Loading...
CC Minutes 2000 09 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Cindy Kirchoff, Lori Haak, and Bruce DeJong APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Consultant Services Contract for BC-7 and BC-g Trunk Utilities, Project 00-01; Receive Petition to Extend Services to Dogwood. b. Eckankar, Approval of Land Use Amendment and Amendment to Site Plan Approval; and Approval of City Code Amendment Rezoning Property to PUD. c. Approval of Bills. d. Approve City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 28, 2000 Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 15, 2000 f. Request for an Amendment to the Hidden Valley PUD to Allow Church Facilities as a Permitted Use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley, 275 Lake Drive East, Family of Christ Lutheran Church. g. Review and Approval of a Policy to Formalize the Process for Street Closure Permits. h. Review and Approval of a Policy to Formalize the Process for Temporary Lifting of No Parking Restrictions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. E. APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR 2001. Councilwoman Jansen: As we discussed in the work session, staff has presented us with three options and I just wanted to be clear as we're approving the initial levy amount, which option we are approving. Which at this point looks like, I would propose Option Number 1 per staff's proposed levy certification sheet. However changing the Southwest Metro Transit amount to their request, at least temporarily until we can City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 review their budget with them, to $628,321. Which would then change the bottom line on this form to $6,957,375. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other, are you done? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Any other discussion on that? Councilman Senn: What are the options again? Councilwoman Jansen: We can then go back and review that and give staff a chance to be able to firm up some of these numbers. Councilman Senn: But I just want to make sure I understand it. Okay, so what you're suggesting is that we adopt an 18% increase? Councilwoman Jansen: Per staff's recommendation that that in fact does not increase our, what did you call that? I'm sorry. Bruce. Our tax rate. Percent. That that is based upon new construction figures and will then present us with a balanced budget at this point. Bruce DeJong: I do want to make a clarification. Mayor Mancino: It's Option 2. Bruce DeJong: The 18% increase. Councilman Senn: No, that's not what she said. Councilman Engel: Hold it. Let's have one person talking. I just want to keep this straight. Councilman Senn: I mean I would like to get an answer to my question, which I still haven't gotten, okay. Councilman Engel: It's Option 1 I believe. Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding what the motion is that has been made by Councilwoman Jansen is she has just made a motion for Option Number 1 to increase the levy by 18.10%. Is that correct? Councilwoman Jansen: That is what is reflected in Option 1 to cover special assessment debt, general obligation, Southwest Metro Transit, and General Fund. Councilman Senn: Okay, and that is your motion? Councilwoman Jansen: That is my motion. That is for the initial. Councilman Engel: I have a question there then. You're saying from Option 1, that's an 18.1% increase, right? That's what the chart shows but that's based on a $6,937,000 number. When you take it to $6,957, I'm going to guess that percentage is going to change a little bit or am I looking at the numbers wrong? City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Bruce DeJong: No. recommendation. Councilwoman Jansen: Little bit. Mayor Mancino: It will change it. Bruce DeJong: The percentage will be increased a little bit. Councilman Engel: I was going to say, it's not 18.1. It's actually a little more. Bruce DeJong: I want to be perfectly clear about this. That this is an increase above and beyond the new construction amount. The new construction amount is approximately 7.9%. What this means would be that each property would have their tax bill increase by approximately the same rate as the value went up. So that if a property sees a 10% increase in valuation, they would most likely get something approximating a 10% increase in their tax levy. In the tax that they have to pay to the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Mancino: Because the City's tax rate would basically stay the same. Bruce DeJong: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But so it would increase according to the market value increase. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. So everybody will not see an 18% increase is what you're saying then. But they probably will see something approaching a 10% increase. Based on this Councilwoman Jansen: Which we were told currently from the figures that we're hearing, that's about average in the metro area is about a 10%? Bruce DeJong: Those figures that Mr. Botcher provided you with are total levy increases so we would be above the average on our total levy increase. Mayor Mancino: Because again our total levy increase is 18%. Bruce DeJong: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And the average total levy increase is 10%. Bruce DeJong: Based upon the survey done by the City of St. Anthony. Scott Botcher: We don't have original data on that. Bruce DeJong: No. Councilman Engel: And just to be clear again for detail purposes, the increase of 10% you're talking about is dollars and is attributed to market value growth, not to tax rate growth. Would that be correct? City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: So tell me. Councilman Senn: It's still an increase in taxes, correct? Councilman Engel: Correct. From a gross tax dollar percentage. Councilwoman Jansen: And as we work through this between now and December you'd be able to show us exactly how that would reflect to an average home in Chan or we can always work with this number. We can always come down, but we would be setting this as the very, very highest which is still I believe you said a million dollars below what, if there was a tax cap, it's still a million dollars below that. Correct? Bruce DeJong: Correct. If there were levy limits in place similar to last year we would still be approximately a million dollars below our recommended limit. Councilwoman Jansen: And this is as you were saying, bringing us into more of a sustainable situation whereas in the past we have not necessarily covered all of our debt payment adequately. We have expenses that are coming in from other funds that are now having to be paid in general fund. That was part of the whole explanation as to why this is going up, correct? Bruce DeJong: That's correct. This will bring us into a debt situation where our general fund revenues and expenditures would be close to being balanced, within about $100,000 as opposed to using fund balance to bridge that gap the way you did last year. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So all three options, the special assessment debt remains the same. The general obligation debt, as far as when I look at increase. I'm looking at the column of increase. All those numbers are the same. The only number that changes at all on these 3 options are general fund. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: So at this point we would still have an opportunity to go back and adjust this in order to bring it down. Right now this is being reflected to us as worst case scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong, to bring everything into balance. Bruce DeJong: Yes. This reflects an 18.1% increase. Maybe slightly higher, due to the increase in the Southwest Transit levy, but it approximates the increase in total value that the City of Chanhassen has seen in the last year. Councilman Senn: Okay so your, okay so how much money do we have sitting in reserve at this point? Bruce DeJong: In the general fund? City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilman Senn: No. In overall reserves. Bruce DeJong: I'm not sure... Councilman Senn: Give me a ballpark. Bruce DeJong: I'm not sure what the overall fund balance reserves are. In total we have a cash position of, someplace in the neighborhood of $20 million. Councilman Senn: Okay. And then effectively according to what is being recommended here, you're suggesting essentially that we should leave that $20 million alone in reserve and effectively boost people's taxes 10%? Bruce DeJong: My recommendation is to increase people's taxes approximately 10% to cover some of those items that we've discussed previously that were not being fully funded. That were being paid for out of capital projects for which debt service was being levied. Or being paid for out of TIF districts which will not longer exist or be available... So yes, there are some things that we have to do to get our financial house in order. Now it does leave us a significant amount of money in the general fund that's available for use for other purposes. There's about $3.9 million general fund balance and our police would lead us to have approximately $2.6 million being in reserve required so we'd have a million 3 available to pay down some of the debt service for our TIF districts, or for other purposes as decided by the council. Scott Botcher: I think that's, I guess for what it's worth, the $20 million sounds like a lot but also understand it's the $20 million is largely restricted. The $3.9 1 think is the important number. Mayor Mancino: Actually the 1.3 is the important. Scott Botcher: Yeah actually. That is probably more important given the policy. The other issue that's out there, and Bruce I guess I'd like you to touch on it briefly. I don't want to get off on a tangent but it is I think impactful. It was the discussion on the second half payment in 2003? 4. In TIF payments that we will not receive because of the timing of the closing of the district. Bruce DeJong: That's correct. In further discussions with Mr. Beatty, we've determined that our last qualified debt service payments are going to be November 1 of 2003. Because the statute says that the district ends when the last debt is paid off, that means that we will not be able to collect the second half taxes which is approximately $2.8 million. Now under our. Mayor Mancino: Special legislation? Bruce DeJong: Under our agreement with Carver County we will receive back both our portion of that tax settlement and their portion. The School District's portion will go back to the school district. So that means that we have about a million 4 that is going to be a shortfall that was not reflected on the information you received 3 weeks ago. Scott Botcher: Just another item to plan for in 3 years. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? So this really, I mean we wanted to target a 3.5% increase and this won't be a 3.5% increase. City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Scott Botcher: No. Bruce DeJong: This is significantly higher than 3.5% increase. Due mainly to the, a lot of it is due to the debt service. Debt service is up significantly over last year. As you compare the proposed levy certification with the actual from last year, last year we had approximately about a million 2 in debt service. This year we're looking at a million 7 in debt service. $500,000 is due strictly to debt service requirements. Scott Botcher: And what complicates it is that, not only have we not been fully levying for the debt service but a lot of these issues have been back loaded. And I know for example the park and trail referendum. Is back loaded and it starts small and goes up like a door wedge. You get out 10 years. Councilwoman Jansen: So a balloon? Scott Botcher: It's not a pure balloon, but it just, the debt service goes like this. To make it more palatable at the outset, you bank on growth within the community. All those types of arguments that you make. If you remember our discussions on the library referendum, we took the most conservative approach and we straight lined it, if you remember. We just said okay. This is fair to our taxpayers. This is what it will be. We'll straight line it and that's what we did. So as you complicate factors by having back loaded debt and not levying the full amount, as you work down the time line, the continuum, the impact gets greater by a factor of 2. You've got to make up the difference that you haven't been levying and then you've got to make up the difference that's back loaded. And that's sort of what's coming down the road. Councilwoman Jansen: So in this approach is it fair to say that by balancing our budget, we're then using these additional cash dollars above and beyond our reserve, to take care of some of these balloon situations or increase debt levy situations that would then cause us to need to raise the levy anyway. We're just using them towards those debt payments. Mayor Mancino: No, not particularly because we may still have the surplus and revenue for the next 2 or 3 years that we have done these last 2 years. I mean we've had, from our permit revenue we have greater increased it. I mean that's why we've got a surplus in our general fund. So if we were to continue having that surplus in revenue, it would go for or we could use in the coming years that to also pay the debt service. The problem is just not knowing if that's always going to be there. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: Well plus you can't balance a budget we haven't adopted yet. Mayor Mancino: That's true. Scott Botcher: 3 months of fun left. A part of this is just, and I know you probably don't want to hear this but part of the Truth in Taxation legislation, what it presents to cities and Roger's been in many cities, where it's almost a strategy issue as much as anything else. I mean you do have 3 months or so of budget process in front of you and cities approach the whole legislative issue with different strategies. You want to, and you've heard me say this before. You want to give yourself as much flexibility, as many options, as you head down the road on almost any decision item that you have. I said that with the library language. I'll say it with the budget language. You want to make sure that you can make decisions in the best interest City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 of your taxpayers. Be it on budget. Be it on library. Be it on the public works building. Be it on a fire station. I don't care what it is. That's in your best interest to do that. This Truth in Taxation levy necessarily, if you want to take that and give yourself the most options, necessarily pushes cities to consider publishing at the cap and there are cities that do that. They just go right to the cap. They publish it and say that's our starting point. We have not done that. Bruce has indicated that we're still substantially below the cap. But that whole issue of strategy is one that you know, only you all can decide. And we can make the budget do whatever you want to make it do. It's not, we've laid out the debt study issues. We've laid out the special assessment issues. We've laid out the general fund issue. Right now it's a matter of how you want to play it from now until December. Mayor Mancino: So I'm assuming we'll have many more discussions on this after we pass something tonight with the budget, and certainly people that are here tonight, you can come to all of our meetings are open as we discuss the budget and make some decisions in December. Any more discussion? Steve. Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark? Okay. Linda? Any more discussion? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Just only to emphasize that it is just leaving options open and I gather this is the best way to go with staff recommendation so. Mayor Mancino: Mark? Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: No. But you need a second. Scott Botcher: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So again, is there a second to the motion? Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Resolution #2000-66: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution establishing the proposed tax levies for 2001 per staff's Option 1 on the levy certification sheet with the change in the Southwest Metro Transit amount temporarily to $628,321.00 which would then change the total levy amount to $6,957,375. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Engel and Councilman Labatt. Councilman Senn voted no. Motion carried. Scott Botcher: See now we are required to get this to the County by Friday Bruce? Bruce DeJong: Yes. Scott Botcher: And so then we will do that. We'll make contact with Melissa and the paper folks and get it published. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. DISCUSSION OF GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 97-11; DIRECTION TO STAFF. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. This evening we're here to discuss... concerning septic system at Grandview Road area. The property at 8155 has a failing septic system. The letter for that is attached to your staff report and included. The property owner has been given.., they do not have adequate or an available location for them to do a new septic system so it either would be a mound system. However the property owners.., the standard sanitary system. We do have sanitary systems available in the area and... February 28th the council considered the possibility of bringing in a project, public improvement project to serve the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood does not support that option so we are here this evening asking for council direction on one of three options for serving this property. Number one would be the adoption and implementation of feasibility study serving the entire neighborhood with sanitary system. Number two would be directional drilling as a public improvement. As it states in the staff report, this is not something that staff recommends as being.., essentially function as a private service at public expense does not seem like a wise move. Even though we would assess the project, it would be, we would continue to maintain the project. And Option number three would be directional drilling by the property owner to provide the private service to the property. We would work with the property owner to... and also work with him on the easement... Are there any questions from the council? Mayor Mancino: Any questions from council members? Thank you. Is there anyone here tonight from Grandview Road that wants to address the council? Please do so. Come up. Say your name and address. And if you could limit your remarks to a few minutes, that'd be great. Dean Skallman: I'm Dean Skallman. I'm the petitioner. I guess the concerns I have with the public project, I talked with Teresa in the last few weeks back and forth through e-mails. The cost as a public project seemed a little high. And I'm concerned if the council directs a public project, am I committed to using that? Do I have the option of saying no if the cost were to come in excessively high? Mayor Mancino: Good question. Thank you. Teresa Burgess: I think the costs that Dean is referring to, and the reason I didn't include them is because at this point we're not asking for approval of feasibility study. Just direction on which way to go. The cost you're referring to are the directional boring and what we use was based on previous bids that some of our consultants have received. We called a couple and they're seeing about $75 per linear foot for an 8 inch pipe. In this case we would probably be putting in a 6 inch if we were to put it in as a public system. However 4 inch may be more than adequate to address it as a private system. If we're going to be maintaining it, then we need to make sure that we're putting in a pipe large enough for our standard system to be maintained under and generally speaking we only put in a 6 inch at the minimum. Mayor Mancino: If we go with Option 3, which is private drilling. Mr. Skallman would go ahead and get his own bids and do it himself. I mean we would not be involved at all. So you would go ahead and get your directional drilling bids from the companies of your choice and you would go ahead and do it. Okay? Just want to make sure we all understand that. City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Dean Skallman: Yeah, I understand that part. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Sorry. Dean Skallman: I guess I'11, if the council directs a public project, do I have the option of saying no? Teresa Burgess: It would be a council decision. We would come back. If we were to bid a project for directional drilling as a public project we would come back to the council with that contract for award. The council could choose not to award at that time if they so choose. Mayor Mancino: So if, so if we got the cost for public project and you couldn't afford it, we would take that to heart. Dean Skallman: So I would be throwing myself on your good graces? Mayor Mancino: Yes. And that means you have to wash our cars. No. Just kidding. No, but obviously we'd want to get your input. Obviously. Teresa Burgess: One thing Madam Mayor, to keep in mind is that public projects do tend to be more expensive than if a property owner does the same project themselves. Part of that is because of our administration. Part of it is because as a government agency when we do these projects we are required to go out to bids and we cannot then negotiate. We're required to simply take the bids as we receive them. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dean Skallman: I was wondering about timing. Has any thought been given to when the project would be completed? Are we looking at fall or is this going to be pushed into the next construction season? Teresa Burgess: At this time we're asking for council direction on which project we should pursue. If we pursue the full, go out and do the entire neighborhood, we're definitely looking at next year for construction because we would need to have a neighborhood meeting. Have the full public hearings again and then also go forward with the design of a project. If we're looking at directional drilling as a private project, that would be up to the property owner to time frame. If we're looking at directional drilling for public project we would need to go through a bidding process yet and we would need to have council authorization to do plans and specs before we can even go for bids. Mayor Mancino: So probably the public process, for directional would also be next spring? Teresa Burgess: It might be. We could probably do directional drilling during the winter months. However, depending on how busy the companies are, it could be more expensive. Mayor Mancino: Does that answer your kind of timing? Dean Skallman: Yes. The last question is dealing with the easements to Sinnen Circle. And that may not be an appropriate question for this venue. Just how do I deal with the neighbors if I go with a private? Mayor Mancino: With a private okay. City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Teresa Burgess: It is a situation that has occurred elsewhere within the city. There are public utility easements in that location and that will be something that our city council can, that our city attorney can address directly with whether a private utility can be in a public utility easement or if you would need to get a private utility easement. Roger Knutson: If it is a private utility, not owned by the city and it's just a service line and you're going across someone else's property? Or just through a boulevard area? Teresa Burgess: It would be in our public utility easement on the side lot line. We have a public utility easement but it would be a private utility. Mayor Mancino: But don't we have that already over there? Roger Knutson: We can work that out. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dean Skallman: I guess the last comment is, at this point I don't support the providing sewer systems to the entire neighborhood. I thought that was the best option having dealt with Teresa's predecessor but the neighborhood does not support it by any stretch and... Mayor Mancino: ... drilling, directional drilling? Dean Skallman: I would like to see the City do the directional drilling if the costs were reasonable. The $75.00 that Teresa's been talking about seems excessively high to me. I've had a contact with a couple of one drilling permit in particular and some other of my colleagues and they believe the price should be substantially lower. I would like the city to do it but if the price is going to be very high, I would prefer to do it myself. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Let's bring this back to council. Any discussion? Who'd like to start? Councilman Senn: No, I'd move Option 3. Mayor Mancino: Any discussion around Option 3? Councilman Engel: Yeah, it's better. Councilman Labatt: Second. Scott Botcher: Hang on a second. Mayor Mancino: Just a second second. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I would just add that staff has noted that if it is a private service to a property, that it is normally done then by the property owner and with that in mind I would support 3. Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion? 10 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Scott Botcher: I think 3's the right, I go with Teresa's recommendation. Councilman Engel: He can get a better price on it shopping it than we're going to get. Scott Botcher: We're not in the private service business. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Did I, I know I heard a second. Did I hear a motion? Councilman Senn: You heard a motion and you heard a second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that directional drilling by the property owners be used to complete the Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project No. 97-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12 FT. X 28 FT. EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A 79.5 FT. MONOPOLE, 275 WEST 79TM STREET, AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES. Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you. The applicant is proposing to construct a monopole and equipment building to be utilized for a wireless communication facility on property zoned BH. In this particular zoning district towers and antennas are permitted as a conditional use. Staff believes the application does comply with ordinance and does recommend approval with the conditions that are in the staff report. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on two occasions. The first was on July 18th where it was tabled so that the applicant could provide additional information on the provisional services and whether or not they could co-locate with another site. And also additional pictures were required in relation to the St. Hubert's steeple. On October, or excuse me, August 15th the commission reviewed it a second time and at that meeting they did deny, or recommend denial of the conditional use permit. They were concerned again about the co-locating this site with another site. Whether the site is necessary at that particular location. And again the appearance of the tower on Highway 5 and in relation to St. Hubert's steeple. Staff is recommending approval as I have stated with the 15 conditions that are in the staff report and an additional condition that was requested and that is that the plat be recorded. Mayor Mancino: The final plat be recorded. Cindy Kirchoff: Yes. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here, and please address the council. Peter. Peter Beck: Mayor, Council members. My name is Peter Beck and I am here on behalf of AT&T Wireless Services. With me is Warren Dunlap who is the Site Acquisition Specialist working with your staff to identify and apply for this site. I have addressed a letter to the council which I hope made it into the packet so I won't repeat much of that. Unless there's a request that I do so. I just did want to briefly say that we do have a coverage issue in the Highway 101/Highway 5 area. It needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. Because of the current status of the system and the need in this area, we don't have a lot of flexibility with respect to the location of this particular facility in order to provide service in the desired area. What I thought I would do is touch briefly on some of the issues and questions that came up earlier. 