Loading...
1l Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 22, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Ayotte STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Justin Miller, and Teresa Burgess A. TAXATION PLAN, EHLERS & ASSOCIATES. Mark Ruff and Jim Prosser from Ehlers and Associates were present to conduct the first of four or five meetings relating to the city' s taxation plan, or "Key Financial Strategies". Jim Prosser explained the purpose of this meeting was to brainstorm and come up with ideas unique to Chanhassen and what the City Council was looking to accomplish. There were six purposes that were discussed. . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. "Should costs" or benchmarking. Impact of fund reserve (tax levy/debt levy). Prioritization. Growth impacts on operations. Generate revenue without raising taxes. Educating the public. Jim Prosser stated this process when completed would give the City Council the tools to make tough financial decisions later on, and stated that Chanhassen had several tools already in place. He then went over the budget process and the roles of city staff and city .council members. The council members came up with the following list of financial issues: Water Treatment Plan · Community Center/Ice Arena · Pavement Management Plan · Life Cycle for Major End Items · Affordable Housing · High School being located within the city · Public Safety/Operations/Services · Public Works Facility · Trails/Infrastructures · City Hall/City Center Commons · Maintenance Schedule · Public Document Archives · E-City Hall · Homeland Defense · Staffing · City Hall/Senior Center Expansion. City Council Work Session - July 22, 2002 Mr. Prosser stated he would take this information and bring back addition information at the next meeting, which would take place in about a month. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session at 6:55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2002 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Teresa Burgess, and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Alison Blackowiak 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Planning Commission PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: Under our public announcements, we don't have anything listed but I would like to pull from our consent agenda a resolution that we're going to be approving this evening, which is for the National Night Out for the year 2002. And just, if anything, to highlight the date of that event is August 6th of 2002, so I won't read the entire proclamation but we do have approximately 21 neighborhoods that were involved this last year, and that was an increase of 18 from the year before so we do have quite a few of our neighborhoods that do participate in this event and it involves our Carver County deputies as well as members of our own staff that go around to the different neighborhoods and hold this National Night Out. So I did want to recognize that date as August 6~. So why don't we then move on to the consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. C. d. go Knob Hill Second Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Construction Plans & Development Contract, Project 00-11. Hidden Creek Subdivision: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Construction Plans & Development Contract, Project 02-09. Approve Revised Easement Agreement for Parcel 9, Project 00-01. Approve Consultant Work Order for Improvement to Lift Stations No. 1 and 10, Project 01-11. Resolution #2002-65: Approve Proclamation Declaring August 6, 2002 as National Night Out. City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 h. j, Approve Amendment to 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program for the Purchase of Fire Department Radios. Accept $1,000 Donation from Target for Safety Camp. Approve Amendment to Chapter 10 of City Code Concerning Lawn Fertilizer. Approval of Bills. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 8, 2002 - City Council Minutes dated July 8, 2002 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated July 2, 2002 - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 25, 2002 m, Approval of Termination of Access Easement and Grant of Easement Drainage and Utility Easement, Outlot A, Kellynne Addition, David Peterjohn. n, Approval of Easement Agreements for TH 101 Trail North. Approval of Gambling Permit Request for St. Hubert's Church, Harvest Festival August 10-11, 2002. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. F. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. Iv CHANHASSEN LIBRARY. Mayor Jansen: Councilman Peterson, you pulled l(f) for separate discussion. Is that a brief discussion for us to have at this time, or shall we move that to the end of the agenda as we typically do? Councilman Peterson: It's 2-3 minutes. It doesn't make any difference. Mayor Jansen: Okay, why don't we address that now then. Councilman Peterson: My only point, and I talked briefly to Todd on it this afternoon, was we, re allocating $14,000 for signage for monument bases and I'm just wondering whether that's more appropriate, we've had discussions with the City Center Park and signage there, that if we do this monument we're defining probably what all the signs in that area are going to be like. I don't know whether or not it's prudent for us to wait so that we have a contiguous sign, kind of feel for that whole area. I'm opening that up for discussion basically. The second thing was, as I talked to Todd, we're removing the item PR1SKi 18. We don't need the heater post for city vehicles as we discussed today, per his recommendation. Mayor Jansen: Okay. The conversation around the monument sign bases, is that not the same individual that's doing the signs in the park? Is that being coordinated through our landscape architect? Todd Gerhardt: The monument signs would be located on Market and Kerber highlighting the entrance from an east and a west side of the library so I think the sign should look the same. The City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 key thing here is the electrical. They will be back lit so people can identify where those entrances are at night. You can delete this one from the change order No. 1, however we will want to try to get that electrical work done so that will probably come along at another change order. So you want to get the electrical in around the parking lot prior to the library opening before the park is done so we' ve got to have those signs up prior to the park being done. Councilman Ayotte: Seasonally it would make sense to do it sooner than later, wouldn't it? In terms of labor hours required to do that. I mean if we postpone it, are we opening ourselves up to a seasonal implication? Todd Gerhardt: Well I' 11 probably be back in either your first meeting or second meeting in August for Change Order No. 2 so I can bring that back for just electrical and then we can add the signage as we develop the signage with the park plans and specs this fall. Councilman Labatt: So this 14,000 dollar figure, does that include the electrical? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Councihnan Labatt: It does. Okay. Mayor Jansen: And from what you said this covers our east and our west comers. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Jansen: I don't recall there being an additional monument sign for the park. Todd Gerhardt: Well we talked about one down along West 78th Street and a couple of kiosks. Mayor Jansen: The kiosks would be different than the monument signs, and isn't this in the same location as the one we had talked about on West 78th then, if this is the east. Todd Gerhardt: No, these would be on Market and Kerber. The placement would either be on the north or south side of the new parking lot over off of Market and then the entrance off of Kerber, to highlight residents of where to enter to get access to the library. This one would probably also include council chambers and the senior center, and the one to the west would just highlight the library. Councilman Labatt: Question for the heater post. So we're going to completely eliminate those? Then we won't be needing those? Todd Gerhardt: There are I think 3 posts out there right now and that will accommodate the needs in the area. The change order highlighted 12. The deputies stated they do not need the electrical outlets. They typically either allow their cars to continue to run or between shifts they don't sit that long so they can start them up right away. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I don't think I have any problem with moving the monument sign bases then to a later approval, but I would hate to hold that planning process up for the park planning since, I mean it's basically the same landscape architect. The architects for the library are aware of the park plan. If we can just make sure that whatever is planned for the library is consistent then with what we're going to do for the park. City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: And I can talk with Damon too. I haven't seen the detailed drawings for these entry monuments. I think if we run those by Damon, or that he at least has a copy that he makes the park design signage similar to what Barry's proposing. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then I'm assuming that it's also meeting our own sign ordinance that staff has taken a look at these and it's come through that approval as well. Todd Gerhardt: Well again I haven't seen the details on that, and I'm sure Kate would like to see those also. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Then if I could have a motion for the amended l(f) please. Councilman Peterson: I make a motion that we amend l(f). The an-tended amendment to l(f) would be deleting the two masonry monument sign bases, until the appropriate time of $14,308. Mayor Jansen: And a second please. Councilman Boyle: I'll second. Resolution #2002-66: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Chanhassen Library project deleting the two masonry monument sign bases in the amount of $14,308. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unani~nously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Labatt: Can I just ask clarification? Did we also eliminate the sign, the heater posts? Mayor Jansen: It was on the amendment. Councilman Labatt: Am I looking at the wrong one? Mayor Jansen: That Todd handed us tonight. Councilman Labatt: Got it. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Don Smith: I'm Don Smith. I live in Chanhassen Estates. I'm here on the landlord versus, I'm here in regards to the landlord versus the tenants behavior. And I'm totally opposed to this for many reasons. First of all, I don't know how many apartments there are in Chanhassen and to what percentage that it accounts for, but I as a landlord have absolutely no control over what my tenants do. In a common scenario I was thinking of is, I have enough problems collecting the rent, let alone asking where their credit references are, but when something goes wrong, I have no power and most of it is in the hands of, if it's disorderly, in the police or some other bureau. If it's a building code, I take care of it. If it's a police action, like rowdy behavior, drugs or whatever, you call the police so I'd like to know how anybody on this agenda could possibly consider the landlord is responsible for his tenant. Whether it's 1 unit, 5 units or 10 units. I think it's unconstitutional for you or any other board to pass laws like this without either public referendum, and then include people that own commercial business and say you're totally held accountable for whatever your people do. A good example is if somebody drinks too much on my property, which I have no control over, it's an apartment building, and they go out and get smashed up, who's fault is it? Mine. How am I being held responsible for what they do on their City Council Meeting -July 22, 2002 own personal behavior? And that's about it. I think that this issue should be thoroughly and totally investigated. Brought before the public, and put on the agenda for a vote. Enough said. Any questions? I'd be willing to answer them. Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Mr. Smith? Okay, thank you. As far as the status of that project at this point, we have had a task force which involved numerous of the actual property owners here in town giving input to staff as they' ve been pulling together this ordinance. We are in the process now of taking that out to the public in order to gain public comment. Also the maintenance portion of that particular item is also going out so we are in the process of collecting more public input and we appreciate your sharing your comments here with us this evening and I know you have been in touch with staff and made some comments along the way so we appreciate your input. Don Smith: I certainly have, and by the way, if there's problem at Fort Riley, that's a personal problem. Put up a gate and hire security guards. I don't see the public being held responsible for somebody's behavior. Mayor Jansen: Understood. Thank you. Appreciate your comments for this evening. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council this evening? Mr. Fahey, if you'd like to come to the podium. Appreciate your being here this evening. John Fahey: Well thank you Mayor Jansen, and thank you fellow councilmen. We have a great opportunity in front of us. An opportunity to elect a senator to represent all of Carver County, and the 3 townships of Jackson, Louisville and St. Lawrence located in Scott County. The last time we had this opportunity was back in 1940. A gentleman by the name of Henry Wagner out of Waconia had represented all of Carver County. So what we have before us, we have a primary on September 10th, and then a general election on November 5th. And myself as a Republican running in the primary are trying to encourage everyone to get out to vote on September l0th. I'm a life long resident of Norwood-Young America. I'm a small business owner. I'm a member of the Norwood-Young America Lions. I've been involved in the District 108 School Board for 6 years, and I'm really encouraged by a lot of people and I'm really excited to have the opportunity to sit down and meet hopefully with all of you individually and then to take this whole process forward through September and then onto November. And if anyone has any questions, but thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mayor Jansen: Sure, thank you for being here this evening. Any questions for John council? Councilman Ayotte: I'll do it one on one. John Fahey: Pardon? Councihnan Ayotte: I'll do it one on one. John Fahey: Thanks Bob. I appreciate it. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. John Fahey: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Is there anyone else who would like to address the council under visitor presentations? City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: We have Sergeant Dave Potts here this evening looking rather casual. Councilman Boyle: Are you undercover tonight? Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening mayor, council members. No. Still on light duty. Mayor Jansen: We appreciate you being here this evening. Sgt. Dave Potts: Be back to full duty in uniform and all that kind of good stuff scheduled for August 12th SO things are moving along well that way. In your council packets you do have the sheriff's office area report for Chanhassen for June, as well as the Sheriff' s office area citation list, which I'm sure you know has been missing for many months now back in the packet of information. As well as community service officer highlights for June. Any comments or questions on any of those items from council? Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Sergeant Potts? Sgt. Dave Potts: Okay. Moving on to the other items. July 3rd events and July 4th, from our perspective went off just fantastic. Minor problems here and there but nothing significant, worthy of even mentioning to council. The July 3rd kiddie parade, we were able to have a deputy as well as the community service officer help out with that event, and the City Center Park festival had a contracted deputy as well as 2 of our reserve deputies and the CSO attending that function for general security purposes. July 4th parade, the sheriff' s office was able to provide a deputy and squad car to lead the parade out, as well as 4 of our part time and reserve officers and the Chanhassen CSO to help out with traffic assistance regarding the parade. And then over at Lake Ann Park, because of the large crowds and then the fireworks later in the evening, we always try to have some extra officers over at the city park there, and we were able to provide 4 of our deputies reserves and posse members as well as a CSO to help with the fireworks security and just general policing of the park, utilizing the sheriff' s department all terrain vehicles in that endeavor, and we found that to work real well for us. So certainly those kind of things help keep things nice, smooth and quiet for us. Also, July 3rd the trade fair. We had a combination City of Chanhassen Crime Prevention and Sheriff's Office booth at the trade fair this year. Trying something a little new. We had the sheriff' s office photo board which is kind of a collage of photos from the sheriff' s office, as well as a number of pieces of literature, brochures and what not regarding crime prevention and safety topics for children, adults, seniors, all the way through. Gave out just a whole lot of sticker badges and D.A.R.E. stickers and seat belt stickers and pencils and those kind of things. It was an interesting couple of hours and very busy. A lot of people go through that trade fair in a short amount of time that it's going on. Mayor Jansen: So did you feel that that was good exposure then for your services as well as? Sgt. Dave Potts: Being that it's our first time out on that, it's hard to make a one time judgment of it. From a PR standpoint, from a public relations, we're out there mixing with the citizens and had some information for them. We didn't have a lot of people picking up, you know we were looking to get some of the crime prevention materials and other things out there, and mostly they're out there having a good time. It's a festival kind of a situation, so as I said, gave away a lot of the stickers and that kind of a thing. Not a whole lot of takers on some of the materials, but again I hate to make a judgment based on one time situation. City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Sure. Well we appreciate the commitment to being there. Of course it was one of our key objectives was to increase the visibility so to have you out there on such a significant day when we have so many people from the community going through an event like that, we appreciate your taking the time and doing that. Sgt. Dave Potts: Exactly, and those are the kind of opportunities we're going to be continuing to look for but yeah, it was one of the items on our work plan for this year so kind of a big push for that. Also in your packets you have a copy of a performance tractor. I previously mentioned to council, I like to throw these things in there when they come across my desk. Sergeant Julie Bowden, supervisor at the scene of the officer involved shooting at the Citgo station, recognized Deputy Kyle Perlich for his professionalism and his actions in helping to apprehend the suspect, and then rendering first aide to the suspect. And this was all after the suspect had threatened to kill officers and had attempted to attack Deputy Perlich in the process of this situation. And the same suspect did in fact assault one of the Chaska officers who was assisting, so you just have that in your packet as information and some good police work on Deputy Kyle Perlich's part. The last item I have for council is amendments to the hunting area map for the city. Per city ordinance, it is up to council to amend the allowable areas for bow use and firearm use in the city. The only amendments that we're proposing are kind of amendments for formality reasons. Nothing real significant. Hunting is not a large scale activity in Chanhassen. Over about the last 4 years we've had between 110-150 shooting permits applied for and approved per year. All of the hunting areas in Chanhassen are on private land, except for a very small area down in the extreme southern portion of the city is some state land. So not only does it require a permit from the city, it requires permission of the landowner as well, and for the majority of our landowners it's strictly relatives and friends, that type of thing, that they allow to use their land. But I brought a color map. You have a black and white map in your packets but I brought a color map this evening just to kind of point out, in case they don't show up too well on your black and white map. The green areas are the areas for firearm and/or bow use and the checkered board areas are for bow use only. The changes that we're proposing are near the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 41. The northeast comer of that intersection. Obviously due to the Pulte development that has gone in there, eliminating that. That was previously a bow hunting area. The other change is an area that was misplaced on the map, on the previous map, right along Lake Drive West was more accurately moved to it's correct location just west of Powers Boulevard, north of Lake Drive West. And then down by Halla Nursery, right off the 101, the southwest comer of 101 and Pioneer Trail. An area that was still on the map even though there's been a neighborhood there for a few years now. We eliminated that, so those were the 3 changes that we're proposing to the map. The rest of the areas that you see on the map are areas that have been there for a number of years. And looking for comments or questions from council on that. Mayor Jansen: Council any comments? Otherwise we can ask that Mr. Gerhardt put this on our agenda for approval, if you could do that for us so that we can take care of the amendment. Okay. Thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Any other comments or questions from council? Councilman Ayotte: How's the one officer that was hurt, how's he coming along? Sgt. Dave Potts: I have not heard specifically other than early on after the incident I heard that he was doing real well. He had been previously injured. This aggravated a previous injury but that came out of that pretty well so very fortunate situation that way. City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 Mayor Jansen: And maybe if you have a few comments to share on the safety camp that you just held. Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah. Would normally save that for next month but sure, since we just did it. Mayor Jansen: Just brief. Sgt. Dave Potts: It's, from my perspective, one of the neatest programs Crime Prevention does in this city. You were there this year mayor, and you got to see what a large group of kids and their supporting family and friends that turn out at the end of the day. Again, generally for kids going into third grade, although we don't, you know aren't 100 percent strict on that. If people have an interest in sending their kids to that program, we try to do everything we can to get them in there, but this year we did make one change to it. Kind of call it the Carver County Sheriff's Office/ Chanhassen Crime Prevention Safety Camp because of the large involvement of the sheriff' s office, both providing team leaders as well as presenters for that program. This year we had 4 of our officers acting as team leaders, and a couple other officers acting as presenters and one of the areas being personal safety. What to do around strangers and that type of thing. And the other in water and boating safety. We had our water patrol come out with their boat, their rig and demonstrate and talk to the kids about that so. It's a full day. It's a long day but it's really a fun day and hopefully we're just putting that safety spark into kids minds at an early age. Mayor Jansen: It is fun to see the excitement level of the kids that have participated in the program, even as they're coming to the conclusion at the end of the day. They're still pretty excited about what they have just experienced and to see as many officers as were there, and the interaction that the kids have with the officers, I think it's very encouraging that they make that contact. They're now more comfortable with the officers that are in the community and certainly their families who are there also. Sgt. Dave Potts: One of the most fun parts of the day for me is that, when we get there in the morning we' re in our t-shirt and shorts. Our safety camp t-shirts and shorts and we spend the whole day with these kids. And then at the end of the day, as they're getting ready for their graduation ceremony, we disappear. Put on our full uniform and then reappear as officers so they, maybe somewhere along the way during the daytime they heard that some of us were police officers, but they don't really put it together until they see you in uniform. And then they do kind of a double take, thinking they just spent the whole day with this regular guy or whatever, regular gal and all of a sudden they find out it's a police officer and they, it must send a rush of thinking back through the day and if they were minding their p's and q's all day long. But it's a lot of fun. Mayor Jansen: It is a fun event, so we'll look forward to the detailed report in next month's agenda but appreciate your giving us a brief update. It certainly is an exciting event. In fact I heard comments that people from outside of the community had come to this event because they had heard how excellent the safety camp is here in Chanhassen so word is spreading and we have a great amount of recognition out there for your program so appreciate your efforts. Sgt. Dave Potts: And a number of real good sponsors that you'll be hearing more about next month so. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Sergeant Potts? Councilman Ayotte: I'll call you. There's a child abduction prevention program that is getting a lot of notoriety now. Are we tied into it, do you know? City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, it's not anything that requires signing up or that type of thing. It's brand new. I just received the materials through the mail recently and yeah we're, like everybody else, statewide we're part of that as well. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sgt. Dave Potts: Thank you. CONSIDER VASSERMAN RIDGE DEVELOPMENT~ LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTHEAST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD~ LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. A. Be REOUEST TO REZONE 68.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND R-4~ RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE, LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY (1.94 C, ACRES) FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Outlined in black is the subject site. This is an outlot previously outlotted with the Lundgren subdivision to the north, Longacres. There's two underlying properties. The Longacres outlot and the group home, American Baptist Church Group Home, which is 10 acres. The development of this property was predicated on the completion of West 78~ Street and extension of the city services. You can see the wetland complex is also driving some of the development and the frontage road and the location of this commercial piece on the Pulte property. Outlined in blue is the primary zone. Again driving some of the development and the outlotting of some of the property. As I indicated, there is a rezoning request and a land use amendment. The underlying zoning is A-2 and looking at the subdivision, the developer wanted to do something similar to the north side which was large lot, and also we indicated when we looked in the Pulte piece that this piece, which we have recommended PUD-commercial with the same design standards as the Pulte piece. Because when West 78th was put in place, there was a restricted access on West 78th Street so we believe that the best access and the best use of this property, because it's topographically separated, should be tied into that other piece so we're recommending a PUD and it's got the same design standards as that Pulte piece. So they may come in, both parties are working together to develop that property which we believe is the best use, so they'll have to come back with a separate site plan and how they're going to manage the storm water. So this piece will be commercial and there's ponds on the other two little remnant parcels there. So looking at the rest of that, and the acquisition of the group home, which after this plat is approved they have a year to move somewhere else and looking at twin homes and kind of transitioning this property. Again as we went through the Pulte Arboretum Village, the applicant on this property indicated that they want to do a single family home and kind of transition that and creating buffer. In your packet they did do a noise study and looking at the berm. When this first came in we had some concerns about the location of the berm, and they were also concerned about noise attenuation and looking at the twin homes and that's built into the design. So the berm was redesigned in order to accommodate the concerns we had with road access and the like, and we believe that the design works really well. The other concern that the Planning Commission had was the preservation of some of the natural features. The wetland edge for the primary zone, it will be the wetland line so on the second zone which requires a condition use, we were trying to save some of the features. The most significant natural feature's City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 in this area up in here, where there's a significant stand of trees and again that's part of the group home. The trees on the backs of the lots along the edge of the wetlands, Outlot F along this piece, the applicant had already proposed the custom graded homes and looking at the tree preservation. What we did after the first visit to the Planning Commission was on June 18th, is they asked them to go back and revisit how they could preserve more trees. So that was accomplished through raising the road 3 feet and doing some more custom grading and tree preservation, so that's accomplishing what we wanted in the secondary zone. So we believe that the applicant responded really well to the concerns of the Planning Commission and the staff. So with the twin homes, moving into the single family homes, they' ve also provided the private park for that neighb'orhood. One of the other concerns that the Planning Commission had was the trail. If you look at the overall development of this area, there's a large wetland complex that's compressing as you go back down towards Galpin, and the official recreation trail plan it shows a connection through there. But because it's compressed, you can see this wetland, we'll have a trail connecting through here. They' re actually touching very close because you also have one on West 78~h. So Park and Rec made the decision it's probably a duplication of that trail. So the way that the trail is accomplished, we want to tie it into, zoom back out. Tie it into the Arboretum Village trail, which is a nice experience as you go around the Pulte property which is the city to control that property. Going around to the south side of the Long acres, which is a nice loop. So you'll come back down through here. This will all be a trail. One of the other reco~mnendations is that this area here, that they want also to be left natural and that ties again with that area that the city acquired with the Pulte property. A bridge is required because there's a wetland there, and a small wetland here that they are mitigating. We are reconm~ending that a bridge be put in there instead of mitigation of that wetland, so that will be a nice experience as you go through there. But it was the Park and Rec Director's recorrunendation that instead of duplicating that experience, that this actually the trail would then become a sidewalk, so there were sidewalks through the rest of this project to get you over to the swimming pool and their private park, and then also get you back to the trail that's on the city street, West 78°~ Street. So we think it works really welt. The only place there isn't a sidewalk will be the most northerly cul-de-sac, up in this area. This cul-de-sac does because it does have twin homes. So with that, we believe that the projects are well conceived. It makes good sense, and again it fits within the zoning. The R-4 zoning and the low density. There's only 3 options. One would be the PUD which makes the lots have to average 15. The R-4 or the RSF and again staff recormnended this, we believe again what makes a good transition with the last piece left which is the Pryzmus piece. So there are 5 actions that's required they're formulated in 3 motions starting on page 28. The first is the land use recommendation. For this project to go through, it does require a land use recommendation for this piece right here. Again that needs Met Council approval before it can go forward, and the rezoning. And the rezoning is two zones. One, the PUD and the other, the R-4. The second action is the subdivision itself. And the third motion would be the wetland and the condition use for the Bluff Creek overlay. Again those conditions start on page 28 and the findings of fact are right before that. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Okay, seeing none, we have had a wonderful presentation from staff. I don't know if the applicant actually wants to make any further con~nents, but we of course go through the Planning Commission minutes and are aware of all of the discussions that occurred there. If there's anything new that you would like to bring to the council's attention, you' re certainly welcome to do that at this time. Mike Burton: I have nothing new. I'm just here to answer questions. 10 City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none. This is not a public hearing but if there is anyone here that would like to make comment on this agenda item, you're certainly welcome to come forward and do that at this time. Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to council. Council, any discussion? Councilman Peterson: On the surface, and even deep down, this is a good project. I think that we talked about it at the last joint commission, Planning Commission/Council meeting as should they have done what they did? I think the answer is we've got a better product because they did what they did, and I think they worked well with the applicant to get a better project. I'm glad we can get it moving ahead and fill up that spot. Mayor Jansen: Okay, agreed. I want to thank the applicant and staff for working with the Planning Commission's request as far as more tree conservation and the adjustments that you were able to make in order to do that. I do think that that did make for a better product and it looks as though it didn't impact the development too dramatically so appreciate your having done that. The only comment that I had on the trail is probably more a city issue, and I did speak with Todd Hoffman about it. Some sort of an identification out on the street identifying that the sidewalk does lead to that trail connection that goes into that wetland complex. I don't know that it's going to be that obvious that as you walk through the neighborhood in order to get to that wetland trail since it will be a concrete sidewalk. Kate Aanenson: So you're just making sure that there's good cuing that this is a public, to get out onto that trail? Mayor Jansen: Exactly. Yeah, some sort of signage out there just so they'd ~know that you get through that neighborhood and then you' re back out into the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Because it will have different design specs. One will be an 8 foot asphalt, I'm assuming, and the other would be a 5 foot typical sidewalk so we can work on that. Teresa Burgess: It is common for us to post signage for people to be able to find those that are a little bit more obtuse, and we'll certainly work with Parks to make sure that happens. Mayor Jansen: This is just such a nice amenity, having that trail system going through that wetland, I'd just like to make sure as many people are conscious of it as we can make. Councilman Labatt: The only comments I had is, in reference to that trail, in the wintertime. The City will maintain the asphalt trail, but does the homeowners association maintain the sidewalks similar to Longacres or do the individual property owners? Mike Burton: I'll introduce myself this time. Mike Burton from Lundgren Brothers. Good evening Mayor and members of the council. Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Mike Burton: The homeowners association, we will have it set up that the individual homeowners is what we had thought would actually maintain their sidewalks just as they would a normal city sidewalk. So we're still discussing that but it will either be the individual homeowners or the association. We're not decided on that yet, but it won't be the City. 11 City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 Kate Aanenson: You bring up an interesting point that the departments heads are in discussion on that issue specifically. Maybe Todd wants to talk about it a little bit more but. Todd Gerhardt: We're working on some outcomes. Councilman Labatt: Probably have some input too right? Councilman Boyle: Well I would guess there will be some issues. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It's been precipitated in other areas. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We have some issues currently in town where homeowners are not maintaining the sidewalks and we cite them and, but it continues to be a problem so one of the options we may look at is, we'll go out and maintain the sidewalk and assess them for it, is one of the options. So we'll be bringing that back as a part of our code enforcement updates, as we go through the codes and we're updating those. That's one that we're looking at. Councilman Boyle: But it is a public trail, is it not? Kate Aanenson: Con'ect. All sidewalks are public sidewalks and we have issues, the school children are walking and they're not being maintained so it's an over riding city issue. Todd Gerhardt: Gary, for your information, the city will plow trails. We do not plow sidewalks and sidewalks are the individual homeowner's responsibility. Our equipment cannot handle. It's usually a 6 to 5 foot is a sidewalk section where a trail is anywhere fi'om 8 to 10. And our trucks can go down there and keep them clear so. Mayor Jansen: So not to complicate the situation, but in that this is a such a significant connection to the rest of that trail, is putting an 8 foot asphalt trail out to Galpin an option instead of it being a sidewalk that we're going to end up potentially maintaining that. Kate Aanenson: Well we looked at that as far as aesthetics. I think that the short answer to that is, we' re looking at through the code. By the time that phase gets completed, because Phase I is just along up in this area. They've got to wait for the group home to move, which is going to take years, so we have to have that policy in place from, Todd made some commitments to get a policy in place, so we'll resolve that problem. I understand the complicate, and it is something we need to have resolved. I'm not sure that making it wider, aesthetically would change when it' s somebody' s front yard like that. When it' s a narrower lot. It's part of a twin home and that' s what we looked at, but what I hear your concern is that we make sure that it's maintained and then we need to get that policy in place. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Well we had such an extensive conversation around the width of these trails as we were going narrower and staff saying how difficult it is to maintain something that's narrower, if we're not keeping with our standards so. Councilman Labatt: If we were to go with the 6 foot trail there, make it still concrete but make it 6 foot, that would allow the Bobcat, wouldn't it to go down? Teresa Burgess: That would require us to purchase specialized equipment. If you remember when we discussed the Highway 101 trail, we talked about a 6 foot trail. It requires us to purchase specialized equipment for maintenance of that trail. So if we go with this small section. 12 City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 Councilman Labatt: What do we do right now in the city here? On the sidewalk in front of. Teresa Burgess: In front of City Hall? We use a snowblower. Councilman Labatt: No. Todd Gerhardt: Downtown we use a Bobcat. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, and why can't we use that Bobcat out there then? Todd Gerhardt: We're going to have a pick-up do the 8 foot trail, so I don't know how that pick- up is going to make the transition from the trail that goes through the wetland to the sidewalk so that's a question for Todd. From a maintenance operation standpoint. But we would have to put a Bobcat on a trailer and have it go out and do, how many feet is this? 1,000 feet, with just for the Bobcat. Councihnan Labatt: Well that gets almost down to your assessing portion too though. Kate Aanenson: How about this? This has to come back for final plat. I'm not sure I can answer all the questions you have for Todd but how about if we make a condition that we work to resolve. Either we have a policy in place or we look at some other options when we come back for final plat. Councihnan Labatt: Mr. Burton, you're okay with that? Okay. Mayor Jansen: And where would you have us add that condition? Kate Aanenson: Probably under the subdivision conditions where...the width of the sidewalk or a trail. Does that make sense? Councilman Labatt: So number 49 then? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Jansen: Got that? Any other comments? Okay. Then I'll call for a motion. Steve are you drafting one for us? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Yeah. I'll try to make a shot here. I'd move that the city approve the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density to commercial for 1.4 acres of property and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property from Ag Estate, A2 to Mixed Low Density Residential, R-4, subject to the following conditions 1 through 4 in the staff report. Mayor Jansen: Good catch. And a second please. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Resolution No. 2002-67 for a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density to commercial for 1.94 acres of property: and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit 13 City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 Development rezoning property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Mixed Low Density Residential, R-4, subject to the findings of the staff report and the following conditions: 1. Approve design standards for the 1.94 acres of conmaercial and zoning for the PUD. 2. Conditions of the subdivision. 3. Conditions of the Wetland and Conditional Use Permit. 4. Approval of the Metropolitan Council for the Land Use Amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Next motion please. Councilman Labatt: Okay, I move that we approve the preliminary plat for Vassennan Ridge, including 84 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 6 outlots as show, n in the plans dated June 24, 2002, subject to the following conditions 1 through 49. 49 being the latest addition of reviewing the option of the width of the sidewalk leading to the city trail. Mayor Jansen: Do you need more direction on 49, or that's acceptable? Okay. And a second please. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the prelinfinary plat for Vasserman Ridge, including 84 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, and 6 outlots as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. , If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. , The existing well and septic systems must be capped and/or removed in compliance with State health codes. 5. Staff will work with the engineer to correct the drainage calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum 14 City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 10. I1. 12. 13. easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetlands on the north, east and west grading limits of the site. Type II silt fence shall be used in all other areas. A rock construction entrance must be shown at the entrance drive that will be utilized during construction. In addition, wood- fiber blankets will be required on the steep slopes of the proposed berms and off the west side of the "D" street cul-de-sac. The silt fences shall be removed upon completion of construction. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at time of final platting. Additional manholes and/or valves may be required at that time. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of Health, MnDot, Watershed District, etc. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site yielding a developed total of 68 units. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (84 + 3 units for the commercial lot) than what the property has been assessed for, the additional 19 units (87 - 68 = 19) will be charged a sanitary sewer lateral connection charge. The assessments for the Highway 5 project, based on existing zoning, yielded a developed total of 76 units. As above, since more units are now being proposed than what was assessed for (87 vs. 76), the additional 11 units will be charged a watermain lateral connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary or water is $4,335 per unit. Based on the current rate, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 30 units would be $130,050 (30 @ $4,335). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. Connection fees are in lieu of assessments which were absorbed by the City instead of being levied at the time of construction. In this case, more units are proposed to be constructed than originally anticipated. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the BC-7/BC-8 Trunk Utility Project is $77,350 for sanitary sewer. The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the Trunk Highway 5 project is $112,651 for watermain. Encroachment agreements will be required for the islands within the fight-of-way. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 15 City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Areas with a street grade greater than 7% must be revised to meet the criteria. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. Access to the commercial lot shall be via a shared driveway with the neighboring commercial lot to the west. The access will be located just east of the median on West 78th Street. Move the pond outlet pipe for the pond in the southwest corner of the site from beneath the 20 foot berm. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 365 trees to be planted. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas and buffer yards. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 29-34, Block 1 and Lots 22 -32, Block 2 prior to any construction. A conservation easement shall be placed over said lots. The following lots shall be custom graded: Lots 22-28, Block 2 and Lots 29-34 of Block 1. Any trees removed on Lots 29-34, Block 1 and Lots 22-28, Block 2 in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be. replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. All trees removed within the utility easement along the north side of the development shall be replaced 1:1. All of the proposed house pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of adjacent ponds. On the grading plan: a. Show the emergency overflow for the back yard areas of Block 1. b. Show the rear yard low points for the areas without a pond or wetland. c. Show the existing contour elevations for the neighboring property to the east a minimum of 100 feet outside of the site. d. Show all existing and proposed easements. e. Show the benchmark which was used for the site survey. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 16 City Council Meeting -July 22, 2002 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. Structures on Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 2 shall be designed to accommodate decks or other accessory structures within the 60 x 70 building pad or the lots shall be reconfigured to provide more flexibility. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. On-site storm water ponding shall be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. All on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance with City Code. Prior to permit submittals the developer shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss the design and construction of the twinhomes. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. In the cul-de-sacs with the center island "no parking" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen City Fire marshal for additional information. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees or shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Submit cul-de-sac to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 17 City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 44. 45. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One will be required at the intersection of "A" Street and "B" Street; one will be required between Lots 23 and 24, and an additional hydrant will be required at the intersection of "C" Street and West 78th Street Frontage Road. The applicant shall be required to build the "wetland" trail between Lots 18 and 19 and in the rear of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. This trail shall be 8 feet wide and constructed with bituminous pavement per city standard specifications. The trail shall be connected with the existing trail, which terminates at Lot 13 of The Meadows at Longacres. A permanent 20 foot wide trail easement shall be described by the applicant generally centered on the new trail and granted to the City to allow the maintenance and upkeep of this public trail. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail fund the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards. 46. The City shall accept the small upland portion of Outlot F in the northwest comer of the project as parkland dedication as all of Outlot F is transferred into public ownership. The dollar amount of this credit will be calculated per City ordinance. 47. All remaining park and trail fees shall be collected per City ordinance. 48. All lots meet the standards of the R-4 zoning district. 49. City staff will review the option of the width of the sidewalk leading to the city trail prior to final plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councihnan Labatt: I'd recommend that we approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration and conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 11. Mayor Jansen: And a second please? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves a Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration and Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002, and subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: The applicant shall install a bridge over the swale between Basins 2 and 3 to avoid wetland impacts and enhance the aesthetics of this area. 18 City Council Meeting -July 22, 2002 Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan. A 5 year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. , The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. , A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2. (Those buffers considered for Public Value Credit (PVC) under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) shall maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. . 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The silt fences shall be removed upon completion of construction. 11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATES None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.. Todd Gerhardt: I just want to update the council. We had Standard and Poors in last week and gave them a nice tour of town. Sat down and talked about the library project. Occasionally 19 City Council Meeting - July 22, 2002 Standards and Poors will come into a community and make sure development is occurring. Meet staff and give them a copy of our CAFR and had a nice tour. That was about it. I did meet with Rosemount today. Had a good discussion. They talked about transferring of some of their property on Lot 2, next to the park to us. If we would allow them to sell, I think Lot 3 up by the highway, and told them that I will be putting a full report to the council on their options sometime in August so. And met with Carver County HRA on the bowling alley site. They came in and beat me up a little bit on purchase price, so I'm looking at some additional options on that property. Looking at potentially maybe an all retail site, or finding some tenants that can work with Carver County on the joint housing retail. Right now they wanted me to take over the master lease on the retail, and I don't think that's something we want to get into, is into retail business so hit a snag there. And I' ve asked to look at their financials but they have not provided those to me as of yet, so we' re moving along there. And coffee shop proposal. Met with the Friends of the Library this morning and went through their request to try to implement a coffee shop in the library. One of the elements missing front their proposal is a layout, so I can do cost estimates to look at the rent that they were proposing. They said they would get that to me before the end of next week. Then I'll sit down with Barry to do some estimates to do a full fledge analysis of the cost benefit of that coffee shop. That's about it for me. Councihnan Peterson: When's the bank building going down? Old bank building. Todd Gerhardt: The old bank building is being used as the construction trailer for the library project, so Kraus-Anderson is operating out of there. As the library is under construction and we get a roof on, they will vacate that building February-March and move into the library and operate their construction facilities out of the library. And then during that time I'm working with public works to do that as a winter project for demolition. Councilman Peterson: So we're going to do it ourselves? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We've done probably 3 or 4 buildings in the downtown. We have done an asbestos review on it. There is asbestos in there so we will have to have that removed. Contact the DNR on the demolition, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and take her down. Councilman Peterson: The DNR is involved with asbestos removal? Todd Gerhardt: No. Just notification that you're demo'ing a building. I have no idea. They conmmnicate back... Councihnan Peterson: That's even more weird than their getting involved in asbestos. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Well Minnesota Pollution Control gets involved in asbestos. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, that I can understand but, well. Mayor Jansen: And it was actually a cost savings to the city to have Kraus-Anderson using the old bank building as their headquarters so that worked out rather nicely for us as a cost saving measure. Councilman Boyle: You mean they're paying rent? Mayor Jansen: They're not charging us. 20 City Council Meeting- July 22, 2002 Todd Gerhardt: We had a pre-construction, or pre-bid meeting with all the contractors and asked them if there would be a cost savings if we allowed them to use the old bank building, and they all agreed so we made that accommodation so it was included in their bids. Mayor Jansen: Okay, anything else? Then if I could have a motion to adjourn please. Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Craig Claybaugh, and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager; and Jason Angell, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive .PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE ~ FOR VARIANCES FROM THE _L_A_KESHORE WETLAND SETBACK F~-'-_ A~ N_ *DOITIO~N PROPERTY ZONE~D~_~_~. SIOENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ~ LOCATED AT 8591 TIGUA~ GORDON SCHAEFFER Public Present: Name Tom Whitcomb Gordon Schaeffer Brenda Schaeffer _Address 6741 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley 8591 Tigua Lane 27306 County Road A, Spooner, WI 54801 Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time? Clayba.ugh: I've got a question Sharmin. You indicated that one of the properties, adjacent propemes was 120 foot setback from the water. Are we doing apples to apples? Or is that in relation to the OHW? A1-Jaff: I only have the OHW on one lot, and that is where the applicant actually staked it for us. When we measured, we measured to the water where we thought it made sense. Claybaugh: What is the distance to the water of the subject property? AI-Jaff: 139. No, it's more than that. Claybaugh: ...like 186 1 think I read somewhere so...about 50 feet. A1-Jaff: There is an additional probably 30 or 40 feet. There is one other thing that, if I may. It's the DNR that sets the OHW on lakes and one of the things that we looked at was could we have the DNR go out there again and re-survey the OHW for this lake. It takes 3 years for them to process such an application and the applicant didn't want to wait that long. Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 Claybaugh: There was some mention in the report about Highway 212/312. I didn't hear any comment on that at all. Don't see that as a factor in this application? A1-Jaff: Well it will. Claybaugh: I'm asking from the staffs standpoint. Is that a consideration2 A1-Jaff: Well it is, however the alignment for the highway has been in place for a number of years. So when the house was situated, it should have been taken into consideration. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. A1-Jaff: It is a hardship though. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Uli. Sacchet; Yeah Madam Chair. Sharmin. Why 1507 What are we trying to accomplish? A1-Jaff: DNR says. Sacchet: It's a DNR said, I mean I just want to have a clear understanding. A1-Jaff: Yes, it is a DNR. Sacchet: Where it comes from. What we're trying to do with the 150. A1-Jaff: It's a DNR request. Sacchet: Based on that it's considered a natural environment. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then you said one of these neighboring houses is about 120 feet from the water. So that would make it even less from the high water lines. And here we're looking at 125 from the high water. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Do we know how many of those neighbors actually encroach, and about how much? Is that an exception that 120 or is that pretty much the rule of those neighbors? I mean looking at this area, it seems a little hard. It' s really hard to tell. But yet they all seem pretty, if you look at the canopy border, they all seem to be pretty much closer. A1-Jaff: I have another aerial. Now this one is off of city' s aerial and we don't have the 877, unfortunately. We have the 878. And again, it will show you that all of these homes pretty much encroach into the 150 foot setback, with the exception of 2 homes that were built within the last 4 years. Sacchet: And are they all about the same amount encroaching in there? I mean what I'm trying to establish is that, a pretty clear pattern. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 AI-Jaff: There is a patter of homes encroaching into the 150 foot setback. Now. Sacchet: But not necessarily to how much. I mean we don't, we can't really establish that. A1-Jaff: I can't. Sacchet: That easily at this point, okay. Do we have the timing when 212 comes in? Feik: Good question right? Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say. Sacchet: Alright, question withdrawn. Not a fair question. Blackowiak: Okay, anyone else have questions? Rich. Slagle: I just have one I think Sharmin. Again, following along Uli's idea. I'm trying to understand exactly what's happened in this neighborhood. If I look at what is here and 1980 is when this was divided, some homes were built. You just mentioned that 2 newer homes have been built. Were those homes built outside the 1507 Al~Jaff: Yes they were. Slagle: Okay, so properly. A1-Jaff: Situated, yes. Slagle: And my guess is those are the 2 homes sort of. A1-Jaff: Close to the road, yes. Slagle: Okay, that's all. Lillehaug: I have one quick question. I think all my other questions were already answered but there is an out building on the west side of the main structure. Does this, I don't know if it's a garage or a studio. AI-Jaff: Studio. Lillehaug: Is this falling within approximately the same setback as the house or is it more non- conforming? A1-Jaff: Pretty much. I have one point as far as the 877. The studio is located in this area. Probably less, no more non-conforming so it's closer to that line. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Gordon Schaeffer: My name is Gordon Schaeffer and I can answer your question. It's in alignment with the house but there's a possibility it may be 2 feet closer to the OHW. The studio and office, but I did file the permit and we had it surveyed and it seemed to be all in compliance. That was 3 years ago. Basically, I know this is a difficult situation and I would not ask for a variance if I didn't feel there was another alternative. I' m right on the city property on the east. I' ye got the freeway on the south. I've got the studio on the west, so this would be the only place I could build out. I'm looking for about 12 feet. 9 feet from my deck and for those of you that walked out, I do have some structural damage. I'm going to have to replace the northern wall either way, and it should would be nice if I could do this and it's also, it' s key for my profession too. I want to put a screening room in and I do music for fih-n and television and I really don't have another place I can do it so I'm pretty excited about it, but I also know that it may not happen but I just wanted you to know that I looked at all the options. I've got an architect here if you have any questions. The design will be specifically geared towards the environment, to be naturally aesthetically put in. It will be stone and wood windows and it will be done with respect, integrity and I can assure you can watch, or see the plans whenever you want them. If you have any questions let me know. Blackowiak: Thanks. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Start down here, Rich anything? Slagle: Just, I have a fun question. What kind of what like 4 wheel drive vehicle do you drive back there? When I was trying to find your driveway and your place, that's back there. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, I kept the gravel driveway intentionally. I like it. You feel like you're going to another world back there, and I actually don't have a 4 wheel drive right now, but I've got a plow so. Slagle: Well good. Gordon Schaeffer: It's a special spot too. The other thing is it's so beautiful when you go back there and I don't have any view of the lake and it's like, I'm appreciating it more and more living out there. It's my fifth year and I bought it from my mother who used to be there, so it's really a spectacular place. Slagle: That was really it. Sacchet: One question. There is some room between your studio on the west side of the main structure. There is no way you could expand that way a little bit? It seemed like looking on the plan, you were actually adding a little bit on the west side too or is that already there? I wasn't quite sure whether I read your plan correctly. Gordon Schaeffer: Actually, there already is a room there that's finished. And then there's a deck that we might have to remove just because when we lay a foundation. That was something that Tom said we may have to, I'm hoping we can save the deck but we may lose it. Sacchet: So those rooms are already there? Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Sacchet: I wasn't quite sure when I read. It said like new, there was like a window that was closed off on the plan and it looked like a new, something new shelving or whatever and I wondered whether you're actually building out there at the same time too. Gordon Schaeffer: That's actually built but there would be some re-orientation that was recommended by the architect to make kind of... Sacchet: Line things up... But you wouldn't actually change the roof structure there? Gordon Schaeffer: I don't believe that. Sacchet: Not necessarily. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, the roof structure would not be changed and it would not be a great place to go between those two buildings. It' s kind of an awkward amount of space. Sacchet: So it's certainly nice to have more space between that studio or what you call the little building. Gordon Schaeffer: The other thing I'm really concerned about is the north wall, and that's, there's about 5 holes and my entire top log is concave and I'm concerned about the structure. Sacchet: Going to have to do the same thing there, right. Right. Gordon Schaeffer: And I can't really put windows on that lower level because the logs are the structure, and it's really hard to put windows in a log wall. So we, believe me, we really went through this many times and looked at, I wanted to actually go the long way and we decided it's best to get, stay away from the lake as much as possible so we built it more across the house and in the indentation too, it was designed to have, set it back as much as possible and none of the oak trees would be damaged. There'd just be a couple small aspens. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thanks. Sidney: That was my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Lillehaug: I see that you are removing the deck on the northwest comer of the house, and then potentially a new deck location on the north of the garage there. You also indicate that it's an optional bedroom. If you were to have that a bedroom, then you'd potentially look for a new location for your deck. What I'm getting at is, would you be putting a deck, would you come back here in a couple years and ask for another variance to put a deck on the north side there? Gordon Schaeffer: Well if this plan was approved, as long as it stayed within that distance, would it be okay to build it? Okay, if this plan's approved and the deck's in the schematic there, I wouldn't be going any closer, do I have to build it now? Or could I build it over time? Blackowiak: You could actually build it, if it's in the plan, you could build it. I think the question, and Sharmin correct me if I'm wrong. I think your question is, assuming it's a bedroom, not a deck, will we see, would we see you potentially back here in 3 years saying I Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 made it a bedroom but I really should have made it a deck. I'd like a deck now. I want to go a little closer to the water. I think that's what his question is, Lillehaug: Yep. Gordon Schaeffer: It really wasn't part of the plan, but I guess I haven't thought about it. I would hope that we could salvage part of the deck on the west side and build it out that direction. I'm not looking to get closer. I don't know, I just haven't thought about it. I'm going to be real honest. I was anticipating that that's probably going to be a deck. One thought is we may lose a bedroom with this plan so it may be a good idea to consider a bedroom. But I'm not looking to get closer to the lake at this point. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Craig, did you have a question? Claybaugh: Yeah. From the ordinary high water mark, and this may be a question for staff as well. Is that parallel with the north face of the subject house? What I'm asking is, does the ordinary high water mark, with the setback, does it run through at an angle or is it pretty much parallel with the other face of the structure? Gordon Schaeffer: We actually measured it straight out and it was 139 and 141, so we took the closest measurement. Claybaugh: Okay. Gordon Schaeffer: And we did both sides of the house. And the, I have a much more gradual slope than my neighbors and the water's actually closer to 175-180. Claybaugh: You said you added a studio a few years ago. 3 years back you stated. What considerations at that time did you give to some of the conditions that you're facing now and also the Highway 212/312 issue? Gordon Schaeffer: Well what I, the studio, the one hurdle I had to jump over was the fact that my wood shed was possibly encroaching the city land. Is that what you're asking tonight? Claybaugh: I guess I'm asking back in 1982 1 could make some allowances for lack of foresight with respect to a future highway coming through. To me that was one of the more compelling things in reading the report that it's your view that this is coming through and by looking out in the memo, which is why the house was orientated that way in my mind, and now you're going to have a freeway coming through there and that certainly, if I was the occupant there, that would be a strong consideration for me. What I'm asking is, in 1982 that's one issue. But you put an addition, which now is, becomes a limiting factor in where you can go with future additions back 3 years ago. I'm asking you what considerations you gave to the issues that you're putting in front of us now at that time? Gordon Schaeffer: Well the freeway, I had heard about it but I didn't always know how close it was going to be or how soon it would be here, and when I realize it was less than a n-die away at this point. I started to get a little nervous, so I wasn't fully away of all the let's say effects that the studio would have. I really wasn't, and my mom might interject. I don't think she knew about the freeway when she bought the house. Planning Commission Meeting -July 16, 2002 Brenda Schaeffer: Also you have to move that, what's now a studio, we had to move those logs so it wasn't. Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah, there were some other factors. That lot got divided. That building was on the next door neighbor's lot. We had to move it and make a decision. Claybaugh: So the studio, is that a structure that was on the site that just got relocated on the site? Gordon Schaeffer: It was one, when it was 7 acres, it was on. Claybaugh: Okay, so you relocated it over adjacent to the house. Gordon Schaeffer: And it was really the only place that we could, made sense to put it. Claybaugh: The new space that you're acquiring as part of that is for your profession? Gordon Schaeffer: Yeah. Claybaugh: Okay. I read in there obviously for audio reasons, privacy reasons, they wanted to orientate it away from the highway, future highway noise and so forth? Gordon Schaeffer: Absolutely. The ambience rumble. Motor noise. It would be really beneficial. Plus we can design the house specifically. You know it's a rectangular. It's like... room specifically for this. Claybaugh: I wouldn't be able to speak for my fellow commissioners but to me it's very important to understand what you're going to do with it. Maybe I understood it incorrectly but I felt that you inferred that if this was approved, that anything out that 18 foot or 12 foot additional, you had some latitude there in the future to do and pluck something in there or put the deck in there or optional bedroom, so on and so forth as long as it didn't go closer than that. And from my standpoint, I wouldn't be willing to approve it that way. I'd want to know. Blackowiak: Well, any more questions here? We'll just get. Gordon Schaeffer: No, no. So you wanted to know if we were going to do the bedroom or not? Claybaugh: Yes. I'd like to know specifically what the plan would be. Gordon Schaeffer: Okay. Claybaugh: But evidently we're running out of time so. Blackowiak: No, we're not running out of time. I just don't want to get into a long dissertation of you know theories. I mean if bedroom or no bedroom. Claybaugh: Well that's a factor in my decision so. Gordon Schaeffer: We took it this far because, and actually I think Tom went quite a ways knowing that this could get denied, and we wanted to think of every option. And if it fits within Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 the budget and if the aesthetics, then I'd like to build a room there, but I can't give you that answer. But what I don't want to do is build closer to the lake. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Okay. This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, time for comments. Craig do you want to go ahead. Sorry I cut you off. Claybaugh: No, that's alright...give Rich a chance. Blackowiak: Alright, Rich. Slagle: I'll n-take it short and simple. I'm going to vote to approve the request for the variance, for a few reasons. Specifically, and I want to preface this by saying staff did exactly what they should have and recon-unended exactly what the way they should have. But I'm going to take the other approach and basically because a number of these lots are indeed closer. I do believe that this is set back quite some bit. I realize the relevance of the history of this place, and the fact that it really is in some ways it's own unique spot. It is certainly not surrounded by neighbors who will feel immediately impact on their property value or their sights or anything like that. This is a pretty private spot so I'm just letting my corm-nissioners know that I will vote for granting the variance. Feik: My concerns stem a little bit from what this body has done in the past regarding consistency. At the request of staff we were to look at a garage a couple of weeks ago regarding a very narrow setback to the street, and were instructed that was consistent with the neighborhood and we should be cognizant of that and take that into consideration. We also specifically looked at the townhome association just to our north regarding some decks about this time last year where they encroached on the front yard setback and again were, this body basically stated that they want to be consistent with the neighborhood. I find the recommendation to deny inconsistent with what we have done fairly recently. I do very much appreciate the applicant's awareness of the site, the uniqueness of the site, and I think it' s a great addition. I would agree with my fellow commissioners in that if you're going to put a deck, I'd want to see it on the plan today, not tomorrow, so based upon the plan as presented, which would be, I guess it's not a new deck or a bedroom, it's blank space, I would approve this today. Blackowiak: So can I just clarify? Regardless of what it is, you would approve the size and the footprint as is? You would not approve any, I'm sorry what? So in other words, based on this plan, whether it's a deck, whether it's a bedroom, you would feel comfortable approving this as is? But not adding any kind of a deck in the future. Nothing else in the future. Feik: I don't want to nickel and dime it so I would be willing as well, as much as I'd hate to table it kind of thing, I would like to see the final plan. I would like to vote on a final plan, up or down versus what potentially I understand could be a partial plan or 75 percent of a plan with maybe a change or addition or something a year down the road. I would prefer not to see that. But based upon the plan as presented, based upon the consistency that we've done with some of the other variances that have come before this body I would approve. Blackowiak: Okay thanks, Uli. Any comments? Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Sacchet: Yes, quickly. Whether this is going to be a deck or a bedroom is not really an issue for me. I mean it is on the plans, it could be one or the other, and the plan states there is something there and that doesn't mean it could be something else that has a similar setback, but it's what's drawn on the plan that we're looking at that we're deciding upon, so I'm relatively clear about that. Now in terms of the hardship issue, I think staff did really an excellent job on this. And with the hardship, already when I thought about it and in discussion tonight, I really come to the conclusion that there is a hardship. I think there is clearly a hardship on three fronts. One hardship is obviously that the north wall needs to be fixed or partially replaced. And given that on the west side we're not already doing major work, it's a hardship. If the applicant has to do, hope to do work, major work in both places. Further I think it's a hardship that the highway's coming in there. I mean that plays into it. It's not the major component but it certainly plays into that. So the north wall fixing. The western space doesn't really have that much room, and that plays into that so I would say there's clearly a hardship. Where I have a little harder time is whether this is applicable to other properties in the area. Initially I thought well it is applicable because there are no recorded variances on the record, but based on the presentation tonight, it appears that the majority of houses in that neighborhood are actually encroaching, some of them more than the requested variance does, puts me a little bit into a split opinion. Because on one hand the recent things that were built there, they had to follow the required setbacks but then all the other ones that were there before haven't so weighing that works as the hardship is still little bit of a problem for me. How to resolve that. But then on the other hand, to be totally frank, it seems like City Council has been rather amenable to variance requests that come in front of them. I don't know if that's because it's an election year or what, but it, I mean I think the hardship is significant and I may as well stick out my neck and I'm more leaning towards approving it at this point. Sidney: I'd like to voice a different opinion, and agree with staff's interpretation of the ordinances. I guess this body and City Council have dealt with a lot of issues having to do with structures and use of those structures but really I guess my feeling is that when we're dealing with issues of variances at the Planning Commission level, we should be looking at the land use. And in this case I don't believe the hardship is really demonstrated. The applicant does have use of the property. I guess the requirement that hardship be caused by a particular physical surrounding, shape or topography or condition of the land is really what I'm focusing in on. That we don't have a land, well piece of land or lot that is unbuildable and somebody requests that this is the only option that you have. And I agree the structure, or the roof line you know lends itself only really to what you have proposed but still interpreting the ordinance as such, I just don't see that linkage with the topography a unique situation of the land. So I guess, I hope that made sense. So really it's not a question of lot size increments or whatever, so I guess I just don't see the hardship and would like to stick pretty much to staff s interpretation of the ordinances at this point. Although I agree, you know this is such a...I can see, you know I could be swayed another way if we discussed this further but I think the idea of the highway coming through is a big issue. And then also I think just the mere fact that other buildings are also encroaching into the setback potentially might be an important factor. And I would think staff may want to actually get those numbers and have the supporting documentation as to the neighboring properties and those setbacks. But I think backing up here to my original statement, I guess I don't see that we meet the requirements in the ordinance for granting a variance, at least in my opinion in this case. Blackowiak: Thank you LuAnn. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to commend the applicant on their presentation. I think they considered a lot of different possibilities and hit most the key points. As I indicated earlier, I could support this with certain conditions. Approving it within the square footage of the footprint Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 that's non-conforming on the plan would be important to me tonight as voiced by Commissioner Feik. The structural consideration for me is a non-issue. I understand that it's convenience to be able to do that addition and achieve that new addition, wall, restructuring that wall but from a variance standpoint, for me that's a non-condition. But I am interested in limiting the degree of non-conformity but the most compelling element for me is that you' re affected by an external condition, that being the expansion of Highway 212. That's all my comments. Lillehaug: I agree with Commissioner Sidney, and I'd like to maybe comment on a few other items here. I believe that this south property is very well screened with trees. I'm not saying that it's going to screen 212 100 percent. It's screened about as best as it could from a trunk highway. From interstate. I realize you're going to get a lot of noise from that 212 and that probably is a hardship for you. But the point I'm hung up on right now is, as staff indicated that the DNR mandates 150 foot setback. And the questions in my mind are what are the legal implications if the city were to approve this variance at this point? Does staff know? I don't like coming to you...with a question like this either but I guess I'm not comfortable approving this variance not knowing the implications that by approving this, can the DNR come back on the city with this matter? And impose anything onto the city because of this. A1-Jaff: I can speak from experience as to what has happened in the past. There was one situation and it was on Lotus Lake. It was encroachment into the 75 foot setback with an after the fact deck, and the DNR strongly recormnended against it. The City approved it. There was no action taken from the DNR. Lillehaug: Okay, so you're saying is, if the DNR did not put this 150 foot setback requirement, the city setback would be 75 feet? A1-Jaff: No. No. We have adopted the DNR's requirement of 150 feet on environmental lakes. And that would be the case with this one. So city ordinance requires a 150, and where it came from was DNR standards. Lillehaug: Okay. I'm going to ask a question, and just so it's clear in my mind. If we were to approve this, with the setback, it would be 125 feet or are we looking at a little more than that? I guess what, when I add up the numbers I get a little more than, or a little less than 125 feet. Maybe, closer to 120 feet. So looking at a 30 foot variance. I mean do we have exact numbers? Is this 125 feet, is it exact? Exact being within a couple feet. I'm looking at it, if we approve something tonight, and these plans, I mean if we approve a 25 foot variance and these plans are showing a 30 foot variance. Gordon Schaeffer: 127... Lillehaug: So we need a 23 foot variance? Sacchet: How is that possible? Blackowiak: Sharmin, why don't you go ahead and try and clear this up for us. A1-Jaff: Explain this, thank you. This point, from here, from this point to this point we have 139 feet. This addition is 14 feet. So 139 minus 14 is 125. That's where I came up with 125. Lillehaug: Okay. So we're looking at a 25 foot variance then? 10 Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 AI-Jaff: Co~TeCt. Lillehaug: Out of 150 foot. A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. That ends my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. I just had a few comments. I tend to also agree with staff on their interpretation of the variance request in this case. First of all, the property owner does have reasonable use of the property. There's a structure on it. It might not be as ideal as, he's shaking his head. It might not be your ideal property, but you've got a home and that's how we define a reasonable use. I mean it's not what your business is. It's not what you might like it to be, but it's, do you have a home? Is it residential single family, is there a home on it? That's a reasonable use. That' s the legal definition of the city. Secondly, approving this variance would increase the non-conformity of the setback and depart downward from pre-existing standards. According to variance requirements, unless we find that it will not increase a non-conformity, we can as a commission go ahead and grant it and I stand by that. I agree with staff's interpretation of that. Three. We have current non-conforming neighbors. I believe we might be even setting a precedent. I mean we're talking about neighbors that are about 120 feet. Now if we grant a 25 foot variance here, we'll have other neighbors coming in and saying well guess what? He got 25 feet, I want 25 feet. So even though they may be even closer to the lake than this neighbor is, they would have a strong argument for receiving the same treatment that thek neighbor received. And I worry that we're going to be getting in under 100 feet at places when we should be at 150. Homes that have been built in that area recently comply and I think that's a big thing that we need to take into consideration. Finally, 212/312. I live on the north side of Rice Marsh Lake. Yes, I 'know it's going to be a hardship. It's been in the works for 50 years. I mean everybody kind of knows it's coming. We don't know when. No one's got a crystal ball. I wish I could say you know when it's going to come but it's been there. The alignment's been there. Everybody knows so it's something I think we all have to realize that it's going to come and it comes when it comes and we deal with it the best we can. But I do believe that based on what my main four reasons that the staff made the correct recommendation and I would support denying the variance. So, I need somebody to make a motion. Gordon Schaeffer: Can I make a last comment? Blackowiak: No, sorry. We're done. We're ready to vote. Slagle: I do want to point out something Ijust observed. That the number of feet, and I don't know if that's what you're going to address, but it seems like there's a difference of opinion of the exact feet for a variance. Is that? I just want you to know that we possibly could be voting on a variance request that is different than what the applicant thinks, based upon some things I just heard. So I'm just wondering if we can ask the question of staff. Blackowiak: Okay, yeah. If you want to clarify that. Slagle: Yeah, is the number of feet, I mean copasetic with what they're applying for. A1-Jaff: 14 foot addition. Blackowiak: From 139. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 A1-Jaff: It's from 139. If you take 139 negative 14, that's 125. Slagle: I'm with that. Sacchet: Point of clarification in this context. Blackowiak: You know, let's just let Rich. Slagle: Okay. Is that what you're thin~ng? Gordon Schaeffer: I thought it was 12 feet, but I guess 14. Slagle: Okay. That's better perhaps. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're comfortable with that? Okay. Uli, what was it? Sacchet: Well the problem is that our starting point, reference frame is not clear and it would take 3 years for the DNR to provide a final clear reference frame. Isn't that part of the situation? It could be considered part of the hardship. A1-Jaff: Sure. Blackowiak: I don't agree. I think that the OHW is what it is. Sidney: It's elevation. Blackowiak: Yeah. Sacchet: We 'know where it is? Blackowiak: Right. Sacchet: That's what I'm trying to establish here. That's what I'm trying to clarify. Blackowiak: And they're saying if somebody wants to contest it, they'll go out and measure it but it's going to take them a few years. Sacchet: But we are clear at this point where we consider it to be? A1-Jaff: It's at the 877, which is reflected on all city maps as well as DNR maps. Sacchet: Okay. So that we actually have a solid reference. Claybaugh: It is the official OHW at this point. Blackowiak: Yeah, it's the official. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thanks. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, so we're all clear. We know where we're coming from. Still need a motion. Slagle: Question. Do you want, since the motion here as it stands from staffs recommendation, do you want to try that? Blackowiak: You just go ahead with whatever you would like. You know whatever motion you would like to make. Slagle: I don't know if I need to make the motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Well then whoever's ready to make the motion. Lillehaug: I'll make the motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the request of 25 foot variance allowing a structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the negative variance findings A in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Lillehaug moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the requested 25 foot variance allowing a structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the negative variance findings (a.) in the staff report. Lillehaug, Sidney and Sacchet voted in favor of the motion. Claybaugh, Blackowiak, Slagle and Feik opposed the ~notion. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4. Blackowiak: So the motion fails 3 to 4. So now I need someone to make. Claybaugh: I'd like to make a motion. The Planning Commission, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the requested 25 foot variance allowing the structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the variance findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: I'll second but clarification. Is the variance findings in the staff report, or is that something that we discussed here that we have to add, that's what I'm thinking. Blackowiak: I would think that'd be a little more, because it's not the findings. Slagle: Yeah, exactly. Claybaugh: That's why I dropped the word negative. Blackowiak: Yeah, that was a good start. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Slagle: Yes, I seconded. Sacchet: Can I do friendly amendments? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 2002 Blackowiak: Motion and second. Claybaugh: Certainly willing to entertain friendly amendment. Blackowiak: Go ahead I guess. Sacchet: Alright, friendly amendments. I really don't think the staff report supports this motion. Blackowiak: I don't think we really need amendments. I mean it's just, it's got conditions. Sacchet: Don't we need to say? Blackowiak: You can just add discussion. Claybaugh: Say based on discussion. Sacchet: Based on discussion of points brought up in discussion? Blackowiak: Yeah. Sacchet: And then I wanted to tied clearly into the layout of the plan in front of us from June 6th 02. Blackowiak: Okay, well let's vote on this motion and then you can make comments after. Sacchet: Well shouldn't that be a condition? Slagle: Yeah, if you want to make it a condition of the motion. Sacchet: I think that should be a condition. Blackowiak: So that based on the plans dated June 6a~. Claybaugh: The non-conforming square footage is as shown on the drawings. Not to exceed. Sacchet: Yes. Sidney: So you made a friendly amendment to your own? Sacchet: Specifically when it says new deck or optional bedroom, that it will not be bigger and will be there. Whichever it's going to be. Blackowiak: Right. Slagle: It just won't encroach further into. Sacchet: Right. Blackowiak: Okay, we've got a motion and a second. 14 Planning Commission Meeting- July 16, 2002 Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve the requested 25 foot variance allowing the structure to encroach into a lakeshore setback for the expansion of a home based on the preceding discussion. Claybaugh, Blackowiak, Slagle and Feik voted in favor. Sidney, Lillehaug and Sacchet voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Blackowiak: Okay the motion carries 4-3. Is that enough for a variance? AI-Jaff: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: Now we explain. Blackowiak: So let's explain. It has to be 60 or 2/3? A1-Jaff: It has to be 3/4. Blackowiak: 3/4 okay, so it would have had to have 5 commissioners to say yes for the motion to. The motion actually passed but the variance did not, if that makes any sense whatsoever. A1-Jaff: The applicant can appeal the decision. Blackowiak: Yeah, bottom line is yes, you can appeal the decision to the planning department within 4 business days and either talk to Sharmin after the meeting or give them a call and let them know you intend to appeal. Sidney: Then it goes to City Council. Blackowiak: Yeah, if you choose to do that, that will go to City Council and then they can make the final decision. Lillehaug: I'd like to make a comment on my vote. Blackowiak: Oh certainly, go right ahead. Lillehaug: I believe that increasing the, by increasing the non-conformance to a 25 foot is desirable, but I don't think it's reasonable based on city codes. I think 25 foot is too much. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 2, 2002 as presented. NEW/OLD BUSINESS. None. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15