The URL can be used to link to this page

1i Approval of Minutes City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 j. Accept $1,000 Donation to the Chanhassen Fire Department from Rosemount. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Ge LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, JOHN & LAURIE LONGSTREET: 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. Public Present: Name Pat Nieni Laurie & John Longstreet Ron & Ann Kleve Janet & Jerry Paulsen Don Huseth Adolfo Zambrano Debbie Lloyd Address Minnetonka 7303 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 7332 Frontier Lane 7301 Frontier Trail 7302 Laredo Drive Mayor Jansen: Now we have removed item 1 (g) for a separate discussion. Councilman Peterson, would you like to start that discussion? Councilman Peterson: I guess what I would like to do is maybe if we could have staff just respond generally, just kind of walk through where we're at today. Where we've been at and some general comments. Can you do that for us? Kate Aanenson: Sure. This is the request to plat two lots of one lot. What I'll show you now is how the one home sits on the lot. The previous proposal anticipated the existing home to be removed. The existing home is located, here this lot line has not changed. There was a condition that with the existing home to be removed, the applicant is requesting that the home remain. There is a requirement that it meets all the standards of the district. In order to do that, this portion of the garage has to be removed. It's too close to the setback line. The garage will be reconfigured in this area. It does meet the requirements of the zoning district. This house is a rambler and is existing. The addition to the garage because it does meet the setback requirements, even though this portion of the house is closer to the shoreland than the current zoning ordinance. It's approximately 69-70 feet as opposed to the required 75 feet. Because the addition does meet the standards, it is consistent with the city's zoning ordinance. So it meets the standards. The drive in location would be approximately as shown in the original plat. That has not changed. With this lot, when that home comes in it will be required to do a custom grading. He'll show us the style of home and the number of trees to be removed. Again, it meets the 60 by 60 pad but we're not sure exactly what the house will be configured yet. That homeowner hasn't selected a plan yet. Mayor Jansen: Kate, is that the reason for moving ahead with the approval at this point versus the original recommendation and condition that we needed to have that grading plan at this point? Kate Aanenson: Correct. The original person on this property has sold it. There's other people looking at that and they have different needs so, this home, as far as our knowledge, that lot hasn't been sold or a City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 home plan picked out whereas before there was two people that were kind of proceeding that had specific plans in mind. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then the other part of the statute or our ordinance as I understand it is, this current proposal isn't expanding a non-conforming use on that property. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. The garage addition does meet all the requirements and it's not increasing the non-conformity side. Mayor Jansen: Okay. If anything you're correcting that part of the non-conforming for re-building. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They're reconfiguring the garage. Mayor Jansen: Okay. There is no variance being requested, correct? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Craig, was there any further information that you would like from staff?. Councilman Peterson: No, that's fully it. Mayor Jansen: Do any other council members have questions for staff?. Okay. We had received some correspondence from a couple of residents on this issue and part of I think the questions that we were posing were around the questions that we had received. If you would like to come forward, if you still have questions for us, you are welcome to and the correspondence that we received were from representatives of the neighborhood. The Paulsen' s and Ms. Lloyd. If either of you would like to speak to the issues that you raised. And if we could keep those comments to 5 minutes if you would please. Good evening. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. As you said, Debbie Lloyd and we sent some correspondence to the council in regard to a couple issues here. We met Mr. Longstreet in the past and I have to compliment him on his very industrialness. He seems to be very intent on renovating this house and he spends a lot of time down there. He's obviously a very talented individual. This lengthy application process began 18 months ago, as you know, and during that time our primary objective has been to protect the lake and maintain the integrity and characteristics of the neighborhood. To accomplish this we've tried to make sure this particular subdivision meets code. A recent. correspondence to the council, and that's from Debbie Lloyd, calls attention to the March 12th council meeting. At that meeting you had two options on this issue. One option, the first option was to approve two lakeshore properties with variances. The other option was to split one lakeshore and one non- lakeshore, we call it a stack plan, and that was said to be compliant with the city code. You approved the second option at that time. In the March meeting. The conditions, there were 15 conditions attached to that preliminary plat approval. One of those conditions was that the existing house had to be demolished, which was just spoken to here. But I'd like to call your attention to the fact that now that the fact that the house is not being demolished, the fact is that we're creating a new non-conforming lot. In March, if the council had chosen between a subdivision with variances and a subdivision with non-conformities, you could have rejected both issues, both options at that point. That was not the way it was presented to you though. If the conditions for razing the house is ignored, it in effect alters the condition under which the council made that decision in March we believe. So we're kind of, I'm concerned about the ground rules being changed in the middle of the game here. The second issue, besides this one, is we call your City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 attention to is this preliminary plat which Kate showed you here with the house being cocked off to the side. The house being modified. Said to meet the 30 foot setback from the middle property line which it does. The glitch here is that the result, the way they show their driveway on this plat. Mayor Jansen: Nann, could you switch to that table shot? Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Anyway, the green portion there is plotted as a driveway and a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water line comes to this point, which means everything in the green is, infringes on the 75 foot setback. So in essence that requires the variance by definition. Interestingly enough that 75 foot line here that we drew on here used to be on a previous plat but it disappeared on this plat so we had to re-put it on there to emphasis the fact that this driveway was infringing on the 75 foot setback. The third issue then we'd like to mention, and this is not more than just a matter of semantics. We're talking about three lines on this property. If you looked at the final plat, there is a line called the survey line, and that' s the main way that surveyors mark their width of the line. The next line down is the ordinary high water line. The next line down, shown on the plat is called the edgewater line, which is the edge of the lake. Staff is maintaining that the property line runs to that edgewater line. The property between, we're saying the property between the ordinary high water line and the edge line belongs to the State of Minnesota, not to the City or the property owner. So therefore the property line is not on the plat. The ordinary high water line. And that' s what you use to define the area of the lot and the width requirements of the lot. So the ordinary high water line is a very integral part of the riparian lot, you're aware of that. The last issue which was addressed here was a detailed grading plan, and here our concern is I guess that this be brought to us now so we can see what's happening in regard to the private street that's going to be coming down there. Does it meet, will the grading be reduced enough so it doesn't exceed the 10%, which it does now? And what impact this has.on the runoff the neighbors to the north and stability of the slope along our own property to the south. One solution that we suggested certainly is the applicant can leave the garage where it is and solve his driveway problem here because it makes it very awkward for him to enter that driveway at that angle there. You can't get in at a right angle. Leave the garage where it is. Save that expense. Move the property line a little further west, and that would save him that expense. We're saying tonight that if there is a change to the preliminary plat, then it warrants going back to the Planning Commission. If there's variances involved, or other problems, it warrants tabling the issues from your standpoint tonight I think. We think that there are enough unresolved issues here that the issue at a minimum should be at least tabled tonight and some of these questions, especially that of the property line should be answered which we have not. I apologize, I wrote an e-mail to the city today and if I got a reply back I didn't have time to look at it in my office so. Responding to the issue of the ordinary high water line. Anyway, our ultimate solution certainly is to leave this as one lot. It's a beautiful lot with trees that date back to the Civil War. Oak trees and certainly from our standpoint, and the standpoint of the neighborhood, that's what we'd like to see happen. Thank you. If you have questions, I can do that for you too. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. We can either address all the questions at one time Kate, or would you like to handle them as they have just come up? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I can address most of them. Maybe Roger wanted to add too. As far as the lot area. The land between the OHW and the survey, this lot is well in excess of the square footage required. What we used for the calculation was the straight line, which is probably not the OHW line but this straight line so we actually took the most conservative or the most restrictive to figure out the lot area. As far as the non-conforming to the lake, changing the lot configurations as far as setback doesn't affect that in any way, except for the removal of the house which again we felt leaving the rambler, or having the rambler type was in the best interest of the neighborhood. The person that was buying it wanted to City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 put a two story up and we felt for maintaining the character, again that was consistent. What was the other one? Mayor Jansen: The driveway infringing on the setback. Kate Aanenson: Oh yes. The OHW line is, I think as Mr. Paulsen indicated that portion of the driveway will have to be removed to stay outside of the OHW. That area in green. Mayor Jansen: Do we have that indicated somewhere in our conditions? I don't remember looking specifically for that one. Okay. Condition number 6 discussed removing the portion of the building that doesn't comply with the setbacks. Is there an easy way to word an amendment to that one Kate or just a new condition? Kate Aanenson: You could just add something about including the driveway. Councilman Peterson: Say redirect driveway to... Kate Aanenson: Be consistent with. Sure. Mayor Jansen: Okay. You go the ordinary high water mark. As far as the grading that will occur Kate, the grading that potentially needs to be reviewed for the difference between the 10% and the 12%, is that in relationship to the second house? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: And so that is why you've removed it from this particular plan in that it will then be reviewed when the plan comes in for the second house that we're, right now we have no idea what that plan is going to be. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. But at least this is still holding on to the city's authority to be able to review that grading plan. It does not go forward until there is a firm site plan and that has been reviewed. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay. Do any other council people have additional questions they'd like to have addressed? Okay. I guess from what I am hearing staff discuss with us here this evening, again we're emphasizing that we're not expanding the non-conforming use of the property. And I know that having voted initially on this front to back, one of my major concerns with the forward structure was that it could potentially turn into a much larger structure than what is there. And I would happen to agree with staff' s observation, and I believe the neighbors would benefit from this remaining a rambler versus it becoming a two story structure on that property. So at this point since we're not expanding a non- conforming use. If anything they're reducing the structure out of the setback area, which makes it a plus and conforms then with the neighborhood. I'm comfortable with this proposal and I feel as though we've been clearly shown what the differences are between what we approved the first time through and what this proposal is. It just happens to have split the first structure and second structure and they'll be coming in separately as proposals, I guess is what I'm observing. City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 Councilman Ayotte: And the overall grade plan would come? Mayor Jansen: With the next phase or the next building coming in. In that the grading is part of that plan. Councilman Peterson: I mean from what I've heard tonight, I don't see how we can say no. And I think Roger, you can probably support that question. On the merits discussed tonight, I don't think we have an opportunity to say no to this. Not to put words into your mouth but. Roger Knutson: I would agree with you. Just so we're clear. Once, the policy, basic policy decision, if there are any, are made at the preliminary plat stage and you've alreadY made those decisions. And once those decisions are made, they have the right to final plat if the conditions are complied with so you can't revisit the whole issue tonight, whether you wanted to or not. It's just not available to you. The only question is, is it appropriate to take out that one condition and again the reason the condition was in there in the first place, was they were going to build a new house. Now they aren't and now you're going to require them to respect that new setback that they're creating with that new lot line which is just fine. Actually the Court of Appeals, a number of years ago, addressed specifically the issue of if you have a building that's already non-conforming because of an existing setback line, and the plat does not increase that non-conformity of the new plat, can you turn it down based upon that non-conforming building and the court said no you can't. You just can't do that. Because the plat isn't creating the non-conformity. Mayor Jansen: This issue was by far one of the most difficult having now sat on this council for 2 V2 years when I realized the magnitude of some of the projects that we've approved and reviewed, including the Pulte project which was oh you know, 340 homes. This particular subdivision was more difficult to make a decision on than any of the others over the last 2 V2 years, and I think it was primarily because it impacts one of our existing neighborhoods and all of council was concerned with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and how could we best do that. And that's where we did reach the conclusion that the front to back definitely protects the integrity of the neighborhood the best. It can be constructed without variances, which is what this is. It is without variances and now to see that that forward structure can remain a rambler, that was one of the conditions that we had actually tried to put on the application and couldn't because there wasn't a variance. We could only attach conditions if there was a variance that was being requested. And so we had to back down from even specifying what the structure could actually be. So though I think we all would recognize the emotions around this issue coming in and the appearance that there's been a dramatic change, I know I spent a great deal of time looking at this to see, is this better or is this worst and it is going to happen. I mean this development is going to occur and if it's going to occur, I would hope that...something that impacts this neighborhood as little as possible is seen as a plus, and I certainly appreciate the neighbors and your following the issue to completion, but I think at this point for us to belabor this over what appeared to be just some technicalities, it's going to come through and I think this is a very good proposal and I appreciate all the effort that was put into it. So with that, if I could have a motion council please. Councilman Peterson: I make a motion Madam Mayor that the City Council approve a resolution granting a final plat approval of Subdivision #2000-2 creating two lots prepared by Carlson & Carlson, dated received July 2, 2001 subject to conditions 1 through 13 with 6 amended to state, redirect, in addition to number 6. Redirect the driveway to address the OHW setback requirements. Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second for that motion please? Councilman Labatt: Second. City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 Resolution #2001-45: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve a resolution granting final plat approval of Subdivision g2000-2 creating two lots, plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated received July 2, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. 2. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. o The property owner shall preserve existing trees along the north property line of Lot 2, Block 1, Lucas Igel Addition. One additional understory tree shall be planted. . The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the building permit for a new home on Lot 1, Block 1, Lucas Igel Addition. The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $872.00. if the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,158.20. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. o A demolition or remodeling permit must be obtained before demolishing any portion of the existing building. That portion of the existing building that does not comply with the required setback from the new property line must be demolished or moved to meet the required setbacks prior to recording the final plat. The driveway shall be redirected to address the OHW setback requirements. . All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility specifications. . A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree preservation plan will be required as part of the building permit application for review and approval for Lot 1, Block 1, Lucas Igel Addition. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. In addition, an as-built lot survey will be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. . The newly created lot will be responsible for one sewer and water hook-up and connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The 2001 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are $4,144 each and the trunk hook-up charges are $1,322 for sanitary and $1,723 for water. The cost of the water service from Laredo Lane to the property line will be deducted from the applicant's water connection charges on Lot 1. The applicant shall notify the City 30 days in advance to request the water service extension from Laredo Lane. The proposed sewer route shall be moved to the south in order to avoid the existing trees. The applicant shall escrow with the City $2,500 for the water service extension from Laredo Lane. The applicant shall escrow $2,000 with the City to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service from Lot 2 to Lot 1. The applicant will need to prepare private cross-access easements to be recorded against both parcels for the extension of sewer and water lines through Lots 1 and 2 respectively. City Council Meeting -July 23,2001 10. The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 11. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a cormnon curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7 ton axle weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 12. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff into the' lake from the construction of the private street and driveway. 13. As part of any building permit submittal, impervious surface calculations shall be prepared and included on the certificate of survey. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: Now was that g(1)? Do we also need g(2) to approve the construction plans? I think, do we separate them? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I make that motion that we approve the construction plans Project #01-09. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the construction plans for the Lucas Igel Addition dated July 2, 2001, prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., to be approved conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall pay an administration fee of $4,282.00. . The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. 3. Previous staff reports. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATES. Mayor Jansen: We have our sergeant here, Dave Potts from the Carver County Sheriff's Department. Welcome Sergeant Potts. Sgt. Dave Ports: Good evening Mayor, council members. As you know, if you had a chance to look at my memo, the sheriff's office area report and citation listing were not available for inclusion in your packet. You have the area report in front of you tonight. It was passed out earlier on the citation listing. They're still not available. This is part of the transition from the old record system to a new record system. They made the transition and just a back log in our records. People trying to catch up and what City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 not so hopefully we'll be up to speed again at my next appearance before the council. You also have the crime prevention highlights for May and June. The Community Service Officer highlights for June as well. And then my only comments this evening revolve around the July 3rd and 4th events and regarding law enforcement. The sheriff' s office was able to schedule extra officers, reserves, posse members, on site at the music event here downtown. The parade and the fireworks and I'm happy to report that we had no significant criminal incidents during our July 3rd and 4th activities. About the biggest thing that occurred was over at Lake Ann Park, throughout the entire afternoon and evening a total of 7 young people were charged with underage consumption of alcohol, but that was the only noteworthy event of the festivities. And regarding the Chaska shooting that the sheriff' s office has been involved with, don't have a significant update from what council is already aware of. Just somewhat repetitive to what council has learned earlier, that in Chanhassen 6 search warrants were conducted at Lakeview Hills Apartment Complex resulting in the recovery of property related to the shooting. There have been a total of 5 arrests, 3 juveniles and 2 adults and of those arrested, 1 of the adults and 1 juvenile listed the Lakeview Hills Apartments as their place of residency. And the final note on that, the juvenile who did confess to the shooting is not from Chanhassen or Chaska. Any comments or questions from council this evening? Mayor Jansen: Council members, any questions for Dave? Later on in the agenda we will be covering some more specifics around the apartment complex so we will get to those in our item number 7 of our agenda. But as far as any specifics, I don't think we have any questions. Sgt. Dave Potts: Okay, thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. And then do we have a fire department representative here this evening? I don't see Greg Hayes. Todd Gerhardt: I'm pretty sure John could not make it and I don't know what happened to Mark or Greg SO. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So we do not have a fire department update. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Judy Severson: I'm Judy Severson. I live at 8736 North Bay Drive and I'm the President of the North Bay Homeowners Association. Nice to meet you. Mayor Jansen: Nice to meet you. Judy Severson: I just wanted you to be aware that we have a few representatives from our neighborhood. Can I have a show of hands from North Bay residents please? And there are some over here. And I know that we have a couple here from Bearpath. Another of our neighbors, Marc and Pat Papineau right here. And I just wanted you to be aware of them. We have been e-mailing each other, Bearpath and ourselves concerning the Lakeview Apartments. I briefly, I don't know if Marc has anything but I just briefly want to mention an e-mail I received from one of the residents of Bearpath. He made me aware of an incident that occurred one night. My wife and I awoke to an unwelcomed intruder in our bedroom. This was a young Hispanic man who was obviously quite intoxicated or high on drugs and had entered our home via a door. I forced him down in our front entry until police arrived and arrested him. The next morning it was determined he was kicked out of his girlfriend's apartment in the Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. Climbed the fence into Bearpath. He apparently walked down the fairway and for City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 some reason into our house. Needless to say the experience was frightening to us all and a good wake-up call as to the false sense of security one can be lulled to by virtue of living in a gated community. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We appreciate it. As I mentioned, we will be discussing some of the issues surrounding that complex later in our agenda under item number 7. Council has requested a current update from staff as to any of our ordinances and the enforcement that's occurring currently. We also are going to take a look at a general policy in the community that will in fact give us a little bit more of an enforcement authority on some of our housing issues. And that will be something that we will be discussing a little bit more in detail later in the agenda, so we will be moving forward on some things that we know we can address as a city on those issues. If there's anyone else who would like to speak to the council as part of visitor presentations, please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Jean Sager: Yes, my name is Jean Sager. I live at 122 Lakeview Road. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Jean Sager: Welcome, thank you. My husband Richard is with me and if I could have 2 minutes of the people's time I would appreciate it very much regarding Lakeview Hills Apartments. Mayor Jansen: Certainly. Jean Sager: I'm most concerned about the...for a minute I'd be happy. Mayor Jansen: Sure. We sure can. Jean Sager: Thank you. Mayor Jansen: You're welcome. We don't have anything specific as to what we will be addressing under item 7. What in fact staff is looking for is the direction from council to move forward on addressing putting some new ordinances in place so that's something that they will be looking into so I don't want to give any sort of a false anticipation of what we will be getting accomplished this evening. There won't be a lot of detail discussed because there's a great deal of research that needs to be done initially in order to bring that forward and we can at least give that direction very quickly here to have that addressed. Okay. Anyone else who would like to address the council under visitor presentations, please come forward. Jerry Paulsen: I'm Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I didn't have a chance to respond there. I certainly want to thank the council for the time they spent on this issue, realizing that it was a time consuming project. It was lengthened to a great deal by the previous owner and the applicant, but we do thank you for that. The issue that wasn't responded to was the issue of the high water line. Ordinary high water line and just for the record I think that, I'm saying that the ordinary high water line is the property line and anything below that belongs to the State and that's not the position that the city is taking as far as the final plat is concerned. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council at this time? Marc Papineau: Hi. My name is Marc Papineau. 10 City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Good evening. Marc Papineau: Appreciate the opportunity to come over and address you folks. I'm your neighbor. I'm the President of the Bearpath Homeowners Association. The property that is being considered here in the Lakeview apartments borders the property that we live in, and with the incident that occurred that was represented here, there is a great deal of concern within our development and such as to the safety of the residents, so we're very interested in what the proceedings are and what can be done here to take and improve the safety and the folks are concerned about the possibility of incidents coming over and people getting through the fence and getting into the neighborhood. So we've very, very interested in what the proceedings are. Thank you very much. Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. Thanks for being here this evening. Appreciate your comments. John Ringstrom: I'm John Ringstrom. I live at 126 Lakeview Road East, which is directly across from the apartments and I have concerns about noise issues, speeding issues and also just overall use of our law enforcement issues that would go, excessive use of our law enforcement resources at that one particular address. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council at this time? Okay, seeing no one. We'll move on. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE BLUFF OVERLAY DISTRICT, 8900 AUDUBON ROAD, DENNIS & RUTH CHADDERDON. Kate Aanenson: The applicant, Mr. Chadderdon is requesting to build a single family home. When this lot was subdivided it was approximately the same timeframe that you looked at the Bluff Creek Overlay District and as it happened that this property was totally encumbered with the overlay district. The overlay district did provide a mechanism to allow relief from that which would be a variance, and it also allows for the applicant to provide evidence of where that primary zone line would be. So on page 4 of your staff report you can see all of the different district requirements. There are setbacks from the creek, the wetland, from the primary zone. What the staff has established in working with the applicant is where the actual primary zone should be, and that was also noted in the flood elevation when this lot was created and that was the 881.6 elevation. So with that, there still is a few areas that need relief in order to make this lot buildable. Again it has enough square footage, it's just the setbacks. The encumbrances that are put upon it, and that would be the corner of the house. This corner of the house which would need relief. Again to make a reasonable home size and to get the 2 septic sites on there, we again think it' s a reasonable use that it would need relief from a variance. And then also the septic sites are encroaching into the primary. The septic sites can be shifted and moved, which the applicant has agreed to do. And the other issue is the driveway. There is an existing driveway on this site. It's the old farm field. It's a wetland bounded here in the orange. Can you zoom in? So what we're recommending is that the existing driveway be used for that portion and then the remaining of it shift so we get a greater buffer from the wetland edge. We are recommending approval of the variances. We think it' s reasonable use of the property. And variances from the Bluff Creek. The one condition I would like to add would be, the applicant does have a survey in. That survey doesn't have on it the 881.6 which we want to have delineated on his lot survey so I'd like to add condition number 17 and that would be that the lot survey for the home, for the building permit delineate the 881.6 on the survey so we can get, ensure that it does meet those setbacks from that lot line. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. 11 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 Mayor Jansen: Thank you Kate. In regards to the variance, the Planning Commission actually spent a great deal of time going over this application and I thought they did a very good job of going through a lot of this detail. Point number 14 where they added the wording that it be a buffer with a minimum of 10 feet, with it being a 10 to 20 foot average was in regards to a bigger buffer for that variance area, correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And again when you have a variance you have the opportunity to apply mitigation and that was their attempt to mitigate the impact of the drive through the wetland. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I thought they did a very good job of looking out for the best interest there and not infringing on what the applicant was trying to accomplish with this application. Any questions from council? This is not a public hearing. If there is anyone who would like to comment on this application, we would limit the comments but you are welcome to step forward to the podium and comment at this time. If you could state your name and address for the record. Dennis Chadderdon: Hi, I'm Dennis Chadderdon. I'm the one that's going to be building the house there. I just have a question for Kate. This x'd and dashed line right here, that is the 881.6, is it not? Kate Aanenson: Yes. We wanted to make sure your home survey didn't have that line on there so we want to make sure that it's showing up on your plot survey for your home, so it's just a matter of your surveyor transferring it on there. On the survey for the plot. Dennis Chadderdon: Okay... Mayor Jansen: Great. Appreciate that. Okay, seeing no one else, I'll bring this back to council. Council, any discussion around this issue? Councilman Peterson: No, it's fine. Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please~ Councilman Peterson: I would recommend that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #20- 01 with conditions 1 through 17 with the addition of 17 being that the lot survey will note the 881.6 line on the survey. Mayor Jansen: And a second please. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer (with a minimum average of 10 feet) and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The buffer shall be shown on the plans. 12 City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 The applicant shall provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point so water will be able to drain into the wetland. o The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the proposed culvert is accurately sized. 4. The applicant shall install riprap at the downstream end of the culvert in order to prevent erosion. Se The erosion control silt fence must be moved outside the 881.6 contour. Type III erosion control shall be installed as designated on the site plan. o The current, existing portion of the driveway shall be allowed to remain in it's current alignment; however, the remainder of the driveway shall be moved so that no additional fill will be placed within the 100 year floodplain (881.6). . Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit. A minimum of the first 40 to 50 feet of the driveway, off of Audubon Road, must be paved. 8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6. The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881.6) must be shown on the plan as legally described. 10. The retaining wall must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour). 11. The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6. 12. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey. 13. A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bitternut Hickory. The applicant shall submit a planting list. 14. A 10 to 20 feet vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year floodplain (881.6). The buffer minimum shall be 10 feet. 15. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision #97-11. 16. The applicant shall move the septic system north as far as possible while still meeting all setbacks. 17. The lot survey shall delineate the 881.6 contour line before a building permit is issued. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. 13 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 REQUEST TO MOVE A HOUSE TO 1800 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, DENNIS NYSTROM. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. For a house moving permit there's 4 general standards that the City Council needs to review. The subject property is down on 212. It's an older lot. It does not meet the standards as far as 2 V2 acres so I will discuss that in a minute. Just so everybody's clear. The house was moved. Mr. Nystrom had this property from a relocation. He did inform us that he needed to move it. It was in another location for a while and that had to be moved but he knows he moved it in violation. So if it's not approved, he knows he has to move it off the site. Again it is going to the Planning Commission also for a variance. So this is the subject site down on 212. Just so you're aware too, the staff is working on some additional setbacks. It is not in the overlay district and it wouldn't be impacted by some future additional setbacks that we' re looking at in the seminary site. So it would not be impacted by those. This is the home. Again the 4 standards that the City Council was to look at is the Uniform ' Building Code. The building inspections division did inspect the home and the applicant was given a list of inspections that need to be done to bring it up to current code. The home was built, the condition of the home. It was built in 1997. Inspections division found that it was well maintained. The brick was removed from the home. It had to be in order to move it. It will have a hardy plank type siding on it, and the other condition that needs to be resolved is that it needs a variance. Again the site is A-2. The A-2 district requires a 2.5 minimum. This is an existing lot of record. If it meets the 75% rule it doesn't need a variance but this lot doesn't so one of the conditions that will be required with this is that it needs a variance and that is scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting to receive the variance. Again if that isn't approved then this recommendation would not go forward. There was an existing house on this site. It was in disrepair. The owner of this property did remove the home from the site and again we believe this home is an improvement to that property. This home can meet all the setback requirements so it's just a matter that the lot is under the 2 V2 acres. So the final thing that the general issue stands should be the surrounding property. Included in your staff report on page 2 is the value, based on Carver County of the surrounding land value and the property value. And the estimated market value as presented by the owner of the property is well in excess of the average there so again we feel it meets the existing neighborhood standard. So with that the staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Kate. Appreciate that. My main question may have more to do with the next application that ends up being made. Because this doesn't meet the 2 V2 acres for development, my concern is allowing for development on smaller than required lots in areas where our MUSA line isn't extended yet. And I get the sense that this of course would be doing that. They would be adding a septic system, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes, they have to do that. And this area would not be brought in for at least 10 years. 10 to 15 years which could be the life of the septic system. Again it is a lot of record and we believe it is reasonable use of that property. The applicant is aware of that and we will be down there sometime in the future with sewer and water. This would probably be 2015 when we'd be down in this area so that would probably make a pretty good life or payback to that system. Mayor Jansen: So when you say that it is a lot of record, am I to read into that that even though it does not meet the 2 V2 acre requirement, they could in fact put a structure on this site at this time. Kate Aanenson: Well they still need a variance, and you can attach some conditions to mitigate that but we believe it's reasonable use because there was a home on there before. And to say they can't do anything with it, I'm not sure is. If they can meet all the setbacks and such, which they can, the only issue is the total area. 14 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that comes through as a separate application. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: Okay. That was my only question. Kate Aanenson: And you wouldn't see that unless the Planning Commission did deny that variance. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Where was the house moved from? Kate Aanenson: Maybe you can ask the applicant that, but I thought it was Maple Grove. Yeah, somewhere up north, yes. Councilman Labatt: And were the permits applied for and granted from the County and State to move the house down here? Dennis Nystrom: Yes. Kate Aanenson: I believe it went to Minnetrista first, is that correct? Dennis Nystrom: That's correct. Kate Aanenson: And that's where it sat in Minnetrista for a few weeks? Dennis Nystrom: Two weeks. Kate Aanenson: Two weeks. And it was inspected prior to the moving here because that's a requirement too that we do so it was inspected by our department before it was moved onto the site. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So then the permit to get it from Minnetrista to here, from the County. Dennis Nystrom: That was a State permit on state highways provided by the move. Councilman Labatt: Okay. None through County? Dennis Nystrom: There was no county roads or no city roads that we used. 212 was the only road coming into the property. Councilman Labatt: But if you're moving it from Minnetrista, which road did you go to? From Minnetrista. Dennis Nystrom: His route was Highway 7. Came down, and I'm not fully sure other than Audubon. Came down Audubon. 41 to Audubon and then cut across on 212. Kate Aanenson: If you came down 41, which is a state road, he got re-routed. Just like everybody else that's coming down 41 right now. 15 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 Councilman Labatt: Okay. I just go back to the urgency. Moving it before the permit has been applied for. Coming in the back door, I don't like that so. Mayor Jansen: It certainly is in reverse. Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Dennis Nystrom: Can I take the...? Mayor Jansen: I think we're ready to go ahead and make a motion so it's okay, but thank you. IfI could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: I'd motion to approve the request for permit. Councilman Ayotte: And I second that. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the house moving permit subject to the following conditions: The home must be repaired and altered to comply with current building code requirements as directed by the Inspections Division. Building, plumbing and HVAC permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before proceeding with any work. . The applicant shall provide a design for an on-site sewage treatment system identifying two (2) acceptable sites. 3. The applicant shall have obtained the required permits from MnDot and applicable counties. 4~ A lot area variance must be approved by the city prior to the house being moved on to the property. 5. The house must meet the required building setbacks for the Agricultural Estate (A2) District. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS, DECISION RESOURCES. Mayor Jansen: Welcome Mr. Morris. Our long awaited community survey. William Morris: Well it's a pleasure to be here finally with you to discuss the results of the survey. We spoke with 400 randomly selected households across the community. The telephone calls were made between May 25th and June 23rd. The average amount of time that it took to complete a survey was 51 minutes, and that's the median. We actually have a new record now, in the 20 years we've been in operation with one individual staying on the phone with us for 2 hours and 13 minutes. She had many things to say. The results are projectable to the universe of residents above the age of 18 in the city of Chanhassen to have been plus or minus 5%. And once people understood that we were not going to sell them anything, and could make appointments to talk with them if it were inconvenient, the non-response 16 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 rate was a very, very low 4%. The minute people understood this was a survey dealing with city issues, they became very, very keenly engaged. To begin with, we ask a question generally across the metropolitan area with all of our city clients, asking residents to evaluate or rate the quality of life on a very simple scale. Excellent, good, only fair or poor. And within the city of Chanhassen 44% indicated they thought the quality of life was excellent, while 48% said good. There was just a minimal number of people, 6% indicating a more critical evaluation. The 44% excellent puts Chanhassen within the top quarter of communities across the metropolitan area and certainly puts you among the highest among the growth communities across the metropolitan area. So I'll be talking about two norms of comparison tonight. One, the greater metropolitan area. The other being the greater metropolitan area suburbs. Let me underscore that, and the other being the growth communities. Lakeville, Woodbury, obviously Chanhassen and there are about 5 in that set that we use for comparisons. Now one question we began with was why did the individual respondent come to Chanhassen. Why did they decide to settle in the city? And the number one reason, particularly among those people that had moved here more recently, was housing. The available housing drew them to the community. The second reason is your quintessential suburban reason which is location. Chanhassen is very close to everything that mattered to them. After that small town ambience was mentioned, and this also tended to be mentioned by many of the newcomers. Rural and open spaces tended to be mentioned by two groups, newcomers and what we call the settlers. The people who had been here for over 20 years. And jobs also played a role. If we were to separate the reasons for selecting the city into two groups, suburban reasons. The reasons we normally see in a suburban area were given by 53%, while ex-urban reasons, what we would expect to see in a city out beyond the suburban fringe were given by 25% so there's still that ex-urban/suburban mix within the community, which then plays into people's expectations. And also their opinions on various issues facing Chanhassen. Now we also asked people where did they come from? What was their prior residence and the 3 places which drew the most were the city of Eden Prairie at 15%. We took a look at a number of suburbs separately. Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Bloomington and so the rest of Hennepin County also at 16%, which means that 63% of your residents hail from immediately prior to moving to Chanhassen, from Hennepin County area. Either suburban or the city of Minneapolis. And then finally about 1 in 6 people move here from out of state. A trend that we're also seeing in Lakeville and Woodbury. In Lakeville and Woodbury that's at about 25% now currently, and we noticed that the number of people that had moved in from out of state was increasing with the recentcy of the move here. So more and more people are being attracted to Chanhassen as they're moving in from other places. What do residents like most about the city? Well again this is an open ended question. That is we provided no responses for people and we let them pretty much tell us what they thought. And 23% gave again what I call that quintessential suburban response of location. Being close to everything they feel they need. However, 24% indicated to more small town kind of responses of open space and with the small town feel of the community. That small town feel of the community is a real value for a strong minority of people within the community. In fact it's a very important consideration to about 30% of the community in terms of trying to maintain that small town identity if at all possible. What other kinds of things were mentioned? Well certainly strong neighborhoods and available housing. That it's a good community overall to live in. Nice people. Peaceful. The parks were pointed to, and as we'll see later on the parks are a real asset for the community in residents' minds. Now if we're going to ask people what they like most about the city, we should also ask them the other question. What they like least about the city. And there was one response that tended to dominate. We consider anything that comes in over 25% to be a mega issue. When you've got 1 in 4 people basically saying the same thing, it's something to really take notice of, and that was high taxes. In fact that was a show stopper in terms of the interview process as people became very explicit about taxes. Not only about city taxes however, but also a good share of talk on school district and county taxes. 7% were boosters, and that's at the norm for suburban communities. Those are the people that said there is nothing they dislike about Chanhassen and how dare you ask us that question. Are you implying that there's something wrong with this 17 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 community? So the 7% is about what we would expect to see. Growth came in at 10% as being a concern. Traffic was mentioned. Road construction irritated a number of people. Lack of affordable housing was mentioned, and that's a response that we're seeing more and more often now as that issue begins to climb in people' s attention. The City Council itself was mentioned, particularly in terms of the last election that took place here. And also city services were mentioned, and we look at that a bit more specifically later on within the study. Well to round out the series of questions we asked people, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the community? If there' s only one that you had to prioritize, what would it be? High taxes again was mentioned by 26%. 19% indicated growth and concerns about growth, while 14% indicated City Council. And here people were talking about the hard fought election last time and perhaps the aftermath of that election in terms of fighting on the council itself. What other things were mentioned? Well roads. Again, no affordable housing and financial problems were also talked about with people talking a little bit about TIF when they brought up that one concern. So in general if there is one mega issue that we can see here it's taxes. And taxes really begin to permeate then a lot of the responses to other issues. Where people will support something in concept but then if it's going to impact your taxes, suddenly the support figures drop and more people move into opposition. Let's move to the perception of the city. When we asked residents whether they saw Chanhassen as a suburb or a small town, most of them indicated, well almost ~A of them that it was a suburb with 20% saying it was a small town. And another 10% saying that it combined the best of both. That speaks to that 30% I talked about earlier that basically viewed Chanhassen as being a small town area and that being a real value for it. Then we looked at connectedness to the city. Do they feel it's home or is it just another place to live? And 69% told us they thought it was home. Very, very strong number, while 29% indicated that to them it was just a place to live and they'd be passing through. Residents who gave that later answer tended to be residents in apartments, renters, and also residents who were somewhat newer to the community and expected to move in the next few years or so. So no surprises there in terms of the where that to that particular response originated from. How do people feel about the sense of community here? How would they rate the general sense of community among residents? Very strongly. 75% rated it as excellent or good while 24% were more critical in their evaluations. The 3 to 1 ratio is a very strong one and places Chanhassen within the top cortile of communities across the metro area. As a result, when we asked them well would you support or oppose spending tax dollars to promote a general sense of con~rnunity, there was a fairly definitive response and that was no. It was regarded as being unnecessary given the fact that 75% thought it was at least good. So that tracked very well with where people see the sense of community currently. We then asked residents to think about their immediate area and to talk to us about the condition and appearance of their neighborhoods, particularly homes in their neighborhoods and lawns. Our yards in their neighborhoods. And what we found was there's very little problem here. People rated them extremely highly. In fact with respect to homes, that's among the high 3 ratings we've had across the metropolitan area in the past 3 years of surveying. The 59% indicated it was excellent. 37% said good. As you can see as we move down that chart to only fair or poor, it's almost non-existent. So the residents really feel strongly about living in good solid neighborhoods where people do take care of their property and their yards. We also asked them to think about school districts, since schools do come into play. And the first question we asked was what school district do you reside in? 29% told us that they lived in the Minnetonka school district while 63% said they lived in the Chaska school district. 8% had no idea what school district they resided, and in fact did not vote in school district elections and were very quick to tell our phoners that. When we asked them about the quality of the education provided by the school district, 60% said they thought that it was either excellent or good, while only 12 % said only fair or poor. So a 5 to 1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. That's at the norm for the metro area, that ratio. Although there were differences between the school districts. Minnetonka residents tended to rate their district higher, while Chaska residents tended their district somewhat lower. We then slowly approached the issue of taxes. Keeping in mind now that that's come up on a number of the open ended questions. We asked a couple of specific questions first as 18 City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 warm-ups. We asked residents whether they would support or oppose an increase in their property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? And what we found was that there was a slight majority against. 51% were opposed, 42% were in favor. This tightness, that is the 42% in support, and the 51% isn't decisive one way or the other, is very characteristic of high growth areas. If we take a look at Woodbury, we take a look at Lakeville, we see the same view in terms of the polarization on that issue. We then asked residents whether they would support cuts in city services in order to decrease the property taxes. And here 58% said no, but 30% said yes. And the 30% that said yes is relatively high. The norm on that in growth communities is about 12%. So there is a real concern among a segment of the population about the high property taxes that they're paying. Does this diminish however ratings of city services or the value of city services? Well we'll get to that in just a moment .... people about the tie in between city taxes and services. First we asked them for their perception of their city property taxes. How high did they feel they were comparatively, looking at other communities. And 59% indicated they thought they were very high. That is the highest number of residents we have in any survey over the past 20 years who evaluated their city property taxes that way. Another 28% indicated they thought that they were somewhat high, which means a total of 87% put them on the high side. Only 10% saw them as about average, and 2% were unsure. We did have 2 other categories there and that was very low and somewhat low. No one chose them. So the perception is that property taxes within the city of Chanhassen are high in comparison with other areas. Now what does that mean with respect to the value of city services. Well the value of city services was rated quite good. 61% indicated they thought the value was excellent or good, while 36% indicated that it was only fair or poor. The 60% ranks within the top cortile of communities across the metropolitan area again. So people are saying yes, we're paying a lot but in terms of the value of city services we're getting good value for the money. Now more to the point on that, we asked residents to evaluate a number of city services and this is kind of our Gestalt test, or Worschock block looking at it a different way. What we want to see is a lot of blue on that chart. If it's a sea of red, then city services are not in good shape at all. We asked people to rate them as excellent or good, or only fair or poor. The blue is the positive rating, the red is the negative rating and as you can see, we have a sea of blue for the most part. Now let' s talk a little bit though about some of the red. One area where there was some concern or some negativity that was somewhat above the norm in the suburbs had to do with street lighting. That is the absence of street lighting in key places as far as those residents were concerned. You' 11 also notice that the most red, the highest negative rating is attached to pavement repair and patching, and that came in at about 23-24% giving it a negative rating. That's very deceptive because in communities across the metropolitan area, that negative rating is only half as large as the suburban norm. We usually see that at about 45% in most suburban communities. So although it has the highest negative rating in comparison with other communities it's doing very, very well and it's rated among, probably the top 10 cities across the metropolitan area right now. One that is also deceptive the other way has to do with police protection. And here we have 12% indicating a negative rating on police. The norm across the suburbs on a negative rating of police is 4%, so it's 3 times as high. We're quibbling about 8%, although 8% on this survey is statistically significant. So it's somewhat higher than the norm, although my goodness, looking at this a little bit differently, a favorable rating of above 80% does seem solid, it's just not as solid as we find in other communities. So in general the city services are very well regarded by your residents. Now let's consider a number of issues. We asked about safety. Do residents feel safe walking in their neighborhood, and we found for the most part, 92% said yes. That's an extremely solid rating and puts you at the top across the metropolitan area again. Have people been a victim of a crime in Chanhassen? Only 4% of the sample indicated they have been. Very low. And one other question, we asked about attendance of a block party during the past year and 37% indicated they had. That's unusually high. Block party activity here is quite high in comparison with most other communities. The norm on that usually is in the low 20's with respect to block party attendance. Focusing on the sheriff' s department. We asked residents whether they had contact with the sheriff's department during the past 12 months and 37% said they had. When we asked them to give an 19 City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 overall rating of the service, it was 86% favorable to 12% unfavorable. This deals however with specific contacts and usually we consider it to be a sheriff's department or a law enforcement department of any kind in very, very good shape if the number of negatives is lower than 15%. As we see better than a 85 to 15 split, which we have here. Moving along looking at other city services in detail. Participation in the curb side recycling program was a very solid 87%, which is at the norm. If Minnesotans or members of the greater metropolitan area are one thing, we are very good recyclers. And participation in the community waste disposal collection day was an extraordinarily high 47%. Almost half the community indicating that they had participated. That's right off the charts. Usually that's at about 1/3 so a very, very good participation rate on that particular activity. We next move to code enforcement, and asked people whether or not they thought the city codes, city ordinances were being enforced too toughly, about right or not tough enough. And what we found was the overwhelming majority felt they were being enforced at about the right level. 13% indicated they were not being enforced at a tough enough level. The average across the metropolitan area on that is usually at about 30% indicating not tough enough, so consequently the level of enforcement is well regarded by people within the community. We then took a look at home improvement and the inspection process. Very apropos given defense in Minneapolis of late. And found a mixed message coming through. First we asked residents whether or not they had applied or had a home improvement project during the past year, and found that 33% of them had, so we have a very, very good base of about 1/3 of the residents saying they had been through the process during the past year. We then asked them to evaluate the service provided during that process. Those ratings tended to be somewhat marginal. In particular the one rating that proved to be very marginal was the clear explanation of what corrections would be needed, with 23% indicating only fair or a poor rating. After that, the other place that we considered to be a little bit high in terms of negative ratings had to do with explaining the requirements and regulations. Again, the 20% in that case also was high. What we tend to look for here is 80% or better in the positive category and 10% or less in the negative. And in general those are a little bit over the line in each and every case. We then asked those people that had asked for a permit about the information handout that they were supposed to have received, and for many of them it was what information handout was the reply. 52% remembered it. 30% were absolutely sure they hadn't received it, and 18% weren't sure at all. They might have received it, then again they might not and couldn't recall it in any case so that one piece of information obviously doesn't have the impact that it probably needs in terms of stating what people need to know. Now among those people that did read it, or remembered it, 77% gave it a high rating while 14% gave it a low rating. The key there is just getting it into people's hands and perhaps making it a bit more impactful so that people know what they are receiving. And then finally we asked the same sub-group of 1/3 of the residents to give us a rating on the inspections department, and it was a 76% favorable to 18% unfavorable rating which again is very good in comparison to suburban norms. And whether, and give us a reading on how they felt the department was enforcing State building code requirements. And here we found that 70% said they thought the enforcement was about right. 20% said it was too tough, although a few of them did indicate to our phoners that it was too tough, but nevertheless they could understand the logic of the ruling that had been made, with only 3% indicating not tough enough. So the enforcement procedure itself was generally well regarded. The experience may not be one of the most fun ones for people, but in this case people came away generally content with having been fairly dealt with. Let's start looking at the city enterprise now. We asked residents first a couple of questions about empowerment. One was whether or not they knew something had happened, and the other one was how they felt about having a say in the way things are done within the city of Chanhassen. In the first case, 56% told us that yes, they thought they could have a say about the way things are done in the city. 40% however said no. That 40% by itself would be high. We normally expect to see that between 25% and 30%, but from the marginal comments you have a very interesting group within that 40. They're about 12% and they're true, small d, small r, representative democrats who say that we elect the city council. We don't want to have a say and we'll come back and take a look at how you're doing at the election and make a determination then, but 20 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 otherwise they'll vote and then leave you to do your own thing. Whether that should be covered in the no category is really stretching it so what we're probably looking at here is about 29% who were saying that they worry about being listened to or they don't know how to, or they're afraid to. We then asked whether or not people were aware of the results of the last election, or the 4 of the 5 were newly elected and the answer to that was a surprise. 80% said yes. They were aware of that occurring last time. When we asked other fact.., questions in other cities along these lines, we' ve never had that consistent a result. Usually we consider it to be miraculous if it reaches about 60%. So a lot more people than usual were aware of that fact. We then asked people to think about the mayor and city council and first asked, how would you rate your knowledge of the work of the mayor and city council, and 53% said they knew a great deal or a fair amount. That is almost twice as high as the suburban norm. The norm in the suburbs now is about 28% in those two categories and so this is life in the fish bowl. That's a very, very impressive number that are saying they know a fair amount. We then asked people to give a job approval rating, and what we found was that 36% approved while 26% disapproved, and 37% were unsure. The 37% unsure of course tend to be given to us by, that response is given to us by people who said they knew very little about what was going on at city hall. The third 36 to 26 gives the approval rating of 58% among those people that gave a judgment. That is line with the other suburbs along this area. At Chaska the similar number is 60. In Savage the similar number is 61. When we asked residents why they felt this way, those that gave you a high approval rating were very pleased with the last election or felt that things were going along quite well. No problems in the city. Policies made sense and that they generally perceived a good job overall. Among the people that indicated a negative rating, two issues did come forward. There was still dissatisfaction with the results of the last election, but also there was a concern about fighting on the council, or arguing on the council and they were hoping to see that diminish as a result of the last election. The job approval rating though is in line with other communities and in terms of the 36/26 split, it is very, very reminiscent of what we've seen in at least 5 other cases where there has been a major change as a result of an election. It takes a while for the city to settle down. City staff then. 29% indicated they had had quite a lot or some first hand contact with the city staff. That's 1% higher than the norm, which is also 28% in this case across the suburbs. We then asked residents to give the city staff a job evaluation. 50% gave them a positive evaluation, 18% a negative evaluation. That means that among those people stating an evaluation over 70% were positive. That puts the city staff within the top cortile across the metropolitan area. Responses, the basis of positive responses tended to come from folks that felt the city staff had been helpful. That nothing was broken and that they were good listeners. Folks that tended to rate them lower tended to react to issue decisions that were made against them and also the fact that they did not feel they were listened to. Let's look at some specific issues now. We asked residents and talked to them a little bit about a 100% salt mixture for the roads during the winter, and we found that by 65 to 29 residents opposed switching to that kind of a mixture. And when we asked those supporters whether they would still support if it would increase the cost of the service, there was an even lower drop with over half of them, in fact almost 60% of them indicating no, they would no longer support if there were increased costs. It' s a little surprising given the fact that when we asked people about their commute times, we found that your residents were on the road quite a bit. The typical Chanhassen resident spends an hour in their car, 30 minutes one way, 30 minutes the other way. In looking at transportation issues, which is an excellent segway into, we asked residents first how they felt about getting around in Chanhassen and 86% indicated they thought their ability to get where they needed to go was either excellent or satisfactory. Very, very high in comparison with most other areas. Only 15% were more critical. We then asked them about the transit service and of course had a number of responses, what transit service? But we found that among those that were aware of the service, 26% indicated a positive rating. 14% indicated a negative rating. That's more marginal than we're used to seeing. We normally expect to see that at 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 on the positive side. What is the transit priority? Should the priority be placed on widening roads or should it be placed on expanding public transit? There's no consensus. 48% of the community said place it on widening roads while 36% 21 City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 indicated place it on expanding public transit. Among those people that feel intensely, it's about 3 to 2 on the side of widening roads, but there is no major majority one way or the other on that issue. One of the strong points we found in the survey, with respect to the city, had to do with environmental issues. Residents were quite pleased about the quality of water in the lakes by almost 3 to 1. They rated them favorably over unfavorably. They gave very high grades in feeling the city was doing enough to improve lake quality. And they also thought, 3¼ of them, again a very impressive number, that the city emphasis on environmental concerns was about right. So in general on that environmental cluster of questions, residents were quite happy. We asked them about tap water which also took a long time in terms of explanations as people were telling us about what was coming out of their washing machines and other things. Taste was, split the residents 51/41 as you can see. Smell was not too bad of a factor. 2 to 1 thought it was at least pleasant. Rust and manganese however was a real irritant at 55 to 33, and water pressure was not a problem for the most part with 4 out of 5 residents basically saying they thought their water pressure was excellent or good. Would residents then support a water treatment plant? Where we had told them that it would require an increase in the cost of their water service, the city split right down the middle. 44% favored the plant, 43% opposed it. And the intensity on both sides is relatively equal with 25% strongly favoring and 29% strongly opposing. We did go back into our records from about 4 years ago for a survey we did for Lakeville prior to them building their water treatment plant and found that we had exactly the same results. It polarized that community as well. Park and recreation. As I said earlier, park and recreational facilities in the city are regarded very favorably by most respondents. In fact they're a real asset in the community. And when we asked residents to provide an overall general rating, 86% rated them as excellent or good, and only 10% rated them as only fair. Very high rating within the top 5 suburban communities with respect to park and recreational facilities. Looking at a couple more policies. The lawn sprinkling policy, almost everyone from the community if aware of it. When we explained, when we reviewed with them the policy, although many people told us what the policy was, which is always a good sign for communications, we found that 82% agreed with the even/odd approach while only 12% disagreed. And as for an increase of the penalty up to $100 from $25, there was a fairly adamant no. No thank you. 71% said no while 25% agreed that yes, that would be an appropriate approach. We also asked about tiered water rates. To base the water rate on the consumption rather than on the units consumed and we found that 51% would actually favor that, while 39% would oppose it. The intensity on both sides though as you can see is relatively even. 30% to 27%. So again some polarization with respect to that issue. Snowmobiling and snowmobile issues were a surprise to us. We found first that 11% owned snowmobiles. When we asked about a ban in residential areas, 55% indicated support while 38% indicated opposition. This is the first community that we have surveyed where we have actually had clear majority support for a ban. However when we asked about a city wide ban things flipped the other way fairly markedly with 65% indicating opposition and only 31% support. So there appears to be a slight majority in favor of the ban in residential areas and using them only on designated trails. We asked about street reconstruction, and the way it's paid for. The taxes that are used indicating to people what the assessment approach was. We asked residents then, what would you rather see? Would you rather see taxes or using general tax revenue where everybody pays for it, or the individual assessment and giving people arguments on both sides of that issue. What we found was that 49% roughly wanted to see that come from general revenue, while 30% wanted to keep it based on individual assessments. 13% however told us they'd like to see both. That is a combination of an individual assessment that might be cushioned with general revenue funds. We then asked people okay, where would you put the city's share? If you could decide, what should the city' s share be in terms of a co-pay, and the residents here put it, the typical resident said 33%. So about a third coming out of the general fund with 2/3 coming from the individual property owner. The park and recreation system here receives among the top ratings across the metro area. Usage levels were very high in comparison with other areas. Neighborhood parks were used by 80% of your households. Community parks by 79. The trails by 79. When we asked residents for an evaluation, favorable ratings were astronomically high 22 City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 among those people that were using, while the negative ratings are indicated in the red bars. And as you can see, you have to squint to see the red bars. So most residents that you not only have high usership but you also have a very high degree of satisfaction with the park and recreational facilities that are currently within the community. We asked residents did they see a need for any other kind of recreational facilities, and this was an open ended question. And two things came through at what we considered to be significant levels. Keeping in mind again that no answers were suggested at this point. 17% saw the need for a pool while 9% saw the need for a community center. Modest numbers but again remember this was an open ended question where we were just seeing if anyone felt intense enough about a particular missing recreational facility. Residents rated the appearance of the parks and facilities very highly, 91 to 7. Again right at the top of the metro area. And with respect to expanding the amount of natural areas in existing parks by not mowing, 59% really liked that idea while 27% opposed it. They thought many people were telling us, they thought it would add some variety to the parks and would be attractive. Make it look like the more natural. We then turned to recreational programs and found that 39% of your households had members who participated in recreational programs. That's 11% higher, well it's 12% higher actually than the norm across the metro area, so once again we see your programs are serving more people than what we actually find in other communities. Almost 50% as many as we find in other communities. When we asked though about willingness to support recreational development people were fairly cautious. This question was asked in terms of concept rather than hooking it to taxes per se, and so what we were interested here was to take a look to see if there were any recreational developments that intrigued people and we found that there were in fact a couple that residents liked the idea of, a couple that residents did not and a couple that tended to polarize. A municipal golf course polarizes. Chanhassen is like many other communities with respect to that with 50% indicating they would support and 44% indicating they would oppose. Swimming pools tended to be quite popular. The indoor swimming pool a bit more popular than the outdoor swimming pool. With respect to the indoor swimming pool, 62% indicated they would favor it while 37% opposed it. A full service community center was very popular with 65% indicating they would support and 32% being opposed. The indoor ice arena and the water park we found majorities registered in opposition to both of them. So in terms then of recreational facilities, certainly swimming pools do have constituency here as does a full service community center. We talked a little bit about city development and asked people first whether or not they thought the development was well planned for the future. 40% said yes, 25% said no, but the key here is the 35% that were unsure. There's a lack of information on community planning and people aren't sure, at least a third of them were not sure exactly what the direction, what the ultimate end is going to be. On the rate of development, you are in fact over the hurdle with respect to how people are seeing the rate of growth. 50% see it at about right with 48% indicating that it's too fast. When cities are in what we call hyper growth mode where it becomes the all consuming issue, too fast usually goes up to about 60% or 70%. So your perceptions here are very, very similar to what we found in Farmington. What we found in Woodbury and in the last survey that we conducted for Lakeville. How do residents feel about various aspects of the community? We deliberately used a semaphore, the red, yellow and green on this one to indicate where residents thought there were too many of something, about the right amount, or too few of something. And with respect to too many, the only one that came up to about the 40% mark was higher cost housing .... majority thought there was the right amount, but you'll also notice that very few people thought there was too little. The 4 key things that came through were first, affordable housing. Second, senior housing. Third, starter homes and when people think of affordable housing, in marginal comments what they were thinking about is where their children could move to in the city. How do families keep intact? How do we keep young families here? And then finally the last one, which was a very intensely felt, was entertainment and dining. In particular there's a core of about 24% that waxed on eloquently about the need for a good, sit down restaurant in Chanhassen to augment the many things that are already here. Looking at senior housing a little bit further, we asked residents what's your preference if you need help eventually and can't live on your own anymore, what 23 City Council Meeting- July 23,2001 kinds of things would you like to see? 47% of the residents indicated that they wanted to stay in their own home, either with live-in health care or with regular visits. Living at home in their current home with regular visits was the most popular at 31%. But you'll notice that over a quarter of the community indicated they would like to see senior apartments... Restaurants are so important here because the residents, as we found in our phoning, are out quite a bit in the evenings. The average household in Chanhassen goes out for dinner at a sit down restaurant once a week, and on average also once a time a week it's take out or fast food. When we asked about principle shopping area, you become quite different from a number of communities around you in terms of the vast bulk of people, the dominant place was within Chanhassen itself and that's Target. It was regarded as being the principle shopping area. After that, as you can see, people are going as far afield as Market Square, the Eden Prairie Center, Southdale still has a draw and Ridgedale still has a draw. But the most dominant thing is the Target area. We asked about contacting city facilities and this began the last part of the questionnaire as we took a look at communications now. And what we found is that 55% indicated they had contacted city hall, or city facilities during the past year. That is almost 3 times as high as the typical suburb. So you have far more people calling into your facilities than we find in most other places. We then asked residents to evaluate that contact. How did they find the wait for a receptionist? How did they find the courtesy of the staff? How did they find the ease of the transaction? And in every case the staff was over what we consider to be the quality service threshold on each of the dimensions. So contacts then, as we traced back to take a look at people's general orientation toward the city government, toward the city as a whole, those people that had contacted by and large were fairly favorable, and more favorable than those people who hadn't contacted city hall, which is fairly unusual and I'm sure a number of your neighbors who will go nameless tonight, would be very envious of that fact. Finally let's take a look at some communications. We asked about the city newsletter and found that 85% had read the city newsletter during the past year. That's incredibly high compared with most suburbs. When we asked residents how they would evaluate the format, 82% considered it to be excellent or good, 15% only fair or poor. Again, among the top across the metro area. The city newsletter has real impact and residents tend to resonant quite well to it. Cable television. 64% indicated they were on cable. We did not ask any further questions about cable use, although it did come up in the next question when we asked residents how they would evaluate the overall communications performance of the city. 43% rated it as excellent or good, 36% said only fair or poor. What was noteworthy to us was the number of comments among people that gave a lower rating to the overall performance tended to cite either in concert with something else or single out cable TV. So that tended to be the weakest of your communication mediums going out to residents. The surprise for us had to do with computers and the internet. 