SUM 2003 10 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman
Peterson. Councilman Ayotte left during item 3.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Tom Scott, Justin Miller, Matt Saam, Kate Aanenson, and
Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jessica Sebold
Lindsey Lawler
Nicky Courchaine
Montana St. Fait
Sarah Drill-Mellum
Mark Peterson
Belinda Dulski
7470 Tulip Court
235 Northgate Boulevard
900 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8628 Chanhassen Hills Drive
5850 County Road 155, Waconia
8845 Wedgemere Drive
7854 Harvest Lane
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong invited all residents to the Halloween Party on
Saturday, October 25th from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. He provided information on how and where to
register for the event.
CONSENT AGENDA:
approve the following
recommendations:
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
Approval of Minutes:
-Joint City Council/Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 15, 2003
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 22, 2003
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated September 22, 2003
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated September 16, 2003
bo
Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition:
1) Approval of Final Plat
2) Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract, Project
03 -08.
Resolution g2003-85: Accept Utility Improvements for St. Hubert Catholic Community,
Land Use File No. 02-03.
e. Approval of Separation Agreement with Public Works Director/City Engineer.
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
h. Resolution g2003-86: Approval of Resolution Supporting Upgrading Chaska
Ambulance to ALS License.
i. Resolution g2003-87: Approval of Resolution Regarding District 112 Referendum.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON SCHOOL REFERENDUM FOR DISTRICT
112~ SUPERINTENDENT BEV STOFFERAHN.
Rod Franks, 8694 Mary Jane Circle stated his support for the School District 112 referendum and
introduced Superintendent Bev Stofferahn. Bev Stofferahn outlined the accomplishments of
students in the district and went over the projected enrollment numbers. She went into detail on
the money being proposed on the referendum ballot and what informational meetings and
materials were available for citizens in the district. Mayor Furlong urged all citizens to vote on
November 4t~ in this very important referendum matter.
PUBLIC HEARING: MARKET STREET STATION, FORMER BOWLING ALLEY
SITE, NORTH OF PAULY DRIVE AND EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD.
AJ
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; REPLAT OF LOTS; CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FORE MORE THAN ONE BUILDING ON A LOT; SITE PLAN
REVIEW WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 60~000 SQ. FT.
INCLUDING CINEMA EXPANSION~ RETAIL AND OFFICES.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and provided an update on Planning Commission action.
Councilman Labatt asked for clarification on the bus traffic circulation within the site.
Councilman Peterson asked why there weren't any renderings on the stand alone restaurant. Kate
Aanenson stated a site plan would come back when the applicant had a specific restaurant for the
site. Mayor Furlong asked about the pylon sign and Market Street Station's prominence on the
sign. John Uban, consulting planner working with Kraus-Anderson and Bloomberg Companies,
explained the reasoning behind the request for two monument signs and asked for a little bit of
latitude with the up lighting. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the location and size
of the signs. He then asked Milo Thompson to clarify architectural details relating to comparison
with the buildings at the Arboretum and the frontier feel of the architecture. Tenants interested
in the restaurant attached to the cinema were asking for flexibility to remove the porch and cupola
and make the building more modem in appearance. There was some concern with the size of the
vertical lines on the renderings, which the architect assured were only ~A inch and not as
prominent as in the drawings. Mayor Furlong stated he too was straggling with the renderings
and the comment that the building was not going to look like the renderings. Council discussed
the need for Market Street Station to have more prominence on the pylon sign. Dan Engelsma
with Kraus-Anderson stated the cinema' s concern with their presence on that sign.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve
the Market Street Station, LLP, for Site Plan Review g03-9 with a variance for fenestration
on the Cinema and the pylon sign, Conditional Use Permit 4/2003-5 for more than one
building on a lot, and Rezoning g03-03 from General Business to Central Business District
as shown on plans dated August 15, 2003, and September, 2003, based on the findings of the
staff report and subject to the following conditions:
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
o
10.
11.
12.
Submit storm sewer and drainage calculations for staff review before site plan approval.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Metropolitan Council's SAC fee
will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permits issuance. All of these charges
are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. The current
2003 sanitary hook up charge is $1,400 per unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876 per
unit, and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit.
On the grading plan:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Add silt fence Type II around the construction limits.
Show rock construction entrance.
Show a bench mark (mean sea level datum).
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Show existing and proposed property lines.
On the utility plan:
a. Show the location of the proposed water and sanitary services.
b. Show the existing sanitary and watermain in profile view within the
construction area.
