT AND CHARLES MATTSON. Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor Furlong, council members. As stated, this is a two part review. The first part is a land use amendment. This property is located on Lyman Boulevard, south of the railroad tracks. To the north of it, across the tracks is Stone Creek subdivision. To the west is industrial development within the City of Chaska. To the east is the Bluff Creek corridor and then residential development across that creek valley, and to the south is additional future office industrial development within the community. This land, the 94 acres in this land represents a portion of, there's a total industrial development of 1,135 acres. There was an error in the previous report that was pointed by the applicant. We had 1,035 acres and it's really 1,135 acres. This land use amendment would reduce the amount of industrial land from 8.3 percent to 7.7 percent. As part of our review of this we would, looking at the amount of vacant industrial land from the 1998 comprehensive plan, it may be a little hard to see but we've passed this spread sheet out to council members and to the applicant. In 1998 we had 758 acres of vacant industrial land. These represent all the office industrial site plans that have been approved from them. It comes to approximately 126 acres. That leaves us currently with 632 vacant gross industrial acres in the community, including this 94 acres. Were we to remove this 94 acres from our industrial land, it represents approximately 16 percent of our potential industrial development in the community. Part of the comprehensive plan states that we want to preserve industrial land and maintain a balance in our land uses. We believe the amendment for this reduces that beyond an acceptable limit, so we're recommending denial of the land use amendment. The second part of the review was a concept PUD review for a townhouse development on the property. While we didn't go into detail with this, we are recommending denial of the concept plan because of inconsistency with the office industrial land use. As part of the planning staff report, we did look at this and were the council to approve the land use amendment, there are some conditions that the applicant would need to review and overcome prior to moving onto the next phase. Again we recommend, the Planning Commission reviewed this at their meeting, and also voted to deny the land use amendment and concept PUD. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. If there are none, is the applicant here or representative? Good evening. Jason Osberg: Good evening mayor and City Council members. My name's Jason Osberg. I'm with Tollefson Development, 17271 Kenyon Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota, 55044. Tonight I have with me the property owner, Mr. Charles Mattson and the president of our company, Carl Tollefson. What I wanted to do this evening is address the staff memo. Address the concerns that were raised at the Planning Commission and try to report a positive spin on that or show you the advantages of why this is good for the city of Chanhassen. Number one, and I do have extra of these can be handed out or not. About the first and most glaring piece of information is that Mr. Mattson has had this property on the market since the mid 1990's and there's only been one potential commercial industrial user step forward, and with the addition of more commercial industrial land near Highway 212, 312 and in the future, and your existing inventory along Highway 5, we feel that it's a hardship for the property owner to sell this property given the fact that it's going to be passed over several more times by a possible commercial industrial users, given the reasons I've cited. In addition to that, if you look at the topography on the site, it's not conducive to commercial industrial. If you look at the sluggish economy right now for 24 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 commercial industrial vacancy rates in the southwest metro, you'll see that it's going to take quite a while for them to rebound and then just the location itself, kind of off the beaten path away from your traffic corridors, it just lends itself better for a residential site. Second thing I want to talk about is something I read in the Star Tribune yesterday, but it's the 2004 LGA cuts for cities, and Chanhassen here showing your current LGA level at $323,000. Now in 2004, the way I understand this, the way it was approved is that the City of Chanhassen will receive zero dollars in LGA next year if indeed this is correct, which apparently this was approved in the special session. The importance of this is that we're here tonight with an application to put development fees, building fees, tax revenue, available to the city to help offset this deficit that's going to be occurring in the very near future. Third thing that I want to point out is on the tax analysis that we had prepared by a professional individual named Bill Fahey in this realm. I've got a commercial comparison, which I believe all the council members got this report but I've got two pages that I really want to bring out. The first one is the potential Chanhassen commercial development projected out to the year 2021. I know that it's hard to read but what it's projecting is that development of this kind could occur in 2009. We don't even know if the marketplace would sustain that at that time, given the reasons I talked about earlier. You're looking at $11,200,000 roughly for commercial industrial taxes. In comparison we've got exhibit here for residential showing $23,832,000 for residentially guided and approved development project. This is a difference of roughly 12 ¥2, over 12 ¥2 million dollars in tax revenue between now and the year 2021. City staff has talked about in their staff memos a good balance, a good mix for tax base for commercial industrial versus residential. While we agree