11 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 And after mentioning that we have found a site that complies with all the ordinance requirements and we are in agreement with all the conditions recommended by staff. With respect to whether there are alternate locations, there was an inquiry about for instance on the south side of the highway where the existing power lines are. Warren has talked to a number of property owners on that side and he was unable to find a willing landlord, if you will, on the south side of Highway 5. No one over there was interested in leasing a small parcel of land for this use. That also is somewhat outside of the so called search area. Or the area where the facility needs to be located in order to operate effectively. The alternative site to the one that is proposed tonight was on the Dinner Theater property. That site would be available. However, it is at a lower elevation. Would require a taller pole and I think there are some other potential issues with that site that are probably obvious to all of us. With respect to co-location, Warren did look at a number of possibilities including the NSP tall towers that run along Highway 5. There are a couple issues with those poles. One of which is the height at which the antennas would be allowed to be located. It would be way below the height at which they would be effective in serving the Highway 5/101 area. And secondly, there is a safety issue in terms of co-locating this type of communication use on those high voltage or high power electric wires. The people that work on communications equipment are not NSP type people and most of the carriers are quite concerned about locating antennas on that kind of a facility. In this instance, in addition, there just wasn't enough available height. We did look at the location proposed by Sprint on the Quattro Drive I believe it is, as I mentioned in my letter. We also have an issue with the height at that location. The height available to us would once again be far below what we need in order to meet our coverage requirements and the site is way too far away once again from the Highway 5/101 area. We will design this site, build it so that it can accommodate at least 2 additional users. We're quite optimistic that there will be at least 1 additional user on that facility in the future because of it's location. Other companies do, and are going to have a need to provide service to downtown Chanhassen and to the Highway 5 corridor so we think that you will see additional users on this pole in the future and we will have the capacity for them. I heard a statement to the effect that, I think it was something along the lines of 99% of the time that companies dismiss co-location opportunities and say that they need their own location and that's not really the case. There are many, many co-located sites on water towers and on other companies poles. For instance, in the more urbanized areas it's not unusual to see 2, 3, and 4 user poles. The companies are not adverse to that in any way. In fact they prefer it because it saves them money on infrastructure and just as importantly it saves on time. In most instances a co-located site can go in without a conditional use permit process and in most situations timing is critical and companies are always looking for ways to address their needs as quickly and as cheaply as possible. With respect to parking came up. This particular equipment shelter will be located on an area behind that building that is not designated parking. There are some lines I think that designate the drive aisles into the service bays, but it's our understanding it's not part of the designated parking for that particular facility. And finally, with respect to the new condition on the recording of the plat, we were able to reach the landlord in the last half hour and he has no objection to that condition so that would mean that we are in agreement with all of the staff recommendations and all the proposed conditions. And I would be happy to talk further about coverage studies and the need if the council would find it helpful. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Peter. Any council member have any questions? Thank you. Peter Beck: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else here tonight on this particular? Okay, let's bring it back to council. Any questions? Any discussion on this? Steve. 12 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilman Labatt: I'll start out. Well first this little color photograph you gave us here depicting the building. If you scale the building here, and the 28 feet as they're proposing and you take that scale and you invert it on top of this antenna, the antenna comes out to be approximately 112 feet tall. So I think that, and they're trying to give us representation of what this building is going to look like in this parking lot. They should try to scale it accordingly. I'll pass this down and you guys can kind of see. I'm trying to get a picture while I was sitting in there and it's just not adding up. I think that the building is going to have a bigger impact. They're saying this pickup is, if that building is 28 feet, that pickup is 28 feet long. Well, I've got a Suburban that's about as big as that and that's only 18 so I think the pictures are depicting the building as much, much bigger. And another question I had was, the city water tower up off of Laredo and, I can't remember the name of the street. Teresa Burgess: West 76th. Councilman Labatt: West 76th. What do we have for cellular service up there on any antennas? Teresa Burgess: Right now I don't believe we... Mayor Mancino: We have 2. Teresa Burgess: We have 2 on top of that tower. Councilman Labatt: Is there room for a third up there? Teresa Burgess: It would depend on what they're attempting to put up there and how they wanted to attach it to the tower. Councilman Labatt: And what's the height of that tower? Teresa Burgess: I don't have an exact height but it's approximately 130 feet. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So I'm wondering if the additional height will offset the distance back from Highway 5. Mayor Mancino: Peter, can you come up and, because you said you looked at alternate sites and was that one? Peter Beck: We did look at that site. We did not come to visit with the city staff about it for a couple reasons. It is further north than where we need to be to, again to cover particularly 101 as it goes south from Highway 5. But we also felt that with our equipment needs, our shelter needs and there was some discussion about the size of the building. A 12 x 28 foot building did not appear feasible to locate that building in the area around the water tower. It's in very close proximity to existing residential uses so we did not think it was a feasible alternative to pursue with the city. The height was not an issue. There is height on that water tower. Assuming we could get our antennas, the height we need isn't already taken, but that was not the primary issue. We just felt that it wouldn't be realistic to propose that kind of a solution in that neighborhood. Councilman Labatt: That's all right now. I'll let other council members talk. 13 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: What exactly is the equipment that sits in the building? I mean we've probably had this explained to us the last several years but go ahead and give another whirl. What's in there? Peter Beck: There is a little difference too. You have cellular providers and so called PCS providers. There's two, the cellular providers. The original cellular phone companies which are operating at 850 MHz band and they have a need for more equipment than the PCS folks. My guess is what you've got up there is probably PCS which can get by with a very small, approximately a refrigerator sized cabinet in a lot of instances. In our case, our switching equipment takes up considerably more room and we also have a need for back-up power. There are banks of batteries in there which leads us to the need for the 12 x 28 foot shelter building, which is universal. All of our sites need and require and do have that size of a facility. Councilman Engel: Okay. And I may be getting a little out of the box here on this but would the PCS stuff come in, just in the future. It would be nice if someone could come up with a design that may have already been brought out somewhere else in another community, where the complaint is always that you need more towers because the heights are so low, they don't cover enough geography. Or area. But if you do have the light poles and these power grid towers that are out there, just go with several. As long as you have small cabins that you could attach to the base of these existing structures and clamp into the power that's running through that some line. I know you're going to need some power conversion equipment on a lot of that, but if somebody could come up with a design or if they've already come up with one, that would enable you to use these existing structures, you could eliminate this in the future by going along those roadways where we always have equipment like this but we never really use it. You think, look at NSP doesn't want them to go, well they want you 50 feet away from the top right? Peter Beck: No. From the lowest point of the transmission wires. Councilman Engel: Okay. They want you 50 feet from that. Peter Beck: Which is of course quite a ways below the top. Councilman Engel: Really down. Peter Beck: Really down, yeah. Councilman Engel: Yeah. That's my curiosity is how many antennas in that case would it take in order to cover the same amount? A lot I'm sure. Peter Beck: Yeah. And some day we might be there. As council may know, as technology has evolved and as it's been adopted by the public, the companies are needing more and more cell sites. And each cell site as you get more cell sites, each one covers a smaller area. AT&T system for instance was turned on in 1986 with 8 cell sites on places like the IDS tower and a tall tower actually in the western part of Chanhassen I believe. But each one of those sites can only handle a certain number of calls because they only license for a certain number of frequencies so as the usage goes up, they need more facilities. As they have more facilities, each facility is serving a smaller area so therefore it's at a lower height. Not so many years ago I was in front of city councils like this requesting permission for 300 foot lattice towers in the city of Minnetonka for instance. Now we're at the point where we're asking for 80 foot poles. In the 14 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 future we may be at the point where we only need 30 or 40 feet in certain circumstances. There is a little bit of a floor there because the signal does not travel very well through vegetation. Through leaves. So where there's heavy vegetation, we need to be high enough to get over the trees. But in a highway corridor for instance, there may come a day when a series of shorter poles could be... Councilman Engel: Attached to existing structures like light poles and power lines. I mean that's what... Peter Beck: Water towers and yep. Councilman Engel: Because I mean I've been on here almost 4 years now. These things, we're only going to get more and more of them it seems. Peter Beck: There are going to be more and more cell sites but again, as you build the infrastructure. For instance, this pole is a part of that wireless infrastructure. It will be available there for 1 or 2 additional users. So hopefully the pace of new facilities will drop off as the infrastructure is built out. Not only in the form of poles but in the form of buildings. Chanhassen doesn't have very many buildings that are 80 feet or taller, but again if we're getting down to the point where there's a clear line of sight to a transportation corridor from 30 or 40 feet, that may be a solution that would work in Chanhassen in the future. So yes, there will be more cell sites. Better or worst. The decision at the federal level has been that this service will be delivered through a competitive environment and there are at present 6 licensed competitors serving this metropolitan area. And each one of them will need to, in order to meet it's license requirements, to have adequate coverage through it's whole licensed area and there will be more cell sites but hopefully not a lot more poles. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: These are always tough issues. We're so constrained by federal regulations versus having the kinds of controls that we're used to being able to have with our ordinances. And I guess one of the things that struck me about this particular location is that though it's not ideal aesthetically as we're looking at the entrance to our community and it being right by the pedestrian bridge, I have to make the assumption that when staff and council went through the locations that these towers would be allowed, that maybe this one was considered a little bit more acceptable than others just in that there is more limited residential impacted. That we're not putting it in a neighborhood. We don't have the same sorts of issues as to the number of people we impacted say with the one that was allowed up at the church. Though it's not ideal. I'm assuming, and Roger not to catch you off guard, but were we to go back and go through some of the locations where these towers are allowed, are we constrained again by federal regulation as to how much availability we have to allow for? Could we have taken this area and re-evaluated it and made it so that antennas weren't allowed as a conditional use? Roger Knutson: On this particular spot for example? Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Prior to this application, you know if right now we were to sit down and review locations, are we constrained by federal regulation as to? Roger Knutson: You are constrained by federal regulations. But federal regulations don't say you have to allow a pole at every location. Just as an example in theory prohibited one of your ordinances at this location. But then you would have to allow it at other locations. So they can get reasonable access. 15 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: So somewhere within this proximity, which conceivably would maybe put it closer to a residential area. Mayor Mancino: Or downtown. I mean you get to the point where if you won't allow it in residential. You won't allow it near downtown. You won't allow it in any commercial industrial. Then you pretty much. Scott Botcher: You cannot discriminate against functional equivalent technologies. That's the law. These guys know that. They're in commercial sites. The federal government, no offense to the federal government, doesn't really give that much of a rip. The over riding thing here, and I think you said it correctly, was the provision of these services in the United States of America. God bless them but that just, I mean we can sit here and we can chew on it. We can do all this jerking around. The fact of the matter is, that we don't have a lot to say about it. I've got my own questions at the end about more some of the design features but I don't want anybody to be misled. We've been down this road before. I keep saying the same sort of tough love speech here but these guys know what they're doing. We have them on other commercial sites. If we just had, when I come to Chanhassen, we didn't have these in any commercial sites or we had them all restricted to a single zone. Then you could make more of an argument as we did in Delafield that we weren't discriminating against functional equivalent technologies and that's how we won that case in Seventh Circuit. Because we hadn't. That ship has sailed. Roger Knutson: And part of the reality is, who's the lucky winner? I mean what's. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly. Roger Knutson: I would anticipate that no matter where it is in the community, we'd be having this same discussion about it. Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess that's where in reviewing this one I went back and maybe tried to consider some of the things that council and staff did back when they said that this area would be appropriate and that is that it does probably impact at least our residents the least. And passers through the most. So I guess as to the location, I guess I'm feeling like I have to live with it unless we want to go back for future and take a look at some of the areas and impact those and do a review. But as to location, I guess this seems like the lesser of the evils in the area and you've worked with some of the aesthetics so I guess that's it for my comments. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Nothing. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I do know on the water tower that the, I was telling Councilman Labatt that at the water tower there already are a couple antennas and a couple buildings and I know that those residents aren't real happy with it so close to them because it is very, very close to their homes there. And they can hear the fans that cycle all the time so again I'm not sure that there is any wonderful place for them but I know a lot of thought was given to the ordinance. Many, many months of review and where to put these. Scott, did you have some remarks? Scott Botcher: Yeah, explain to me why we have the antenna design with those big mast arms sticking out. Is there a way that we can come with a more profiled design for the antennas because I don't think, again 16 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 call me cynical but the RF engineers seem to run these locations as much as anybody else and I don't know why we need to have those. Peter Beck: Mayor, the answer to that question again relates to the difference between the cellular technology and the PCS technology. The PCS at the higher frequencies does have the opportunity to put their antennas closer together and you do see them in some installations like that, US West Wireless in particular has an antenna system they use for the antennas that are quite close together. At the lower frequencies that we're in with the cellular we do need the separation of the antennas from each other and what you see there is again, you know you'll see that on every AT&T cell site. Scott Botcher: And that may be AT&T. It's not everybody and I guess my question is what does that give you? Peter Beck: You'll see that on all the AT&T cell sites and on the Verizon. Those are the two cellular providers at the 850 MHz that need the separation. Scott Botcher: And what does that give you? Warren Dunlap: Minimizes interference from, on your call when you hand off from one sector to the other. ... separation between your antennas and you... Scott Botcher: And the separation here, is that minimum? Maximum? Optimum? What's designed in this? Warren Dunlap: That's the minimum it's designed for. Peter Beck: In this case all the antennas are at the top. Scott Botcher: Alright. Peter Beck: In some installations the RF engineers, who do dictate a lot of what goes on here because they're the ones who's job it is, is to design and build a system that functions at the fewest possible cell sites. A lot of times you'll see them spread the antennas up and down the pole for that same reason. That's not the case here. If it were the case here, I think that would be a concern of the city because that takes away co-location opportunities. Scott Botcher: And I guess my question is, I'm not as believed, I don't believe co-location is going to be such a great opportunity because a lot of these providers want to be at or about the same elevations because a lot of them have some of the same, I mean and the technology is what it is. They all want to sort of be in the same range. If I'm designing this, I'm saying take away the mast arms, put it up and down the pole and say forget the co-location. I'd think about that. I'm just not a believer that, I mean we hear this from everybody so it's not AT&T. They're all going to co-locate, right? But there's always, and we always go down this road and then the RF engineers come in and say well you know, you guys have heard it. Our coverage isn't optimum. And I just, I raise the question. If you're coming down 5 and you've got to balance, how much do you believe co-location's really going to happen against the aesthetic appeal of having these mast arms? I guess how many antennas are going to be on each mast arm? I've got 2 on here and 1 on here. 17 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Peter Beck: There's 3 sets of antennas. Each set would have 3 antennas each. Scott Botcher: So we're talking about 9 panels up there. Warren Dunlap: Well we could have up to 12. Peter Beck: It could be as many as 12. Scott Botcher: Is that somehow restricted in the approval? Or are we going to allow them as the maximum? I'm just, because I don't remember that being in there. So the approval here tonight will allow you to put 4 on each one of these mast arms? Peter Beck: I believe so. And again that would be to minimize the need for additional cell sites. The more you can optimize utilization of one facility, the less you need. Scott Botcher: How big are those panels up there? Warren Dunlap: They're about 3 ½ feet, maybe 4 feet at the most. They're 10 to 12 inches wide. Maybe 6 to 8 inches each. Peter Beck: 4 feet would be for all 4 antennas. Scott Botcher: Right. I just raise that question. And then the final thing, and I'll be quiet for a while is, we have had that experience when I was in Milwaukee and we did instead, and we had a little stronger legal position to take, require the mini cells. Whatever you call them to meet the highway needs and the traffic needs that we had. Flag poles. Bridge abutments. Buildings. We're going to, you know the idea that they're serving greater Chanhassen with this, to some extent they are. But these guys aren't dummies. They know the money is on the highway. That's what they're serving. That's great. That's what federal law is. You know consider, you know the whole argument may be future cell sites. I don't doubt that. But they may not have to be this kind of cell site. For whatever it's worth. Peter Beck: That isn't entirely the case with this cell site. We had some citizens who just happened to be at the Planning Commission meeting that are business people in downtown who expressed their dissatisfaction with our coverage level at their businesses so this particular cell site, and agreed. We all know that the highest use of these is on a transportation corridors. In this particular instance we will be providing service to the businesses in downtown and many businesses do use this even from their place of business. Scott Botcher: Oh there's no question. I guess my argument is, I think you can meet the needs with a series of smaller cells on top of buildings. You've got the Northcott building. You've got the Chan Bank building. You could do something different if that was something that wanted to be done. Again, we don't have a lot of choice in that. And back to my original question, I would just think about when... Peter Beck: Maybe I could just address that co-location. Chanhassen is not in the center of the urbanized area of the Twin Cities and there are not as many cell sites out here as there are in the center. But as the use of this technology increases, cell sites will get smaller. There will be co-locaters on this facility and they hopefully will be able to use existing height. Another thing that does happen from time to time is a second user might come in and ask the city if they would approve and there would be no obligation to do it 18 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 but if they would approve increasing, adding to the height to accommodate a second user. That would require a conditional use permit. If the city felt that it wasn't appropriate in that location, it wouldn't happen and they would have to look somewhere else but once the infrastructure is there, folks will try to use it. Scott Botcher: What's the minimum separation between you folks and the next provider lower on the pole? Peter Beck: Typically about 20 feet. Scott Botcher: That's what I thought. So if you're down 20 feet, you're down to 57 feet. If you look at the horizon, I'm just looking at this picture right here. How many things do you see there that perhaps come within that neighborhood? And I don't know what the, you know if you guys measure HUL or MSL but if you take 20 feet off this monopole, you've got to look at this picture and say what are your options for another person to locate? Because they are there. Not that I disagree because you're right but I think there's a balancing act here. There's other things that you can maybe consider. Councilman Labatt: Where's your next closest antenna to this one? Peter Beck: Eden Prairie is at Eaton. Highway 7 is at Shorewood water tower. Councilman Labatt: So you've got the one in Eaton and 5? Peter Beck: We are one of the users of that facility, yep. Councilman Labatt: Where's the next one west on 5? Peter Beck: It's in Chaska. Is it in Chaska or in Chanhassen? That is, I believe that is one of the original tall towers where we moved the antennas down at this point .... so it is in Chaska. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Some of the issues that Scott has raised, maybe we could look at in some potential future ordinance amendments if you want to look, get into that subject. But right now we're dealing with the ordinance we have on the books. Scott Botcher: Understood. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: And didn't our ordinance also affect the height? We're kind of locked into this height. We can't bring it down because the ordinance allows for it. Mayor Mancino: We can bring it down but we can't go up I thought it was. Scott Botcher: No, they're entitled to this height if they allow. Roger Knutson: No, they don't have to allow co-location at this height. Mayor Mancino: They don't have to allow co-location. 19 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Peter Beck: I was going to say. We weren't required to do a co-location study or to allow co-location. We did both. You know we looked around for an alternative and we will build it so it can accommodate co- location. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Peter Beck: The surrounding sites are shown on the coverage map that we submitted. Councilman Labatt: They came out in black so I mean. Roger Knutson: Mayor I was just going to suggest. For example if you concluded, and I don't have, if you concluded that co-location is more myth than reality and you wanted to say forget about that. We're not going to be there, than you could look at your requirements on co-location and extra height to allow for co- location and you could say, you know. We won't give you a bonus if you will on height but there's a possibility for co-location. Those are issues we can look at. Scott Botcher: I'm just raising the issue that perhaps different aesthetic standards have different weights in different locations. And if you're sticking this thing, I don't know Todd. Audubon Business Park. Somewhere so people.., engineering can see it when they're banging on metal. That's a different thing. If it's here, or this is our gateway. I mean we've talked about signage. We've talked about getting the NSP power poles painted, which I called those guys last year and you know. This might have a different standard than elsewhere. So for whatever it's worth. Mayor Mancino: And we could go ahead and make that a condition. Scott Botcher: Well I'm going to defer to the attorney. Roger Knutson: At this point we have the ordinance we have. We're talking about potentially looking at amendments to the ordinance for in the future. That's something you might want to consider. Scott Botcher: I mean you could certainly ask these folks if they're willing to consider having the monopole, the slender look as opposed to the masts. You could ask them. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Peter? I mean I think that would make it much easier for us obviously and it was a concern of the Planning Commission. Peter Beck: Of? Mayor Mancino: The aesthetics and coming into, this is the gateway of our community down Highway 5. So is there a way to do that? Peter Beck: Well the Planning Commission was also quite concerned about forcing co-location. I think, I don't know. I'd defer to the staff but it wouldn't appear to me to be consistent with their sense... Mayor Mancino: But would you be comfortable with monopole? Peter Beck: We have a monopole. If we were to take out the extra capacity, I mean an average person would not be able to tell the difference in the profile of that tower. I mean it would get marginally smaller. 20 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 I don't think you would impact, reduce the visual impact of it in any meaningful way and you would take away the opportunity to save yourself an additional one in the future. Scott Botcher: How big is this span? I guess I never really asked that. How much is the span from tip to tip? Across the pole. I don't have the drawing. Peter Beck: Are you talking about from the antennas? Scott Botcher: Yeah. From one antenna to the other. Mayor Mancino: The wing span. Scott Botcher: So we're talking about 12 to 14 feet. To me that's substantial. Peter Beck: It's in the neighborhood of 10 feet. It might be closer to 11. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt: That's as wide as the building is. Scott Botcher: It is as wide as the building is. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Any other discussion? Then may I have a motion please. Councilman Engel: I'll move approval per staff recommendation with the inclusion of condition 16. That final plat must be recorded. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 to allow a 79.5 foot monopole with antennas and a site plan for a 12 foot by 28 foot (336 sq. ft.) equipment building for a wireless communication facility as shown on plans prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on June 16, 2000, and stamped received August 7, 2000, and survey prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. on August 15, 2000, and submitted on August 15, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The monopole and equipment building shall comply with Article XXX. Towers and Antennas of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The tower and all antennas shall be less than 80 feet in height. 3. The monopole color shall be the brand "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion". 4. The setbacks from the property lines shall be shown on the site plan for the equipment building. 21 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 5. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage for the monopole. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, showing the location of the replacement evergreen tree along TH 5. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, and so long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is not disruption to their service provider. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. The equipment building shall be constructed of textured block or brick similar in color to the existing building. 10. The site plan shall indicate the number of parking stalls that are impacted by the installation of the monopole and equipment building. 11. The island around the antenna and equipment building shall be B-612 concrete curb and gutter consistent with the existing parking lot. 12. A building permit is required to construct the building and monopole. The monopole must be designed to include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 13. The equipment building must be a minimum of 20 feet away from the existing building to the west. The west wall must be one hour fire resistive construction; opening or penetrations are not permitted in this wall unless it is at least 25 feet from the other building, at a distance of 30 feet, openings are permitted without restrictions. 14. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures and also the code requirements for the buildings based on the separation distance. 