Add the latest version of City of Chanhassen detail plates 4/1002, 1004, 1006, 2101, 3101,
3102, 5201, 5203, 5206, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300, and 5301.
Submit private easement for the shared storm sewer before building permit issuance.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit haul route for city
approval prior to any hauling.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Construct public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Submit detailed construction plans and specifications for the public utility improvements
and approved before final platting.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval in the amount of
110% of the public improvement cost estimate.
Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must
be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed
District, MnDot, etc.
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Concrete driveway apron, per City detail plate #5207 is required at all the access points to
the site.
Dedicate on the plat a 35 foot wide drainage utility easement over the public utility lines
located in the main drive aisle.
The applicant may choose from the plant schedule on the landscape plan dated August 15,
2003 only honey locust or red maple as the unifying tree along "main street". Staff
recommends that the applicant choose honey locust as it's unifying tree species.
The applicant shall install landscape island width to a minimum of 10 feet or install
aeration tubing.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval.
Any existing tree shown on the plans will be required to be replaced if it dies.
Street furniture including benches, planter and bike racks shall be added throughout the
development.
Removal of any up lighting on any building that is not shielded sufficiently to prevent
spillover.
The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing
structures.
Provide an engineered utility plan for review.
The location of property lines, existing and new, will have an impact on the code
requirements for the proposed buildings. The plans as submitted do not have the
information necessary to determine code requirements. Provide a preliminary site plan
indicating the proposed property line configuration so code ramifications can be
determined.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
Provide and construction waiting areas adjacent to the Frontier Building for drop off and
pick up as shown on the plans dated October 1, 2003.
No parking signage shall be added to the south face or the south side of the Frontier
building and the east side of the Cinema building.
Drop off signage shall be added as well as striping to the drop off area adjacent to the
Frontier building.
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
30.
Applicant will consider a combination of trellis vines and murals/mosaic on the exposed
cinder block wall west of the cinema.
31. Remove all abandoned utilities on the site.
32.
No chaser or flashing lights will be allowed on the pylon sign on Market Boulevard with
Market Street Station having a more prominent size on the sign.
33.
Provide staff the flexibility to work with the applicant on the cupola and porch of the
restaurant attached to the cinema and the vertical lines on the office building.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
B. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS~ FILE NO. 03-03.
Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing on
this item, A resident asked if there was going to be a public hearing on the previous item. She
was told it was held at the Planning Commission level.
Resolution g2003-88: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the resolution vacating a portion of the public drainage and utility easements at
7880 Market Boulevard, subject to the following condition:
Legal descriptions of the easements to be vacated must be supplied to the City for
recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
TO COMMERCIAL AND A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A FAMILY ACTIVITY CENTER
AND TOWNHOMES ON 14 ACRES; LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD; JOHN PRYZMUS, SWINGS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item and provided the Planning Commission
update. Tom Goodrum with Schoell and Madson spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stressed
that due to the late hour this item was heard at the Planning Commission, he wanted to address
issues of concern for the applicant. Councilman Peterson asked what activities would be outside
of the center. Councilman Labatt asked for staff clarification on the access distance
recommended by MnDot on West 78th Street and Galpin. There was discussion over the number
of housing units the site could hold under it' s current zoning of low density housing. The Council
had concerns with the noise associated with the outside uses, i.e. go carts, batting cages, etc.
Councilman Labatt wanted to stress the fact that the applicant will be in for an uphill battle from
the neighbors to the north in trying to rezone this area for higher density.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a development of a recreational
center or office for the eight (8) acres south of West 78th ?Street based on the findings in the
attached findings of fact and recommendations, and subject to the following conditions:
5
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial
and office institutional developments. Additional detail needs to be provided to ascertain
the quality of the proposed development.
Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for
the project.
The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan
(BCWNRMP) for thc Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development
of the plan.
The Bluff Creek corridor primary and secondary zone boundaries will need to be
determined and surveyed. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek Overlay district
boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan
for this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek have
historically been included within the primary zone.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
A preliminary grading plan must be prepared.
The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The
development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to
discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development
runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be
sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards.
An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted. Type 1II silt fence shall be
provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is
to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
A minimum 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement will be required on all
public utilities outside of the public right-of-way. All buildings must be outside any
existing or proposed easements.
Accept points to West 78th Street, a designated collector route, shall be limited to one
access on both the north and south side of the street. The access location must be offset a
minimum of 600 feet from Galpin Boulevard, and the north/south access shall be aligned
in the same location.
A MnDot and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site.
The proposed access onto Galpin Boulevard will not be allowed in it's current location.