with that, we also cite the importance and the ability for the city to make tax revenue today and proj~t out over the year 2021 that huge difference. South of our property there was a proposed, or there is a proposed development by Town and Country. Now in that staff review, if I can read this to you. It says the advantage of multi-family is that it creates a market for additional commercial uses and housing for workers. It appears based on the current tax policy 2002, multi-family would pay more taxes. What I wanted to do with this is just say that there are very many similarities between our proposal to what Town and Country is showing in terms of the number of units, the type of units, general location, things like that. So the next thing that we kind of wanted to talk about, bring out and I know Bob Generous talked a little bit about this in his opening, but if you look at the neighboring land uses to the north and to the east you have single family residential. Both of which appear to be fairly expensive, very nice established neighborhoods. Now to the west in Chaska you' ve got an industrial park and to the south you could have some commercial industrial uses. From our perspective and a planning background, the transition from single family to multi-family which we're proposing, to commercial seems to make good sense. It's a nice transition of land uses as you move away from the single family neighborhood that is already established on two sides of this project. Existing site conditions we already talked about, or I just briefly mentioned, but this site is very, very rugged. You've got quite a bit of topography that would have to be dealt with from any type of development standpoint. Now it's our feeling that commercial industrial's going to require much more grading, flat pads, large expanse of areas of building pads and parking lots. Now our residential development would be able to better hand fit the contours of the land. We'd be able to create walkout units. We'd be able to create something that goes a little better to the land than just simply flattening out for commercial and industrial uses. Another item of note is this pipeline that exists on the property. That too is going to be a major limiting factor in any type of commercial industrial development that could occur on the site. Residential, we've shown a concept plan that works around that pipeline, and doesn't require any moving or impact to that site with the exclusion of the one road crossing proposal. While I'm on the topic of the concept plan I just want to let you know that that's a working document. That is subject to change. This is something that we put together to show the city staff what could happen on the site, so if a land use amendment were to be created here, by no means is the concept plan something that we have to have approved. Parkland seems to be a key 25 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 issue in every community that we do work in. Right now we show on the east side of the property quite a bit of acreage as future parkland. Now, if I understand correctly this is the last segment, or last vacant parcel of the Bluff Creek trail corridor before you get down to Lyman Boulevard. We feel this is an opportunity during platting process at the City Council, the parks department and the residents can obtain this land for that connection. In addition to this parkland we want to create something unique in your city. We're looking at a spray park which is kind of a little different concept than a community pool, but we've got a couple of pictures. I don't know if these made it into the packet, but these seems to be popping up in other locations and have got good reviews by city officials. Kind of neat. They're ADA compliant and they seem to have better safety track records than a regular pool may have. The last thing we wanted to talk about during this is the fact that at the Planning Commission we heard a few of the residents say, we bought the land knowing it's going to be commercial industrial. Now that's something you know that can't really give you any good response to other than the fact that there was one lady who spoke and she said something about the fear of the unknown. We highly agree with that. Who knows, I mean the City of Chaska sent a letter saying that there's noise, odor, pollution or something like that coming from their industrial park to the west. Well with the similar land guiding, that's only going to create more of those potential adverse effects on the neighbors that already are north and east of this site in Chanhassen. A high quality residential project that we would propose, you know what you're getting. You're getting a nice looking project. You're getting something where we're going to create many varieties of housing types. We can work on styles. We can look at pads. We can look at affordability. The City of Chanhassen wants to see affordability here, that's something we can work with the City and the city staff on. You've got the possible, or possibilities for mass transit. You've got bus lines in this area. You've got a nice business community here. We could create a walkable community or a non-car or non- automobile related community. We'd have links to the downtown areas. We have the trails. We'd have bus lines. Things like that, so we can work and create a new urbanism concept. We can create walkability, but the thing we want to stress the most is that we're here to do a good job. We'd like to do something in this community. We'd like to work with city staff, Planning Commission and City Council, we know we can achieve something that the city would be proud of. So with that, you know I think we covered the things that we wanted to talk about. I'd be open to any questions, comments, concerns. Things like that. Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions for the applicant? Councilman Ayotte: I have some questions with regard to primarily to shoot towards staff with the numbers that Mr. Osberg brought up, and Mr. Osberg I apologize for not returning your call. It just got away from me but I have had some discussions with another fellow, I can't remember his name but, on this subject so I think I' m fairly well aware of what' s going on. Is there a linear relationship to the revenue that he was describing and the offset of cost for utility? Have you had any use of those? Kate Aanenson: I think that's the one fire that we say they didn't address the service cost, where there might be a quick return on the industrial but there wasn't a service cost based with the residential which is a big question mark. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, and another question with regard to, and Mr. Osberg brought up affordable housing. Did we ever approach the folks that were looking towards affordable housing opportunities, the rental properties and so forth, we were going to have some staff discussion. Did that. Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about the rental licensing? 26 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: Right. Did that get anywhere which would influence our targets for affordable. Kate Aanenson: We're working on redrafting some of that. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Alright. And with regard, I think you stated 16 percent affect on the commercial. Kate Aanenson: Future. Councilman Ayotte: The remaining 16 percent. Jason Osberg: Right. Councilman Ayotte: Is there any way that that would possibly change at some point, and what vehicle would allow that amount of land available for commercial application? Kate Aanenson: Change more or less? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yes. In the 2005 MUSA, as we're studying it, again that's our main premise that we believe this is premature. We're studying that area. Looking at not only the traffic generation but certainly the environmental features and looking at. Councilman Ayotte: Do you have a sense as to, depending on which way we go, where our commercial land availability would be? Kate Aanenson: Well the wild card out there that we're looking at too is to say you know Chaska has successfully filled that industrial park. To say this is that far out I'm not sure that we can predict that but the one thing we do know is it looks like 212 is on the tracks and that's going to change our world significantly as far as what's going to happen in that southern area of town, and that's what we' re trying to plan for. With the implications of that. Councilman Ayotte: I'm just kind of getting the feeling that if, in a little bit more time we'd have a better view of the world. Kate Aanenson: That's certainly staff' s perspective. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for the applicant. I guess the only question I would have, as long as you're here, I would just ask to staff if you have any comments on the issues that he raised. Kate Aanenson: Well the grading issue, I'm not sure that we can say that there'd be less grading on this site. That's difficult to say based on that product type, because you have to match the elevations of the garage going into the elevations of the garage on either side, and you do end up mass grading it. We know Pulte's told us they've got the project. We know what kind of product they do. That doesn't mean we can't ask for a different product but I'm not sure that we can say 27 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 it's going to be less grading. I mean you have to do pads but you still have to match driveway entrances and the like. Unless they come in with a much different product than we've seen that they've done in there based on the density that they're showing with this project. The pipeline runs through commercial and residential through town. I'm not sure that's an either or issue. Or for the staff, it runs through the entire community. Bob Generous: The one point on their commercial tax analysis, I did ask Bruce to look at that and his comments were, he believed that the start of the industrial development may be a little late from our perspective, and his present value analysis is a little high. They're using 6 ½ percent. We think 2 to 3 percent is more reasonable. The difference starts to go away. The other option, or the other question is always the expenditure side. There's no good numbers on it but a 1990 study showed that for residential you spend $1.40 for each dollar you have in tax revenue. For industrial it's 40 cents for every dollar so. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, that was $1.407 Bob Generous: $1.04. Mayor Furlong: $1.04, thank you. Okay. Good, any other questions or anything else? Charles Mattson: I'm Charles Mattson. I reside at 2870 Wheeler Street North in Roseville. Members of the council. I am here to support the applicant Tollefson Development regarding this project. I have had this property on the market with various brokers for approximately 10 years. I don't like signs particularly on my property so even though it's listed, you may not see a sign out there. And up to this point, actually all of the valid purchase agreements I've had on this property have been primarily for residential use. We did have a purchase agreement back about '97 in which Lifetime Fitness was looking at this property, but the rest of the property would have been residential, if that buyer had proceeded any further. Only one buyer has ever appeared before the Planning Commission until now. That was the Horton Company, as you guys are well aware of. And my feeling is that, I've owned this property now since October 30, 1987. Almost 16 years, and I can see owning this property probably for another 10 to 12 years if it's only going to be allowed to be industrial commercial property. I'm also very familiar with this property. I mowed the lawn personally by the old homestead from 1988 until 