15. The final plat must be recorded. Councilman Engel, Councilwoman Jansen and Mayor Mancino voted in favor. Councilman Labatt voted in opposition. Councilman Senn abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 to 1. Councilman Senn: I'm abstaining. I did not vote. Councilman Engel: What does that make it? Roger Knutson: 2, 2 and 1 ? Mayor Mancino: We have 2 yeahs, 1 nay, 1 abstain. 22 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilman Engel: What did you do? Mayor Mancino: I have to ask Roger something. Roger Knutson: You need 3 positive votes to pass this motion. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. If your company has done work for AT&T, do I have any conflict? Roger Knutson: Not unless you have a financial interests in this project. If you're working for AT&T on salary or an employee, no. The question is do you have a financial stake in the outcome of this vote? Mayor Mancino: Probably not. Roger Knutson: Then the answer is you can vote. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I vote with the affirmative. So the motion carries 3 to 1 to 1. REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A 7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, BRINN AND BOB WITT. Cindy Kirchoff: In June of 1999 the applicant was granted a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback to construct a single family home. With the condition that lakeshore plantings be installed as a buffer. Or to act as a buffer rather. And the applicant is seeking to eliminate this condition. Although staff did not recommend this condition, we feel it does have merit. The applicant will have, continue to have full enjoyment of the property. The plantings will not interfere with the use of the site. Therefore staff does recommend denial of the amendment. Planning Commission reviewed this item on August 15th. The vote was 4 to 2. A 75% affirmative vote was required to, for the amendment to be sustained. Thus their vote only serves as a recommendation to the City Council. That is why it is in front of you tonight. Now at the Planning Commission meeting there was discussion about grading and runoff on the site and staff has added that information to the staff report and I would like to defer the rest of our brief presentation to Lori. She can discuss the grading and the drainage and also the applicant's submitted plan. Thank you. Lori Haak: Well because I'm flying solo and Dave Hempel was unable to make it tonight, I'll do my best to address the drainage and grading concerns. Staff did visit the site as it indicates in the staff report and we met with Bob Witt on site. It appears that most of the drainage going through the Witt's property is running along the eastern property line. And originally the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was included buffer along all of the lakeshore. But after observing the runoff that actually flows through the site, staff was willing to reduce it's recommendation to what you see in your packet which is approximately 10 feet along the eastern property edge. And that is approximately 16 ½ feet deep and so that's what was proposed to the Witt's at that point in time. It should also be noted that there is potentially less drainage through the site than may have originally been anticipated because of the ponding that occurred upslope in Springfield so that's something that staff took into consideration. The reduced amount of storm water drainage. There's also some drainage that runs east along Lake Riley Boulevard into a culvert that runs across an adjacent property owners, under adjacent property owner's property so, 23 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 kind of a side note there. The following page in your staff report which shows what was submitted by Brinn and Bob Witt I believe it was last Friday. Cindy Kirchoff: Thursday. Lori Haak: Thursday, sorry. Which shows approximately 10 feet closest to the lake and reduces to about 3 feet, 20 feet from the lakeshore. And what that does is incorporates 2 trees that are existing and the reason that staff was not comfortable with this interpretation of the condition is because water will take the path of least resistance along this edge so if you do have drainage running down the eastern property line you will, the water will tend to flow along the outside of that buffer instead of going through the buffer as it would with what staff recommended. Is that clear? I'm seeing some puzzled looks. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have to think about that for a little bit. Lori Haak: If I use the overhead camera maybe it will... Mayor Mancino: I mean it will flow where it's directed to. Aren't there some swales on each side? Lori Haak: Well there are. There is, it's not a swale. If you took that...necessarily say that is a swale. There is a depression that goes along this side. It's not highly defined. It is lower gradient than what exists up in this portion of the site. But it's not a graded swale as such as you might see on another property that has a well defined. Mayor Mancino: Well there are different kinds of swales or there are different depths of swales I'm assuming. Lori Haak: Right. So it doesn't really. Mayor Mancino: It's not very defined? Lori Haak: Right. Precisely. And the swale directs it to approximately this point, at which point it would sheet flow and as I said, the path of least resistance here would be along this edge of the buffer. Whereas with staff's proposal, you would require it basically to go in here. Into the buffer and through the buffer. Which basically increases the effectiveness of the buffer. Mayor Mancino: And Lori, has that been quantified? How much sheet flow that is resulting down there? Lori Haak: No. Staff was hoping for some rain after the visit with Bob but we just haven't received any to go out, either Dave or myself have been available so we really haven't been out on site to see exactly what they're receiving down there. At this point it's only a guess, as I stated earlier. It's likely much less now that that ponding in Springfield went in but it's difficult to say. We can't quantify it at this point so we're hoping to get some rain, if the council directs it that way. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Lori? Councilwoman Jansen: Lori, have you had a chance to verify from the May 3rd letter, whether the drainage swales have been extended on the east and west property line. I know the staff report, when that was prepared noted that there hadn't been the opportunity to see if that had been adjusted. 24 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Lori Haak: We have not gone out there formally and evaluated that. At this point. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward please? Bob Witt: Hi. My name's Bob Witt and my wife Brinn sitting down behind me. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. On June 28th we were granted the variance to build our home on Lake Riley Boulevard and I think most of you have had a chance to, I think all of you actually have had a chance to come up and see the results of that building. And can see that it's a very reasonable use of the lot. Now as a condition of the approval by the council there was a friendly amendment of the condition. I'm just kind of reading here. Of the condition for the applicant and/or landscapers to work with the staff to install private lakeshore plantings as a quality buffer. Now there weren't really any conversations at that point. At that point it was 11:30 at night too. It was late. We were the eleventh item on the agenda and it was late. So we were just happy to get approved and we didn't really know what that meant other than we were, you know we've done a lot of landscaping. I don't know if you've seen our lot. You've seen that there's quite a bit of landscaping out there that we've done. And a lot of what we have done are things that we feel have really enhanced the quality of that. I'll go through some of the things that we've done at the lake. First off, before we actually got, were able to put in our foundation and our footings we found that the, and I don't know what you call it. The builders call it something I suppose I shouldn't really say here but it's kind of a dark sludge. They call it loon stuff. And so what was happened is we had to replace 65 truck loads of that dark substance that you can't really put a house on and replace it and compact it with sand. Which they said is a really good thing for the lot because it does happen to clean a lot of the sediment that, and everything tends to drain right through the sand which can help there. That's one of the things we did. We removed 2 truck loads of boulders from the lake, and I don't know Brinn, do you have a picture of that? Of boulders. The way that looked before. You might have seen that and I'll have Brinn pass that photo onto you. The previous owner Jim Jessup had basically dumped 2 truckloads of boulders into the lake as kind of a, that was his version of a retaining wall in there. Well what we did is we had pulled, we had hired a backhoe to go in and pull all those back out of the lake and what we did is we built a 2 course wall and put erosion control cloth along the whole back side of the lot. And then built that 2 course wall. Then with the rest of the boulders that we had pulled out of the lake, we built 2 boulder walls on either side of the house because we had a fairly substantial slope from the side of the house that would kind of increase the speed of the drainage from the house. So what we did is kind of tiered things off so that it wasn't so aggressive in that way. And then what we also did is we installed a gutter system around the house too to redirect the flowage off the house. Then in the front and the sides of the house we planted pines and dogwoods and kind of few perennials. I don't know all the names of those different perennials on both sides of the house to protect any of the drainage coming from the house. Down at the lake, if you've had a chance to go down there. There are 2 trees. I'm not actually sure what type of trees these are but they're about 15 years old and I'm guessing about 25 feet tall. And they're the only piece of planting within 150 feet of either side of us so we're the only ones actually with lakeshore plantings anywhere near the lake. Let me go through a few of the facts that we feel, that are pertinent to this. The city did deem this lot a buildable lot. Back when, I don't know when Jim Jessup owned it. I believe there was a cabin on it and it was deemed a buildable lot. The city also knew that there would be variances needed for this lot to put any type of a building on it. I mean it was small and it had a 24 foot of lakeshore and you know it was going to need variances to get any type of a building on there. Now the city approved, and I believe, I don't know if it was the council or Planning Commission or what approved Jim Jessup's plan but Jim Jessup had a larger building area approved on this lot previously to us buying this lot and there was no suggestion of lakeshore plantings at that time for him. No other variances that we were, we looked at, we looked in the records and kind of pulled up all the variances that we could find on Lake Riley and on Lake Riley Boulevard, and no 25 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 other variances that we were able to find had on Lake Riley Boulevard, had a condition of lakeshore plantings attached to their approval. Now as far as the drainage goes on this lot, Brinn and I have observed it quite a few times when there's been big rains and there used to be some water that they told us about that would come down from the neighborhoods from above, and I forgot what that neighborhood's called up there. But from the neighborhood above but none of that comes through our lot now. It's all redirected down to the holding area and then it goes into the, I believe the sewer system if I'm not mistaken. Is that right? Lori Haak: Storm sewer. Bob Witt: Storm sewer. So that goes that way so we don't get any drainage on our lot other than what's on our lot. There is no city ordinance that would suggest that lakeshore plantings would be needed as a condition of a variance. And on the one side that staff was recommending that we actually would do the variance, or do the lakeshore plantings on is the east side of our home. Down to the lot. Now the east side of our lot is the only side where we meet all the setback requirements. We don't have any setback, we don't have any variances on the east side of our lot. Mayor Mancino: Is that the only side? Bob Witt: Yeah, that's the only side. That's it. And it's probably it for just about everybody on that lake too. Or at least on Lake Riley Boulevard. There are a lot of variances that we found. Now one of our biggest concerns was we, as we were looking at the different variances and we saw some of the variances that were approved on Lake Riley Boulevard, the one that concerned us the most. Well quite a few of them concerned us because there are some people that are even 35 feet from the lake that didn't have to do lakeshore plantings and lots of others that had a lot of variances, but the one that concerned us the most is the neighbors directly to our west which are the Sitter's. And on, what was it? September 15, 1999 they were approved an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback to build a 28 x 28 foot garage, which is, their garage is bigger than our house and as we looked at this we saw that there was nothing mentioned in here at all. And this was after our variance was approved with the condition of lakeshore plantings. This one there was no suggestion of lakeshore plantings. They do not have any erosion control on the lake side. They don't have anything to protect from erosion into the lake. They have creosol soaked ties that are supporting their dock in the water. And none of these issues were really brought to light and concern us terribly that our's were but their's weren't. We saw, I mean other different variances and I mean actually we even, as we were digging through the different variances we even found that Linda, that you guys even had a variance for the 30 foot bluff protection setback for your facility. For your's and your husband's that was an 18 ½ foot variance from that 30 foot bluff setback. Councilwoman Jansen: With a planting requirement. Bob Witt: Well it looks like as we were kind of reading through it, it just that you had to let the plantings re-grow back underneath your deck. Is what it looks like it says on your. Councilwoman Jansen: I assure you it was with plantings to avoid erosion but, only because you brought it up. Bob Witt: Alright. So you know we're looking at a lot of these things and we're seeing that there's been kind of a precedence that has been set. And it hasn't been for lakeshore plantings for somebody that's granted a variance. So we're feeling like, we've got such a small piece of lakeshore. We've got 24 feet of 26 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 lakeshore. We've probably got maybe one of the smallest pieces of lakeshore on the lake. No one else has had to do this. We don't feel that we should have to do this. We've