The access will need to be offset a minimum of 600 feet from the intersection of West
78th Street. City approval of the access location will still be contingent upon MnDot and
Carver County approval of the proposed access.
The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along
with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation.
6
City Council Summary - October 13, 2003
14. The applicant will be required to pay park donation fees pursuant to city ordinance.
15.
The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections from the site to adjacent trail
and sidewalks.
16.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 10 feet) must be
maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed
and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and
must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual
wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements
as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback.
17. The creek and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan.
18.
The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant
landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th
Street.
19.
The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation
of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal.
20.
Development will require a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff
Creek Overlay District.
21. The applicant shall incorporate stepped back roof lines as presented in the renderings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong updated the Council on a meeting he attended
with City Manager and Planning Director with the Government Affairs Committee for the
Chamber of Commerce regarding land use along the 212 corridor and the need for additional
office and commercial space in the city.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt informed the City Council of the
special meeting on Monday, October 20th to discuss Highway 212 and the AUAR.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52
p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
7
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman
Peterson. Councilman Ayotte left during item 3.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Tom Scott, Justin Miller, Matt Saam, Kate Aanenson, and
Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jessica Sebold
Lindsey Lawler
Nicky Courchaine
Montana St. Fait
Sarah Drill-Mellum
Mark Peterson
Belinda Dulski
7470 Tulip Court
235 Northgate Boulevard
900 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8628 Chanhassen Hills Drive
5850 County Road 155, Waconia
8845 Wedgemere Drive
7854 Harvest Lane
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to those here this evening and to those watching at
home. Appreciate you joining us. I'd like to start this evening by extending an invitation to all
residents for the Halloween party coming up on Saturday, October 25th. Annually the City of
Chanhassen, in cooperation with our local businesses, sponsors a series of special events. The
fall event is the Halloween Party which will run from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. as I said on Saturday,
October 25m. There are going to be a lot of events for children's entertainment. Musical
entertainment, trick or treating, hayrides, weather permitting, and I know the weather will permit
Mr. Hoffman. And variety of children's games, haunted areas and refreshments. Pre-registration
is required so we encourage you to register your children. There is a $4.00 per child fee. Adults
are free so we certainly look forward to seeing everybody there on October 25th. And that will be
at the Chanhassen Rec Center.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Next item on our agenda, first of all I would ask if there are any
additions or amendments to the agenda.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I'd like to table item C. The City Council is going to
meet after our regular council meeting to get an update on our strategic plan on economic
development. Staff would recommend that we wait until we have a full council here to see that
presentation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Without objection. With that, we'll move forward with the agenda.
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
CONSENT AGENDA:
approve the following
recommendations:
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
Approval of Minutes:
-Joint City Council/Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 15, 2003
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 22, 2003
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated September 22, 2003
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated September 16, 2003
bo
Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition:
1) Approval of Final Plat
2) Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract, Project
03-08.
Resolution g2003-85: Accept Utility Improvements for St. Hubert Catholic Community,
Land Use File No. 02-03.
e. Approval of Separation Agreement with Public Works Director/City Engineer.
h. Resolution g2003-86: Approval of Resolution Supporting Upgrading Chaska
Ambulance to ALS License.
i. Resolution g2003-87: Approval of Resolution Regarding District 112 Referendum.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON SCHOOL REFERENDUM FOR DISTRICT
112~ SUPERINTENDENT BEV STOFFERAHN.
Rod Franks: Rod Franks. My address is 8694 Mary Jane Circle. Mayor and members of the
council, I thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. My wife Robin and I, I'll
keep this short. I won't go into a long history lesson, but my wife Robin and I moved to
Chanhassen about 12 years ago. We came here to make a home and begin our family. We now
have 2 great kids who attend school at Chanhassen Elementary. You know since we moved here
I've seen a lot of changes. Most notably was as my family grew so did our community. While
this growth in our community may be challenging, it is also a strength in the terms of the
opportunities and diversity, community and a growing educational system. Size can be a strength
when we capitalize on the opportunities it affords. Growth in District 112 has created challenges
in space and staffing, as well as supporting quality learning experiences. Fortunately District 112
has developed a plan that will address these challenges and provide the best educational
opportunity for our kids and the future kids who will move into our community. After looking
into the plan, I found that it was both reasonable and responsible. The District has made an effort
to get feedback from the community in the development of this plan and is now bringing it
forward for a referendum on November 4th. It is a referendum we can collectively afford to pass
but we cannot afford to allow it to fail. As a citizen of Chanhassen and a father of 2 kids in
District 112, I will be voting yes on November 4~. Tonight is an opportunity for you to hear
about the plan and perhaps get some of your questions answered as well. In that regard we're
fortunate enough to have Bev Stofferahn, Superintendent of District 112 here with us tonight.