2001, and I never encountered any foul odors from the industrial park to the west. If I were to walk down by the road once in a while I would smell some baked goods from that pie plant up there, but that wasn't anything of any concern to me. Also I've walked the farm road from Galpin Boulevard back to the underpass on the railroad numerous times, especially in the later 80's prior to the development of any property to the east of my property. And in taking those walks again I never experienced any foul smells coming from the Chaska industrial area, so I don't really take that very seriously, as that could be of any concern to any residential development here. And I also am quite an environmentalist by nature. I fought to keep my oak trees back in 1988 when that power line went through but that didn't quite work out, since someone had gone in there and already had cut without authorization some oak trees down so the issue became somewhat moot. There is a well on the property which I have maintained it's permit for over the years thinking that this well at some point could become part of a trail going from the southern boundary of the property along the trail that's also out there. And so I would than you for your consideration of this and if you have any question, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Are there any other questions? No? Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back to council for discussion. 28 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Carl Tollefson: Say Mayor, mind if I just have a couple words here? Mayor Furlong: I don't mind at all. Carl Tollefson: Alright, good. Thank you very much. My name is Carl Tollefson and I just wanted to address one of the staff members. I didn't quite understand when he was saying when he talked about industrial land versus single family land on a dollar, was it a $1.04 or $1.40, what'd you say again? I'm sorry. Bob Generous: There was a 1992 study that came up that said residential development costs $1.04 for every dollar of revenue. And industrial was 40 cents for every dollar of revenue. Carl Tollefson: Okay, and that was based on single family or townhomes? Bob Generous: No, it was based on residential housing. They didn't make the distinction. Carl Tollefson: So that's a 11 year old study you're going by? There wasn't even townhouses built back that many years ago hardly. Today we're talking about townhouses today. I mean that's a big difference. Mayor Furlong: Sir, I would appreciate if you could direct your comments to the council. Carl Tollefson: Okay, well anyway I'm thinking that his report is really an obsolete report he's referring to. You know we all know townhomes and a single family home is going to be much different. First of all the townhomes have less school kids. You've got less school impact on the schools and a lot of your money goes towards schools and so I think that study is an obsolete study. Number two is, I guess with all the parkland, I mean this is like a 90 acre site but it's only about a 50 acre usable townhouse site so you've got about 40 acres of open space out there and it seems to me that's more of a conducive area for single family versus industrial. You get the residents could use the park and it'd be more of a conducive, it's more compatible I feel for residential use there. And the sellers mentioned, as he said a moment ago, he's been on this, this land's been on the market now for about 10 years. Over the last 10 years he hasn't found a buyer for it and some of the numbers they were throwing out tonight is based on this land being industrial some day. Well, 10 years from now that land could still be vacant and still no dollars coming in on it so, I mean here's an opportunity today for the city to generate some income off this site. I mean we're saying here today, we will develop this site for residential use and you know where you're at today with some of these numbers. If you don't do that, you're looking at the unknown. You don't know when this site's ever going to be developed. Maybe never. You have some land coming on line apparently in 212 and your future land use here and if you've got industrial coming in that area, why would anybody want to go to this area? They're probably going to go where the 212 is area, the easy access for industrial and they'll just by-pass this site entirely so this land seller who's been paying taxes for the last 10 years wants to get this property sold and he could be sitting there 10 years, he could be walking in the door 10 years from now and asking to rezone again because he still hasn't sold it so. And as far as the city's study goes right now, if they know they're going to rezone this to single family, or excuse me to residential, they know that, well then they do their study, they know that maybe they want to put some more industrial over there then. It seems to me like it should work in reverse. Like here's an opportunity to do a proper study, because you know this industrial's no longer available, this land so. There's my two cents. Thank you. 29 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. With that if there's no other discussion presentations we'll bring it back to the council. For discussion. Councilman Labatt: Just a quick question of staff. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Our comp plan was last updated last year or two years ago? Bob Generous: 1998. Councilman Labatt: Okay, '98 and we went through last year, what, I'm trying to, refresh my memory again when we last went through an actual update. Kate Aanenson: It was guided industrial in '91 and it didn't change when we did the 1998 update. Councilman Labatt: Right, and in this time, has the owner ever come in and ask for, to explain that he can't develop this as commercial industrial, has he ever come in and asked for a land use amendment or an amendment to the comp plan in that timeframe? Kate Aanenson: There's been other applicants. The one you have in here that they mentioned, D.L. Horton came in for residential one. Councilman Labatt: Right, but we've never looked at amending our comp plan to change this? Okay. I just, my quick comment with our 2005 area coming down the shoot here and looking at what we have there, I think this is just the wrong time to look at changing this. As I explained to Mr. Atkinson from this company, when I talked to him on the phone, my position when Pulte was in here is, hasn't changed with this is residents in Stone Creek and Valley Ridge bought their property, some took the due diligence as myself and my neighbors over in Longacres of what's on the comer of 5 and 41. It was medium density and low density housing, north and south of West 78th. When Pulte came in and tried to make it high density, we told them no. Come in and give us what it's guided for. Don't come and change it. And that's what I'm hearing from people over in Stone Creek and Valley Ridge. You'll have your one or two that say well this is f'me with me but the majority prevails and I've heard from too many people that they don't want this so, leave it at that. Mayor Furlong: Further discussion? Councilman Ayotte: First off, I think the fact that the discussion between staff and Mr. Mattson and the developers is a good thing. However I'd like to wait longer to see where things brash out with the possibilities of having an effect on what properties would be available for commercial application. And I'm not being facetious. When you showed me this picture fight here, I was listening but when that one came up, going next to Longacres, I'm sure they'd come after me. So I think what Steve's a little bit more integration with the sense of, what would be desired at some point in time but again I prefer to wait a little bit longer to see where we are with commercial application down the road. 212 is a big deal. I think waiting a little bit longer would be prudent. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Further discussion? 30 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: I do not share the opinion of Mr. Ayotte and Labatt. I think that the transition is good from the single family home to Lyman for the changes in multi family housing and can't argue with the bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush so for the financial impacts as well I favor the proposal. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything further? Councilman Peterson: Yeah I think where I'm at, I look at 2005 area that I'm not willing to forego lOP in this area until I do know what everything else is going to be appropriate so, and I don't want to make a decision until I have to for the general benefits of Chanhassen so I'm not ready to make that tonight. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think a lot of the issues have come up and I agree in a sense with Councilman Lundquist in terms of you have something. You like growth, you like development. I'm not sure that right now is the right time. I think a lot of the issues that have been raised are interesting given the planning that's going on with the 2005 MUSA, since that is so close. We're not that far away especially when we're looking at a permanent change. And it doesn't preclude from re-visiting this at some point in the not too distant future, if that' s deemed appropriate. A lot of the issues here I think are interesting. The financial issues of course are issues that this council's going to be working with in the coming months as we deal with the loss of state aid going forward and all the other issues we have to do, but I guess I don't hear the compelling reasons to change the diversity of our land use at this time so. While maybe later is not what the applicants to hear, I guess that's the best I can do at this point because I don't have the compelling reason to make this change at this time. So is there a motion? Or further discussion. Councilman Labatt: Mayor I would move that we deny land use amendment #2003-2 from office industrial to residential medium density based upon the following f'mdings as outlined in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Roger Knutson: Just a point of clarification. Is your motion to deny the comprehensive plan land use map amendment and the PUD concept plan both? Councilman Labatt: Well I was going to make two separate motions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we'll just do the one at this time. Roger Knutson: Those are based upon the findings of fact as set forth in your packet? Councilman Labatt: Page 13. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Sir. Jason Osberg: Mr. Mayor, if I may. What we show on our application is a 100 percent rezoning for medium density residential. Listening to your conversation tonight, there might be some discussion that this site may be better served as both potentially. Is there another number or is 31 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 there something that we as the applicant can do to bring a different concept back that integrates both non-residential and residential uses on the site? Councilman Labatt: Get back with staff. Councilman Peterson: I didn't hear that. I mean I heard that it's too early to consider anything. I mean we didn't say anything but I think it's intuitive that that will be the case, speaking on behalf at least. Mayor Furlong: I would concur you know, if there's a desire to work with staff on those issues, that would certainly be the way to go but you know what I heard tonight is maybe not yet. It's too early. It's premature to look at that so. Jason Osberg: So if I may ask one more question. If we were to bring forward an application for a chemical user for industrial user, is it too early to look at that since the land is guided for that use? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure it's a permitted use in that district. I'm pretty confident it's not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay, thank you. Is there any further discussion on the motion? If not we'll call the question without objection. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to deny the Lane Use Map Amendment g2003-2 from OfficedIndustrial to Residential-Medium Density based on the following findings: The proposed land use amendment has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the comprehensive plan and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. City land use goals and policies require that the city maintain an appropriate balance of land uses, preserve a tax base mix and create new employment opportunities. The city needs to preserve industrial land for development since only 8.3 percent of the land is guided for office/industrial uses. The proposed land use amendment represents a reduction of 7.6 percent of the industrial acreage in the community. This 7.6 of industrial land use equals an estimated 16 percent of future industrial development and future industrial tax base. The proposed land use amendment will be incompatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Industrial development exists and is planned to the south and west of this property. The noise from the substation located in the southern part of the site is incompatible with residential development. Noises, traffic and smells from the industrial development conflict with any residential development in this location. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Labatt: And Mayor I would also recommend that we deny the concept planned unit development #2003-1 for a townhouse development based upon the following findings as outlined in the staff, and subject to the findings of fact on page 13. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: I'll second. 32 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll call the question. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council denies the concept Planned Unit Development 92003-1 for a townhouse development based upon the following findings: Development must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation of the property for office/industrial uses. The proposed development does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for office and industrial development. The development of the site for residential townhouses does not preserve the bluff area as required by the bluff protection ordinance, nor adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor. Ail voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 4 to 1. APPROVAL OF KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES~ JIM PROSSER~ EHLERS AND ASOCIATES. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to introduce Jim Prosser from Ehlers and Associates to give you a brief overview of our Key Financial Strategies and your consideration of approval of those strategies. At this time Jim Prosser. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, good evening. Jim Prosser: Good evening Mayor, City Council. Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates. I'm pleased to be with you this evening to provide the final report and more importantly the strategy for the city of Chanhassen, your financial strategies for 2003. As we have talked about, the financial strategies really provide a framework for integrating your operational and capital planning with financial planning. Working with your staff and with the council over the past 9 months, 9 plus months, we have worked to prepare this plan with the revisions that you have directed that's presented for you this evening. Just two comments I would like to make. First of all, it's evident by the actions at the state level, but also the general economy and even some discussion tonight that providing a framework for considering financial, considering the financial implications and decisions is really important for cities and Chanhassen is one of a few communities in the metro area who have taken the step forward to prepare such a plan. The second point I wanted to make is that this is just the beginning of your f'mancial strategy process. The financial strategies really are used to help guide, not only the budget preparation decisions but also other relevant parts of your strategic planning process. So this is just the beginning. We were pleased to be partners with you and your staff in preparation of this and want to thank all of you for your efforts in preparing this important plan, and would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Are there any questions? Councilman Peterson: I think they've integrated everything we've asked them to do so I'm pleased with the results and ready to put it in play. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other comments? I guess the only comment I'll say to Mr. Prosser, thank you for all your efforts and those on your staff and for working, and for the staff. 33 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Our city staff in terms of the hours that went into putting this together. It should be a very useful document and one that we're going to need to keep alive. It's a living document I guess is the key if we' re going to be successful and get a return on all our investments. So with that is there a motion to approve? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the Key Financial Strategies final report as presented. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the final report of the Key Financial Strategies as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF ON-SALE BEER LICENSE, FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION~ (JULY 3 & 4), CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, my only question is probably for Roger. As I read l(a), it has nothing to do with the Rotary Club per se. I was raising the question for Todd earlier. We don't, on this license specifically we're saying that they're allowing to sell beer, even though they haven't requested to sell wine, I don't know why we're not allowing that automatically. I think we're discriminating against...per se, but I tried calling the Rotary today to fmd out whether or not they'd even want to. Personally I talked to one person and they just thought that they couldn't, so I don't know whether or not we have to change the ordinance. Todd Gerhardt: We would have to make an ordinance amendment Also allow the sale of wine in our parks. Mayor Furlong: Not the sale, the use. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Or use and sale? Todd Gerhardt: Use and sale, yes. Councilman Peterson: That's in one of our, it's in the code that we're to review. I've already noted that, but I don't know whether or not we want to take any time tonight to change that but I think it's, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't. Our license is to sell beer and wine are together, everything else is. I mean, am I making something bigger? Councilman Labatt: The only question, is the beer sold there 3.2 or, I mean some wine is 7 percent alcohol by volume. The beers that they may be selling there is less than 3.2. Councilman Peterson: The license we're granting doesn't denote whether it's 3.2 or otherwise so they could do either. Roger Knutson: No. They can only do 3.2. 34 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Well that's not what I read. The ordinance doesn't specify 3.2. Roger Knutson: Unless you have an on-sale hard liquor license. If you're just getting a regular beer license and nothing else, it's 3.2. Councilman Labatt: If you go to the dome and buy a beer, it's 3.2. It's not you know your 4 or 5 percent alcohol. Councilman Peterson: Or if you go to Target Center for a cocktail, they've got a full license I think so I don't whether or not I agree with you or not. If you buy a beer. Councilman Labatt: Well they may have a different liquor license. Roger Knutson: The Target Center has a full liquor license so they can, when they sell beer they can sell strong beer. Councilman Peterson: So wine coolers would meet the 3.2 aspect. Roger Knutson: I believe they call wine coolers a 3.2 beer. Wine coolers are a malt beverage under 3.2, you can sell them if you can sell 3.2 beer. Councilman Ayotte: Why does Roger know so much about liquor? Councilman Peterson: He knows everything about everything. Roger Knutson: The answer is I get 10 phone calls a week on these issues. Councilman Lundquist: Hey Craig I'd be willing to go there with you if you drink the wine out of the box. Councilman Peterson: I'll do it. Roger Knutson: That I don't know about. Councilman Peterson: Let's push this thing through. I just didn't want to be preventing it from doing something but if it is 3.2, then it' s longer than tonight' s discussion so. Mayor Furlong: I mean I'd be interested in exploring the issues, both the pros and cons to that. Maybe we pick that up in the ordinance, as we review the ordinance. With that. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Further discussion. 35 City Council Meeting- June 9, 2003 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the On-Sale Beer License for the 4th of July Celebration (July 3 & 4), Chanhassen Rotary Club. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES. Bruce DeJong: Mayor Furlong and council members. Here to ask just for a slight modification for the resolution that you passed back on May 12t~. That is we've resolved a couple of issues through the legislative process and we have discovered that we are unable to issue bonds for remodeling the senior center space which will be available when the library moves into it's existing building. So we are asking you to reduce the amount of the bond sale by the $100,000 that's included in the original issue. We've got another issue also that I think because there was significant amount of cities that were scared about being able to issue bonds this year that Ehlers is really back logged and they've asked us if it would be possible to move our bond sale back by one council meeting. I gave them preliminary approval for that after discussing with Mr. Gerhardt, but I'm here asking you for formal approval of that so we'll come back with the bond sale on July 14t~ at our first council meeting in July. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Are there questions for staff?. I guess I just have a couple based on the issues raised. Since we're unable to bond for the remodeling, as was originally planned is, has staff had an opportunity to identify alternative sources for the remodeling effort or is that in the works? Bruce DeJong: The only alternative that I've identified so far is that we have $515,000 budgeted for street maintenance projects that will be unused this year. We passed on issuing those kind of assessment bonds. They won't be needing the city's participation in any of those projects and it seems like the most logical place fight now. Mayor Furlong: Did the law change prohibiting then bonding for remodeling? Was it a change in the law or was it just a clarification? Bruce DeJong: No, I think it's just a clarification from our bond counsel that we, the stuff that we're installing is really more of a construction project than capital equipment, which is what this specific statute that authorizes us to issue bonds talks to. Although we'll be installing some capital equipment, it really doesn't meet the requirements. Most of it's going to be reconstruction remodeling. Mayor Furlong: And I doubt this is a case where the delay at all affect any of the purchases or cause any problem if there' s any important items that were purchased. Bruce DeJong: No. It won't affect any of that. We certainly don't have any problems from a cash flow standpoint. We'll be able to cover the purchases of those capital items as they come in. So, and I don't think that there's any significant interest rate risk in the next month, 3 weeks that would cause me to be worded about issuing these at a much higher rate. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions or discussions? I fred it interesting that Ehlers is inundated with bond requests given some of the e-mails that they were sending out earlier this year, so they're trying to encourage that. With that, is there a motion? To approve the resolution. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve the resolution as recommended by staff. 36 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Resolution g2003-53: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt to approve the resolution to modify the general obligation bonds for equipment certification. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. FUTURE PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUSES IN CHANHASSEN. Mayor Furlong: Next item is an item that was discussed in our work session this evening. It is pertaining to proposed resolution regarding potential, well pertaining to a potential high school or middle school land in Chanhassen, so with that I'll open it up. Is there a staff report or other presentation? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Staff has attached a resolution supporting for siting School District 112 middle school or high school/park campus somewhere in the city of Chanhassen. Staff is requesting that the City Council consider approval of this resolution and directing staff to execute the resolution and send it down to the school district for their consideration. Staff is looking for direction from the council on the proposed resolution. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there discussion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, in an effort to streamline the conversation perhaps a bit I'd recommend some deletions and some additions. Can I just run them through for you? I would recommend that we delete the first Whereas where it cites the 2005 MUSA area. Going down to the second Whereas, I would recommend on the end of the first line, delete this study area and replace it with the word Chanhassen. Then move down to the Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, item number 1. I would replace that sentence with the City of Chanhassen resoundingly supports efforts to secure land for a middle school or high school in Chanhassen. And then moving down to the second point, delete all the narrative after the word manner. So you're deleting so that the completion of the AUAR remains on schedule. Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification, could you read 1 and 2 as you would have them. Councilman Peterson: One would say, the City of Chanhassen resoundingly supports efforts to secure land for a middle school or high school in Chanhassen and the City of Chanhassen seeks a response from School District 112 in a timely manner period. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good, is there other discussion on those? Councilman Lundquist: One just minor point of clarification. When we were in our work session tonight, when our Superintendent was speaking we referred to it mostly Bev as a secondary school. Bev Stofferahn: Right. Councilman Lundquist: Does it make sense to follow kind of that's how you're reports and studies have shown a secondary school. Does it make any difference to say secondary school versus middle or high school or are they the same thing? 37 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Bev Stofferahn: Same thing. Same thing. Secondary school encompasses anything from grade 6 on up. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion? Councilman Labatt: I would support and I like what Craig has done here and I'll take that as motion and I' 11 make it a second so we can get onto the EDA meeting. Mayor Furlong: Very good. The motion is made and seconded. Is there other discussion? I guess I'd like to say, it was brought up at the work session this evening that we've got I think a real good concept here in the way the City and the School District can work in a very collaborative effort to try to accomplish a goal that I think we're both looking for. So I would hope that this helps in the process and if there's anything we can do in terms of participating in work sessions or meetings or other things, let us know because we'd like to help any way we can. Bev Stofferahn: Thank you Mr. Mayor. As I had indicated in the work session, the School Board will be very much involved over the next month to 6 weeks to form a fall referendum and this piece of that securing land now for a secondary school later will be an item to be discussed very thoroughly by the Board and taken up so how much that is, where it is and so on is still all to be decided, but our taxpayers have told us that they would prefer that we purchase land earlier rather than waiting because it price is only going one way so that should help that effort and I appreciate your efforts very much in being willing to partner with us. We have got a wonderful partnership going as far as the school is concerned on both Chanhassen Elementary and Bluff Creek. It just works beautifully and if we can do something similar on a future site in Chanhassen, I think it is, number one it makes very good use of land. And two, I think it gives the taxpayers a better return on their dollar so appreciate very much your support. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? If there's none, without objection we'll call the question. Resolution g2003-54: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve a resolution of support for siting a District 112 middle school or high school/park campus in the City of Chanhassen as amended by Councilman Peterson. AH voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Bev Stofferahn: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 38 City Council Meeting - June 9, 2003 Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39