done a lot to improve the quality of the lot. And we're just expecting that the city is going to be fair with us on this and that they're not going to treat us any better or any worse than any other resident of Chanhassen or anybody else on Lake Riley has been treated. And there's letters that some of our neighbors have written to you in the package as well that will state how they feel and they support us on this as well too. I'll answer any questions that you have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Thank you. Any questions for Bob at this point? Okay. Bob, you had said, let's see. I've got some notes on some things that you've done. Were the requirements as part of the variance that you got in June of '99, you said you've done a lot of things. You've done some soil correction. You removed the boulders from the lake and rebuilt the retaining wall. You talked about tiered landscaping walls around the house. Gutters on the house. And you also have plantings around the house and everything. Were any of those a condition of approval for the variance? Bob Witt: No. None of that was a condition of approval. We thought, as we were doing those things we had remembered that this was, you know we needed to do some things to protect the quality and as a buffer for the lake and those were the things that we were doing that we thought would comply with that. Mayor Mancino: When this was a condition of approval why didn't you at the time, when the conditions, it was added as a friendly amendment or whatever, why didn't you question at the time what it meant? Or why didn't you come back and ask staff afterwards what that meant? Bob Witt: Again, we kind of thought we had an idea of what it meant and it was so late at night and we were, you know we were basically just happy to be able to get a house built on this lot you know. And at this point we really didn't think much of it. We didn't think that it was going to be anything more than what we were doing. And actually we didn't know that it was maybe something that there were requirements of others to do it and as we started to look into it and look at the precedent that's been set and that other variances that have been approved by the city, when we found out that we were the only ones that needed to do this, you know we just, and what we had done we thought was enough. And would comply with that and based on what anybody else, especially the neighbors, the Sitters. When we looked at that situation there. Getting an 18 foot setback. Brinn Witt: Wasn't the discussion at that point closed to the public? We couldn't get clarification at that time. Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah. I mean usually we have discussion like this and then we bring it back to council and then council makes a motion and then there's a friendly amendment, unless yeah. Bob Witt: Yeah, and I think it was at the, this was that kind of, I think was at the voting point. Yeah. Councilwoman Jansen: That's when a friendly amendment happens. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: But as you said Mayor, there's always after the meeting to question. Mayor Mancino: No, I understand that. 27 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Bob Witt: We were about 11:30 at night too. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, understand. Just wanted to... Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thanks. Is there anyone else here tonight wishing to make a comment? Thank you. Throw this back to council then. And again this is your request. You're seeking relief on the lakeshore variance condition of approval that required lakeshore plantings. However, I want to make sure that we understand this. However you did submit a planting that you would do. Bob Witt: Yeah, actually we did. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that's what this is. Bob Witt: I think that's what you're looking at. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. Well let's have some discussion. Steve. Councilwoman Jansen: Well I guess if you don't mind, since I started this problem, if I may. Mayor Mancino: Well we'll get to you. Just a sec. Steve. Councilman Labatt: I'm sure glad to give up my time for Linda real quick here since she did start this. I'll start out with, you know we gave 6 variances and from what I recall this was a friendly amendment to look at mitigate potential runoff so. Mayor Mancino: So you feel comfortable staying with it? Councilman Labatt: Well looking at what Bob and Brinn have submitted in this fax and what, and you know what staff recommended on the previous page to it, you know is it coming down to splitting hairs? To what the two drawings are going. I don't know you know, so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark. Councilman Engel: Oh I think at 24 feet of lakeshore, they're being singled out unfairly and the effect would be more one of symbolism rather than substance in this case if you consider all the other lakeshore on that lake. And as you guys know by now, I'm not really too much into symbolism. I don't care what people think about the symbolism. I'm into results and if we're going to make this work, we make it work for everybody. That means we go to square one. We pass some rules everybody's going to follow. Whether that has to do with natural plantings. Whether they've got mowed grass that they like to look at. Whether they got boulder walls. Whether they put sand down. Whether they've got patios. Whether they've got decks that are intruding in setbacks. I don't care what they are. If we're going to enforce stuff like that, especially on a property with 24 feet of frontage, given the rest of the frontage on that lake, then you don't single out something like this. And I think that probably says where I stand on this. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: Well obviously the intent of the friendly amendment was certainly not to cause this sort of what has turned into an appearance of an unjust burden. Having met with the Witt's on the 28 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 property prior to that council meeting, and having had the discussion about the plantings and the whole conversation around your enthusiasm for planting and the environment, I would never have forwarded a friendly amendment without having had that discussion. But obviously there was a misunderstanding or a miscommunication between there and the execution. And I can certainly accept that because there is an educational curve that I know our prior Water Resource Coordinator was working on with lakeshore owners and I'm sure will continue to work on as a city, to educate residents as to what our water quality issues are. And what the best things are that we can do to best protect our lakes as well as our wetlands and buffer plantings of course are one of those. And it's not trying to place an undue burden on a particularly small lot. The fact that this is a particularly small lot with a large home on it, which increases the impervious surface is exactly why you need to have more of a buffer to the lake, because you are having more runoff. What I'm feeling more confident about having heard staff now gone out to the site, evaluated the runoff. Establish where it's going. I mean you've gotten very specific, which is what I would have hoped in having worked with the property owners, would have happened as far as getting more specific about what we're trying to accomplish. Thank you for going back out and fine tuning your proposal. And the Witt's for coming forward with more a compromise position with staff as to what you're comfortable with to try to reach the same goals. But again I do feel as ifI do owe you an apology. I'm disappointed for all of us that it turned into this sort of a contentious sort of an issue. When 8 variances are applied to a property, that in and of itself is different treatment than other lots are necessarily given and I certainly supported all of those variances realizing that your intentions were to put the best use of this property and your home. So having supported the variances, in spite of staff and Planning Commission recommendation not to on at least the last two, I would like to see staff and the applicant continue to work on these two concepts that you've put together. You seem to be going in the same directions. You, I gather we still need to evaluate the swales and make sure that those, the drainage is happening properly as well as the boulders in the front yard being set back so realizing you're going to follow through on those things. Eventually what I would like to suggest is yes, that we, staff has acknowledged that this is a good idea. If now we can bring forward a lakeshore buffer ordinance to be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council. Let's have the conversation. It certainly would be consistent with our water quality goals and the wetland protection ordinance. So seeing that as where we're going. Not necessarily to start a precedent on this property but it's certainly a good example of a good application. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I remember this eleventh hour, I guess I should say eleventh and a half hour amendment. I remember it was quite late at night. You know I also remember walking out afterwards just kind of figuring it was really an issue that was going to be discussed between staff and the applicant and they were going to kind of agree on something. And obviously afterwards I think there was a, how would I say a large range of different definitions as to what was meant by the plantings. And quite honestly I think it was probably our mistake because we did it at the last minute. We did it in a hurry and we lent no definition to it. Zero. So I guess I can't blame anybody including staff, applicant or anybody else for the difference in definitions. Because we didn't give them a starting point. You know it seems to me from the standpoint of the, of what we're trying to accomplish here, it seems to me if we want to accomplish it then I think we ought to really go back and look at the overall issue. It would appear from the impact on this site that there is really no impact. If there is we haven't got enough study to find that out. I guess proof positive. The other part is, is that even if it does, we really don't have any rules in place that we're talking about having people meet. I don't think it's particularly fair in this, at this point to have the Witt's simply be the first test case for meeting all these rules, however ill defined that we may have been. You know over the years we've given a ton of variances down in that area as a council. Whether it's Sitters in '98 or what 29 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 was it, Jansen's in, or Jansen's in '98 and Sitter's in '99. I mean around that lake, I hate to tell you this but there's a good number of variances all around the lake. And we try in each one of those cases to you know, let the people have reasonable use of their property but at the same time kind of custom design some solutions to make sure at least some of our concerns were dealt with. And I'll tell you, the history on this lot even before Witt's were involved was just unbelievable. I mean I can't remember how, I probably can remember. It'd be sad ifI did but the number of meetings and times this lot came up as an issue. And a lot of the concerns, especially that the Sitter's had towards that which I think were well justified. Again, I think in the end we essentially came up with a, well effectively with an applicant and with a plan effectively that can allow somebody reasonable use of the property but tried to solve many of the concerns that existed over it. So I think that the solution we have there is fine. As far as the plantings go, I'd really like staff to really finish looking at that in the sense that they have, and I think whether it's this plan or that plan, right now everybody seems to be shooting in the dark. I think what, the one thing that's been talked about is over kill and you know I think you really just need to kind of get it back to a plane that you go out. You find out what the sheet drainage is doing when we get some rain, and then try to make some determinations from there that I think are reasonable and are something essentially that staff and the Witt's can agree to. I enjoyed Uli Sacchet's comments coming out of the Planning Commission because it's kind of like these two immovable sides were there and he was just saying, let's just kind of search for something that was somewhat in the middle and was kind of a compromise and I think that's really the approach here that I think the Planning Commission was probably led a little bit astray with the information that they had before them, and also some council desires as it relates to what we're looking at on that action so I think it's time to kind of get this thing back on track and allow them to get going. I think they've done a nice job down there, especially looking at what they have done and so let's get it wrapped up. Let's get out there and see what happens when the time is appropriate and if it needs to come back for additional discussion, come back but I can't imagine that it would. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll give my comments and that is, a couple things. First of all, we've had two variances. One beside each other in a 6 month time frame. One, we had conditions on it that were different than the other variances that were granted to the Sitter's. I like public policy to be consistent and fair to all so I think it's important that we work on that, and not just assign conditions to one and not to another because if the philosophy is right, then we should be consistent with it. And yet I understand the reason for the condition on the Witt's property so what I'd like to see is more performance oriented and that is to go out and say, what sort of sheet flow. What sort of runoff is happening there. Also to take into account the rebuilding of the wall, the retaining wall that was done on the shoreline and how it was done, because that can be as effective as plantings if it's done well. And to measure that, and is that something you can do Lori? You can quantify on that eastern side of the property just what's happening? Lori Haak: Well certainly since I've come on staff, any quantification would be more than what I have now. I haven't been out there during a rain event at all so I really can't say what the storm water is like on that site. Mayor Mancino: And can you do that this fall yet? Over the next 2 or 3 months and work with the Witt's on that. Lori Haak: Yeah, I'm certainly hoping we get some rain during the week sometime this fall. Councilman Senn: So is Teresa. 