2
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
She'll provide an overview to the three ballot questions contained in referendum. I urge you to
join me in supporting your referendum. And now I introduce to you Bev.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bev Stofferahn: Thank you Rod. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As a resident of this great
city and as superintendent of District 112, it's indeed my pleasure to be with you tonight to share
with you some information about a very important day coming up in the life of District 112,
namely November 4th. We have great things happening in District 112, all involving our
students. Last year alone we had our elementary test scores at an all time high and we're working
hard to get them even higher. Our high school academic teams have had phenomenal success and
they outpaced even their own expectations last year in that all 5 of our academic teams took state
championships. Two of those had a venue to go on into national competition, and both of them
ended up in the top 5 in the nation. Our fourth graders year after year after year consistently
dominant the state inventor's fair in which 100 of the best from across the metro area are invited
to attend and consistently, from one year to another, where fully a third of those students are from
District 112. We had a wonderful opportunity last spring in a standing room only auditorium to
honor over 300 of our students from all age groups for demonstrating the community values in
their lives and last spring in our Decision Resources survey, when Bill Morals, the president
reported back to the board the results, he used the word extraordinary when he reported that 85
percent of the residents told him, and this was all residents. Not only our parents, that they
believe District 112 offers quality learning experiences for learners of all ages from preschool
through adult. We're very proud of those things that are going on and we're working hard to
make them even better. Certainly more schools, or good schools and great communities mean
more people. We're all familiar with that and so for District 112 that means a higher enrollment.
The numbers on this chart are not particularly important. The slope of the bars are. On the far
left you see, these are actual enrollment numbers. 1990 and 1991, District 112 educated 4,005
students. Last year in the 2002-2003 school year, it was over 7,700. This fall as we look at
actuals, we are only a handful of students away from totally doubling that 1990 figure. We are
just under 8,000 this year, and as we look to the future, you see the change does not occur in
terms of the slope of the line. This fall's actuals are 7,940 and within 5 years, we are projected to
have almost 9,600 students. The difference in those 5 years is roughly the equivalent of the entire
student body at the high school now. These projects by the way were made prior to the
announcement of the acceleration of Highway 312, so we're still trying to figure out what the
impact of that is going to be. In terms of as we translate that into what does that mean for
facilities, we realize that District 112 grows at the rate of one classroom every 6 weeks if you
simply do the math over the course of the year. Very few school districts in Minnesota are right
now growing but the ones of us that are are growing at a very, very high pace. Over the last 10
years we have averaged 4.6 percent increase in our enrollment each of those 10 years. In order to
address this rapid growth the school board, about 2 years ago now undertook what turned out to
be an 18 month study into determining what it was we wanted as a community for our facilities to
look like in terms of their configuration. It resulted in a master facility plan that was adopted last
December by the Board and it is intended to serve as a guide to help us through this rapid peak
enrollment out there about 12 to 15 years from now in which the district right now is projected to
be at somewhere between 10 and 11,000 students. In Phase I of that master facility plan is
coming forward now and is really being driven by two major factors. First factor is that the
current high school's over capacity at this point. It was built and designed, designed and built I
guess, for 1,500 students. Today it serves just under 1,700. Each class from 9th grade on down is
well over 600 already and each of those grades continues to grow within itself each year. We
will be totally out of elementary space again by the year 2005 so the prudent thing to do it seems
is to begin the process of building now so that we can avoid that over crowding and have facilities
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
ready. Consequently Phase I is coming forward and with your permission I'd like to outline the
components for you. First of all a new elementary school that will house 625 students. It will be
built in Victoria. It will look in it's interior design at least very much like the latest three Bluff
Creek, Jonathan and Clover Ridge in which we have clusters of classrooms around some flexible
space. The price tag on that is just under $15 million. There will be an addition to the high
school to add a fourth house if you will, to bring classroom capacity up to 2,000. Along with that
we need to add more phy ed space and more seating in the commons of the cafeteria area, and
then we need to address the lack of space of tech ed programming space. When the building was
designed we didn't have much of a program in technical education. Today that is a very viable
program. In fact fully a third of our students take at least one tech ed class and we simply do not
have the space in which to offer it. These are classes that in my day would have been called shop,
but they don't look like shop anymore. Yes, there is still a traditional wood shop but there is
everything from CAD drawing to power mechanics, aerodynamics, aviation and so on and those
classes deserve some space. The board is also, as you are as council members, very, very
cognizant of the fact that land prices in this area are continuing to rise at a very rapid rate. We
know that there is in the future of this district another secondary school. The Board would very
much like to buy land at today's prices for that school and be able to secure it then in a location
which is desirous as well. The Board has directed us to focus our search on Chanhassen and to
date we have made an offer on property but that's the status of it right now it is still at an offer.