88% of your residents are on-line. That is the highest that we have found in any suburb over the past 3 years. The comparable number I think would be 76% in Eagan, but no one had hit 80 until we had done this study. When we asked about the home page, the city's web page, what we found among those people that were on-line, and that's a huge amount, almost 90%, that you have 56% who were aware. That's much higher than we found on any other community with respect to their web page and you actually have 31% that, or 25% that access your web page, which is also extremely high. Normally among those folks that are on-line, we expect to see the norm, or the average about 8% that have actually accessed things. You're 3 times higher than the norm, and this carries over then in a number of ways because your residents tend to be more open to on-line kinds of activities. What we found was that 26% would be very likely to switch to an e-mail copy of the city newsletter rather than receive their print copy. And another 24% were somewhat likely to do so, so about half expressed interest in getting the city newsletter in that format rather than through the mail. And 24% indicated that they would prefer, when we asked them how would you, if you could choose, how would you prefer to receive your information about city government and it's activities? 24%, which is the highest we've found anywhere, said the internet. The norm on that has been a very pitiful 5% across the metro area, so far more interest on on-line access. It's also born out by the percentage of people that are willing to conduct business over the internet. Your residents here are 24 City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 far more willing to undertake that kind of thing. So in general then, what can we say? Just to review very, very quickly. Taxes is the key issue and it certainly is a key concern on everything else. That's the major fiscal issue facing the city. The secondary concern is the impact of the last election and the perceived contentiousness on the council. Expectations were raised. Some people feel those expectations have been met. Other people do not. But it has become also an issue so we have one political issue and one fiscal issue. There are a lot of things that are going right. You have extraordinarily consistent high service ratings. Concerns about growth is a key issue, or diminishing. Your park and recreation system is ranked among the highest across the metro area. And you have an outstanding communications system overall with residents. The residents also have some directions that they're suggesting. They would like to see the generational issue looked at. Affordable housing, starter homes. Where are their children going to stay? How do we encourage young families to stay in the community? On the development side they'd also like to see a sit down restaurant. They feel that's a needed amenity, and that was coming mainly from the folks that see this as a small town. And a lot of those folks feel any good small town ought to have a good sit down restaurant. You also have the direction with respect to the community center as being a concept that people would at least like to consider, although again taxes may play a key role on that. And finally the electronic frontier. The internet possibilities here are far more extensive than in any other community in which we surveyed over the past few years. The quality of life here in comparison with other growth areas is exceptional. You've done a great job in terms of taking the city through a very, very turbulent time because the high growth mode is always extraordinarily turbulent and hard not only on residents but on policy makers. But if there' s a key word, I always try to sum up things with a theme in terms of what residents are looking for and how we might capture what their thoughts are and I think the accent here when it comes right down to it is affordable excellence and that would be the code words that I would use to, as a shorthand for this 180 question study. The residents are looking for excellence but they're also very concerned about affordability and the trade-off on that, maintaining the trade-off on that is the key challenge that the city enterprise faces. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. What a great deal of information you've provided for us. This is the first really extensive survey that we've had done in Chanhassen and the level of questions and now the feedback that you' ve been able to provide for us I know will be extremely useful as we move forward and address some of the issues that we quite frankly have not addressed yet because we did want to take a pulse from the community to get some direction from them to see where we should be going and any improvements and quality issues and you've certainly given us a lot to be able to process some of those decisions. Appreciate that a great deal and really interesting this whole electronic frontier and how wired our community is. City staff in fact had undergone a web site upgrade recently and have really addressed that project for us so it's nice to see the feedback that it's being utilized by our residents and certainly worthwhile to put in that effort. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Morris? Okay. Thank you very much. William Morris: Thank you very much. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: If we could maybe get a brief update from council members who have been serving on the commissions in the liaison capacity, it would be appreciated. We will be, and I've been meaning to add this as a permanent agenda item so that as there are issues coming up, you know just brief comment as to where the commissions are. What they're working on or any general feedback for council, and I can certainly start in my Planning Commission role as the liaison. I have to commend the Planning Commissioners for the number of ordinances and updates that they' ve been addressing and bringing 25 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 forward. We just recently at this last meeting had two of our commissioners initiate some ordinance revisions to protect our seminary fen area, and Assumption Creek and I commended them on behalf of the council for having taken that .initiative to bring something forward like that and to work with staff and staff was very responsive to their request for the city to actually take a look at that and address it. Along with they have a list of 8 to 12 ordinances that they continue to plug away on and bring up to current expectations. So they've done a real nice job on those projects and I have been trying to mention, as we have hit some of the projects, where they've put in a great deal of time trying to craft some of the conditions. The amount of effort that they do go to on the detail for us and I think it's admirable. But probably most noteworthy are the projects that they're working on are some of those ordinance upgrades would be my comment on the Planning Commission. Anyone else? Councilman Ayotte: For the Environmental Commission, we are short one commissioner. There's been a series of interviews. There will be another one Thursday evening before the item comes to council subsequent to those interviews. The Environmental Commission's on target for all of it's planning activities for the past year. The current activity right now is review of the suggested books for the library. Forming a recommendation for what books on environmental topics should be recommended by that commission for the library committee and one of their, they'll be off in August. They're taking August off and starting up again in September. That's all I have. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. And Steve, Park and Rec? Councilman Labatt: Parks and rec, nothing to report. Mayor Jansen: Okay. At one point, and of course Mr. Peterson is not serving as a liaison in this rotation. We are one commission short of everyone being a liaison at this point: With Gary coming on, I would suggest that maybe in our next meeting we have a conversation about serving on commissions and doing a rotation. There had been that conversation that there potentially could be a 6 month rotation, so maybe next time we can have that conversation. Appreciate the update. CITY MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS UPDATE: I mentioned in the work session that the search committee had met to review the applications and now council will meet in a work session a week from this evening to address the recommendations from that commission. Or committee, excuse me, which will be 5 or 6 applicants that will be coming forward and we'll discuss an interview schedule as well as potentially setting up some task forces to be able to work with us on the interview process so that we involve some members from the community so we'll have that conversation and get that process established. So that was the update on the city manager selection. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Labatt: I wanted to talk about the EDA replacement for Gary Boyle. Mayor Jansen: Oh good comment. Councilman Labatt: Replacing his spot on the EDA. Mayor Jansen: Yep, we sure do need to do that. Todd Gerhardt: We'll place an ad and see what we get for applicants. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that. Thanks for bringing that up. 26 City Council Meeting- July 23, 2001 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. STATUS OF LAKEVIEW HILLS APARTMENTS CODE VIOLATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Kyle Duer Hao Jiang Marc & Pat Papineau Cec Meister Judy Severson Robb Vaules Melanie & John Ringstrom Bill & Peggy Samuelson TJ Adams Kathy Luce David & Julie Nessa Dick & Jean Sager A1 & Dorothy Kock Bob & Meg Nichols 8790 North Bay Drive 177 Lakeview Road East 6471 Regency Lane, Eden Prairie 174 Lakeview Road East 8736 North Bay Drive 8796 North Bay Drive 126 Lakeview Road East 106 Lakeview Road East 154 Lakeview Road East 165 Lakeview Road East 158 Lakeview Road East 122 Lakeview Road East 134 Lakeview Road East 182 Lakeview Road East Mayor Jansen: We have a memo in our packets, I had asked Mr. Gerhardt to have staff prepare for us at least an initial overview of where we are currently with some of the enforcement issues, specific to this complex because it had come up so recently in this recent event. But also what Mr. Gerhardt and I also revisited was a conversation that council had had back when Kate Aanenson, our Planning Director did the housing presentation to us. One of the issues that she had raised at that point was that the community as we age will approach a point where it's certainly in our best interest to have ordinances in place for enforcement of property issues as far as maintenance and code enforcement. So with that I'll turn this over to Mr. Gerhardt to address this and that was the direction we had taken with this item. Todd Gerhardt: Well just to spin off that a little bit. In the survey condition or appearance did rank fairly high as Bill had indicated, and one of the things staff wants to make sure that we keep that standard high and so one of the recommendations before you tonight is to look at licensing of our rental housing dwellings and a request for a housing maintenance ordinance is basically my conclusion. As a part of your recommendations staff did look at some of the code violations that existed at Lakeview Apartments. One of the important ones has been the stair replacement. Mr. Liefschultz has pulled a permit. The contractor has not come out on site yet, and the building department has been directed, if work does not start by August 1, that we will start legal action to get that work corrected. Fire code issues, he has agreed to go in and replace those smoke detectors that are not working. Tenant complaints were limited in how to handle tenant complaints with the city so we've also advised the tenants to contact the West Suburban Mediation Center and the Carver County Attorney's office for assistance in dealing with complaints regarding odors, insects, and appliances not working. Miscellaneous repairs, the roofs on the facilities have been fixed. There was periodic leaks throughout the building and they have pulled a building permit to replace those and that work has been completed. Mr. Liefschultz also has agreed to go through each of the units this September to identify any code violations within the complex so that would be any fire, mechanical, electrical problems that may occur in each of the units. On the crime prevention 27 City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 activities, Beth Hoiseth, our Safety Education Coordinator, has been meeting with the Lakeview Hills owner and manager since December of 1995. Her report talks about a variety of different issues in trying to address crime in the Lakeview Hills units and doing background checks and providing printouts of police calls for service at the complex. Trying to get them to voluntarily follow the conditions of crime free multi-housing program. On 4 separate occasions and this past April I've encouraged Lakeview management participate in the monthly calls for service printouts. To date they have not. And Beth did conduct an apartment watch which is similar to a neighborhood watch that you would see those signs, kind of the eye. She has done that within the apartment complex to get the tenants internally to help police the complex that they're living in. With that staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to do an issues paper looking at an ordinance and licensing of rental dwellings and regulating housing maintenance, not just on our rental but throughout our community for single family and our multi-family facilities. With that staff will answer any questions that the council has. Mayor Jansen: I just have one, if you could maybe clarify for us. Of course our crime free multi-housing program that we hoped in fact would be followed on a voluntary basis, as you move to this next level, that you would be doing the issue paper on, the enforcement issues that we're now dealing with would become something that we could enforce. It would in fact move out of that voluntary parameter, if I understand correctly. Todd Gerhardt: I haven't dealt with either of the two. I know Roger has, who acts as the city attorney for Plymouth and Burnsville. Burnsville does have both of these ordinances and Plymouth is working on those, so if Roger could just give a short summary of what would be included in an ordinance like this, that would be great. Roger Knutson: Both Plymouth and Burnsville and St. Louis Park, which we also represent, have ordinances in place. What Plymouth is doing now is adding a piece to it. They already have a housing code and they already have the licensing provision. What they're addressing is the issue, I think people here, or some of them are concerned with tonight is the conduct issue. And tomorrow night in Plymouth as a matter of fact, they will be adding, or we anticipate they will be adding a piece to their licensing of rental housing on conduct which basically says 3 strikes and you're out. And it's a fairly complicated process but we regulate certain types of conduct and if you have repeated violations of the prohibited conduct, then you no license that individual unit. Not necessarily the whole, this is the Plymouth approach. Not necessarily the whole building, because someone could suggest that that might be...but I'll just make up a number. If Apartment 101 has had 3 strikes in violation and you went through the process, then you could no longer license Apartment 101. It would remain vacant. And so it can have, it has real teeth. It takes some time. You don't snap your fingers and get the results you want. You have to work with it and it takes a period of time to get that done, but as far as multi, the multi-family crime free program, that remains a voluntary program. But if I am a landlord and I'm concerned with problems and I'm concerned with losing my license to rent, I think it would be a good idea and good option to participate in that program and eliminate the problem because if you don't eliminate the problems, your license to rent is in jeopardy. So that gives them a real encouragement to do that. Mayor Jansen: Well very good. That's excellent. I'm glad to hear that we will have some precedent and language maybe from some other cities and their ordinances to be able to really expedite this because the other point that I guess I wanted to address, and I don't mean to put too much pressure on staff, but an estimate of completed by early October. If we can maybe bring that in sooner, using some of the other ordinances and languages and being able to maybe bring this before council quicker than beginning of October. I don't know if September's unrealistic or shoot for as early as possible. 28 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 Todd Gerhardt: Sure. I figured the council may want to move the date up. We're into August here in 2 weeks but we' 11 try, and we know how important this issue is to the community and to the council. Roger Knutson: Just point out that the real difficulty is not necessarily in writing the ordinances because I' ve already shared some with the staff on what others have done. The difficulty if you will, is staffing up and providing available staff to do it. Again, I don't have a count on how many apartment units you have in your community. How many individual buildings there are, but staffing up to do all the inspections, costs money. That's obviously a concern we learned tonight, and you have to find the available people to do it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well good timing in that we're working on our budgets now for next year so I assume that as part of the ordinance then you'll have that as part of the proposal so that we can see the actual costs. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, the issue paper was going to deal with that trying to see how we can incorporate it with maybe our building department or our CSO program. Roger will also tell you as a part of licensing there is a fee that you can assess to these complexes so you know there is a revenue source that would go along with it. But that's what we were hoping to do, which Roger kind of said. How does it fit within the city of Chanhassen's structure and so more than likely it will come through that building code, code enforcement area. Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. And not meaning to get too specific realizing there's a lot of research still to be done and proposals to be brought forward for our consideration so, thank you for addressing this. Any questions from council? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Is it reasonable to request that when we do the research that we make it a multi disciplined viewpoint? Environmental, which would include the noise pollution. Air quality. That sort of thing, along with the health and welfare aspects of it, or is that biting off too much? Todd Gerhardt: Well we do have a noise ordinance currently. Councilman Ayotte: But in terms of licensing and conducting inspections. Pulling samples for mold and spores. Doing air quality sampling. Is that a reasonable consideration to look at? Along with the maintenance standards for electrical and so on. Mayor Jansen: I think you might be branching us into some, excuse me. Councilman Ayotte: I didn't say I had something down here. So is that doable or no? Roger Knutson: That is done in some communities. Again it's just a matter of staffing. Mayor Jansen: Expense. Roger Knutson: You certainly can do that. Mayor Jansen: Yes, and there are ordinances in place that do already address numerous of the issues. Councilman Ayotte: But not necessarily from a licensing standpoint. 29 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 Roger Knutson: No. As an example, and I'm predicting and I shouldn't do this. Hope they're not listening. What the Plymouth City Council might do tomorrow night, but if they were to pass the ordinance that's going to be presented, one of the things it has is noise. If you have noise violations and that is a strike against you and if the same unit has 3 noise violations in a 12 month period, you could lose the license for that unit. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: No. I'm just noting the numerous unlicensed vehicles in the parking complex down there. Mayor Jansen: Okay. That are being addressed also. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I figure I'll just update you quick. The way I understand it, when an unlicensed vehicle sits on private property you have to tag the property owner. We made the owner aware of these. He has approximately 30 days to get the vehicles either licensed or removed. He's working with a towing company. If it does not happen within the 30 days, we can tag that owner. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I do want to open this up. We have so many of you that have come this evening and I know have concerns. Obviously we can't get extremely specific this evening but there is precedent out there. There are ordinances that we can address. You have a council that is concerned, and we certainly want to try to expedite this the mostly quickly that we can and obviously what we heard this evening was we also will have some financial considerations that we'll need to take into part of the decision making process and we are in our budget discussions, at least initial budget discussions at the staff level for next year. So at least fortunately the financial piece of it can be raised as part of that whole conversation. If there's anyone who would like to make comment this evening you can certainly step forward to the podium at this time and state your name and address for the record. Marc Papineau: Again Marc Papineau. I live in Bearpath. The question I have as a council, since I'm an Eden Prairie resident, is how can we from Eden Prairie, from Bearpath community, be involved in the process that you're in? Is this something that we can just state our concern or is there something, or is there a manner in which we from a different community can participate in what you're doing? Mayor Jansen: The mere fact that you're here and you're making comment to us is very much appreciated in that you are familiar with that area of our community and it's impact so I thank you for coming here this evening. And any comments that you care to share with us as we're drafting that ordinance and it will be published. If you're in touch with the North Bay residents, I'm sure they'll be able to keep everyone in the loop who would like to be involved in that whole issue as we work through it. Thank you. I encourage your involvement. Thanks. Anyone else? Jean Sager: Again my name is Jean Sager and I live at 122 Lakeview Road. It is across the street from the apartments. Mayor Jansen: Sure. 30 City Council Meeting - July 23, 2001 Jean Sager: There are many, many, many concerns and tonight I did my homework on more of the ordinances or just some suggestions that I would like to see as a homeowner there to add rather than getting into real specifics so I think I can kind of do this quickly. The following are some of my concerns that I hope will be incorporated into the new ordinances. Are the new ordinances going to hold landlords accountable for such things as criminal background checks, legal or illegal aliens, violation of occupancy. An example of that is, is there 20 people living in one of those units or is there 2? What is the law for how many people can live in a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment? Very important, felony status. And sex offender status. We all know that a few months back there was a couple of rapes up there, along with all the other disturbances. If held accountable, could the landlord, should they provide some type of a certification that validates that all of these above things have actually been done and followed through with too. Not just saying yes, we did it. I mean how do we know they've done this other than word of mouth. So that would be a big issue with me that the residents who have entered a lease agreement have in fact had a background check regarding all of the above. And if there was falsification of such information, could we grounds for serious consequences. Not like a $25.00 fine or something. Come up with something that would just really hold them or they're going to lose their license if they don't cooperate. This type of thing. And within the new ordinances, could the landlords be charged for costs incurred for and above what a normal police costs. Thank god for the police protection we've had. It's certainly made me feel safe, but if this is all going, should Mr. Liefschultz be paying some of those costs? While this is attention for him, this one. And should they have, could they have periodic inspections that would ensure that health conditions are at specified standards. You know like mold or vermits such as rats, cockroaches. Just air quality level. Are the furnaces running properly. I've heard so many stories about that. How the air conditioning's not working and people not able to open their windows because of no screens and things. It's very sad for the good people that live there that I think attention needs to be paid to that. And then last, but not least, we get into the establishment of what does mean slum property. Is it densely populated area marked by crowding? Is there 20 people living in each one of those units? There' s all kinds of appearances of dirty, run down housing. I, myself drove up in the back. I thought I've lived there 4 years. I thought I'm just going to drive up there and see. I've never seen such a site in my whole life. And I feel this is part of why, and I'm not prejudice but why it's probably 95% Hispanic because when they show those properties and they walk by all that junk and broken windows and blinds not there, broken, hanging, who's going to rent? And the last thing would be social disorganization. I have talked with many of the residents down at the lake and such and there are many, many that cannot speak English and there are some that do. Or we can understand them. Do these people living there know their rights? Are they afraid to speak up to say how bad things are for fear that they will be evicted? This is sort of thing. These are just all questions in my mind. And last but not least I made many, many phone calls today asking people to attend. We had good response. Thank you to others that helped out too. Out of the people that could not attend, and I would say this is almost every one of them, stated, asked if I would please bring up the noise problem. Cars driving by, it doesn't matter if it's 2:00 in the morning or 8:00 at night, with those boom, boom, boom, boom, the bass tones. The speeding in and out. Cars I know...but I will talk to him personally and I will also talk to the sheriff. The police can't be out there all the time, I know that. We respect them for what they've done but no stopping at that stop sign and as a citizen I sit there and I say to myself, do I sit here and watch this or do I run out and scream at somebody because somebody's going to get serious hurt at that intersection. And same thing down on Lake Riley Road. This stepping on the gas you know. The screeching wheels going around the corner so it's unfortunate that my biggest concern is that somebody doesn't get hurt. I thank you very much for my time and I will continue to put my efforts into doing what I can in my neighborhood to help solve some of these problems. Thank you. Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. 31 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 Councilman Ayotte: Thank you Jean. Mayor Jansen: And we appreciate your coming in and taking the time to raise all of those issues with us and for putting them on the public record. Staff obviously will have those issues now in the record to be able to address those as they start proceeding with the new ordinances and getting those drafted, but if you could possibly do us the favor, I believe you were working with handwritten notes but if you might provide us that information so that yeah, we can just take care of that and have it on record to address it as we move forward in the ordinance, we'd appreciate it. So that we won't. Jean Sager: This came back to me very quickly. I found out about this yesterday and so I quick tried to get my thoughts together and put these things together, but I mentioned that they were my thoughts. I really want them to be in the best interest of everybody. Mayor Jansen: Oh certainly. Jean Sager: We care about all. Mayor Jansen: And I think that your association has been very good at communicating on behalf of the entire neighborhood and on behalf of the whole community. You've been very involved for quite some time, and especially yourself and your husband and I appreciate that and I met, or spoken with your new president and appreciate her involvement too on this issue so we'll certainly keep you involved as we move forward and have updates to be able to give you on the drafting of that ordinance and where we're going. It will be a completely public process so don't feel as though it will move forward without your ability to be able to give input. You're not always going to get the answers of course that you might want to hear, but at least you'll know what our parameters are that we have as a governmental unit that we have that we can work with to control a private property like this. But of course the ordinance will be addressing community wide issues so I think it's a very positive for the entire Community that we have interested residents right now who can help us draft this and have it apply to all of Chanhassen as we're moving forward and we need to influence the entire community and how we look. Obviously our quality of life is important to everyone, which it was ironic that we were doing our community survey results this evening, but I think that came across as a big issue for us. That affordable excellence I guess is how he termed it and this is certainly an area that is significant to us as a council, so thank you to all of you for your time being here this evening. Judy Severson: I saw this ad, Judy Severson, North Bay Drive. And I want to give it to you. It's an ad for the Lakeview Hills Apartments. Private entrances. Private beach. Vaulted ceilings available. Boat storage and a playground. 1 bedroom $609, 2 bedroom $709. What do I tell people who call me from the neighborhood, I'm afraid to live here. What do I say to them? Do you have an answer? I don't. I really. Mayor Jansen: We're addressing the issues as we can. The property owner has obviously been contacted by staff as was noted in the list of-things that they're currently addressing so we are doing what · we can and we're trying to enforce and create ordinances that we can in fact impact it and the entire community even more aggressively so we are acting on the things that we can and as you mentioned, our law enforcement is certainly sensitive to the issues that are involved in this situation. Okay, moving ahead with the meeting. I believe that was the last item on the agenda. Was there any discussion of the correspondence? Excuse me? Oh I'm sorry. I skipped over the legislative update. 32 City Council Meeting -July 23, 2001 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE. Todd Gerhardt: I would have preferred that you did. Well I've attached the League of Minnesota Cities bulletin that gives a nice summary of the legislative update of what's occurred. It's very detailed and you have to work hours to try to understand every change that's occurred so basically I gave you a couple of different summaries to those highlights. One of the significant changes was the requirement for taxing jurisdictions to hold Truth in Taxation public hearings, and we surveyed at the Leaders Meeting that most people were still going to have a budget hearing. And I wasn't asking them not to hold a public hearing on their budget but if you remember the Truth in Taxation statements that went out, you will not see those. You will hold a public hearing on the budget but you remember where we sent out the Truth in Taxation hearing notices that went to the max of the levy. You will not see those this year. We're not aware what that would even be as of yet. Levy limits were imposed. The good news is that with the change the city will be able to carry forward it's unused levy authority from the past 2 years. You know for the past 2 years we have not gone to the max of our levy so they're going to allow us to average those two as an increase. And what ties in with that levy increase, I've attached also on the back page you will see the effects of local government aid and HACA. And I put a little star by Chanhassen. Local government aid for 2001 was $20,485. 2001 for HACA was $1,690,163. For 2002 our local government aid will be $20,000. And so right off the bat we have a $1,700,000 problem to deal with in trying to make up our levy from last year. So we didn't even get out of the dugout and we got hit by a foul ball, so one of the things I also handed out to you tonight was a summary that was handed out to both Linda and myself at our Leaders meeting, Eastern Carver County Community Leaders forum this last Friday. In here, if you want to, do you want me to go into this in detail? Do you want to look at it? Mayor Jansen: Oh probably just an overview. I mean you don't need to go through the detail. Just only to maybe suggest that in there they've run through some of the numbers so that there's a cautious, and they're cautioning us not to look at those numbers and think that that's the way our taxes are going to look. It's impossible at this point because there's a few unknowns still as to the impact. Springfield was just trying to at least give us something of an idea of the tax impacts. There's an example sheet in there where they use Chaska and Mr. Gerhardt has spoken with Springsted and asked them to run that similar spreadsheet on Chanhassen so that we can maybe get again, it will be just a loose idea of what the numbers might look like. Todd Gerhardt: Just to go through that sheet here, it's property taxpayers, this is the House Research Committee over at St. Paul put these numbers together and they used the city of Chaska for an example. Mayor Jansen: I don't know if that's a safe example for us to want to quote here. We might want to wait until we have Chanhassen. Chaska was not impacted as we were with the HACA amount. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Chaska saw a $14,000 decrease in their local government aids between HACA and LGA. The only example I was going to use is that, they still, we see a significant decrease in the residential property taxes. Somewhere in the range of anywhere between 20 and 22% in Chaska. I don't know what the million dollar, $1,000,070 problem is going to do to Chanhassen, but it will be in double digit decrease for sure. And overall the tax capacity rate in Chaska went down by 3.51%. And the big factor in all this is that the school portion of your property taxes will somewhat go away. I mean everybody's telling you it's going to go away. It's not going to go away completely because what stays on there is operating levies and referendums for facilities. So that will stay in place and everybody within the taxing jurisdiction will pay for their portion of those operating levies and facility referendums. How they will fund the remaining operational budget for schools will come through a tax against commercial and industrial properties and seasonal cabins. So what the state is telling us in summary is 33 City Council Meeting - July 23,2001 that loss, or the reduction in school property taxes, City of Chanhassen, you can take that piece of loss revenue to make up for that $1,000,070 reduction and put it against the residents of Chanhassen basically. And that's why you'll still see that double digit decrease in property taxes so, that's it in summary. Once I get Springsted's report on Chanhassen like this, I will get it out to you. Hopefully it will come in in e-mail format and I will e-mail it to you and make sure the newspaper gets a copy too. Mayor Jansen: So the main purpose of the update was just so we're all at least aware of some of the initial conversations that are going on around these legislative changes and the impacts that will affect us as we're going into budgets as well as our TI~ districts as we start evaluating those impacts. So I've asked Mr. Gerhardt to just keep us apprised as we keep getting more information. As he mentioned, yourself and Bruce DeJong will be attending seminars to get a better feel for the impact on us locally of these changes so again, all the finance advisors are out there also trying to get their arms around it and help everyone understand what the changes mean to us. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Sure. There is some data in here on the industrial properties. If you do talk to business people, you know there was some rumors out in the streets that they would see double digit decreases. If they are, they're going to be in the lower teens or down into the 8-9% because they are picking up that burden on the school property tax system so. Mayor Jansen: Great. Anything else from council? Councilman Ayotte: No. Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Jansen: Motion to adjourn. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt Acting City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: It's closer, okay. And it's possible to move that back? It looks like it's holding back quite a bit of contour there. Hoium: I'm not sure. That would be something for the applicant hopefully to answer. Kind: And on page 3 of the staff report you talk about the development of this site can be a tool used to enhance the Bluff Creek corridor. Other than creating a buffer strip, are there any other enhancements that this would? Hoium: Planting vegetation and trees along the outside of the primary zone. Other than the buffer strip, maintaining it. Preserving it. Not going in and doing anything to it. Kind: That's all I have for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a few questions too. First of all I'd like to clarify the boundaries of the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District zone. In the report you suggest that 881.6 contour line should be considered the border. Is that a new element or can you give me a little bit of framework of how that come about? Hoium: Sure. On the official Chanhassen city map, this is how the red is the primary zone. That is how it is mapped on the official map. Based upon the data that the applicant provided, the wetland delineation, the site plan, survey and just going out and doing site inspections, and following, which section is it? Section 20-1555, which allows the planning director to move it based on the information provided, it was determined that it fit more with the primary zone at the 881.6. Sacchet: So putting it at that elevation line is actually reducing a little bit. Hoium: The boundaries? Sacchet: The boundaries. That's in the interest of the applicant so I'm sure they're happy about that. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Now when we're talking about a buffer strip, relative to this 881.6 line, we can't really do a 20 foot because the driveway's very close in some areas pretty much... Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: The septic as we said, if we move it we might be 20 away. The comer of the house will be close to the retaining wall potentially intrudes on it. How much buffer, I mean can we quantify how much buffer we put in there? Hoium: Just based on what we've looked at and the information we've had, I think staff discussed a 10 foot buffer might be able to fit in there. Following the outer edge of the primary zone. Sacchet: So if we could possibly do something like an average of 10 foot or something like that? Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: Because in some areas it might have to be less. Hoium: Yes. Where the driveway comes into the property, yes. Sacchet: It would not be feasible to have an average of 20 foot buffer, would it? Hoium: I don't think so. It would be tight. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The buffer needs to be from the wetland edge, not from the primary zone marker. Hoium: We are, maybe I'm confused. I thought we were talking about adding an additional buffer on the outside of the primary zone. There is a buffer, 10 foot buffer from the wetland itself. Sacchet: I was talking about, you understood what I...from the primary. Hoium: This would be in addition to the wetland. Sacchet: Now that's a good point. Let's clarify that. We're really clear which one we're talking about. When we said that there' s usually a 20 foot buffer required, that would be from the primary zone boundary out. Is that correct? Am I understanding this correct? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. So on that basis it would be fair and equitable to put a requirement on that it would be 10 or 15 foot average from that primary zone boundary? Aanenson: Yes, it's going to be 10 plus. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yeah, because I think if we make a condition I'd like to be very quantifiable. Now the silt fence is not on there. That's something that should be added in. Hoium: It's actually in place right now. Sacchet: Oh, but it has to be moved. Hoium: It has to be moved outside of the primary zone. Sacchet: Because it's in the primary, so it would have to be moved outside of that primary zone line. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: How far is that one fifty foot along that driveway is actually in existence? That goes actually past that wetland thing or reaching north, isn't it? Hoium: No. It's about right there. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Because the reason why I'm asking, when I went out there I was under the impression that it was actually past the red line figure. Hoium: It's possible. I think it's, do one of the pictures show it. I think it's right in that vicinity. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. And then...that raises another question. When we say that we recommend that the rest of the driveway would have more setback, we couldn't really do too much there anymore could we? Really the damage is basically done to the wetland from there on. It's away from the wetland. Hoium: Yes, that is correct. Sacchet: I just want to clarify whether my perception's accurate. Okay, that's my questions Madam Chair. Thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? Slagle: Just a couple of questions. Dove tailing on what Uli has suggested on the driveway Madam Chair, was there options to explore the driveway avoiding the wetland or is it I mean just said and done that it has to go across? Or adjacent to it? Hoium: Adjacent to it. Slagle: Yeah, I mean I guess what I'm wondering is there a real cost to moving that driveway further north? Haak: I guess I can speak to that a little bit. The driveway was put in prior to the city reviewing any sort of detailed plans. The city had approved a grading plan for the driveway and to the best of my knowledge it wasn't reviewed by myself or someone in my position, so we actually issued a Cease and Desist Order on the driveway just so we could make sure where the wetland boundary was so we could make sure that there was no additional fill. There right now is not wetland fill. It gets real close to the wetland boundary. I think any removal you do of material in that area, it's kind of a 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other really as far as making the applicant remove the material versus just leaving the material where it is. It's outside of the wetland so I guess staff's perspective was just to cut our loses and try to get the driveway, the rest of the driveway as far away as possible. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: You said this was originally approved in '98. Hoium: Correct. Feik: If I recall the Park and Rec moved the trail to accommodate this driveway. At that time was there any consideration made to how this lot would have been accessed and was there any promises or indication given to the owner of the lot at that time how the lot would be accessed and where that driveway would go? Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: When this lot was created in 1998 simultaneously, I believe at that time there was a discussion on how that would be accessed. This parcel. Hoium: If I could add. The access was originally a farm access. Aanenson: Correct. So it's been there for a while. Hoium: It has been there. Aanenson: So that was kind of reviewed and as Lori said, we kind of cut our losses. Moving it, the degradation that you possibly could do. Again with the variance with this, you can attach reasonable conditions if you wanted to do some other things as far as mitigation to, for vegetation or whatever. You have that opportunity to attach a condition for that so we've decided that at this point trying to remove it probably is worse than, and that was part of the old farm road. Feik: Thank you. Sacchet: Can I clarify something? Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: That's an interesting point. So that driveway was part of an existing farm road at one point? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Well that helps. Thanks. Blackowiak: I guess I just have a couple questions here. On the conditions, number 11, I just wanted to clarify, proposed walkout elevation of the home must be 2 feet above the OHW. I'm assuming you mean at least 2 feet? Hoium: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Wanted to clarify that. And the second thing has to do with the City Council resolution back in 1998, condition number 6. It talks about the developer paying full park and trail fees for parcel 2, and I' m not sure if this is parcel 1 or parcel 2. And if this is parcel 2, do we need to have a condition in there saying we need full park and trail fees? Hoium: Yes, this is parcel 2 and that was, I believe that was with the subdivision itself. Blackowiak: Okay. Now do we need to have a separate condition? Aanenson: Those are paid with the building permit. Blackowiak: It's okayed with the, okay. So we don't even. Aanenson: If you want to put it on there, that's no problem. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: No, if it's covered, I'm fine. I just wasn't clear as to whether this was parcel 1 or parcel 2 so I guess that's where I was coming from. Okay. Well if there are any other questions, then I'll ask the applicants or their designee to step to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Dennis Chadderdon: I'm Dennis Chadderdon. I live at 5990 Charleston Circle in Shorewood. This is my wife Ruth. Ruth Chadderdon: Hi. Blackowiak: Okay, did you have anything you'd like to talk to us about this evening or anything that you'd like to clarify? Dennis Chadderdon: Not really. We're just here to you know, try to see the project through. We'd like to build a home on this lot and think it's completely possible to do. We know about the wetland situations and everything like that. Blackowiak: Okay. And based on the recommendations that the staff has made in terms of shifting possibly the septic fields, I mean how are you feeling about those recommendations? Dennis Chadderdon: We don't have any problem with doing what we can do with the septic system. The existing driveway is in to a certain point right now and continuing it and moving that a little bit north, we don't have a problem with. We've already discussed that with Julie. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Start with you Bruce. Questions of the applicant? Feik: None, thank you. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Deb. Kind: I just want to make sure you had a chance to read all the conditions and you're okay with the conditions staff is recommending. Great. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. The idea of adding a buffer like to that new line of where the primary zone boundary would be, is that something that you think is doable like a 10 to 15 foot average buffer? Dennis Chadderdon: Yeah. From the plans that we have submitted, I mean whatever it takes. We're not, we have no plans on infringing you know anywhere near the wetland. Sacchet: It probably means some extra planting or. Dennis Chadderdon: I'm sorry. Sacchet: You probably could translate it into some extra plantings on the south side of the driveway, which I would think you'd want to plant something anyhow. And then, let's see. The thing with the retaining wall, making that retaining wall any shorter. Is that a problem for you guys? Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Dennis Chadderdon: The retaining wall on the front of the house? Sacchet: Right. Dennis Chadderdon: No. That, and that was drawn in by the survey people and if I can get away with. you know shortening it, I have no problem doing that. Sacchet: Okay, so that's not... Good, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, any questions? No? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So if there' s anybody who would like to come up and speak before the commission, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Leslie Erickson: I'm Leslie Erickson. I live at 1831 Sunridge Court and we live in the lot just adjacent to where the building's going to be going on. And I have just a couple questions. I'm wondering if somebody could define this Bluff Creek Overlay for me. What exactly is an overlay? Blackowiak: Okay Kate, would you like to tackle that one. Aanenson: Sure. What the overlay district does is, it's an additional set of standards so there is the zoning ordinance. There's the zoning ordinance that regulates how you can use the lot. In addition with an overlay district it provides additional rules and regulations that you have to follow depending on if - you're in the primary or the second zone. So it's an additional set of rules. And this example, the Bluff Creek is for those lots that are within a sensitive area of the Bluff Creek, and that line follows either a topographic features or their severe slopes. A wetland boundary or creek boundary, or if there' s a significant stand of trees. So this overlay district runs the entire kind of diagonal section of the city starting up at Lake Minnewashta all the way down to the Minnesota River. Leslie Erickson: Okay. Alright. And just to point out where we are, this is our lot here and so our home is here. They're I'm guessing that your home is going to be just right in this little corner. In that area, okay. We're a little concerned, and I don't know if you'll have to bring in a lot of fill up close to our property at all. Okay, good. And then when you talk about constructing the retaining wall, where is that going to be located? Dennis Chadderdon: That's in the front of the home. Leslie Erickson: On the front, okay. Dennis Chadderdon: It will be toward the road. Leslie Erickson: Okay. Aanenson: ...retaining wall right here. That's where we're asking them to cut the...so there's less grading. Again, that's the intent of the overlay district is to minimize disruption. Leslie Erickson: Okay, that's it. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anybody else like to make comment or anyone else have a question? Seeing no one, I'd like to close the public hearing. Commissioners, now's the time to make comments. Rich, I will start with you. Slagle: I would just throw out a thought and that thought is, I mean I guess given what can happen in '98, where we stand today is okay with me. So I had a couple questions just regarding the intent of the applicant and after listening to it I felt pretty comfortable that they're willing to work within the conditions so. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: It was interesting when I went out there looking at the site. I felt it actually is a sensitive area that can get impacted has already been impacted. It's that initial stretch of the driveway and it's certainly good to hear that that was an existing driveway for a farm before. The way I see it, the driveway really goes beyond that little finger of wetland that reaches north so there's not much we can mitigate there. And then the rest of the construction is basically away from the wetland that I think we have a pretty straight image here. I would like to add some conditions though to state that the septic system moves north. I'd like to quantify that a little bit. I'd like to ask that we consider a strip, a buffer strip beyond just the boundary of the primary zone since overall we ask for a 20 foot buffer. If we ask for an average somewhat smaller buffer, that is practical and is realistic in that framework, I think that would be balanced. And also with the retaining wall, I think it'd be fair to ask that there's an effort made to accommodate the standard setbacks in this type of environment. Other than that I'm fine with it. Blackowiak: Okay great, thank you. Deb. Kind: I agree with Uli and Rich's comments. I just have a question for Uli. Do you feel that condition number 1 that talks about the applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer with a minimum average of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge, do you think that covers part of your request? And then coupled with number 14, which asks for a 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain, so that would be in addition. Aanenson: That was our intent, correct. Kind: Between those two conditions, are you comfortable that it's covered? Sacchet: Well in terms of being equitable, I mean one of the efforts that we're making here is everyone treat everybody the same way. And it's my understanding that the 20 foot buffer would be required from everybody else of the primary zone boundary. Is that correct? Hoium: No. Sacchet: No, okay. Aanenson: The 20 foot from the primary, but you have the 0 to 20 so in some circumstances along that wetland it's going to average 0 to 20. In addition to that it's going to be 10 for the primary zone. Outside the primary zone. In some circumstances they're close to each other. Haak: That's what we're requiring. The 20 feet that we get with the primary zone is a 20 foot no grade. It's not necessarily called a buffer but everybody has that requirement. It's a 40 foot setback from the Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 primary zone so we don't really call it a buffer. We call it a no grade, no impact zone. But it in effect is the same thing. Aanenson: Yeah, so the mitigation is to make it a buffer. Haak: Right. Aanenson: That's what we're saying. It's a no touch zone but what we're implying is the mitigation and what you're saying, you have to landscape that and maintain a buffer. Sacchet: So in that sense you would have a valid point. That that is already covered in the current conditions. Okay. Yes. Kind: That's all Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce. Feik: I just want to say that given previously the city has made some accommodations to allow for this lot, including some significant park and rec changes to the trail head and delay of the trail, I guess I'm just happy to see that it is finally getting resolved and a building going up. Blackowiak: Okay. And I just have a couple extra comments I guess. In the staff report they talked about a 40 to 50 foot paved area on the first part of the driveway, and I hope in a motion we'll see something. I don't know if we need to add that but I maybe would like to see that added. That the first 40 to 50 feet will be paved. Secondly, that the septic will be moved north, just like Uli said. Third, condition 11. That the OHW would be the marker and the walkout elevation be at least 2 feet above that. And then finally if someone would like to make a motion and talk about any kind of mitigation. You know when you're talking about 10 to 20 feet, we could certainly suggest additional vegetation or something. I mean I think that would be fair to kind of mitigate what' s happening in this area so those are my comments. So if somebody would like to make a motion. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject to the following conditions 1 through 14. In number 10 I'd like to add the retaining wall. The wall must be set back. In number 14 I'd like to read, minimum average 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. And I'd like to add a condition 16, that the septic system will be moved north as much as possible. Kind: I'll second that and I have a couple of friendly amendments if I could. Sacchet: Sure. Kind: You said conditions 1 through 14. Did you? Sacchet: Oh 15, sorry. Yeah. Kind: Okay. Just wondering if you were excluding 15 on purpose. Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: No I didn't. Sorry. So 16 would be the extra. Kind: And number 7. I'd like to add Alison's suggestion. Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit and add a second sentence that says the first 40 to 50 feet will be paved. Sacchet: That's fine. Kind: And number 11, did you say anything about the proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least 2 feet above the OHW? Sacchet: Let's add it. Yep. Kind: And number 14, I just want to clarify. You changed it to say 10 foot minimum. Sacchet: Minimum 10 foot average. Kind: I was wondering if we could make it even stronger and say 10 to 20 foot vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting 100 year flood plain. The buffer must average at least 10 feet? Sacchet: Yes, that would work. I mean we have to allow for areas where it's not going to be 10 foot because the driveway's so close there that it wouldn't work. Kind: If we say average it could be 0 in some spots. Sacchet: Well preferably it'd be more but. Kind: Theoretically. Sacchet: But if we say it the way you just said that it would be 10 to 20 feet with a minimum 10 foot average, I'm fine with that. Blackowiak: Okay, that's different so. Kind: Minimum 10 foot is it means it cannot go down to 0. Blackowiak: It could be a 0 then. Could we clarify please? Kind: Well a minimum of 10 feet. Blackowiak: That's totally different. Kind: That's totally different. I'll try it again here. Number 14 shall read, a 10 to 20 foot average vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. The buffer minimum must be 10 feet. Sacchet: I don't think that's practical. It's not possible. I don't think it is. Please correct me. I mean what I've seen when I was out there, I really think that drive was closer than 10 feet in some areas. So I would say we could say something to the effect that any new grading or construction has to maintain the minimum of 10 foot. I think otherwise, what do you think Kate? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well, not to split hairs. We're going by the survey. The survey says you can get 10 feet so we' re comfortable with what we put in there which is a minimum. If you want in those areas they can go more, I think that's great so if you want to say minimum of 10, averaging 10 to 20. So if there's areas where they can go more and you want to mitigate that by saying put more buffer in, that's fine. Sacchet: Point of clarification. You're saying that according to the survey they can maintain the 10 foot everywhere? Aanenson: Yes, based on what. Sacchet: Well then let's ask for it. Aanenson: That's what we suggested. Sacchet: Yep. Blackowiak: Alright, it's been moved and seconded. Uli, do you accept the amendments that were offered? Sacchet: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. I'd like to vote on this motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer (with a minimum average of 10 feet) and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The buffer shall be shown on the plans. . The applicant shall provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point so water will be able to drain into the wetland. The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the proposed culvert is accurately sized. 4. The applicant shall install riprap at the downstream end of the culvert in order to prevent erosion. o The erosion control silt fence must be moved outside the 881.6 contour. Type 1II erosion control shall be installed as designated on the site plan. o The current, existing portion of the driveway shall be allowed to remain in it's current alignment; however, the remainder of the driveway shall be moved so that no additional fill will be placed within the 100 year floodplain (881.6). ° Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit. The first 40 to 50 feet of the driveway shall be paved. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6. 9. The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881.6) must be shown on the plan as legally described. 10. The retaining wall must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour). 11. The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6. 12. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey. 13. A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bitternut Hickory. The applicant shall submit a planting list. 14. A minimum of 10 feet, averaging 10 to 20 feet vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year floodplain. 15. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision #97-11. 16. The septic system site shall be moved to the north as much as possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO OPERATE A CONTRACTING YARD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,139 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 6.3 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) LOCATED AT 1850 LAKE DRIVE WEST, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 3}m ADDITION, DAYCO HEADQUARTERS, DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. Public Present: Name Address Charlie Melcher, Westwood Professional Mary Makowski Mary Pat Monson D. L. Olsen, Osmonics 7599 Anagram, Eden Prairie 4120 Lakeridge Road 8850 Audubon Road 5951 Clearwater Drive, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Rich, I'I1 start with you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: One question Bob if, and I apologize if I should have seen this but, concrete company. I see the comment a yard and site plan. What's happening there? I mean I'm trying to understand what the use of this building other than strictly office personnel. Generous: Yes, it's a warehouse building. They'd have their equipment and materials stored inside and then they go out to job sites. Slagle: So equipment being trucks and trailers. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: It's not a batch plant, no. Generous: No. Slagle: Okay. But we're talking backhoes or what have you. I mean it's. Aanenson: Or trucks to carry forms and that sort of thing. Slagle: Okay. So lots of activity. Aanenson: Yeah. This project again was, an Environmental Assessment was done on this entire project, industrial park so this fits within the parameters of the traffic and all that that was studied for this. Slagle: Okay, when you say this business park. Specifically this site here or? Generous: With the Chan Business Center it was reviewed overall through an Environmental Assessment. We looked at the total square footages of the development. Office warehouse. Slagle: With DayCo included, right? Generous: Well no. With office warehouse uses. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Expecting certain types of trip generation. Generous: And so this well within the thresholds that were established for each of the lots. Slagle: Okay. And again, just since I've only been on for a while, those trip definitions, those are cars, trucks, trailers. Aanenson: Sure, just like the post office when they have the delivery trucks go in and out each day. Generally they're assigned a job. They go out for the day. Come back at night. Similar to the post office or any of the other uses with the cars that would come in for the day. Slagle: Okay. I'm just trying to draw the parallel between cars and trucks with trailers and. I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just trying to picture that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Yeah, no I'm just...similar to the post office where they have the step vans and the like. And the delivery trucks that come in with the mail periodic. Slagle: Okay, so we have a sensitive area that abuts literally the property and it is, according to you and to the assessments and studies, it fits fine? Aanenson: Right. Well I think we have to look in the bigger context and that is that when this project came in, as Bob indicated, this is 3 or 4 years ahead of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and when we adopted the overlay district, it cut a wide swath. We said this is the overlay district based on some topographic features have been followed. Now this has the underlying, and we've discussed this has happened before. We know there's areas where there's going to be conflict. This was already given a lot status. Slagle: I understand. Aanenson: With certain design parameters and certain expectations. Then the Bluff Creek came on top of it. So I think that the developer of this property has worked really well to modify, based on his expectation of a buildable lot, and having the additional burden of trying to meet the, that the primary setback line so we think that based on that there' s, there's going to be some, have to be some relief to make something happen on this property and it' s reasonable use of the property so we think with that, it meets our criteria. And again, they worked hard to redesign it. This is 2 or 3 different designs of the project. Slagle: Good enough. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes I do have questions. Actually your question was very much along my key question. When I first read contractors yard, concrete company, I saw that in conflict with the concept of light industrial. Concrete's very heavy. It's very big equipment. My concerns were somewhat put at rest when I heard that it's not really a place where much else happens except the trucks gO to sleep. It's basically a garage. It's basically a place where it stores. Is there going to be also construction materials there or is it just where the machines are stored? Do we have any inside, maybe we should ask that of the applicant. Generous: Yeah. It's a developer. Sacchet: Okay, of the developer. Then some more specific questions. Did we, at one point was a concern about the articulation of the eastern elevation. Generous: Pardon? Sacchet: The articulation of the architectural interest. Generous: Yes, just on the northern half of it. Sacchet: Right, has that been addressed? Generous: They're proposing the use of landscaping which is an acceptable alternative. We just want to see taller, narrower type trees. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, so that's largely addressed but needs maybe a little more encouragement? The peninsula's in the parking, that's just a requirement, I think Saam you explained that with a recent project. Those peninsula' s. Every so many parking stalls we need a peninsula type thing in the parking. Saam: I haven't dealt with the peninsula. Generous: I can address that. The landscaping ordinance for parking lots require that for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area, you have either a peninsula or an island to break up the parking lot. Sacchet: Yeah, and at this point do they comply with that? Generous: No, they had to add one. I believe on the revised plan they did but I haven't looked at that clearly. They needed to add one in the front. They would need to add one in the front drive about where the driveway splits. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then at the end of the parking on the east side of the building, that would do it again. Sacchet: Okay. Now we talked about this 20 foot buffer just in the previous thing we talked about. Here we have a similar situation in that that 20 foot or no touch zone, or whatever we want to call it, doesn't totally work because that retaining wall is outside the primary zone but in some cases probably only a few feet away from it, right? Has that been given any consideration how we would deal with that 20 foot no touch or buffer or whatever we want to call it? Haak: Primarily the consideration on this site is that when they got preliminary approval they did bring material onto the site so that 20 foot no touch zone is all fill, and right now it's weeds. So we're not, right now we don't have a lot of quality there. We do have the high quality trees. It's quite a ways down to the creek and I think from staff' s perspective, we don't have anything there right now and a retaining wall would preserve the slopes and preserve the trees so we think it's a good compromise. Sacchet: So basically it has been graded already and by having no touch zone, we don't gain anything. Haak: Right, right. We get weeds. Sacchet: Yeah, well we have plenty of those. Let's see. I think that's my questions. Hang on just one second. Yeah, you raised the question about the traffic volume. If this is where all the trucks go to sleep over night, there will certainly be some traffic but it certainly would be very different traffic situation when they are getting materials. Has that been looked at? Aanenson: Well, if you understand what they do. They're in town right now .... they're putting all the trucks in a building because that's been an issue ongoing for a long time. We're very excited about it. The way the business operates is you take your forms out to the site. They're not picking up concrete. The folks come, get dispatched for the day and they go about their business. It's not any different than the other businesses there that are getting paper delivered or having their product picked up and shipped out. It's very similar traffic volume. Maybe somebody comes in once or twice because they have a different route but it's, you get your job assignment and you're out for the day. It's very typical to some of the other businesses that are shipping products or manufacturing something. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: That's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Good. Deb, questions? Kind: Yes. For clarification Bob, I just want to make sure. The only change, we got a new site plan tonight and I can't look at the whole thing very carefully. The only change is that the building has been shifted to the east. Generous: 4 feet to the east, and the drive aisle widths have been narrowed down so that was able to pull the retaining wall over out of the primary zone. Kind: Great. No other changes that I need to figure out. And then I'm assuming that the western elevation is even less articulated than any of the others and I'm assuming the reason we're not concerned about that as staff is because you can't see it. Generous: No one sees it. It's not visible. Kind: It's totally up against the green, the beautiful green woods area. Generous: Yes. Kind: Great. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, questions? Feik: A couple. You mentioned the parcel to the left is an outlot that has been deeded over to the city. Aanenson: Yes. Feik: Is there any long term plans for the use of that lot at this time that you know? Aanenson: No, it's actually very steep. It's a steep ravine and the intent is to leave it natural. Feik: Okay. The second question, and not to beat it to death but maybe a point of clarification for myself. In a staff recommendation, paragraph a where we mentioned to permit a contractor' s yard on Lot 2, Block 1. And then on point number 2 where we then go on to state there's no outside storage. What would, why are we using the terminology of contractor's yard versus office warehouse building? Because there is nothing outside? Generous: Well it's just because of the user. That's how he's classified. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: That's the problem we have right now. All the trucks are outside in his current location. Feik: Right, but for all intents and purposes it will be an office warehouse. Typically office warehouse building with no outdoor storage. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Right. Feik: Okay. Blackowiak: And I'll just like add to that little discussion here. We've heard about bad contractor's lots and this seems to be one that we're endorsing so can you talk to us about why this is good versus why other' s are bad. Kind of like walk me through that briefly. Generous: Why this is good? Well it's an existing business within the community that's trying to expand. They' re bringing all their equipment, materials, anything inside a building. Enclosing it so you don't have those site problems or noise problems from having it outside. Rubbish doesn't build up. We think this is a responsible area for them to locate. It is hidden, if you will. It' s way at the end of this Lake Drive West and to the west of it is a preserve, open space area so it' s a, if you have to locate it, that's sort of where you'd like it to go. Aanenson: It's also guided industrial. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Some of the other ones we have problems with are in the A-2 districts. Blackowiak: Alright, good. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And then my second question has to do with the landscaping and the future building area. We have a future building area in front of this T building, and then the landscaping is in front of the future building area. And I'm wondering if there's any reason we would want to have the current landscaping, or at least some landscaping between the proposed building and the proposed future buildings. Since we don't quite know when that's going to happen. Aanenson: I'll let them address that. How they tie together. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Alright, well those were my only two comments. Slagle: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Oh go ahead. Slagle: I'd like one more question if I may from staff. Are there views from the Valley Ridge Trail North home sites that would see this "yard" or location? Because I believe the building that they refer to the Dover building is set back and is a fairly lower, it's more west and south. Blackowiak: That's kind of a landscaping question. If we want to scoot it back a little bit. Slagle: Yeah. I'm just concerned as a homeowner, if you're up there looking down and let's just say there are times where everything doesn't make it inside. You're looking out at trailers. Aanenson: You're also backing up to the tracks there too. Are you talking about from the south? Slagle: I'm talking about from the south. Down at Valley Ridge Trail North looking northward, because I believe a couple of those buildings are not that big. I mean you've got the weather station. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well the Dover building is smaller in scale as far as the height. The post office has the huge fence. And because this is set back quite a ways, the building that would be in front of it would probably be, if anything, would be more visible. Generous: Additionally in the Dover site there will be a second building built into that so there will be 3 buildings inbetween. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Can I add a question...? Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead. Sacchet: There was somewhere talk of a sidewalk. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And I wasn't quite 100% sure where. If you could just briefly point out where that would go. Generous: Go on the site from the building in front of the future building site out to, there's a trail that runs down here and then there's a sidewalk down this route. So it would link the site to that. That's one of the issues that the developer has with that. They'd like to put in something on a temporary basis. Because we're looking at making a connection through here. Here's where their sidewalk ends. We want them to continue on on the south side. However they're looking at it that they're going to tear all this up when they build again. They'd like to look at something more temporary. Striping possibly in the 30 foot driveway. Sacchet: And the purpose for that sidewalk would be to connect the new building with the walking trail. Generous: With the trail and the sidewalk. Aanenson: There's a trail, there's a sidewalk linked by the trail of the overall... Sacchet: Yeah, I'm aware of that trail. Slagle: It's a great trail. Generous: And then it goes down to Bluff Creek to the west. Sacchet: It's to give the people in this new building access to the trail. Generous: Right. We try to encourage that with all industrial developments. It's an amenity the City's worked hard at providing so we want to provide opportunities to the people there. Sacchet: So it's a consistent requirement that we, okay. Thank you. Aanenson: You know I guess in deference to them, they are going to come back with the second phase. There's an opportunity to, when that comes in, to get it but what we're saying is that we want to preserve 18 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 that as a condition that we connect it. And what they're concerned about is having to put a sidewalk in and then rip it out down the road. Slagle: When would the second addition be put in place? I mean you wouldn't want that temporary thing for 2-3 years. Aanenson: That's the question. Blackowiak: I think that's a good question for the applicant. Okay, any other questions of staff? If not, the applicant or their designee would like to make a presentation. Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. Charlie Melcher: Good evening Planning Commission. I'm Charlie Melcher with Westwood Professional Services. And the applicant is out of town so I'll be representing the project tonight. Let's hit the first question that you had with regards to landscaping, being on the property line. South property line. If I could have that plan back. The intent of the developer's concept for this site is two fold. Is to put a second building that would be either just office or office, more likely whatever fits their guide plan but the office showroom on the front side. And the plan is to have this building about, just under a foot higher than the proposed building that we're showing right now so it would screen the overhead doors on the south face of the building. With regards to the trees that are proposed, and I didn't see them on the landscaping plan but that is shown toward the southern property line. The intent always is when you spend money is to make it be right. It's not to throw it away and trees aren't something cheap to have a truck move so we want to do it right the first time. Our intent is to pave up to this line right here with bituminous and drain to these catch basins. In this second phase, this will be the high point. Where we stop paving now, this will be the high point and we'll have another line of catch basins to pick up whatever water is in here. So that' s, I take that back. This edge of the building will drain to these existing catch basins so we won't have to put another catch basins in here. When we pave this, we'll - pave it up to the second building. That handles the savings of not putting curb along this whole side. To put concrete curb along this whole side for a year or two years or three years is absolutely ridiculous. Does the city re-pave their streets with curb every 3 years? So let's think how the city thinks. As far as planting trees, if we plant within this area, we plant anywhere within this area, you're planting in an area that (a), you don' t know the footprint of the building. All this back area since it' s planned to be, to my knowledge, they could have doors on the back side on an office warehouse. On the front side, they would have all windows and entrance doors to whoever would lease out that space. So we'd have a parking lot in the front. There'd be a green space between the parking lot and the building and you could put shrubbery there but in the back there's no room to put any overstory, understory trees whatsoever. That' s why the trees were put south of the future curb line. And I pretty much, if you go to the storm sewer plan, I pretty much located where the catch basin in the future are going to be. I need two more catch basins to finish this whole job up. We're trying to think this thing through very thoroughly and cannot do it twice. Who knows. You know with the economy the way it is, this building could get built out in the next 2 or 3 years. It's hard to say exactly what date it's going to be but the owner has somebody that's already interested in the project but he needs to get his going before he chn go and try and get this other guy interested because the other guys are not going to spend any money on designs until he gets his going. With regards to the sidewalk, the issue really comes down to what the layout would be in this area of the curb line to the turn curb and the parking if there would be either facing the building or facing this island would be between the two buildings. Which would have, that would house that sidewalk in the future. So the developer has come to the city and said, why don't we, we've got a wide drive. It's 30 feet wide. We only need to have a wide, 26 foot wide drive in there. Why don't we strip a 4 or 5 foot area in there which we could sandblast later when this future gets developed. We 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 wouldn't take the pavement out, we'd just sandblast it and then we'd put our curb in where it needs to be and we'd pave this, the rest of this side out the way it should be. This isn't meant to be an access for the public. It's an access for people that work for him to get down to this park and take their 20 minute walk at lunchtime. The people that come in the morning are usually out of there by 7:30-8:00 with their trucks so it's not like they'd come and go. Each of their drivers doesn't come and go 5 times a day or 3 times a day. They typically come and go once or twice. So there isn't a whole lot of traffic coming in here in conflict with individuals walking and trucks and cars and what have you. It's really, it's a low traffic area. Those are the developer's thoughts. They do make sense. We could, besides striping it we could put a note on the plan that says, future concrete sidewalk or 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk and then it's on these plans and then the next time they come in for this other development, we're tied to that. Rich, I think I missed one of your questions. Slagle: Actually if I can just have a brief overview of DayCo. When you talk about concrete, I'm sorry for not getting this but are we talking like boulders? Are we talking concrete? Charlie Melcher: One ton trucks. Slagle: Okay. Charlie Melcher: You know that carry low, flatbed trailers that carry forms and Bobcats. Slagle: Okay. Gotch ya. Okay. Charlie Melcher: And if they come in the middle of the day and they need to pick something up, they may stop for a half hour, pick that up. Load it up outside the building and then they're on their way because really they aren't making any money outside the building. They really have to come and go. And that isn't, normally they come and go from their site and they go to another site, to another site. So they don't usually come back. Slagle: Very good. And then on the second building you mentioned a potential other user or? Charlie Melcher: Absolutely, yeah. Slagle: Okay. So this site will be in addition to a showroom, could be? Charlie Melcher: This site, this other building would probably be an office showroom. Probably. And it could be broken into 4 users so you don't know with office showrooms. Slagle: Okay. I'm with you. Sacchet: Can I ask a few questions? Blackowiak: Yeah, do you have anything else to add or should we just start asking some questions of you? Charlie Melcher: Feel free to ask questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: You specified it could be 2-3 years for the second building. It's totally undefined at this point? Charlie Melcher: Absolutely. Sacchet: It could be 10 years. It could be 1 year. It could be never. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of no outside storage, is that, that's not an issue? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe it's an issue. Sacchet: Okay. To put a little more interest to the north half of the eastern elevation, staff mentioned that you're planning to do that mostly or with landscaping. I think staff's position is that it should be somewhat taller trees or skinnier trees that go more up than in the width. Is that an issue for you? Charlie Melcher: I don't believe so. No. Sacchet: I think that's all the questions I have for you. Thanks. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: Don't have any questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Bruce, questions? Feik: No, thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, I just have a couple questions. When you're talking about the ultimate buildout of the first, the future area, where do you think that that is going to be accessed for construction? Do you feel that they'd come off the bituminous or do you feel that they'd come off the main cul-de-sac? Charlie Melcher: If, as I see it, they would share this entrance and on the western side of that entrance there would be an island that loops back and starts the parking and drives to the future building. Blackowiak: Okay. I mean I guess specifically construction entrance. Do you feel that you'd have the construction entrance off the bituminous or would you probably just go off the concrete? Off the front. I guess I'm getting at the whole idea of the trees because you could do a curb cut easily right off the center of the future building. Charlie Melcher: I'm missing your point. I'm not sure where you're talking about. Look at my pen and tell me if I'm right. Blackowiak: Right, yeah. Could you do a curb cut right there to come off or would you be coming straight up? Charlie Melcher: I don't think we'd do a curb cut. Aanenson: I don't think the city would permit that. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher: I think we'd share the entrance. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're coming up, across the bituminous and going that way. Charlie Melcher: Yeah. Blackowiak: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out because as I looked at it, it was like, I was trying to figure out the easiest way to get in with heavy equipment because we're talking about. Charlie Melcher: There wouldn't be heavy equipment in the second site. I mean there'd be, there might be a little bit, vans or something that may come and deliver medical supplies or whatever is part of their. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, I'm talking about construction of the second building. Charlie Melcher: Oh, during construction of the second building. Blackowiak: Yes. Charlie Melcher: During construction of the second building they would have a rock construction entrance. Blackowiak: Right. I'm just curious where that would be. Charlie Melcher: It would be at the approved part of the second set of plans. We haven't gotten that far. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what I'm trying to figure out where that might be because we're talking trees in front. Personally I'd like to see something a little bit between the two buildings so I'm just trying to figure out. Charlie Melcher: I would say that we wouldn't even do it. We'd probably take a rock construction entrance. Share the entrance we have and do a rock construction entrance off this pavement once you get into the site. Then we could just, everything that's along the southern property line could be left just as is until that curb gets cut in and the less disturbance, the further we get away from the cul-de-sac, the better off we are. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just wondering how much destruction there's going to be to the bituminous as you come in because that's probably not going to be a real good thing for. Charlie Melcher: There's a concrete in there so we should be in good shape. It's part of the design. Blackowiak: Okay. So you feel comfortable with. Charlie Melcher: It's required by city standards. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I'm just curious. Then you have the trucks coming in. I mean it's great to say you have it on the plans but to actually get the drivers to stay where you tell them to is often another story totally. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Charlie Melcher: That's true. Blackowiak: Yeah. Charlie Melcher: But as long as the trees are there, they'll stay away from it. We'll have silt fence up. It will be toward the site so they won't have access to the trees on the southern property line. Aside from that there will be a rock construction entrance that will get them to wherever. I'm not really sure. You know at some point they'll probably have access from the north to thesite, and at some point. Blackowiak: Which is why you don't want to do any type of curbing there, I understand that. Charlie Melcher: Yeah, and at some point they may have access just off the cul-de-sac until they start really doing the forming of the curbs and that sort of thing. Blackowiak: Yeah. Which is kind of like the last step anyway so. Okay. And I had one more question here. Of course I'm not going to find it. I'm not seeing it right now. I may, if I find it I'll come back to you. Sacchet: While you're looking may I ask one more question Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Go ahead, yeah. Sacchet: In terms of that landscaping on the southern edge along the path there, would you be open to considering increasing the amount of plantings there some? Charlie Melcher: There is discussion of putting I think 2 more trees or something on the north and 1 more on the east or something because of the shift in the landscape. It's in the report. Sacchet: What I would be targeting is to have a little more of a buffer along that path from the start. Charlie Melcher: That would be something that staff, we could work with staff on. I mean I don't do the landscaping plans but I see what you're talking about. It's a high density on the north. Sacchet: Right now these trees on the south side are about 40 feet apart which is really generously spaced. If we start thinking of this in terms of more of a buffer to the path that goes past and potentially to some extent the neighborhood to the south, I think it would be reasonable to ask that they would be closer maybe and some additional shrubbery and things planted in there. That's basically what I'm considering here. Charlie Melcher: We could shift some vegetation. We could work with staff on that, absolutely. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I'm not finding my question right now so we're just going to move on. If there are no other questions of the applicants, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to add their comments to this item, please step to the microphone and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, you can make your comments. 23 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Kind: Madam Chair, I have a quick question of staff before we get rolling here. The southern property line that Uli was talking about, I'm assuming the reason the buffer plantings are so sparse is because the width of the yard is so large. Is that right? Generous: And the type of buffer that's required between industrial and industrial, it's not that great. Kind: Would the plantings be increased with Phase II, when the buffer yard becomes narrower? Generous: Only in depth. You would get some landscaping with the parking lot area as is required under the parking landscaping ordinance. But I don't think we get additional ones as part of that site plan, no. Kind: Because I'm wondering when there's a new building, all of a sudden the buffer yard is much narrower and then would more plantings be required. Aanenson: They'll have to meet their own landscaping plan when that comes in, yeah. I mean we'll hold them to the same standard. They'll have to supply a landscaping plan that we review. Kind: The reason this just came up now is that I didn't realize on page 7 of the staff report that the southern property line is not addressed in the planting schedule at all. And I am wondering if that meets ordinance or not, but I'm assuming that our condition that says number 5, that a revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements to be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval would cover the southern property line as well. Generous: Yes. Kind: Thank you. Feik: I have a quick question for staff as well. The applicant made a comment regarding the southern curb line of the parking lot. Looking at the revised plan, has that curb line been removed in that plan? Charlie Melcher: It's never been there and the reason why is it never will be there because I started wrong on my statement. There are really no catch basins except for the lower dot catch basin on that future building. It's all going to drain to the existing, what will be the existing catch basin shown on the plan now. So there will never be. Feik: Okay. But your point number 23, where you reference concrete curb and gutter is required around the entire parking drive area of the site. Aanenson: Right. That's an issue I believe that he's saying that they disagree with. They think that it's premature to put that in at this time. Feik: Okay. But you're suggesting it goes in? Aanenson: It's difficult for them to hear you when you're not at the microphone. Thank you. Charlie Melcher: I think the intent is to have all sides curbed. And when Phase II gets built, the outside will be curbed. So we're going to meet pavement with pavement there. It's never going to have curb there and that's why it's not shown in our plan now as part of Phase I. So it's not an issue of circumventing the ordinance or the requirement. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Well it is. The ordinance requires it. I mean if they want to give some relief or give you a timeframe or post security, I mean it's a requirement. Feik: Well and that was one of my questions as it related to the curb and to the sidewalk. Is it possible to have a requirement in the permit that if they haven't started construction or pulled a permit for the second phase within 24 months, it's got to go in? Aanenson: I'll let Matt address that. What he's comfortable with. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. I would recommend an escrow. We do that sort of thing all the time where we give a time limit. We state, give us cash. If it isn't done by then, then we have the security in place to go ahead and get it done. I mean we talked about the economy. I believe one of the commissioners said it could be 10 years. It could be never. He agreed. We don't know. We hope the building goes in in 2 years and that they don't have to rip out curb that they just put in, but we don't know. We have nothing to hold them to so, I would recommend a security. Feik: Escrow or letter of credit? Saam: Escrow. It's easier. The cash is more readily available. Slagle: Speaking of cash, if I may ask staff. I noticed on the parks and open space, it says the development still owes park fees in the amount of $3,000 per acre. Anybody have a feel as to what that dollar amount is? Aanenson: Which condition number are you on? Slagle: It' s on page 8. Very bottom. Park fees shall be paid at time of building permit approval but the way I read it, it's still dollars owing. Generous: It's about $18,000. Slagle: $18,000 today? Blackowiak: Yeah Rich if you'll look at condition 11. Yeah, I think it spelled that out. I was looking at that one too. Slagle: But I wanted to make sure that there was no other dollars in the development itself, not just this site. Blackowiak: Oh, good point. Slagle: Is there? Blackowiak: For Phase II. I mean this is for the entire site. Not just specifically Phase I versus Phase II. Generous: No, this is for the site. Once it's used, it's used. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well are we ready to make comments? 25 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Sure. Blackowiak: I'll start with you Bruce. Do you have anything you'd like to add or? Feik: I would like to see a requirement in for the curb and the sidewalk. If it's not in in some minimum period of time, that we have a mechanism to follow-up and have that put in. I think that's very important. There's no real indication of when that building may or may not go in so I think we need to the ability to put that in there. That's my only large concern. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb? Any comments? Kind: Yes. I agree with Bruce. I think that's a good point. I think it's an attractive building. I like the side that faces the cul-de-sac with the windows and the materials look nice. I really appreciate having the vehicles enclosed in a garage. I think that will be a nice addition to the city. Conditions that I would be interested in tinkering with a bit have to do with number 8. Adding a sentence that says that plantings would be acceptable for breaking up that wall that we have an issue with. Number 18 talks about the sidewalk. I think by bituminous would be acceptable. ! don't think it has to be concrete. And then number 23, I definitely agree with Bruce that we need to put some language in there about escrowing funds and I like the 2 year time limit. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I think it's an appropriate use for that site. At first I was a little wondering about, whether that was possibly considered that light industrial but I do believe it fits in that. I think the applicant has to be commended about how quickly they found a solution to get that retaining wall out of the primary zone. I think that was done very well. I agree with all the comments that were made so far in that I would like to see that a temporary sidewalk would be sufficient initially. And I would not want, necessarily want to insist on the full curb on that, what is it? The current south edge of the impervious area since it's obviously temporary, but I do think it would make sense to have some sort of security in place like an escrow. And I would most definitely want to see a condition to increase the plantings on the south edge along that path. I would, based on the so far the cooperation that the applicant has shown, I think it would be acceptable to put a condition in that has staff work with the applicant to increase the plantings so that it has more of a buffering function for that path and potentially the neighborhood to the south. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich. Slagle: Just two comments. Obviously it fits within the area as how it is zoned. I would ask for us to just consider going forward with these types of requests is we think about the 500 feet. Because as I look at the map, we are capturing 5 residents on Stone Creek, at least from what I see is the mail list, and none from the neighborhood to the south. So unless folks are watching, this will all take place and they won't know that this has been approved. If this is the complete mail list, I think it's about halfway through and most of it city were owners or interested parties so I just want to throw that out. That there could be a fair number of residents who might have had interest in this so if we can talk about that in the future. And the only other thing I want to say is on point number 2. No outside storage or material or equipment. Boy, I hope we stick with that and I hope the applicant feels the sensitivity, especially if there are homes within maybe 1,000 feet of this location. That's the only thing I want to say. Otherwise I think it's fine. 26 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Before I make my comments. Kate, do you want to address the 500 feet? Are we, we are over the state requirement when we do 500 feet, is that correct? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you want to just talk a little bit about that briefly? Aanenson: Well I guess in this circumstance, is more always better? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure as far as what' s on the other side of that. Do you get the southern end of Pillsbury, which is on the north side. The people that are in the Valley View, Valley Ridge subdivision were concerned about the Dover building. That additional. Again, when we did the environmental assessment, all the neighbors were involved in that. The post office and when going back and putting in a retaining wall. Is there homes adjacent to that? Yes, but I believe that from the Stone Creek and the topography change, it's going to be heavily screened. Again that's why we felt with everything indoors and the look of this building. Slagle: Actually as I saw this, Stone Creek was, other than noise, was the lesser of the two concerns. I actually felt more that the southern neighborhood would be affected for those homes that look over, what I'll call the post office and Dover' s. Dover's is a small building. I run that trail and. Aanenson: Right, sure. Sure. Slagle: And there have been other situations and it's more for other ties but I think we should explore, maybe it's, if there's opportunities to expand it to 1,000 feet if the situation deems necessary. Aanenson: Sure. Well, yeah. Blackowiak: Well and like you said Kate, you know is more better? I mean it is listed in the paper, and I mean we do have mechanisms to get this information out but as long, I think as long as we're exceeding the guidelines for doing the 500 foot notification, at least. Aanenson: Right, as far as you know, it is a permitted use in the district. The variance is from the primary so what's our level of discretion? I guess we could talk about that too but. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well I just wanted you to get that in. My comments are basically, the building I think looks good. I'm glad that we could move it, shift it to the east a little bit. I think, I believe I am happy with the revised landscape. I'm not positive about the southern line, and I don't know if I will be tonight at all. The point that I was trying to make is if we're going to have a single access off of the cul- de-sac, and there is a possibility to do some landscaping or a trail that would not be disturbed. So if we've got those opportunities, I think we should possibly explore those. I'm comfortable with not having a curb and gutter right away between the two buildings simply due to the elevations. I mean if you look at the contour lines, the catch basins seem to be, from what I can tell, the lowest points, so I am a little less concerned about having curb and gutter immediately, but I would agree with, you know whether it be a 1 year or 2 year timeframe, that if something is not happening on that southern portion, that we should probably get curb and gutter in there. And I think a concrete company is just the perfect person to put that in there so I' m not too terribly worried about the cost of that. I mean it' s not unreasonable to expect that. It's part of our code and if we have a reasonable time frame in there, I think we're okay with that. And I'm not even positive about the trail. I know the nature of the business. I can understand the idea 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 that not a lot of employees might be using that, but by the same token I think one of the goals of our city is to try to get some connectivity and try to get some people to be able to access trails that we have invested in. So that's really I think an important goal for any plan that we look at. So with that, I'll ask for a motion. Feik: Actually Madam Chair, if I could. Blackowiak: Sure. Feik: Sorry. If we did allow for the, for the lack of another way, would you require some sort of erosion control on that southern edge? Either a similar sod or silt fence in lieu of that. Would we need to include that in this at this point or would that be taken care of later? Aanenson: Well there are some other options. Unfortunately we haven't discussed them all with Matt and it's really an engineering call. You could do a temporary bituminous curb. The concern is that you have everything is seeded so you're not creating a lot of sediment going into the pond and then up to that location obviously with next to the primary zone. So that's our intent. Feik: Do we need to address it tonight? Aanenson: Oh I guess what we'd like to say between now and when it goes to council, we think there's some alternatives that we can work with the developer. Again, even if it's a temporary bituminous, something that's satisfactory to engineering that there are some other options that we can present besides doing an escrow, letter of credit. We'll give a list of alternatives to the applicant and provide those when it goes to council but we want'to make sure that we're not allowing sediment to run into that. And there is a grade issue so we'll look at that closely. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. So somebody like to make a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback. Is that still accurate that 15 foot? Generous: Yes, that was revised based on. Sacchet: And to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. With emphasis on no outside storage. Blackowiak: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second that. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 82001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. 2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted. . The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be shown on the grading plan. 4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: We need another motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 33. With the following changes. Number 5. Add a sentence that says, applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. Number 8 1 would like to add a sentence that says, this is the condition about articulation on the north half. I would like to add a sentence that says, tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. Number 18. I would like to add, this is sidewalk condition. I would like to add a sentence that says bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. And number 23, I would like to reword altogether. I'll take a stab at this. So it says, temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'd like to have a friendly amendment. Blackowiak: You need to second first. Feik: I second. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, now you can make your amendment. Feik: I would like to amend that 18 also be subject long term to the concrete sidewalk. That if it is not built, that the sidewalk does go in. That bituminous isn't permanent. Kind: Let me think. I was proposing that that sentence stay there as 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. And then add a sentence, bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. 29 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Feik: But if Phase II isn't completed, we need the language that you put into 23 to tie that to 18. Kind: Yeah. Do you have an idea for that language? Feik: As referenced in 23. Kind: Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built within 2 years. Feik: That'd be great, thank you. Kind: From building permit approval. Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept those amendments? Kind: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review 4/2001-5, plans prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: . A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is permitted on only one elevation. The retaining wall shall be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. . The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a total of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree for a total of 13 trees. A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. . All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site. The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and pond inlet of the existing 48 inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern property line in order to minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond. Park fees in the amount of $18,926 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event prior to building permit approval. Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must be Type 3 heavy-duty. Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building. On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302. Also, show the benchmark used for the site survey. Revise the rock constructiOn entrance to be 75 feet in length as per City detail plate #5301. Add a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac. Bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de- sac to be built within 2 years. Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan. Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility easement. Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West. Utilize the existing 8 inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building permit approval. Replace the casting on the western most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive over type grate. Revise the plans to show the following: a. The existing pond along with the NWL and HWL. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 b. Existing street light locations in Lake Drive West. 26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided. 29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 30. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe. 31. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 32. The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10 foot clear space around all fire hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR FENS; AND ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR CREEKS. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Uli, you're smiling. Go ahead. Sacchet: Ah yes, I have a few questions. Well first of all I want to thank staff for responding so promptly to our request to look at this issue. I really appreciate that. So basically to sum up what you just presented Lori, nobody is impacted to end up with lots that are a goal to build on? There is still plenty of buildable space left. That's basically what you just said, right? Haak: Yes. We looked at all of the parcels we could find, and this is kind of a better map I guess. Of the actual parcels. The other issue that arises in this area is that there's just a lot of wetland out there and if you've ever driven past the site on 212 or gone on the Hennepin County Regional Corridor, you can see that very easily. And so the constraints that are faced by these property owners are greater than, are 32 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 already greater than what we're looking at now. If for instance there is a parcel up in here that for some reason doesn't show up on some of the city maps. And that is primarily wetland already and so even with our current wetland setback of 100 feet, with the first 50 feet being buffer, that lot is probably unbuildable anyway and has been without a variance. And so really why we're tightening things up a little bit, basically the perspective of staff is that we're positioning for future development and we wouldn't be hindering development of the existing parcel. Sacchet: Now my second question, I think the 150 feet was actually a figure that was mentioned to us by the DNR people when we were out there and it makes sense that you use that in your proposal. Now being more the environmentally focused person, I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could we do more? And the reason why I'm saying could we do more is, looking at your documentation in your point 11 you state that buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 and 300 feet beyond the wetland to retain wetland dependent wildlife. And that to me kind of was a trigger that I would say well, why would we not go further than 150 when it says it needs 200 to 300 feet in order to actually protect the wildlife. Can you address that please Lori? Haak: Certainly. If you'll notice, it's kind of mincing words here a little bit but I'll get into it anyway. That says 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. Traditionally fens are located within a wetland basin and so you're going to have wetland on the outside of the fen. Currently our wetland standards, and we haven't amended, we weren't amending those. Our wetland standards are 100 foot setback for pristine wetland with a 50 foot buffer. If that's something that you would like to pursue, that's a different avenue really than we discussed and that we would get into, if we just applied it to pristine wetlands it might get us into a little less trouble if we started doing that for other wetland bodies we would start getting into trouble as far as buildable lots. Sacchet: And that confuses me a little bit as an answer Loft because basically what you're saying is well the fen is within a wetland so why would we even need a fen setback if we already have the wetland setback and we assume that it's wetland around the fen. Can you just clarify that please? Haak: Yeah. Let's see, we'll go back to the diagram I guess. Let's see, in this particular instance we have, and it's a little bit difficult to pick up on the monitors, but we have the fen color if you will, comes down along this bright pink line. Sacchet: Very close. Haak: Right, and there is not a whole lot of space between the fen in that area and Assumption Creek. So there's not a lot of wetland there. Sacchet: So, and I don't mean to interrupt. So in that case then we could say there are instances where there is very little or maybe even hardly any wetland on the edge of the fen which then would come back to my initial question. Why not require more than 150 feet if we say it needs, it says in the report. I believe it comes from some sort of accepted study that it needs 200 to 300 feet to protect wildlife. Haak: We're scared. To be quite honest, there's not a lot of precedent. 150 feet really seemed like something we could get our hands around and we're looking for, the goal was protection. It's up to you, if you're not scared, go for it. But really, looking at something without a lot of precedent, without a lot of precedent that's what we were looking at. We didn't want to get into the takings issue and we were being very cautious of that. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Basically with a balanced approach and then see what the reaction from the community is. Haak: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's fair. That's a good answer. Thanks Lori. Haak: It's the best one I can give. Blackowiak: Deb, you were also on the tour. Why don't you go next. Kind: Yes. Speaking of community, I noticed that nobody was mailed notification of this being on tonight's agenda. The property owners that are affected probably should be notified directly. Haak: That is one thing that I picked up real late. Again, being real honest. And I did think of that. I would also like to get you some feedback for the, from the DNR. From the Lower Minnesota Watershed District allowing the planning commissioners, and potentially the council members who weren't on the tour that perspective as well. And so what I, I was thinking about it a little bit before because I noticed we were talking a lot about public hearings earlier and what I would really like to do, because I think this is an important issue. I'd really like to see this go ahead to the council if the Planning Commission is supportive of it and I don't know, maybe Mayor Jansen could add some, a perspective as to whether or not we could do something at the council meeting as far as a more advertised public hearing for those, particularly directed at those residents. That is one thought that I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Mayor Jansen, do you want to, would that be an option for the City Council to hold a public hearing if people were further noticed about this specific item? Or would you like it to come back to Planning Commission for the public hearing? Mayor Jansen: Well I definitely agree with getting it notified to the property owners, and I guess I'm less intrigued with having the public hearing move onto the council in that we've really tried to establish the policy that our public hearings are being held by this body versus council. They can always come and speak at the council, but I like the idea of any adjustments or any comments that they need to make maybe being handled here and then to your point, any comments you're still feeling like this commission needs to hear from the DNR. I'm hearing that maybe a second meeting would be helpful on both of those issues. Aanenson: And the Watershed District. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kind: Okay, so with that I guess I would like to table this probably and invite those people to come and speak. Blackowiak: Good. Okay, but let's just make sure that the commission members can make their comments and then we'll still I think open it for a public, do you think we should? Kate, give me some feeling here. Should we wait until people are noticed? I suppose it would make sense just to do it all in one fell swoop wouldn't it? Yeah, you're right. Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Mayor Jansen: If I might add, if you do have people who did come this evening to speak to this, you would give them the opportunity and not inconvenience them to the second meeting. I don't think procedurally that's a problem. Blackowiak: No, you're right. Bruce, do you have any comments? Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. Blackowiak: Get commissioners on record here. Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. As I understand there's no MUSA services to that site. Haak: That's correct. Feik: And that's not slated until 2015. Haak: Correct. Feik: What is the future zoning of that? Is that commercial? Haak: Currently it's zoned A-2 and Rural Residential. And that's shown on this map. Feik: But the future zoning once MUSA is. Aanenson: Institutional. Haak: Yeah, office institutional primarily over the site. Feik: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to see how that setback would impact future use. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich? Slagle: Same questions I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, did you have another question? Sacchet: It looks like we're kind of in the comment section already here. Blackowiak: Well actually let's just do the questions and then we'll go through public hearing. If anybody would like to make any comments this evening, and then we'll. Sacchet: That's fine. I'll wait for comments. Blackowiak: Okay. I do have a question of you Loft there before you go back. We, look at my notes here. My notes to myself was compare Assumption Creek setbacks with the fen setbacks. Now, in the fen setback we're talking 150 feet. The trout stream we're talking 125 feet, and then 100 in a couple of cases. Can you explain to me what the difference is and why it's not just a set number for the whole area? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Haak: The primary reason for that would simply be the approach that the city has taken in the past. There is a sort of precedent established in the way the numbers were developed and the way they exist currently. It's not, as I indicated before with Commissioner Sacchet's question, not a whole lot of, we did have a basis. There is some precedent and these things were derived from, basically from the precedent that you have in front of you with the other cities and other agencies. So it's not completely random. There is some method to our madness but we did stick pretty closely to the precedent that we have established through the other, the limited precedent we have. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my second question has to do with specifically the creek setbacks. We have for example natural environment lakes, unsewered at 150 feet and then you're asking for trout streams at 125. Is there a reason that you didn't ask for 1507 I mean, from a water perspective, you know stream versus lake. Help me out here. Haak: Yeah, that was a policy decision. Primarily again looking at buildable area on some of these lots and the existing setbacks on those. So more than the ecological perspective, that was more of a policy decision on our part. Blackowiak: Just to make sure that the buildable lots remain so and. Haak: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. That answers my questions. Deb. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot. I did have one question. On the second to last page of the fen report there is a table from the city code book. Would that too need to be revised to include fens? Haak: No, I believe what we were adding would be a section 2 under that entire 20-406. And so it would be, yeah it's a letter (c) so it would be right before 20-407 where it has the wetland alteration standards and basically what that would do is, in part relieve us from the work that it would involve in going through there. And partly because it is such a special requirement and it is of a very unique nature. We really wanted to call that out in the code as well. Because it doesn't really fit into some of those other requirements. Kind: The reason I ask is the other 4 are laid out neatly in those two charts. Pristine, natural, ag/urban, utilized and it sure makes sense to have another column that says fen and just fill in the appropriate information. Haak: It's something we could do. We thought that it would work very well to have it as a letter (c) just to call it out. But certainly that's something that's negotiable. Blackowiak: So since there's only one fen in the city, I mean am I correct in saying that I guess? I mean one area of. Haak: Right. Right. Kind: So I'll re-state it. It's your view it's not necessary to change the chart? Haak: Precisely. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Kind: Got it. Thank you. Feik: Madam Chair, one more quickly. Are there any approved subdivision lots or anything similar to the first item of business that we had tonight that would be affected by this change? And if you don't know of any, could you research that before this comes back? Haak: There are some lots of record that are located within. Aanenson: The Hesse Farms. Feik: Would they be of similar circumstances as of the first agenda item wherein if we did make this change we made those lots relatively unbuildable? Aanenson: Well we wouldn't make them unbuildable. They'd probably be given an exception or something like that. Lots created prior to so there wouldn't be any additional. The effects on it now would be further subdivide or something that would come in the future. Feik: I'm just trying to figure out what the impact is for the present owners. I mean based on what their plans are. Haak: As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the lots in this area of the fen and the creek already have a lot of wetland on them so chances are they're not buildable anyway without a variance. Or some sort of other permitting. The main ones that we're looking at are the one, the second one I showed you this evening. The parcel that had the seminary building on it. This small parcel here which will actually come before you in a couple weeks, and we're working with some additional conditions. It's not within the proposed revised setbacks so it doesn't affect this piece. This one would fall in the same category. There would still be a small buildable area there. So primarily we think it's addressed. I can look into it in more detail. Feik: Thank you. Slagle: If I can ask just one more. That brings up a question if we're going to see something coming up on one of those sites, is there anything happening with the seminary site that we're aware of? Haak: No. We did have a proposal at the beginning of the spring for a use of that site. That land user is no longer looking at that application on that site. So right now, with the exception of that Parcel, staff is not aware of anything going on in this particular area. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well, this item is open for a public hearing tonight. Please be advised that if you do want to speak to this item, there will be a second public hearing when we get some mom information so that will be noticed in the newspaper and on the web site, but if there's anybody this evening that would like to comment on this, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I hadn't planned on talking about this but Bruce, you brought up a point about the zoning of this land. Without my code book I couldn't go through but it appears to me that impervious surface could be an issue because with industrial 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 land, don't you have a higher percent of the land that can be impervious surface than let's say residential. And impervious surface I would think would have a big effect on the runoff and everything in this area so it might be something you want to look into and consider possible zoning changes if it's such a scarce resource. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kate, that's a good comment. Maybe we want to just kind of consider that when we see it again. If there are any ramifications for us. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to comment on this item? Okay, if not I think I need a motion. Sacchet: How about comments? Blackowiak: Would you like to make comments before we close? Sacchet: I'd like to make comments, yes. Blackowiak: Certainly, go right ahead. Then we can make comments and just realize that we will be able to do this again when it comes before us so. Sacchet: Yes, but I think I'd like to make comments that are relevant at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, go right ahead. Sacchet: First of all, I definitely would like to encourage staff to consider. I mean if we have to stress this point of that it needs 200 to 300 feet setback to protect the wildlife, to me it would be reasonable to make it a 250 foot setback. And since we're taking the temperature of the people that are going to be affected by it, I think that would be a reasonable thing to shoot for. Then I'm a little bit disappointed that we can't pass it. I thought it was a good idea that the council could have the hearing over it. I understand the position so I'm willing to go along with this with the idea that we consider a larger setback at the same time. I do believe that we also need to consider larger setback for the creek in the context that it should be at least 150, but we need to be sensitive to the lots of record and so we, I think as we're looking at this again with the bigger figure that we should re-visit the issue of how does it affect the existing lots because it'd possibly be great if you could go more than 150 with the creek setback. But we have to work within the framework that's possible. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Any more comments? Kind: ...the 150 mark be mentioned as desirous and so I'd be interested in where that came from. Haak: For the creek setback? Just for my clarification. Kind: I'm not really sure what it was for. It just stuck in my mind. Sacchet: We didn't really... Kind: And so I'd be interested in hearing from those folks if they can't come to the public hearing, maybe get some written statements from them or whatever. That's what I'd like to see happen before we see this again and I think we should table it so that we can notify the property owners and some of the people that were on the tour. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any comments you'd like to add? Feik: No, I can wait. Thank you. Blackowiak: No? Rich? Slagle: I'll wait. Blackowiak: Lori, I just have one comment. I was not able to make that first tour but I would certainly like to do a second one if you were so inclined so I guess you know if you're going to notice property owners, maybe at the same time if there happened to be a day you could pick just to say, you're a property owner. I'll be here this day. Come if you want to walk. I mean that might be kind of neat just to get some of the property owners down there to take a look at what's actually going on down there and maybe give them a little bit better understanding of what we're trying to do by this. So with that I would like to have a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission table the staff' s recommendations for the fen and for the Assumption Creek setbacks so that property owners may be noticed and pertinent environmental resource people that were at the tour can also be noticed. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the ordinance amendments creating setbacks for fens and creeks so that property owners and pertinent environmental resource people that were on the tour of the Assumption Creek and fen can also be noticed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: It will be tabled and I'm sure we'll just, it will be in the paper and on the web site so we'll know when it's happening again. Mayor Jansen: Madam Chair, if I could at this time. I would just like to thank Commissioner Kind and Commissioner Sacchet for taking the initiative to bring this forward and direct staff to look into the sorts of significant protections for our community resources. I commend you for having that sort of initiative and moving forward something like this so thank you and I'm sure the rest of the council would thank you also. (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point.) PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 6800 BRULE CIRCLE, NICK GASSMAN. Public Present: Name Address 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Steven D. Bloom 6781 Brule Circle Sandy & Nick Gassman 6800 Bruce Circle Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff?. Uli, go right ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question. This space around that building. On the back side, which would be the west side, there are some retaining boulder walls and on the south side, I think the neighbor has some wooden retaining walls and I just am interested to get a sense of where they are. What's the distance? How far is the wooden retaining wall, the neighbor's land. How far back is the rock retaining wall to the west from the house? Hoium: The applicant might be able to answer this better. From my understanding the boulder retaining · wall is approximately 16 feet back from the house. And the retaining walt on the side of the property line, if we could focus on the site plan itself. It is approximately 5 feet inside of the neighbor's property. Sacchet: 5 feet beyond the property line roughly? Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers that qu_estion. Let's see if I have another one. I think that answers it, thank you. Hoium: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions? Feik: What's the approximately elevation difference between the two lots? Hoium: I do not know. Nick Gassman: About 12 feet. Feik: What does the staff think about the ability to screen? Is there the ability to screen this from the neighbor's view? Aanenson: That I think was our principle reason for denying the variance. It's pretty imposing. Feik: Thank you. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a question about the intent behind side yard setbacks. I'm assuming that there were historically fire reasons for having side yard setbacks. How about movement around the structures? Is there any reason regarding that? Hoium: As far as fire hazard or? Kind: Just to access to the back yard. Is that part of the reason why we have 10 foot. 4O Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Hoium: To keep a separation between the buildings. So there is access. Kind: In this case on the south side though, the separation between the buildings is huge because it's a side yard and a back yard. Hoium: Correct. Kind: And then there's that retaining wall, but the retaining wall does limit the movement around the structure so I' m wondering if that' s a part of why we have side yard setbacks in case you need to access the back yard and that sort of thing. Hoium: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Any questions? Slagle: I will ask it of the applicant as well. Was there discussion of this addition being put on the back yard, assuming that there was 16 feet of?. Hoium: The applicant could answer this question. I had mentioned it and from my understanding it wasn't feasible from the outline of the house itself. Inside of the house itself. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. 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. Nick Gassman: My name's Nick Gassman at 6800 Brule Circle, Chanhassen. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I do need to clarify some of the things. The west side, where you come out of the west side of the house, it's about 14, a total of 14 feet because there's an angle where the boulders were. Those boulders are there to protect full grown trees, for root systems and all that. There used to be a wood wall there. Not unlike the dividing wall between my neighbor Paul Dragsten. Okay. This wall right here is, if you were to see the smaller bushes on the top row, there's about 5 feet there that is actually would be my, what would be considered my neighbor's lot and that's where we've staked and the lot line runs. The wall really limits effectively that's where Paul's lot ends is at that wall. I mean that's as far as using, maintenance. I take care of everything on the top. You know I have for 14 years and so technically the way the lots were drawn, that used to be one big hill that ran to Choctaw and then they had two lots left, this is before I got there, and they came in. Dozed the dirt and just chopped that hill. That used to be a natural incline. Boom, put the wall there. So the wall is, it's not the greatest looking thing in the world but we live with it. Now as far as putting the screen porch on that south side, it really isn't imposing. I think I heard imposing. I've talked to Paul about it. I talked to my other neighbor that actually looks at it. Okay, and Paul Dragsten wrote me a letter of recommendation and said this is cool. We've talked about it. I know it' s going to be a screened in. It would have been a different issue if I had put a shed roof. If we're talking about a shed roof. Where you're looking at roofs. What we've got here is a minimal structure. It' s a roof that runs at the same angle as my roof line now and it' s all screened. It' s clear screen. There's no side walls. There's no siding. And it will be integrated as constructed by my builder to be as natural as it was put up the day the house was built in '79. So it won't be imposing. I have lots of old shrubbery there. Lilac bushes and some other things that will be there. And if I need to put up arborvitaes or something like that as more of a natural, all time winter thing, I'll be happy to do that. I've talked to Paul about that already. But the, do you have any questions so far? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Ah yes. Nick Gassman: Okay. Somehow I knew that. Looking at you, you're looking at questions. Sacchet: Yeah, just one. We actually have a copy of that letter from Paul Dragsten in our packet so we're well aware of that. The issue we have to deal with is the thing with the hardship because we have to treat everybody the same. So we have to live by our rules. And it seems like there are alternatives, and one alternative would be to make the porch shorter. Much less wide. Another alternative would be, and the staff report points it out to try to acquire more land. Maybe the strip that goes up to the boulder wall. Another option is to put it in the back. I mean how do you feel, that's my question, how do you feel about other. I understand that's the best place. You want a screened porch on the south side. That's where the sun comes. That's where it makes... Nick Gassman: Well and if you see that wall, there's no windows. There's no light. That's the largest part of my house and that goes, it funnels right into the dining room. Or the living room. The dining room is broken there. And it's closed. Sacchet: I understand. You don't want to look...alternatives. Nick Gassman: Well we talked the alternatives. I talked to the builder about the alternatives and we talked about originally building out that west side. It just doesn't integrate to the side of the house and you've got to move, because where the kitchen sits and where the dining room is located, there's just no clear flow pattern into the house and so we thought okay. Maybe we can wrap around the corner. Again, that becomes a real problem visually because you get more roof and it' s, so we went back to that south side. And then a functional screen porch, especially when it's going to be, my house is '79. You guys appreciate, I've got a lot of small rooms already. An 8 foot screen porch is so skinny and I have a broad side of my house here. You know it runs 28 feet I believe from end to end and then the porch would run, it'd be 4 feet on either end, if you center it, so it'd be 20 foot. And that gives you depth. I mean pace off 2 paces and you're banging your nose against the screen so you understand it's functional and appearance wise, size wise, it just wouldn't be attractive on that side of the house for that type of skinny. When you talk about, you want to maintain your visual aesthetics for the neighbors as well so that nobody really can see it because of the height differential when you walk or drive down Brule. When you look up you really can't see anything up there. I don't know how many of you folks have actually walked the property. I think Deb came out today and. Sacchet: I didn't walk it. I was on the street. Nick Gassman: So you couldn't really see, yeah so it's a perfect spot for it and given the fact that we do have a little, to use discretion and that there's exceptions to every rule and there's no opportunity to maybe look kindly upon this variance request, that's what I'm here for right now so that we can go ahead with this project. Slagle: You had mentioned there was comments by another neighbor who I assume would be to the west of Paul, who sees it more. Nick Gassman: No, he doesn't see it at all actually. Tom Lauby, his grade is at the same level that Paul Dragsten's is but he's farther west and he's got additional hill, additional shrubbery, trees. He has no visual sight line to that. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: So it's your belief that Paul really is the only one who will see it. Nick Gassman: Absolutely. If you're sitting on Paul's back deck, his house folks is about 40 to 50 feet from where that porch will be to where the back of his house is. If you look at his lot. His lot's right here, okay. And his house is almost to the front of that lot. And my house, well You can see where it is, so there's that very large distance so it's not like I'm looking into his kitchen or anything like that but then he's got a small deck out there. But he was the fa:st person I approached. Are you okay with this and he's the one who's actually, was more aggressive. Go ahead and go to the variance and build it the right way and where you want it so. Been there 14 years. I have no intentions of moving. My kids are leaving. I don't need a big house. Slagle: So if I hear you're suggesting to the inside of the wall that we see on that picture, that would be your living room area on the other side of this or dining? Nick Gassman: Right. If you're on the, if you go to the west side is the dining room area. If you go the right side, it's the living room area and right, if you were to follow that window down, that's approximately the middle and that's where I would punch in a door. And so it's double, it's a skinny 48 inch French door that would swing out for light and air. Slagle: Okay. Just one last question. In the back, if you were to come off, which I think you just described as your dining room I think, or living room. The back of that. Yeah, where the new French door, which I'm assuming is what would go into the house. Nick Gassman: Yes sir. Slagle: You're just saying that it's not going to work in the back yard for. Nick Gassman: No, because the way my dining room is and the way the kitchen comes in, it doesn't work. Just the way the interior of the house is set up. It's kind of queer because I have a, if I didn't, if I rearrange the whole lower level and got rid of the mud room that connected to the family room and move the kitchen and turn that around. You know we went through that whole exercise and it's, I'm taking a $15,000 screen porch and turning it into a $100,000 remodel. Not a good idea. Feik: I had a quick question. Did you consider making some sort of a screened access way that might have been 6 or 8 feet wide that would adjoin to a screened in porch that would be off the back? So that you would sort of merge one, the views out of the one side but yet accommodate the larger deck where it 'would not. Nick Gassman: No I did not but it gets back, it's to the larger screen and the way it's situated or would sit on the lot and the house itself and the way you'd have to position the roof, the shed roof, the visual impact. It wouldn't look like it was a well designed part of the house. We want this to be'as minimal impact and just like it's been there for the 22 years the house has been standing. It's why no three season, no four season. No windows. No heater. You know, just a screened porch. Very basic. Feik: One other quick question. What is the elevation of this deck over the existing ground? How tall is it? 43 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Nick Gassman: It's on the ground. It's not really a deck. What it is is two series of like they're not foundation. They're like platforms. They're like little platforms. It's like a 4 by 6 framed in box that's laying on the ground by my, so in the winter when I walk. Feik: No, I mean the new screened in porch. The floor, the elevation of that floor, how high is that above the ground? I'm trying to figure out how much higher that is than the existing turf. Nick Gassman: Okay, I understand. Feik: It doesn't really show and I'm just trying to get some idea. Kind: It's about 2 feet. Nick Gassman: And that would be high. I mean it's maxed. Just the way it's got to tie it into the main. Feik: Okay. So the drawing is relatively to scale, that bottom portion. Okay, thank you. That's all I had. Nick Gassman: It will be very, very close to the ground. Would require minimal skirting. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this item, please come up. State your name and address for the record. Steve Bloom: My name is Steve Bloom. I'm at 6781 Brule Circle. I'm across the street from Nick. My interest in this is that I'm Nick's cigar smoking buddy and I don't particularly like the site because it's surrounded by trees so much so that it's not imposing on anyone, I can speak for the neighbors. You really can't see it, but it is really the only place that he could put from the inside the house in terms of how it works. Our neighborhood is 44 homes. We're an association. We have beach front property that we share. Anybody's business in our neighborhood in everyone's business. I think that the entire neighborhood was notified. I'm going to assume that nobody's had a problem with the proposal and just by self imposing and neighborhood gossip, because we share the beach and do parties and such, it really is not intrusive on anyone. Again, this picture right here, if I could, it was taken from a place where you can see the side of the house but really from the road and just about anyplace I could think of, other than the Dragsten's back yard, you really can't see it so I'm thinking that if Nick doesn't get the variance and he has to build the porch 6 feet or 8 feet wide instead of 12 feet, it's going to look the same from anybody's perspective. I think the issue as to whether there should be access to the back yard's a pretty solid question, but I don't know. I can't really address that. The standards that we've set in the neighborhood are around value of the homes look. Neighborhood character if you will, and of course safety for the children. Everybody has 2 and 3 children in their neighborhood. So to that, you can't see it. And two homes were next to each other with the same space, I could see that it might be somewhat intrusive but since there's so much space into the next yard, I don't feel that that's. You know we talk about reasonable use. I moved out here from the East Coast and I didn't know that the state bird was the mosquito and I kind of feel like, as I moved into the neighborhood in the middle of the winter, had I had another opportunity I might have looked for a home that had a screened in porch. My wife and I constantly talk about whether we could do it in our own home and I don't think we have figured out how to do it. I think it's a great opportunity and it does bring value to the neighborhood. To the house re-sale value and I think it's an important thing to have. And those are basically my comments. Just from a homeowners perspective. It would be unfortunate if there wasn't a variance given, if that's the right 44 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 terminology in that we support each other in the neighborhood. We had a variance I think that was approved not too distant past in the Weatherby's home where they added some decking and it was something that, it is visible from the common property that walks, there's a walkway behind and everybody supported it because we support each other in the neighborhood. But it was a lot more intrusive. And you know I hear the comments about 25,000 square foot construction buildings and putting a new home and I don't even know what I heard around fen but it was very complicated. This is real simple and it's not, it won't bother anybody so if you could see the way through it, that would be great for me personally. Thanks for your time. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot I did have a question of the applicant. How do you propose to get around your home if the screened porch is approved and one of your boulder's falls off?. How do you get a heavy equipment back there to repair your retaining wall? Nick Gassman: Well the builder, the boulder builder, he assured it never would happen. We do have another access around on the other side of the house. I have a small shed that is portable. I mean you'd have to drag it but it' s moveable so there' s access around that, coming from the north side around, and from the family room and back through. You could get a Bobcat down there. Small front end, there's plenty of room to get in if something, don't say it, tragic like that would happen, but that boulder wall's not going anywhere. We'll all be dead before that wall moves. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this item? Seeing no one I will, did I even open the public hearing? Kind: I'm not sure. Blackowiak: I don't know. Well I'll open the public hearing if anybody else would like to comment. And if nobody did, I will close the public hearing. I can't remember if I even said that. I'm getting tired. Okay. Commissioners, comments. Rich. Slagle: I can start. Question to staff as a preview to my comments. Was this mailed, and I don't see a list of the mailings on this one? Hoium: Yes it was mailed. Slagle: Maybe I'm missing it. Blackowiak: I too am missing it. Slagle: Okay, but Julie it was, right? Hoium: Yes it was. Slagle: Okay. Okay, good. You know in today's world they can be very selective in who they mail to. Aanenson: There's probably about 40 names. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Slagle: Fair enough. Boy, this is a tough one. I mean I think we all are, I'll speak for myself, emphasize with you. The issue is is we have the codes and we can grant variances but boy that hardship issue, it's tough and with staff and their recommendation to deny it, I just haven't seen yet the reason to change that. I'm just being honest. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Uli, why don't you. Sacchet: ...I definitely sympathize with, I mean is this the perfect place to put it. On the other hand I'm not convinced that all the alternatives have sufficiently been explored. Staff I think mentioned 3 alternatives. The one with the wrapping. One with making it shallower and there's also reference to a similar situation where one of the neighbors had a similar project, ended up getting a couple feet of property from the neighbor so that the setback wasn't encroached on. Now basically what my position is is very simple. I think from our position from a planning commission, we don't have the latitude to make exceptions in that sense when things are this clear. We have to go by the code and based on the code I think I cannot say that there is a real hardship demonstrated because I have a hard time considering it a hardship that you can't have your 12 to 14 foot porch when you can put a 8 foot porch in and also wrap it around the house, or if you buy a couple feet of property from the neighbor to do it the way you want. I think the latitude of making an exception like that is made, it's on the City Council level. Not on the Planning Commission level and I feel therefore compelled to go with staff recommendations and passing it onto the council to review it because you can appeal it and then the council looks at it and the council does have latitude to look at that. I would however very much recommend that you explore the alternatives a little more to have that whole picture in front of council when you do that. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: Madam Chair. I too am worried about setting a precedent with something like this. The applicant does have a reasonable use of the lot and not having a screened porch is not considered a hardship, although I would consider it a hardship if I didn't have one so it's, I can empathize with it. I do think there is a hardship in that the size of the lot is substandard and the home was built before the current setbacks were put in place. I think there is hardship there. If this was a reasonable use as far as what's required to make the lot useable so I don't see not having a screen porch as being a hardship. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I'm loath to deny a request such as this based strictly on the hardship issue. I know we would be setting precedence but it seems to me...our blessings and permission to vary from the guidelines. I think there's things that the homeowner could do such as making it maybe more irregular shaped so that he encroaches on the one corner 2 feet less. But I would, if I were the homeowner, I understand his position and I would hate to have it denied strictly based upon setting precedence regarding the hardship issue. Kind: That is why we must deny it. Feik: I know. And I agree with it. Blackowiak: Yeah, and it's unfortunate that, and I've said this before. We often see things that we'd love to say yes, let's go ahead but we as a commission are bound to follow ordinance and if there's not a hardship demonstrated, we cannot deviate. That's just bottom line. However, the City Council does have that leeway if they so choose and I would certainly encourage you to appeal this variance decision 46 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 within 4 days, which is the legal time line here, because I'm sensing that's the way this direction is, this vote is going because unfortunately we again, in my opinion I guess, unfortunately we have to follow the letter of the law and if it doesn't meet the hardship requirements, we cannot approve it so, based on that I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Okay Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance//2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest corner of the proposed porch and the 2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast corner of the same proposed porch based on the following, 1 and 2 as stated and add a third one. It appears there are alternatives to put a porch in place that need to be further researched. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion made. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance g2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest corner of the proposed porch and the 2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast corner of the same proposed porch based on the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3. It appears there are alternatives that need to be further researched. All voted in favor, except Feik and Slagle, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 3 to 2. The variance is denied. Kind: Is 3 to 2 enough? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes. You have to have 80% to approve so commissioners who voted no, would you like to make any further comments for the record or have you stated what you needed to? Slagle: I tell you why I voted nay was to the, was it a third item? And maybe we should have asked if there were comments on the additional, that's why I voted no. I didn't think we needed the third item. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: I have no comments. Blackowiak: No further comments Bruce, okay. So, for this item it's, I have to read this. Any person aggrieved of the decision may appeal a variance decision within 4 days of said decision. Kate, could you maybe either speak to the applicant or have somebody speak to them on what the process is for them to appeal this decision since I'm assuming they will do so, and I encourage them to do so. Okay. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,800 SQ. FT. AUTO SERVICE BUILDING LOCATED ON WEST 82ND STREET, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, ARBORETUM SERVICE CENTER, MIKE SCHLANGEN. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Feik: Sure. Blackowiak: Bruce, why don't you start. Feik: You said that this site, and I may have misunderstood. This site was excluded when the original PUD was issued for the surrounding properties? Generous: It was included under the rezoning when the parameters for development were established. However it was an exception to the subdivision that included the rest of the development. Aanenson: The city held the property. It was excluded from the development. Feik: The city owned the property so the tree count on this existing parcel did not, was not a factor in making the previous decisions for the PUD? Generous: Correct. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: Just to clarify too. Again the city bought the Wrase property with the intention of putting the water tower on this site. As it developed the water tower moved off the site and so it's a potential developable site. Feik: My concern was that the trees were part of a previous arrangement as related to the PUD surrounding it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I have a question when it comes to the city owning a piece of property like this. Is this something that the city, City Council, city administration is supportive. I mean the whole bidding process. Aanenson: There is a purchase agreement that the City Council has to approve and that is scheduled for a City Council meeting so that's outside of your perusal but yes, that will be handled by the City Council purchase agreement and the sale. Blackowiak: So it's really not, we don't even care who owns it is bottom line. 48 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: Is we need to just go ahead and look at what's here and look at the project and decide if it meets the criteria we're setting. Aanenson: I just want to give you the background of, you know we bought the property from the Wrase's who weren't willing to sell. We thought it didn't make sense to leave that out and just leave them as a remnant and to rezone that. And the purpose of buying it was to put the water tower on there. As development progressed, the water tower got moved to a different site. : Blackowiak: To the east, yeah. Aanenson: And we sold them some of the property to the Citgo to make that work and this is kind of a remnant piece. And looking at it, we felt it ties into that piece for access. It's a small building. It matches up well with what's there. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? No? Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. As I talked with you before Bob on this already because I had a lot of questions, and I'd like to revisit some of those so they're on the record. My first question was, is there a reason, if so what is the reason, that auto service was excluded from the PUD? Generous: Well as for the overall project we were looking at, we didn't want to make this an auto mall site if you will where you had a dealership and then all the related businesses that came in. And had we opened this up as an overall development for that, that could easily have happened. We thought that this was a good, the overall development was a good office industrial project with some corporate headquarters and office warehouse space. However we were also looking, we didn't look beyond just the perimeter. We had 4 lots that we said could develop commercially. The Wrase property wasn't one of them at the time. However in looking at the potential, the constraints on that site, it doesn't work for office use. The access is bad. It's the 2, another auto related development and so that we said, maybe it makes sense to go and make this change. Aanenson: And the other use of looking at it is smaller. It may lend itself to something like fast food which we didn't want down there, which wants a high visibility. This is a use that we felt, with the relationship of the existing Citgo, could survive without the visibility that somebody else may want. Sacchet: That answers my question. Thanks. The next question. The visibility from the south to me wasn't real pleasant thing that the Citgo site also needed...and obviously this is going to be quite a bit higher. It will be more visible and I wondered, the south elevation, the back part of it, that's got to be fairly visible from, if you drive north. Coming from the south side of 41, correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And the back part where those garage doors are, it's pretty blank. The upper half of it. Generous: Yes, it has the brick top and bottom. Base of block. The darker block. Sacchet: Does staff think there is enough architectural interest on that facade? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Generous: Well we were looking at the landscaping and depth to eventually fill that in. We're requiring additional landscaping on the south side of the parking lot area. Sacchet: That's on quite a steep slope, isn't it? Aanenson: It could use additional banding or something. Generous: You could probably put a band in it, yeah. That would help to tie it to the front. Sacchet: That answers that question. The retaining wall, the low retaining wall on the north side, that's concrete block retaining wall? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: That's the material? Now that's far enough away from those trees that we're trying to preserve that...concern. Generous: It looks like it's outside of their critical root zone. Sacchet: Okay. There is recommendation by staff to add 5 additional deciduous overstory trees. Would that be on the south side or where would that be? Generous: Most of them were on that south side there. I believe some are on the east. Sacchet: It specifies that there would be some shrubbery on the south side. I don't think it was clear that it's deciduous. Generous: Part of the buffer yard calculations. Sacchet: It's not necessarily specified where it's at? Which side it would go at this point. The grading, the movement of dirt is pretty severe on this site. We're basically talking about digging into that hill by Lot 1, what does it say 30 to 40 feet. And that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it puts the building lower. Generous: Right. And you can get a little bit of screening for the parking lot area. Sacchet: Now on the south side there is a stretch where the grade will be excessive on the requirements of 3 to 1. Do we know how that will be mitigated? Generous: That's on the property to the south. I think it was approved as part of that site plan. Sacchet: So it wouldn't be mitigated? Generous: No. It's been. Aanenson: It's in place. Generous: Yeah, it's in place. They're revegetated. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: That's not how I read this blueprint. It looks like the steepest part is on the top with the new grading. Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners, maybe I can add something. We do have a condition where, and they're showing proposed grades along the south side less than 3 to 1 in some areas. I think there's a condition where it says either comply with the 3 to 1 requirement or install a retaining wall. We also mentioned that any off site grading you' 11 need easements, that sort of thing for it. I believe they own both properties though so that shouldn't be an issue. Sacchet: But at this point we don't know... Saam: I think it's correct in the condition. If the condition is accepted whereas they have to meet 3 to 1 or install a retaining wall. It's in black and white. Sacchet: Okay. We also ask him for the parking stalls to be a little bigger in the turn around. Do we know how that would be mitigated? Saam: No. I haven't spoken with them but maybe Bob has or the applicant can answer that. Sacchet: One of our site plan findings criteria, preservation of the site in it's natural state to the extent practical by minimizing tree and soil removal. Staff believes that we meet that sufficiently? Aanenson: Well if you want it to develop, I mean you're going to have to compromise somewhere. Sacchet: Now the thing with the trees. I have an issue with the tree inventory. It doesn't, it's not consistent. I mean the trees on the south already...basically newly planted. On the rest of the survey the trees are I think minimum 6 inch. Generous: It's a 12 inch. Sacchet: So at this point we don't know which row of trees on the north side would be counted for relocation at this point? Or how many of them? Generous: No. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: A question to staff. I noticed on page 2 in your proposal summary, I think it is, bear with me. The second paragraph at the bottom. You mentioned the developer is still finalizing the amount of property that is being purchased for this project. At a minimum they will require all the land being graded for the project. Is there anything that we should be concerned about? I mean we're looking at a survey of a particular site? Anything that, would there still to be an amount determined. Aanenson: Bottom line is the approved site plan has to meet what they're purchasing or vice versa so that will get reconciled at the council to match up. That it meets the setbacks. I'm assuming that's... Slagle: Okay. Yeah, that's exactly. Okay, that's all. 51 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, do you have any questions? Kind: Not at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce? Feik: No. Blackowiak: Okay I just have a couple quick questions I think. On page 5 on the bottom it talked about no surface water management fees. Can you explain that to me? It says because it didn't undergo the subdivision process. Why is this exempt? I don't quite understand. Generous: Our Surface Water Management fees are actions that are taken as part of the subdivision review process. Aanenson: So are park and trail. Generous: Right, and this isn't a subdivision. It's an existing lot of record. So we can't take those fees. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, I guess I'm not, I mean I understand but I don't know if I'm convinced. Noise, loud speakers, etc. I know in the past we have had conditions, especially with auto related businesses regarding the fact that there can't be any loud speakers, no outdoor loud speakers, things like that. Is that a condition that we should be looking at adding to this project? Generous: I didn't think it'd be an issue but if it's something that concerns the community, it's definitely appropriate to add it. Blackowiak: I'm just thinking in terms of consistency with auto related. Maybe it's something we should look into and again that might not be, the neighbors might not mind but then again they might. Who knows? Hours of operation. Are we concerned at all about that? It's another issue I know we've had with auto related. Generous: Yeah. You run into the nuisance ordinances if it gets too late at night and generally that's more in the residential area that has a direct impact and this is in an industrial park. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, those are my questions right now. Alrighty. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make any comments? Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development and Dan Beerman, the Associate Architect and Mike Schlangen, the building owner are here with me tonight. I think staff did a good summary. I might just clarify one issue, if I could look at the grading plan to talk about the slopes and some of the landscaping. First, maybe to give a background. Just as an orientation, the corner here is at 1000 at 82nd Street and Highway 41. The floor level of the convenience store is 994. This is 1005, the floor level approximately at the proposed building. The buildings to the north, the two office warehouse buildings, office showrooms are 1015 and the base basically of the water tower is 1020. So retaining wall is here and we're having 3 to 1 slope here and then the existing slope here to develop these terraces. And then landscaping wise, we're saving the row of mature deciduous and pine trees up in here and reinforcing the 52 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 landscaping on the existing slope. Looking at the slope diagram, as a point of clarification, when we met with staff we added 20 feet to the purchase. Subsequent to that Mr. Schlangen has added another 15 feet so we will have the 3 to 1 slope on this side and we will save the mature line of evergreens in this area with a small retaining wall. Aanenson: Can I just comment on that real quick Fred? That goes back to your question Rich regarding the slope. Our point was if you're grading it, you should purchase it so that's where the line was moving back so whatever they're grading, what they need to get the 3 to 1 slope is what they need to purchase. So it wouldn't affect the building setback or anything like that. It's just a slope easement so. Fred Richter: And one clarification in the staff report was a 10 foot, I believe that would be standard kind of turning radius of this last stall. Having maneuverability, that will have to be incorporated if we don't get a 3 to 1 slope. Then there will have to be a small retaining wall on it so that's some fine tuning. I think from a practical standpoint and clarification, we would like to keep this existing slope that's already in and stabilized and there' s a lot of the trees established there. We would propose reinforcing these trees. I think that was a point of clarification on the landscaping because we really do want to reinforce the trees here because in the rendering that was a sincere effort to kind of indicate how that view from 41 does get some screen here, albeit the slope reaches a high point and then falls off straight. We will look at it with staff, whether a shrub or something line there helps too. But the intent is, if you want to hand me the perspective I'll just reiterate that. This is a view from Highway 41 down about at that 1000 level looking up at the 1005 and then this is that reinforced south slope. Develop a screen for the parking area and the overhead doors. This is the mature tree line of the deciduous trees between this site and the site to the north, and the actual water tower is back in this area here with some larger trees at it's base and that would also be reinforced in the landscaping plan. So I think those are just the overall. Aanenson: Yeah, I'd just like to add one other thing too regarding slopes that Mr. Richter is talking about too. If you recall the consternation we went through with this entire project was regarding the fact that it needed a lot of earth movement and what we finally struck the balance is that we would have a lot of plateaus. And that' s how we would accomplish the varied heights of the buildings and that' s how this is working right now. You can see the stepping up of the buildings. Instead of going and mass grading, and that's where we spent a lot of time. Whether we were going to go back to housing or whether it should be industrial because we guided it industrial and said well, if it' s going to be industrial, how are we going to make it work without grading it. So that was the compromise that was struck so there are going to be steeper slopes on the site but that was the flexibility that was given to allow the height difference and reducing the grading amount. Blackowiak: Well commissioners, are there any questions of the applicant or is there a further presentation? Any questions of the applicant? Get him back up here if we need to. Sacchet: I think he pretty much answered my questions. Blackowiak: Alright. Well this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to comment on this matter, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mike Schlangen: Hi. My name is Mike Schlangen and I'm at 1941 Melody Hill Circle in Chanhassen. A couple of the questions that you had, as far as loud speakers. We won't have any loud speakers outside the building. We will have a communication system somehow inside the building but not outside. Hours of operation will be less than what the Citgo is now which is 6:00 to 10:00 Monday through Saturday and 53 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 7:00 to 10:00 on Sunday so those are the two questions. I don't know if anybody's got any other questions for me. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions of this applicant? Slagle: No questions but you have a great Citgo there. Blackowiak: Okay, would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you'd like to make comments. Deb, would you like to start? Kind: Sure. I agree that the use of this site for an auto center is compatible, especially with that Citgo nearby. And it' s a nice design and I support Uli' s idea of adding, or I don't know who' s idea it was. I think it was Kate's actually, of adding an accent band just to minimize the height of the building. I think that subtle change would help it visually reduce the height of the building but I think it's a nice looking building and a good addition to our city. Blackowiak: Okay Bruce, any comments? Feik: Yeah, it's fine. I welcome you. I think it's going to be a good addition to that corner. My only minor concern is the broad definition of auto service maintenance, versus operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. Would that include auto body shops? Would that include, I mean auto maintenance. Aanenson: The beauty of this PUD is that we can be specific and if you're uncomfortable, then please be more specific. Feik: Auto maintenance is fairly broad. Aanenson: Sure. Be happy to narrow that down for you because we wouldn't want that either if this went away so if you want to give us some direction, we'd be happy to work on it before it goes to council. Feik: I would say certainly, where you've got in the first or the second line of the first paragraph. Auto service centers engaged primarily in supply of goods and services generally required in the operation. It is intended that... Aanenson: If you want to get more specific than that. Feik: Is a Tires Plus kind of a thing? I mean it could become fairly broad if we, with maintenance of motor vehicles. I just want to make sure we know what we're getting. Aanenson: Sure. We'd be happy to make that, work with the applicant and make sure that's narrow enough that you're comfortable. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, while we're talking about this. As I read the amendments, it talks about amending the PUD to permit an auto service center on the Wrase property. So we're just talking to an amendment at this specific site, is that correct? Generous: Correct. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: So we could not go to any other site within the Gateway Park? Generous: They would need a separate amendment. Blackowiak: So does that help at all for you? Feik: No, it doesn't actually. I just want to make sure we understand what we're getting. Aanenson: Right, I agree. Feik: If it' s a, could a Firestone go in there under this definition? I think it might be able to and I just want to make sure everybody understands that that is a possibility and if you do or you don't have a concern with the Arboretum being across the street with the kinds of noises that you might have with a Tires Plus or a Firestone. If you're comfortable with it that's fine. I just think we need to make sure that we understand what, how broadly this is defined and that we're okay with it. Because it's more than just a retail Pep Boys. Blackowiak: Alright, good point. Rich, do you have any comments? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yes, I have comments. First of all I do agree with the fact that an auto service use is appropriate here. I support that amendment to the PUD. I think the framework is well set. I share your concern that we wouldn't want a body shop there, but car service I think is well explained in the staff report makes sense there to me. I would like to see a little extra interest on the south elevation like a band up there over those... I do have some issues though and I want to cover those briefly in my comments. When I first looked at this I was very unhappy, not that being a planning commissioners has anything to do with being happy or unhappy but I was very concerned about the situation with the trees. Basically on this, I don't know what this drawing is called. The one that shows the trees. There are 70 trees shown and 32 are X'd meaning they're going to be cut. 23 evergreens and 9 deciduous. And then it shows 38 as saved. It's unrealistic that they're all going to be saved. At least 4 of them are this grading line right through the, more or less the middle of them so basically it' s a 50/50 tree loss with an extreme grading so I took issue that this did not meet our preservation of the site...practiceable by minimizing tree and soil removal. However, when I went out there I realized that the damage had pretty much already been done in terms of the trees. Most of those evergreens are in terrible shape. Most of those large deciduous trees have been damaged when the building was burned, as the fire department had their exercise out there, so I felt that mitigated my concern somewhat because it's basically ruined. However, I found a new concern in that the tree inventory's really totally inconsistent. All those little trees on the south, because it's not evident on the plan that they're little. All those trees on the south side that don't have.., saved tree site, are basically little trees that have been planted with a diameter of maybe an inch, maximum 2 inch. While on the north side there is a whole area where right now we only have 3 evergreens shown, where there is probably at least half a dozen to a dozen trees that are significantly bigger than any of the trees that are shown on the south, and those are the trees that I believe staff is referring to that some of them could be moved. Again, not all of them are very good shape. Some of them are. And I think we would have to be very clear to identify what's there and that should be moved. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Maybe say should be investigated, and I don't know if that' s good enough but under the circumstance I think I'd be willing to make a condition that staff work with the applicant on identifying those trees and make sure that we know which ones are going to be moved. That it's a clear situation. Also I want to request from staff that before this goes to council, that this tree inventory is a little clearer. Frankly it's misleading at this point. To me it's borderline that I would ask to table this. But since I'm the more environmental person and I don't think it would go through, I'll try to mitigate this so that's a definite concern. Also the current plan doesn't really show how the width of those stalls in the south will be widened. How that turn lane goes around. When the applicant presented, I understand there will be facilities, turning features that goes into the west side of the property with a retaining wall and those trees there so I don't have a concern with that. That's a reasonable answer for that one. I'm willing to settle with the amount of grading, or soil removal I should say for the advantage that this building's going to be tucked in more so that we get something out of that. But I think it needs some work before this can be presented to council so I would, in order for me to be able to support this going through to the commission here, recommend approval for the council, I'd like to pass conditions that clearly state that all trees marked saved need to be saved. Need to have tree protection fencing around, because I think...grading lines very close or into them. I would like to specify that staff would work with the applicant to identify the moveable trees and that they would be moved. And that the tree inventory be more accurate. Consistent. Not misleading. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have any? Kind: I think I already made my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. You were kind of nodding there so I wanted to make sure. Okay. My comments are fairly similar. I was a little concerned about amending the PUD for a specific use since I went back to my little old file here and pulled out my preliminary PUD stuff and it specifically said no auto 'related. And as I looked at the site and went out there, for this instance it does make sense. I don't know what else you could really do with that site. The access isn't great. The, even the visibility isn't great. I mean there's going to be some, you're going to see it but you're going to probably already be by it by the time you really see it so unless you drive the area on a fairly regular basis, I think you might not even know it's there. One comment I do have, and I guess I didn't really, I neglected to address it in my questions or comments earlier was an item in the report on page 3 that said the site is not conducive to pedestrian access and I don't know if I really agree with that statement. We' ve got a place where you may, if you work in the area, be dropping off your car and it probably will take some time to get done. So I'm thinking that maybe we should look into pedestrian access of some sort because it just makes sense that if you drop your car off, you may need to have to walk back to work or you may have to walk over to the gas station to call for a ride or whatever. You may want to just take a little walk while your car gets the oil changed for a half hour or whatever so Kate, go ahead. Aanenson: I agree with you but the issue is the grades between. We've got retaining walls. 3 to 1 slopes. It gets difficult to get. Generous: You need a stairway. Aanenson: Yeah, you could maybe put a stairway in. Blackowiak: Well I mean maybe I'm just saying that maybe before it goes to council we could look into some options because I don't know if I necessarily, I mean it might not be easy but I think we should look into it because people will be dropping their cars off and I think that we, if they want a little walk or 56 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 something and time to wait for their car, I think that we should utilize the trails and the paths that are already existing in that business park because I think that's a real neat feature in that park so. So I'd like to see that explored before it goes to council. I guess aside from that, my issues about noise and hours of operation were addressed and I'd like to have a motion please. Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to planned unit development, PUD 4/92-6 to permit an auto service center on the Wrase property... - Blackowiak: No, I think it should just be one at a time. Sacchet: Okay, that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it with a friendly amendment. To add a condition number 1 that auto body repair is prohibited. Sacchet: Accepted. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD ~)2-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with the following condition: 1. Auto body repair is prohibited on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Okay next motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan 4/2001-8, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated 5/4/01, subject to the following conditions 1 through 36. And I'd like to modify some of them. I'd like to modify number 12 to read, the developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the north property of the site. That' s period. That' s fine. And we could say appropriate smaller trees. I mean that's up to staff and the developer to identify those. And number 17. Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off the southwest coruer of the parking lot. Tree protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. I'd also like to add a sentence, silt fence and tree protection fencing will be removed after construction. And let's see. An additional, number 37. The applicant will work with staff to add additional architectural interest to the south elevation. That' s probably specific enough. If you want to make it more specific, go ahead. Number 38. Staff will work with, or the developer will work with, well I don't know which way you work. Or both ways or together. Whichever comes first. But to identify pedestrian access to this site. Okay? And I'd like to add a condition number 39. Staff will work with the developer to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate. I believe we already covered the moving of the trees. Saving...trees. Okay, that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. 57 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 Kind: I'd like to make a friendly amendment if I can. I don't know what number you're at Uli but I'd like to specify that no outdoor loud speakers will be allowed. Sacchet: That's accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #2001-8, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated 5/4/01, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The grading plan shall be revised to show the placement of silt fence. 3. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4. The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that off-site ponding will be adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 7. A decorative show box fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square ornamental pole shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded with a 90 degree light cut-off. Any wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view. 8. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. 9. Add five deciduous overstory trees adjacent to the parking area and specify species in the plant schedule. Submit revised plan to City. 10. The applicant shall plant a minimum of 30 shrubs between the south property line and the parking area. The locations and species shall be noted in a revised landscape plan. 11. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to grading around all trees to be saved. 12. The developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the northern portion of the site. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Add the following 2001 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans: 1004, 1006, 3101, 3102, 5203, 5300, and 5301. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site. Add an approved fence on the top of all retaining walls over 4 feet in height. Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off of the southwest comer of the parking lot. Tree protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. Silt fence and tree protection fencing must be removed after construction. Add a benchmark to the plans. Any off-site grading or construction will require easements. Revise the slopes along the south and east property lines to meet the City's maximum slope grade of 3:1 or install retaining walls. A private utility easement is required over the portion of the water service that is outside of the property limits. The property has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the property is subject to city sewer and water hook-up and connection charges. The 2001 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,144 a piece. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit being issued. A cross access easement is required over the shared portion of the TH 41 driveway access which serves both the subject property and the Citgo property. Increase the length of the parking stalls along the south side of the building to be 18 feet long and provide acceptable turnaround areas at the east ends of the parking lot, as required by City code. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc. b. Show one standard size for all manhole structures. c. Delete the retaining wall that is shown on the property to the east. On the utility plan: a. Include a note near the watermain connection that says, "Restore Water Tower Drive With Heavy-Duty Bituminous Section (See Grading Plan)". b. Add north arrow and bar scale. c. Show the proposed water pipe easement. 59 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 d. Under the Construction Notes add, "All connections to existing manholes shall be core- drilled". e. Rename the proposed storm CB2 to CBMH2. f. Rename MH1 to STMH1. g. Revise existing MH4 invert to be 988.35. h. Add a storm sewer schedule. Invert for the existing sanitary manhole is 992.65. Show one standard size for all manhole structures. Lower the storm sewer line between CBMH2 to STMH1 so it's below the rim elevation of STMH1. i. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc. 27. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 28. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 29. The access aisle for the accessible parking space must be a minimum of 8 feet wide. 30. The service area toilet room must be adaptable as required by Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 31. A 1 hour fire resistive occupancy separation is required between the service area and the customer area. 32. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 33. The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process. 34. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 35. A post indicator valve (PIV) will need to be added to the water line going into the building. This is to shut down fire protection in the event of an emergency in the building. 36. Add a hydrant on either side of the main entrance onto the property. One hydrant is not sufficient for this project. 37. The applicant shall work with staff to add additional architectural interest to the south elevation of the building. 38. The applicant shall work with staff to identify pedestrian access to the site. 39. The applicant shall work with staff to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate. 40. No outdoor loud speakers will be allowed on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE THRU WINDOW, SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A 4,882 SQ. FT. CULVERT'S RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 2m~ ADDITION, WAYNE RISER & ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Robert Savard Kelly G. Walker Luke Fowler Steve Kneeland Mark Clarey Vernelle Clayton Wayne Riser 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 250 Lake Drive East 422 Santa Fe Circle 13500 James Avenue, Burnsville Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions of staff. Go ahead. Feik: Have you discussed with the applicant how the western portion would be treated if the drive thru were denied? And what would be changed on the plans? Generous: We pointed it out in the staff report. We have discussed it with them and I'd like them to make their presentation regarding that whole issue. Feik: Thank you. I guess that was my one big question. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: Yes, they know we want a bigger seating area. Feik: On the south side. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: South and west side. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, you want to go ahead? Sacchet: Yeah, a couple quick questions. So you say that part of the building to the north where currently there are no windows is basically office and storage? Generous: Well there's different areas but the most northerly portion has an employee break room in it and so they could put a window on the west elevation. Yeah, it shows up as break room on the south end. That's actually the west elevation. And then down in that office area, they could put another window in. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: I'll ask that of the applicant. I guess that's... Now in terms of the landscaping, it appears that a fair amount of landscaping to the north and northwest is actually in the wetland area. What' s the city policy of doing planting in wetland? Generous: It's their private wetland. It would have to be natural plantings. Sacchet: But they can plant, did anybody look at what they're proposing? Whether that's appropriate for a wetland. Generous: Both Jill and Lori reviewed this. Sacchet: Okay. It says there's some additional grading needed outside the property limits. Is that like at the entrance or? Saam: Yes, I can address that. It's on the south end on the site plan. They're showing some grading. B ob mentioned that turning radius at the end of the drive thru. Sacchet: Okay. And then we have a condition here, you're requesting that they provide some as-built plans before they get a permit to do this. As-built plans of what? Saam: Did you want to address this? Aanenson: Go ahead. Saam: As part of this, the approval of this development, there was a requirement which stated'that the developer and his or her engineer must supply us with as-built plans. What those are are plans which shows what pipes are in the ground. The size of those inverts. That sort of thing. Basically a record keeping. Sacchet: But that would be for other sites around it, not for this particular site? That's what I'm trying to get clear. Saam: Yep, yep. It's for the entire development but since it hasn't been done yet, we typically hold up building permits for developments until that's done. Sacchet: So that's standard procedure? Saam: Correct. Sacchet: We're not holding this one piece of property hostage because something's missing for the remaining whatever many. Saam: Well we've done it before. It's standard in the city. Sacchet: Hold some development up? Saam: Yep. 62 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. That answers it. That's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, you have any questions? Kind: Yes I do. In the staff report you attach the PUD development design standards and in there it specifically says that no free standing fast food was allowed in the PUD, yet you support this. Can you explain that? Generous: Well we didn't look at this as a typical fast food establishment. Those are the food's already prepared. You come up. It's ready to go. These you make specific orders and then you have to sit down and wait and they actually have waiters, people that bring the food out to you and by definition that's a restaurant. Kind: Okay. I've been to the Culver's in Navarre. It's very similar to fast food, but you're right. There' s a minor distinction there. I' ye got to flip around here to find my questions. I know I had another one. Oh, the EFIS material is also on the columns that have been added and therefore they're in foot and hand traffic areas. We've had some discussions about whether that's a durable material in those types of locations. What's staff feeling about that? Aanenson: I think as an accent material I don't see it as a big problem. It's really a minor portion of the structure. Kind: Is stucco more durable? Aanenson: ThanEFIS? Yes. Yes. Generous: Yes. Kind: I'll ask the applicant about considering changing that material. I think that's it for staff. Oh, the windows that you were talking about Bob on the west elevation. Is there a condition in here that talks about that or is that something you're proposing that we add? Generous: I thought it was in there. Kind: I didn't see it but I did kind of a quick read through so that's something that, assuming the applicant is amenable, that we should add as a condition. On the west elevation. Generous: Yes. Kind: That's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions of staff right now? Slagle: Not right now. Blackowiak: Okay, and I don't either. Alrighty. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up before the commission? Please state your name and address for the record. 63 Planning Cormnission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Good evening commissioners. I'm Wayne Riser. I live at 13500 James Avenue in Burnsville, Minnesota. I'm the developer for the proposed Culvert's project and I'll be happy to answer any questions. We have one of the things that Bob and I did visit about with up front and is that we will, it will be necessary for us to, in order to go ahead with the project, to have the drive in feature. If we cannot accomplish that, why we understand but would preclude us from going ahead with the project. There are presently 136 Culver's in the system. First one being built in 1992 and they have tried 2 of them without the drive up feature and unfortunately that business that that brings is enough to make it financially impossible to do it for us, or we could not finance it because the numbers just wouldn't support it. Other than that, the windows that Bob talked about adding, he and I have talked together. We'd be very happy to add that. I think it would be an enhancement to the project and also we would love to enlarge the size of that outside seating area. That seating area, the tables are, the tops are terrazzo. A ground terrazzo top with a concrete base and there's a nice umbrella over it so we have a very nice patio area when we get done with the project. We'd be very happy to do that. The columns, now the two columns where you come in are concrete split face block and the reason we did that was just as you said, to get away from the wear. Now the reason we went to EFIS on the other was to create some contrast in the building. We thought it would give it a richer look. All those are set back. If you would look on the footprint, so I don't think there will be a problem. I believe also from my limited knowledge of building, that EFIS will stand up as good or probably better than stucco. But if you would prefer we could go like, you know all concrete split face block all the way. Actually that would cost us, we think a little less money but we think the EFIS gives you that contrast and a richer look. And I'll be happy to address any questions. That's just our thinking. Our thinking may be all wrong. It's been wrong before so we're happy to try and cooperate you know where we can. The only real big point I think that we, the only problem we have is that we have to have the drive thru or we just can't go ahead with the project. It's just unfortunately that would stop us. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions for Mr. Riser? Sacchet: ...more as a drive thru because you're putting us in a tough spot. Wayne Riser: Yeah, I don't mean to but unfortunately that's the spot I'm in too. Sacchet: It works both ways, I understand. I had a few small questions. So an extra window wouldn't really... Wayne Riser: No it would not. There's one that was tried in a heavy pedestrian area in Wisconsin Dells and it did not work. Sacchet: I mean I've seen your type of business. They usually do have a drive thru so I understand where you're at. Wayne Riser: Unfortunately I think the rest of our project is nice and that's the one piece of baggage I guess we bring with us. There's really no way to overcome that. Sacchet: The other thing is just kind of a curiosity thing. Just like half the building doesn't have windows. Wayne Riser: That's where your kitchen area and storage. Sacchet: That's where you make your custard? 64 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Wayne Riser: Actually the custard's made right out front. That's part of the marketing ploy. We want the people to see the ice cream coming down the stainless steel. You know we're trying to get them to eat more. Just like the old pizza places where they used to make it in the windows. Same thing, but the back area is, you know there's two. A refrigerator cooler. That's in the building and of course your prep line as they call it and your storage area so that really can't have windows because it really is nothing you want to see. Sacchet: You don't consider yourself a fast food? Wayne Riser: No we do not. Because when we come in, number one. Nothing's made ahead of time. It's all freshly made. You come in. You order. You pay and then you take a number. Sit at a table and a waiter, well waiters may be a little bit high class name for it, but someone. A server. A server I think would be more appropriate. A server comes and serves you. So that's how it works, and actually in the drive thru portion of it, quite often when you get to the window, the order's not ready yet. You pay for it and pull head and in a moment or two someone brings it out to you. And so it's not a real fast drive thru. It's a slower process because it's a higher quality item, we think that we serve. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Riser? No? Okay, Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: Thought I'd never get here. This is just like the good old days. Blackowiak: I was optimistic. Vernelle Clayton: We used to be here, I remember 1:00 one time. Blackowiak: No, no, no. We're not doing that. Vernelle Clayton: I'll talk fast as you know I usually do. It's been a long time in coming for this parcel. In case, two of you are new and Uli you weren't around either but originally this was going to be Famous Dave's and then it was going to be a Ruby Tuesday. We've entertained most recently 3 different proposals, all of whom, all of which would have required a drive thru. One was a bank, which would have required a much more massive drive thru. Two cars plus an ATM lane so you could really see it. We've even, this fellow has been so cooperative, as you've probably guessed from looking at the plans as we originally saw them to what you're seeing tonight. It's quite a difference, including even cutting back the roof over the drive-up area so that it wouldn't be obvious that it's a drive-up. It's hardly recognizable as a drive-up. One of the other folks that wanted to be there was a Dairy Queen, and as all of us know, everyone in town essentially has been saying when are you going to get us an ice cream place. Wayne doesn't particularly like it when I compare him with Dairy Queen because his ice cream is so much better, but also we concluded in looking at Dairy Queen's fairly much more rigid requirements than they used to be for building design, that this was a much better fit. We also concluded that ice cream was definitely something that we wanted to have in the Village, even if it is frozen custard. And it's a great addition to the mix that we already have and the mix that we think that we' 11 be having as you see some plans unfolding for other parts of the project. There is a need for a mix, there' s a need for more restaurants. There's a great synergy that occurs when you have more than one place, several places to go for food, and it's something that you really need for a successful retail and shopping experience. So we're pleased to have them and we are very much supportive as the folks that have been working and showing you all of these plans working to get a really nifty project. We're very much supportive of having the drive thru there from the perspective that this is definitely a pedestrian oriented project and 65 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 we're doing everything we can to protect it, the location of this drive thru does not impede upon any pedestrian traffic. Originally when we first brought this through, and I'm sorry to keep doing this with the p's. I'll step back a little bit. When we first brought the project forward we didn't know who was going to be in the, within Village on the Ponds. Shortly after we began the process we had a very good clue that St. Hubert's was going to be there and very soon thereafter we had a very good clue that Americlnn was going to be there. Americlnn is here tonight as a matter of fact. We have the CEO and his right hand person and Mark Clarey, the construction coordinator. Steve Kneeland, I should have mentioned your name and the CEO is of course Luke Fowler who most of you have probably met. So we appreciate their being here. They're a part, a major investor in the Village on the Ponds. Invested both in Americlnn and Houlihan's and as you'll see within hopefully the next few weeks or so, another large, very large part of the project that they're undertaking. They're also a part of the overall group that is coordinating, has an option on all of the rest of the Village on the Ponds project so they're very supportive of this project. They have a major investment already and have committed to making more and feel that this is something that should be done for the project. As I said, we didn't know much about what was going to be happening over there when we entered into the PUD agreement. The staff at the city recommended that we not do anything that would encourage fast food and drive up windows. We were fully supportive of that. We didn't picture that as part of the project either. And it was good probably to have that at the outset. At this point though, this is the only parcel that possibly could have one. We don't feel that this puts the project in any kind of jeopardy. As I say, we like the product and we think that's a benefit to the project. We had hoped, as a matter of fact, to have brought to you two other projects before this project came through so you could see the credibility of my statement that this would be the only place where we would be apt to be having the drive up window. As a matter of fact on the application we're applying only for this particular, this site has a lot, it's own lot and block number. It was platted as a part of the Village on the Ponds 2nd Addition which is not the entire project that we're needing to get you're the as-builts. It's just the 2nd Addition, and that was done as kind of one site plan if you will. The parking lot was always intended to be shared. There's some engineering, some site grading that's been done. The site that we're talking about tonight has been rough graded and a couple of catch basins are in and that's why they need the as-builts so they can see that we're tying it in on this project. So, and now I've lost my train of thought but in any event we had hoped to bring, I think I was about to tell you that we hoped to bring a couple of other projects that actually are larger than this to you so you could see how it would all fit and see that there's going to be a whole lot going on there. We do, what I have instead of actual applications, are some, is a copy of some site plans that Mika Milo, our architect for the entire project and as you noticed in the staff report, he is the architectural review committee and he' s supportive of the drive thru as well. I think he visited with staff last week on that subject, or earlier this week. The plans that we have were done by Mika for Medicine Marquettes' use in going to the national market for national retailers. Is your screen jumping like this or is it just on the one? Kind: It's doing the same thing. Vernelle Clayton: Oh, I feel sorry for your eyes. Well in any event, this is the site that we're talking about and this looks very much like what you've always seen for Village on the Ponds, although I noticed Bob we need to get you a new site plan with Houlihan's in the right place and things like that. This project, this is St. Hubert's. This whole southwest quadrant is the one that you've been hearing for a few months now that Presbyterian Homes is going to be doing, and we reviewed their most recent plans with them last Friday and hopefully they'll be having some site plans to visit with the staff about on this in a couple of weeks. Some engineering done hopefully in about 3 weeks and with some final revisions on this building, hopefully we're going to, they're pressing to try to get this in in about 30 days. So as you can see there will be no drive thru on that one. This building, we're going to be insisting that there be a 66 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 retail segment on the corner. Oh incidentally, there will be some retail on at least this much, and maybe their restaurant open to the public here on this corner so we're insisting on some key things here which is there be retail on anchoring each corner. That there be activity across the street from this. This will be retail on the first floor. Needing some retail to lead down to the Bookoo Bikes. He's depending on some more retail. Now that I've introduced this corner, that's the next, within the next short while Luke and his group will be having a really nifty proposal for this project. This corner. Won't have any drive up windows. We'd have a restaurant here, restaurant here, maybe some other food, some other space and so forth. That leaves this and that's what we're, one of the portions that the marketing is really focusing on. We've got a couple alternatives. Doing this building 80 feet deeper, 100 feet deep depending on what kind of requirements the tenants have. This is our only big building that someone, one larger tenant could have, or two could have a reasonable good size. So we don't want, we don't need, we don't plan for any drive up windows. Now you know some new invention will come along and they're going to have to drive up and pick it up and they'll prove me a liar and everybody will love it but we don't plan for it and we don't think it's going to come. So that' s, we have some of these pages that any of you are welcome to come and take a look any time you'd like. This is a view from the pond looking southeast. This being St. Hubert's down here. This being much less a pond than it currently looks. Is there anything you can do to, well anyway. I won't talk about the pond. A lot of frustration. This is another view. Starbuck's being here. This is where Culver' s here. Actually with dimensions and the roof line that they have. The larger building here. Retail here .... and that's Houlihan's. So we get kind of excited about this when we think about it. This is the building across the street from Starbuck's. This is a picture from skycam of the four corners. This being...and this Would be residential and retail. So that's about as far as we've gone. That's what we're taking, that's what we're peddling on the street from coast to coast. So it's kind of fun to be here. It'd be fun to have been here with all 3 and then you would have seen you know kind of how it all fit and why we feel so strongly that this is not going to be in any way detrimental to the project. If you approve it this time next year we can all sit down to frozen custard. So if you have any questions, I'm here. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions? No. Thank you. Come on up. Luke Fowler: Hi. I'm Luke Fowler. I think I know most of you. I'm the owner of Northcott Companies and Americlnn's. Our headquarters is right at the pedestrian bridge. We also own the Houlihan's and the Americlnn and for those of you that don't know, I'm also on the Landscape Arboretum Board. I have known Wayne Riser for about 8 years. He's a franchisee of our's and I would just like to say that I think from the City of Chanhassen' s point of view, from the point of view of somebody that offices here and likes to walk around, I'd love to be able to walk down to Culver's. I know as a practical matter that Culver's cannot do things without a drive thru. And I can assure you that Wayne Riser, and we will do everything to make sure that if you do allow that, that it is a aesthetically pleasing so that you don't see cars lining up and that kind of stuff. And I think it can be done pretty easily. It would be a great addition to the city so I hope you vote in favor of the variance. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any further comments by the applicant? Okay. This item is open for public hearing, so anybody wishing to comment on this matter, please come to the podium and st'ate your name and address for the record. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. And I'm the closest residential neighbor to this development in almost every aspect. And I want you to know that I believe in being a good neighbor. I've been at almost every Planning Commission meeting regarding developments at this site and I wish you would put them earlier on the agenda. You don't know how many times I've been here past 11:00 p.m., but at any rate. My concerns have always been issues about 67 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 the environment. About the noise. About the litter. About the traffic. And I've spoken to Mr. Riser. Spoken with Mr. Fowler. I speak to Vernelle all the time, and a lot of my initial concerns have been addressed. The one that the developer has no control over is the traffic and the speed. And although Vernelle has promised and assured us that the traffic will go slower in the future when there's more development, my question is what happens if it doesn't? As it is now the traffic has increased significantly on Lake Street. And I look out my front window and I see Mr. Fowler's building and I'm very pleased. I look out my screen porch and I look at the Starbuck's and Building 4 and I'm very pleased. The only thing I am concerned about is the traffic. Now I'm not sure that this is the right place to ask, but in the event that we complete all of the development on Village on the Ponds, I want to know what will be done to control the traffic. As it is now by design, the width of the street is narrower. The roads are curvy you know in order to try and slow down the traffic, and I'm here to tell you it's not working. As it is now with the swim school there, there are a lot of parents with young children who are in harm's way because of the speed of the traffic. All you have to do, and I know that most of you go to this site and look and take a look at the street. We have young people, or old people. I can't tell. All I can do is hear their vehicles laying 30 feet of rubber on the pavement within Village on the Ponds, and that concerns me a lot. As it is right now my property has Great Plains Boulevard in the back, Lake Street on the side and Marsh Drive on the front. So at this point it's, I hope you'll hear my concerns. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thank you. Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry, I promised I wouldn't talk a lot but I do want to back him up on the traffic and I wonder if we could ask you to look into that. I asked a couple years ago if we couldn't have the streets patrolled a little bit more and a slower speed limit. Slower posted speed limit and I was told that we couldn't, but I wonder if you would look into it and see what it would take to have it. It's something to do with the proximity to Great Plains Boulevard and it's proximity to 5 and how you have tO gradually slow people down, but it was not our intent to have such a high speed limit going through there. Mark Clarey: Hi. I'm Mark Clarey. I'm with Northcott Company also. Just one quick thing with regard to the pedestrian traffic. In my conversations with Mika Milo, the overall master architect or design developer, my opinion and our feeling with regard to the pedestrian traffic is that the drive up window will not greatly affect the overall pedestrian traffic because that traffic then is off of the main street travel. It's no different than pedestrian traffic coming into the Americlnn, coming into the current Houlihan' s, coming into the Starbuck' s, Quizno's and so on. People undoubtedly are going to be driving into this area, particularly in this state with our snowfalls and everything else. There's not that many people that are going to travel across Highway 5 to get into this area. Once they're within the confines of the property, it's a different situation then and that's why we don't feel there's going to be that much of an impact on it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Susan Bix: Hi. I'm Susan Bix and I live at 311 Sinnen Circle and I also bugged Vernelle too, but I used to live in the Linden Hills area and I moved out to Chanhassen because of the Village on the Ponds and having a place to walk to in the suburbs I think is just wonderful so I really support the idea. And I wasn't sure about the idea of the drive thru, and I'm still not but I do like the idea of a family type restaurant that's real accessible and if, you know if there is a stipulation about the fast food, I think it is a nice mix because there's a lot of families in our area that I think would really benefit from that and so I guess it sounds like the overall affect of the drive thru isn't as, what I was picturing of a Burger King or 68 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 something. So I think it does sound like a nice mix. Although I did ask about the calories of the frozen custard. Blackowiak: Thank you. Kelly Walker: Good evening. My name is Kelly Walker and I live at 8090 Marsh Drive. I'm neighbors with Bob Savard and I also look out across the way to the Starbucks and this whole development area. I moved in within the last year and was not aware of all the goings on that were coming to this whole on the ponds area. I am also concerned mostly with the traffic. I don't have a personal concern with the Culver' s per se. I am concerned with the traffic and the patterns of flow that we're going to have and the times of the day we're going to have them. I do think that the whole ponds area is going to want to cultivate a positive image with the neighborhood and the pedestrian traffic and I know currently to try and get across Great Plains Boulevard at this point to just go to Starbucks can be a major affair. Mostly because of they do not have a stop sign, etc. and I'm sure those things can be addressed and probably are not a personal issue here but I think that it does need to be reviewed. And I also think that besides noise you also in the evening hours have car light problems with young kids in the house. We get a lot of lights going through the rooms and that kind of thing and it's just something that I would like to be taken into consideration. And with drive thru traffic you're going to have a higher volume than you would with a sit down type restaurant. I have nothing against Culver's. It sounds like a lovely place. I don't have a nay or yea for the drive thru per se but I do hope that the traffic considerations are taken into consideration. Thank you. Susan Bix: I'm sorry, I got side tracked. I forgot. Does anybody know, is there going to be something about Great Plains. I keep hearing that there might, you aren't going to be able to turn out of there or something. I didn't know if anybody knows. Blackowiak: Matt, would you like to speak to that? Saam: Where specifically are you talking? Susan Bix: I thought somebody said at Great Plains and Highway 5 and that you aren't going to. Saam: No, that will always be a full access, lighted. Traffic signal. Susan Bix: Somebody at the comer there where they're selling the, or moving the Legion mentioned something about that. That you're not going to be able to. Saam: That's another issue. Blackowiak: Yeah. I think you're talking the in/out to the Legion right there. Susan Bix: Oh, the light at Great Plains and that's still always going to be? Saam: Oh yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Are there any more comments? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, who would like to start? Deb, go right ahead. 69 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Kind: I'll go. I'm probably the biggest Culver's fan up here. I drive all the way to Navarre when I get a hankering for a lemon ice and I think it's a wonderful restaurant and a nice addition to this town. Hopefully I won't have to drive all the way to Navarre. Architecturally I thought that the improvements were quite nice. It was very helpful to have in the packets the typical prototype restaurant. I think the improvements that have been made are really nice and I agree with the architectural review committee that the plan is appropriate for the Villages. I also agree with the architectural review committee that the location and the screening of the drive thru is acceptable. And architecturally I think the applicant should reconsider the EFIS. Maybe go a stucco, but I do agree. I like how it's kind of solid in those areas so I would probably think about adding a condition that you consider a more durable material but it does make sense to me how you placed it in not high traffic areas. I think that's a wise solution. Regarding the drive thru, while I like the concept of pedestrian friendly environment in the Villages and definitely support the intent and I really believe that we will be able to accomplish that in the Villages, I do think we need to consider reality. And it is winter here half of the year. There's not going to be a lot of pedestrian movement during, from November to March. And the drive thru is really helpful in those times of the year. And that our community has many, many young families and Culver' s is a family friendly restaurant. It's got more affordable pricing and the drive thru aspect is important to young families who don't have the time necessarily to stop. It just gives another option. I believe the exclusion of drive thru's will not encourage more pedestrian movement. It will just encourage people to go elsewhere. I believe that drive thru' s and the notion of being pedestrian friendly are not mutually exclusive and could be compatible with careful design and therefore I support amending the PUD specific to this site in the way that we did on the last item for us. It was site specific. So that we don't have drive thru' s. I don't see us amending the entire PUD to give carte blanche for drive thru's but specific to this site and I would want to include conditions regarding visual impact and pedestrian movement. Overall I think it's a nice plan and I'm looking forward to having it closer by so I don't have to go to Navarre. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any comments? Slagle: I do. Having been now a resident of Chanhassen for 3 years I am able to bring some, perhaps some ignorance, but perhaps some objectivity to this and I have to tell you, I think the development is just awesome. I've heard nothing but good things. We love Culver's. My company does work with your company and enjoys that very well. But I have to tell you this area to me is just a jewel and I think a drive thru would be the wrong thing to have there. I believe that the site, I would love to see a different restaurant just to be honest with you. A more of an upscale, and I'll give you an example. Today I was at Starbuck's in Golden Valley, and there's a development there just north of 5 and I think it's Winnetka. Wherever it is. Just right off north of 55 and it was just neat. The way that they had the archways and the different shops and retail outlets and lots of people, and not lots of cars. And I have to tell you I sit at the Starbucks on the patio very often, probably 2 mornings a week, and there is a lot of cars going through there. I have to be honest with you. And the way that that development is laid out for streets, when I saw those beautiful renditions of what it's going to look like, I'm going to be interested to see how the traffic patterns will fall within those renditions and what not because right now if you sit at Starbucks, there are lots of cars cutting across Starbuck's parking lot to get to what you might call the main center, and then a shortcut to maybe get to 101 .... everything else about this is just perfect except the drive thru. Whereas a sit down, that doesn't sound like can work, so I'm just going to have to tell you I'm on the other side of Deb but with all due respect. I just think it's a great, great area. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: This is a tough one...couple places I've seen, not just the Culver's they have drive thru's so I understand your business point. And then we can ask, well how is this different in terms of the PUD versus the...with the car service thing. Well I do believe there's a difference. I do believe that in this case the no drive thru has been anchored into this PUD very fundamentally for the purpose of making this very pedestrian oriented. But I do believe it has more weight in the frame of view than before with car service. I believe that as such it's a policy question...City Council and for the Planning Commission be more in the framework of applying the established ordinance, as much as I like custard. I would have to say I'd be hard pressed at this point to recommend the drive thru because it's contrary to the overall intent. Now yes. I do admit, and I agree with you Deb that you make it site specific, makes it more palatable The site where we're trying to do, you put in a very good complex Vemelle. I mean you did a very good...but at this point I think I would want to pass it on to council to make an exception and support staff in their recommendation as far as the drive thru is concerned. I would like to see some additional conditions to the site plan approval in that I think there's an issue about speed, traffic. I mean we could be harsh and put in speed bumps. That'd slow it down. They're actually, you know those things that come out from the side when there's a little snow, there's quite a few people probably damage there...effective speed bump, but maybe we could do the real speed bumps that everybody gets affect, not just those trying to rub the comer. I would also like to see staff reviewing those plantings to the northwest for wetland appropriateness. And I think that's my comments. Yes, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Bruce. Feik: I guess I'm the contrarian on the panel tonight. I don't eat ice cream. I apologize but those pork sandwiches you make are really good, but I just can't do ice cream. My concern with the drive thru is the queuing. I' ve been to the one in Navarre a number of times. Driven through. My brother lives in Maple Plain and it's very convenient. My concern is getting a handle on how many cars can realistically be queued up prior to the window and where they are going to go after the 7th, 8th or 9th car. And is that going to be. Aanenson: That's one of the things that staff did not look at because we recommended elimination of that and that goes back to Rich's same comment. We believe there's only stacking for 3 so, we need to look at that. Feik: I have a real concern with the queuing as it relates to the pedestrian friendly. Aanenson: Well just backing out of the other cars in the rest of the area. As a similar problem with Taco Bell so we would have concern with that. Wayne Riser: Could I Bruce? Feik: Certainly. Wayne Riser: As far as queuing. There are a spot for 4 cars to pull up once they've pulled to the window. Feik: That's after the window. Wayne Riser: Oh after, okay. You're. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Feik: A lot of room in McDonald's out here but the queuing I'm going to guess is 20 cars long at lunchtime. Aanenson: Right, that's my concern. Wayne Riser: We've not experienced a problem with that. We have of course some very high production restaurants in Milwaukee, Madison and now in Chicago area, and to date that's not been a problem in any of those. You know in front of the queuing, and we do, that' s one of the things I remember I mentioned when I met with Bob. I said I have to have 4, once I pull past that drive up. I can't make it with 3 and you've been there enough to know that I can't. We can make it with 4 and we have that in the plan. But we've not had a problem with queuing in the back and we've been in some pretty high productive areas. And we do feel this would be a very high productive area too if we're permitted to have the facility. Blackowiak: Thank you. Feik: I have another very quick question for staff as it relates to the definition of fast food. You said that if it's pre-prepared it is fast food. If it's not pre-prepared it's a restaurant. Is that the dumb dumb version of the definition? Aanenson: What's the old fashion A & W where they bring it to your table. Feik: That's, but you know what? That's not made ahead of time. That's a restaurant. Aanenson: Right. It's the shade of gray. Feik: And so is Quizno's and so is Subway. Kind: They're not fast food. Aanenson: Our definition was adding the drive thru and that's why when we put this together, we clarified that further by saying the drive thru window to discriminate. Feik: Okay, thank you. I'm done. Blackowiak: Those your comments? Okay. Well my comments are fairly similar to Uli right now. I do believe that this is a policy decision for City Council. Village on the Ponds came before us, and I was on this Planning Cormnission when it came before. Actually I think started Planning Commission right after, right kind of in the middle but I've been here and one of the big selling points was it was a pedestrian friendly, new urbanism, lots of neat ideas going around and the decision was made at that point in time to do this PUD and to promote pedestrian access and not to have drive thru' s. And that's a decision the City Council at that time made. I think that' s, if that decision is going to be changed, it' s a decision that this City Council has to make and that we as a Planning Commission are bound by what is currently written, and I don't really want to get into policy choices at all. Traffic is a big concern for me too. I'm wondering how the counts that we did initially with the original concept for Villages would be changed if there was a drive thru because I think that would skew those numbers and I don't know if we have that information, and I don't even know if, I wouldn't be comfortable making any kind of decision tonight without having that kind of information. What kind of additional trips are generated by a drive thru, etc. And that's the kind of information I think that would be helpful when this goes before City 72 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Council because it will go before City Council and that would either, that would just make the decision I think a little bit easier. I'm not ready to make a policy decision tonight so that being said I would like somebody to make the motion please. Sacchet: I want to preface this that I really would...for the Planning Commission'I'm making the motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried for denial 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 4-1. Deb, would you like to add any further comments? Kind: Mostly I just want to raise a flag to the City Council that I think they should consider changing the policy for this specific parcel. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, I need another amendment please. And a motion. Excuse me, whatever. It' s late. I' m sorry. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site, well I'd better not make this motion either. Never mind. I have changes to it that wouldn't get approved. Blackowiak: Let's somebody else be brave. Slagle: Let me ask this question. If the applicant has already said that without the okay for the drive thru, the plan won't go through. Do we need to address this other? Blackowiak: We do. I think we need to address the site plan whether we approve it or not. We have to make a recommendation so it can go to City Council. They do with it as they please. We're just making, based on what's in front of us tonight. Sacchet: Well I'm willing to make a motion. I've made most motions tonight. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc. dated 6/13/01, subject to the following conditions 1 through 22. I'd like to add the condition number 23. Staff will review plantings to the south and west for wetland appropriateness. And number 24. Aanenson: Windows on the west elevation, is that the one? Sacchet: No, are the windows already in there, right? Aanenson: No. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. Windows will be added to the west, north part of the west elevation as discussed with staff. Is that fair? And then number, is that 25? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Traffic will be evaluated as to, huh. We don't want to talk about the drive thru since we didn't say that. Aanenson: Well, we're going to ask for it anyways. Generous: With or without. Sacchet: Staff will research traffic impact and means to slow down speed. Is that fair? Something, can you word it with something like that? Based on our discussion, I think the intent is understood of what we're after. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on the plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc., dated 6/13/01, subject to the following conditions: 1. The drive thru facilities shall be deleted and converted to a pedestrian window and an expanded patio/seating area. 2. The drive aisle south of the building should be narrowed creating and expanding the patio/seating area. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 4. The applicant shall submit revised plans that include no additional wetland impact. 5. All areas between paved areas and wetlands shall be revegetated per the planting plan that was approved as a part of Villages on the Ponds. 6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that ponding will be adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. 8. The applicant shall either adjust the proposed flared end section to discharge into the center of the pond or demonstrate the rationale behind the proposed alignment of the flared end section. 74 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 , The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. 11. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Add the following 2001 City Detail Plates to the detail sheet: 5203, 5215, 5300, and 5302. Also, show the most current revision of Plate No. 3102. 12. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 13. 14. No building permits will be issued until the City receives as-built plans for the development. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner(s). 15. Revise the western slope off of the drive thru area to show either a maximum slope grade of 3:1 or to install a retaining wall. 16. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, flow direction, slope, inverts, etc. b. Add a storm sewer schedule. c. Show all proposed contour lines. d. Show the NWL and HWL of the existing pond to the north. e. Revise the plans to comply with the minimum drive aisle width requirements of 26 feet wide. f. Show rock filter barriers around the two existing catch basins. 17. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 18. 19. 20. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 21. The applicant shall eliminate the staking and wiring instruction detail in the landscape plan entitled "tree planting - guy wire". 22. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 23. Staff will review plantings to the south and west for wetland appropriateness. 24. Windows will be added to the north part of the west elevation as discussed with staff. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 25. Staff will research the traffic impact of this development and make recommendations to slow the speed of traffic. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 4-1. Deb, any further comments? Kind: Same as before. Blackowiak: You like custard. Okay. Kind: I love custard. Blackowiak: Alrighty. This item goes before City Council on August 13th. Thank you all for waiting so patiently this evening. Vernelle Clayton: Can you clarify the last condition regarding the speed of the traffic. Blackowiak: I believe it's to do with. Vernelle Clayton: The overall traffic? Blackowiak: Overall traffic... · Sacchet: There are two aspects of this Vernelle. One is the aspect that was raised with the Village on the Ponds, the impact of drive thru has not been looked at. Vernelle Clayton: Yes, I understand that. They can crank that out. Sacchet: The other aspect was the concern brought up by the neighbors in terms of the... Vernelle Clayton: Okay, and if he follows up on my question was that probably would suffice because that's a city street. That's not our street. Sacchet: Yeah, and the city will do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. NEW BUSINESS. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, new business. Do you have any new business before we get to...? Don't pack up yet. You cannot leave. Aanenson: Real quickly. We do have a full agenda for the 7t~. To let you know, Westwood Church did come in. So that's out for comments right now. 67 acres. We also have Gary Brown in for a site plan amendment. We'll also be reviewing the design standards and we have received comments on the design standards so I think you'll be pleased with that. And so then on the 21st, I talked about the 74 or the 21st doing a work session. Because the agenda had to be noticed for the 7th and we already had quite a few 76 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 items on, I didn't want to make it such a lengthy meeting as we had tonight so we'll block out time, if that works for everybody. We'll publish it for 5:00. Work session 5:00 to 7:00 and we'll have a dinner and then we' 11 start our regular meeting. And for that meeting we'll put the fen and the creek setback on. That will give us a month to do that. Kind: 21st of August? Aanenson: August, yes. And then we've got some, just code amendments. Other code amendments are on that night so it shouldn't be, the deadline for that closing is this Friday but right now we don't anticipate, we' re not working with anybody that we anticipate coming in so I think that will work out fine for a 2 hour work session. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. CHANHASSEN LIBRARY - PRESENTATION AND VERBAL UPDATE BY MS&R. Pat Mackay: My name is Pat Mackay. I'm with Meier, Scherer and Rockcastle Architects from Minneapolis. I'd like to thank you for sticking around and not sending me home with my models and drawings disappointed. The library as it exists, the library design as it exists right now in mid to late schematic design. I last updated you on the progress of the library design on March 20th I believe and since that time we' ve met with the community groups, the library building committee, City Council and library staff and we've gotten to a siting, and actually beyond the siting to the building design but I'd like to talk to you about the siting as shown. Right here you can see on the black and white handouts that we' ve given you, we' ve got the library building located toward the west end of the parcel and pushed as far as we believe if practical to the north. Just toward City Hall. There were a lot of factors informing this. One of them being, taking advantage of the existing green space and the newly freed up green space that will be made available with the demolition of the building on the east end. We're also trying to create something of a civic courtyard or plaza between the library and the city hall, getting a good relationship between them as well as addressing access to the library from the west off Kerber. There are 3 parking lots. Right now the count sits at about 100 cars in 3 lots. One on the west. An upper parking deck coming off the northwest parking lot, and a lower covered parking lot underneath the parking deck. We're trying to maintain a strong relationship between the city hall and the library and kind of a biaxial relationship across the site. You'll notice since the last Planning Commission meeting there was some discussion about whether or not to maintain the thru road of Coulter Boulevard, and between the public opinion, the building committee opinion and the City Council opinion, the mix maybe germane to the previous conversation of traffic and pedestrians was seen as kind of a...to that. We can go into the interior design of the library but I guess maybe it's more appropriate to view it here. We've got this exterior aerial perspective. I'm showing the mass as it will sit on West 78t~ and Kerber here. Here's the curb cut which is essentially the same spot where the Coulter Avenue curb cut is right here at city hall. And this is the elevated parking ramp right here. I guess in the interest of brevity, if anybody wants to pipe in with any questions or concerns, I can just leap into that right now. Blackowiak: Great. Yeah, let's. Sacchet: Two real quick questions. The parking deck, currently that parking area goes out about how far? Pat Mackay: Currently it stops right about here. Right about here. Right about halfway north and south and it's a different configuration where the parking needed to end so. 77 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: And the parking underneath goes to where that line goes across? Pat Mackay: Exactly. That's the goal. If we're over and cost issues provide. Right now we're a little over our target of 90 to 95, and we're having structural engineers kind of give us a range. We don't want to over build the parking just to over build it if cost savings can be used in the remainder of the project. Kind: Madam Chair. The second level of the parking deck, will it have access to the second floor of city hall? Pat Mackay: Not directly, no. Not as planned. Kind: And I'm assuming that this library, from the elevations it says one story building so that doesn't make any sense? Pat Mackay: Yeah, that's part of the marching orders of kind of meeting with the groups that we've met before, I can summarize real briefly. One is a one story building at approximately 32,000 square feet. The parking deck along Kerber Boulevard. Holding the library as tight as possible to Kerber Boulevard, and as far as north as is practical while still allowing kind of a graceful parking and pedestrian entrance. The entrance as you can see is right here. Under a canopy. You can see that best on the model and somewhat on this aerial perspective. But here it's a view from the northwest. Here's the parking deck. It's not a ramp. There's no car access up and down. You either enter up here or you enter down here. There's no inbetween. The only access inbetween is a stair on access with the entry right here. Kind: So there's no street access. You know we're having this pedestrian feel, pulling the building towards the corner but yet you can't enter the building from the street? Pat Mackay: Right, for security. Given that most the people are going to be showing up in cars. It was a tough choice to make. Libraries are the kind of building where you want only one entrance, as you folks tend to go out unsupervised. Blackowiak: So help me out. So if you, how do I as a pedestrian, if I want to walk to the library, do I have to walk, if I'm coming from the east, which is the way I'd be coming, because that's where I live, how do I get there? Pat Mackay: You walk either in front and around or up and through. What's not shown on this model or the plans because it's not specifically our preview and the design is also not started, is this is a very nicely landscaped, almost two parks here. Two plazas. One is kind of the more larger, flatter, up to the street and the other one is a little more intimate civic but the idea is, as we're going to be developing through the process with the landscape designer, is an easy and graceful pedestrian access from this corner where they enter the block up to the front door. It's going to be a goal of the landscape design. Blackowiak: Alright. And then there is a sidewalk continuously. How about in front of city hall? There is one right now? Is that going to remain? Pat Mackay: That would be re-configured. Re-landscaped. Right now it serves city hall and parking along Coulter. When Coulter goes away, some of that access is going to need to be refocused. There's going to be landscaping here and it's more of a plaza type area. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 200 l Blackowiak: But I mean I would be able to for example walk there. Pat Mackay: Oh yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Blackowiak: Okay. Let's say I was driving and I came off Kerber Boulevard, then do you have to, I'm not seeing a turn around. Let's say I want to drop some people off. Do I have to go into the lower level of the deck and then turn around all the way or what do I have to do.9 Pat Mackay: Yes. There's also a pull out here that's not represented on this model, developed near that same question. We' re going to have a pull out drop off where you can, whether we vacate the first two stalls here to create a quick, kind of short circuit traffic. So we're investigating that with our parking lot. Blackowiak: Okay. What about handicap accessibility.9 You're talking about a parking deck. Are all the handicap spots below then.9 Pat Mackay: They're going to have to be down here or possibly in this pull up. We'd like to reserve this pull up loop, come around very close to the front for book... B lackowiak: For drop off' s, okay. Yeah, because I'm just thinking if you've got anybody that wouldn't, had a handicap. Pat Mackay: They're going to have to be concentrated right in here. Blackowiak: They would have to be lower level, okay. Okay. I have a question for Kate maybe or whatever. We've got proposed design standards for the city now. How does this, how do we apply them? What's our next step here? Aanenson: Well pulling it towards the street meets that criteria. I guess you know what needs to be articulated is that other space, the plaza and how you draw that in to the street presence. The sidewalk. Whether it's a sidewalk that comes and... Blackowiak: Yeah, it seems like if you don't know where the entrance is, you're going to have to look really hard to find it. Aanenson: Yeah, it's defined through here or something like that. I guess there isn't any civil's on this yet so there's the storm water ponding and some of that sort of in formalized landscaping that. Blackowiak: That we will eventually see? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Pat Mackay: Yes. Yes, it's kind of a show and tell. Blackowiak: Okay. Pat Mackay: Our take on the entry is that that's been kind of a persistent problem, just kind of given the nature of the site. Multiple accesses to it and the fact that you really don't want to be pulling people off 79 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17,2001 78th unless you have the parking lot and then the building. It's our belief, and maybe it's best stated...who kind of states they're not going to, if they miss the, if they have a hard time finding the entry the first 15 seconds, they're not going to keep driving and go down the road to the next town library. They need to find the front door once and we believe the way that's addressed with the parking and the accesses here and the vertical prominence and even the horizontal prominence of this covered canopy, which extends far out beyond the conditioned space of the building, this is kind of a flag which you may remember from some earlier designs that we showed when the library was adjacent to city hall and the center, we faced a similar problem. Where is the front door and that's been the persistent question. We believe we've got it in practice licked to the point where somebody's not going to not be able to find the front door twice. They may scratch their head a little bit because it's so close to the street here the first time, but if they drive up. The parking design and the landscape design, everything is going to be done to reinforce that this is the library entry. Blackowiak: Okay. And just one final question for you and then I think everyone else needs to jump in. Bikes. You know we want to again, pedestrians, bikes. Get people there and not necessarily depend on cars. So have you thought about bike racks? Pat Mackay: Yeah, they're peppered throughout. It's something, Scott Botcher was a big proponent of you know, you spent a good deal of effort and money on regional bike trail system and the new library needs to be a node of that. The landscape design, some of the options shown rather seamlessly. Out here it's spaced for pedestrians as well as bikes. We had previously shown a traffic turn around there to, we had shown a traffic thru way and then a traffic turn around and really it wasn't received very well and I think for good reason and, but bikes are welcomed. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, if anyone has questions, let's be a little more informal. Sacchet: One more question. Those canopies, you call those for sloped areas. Is part of that like skylight or how does that work? Is that functional? Function besides just being a shape accent? Pat Mackay: It plays on some of the interior program elements of the library. Really the only free flowing, or free flying canopy is right here on the entry. The others are simply curved, half barrel roofs. And they kind of align themselves with different program functions in the library. The meeting room, the entry spine, a large east/west access here which is, to answer your question, yes. It's clear story with high windows along here. Feik: On the north side. Pat Mackay: On the north side. Sacchet: The vertical parts is skylight. Pat Mackay: Right. Sacchet: And it's full height inside? Pat Mackay: Yes. It's about 24 feet. Sacchet: Okay. And that's true for all 3 of those areas? 80 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Pat Mackay: Yeah, here, here, here, and here. A barrel vaulted spaces on the walls on the sides are more heavy masonry. The remainder here is a very light curtain wall system so there's a lot of emphasis on natural light here and then the more solid parts it's more of getting in the light from above and washing across the ceiling. Blackowiak: Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Thanks for waiting us out. So then Kate our next step is we'll just wait for it to come before us. Aanenson: Next evolution. Mayor Jansen: Pat, did you have the materials with you this evening? Pat Mackay: Yes I did. Mayor Jansen: Just to flash them by...the type of material was the other point we thought we should get some of your input from. Because it will go back to building committee to comment and issues. Pat Mackay: We're looking at, maybe you can see on some of these elevations. Let me give you a typical elevation. On the screen here. But we're looking for the masonry masses. What we'll call...we'll call it Carver County brick. That's the majority of these taller portions here. The barrel vaulted shapes as well as the canopy supports. The canopy as shown here really isn't accurate. The plan hints at a more defined design but, and we're continuing to work on that. Aanenson: So Pat, that's not a, it's not your standard brick. It's a jumbo or? Pat Mackay: It's jumbo length but standard modulate. It's called Norman bond and what it does is, if you're familiar with Roman brick, it's kind of one step taller than Roman brick. It's the same 3 1/8 height as the brick behind you and on the outside of the building but it' s 1 ½ times longer than a standard bond. Or standard modular brick. We feel it just kind of gives a nicer proportion. We've got in the pallet we're looking at, we're looking at a little bit more differentiation than...is on the outside of this building. But still enough character in common as the related buildings. You can see on this elevation then in the lighter portions, the curtain wall and aluminum window glazed portion, we're looking at a bronze anodized aluminum window frame. Slightly lighter than this. We're looking for not the standard dark brown. It's truly...and underneath the windows on the outside, the jury is still out. We're investigating both...and the windows are seen from the outside but glass appeared as black and this is the way that we're kind of trying to give the illusion of being a more glassy. Playing off of the brick piers that you see on some of the elevation portions. The flat roof portions are built-up roof. The barrel vaulted portions we're looking at copper right now, which in this climate would start out as this bright penny and patina to, not unlike the maple leaf behind you. There are treatments to get it to a green patina, and I guess we could look. One of the things that happens when we say copper is people tend to invariably start to see dollar signs and one reason we're looking at it right now, copper is a very easy deduct alternate. Ail the details, the materials required for copper are the same as a standing seam roof and the alternate is a simple one sentence proposition with the drawings. But at the same time we don't necessarily feel that we'll have to go there. We have a similar building in the past with copper accented roof and the change order on a building without the same size going from copper to standing seam is about $6,000. That's using 1993 dollars but pretty small premium for a material. Mayor Jansen: You were saying a life expectancy of the copper is significant. 81 Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001 Pat Mackay: About 100 years, yeah. The life expectancy of looking good. They'll probably last as long but it's like a pair of shoes. You spend $200 on a pair of shoes that looks bad in i0 years or in a year, and it doesn't do you much good. The standing seam metal roofs tend to kind of chalk out in 10 to 15 years. Copper will tend to only really look better with age and we're looking at 50 to 100 years on a standing seam metal roof. Blackowiak: Alright. Any other questions? Comments? Again, thanks for sticking it out. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. OPEN DISCUSSION. Kind: Okay, open discussion. Just a quick thing. A couple of the items on our agenda tonight seemed to not be able to understand our buffer yard charts and they were way under. We have simplified those, haven't we? Aanenson: Yeah. Kind: And people still aren't getting it. Is there anything we can do to make it so that that's not an issue for people to hit our ordinance, or are we just going to always have it be conditioned that they need to meet our minimum standards and you have to walk them through it? Generous: Well we can walk them through it... Kind: It's just an ongoing problem. Okay, that's all. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 82