30 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Lori Haak: Yes. I think we all are as public servants, but yeah. I think that's something that certainly we can do and Bob and Brinn really have been willing to meet with us out on site so I don't think that will be a problem. Mayor Mancino: I think, and again I'm just talking for myself but just common sense wise I don't think any of us want to see or think it's appropriate to put 7 foot grasses you know, up there or something. I mean something that would work in with the rest of the landscaping if it's appropriate. Again, if there isn't a problem with the runoff, and you've gone in and calculated, etc, then maybe there needs to be nothing. I don't know. You'll have to tell us that and work with them on it and come back. As far as an ordinance on lakeshore plantings, etc. I would not feel comfortable just leaving that to Planning Commission and City Council. I think that needs to involve, we have a lot of lakes in Chanhassen and we have a lot of lake owners so that would be, I would like to get more public input in that than just the Planning Commission. Maybe, I don't know if it's having meetings at the different lakes, etc but we have again many, many lakeshore residents and owners and I've seen people who like their lakeshore natural. I've seen others that absolutely want to have grass down to it, etc. So how do we keep the quality of our lakes and take everyone into account? I mean not get too extreme either way is what I'm saying because we already have so many that live on our lakes. How do we do that in an environmentally friendly way and yet give people property rights? So I think we need to talk about that a little more. And we try to do that whenever, whether it's any new big ordinance. Whether it was the sign ordinance that we created quite a few years ago. We invited members of our Chamber of Commerce to come to help us with that ordinance. Residents. Different members of the community to help us with some of, with our ordinances and how we craft them. May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we amend the condition of approval for the variance to eliminate the friendly amendment as stated and instead say that staff shall administratively approve a solution once they complete studying and have agreement with the Witt's and if they can't agree, then it should come back to us. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that's also based on quantifying the runoff. Councilman Senn: Yes. Essentially yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council amend the condition of approval for Variance #98-12 to eliminate the friendly amendment as stated and instead say that staff shall administratively approve a solution once a study is completed on the runoff and drainage. If the applicant and staff can come to agreement, then the item shall come back to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO REZONE FIVE ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 10 LOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SUMMERFIELD DRIVE; 421 LYMAN BOULEVARD, SPRINGFIELD 8TM ADDITION, MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT. 31 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor. There's a slight error in that. It's actually 10 lots. As you stated... Mayor Mancino: Oh, thank you very much. Bob Generous: ... into two parts. The first one is a rezoning of the property. The property currently is zoned A2 which is an agricultural estate district. Basically it's a holding category in our community. This property was guided for low density residential development which means it can have a density of 1 to 4 units per acre. Our zoning ordinance provides 3 zoning alternatives on that. For that, the land use. The first one is our RSF district which is the single family residential district. Second one would be our R-4 district which is a mixed density residential district. And finally the Planned unit development would be the third zoning district. The surrounding properties on the east and south and west were approved as part of a planned unit development and the applicant came in and requested that they be given the same treatment as that. As part of the original approval they were looking at ghost platting this property and they showed some alternatives on how this property would fit into that overall scheme. Staff believes that the PUD-R, the rezoning is a reasonable alternative on this property. It would be consistent with the surrounding development. Like the Springfield development, it provides transition from the smaller lots in the interior to the larger lots that would abut our collector roadway, Lyman Boulevard. It is one option for preserving the few trees that are on the property. Again we believe this development was constrained by the surrounding PUD. Especially with the terminus of the street right-of-way for connecting Summerfield Drive through this project. The character of this neighborhood was established as part of the Springfield Development and we believe that this subdivision will in essence become part of that and the applicant's representative has stated that they would really like to join the association to have the membership and use of the private park that's located down there. The second part of this approval is for the preliminary plat. Basically once you have the zoning classification, that's rather straight forward. Does it comply with the subdivision requirements? Staff believes that.., development complies with that. One of our major concerns was the drainage issue on that are existing Springfield development. We want to make sure that this would improve any drainage problems that may occur on there. There is some standing water in some of the rear yards. The neighbor to the south was worried that it would impact their fence. The grading will not impact the fence. That will remain in place. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report. The Planning Commission had a public hearing on August 15th and they recommended unanimously to recommend approval of this project. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Bob. So you're saying the reason to rezone this PUD is because there's a PUD around it? Bob Generous: That's one of the reasons, yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bob Generous: Because it sort of functions as part of that planned development. You have this street character established. Summerfield Drive, the interiors all have the smaller lots and this would continue that pattern. Mayor Mancino: And how does this average compare to Summerfield? 32 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Bob Generous: It's higher than Summerfield. Or Springfield. And it's higher than the adjacent, immediately adjacent lots. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And if we did a regular RSF, what's the difference between that and a PUD and what are we getting out of this? What's the, why wouldn't we do an RSF here? Regular subdivision. Bob Generous: We could do that. They'd probably lose one lot. Mayor Mancino: Okay. We would still save the trees? Bob Generous: It depends. If they redefined it and brought in the public street, we would definitely lose, we'd lose some of the trees. Not all of them. It depends on how they have to reconfigure the lot lines on the grading plan. What would probably happen is the lots along Lyman Boulevard would get smaller to make the north side work. And we'd lose one on the south side of that road. Summerfield Drive. Mayor Mancino: So I'm sorry, say that one more time please. Bob Generous: The lot line would change on the northern. The lots on Summerfield Drive that are on the north side, those would have to...to meet the 15,000 square foot. So the lots on Lyman would be smaller. And you would lose one of the lots on the south side. Mayor Mancino: And the reason for the Summerfield Addition being PUD. Bob Generous: That was to provide, it wasn't for environmental features but it was because it was surrounded on the west side by 101 and on the north by Lyman and we wanted to provide a buffer for the residential development. Especially knowing that 101 is an arterial roadway and traffic levels will increase especially once 212 is upgraded. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. In the bigger map, Lots 1 and 8 of Summerfield. It has those two little triangular attachments. Are those outlots right now or. Bob Generous: No. Those have been included as part of the final plats for those two lots. At one time they were intended to be used as a part with this plan to create a subdivision. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So those dashed lines don't exist? Bob Generous: No. Right now those are utility easement areas. It shouldn't be individual lots. Councilman Labatt: And I realize it might be hard for you to kind of estimate this but, with the configuration of some of these lots and the footprints of the buildings, are we setting ourselves up for having to give variances to the rear yard setbacks for decks or patios? Bob Generous: Not for rear yards, no. Scott Botcher: You remember that letter Kate wrote to Lundgren. Is it Lundgren? I think that's what he's getting at. 33 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Bob Generous: Right. That was for the site coverage and that was one of the conditions that we put in there. That they were taking the smaller lots and they're putting on their 3 car garages and you know a standard house. And this we're saying, if you're less than 15,000 you only get the 2 car garage. That's one of the conditions you can require as part of the PUD because you're creating the zoning. Mayor Mancino: Was there any talk about affordability of the homes? Bob Generous: Not for single family detached. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And I'm not talking about you know, livable communities. I'm just talking about coming in at a different price range. Maybe 200-250 versus, because of the PUD and smaller lots. Maybe a smaller sized home. Okay. So that wasn't discussed. Okay. Any other questions from staff? Is the applicant here? Beth Andrews: I'm Beth Andrews and I'm here on behalf of Meridian Development and I'll address a little bit of some of the issues that you talked about in the... When we looked at this site, whether it should be considered separately with a cul-de-sac coming in. In looking at it both ways we felt for the continuity of the whole development to connect the two Summerfield Drives would be a much better feel for the neighborhood. We have spoken with several of the neighbors on each side and they are in favor of some kind of connection here. We do have a builder that is under contract to purchase the land based on getting our approvals and we have worked with the neighbors to accept covenants that are going to be similar to what's surrounding them. Affordability anywhere in the western suburbs is tough. We're looking between 2 and 250. It's going to have a similar feel to the surrounding neighborhood behind it. We are currently working with the association based on Planning Commission's recommendation that we try and join in their association .... lot that abuts their swimming pool right there. It's going to be tough to have a child here to being able to go over here and the child here not. And from the people we've met with the association, so far they're very much in favor in working with us to have these lots join in that association. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions? Councilwoman Jansen: No, great. Councilman Engel: I'm just kind of curious why this wasn't done as part of the original development. Beth Andrews: Lundgren and the previous owners could not come to terms. They had many, many discussions. There was, and we met with Lundgren too when we purchased the land from the previous owners, Meridian Development. Lundgren was the first people we contacted and they weren't interested. Our feeling was, and in dealing with Bob, had Lundgren come to terms with the previous owner, this probably would have been approved this way. They would make the connection the way it's sitting. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bring it back to council. Steve? Councilman Labatt: Nothing. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. 34 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: My only concern was really brought up by Councilman Labatt and that was the size of the lot and putting the restriction on there for the 2 car garage. I'm just sure we're going to get people coming in and wanting that third stall and you know of course realizing, or not realizing that they've got that restriction. Does that end up in the contract that they're purchasing? Beth Andrews: Yes. And you're away that their lots are... Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was my only reaction to the small lots and realizing that is usually where we get our variances but no. No other comments. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Nope. Move approval. Unless you've got something. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council grant conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2000-3 and preliminary plat approval to create 10 lots, plans prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen and Olson, Inc., dated July 14, 2000, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan. Changes to the plan include an additional 14 trees. The trees must be overstory, deciduous 2 ½" diameter and no more than 20 percent may be represented by a single species. The rear yard of each lot must contain a minimum of two (2) overstory trees. Lots less than 15,000 square feet in lot area (Lots 3 and 6 of the northerly block and Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the southerly block) shall be limited to a two car garage. The following setbacks shall apply: Front, 30 feet (Summerfield Drive), 50 feet (Lyman Boulevard); Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 25 percent impervious surface. Maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. Uses shall be those permitted in the RSF, Single Family Residential District. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for the nine additional lots created as part of the development pursuant to City of Chanhassen ordinance. The developer shall revise the name of the subdivision to differentiate it from the Springfield project. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 35 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. The proposed residential development of 4.55 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,640. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $9,009. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. The plans shall be revised to incorporate the following items. · Show proposed filling and building elevations on Lot 2. The lowest floor elevation shall be a minimum of 898.5. · Show proposed house type and garage floor elevations on all lots. · Show lowest floor and walkout elevation on existing home on Lot 1. · Provide emergency overflow swales along the south line of Lots 1 and 2 between ponds. · Provide emergency overflow swale along the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and between Lots 3 and 4 out to Summerfield Drive. · Show existing well/s and septic site on property. · Add erosion control measures silt fence on downstream side of grading limits, protect existing/proposed catch basins and add rock construction entrances. · Add 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along south side of Summerfield Drive. Staff will verify the location of the sidewalk. · Removal of existing driveway access. The existing home at 421 Lyman Boulevard shall be connected to municipal sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. Only one of the nine unit assessments was levied in conjunction with the Lake Riley trunk. The remaining eight were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than previously was assessed, the additional lots will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charges as well as a road connection charge at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hookup connection charges per lot for sanitary sewer and water are as follows: $1,000 Sanitary Sewer Hookup $1,694 Watermain Hookup $4,075 Sanitary Sewer Connection $4,075 Watermain Connection $1,814 Street Reconstruction - Lyman Boulevard The deferred assessments against the property should be re-spread against the property and certified to the County at time of final plat recording. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review previous street grades proposed for this property and make the necessary connections to provide for adequate grade on the sewer to serve the lots via gravity and provide back to front yard drainage over Lots 1 through 4 of the southerly block. The developer of this site will need to expand the existing storm water pond located just west of Lot 2, northerly block. Staff will be working with the applicant's engineer to determine the amount of expansion necessary to accommodate runoff from this development. 36 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. Ponding calculations including pre and post development drainage maps for a 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. Staff is also requiring a detailed storm sewer analysis of the individual storm sewer to determine that there are sufficient catch basins to accommodate proposed runoff. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the storm drainage system including ponds and emergency overflows. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the pond should also be a consideration in the easement width and location. Additional erosion control fence shall be installed along Lots 5 and 6 at the grading limits as well as rock construction entrances on Summerfield Drive. Existing and proposed catch basins outside of the street right-of-way should also have erosion control measures employed accordingly. The common portion of the shared driveway will need to be 20 feet wide and constructed to a 7 ton per axle weight design. A cross access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private driveway. The minimum driveway width shall be 20 feet within a 30 foot wide driveway easement. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted to a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD Agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities and storm water ponds outside of the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100 year flood level. Applicant shall consult with wetland expert to verify that there are no wetlands on site. 37 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: BUILDING QUALITY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE. Scott Botcher: In your packet you have, and you got one I think last, two weeks. Last week sometime we got a Building Quality Communities Initiative. I guess I'm seeking some direction. In the correspondence, in fact I think the letter that Jim Miller wrote me, I guess I just need to know if you want to do the resolution, which is frankly pretty brainless but if you don't want to you can always say I don't want to. Secondly, there have been in packets and it was in the packet you got before. Some ideas for things that cities can do, have done, may want to do, to participate in the quality communities initiative. And I guess I need to know if you have any inclination of doing any of those. I don't have any, I mean this is sort of a warm and fuzzy PR and I guess I'm just seeking your direction. I guess I'm assuming the resolution is pretty much a no brainer. You can futz with the words if you want but anything beyond that I'd like to know what it is so I can begin (a), planning and (b) determining how much it's going to cost us to do whatever it is that you guys want to do. Mayor Mancino: When was the last time we had, and we used to. We used to have an open house at city hall once a year and people just came through. Scott Botcher: I don't know. How's that? I don't know the answer to that question. Mayor Mancino: Do you remember Mark? The last time. I mean we used to have open houses. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's been quite a while. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Has staff put some thoughts and ideas to this? Scott Botcher: We're meeting tomorrow at 9:00 at our regular staff meeting and it's one of the things that will be there. But beyond that, no. We haven't frankly. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Scott Botcher: We've got time. I mean I guess, since you're all jumping up with these great ideas, I can report back from the meeting from tomorrow, I mean if you'd like. My sense is that the staff position, department position will be, do I have time? How much will it cost? Which is what they're paid to ask. Councilman Senn: But I mean your resolution, I agree. It's a no brainer on the resolution but it'd be nice to give some additional thoughts to the other aspect of what we do. I mean a couple cities I know really kind of go into this in a big way with open houses and in fact Bruce is probably quite familiar with them. Minnetonka's has grown to a point that it's kind of bigger than any other event the city holds the whole year I think and it's really a big deal and they get to come in and kind of get through public safety and the fire department and city hall and it kind of puts people more in touch with some of the services they're getting. Scott Botcher: Do you know when they hold it? Is it on a Saturday? 38 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilman Senn: They usually hold it, I want to say, I think it's usually in late summer, early fall ifI remember right. Scott Botcher: But what day of the week? Councilman Labatt: That's not the August Fest thing is it? Councilman Senn: No. No, they have an August Fest I think that's. Councilman Labatt: Summer Fest, whatever it's called. Councilman Senn: Yeah, Summer Fest is different. You know we always participate. That's like a carnival and they have the fireworks and I know.., sponsors a game there and stuff like that but no. This is held after that. This I think is, if I remember right, more late summer, early fall and it's purely kind of like a big open house. Where they have kind of everybody there and people then actually go through the facilities. Each facilities and they usually have demonstrations and they have not only demonstrations but people around just to ask certain questions about stuff and displays effectively you know explaining some of the services and that sort of thing so. Mayor Mancino: So maybe the same day as the fire open house. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean I've wandered over there with my parents before. It's really.., but a lot of that's because of the fire department and they usually have. Mayor Mancino: Do they bring the dump trucks and snow plows and everything? Councilman Senn: Oh yeah. So the kids can go through them or you know, at least crawl through them or whatever and, they even turn on the fire hoses. Someone will be out there where they can get them, assist the fire fighters or something. Grab onto the hose. Councilman Labatt: Well don't we have the fire department open house in October? Scott Botcher: They do. And we need to make sure, obviously we can staff. We're going to have people here and how much will it cost us to have the public works guys haul a bunch of equipment up here in the parking lot. Put it all back. Is it worth it? I mean those are all, those are real tax dollars so. We'll talk about it tomorrow then. See what they say and I'll put the resolution then on the agenda for. Councilman Labatt: We've got a new street closing ordinance. Scott Botcher: We're going to have a party with loud music... Mayor Mancino: Okay, if you could get back to us, that'd be great. Scott Botcher: Yep, October 9th as I said before Len will be here. Please be ready with your questions. If you have any questions prior to that that you want me to forward to him, get them to me. That is fair to Len and secondly, I think gets you better answers. I mean with anybody you get better answers if they've got opportunities to do some research and certainly with Southwest Metro Transit. Tomorrow's election 39 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 day. In fact we're going to start having public works guys tooling around here about 9:00 so that's our too bad, so sad. Polls are open tomorrow. Filing date is. Councilman Senn: What time? Scott Botcher: I don't know. Mark, I don't know. Here's what I know. I've got a personal commitment at 6:30. I vote before then. That's what I have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so tomorrow's primary and library referendum. Scott Botcher: Library referendum. And then also, tomorrow's the last day for filing. We will have staff upstairs, Gina and Norma will be there til 5:00. And I think the way the rules go is that then they have, those that have filed have 2 days I think to withdraw and I think then Thursday then we're open until 5:00 as well for those people who want to, that have finally fessed up to their spouse or have come to their senses or whatever it is. Holding out for more pay, you know I don't know. So that's the deal. Councilman Senn: I like the article in what was it, in Minnesota Cities publication. It was council, if you're going to raise your salary you'd better do it in the next, what was it 30 days or whatever. Scott Botcher: I saw that. I saw the little picture but I didn't read the article. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Jansen: I have two things if I could under Council presentations. A question to follow up on something we touched on some time ago. The Highway 101. We had said, it's probably been a month or two. Staff was going to meet with Eden Prairie staff to see how close we were on the two 2 lanes. Scott Botcher: Oh we did that. I thought we reported on that. If not, I will now. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah it was in the work session with just Councilman Senn and myself. We haven't had any council discussion or staff report around what that conversation was. Scott Botcher: The staff report is, and I wish Teresa was here. Bottom line is, there is, how can I say this. The City of Eden Prairie has not taken an official position. They're unofficial staff position is, and I don't want to speak for them so I'm being very careful here. It appears to me, how's that? It appears to me as if their position will be very, very, very similar to that of Hennepin County regardless of what Hennepin County's position is. How's that? Is that fair guys? Councilman Engel: Following along with the county more or less. Scott Botcher: Pretty much. Councilman Senn: That's about what you said before. Councilwoman Jansen: Well actually what Teresa had communicated was that there was a difference more between us and them of the shoulder. Mayor Mancino: I haven't heard that. 40 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: Versus it being. Scott Botcher: I don't recall that. Councilwoman Jansen: That's why I'm looking for, if you could put a staff report together. Scott Botcher: I'll ask Teresa to do that. I can do that. We'll put it in writing if you'd like. Councilwoman Jansen: Well I obviously have a different understanding of what was communicated, and it was when we were working on the trail proposal. Scott Botcher: No, that's okay. Councilwoman Jansen: Was the mention of it. Scott Botcher: We can do it. Councilwoman Jansen: And then the other thing that I was wondering if we could also get would be a staff report on the water tower situation that occurred and was reported on as far as the well going dry and the system failing. I don't totally understand what exactly happened with our emergency response system and the whole telemetry system. Teresa briefly touched on that but I think it's something that maybe if we could be more familiar with the details. I know I made the assumption last year for the whole Y2K when we put the telemetry system in, that things like this would in fact be reacted to. Scott Botcher: Yeah, just so everyone understands. Mayor Mancino: We've had the telemetry system for years. Scott Botcher: The newspaper article, or the letter to the editor is incorrect. This is not a Y2K issue whatsoever. Councilwoman Jansen: I'm just referring to our emergency management system and how that telemetry system ties in with this problem that we did have. Scott Botcher: Yep. I'll have her do it. I think the crux of the issue was that there was a mechanical failure in the telemetry system that was to provide notification. Once notification was received, consumption was occurring at such a rapid rate, that the ability to recharge was compromised but I will ask her to write a full report so you guys all have it. Councilwoman Jansen: Appreciate it. Mayor Mancino: A full report. Not pages and pages, because she did... Scott Botcher: No, we'll just put, that's cool. And we are doing better. The cool weather's helped. Councilwoman Jansen: Are we on schedule? 41 City Council Meeting - September 11, 2000 Scott Botcher: We're on schedule last time I checked, yeah. In fact they've worked Saturdays. I know they had to cut a hole in the top because when it was originally built, and I don't know if you guys have been up here but there's like a port hole that's bolted on. Mayor Mancino: No, we haven't been up there. Scott Botcher: Haven't you guys been up there? Mayor Mancino: I don't think we went up and had that tour. Wait, wait. Can we take the fire truck, the lateral and go up and see it? Scott Botcher: No. No you cannot. The hole's too small. In other words when it was designed, the port hole was. Councilman Senn: People were smaller. Scott Botcher: But for some of this stuff they get in there. It was too small so they've created a hole on top and it serves as a good venting process anyway. It probably needs to be there but it's pretty cool when you get up in the morning and I go out and get the paper and there's a guy laying on top of the water tower. So, but they're doing okay. They are working Saturdays. We've had no complaints from the neighbors as far as noise or... Mayor Mancino: Well everything is good. I mean it's great. Everything's been handled well. Yeah. Scott Botcher: Teresa's doing a very nice job. I mean she's really doing a nice job and when stuff isn't right, she's on the contractor's rear and when it's done right, she says so. Councilwoman Jansen: And we're supposed to be back on line October 15th? Was that the end date? Mayor Mancino: 3 1st. It was August 15th to October 3 1st. Scott Botcher: Yeah, I had it like Halloween. Something like that. But we're getting there. Mayor Mancino: Thank you all, good night. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 42