In addition the bond issue would include to the issues at the Middle School West to be addressed,
mainly those of water and air quality. The heating and ventilating system in that building is still
original. It's over 40 years old and it simply needs to be replaced. The building is not air
conditioned and with the exception of East Union, it's the only building in the district that is not.
We would also like to be able to add new windows to capture energy efficiency and address the
water issues there. The water is safe to drink but it neither tastes nor smells very good due to the
corrosion in the pipes. We also take very seriously the fact that we want to continue to be good
stewards of all the existing spaces that our taxpayers have so generously provided for our
students, and our capital expenditures far out, the need far outpaces the funding that we get from
the State so each time we have a referendum we like to address some of the highest priorities at
each of the sites. And then just the cost of doing business on a project this large, from architects
to bond consultants to financial advisors runs about a million and a half dollars. So all together,
price tag for that referendum question is 54 and three-quarter million dollars. I am the first to say
that is a significant amount of money. I don't want to minimize that. In addition to having space,
as you know you also need to be able to afford to operate it, so the Board is asking in a second
question authority to increase levy authority to be able to open and operate that new, those new
spaces. It would cover such expenses as the traditional heating and lights, but also what we call
the core staff. It is the staff that kind of automatically needs to be there to surround the teachers
and the students to make for a successful experience. It's people like nurses and secretaries and
food service workers and counselors and principles and so on. If we were not to be able to get
this additional levy authority, the only way we could afford to operate the new space would be to
reduce the current general fund by a million and a half dollars each year into the future, and that
automatically means we need to reduce programming for students to free up that money. The
board is not willing to open space at the sacrifice of programs so consequently they've tied these
two questions together. If the bond issue passes and this levy does not, then the bonds will not be
sold. Then there is a third question, which also deals with levy authority to minimize future
program cuts that we know are on our horizon and raise $1.25 million in the first year. District
112 has cut $8.6 million out of it's operating budget in the last 5 years. Meanwhile we have
brought in and educated, and I believe well, another 1,000 plus students. That is no small task.
We have cut just about everything we can in trying to preserve class size and programs and we
are at the point where we can no longer do that. Meanwhile state funding is totally stagnant. The
rhetoric that came out of St. Paul last year was telling about keeping education harmless. It did
4
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
not happen. We are operating this year on less funds per pupil than we had last year, and already
in law for next year is no added increase. So we can expect that we have totally flat, and in fact
depressed funding over 3 years. We all know that our expenses will continue to rise in that same
period, and that is going to be totally out of balance, so the Board is asking for help here in trying
to minimize the future budget cuts. This one is just a little bit tricky and I'd like to explain that
the fact that we currently have levy authority to $498 per pupil unit and some odd cents. We are
3 years away from having that authority expire, but due to a technicality in the law we cannot ask
the voters to renew that authority and add to it. So instead the ballot question will ask for
permission to revoke the current authority, which is $498. Replace it with authority for 619. The
difference between those two numbers raises that $1.25 million. Everybody's question is, what
does this cost? The average home in this district right now is valued at $250,000. The school
taxes on the 2003 statements are $1,228 on that property. If this referendum were not being held,
those same taxes, or the taxes on that same home would decrease next year to $1,078. We want
to acknowledge that. You see there the impact of each of the three questions if successful, the
referendum would add to taxes, or bring those taxes up to $1,378 from $1,228. It is the difference
of $150 a year, $12.50 a month. I think of it in terms of a pizza a month. If all three questions
are successful. You know as we compare the impact of this referendum to the one the district
held in 1999, we see some interesting things emerge. That referendum, which brought us what
would become Pioneer Ridge Freshman Center and Clover Ridge Elementary, among other
things, was for roughly 42 ½ million dollars. The impact of that same $250,000 home at that time
was over $37 a month. This referendum is for $54.75 million will have the impact of about only
a third of it. The reason for that, actually there are two reasons. One, our tax law changes in the
course of those 4 years. The other is the fact that are simply more of us now so each of pays a
smaller share of that tax bill. One thing we just as soon not have to do, but we do have to face the
possibility of this question failing and then what do we do? We call these logical consequences.
If the bond issue is not to be successful, as public institution we welcome every child that comes
to our doors. That is our mission and we will continue to do that. So we have precious little
ways of accommodating that growth if we can't open up enough space we're forced into
increasing class sizes and over crowding classrooms. And then what we also end up doing is
moving students from building to building on a virtually annual basis trying to level out the
crowded conditions. Specialist rooms, are rooms that are designed for art classes and music
classes and so on, get converted to regular classrooms, just trying to accommodate those, all of
those students. At the high school it's not too dissimilar, except that it might look a little
different. One of the first things we probably would do, need to do is to reduce class options, and
let me just give you a hypothetical to show you how that plays out. Let's say that we get to a
point where because of the number of students in the building and the number of classroom
spaces we determine that we have to have 40 students in a classroom, across the board, every
hour of the day. And 25 of those students sign up to take an AP government class. A class that' s
a very viable class. 25 is a great class size, but because we need to have 40 in a classroom at that
point, we have to make a decision. We either don't run that course, or we run that course. If 25
are going to be there, 55 need to be in some other class to offset that and to average it out.
Neither of those is a good option, but that's how the reduction of the class options starts to take
hold. Certainly we would look at the possibility of leasing space, if some were available.
However, the problem with that is more than logistical. The cost of the lease, cost of
transportation and so on comes out of the general fund which again forces us to reduce programs
for our learners. Raising class sizes is inevitable and before very long we'd have to have a
serious discussion about the possibility of split shifts where you take half the student body and
start them well before dawn. Run them until about noon and start the other half around 12:30-
1:00 and take them til 7:00. Any district who's been through that says it's horrible, and I don't
have to think about it too long to understand why. Similarly if the levy should fail, because we
have cut so much around classrooms in the last 5 years, we don't have any choices left. The easy
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
things are gone. We're into program cuts. We're into class size increases in all things that
nobody likes but to make that bottom line balance, that's the kind of things that have to happen.
Consequently, we really want people to have the information that they need to make an informed
decision. Here are some ways that that can transpire. First of all, we will have another
community report, our newsletter from the district coming out next week. The entire edition of
that will be devoted to referendum Q and A and so on. On our web site I would invite all of you,
and anybody in the viewing audience to log onto the web site, District l l2.org, clicking on
referendum information and there is a wealth of information there. We keep adding things as we
can think of them. A couple of features within that, one people can e-mail in a question and we
promise that we'll get a reply out. And second, there is a link there that we have provided to
Springsted, our financial advisor where if you plug in the valuation of your property, hit the
calculator button, it will tell you what the impact is to your property. And then £mally the Board
and Administration will hold an information clinic on October 28m so if people still have
questions and want a face to face discussion, we'd want to provide them that opportunity. The
school board fully believes as you do, as council members, that communities create a strong
tomorrow when they invest in their children today, so they are asking for people to become
informed and make an informed decision. With that I thank you for your time and I have with me
Brad Johnson who is a School Board member and we're available to answer any questions
council may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any questions of the superintendent? If not,
Superintendent Stofferahn, thank you very much for coming. This is clearly a very important
matter and one that deserves the utmost attention for our residents who live in School District 112
so we strongly urge all residents to become educated on these issues and most importantly to vote
on November 4th in this very important matter for the future of our school district so, thank you
very much for coming this evening.
Bev Stofferahn: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: We are still within visitor presentations, if there is anyone that would like to
come forward at this time. If not, we will close visitor presentations and move on.
PUBLIC HEARING: MARKET STREET STATION~ FORMER BOWLING ALLEY
SITE~ NORTH OF PAULY DRIVE AND EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM BG~ GENERAL BUSINESS TO CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTI REPLAT OF LOTS~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FORE MORE THAN ONE BUILDING ON A LOT; SITE PLAN
REVIEW WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 60~000 SQ. FT.
INCLUDING CINEMA EXPANSION~ RETAIL AND OFFICES.
Mayor Furlong: We've got a couple of issues here. One is issues for rezoning, conditional use
permits, site plan review, variances. That's the first item that we'll address. The second item,
which does include a public hearing, is relating to vacation of drainage and utility easements so
staff report please.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is a redevelopment project in the core of the
downtown. Just north of Highway 5 coming in on Market. As you indicated there are several
actions being requested tonight. Conditional use, a rezoning, and it does have some variances, as
well as a site plan approval. There's also a park and ride on the site that we'll talk about a little
bit and how that plays into the redevelopment project, but just to frame this up and give a little bit
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
of background. This project was, this area was studied in the Vision 2002 and talked about how
this area, development of this area is really an important part of the downtown and the mix of
what happens here. Restaurants, commercial, entertainment really would add a lot of viability as
the Market/101 drops you right into the core of the downtown. So as a part of that, when we
looked at this original proposal one of the first things that we looked at was the underlying zoning
of the property. The majority of this site, this is kind of a super block, is actually zoned central
business. The central business district has different standards on what the subject site before you
tonight has, the general business. One is there isn't a limit on height or impervious surface, and if
you look at how this property's being used today, it's really being used as a central business
district with the amount of parking and the landscape and the like, so the recommendation that the
staff had was to rezone the property to central business district, If you look at the findings that
we looked at, again we think it' s consistent with the rest of the block. As far as the architectural
treatment and how it's being used, the intent of the development with the park and ride, we do
support the rezoning. As a part of this it's also being replatted. Because the lots are being
assembled, it doesn't meet the legal requirement of the subdivision, but it will be platted because
the combination of those lots in order to get those approved through the county would require
administrative decision, but they're not creating a new lot. They're assembling those lots under
one jurisdiction. And because of that it does require a conditional use. Our ordinance does say
more than one building on a lot does require a conditional use, and staff does support that because
again we're getting a unified development theme with cross access agreements and we think
that's an appropriate way to go, but again the ordinance does say more than one building on a lot
requires a conditional use. We do have the findings in the staff report to support that and we are
recommending approval on that. So with that...go over the site plan and then we'll spend some
time talking about the architecture. Currently on the site is a cinema portion that we're talking
about. From here over. There's a cinema on the site that was done in the late 90's. There was
also a parking study done for this entire site that was done in 1998 and was updated. We looked
at a couple of things at that time. The redevelopment of the current bowling alley has additional
8 cinemas and then a possibility of a large 3 story office building. This development plan, one of
the concerns that the Planning Commission had regarding the traffic flow, is actually pretty equal
to what the maximum was with the ultimate use of the bowling and the Filly's, so we believe it's
consistent and much less intense than some of these other prior proposals. So this proposal
contemplates removal of the bowling alley. A new restaurant, 5,000 square foot restaurant. An
additional space for the cinema. A bank with additional office space, and then another free
standing 3,000 square foot restaurant. In the site plan review staff has recommended...wide open
as far as the standards. You review the parking and as I indicated, we reviewed the parking
standards and the parking study, some of the concerns the Planning Commission had were turn
movements. Ultimately with the phasing, what you're seeing tonight would be the first phase.
Ultimately additional phases would provide some other access. As a part of this with the park
and ride, there's a permanent park and ride easement on the property located in this area. The bus
would come through to turn about there. This is all being moved to the interior and there will be
a new hub in this location, and the buses will circulate around. One of the concerns that the
Planning Commission had, and this item was heard twice before the Planning Commission, was
actual circulation of the bus. Southwest Metro did provide information that's included in your
packet regarding times of the bus, frequency of the bus and the number of buses. One of the
alternatives was to actually make the circle right now but the proposal is to move around the
building. There was concern about the use, the conflict at the frontier. There's a dance studio at
that location. Meeting with Southwest Metro an alternative was proposed, kind of mid block.
Staff had some concerns, as did Southwest Metro because you're actually introducing a little
more conflict because you have two backing lanes now into a transit hub, so the applicant did
provide a slip off kind of lane for people that are picking up and dropping off children at this
location so the bus can move around freely and people that are waiting for rides, children that are
7
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
waiting for rides have a safe area kind of off to the side, and we believe that's a good solution, as
did Southwest Metro. Again this is Phase I of ultimate development. Phase II would be, right
now you can come up onto West 78th between the cinema and the frontier building. Ultimately in
Phase II them will be another access point directly onto West 79th. And then Phase llI will
ultimately be a park and ride, future parking ramp further to the east, and that will accommodate
additional development on the site. But again, we're not here to talk about Phase 11I but
ultimately how that park and ride works and the circulation. But the goal is to ultimately have
circulation throughout the site, accommodating the buses and the buses if they're moved to the
site, would have a little bit different circulation movement. So with that, I'd like to spend a little
bit more time kind of going through the architecture. Maybe I should stop right here and if you
have any questions just on the site plan. They did resolve some of the conflicts that engineering
had. Some of those were reduced. The building was moved and it was...the building was moved
4 feet to the west to increase some of the parking width lane width here that we have. But the
goal here was to minimize, it's functioning now to try to minimize some of those changes in re-
surfacing so I think we've accomplished that and some of the drainage issues have been resolved.
There's still some standard conditions that need to be resolved before the site plan is approved but
I think we've worked through a majority of those issues. Maybe before I move to that, there was
two variances I want to talk briefly about before we talk more specifically about the architecture.
One is there was a variance for the cinema itself. There is a requirement of window openings.
Certainly the staff supported that based on the fact that it's a cinema. They can't meet the
fenestration requirements for windows so staff was supporting that. The other was for a sign
variance. Actually there's two variances. The applicants are proposing a large sign, 20 foot high
in the location approximately over here where the park and ride is currently. The purpose of that
is to cue people because the park and ride is actually moving to the interior of the site.
Identifying that as still being on the site. The cinema and then also the Market Street station and
staff has a few concerns about who has top billing. How that all reads but we support the
variance because again it's kind of an identifying this larger entertainment center and it is
probably a little bit bigger trade area so we do support the height variance. We would like to
work with the applicant a little bit more on the read and the copy and I think they're amenable to
that, so that was one of the variances. Again, on the cinema there's an expansion on the front of
that, and I' 11 go through the detail a little bit more on the materials but there was a variance on the
materials there. And the other variance was for two monument signs on West 78th. The Planning
Commission commented on those. There was some dissention of whether or not they should get
the two variances or not but ultimately they recommended that they only be allowed the one sign.
With that.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to take questions now on anything at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah...on the site plan, sure. Or the rezoning or...
Councilman Labatt: Just a quick question of, I've been beating this here with Todd. If you could
go back to the overhead map and I know the Planning Commission kind of beat this around. But
the route that the bus is going to take is going to come up, go on Pauly Drive and pick up at the
blue shelter, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Then they go north bound, they're going to take a left and go in front of the
dance studio.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Councilman Labatt: Is it possible they could route to the right or to the east through the new
parking lot?
Kate Aanenson: Not at this time.
Councilman Labatt: There's not enough room there?
Kate Aanenson: Well, maybe I'll let the applicant try to address that issue. There's some grade
changes and the like. Certainly with Phase III there will be the park and ride land here.
Councilman Labatt: Right.
Kate Aanenson: And they want to separate some of that turn movement. We believe there
should be some continuous cross access agreement, but for right now based on how it's
functioning today, the turn movements are going in and out of there today and that goes back to
that 1998 traffic study with the number of the park and ride and the mix in use. That it should
function. And again that goes back to what we looked at the frequency of the buses coming in.
The time frames that they come in. That 3-4 hour peak morning and afternoon. It should work
well internally. There will be you know some people dropping off some of those same hours as
the evening bus and I think we're trying to work. The other thing I didn't mention with the
Planning Commission, we certainly want signage and that was a condition that they added. Not
only striping, crosswalk, visual cueing, drop off areas so those are very clear. So we're not
mixing those.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions at this time?
Councilman Peterson: Kate on the stand alone restaurant, is that, that is planned in Phase I isn't
it?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Because there's no renderings of that?
Kate Aanenson: No there's not. They'd come back.
Councilman Peterson: Secondly. If the variances were approved for the cinema sign, wouldn't
that be based on the assumption that the changes we made to the cinema before the sign is up?
Kate Aanenson: Changes made to the cinema? If you want to make that a condition, that's an
attachment, sure.
Councilman Peterson: Is that reasonable? I mean.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think, you know they've got top billing right now so I think that was part
of the cueing and if you want to make that part of the condition, that's a reasonable, that might be
a reasonable condition.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Kate Aanenson: The other one we just want to make sure that people know the park and ride's
still there in the interior, and I guess that's what we were concerned about...
Councilman Peterson: Going back to the restaurant. Is there a reason that we won't have a
rendering?
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure they know who it is yet and they don't have certain architectural
desires, but our goal is to make it somewhat compatible to that. The materials.
Councilman Peterson: Obviously we' 11 see that when it comes in anyway so.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Are you done? Councilman Ayotte had to leave and he had a conflict so that's
why he left, but with regard to the pylon sign. As I understand it, not only do you have the
cinema on top but then there' s the LED display underneath as well.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: What's staff's thought with regard to the LED display?
Kate Aanenson: That it's now playing any other message board that they want to put on there.
We do allow that in the city code. Message reader boards. We have those on a number of the
banks are probably our predominant use. Actually the VF was the last one that we approved on
there. I think there' s also a criteria that you put some community service announcements in there
too. A lot of them have done that on their own so. Again, I guess we're looking at the
proportionality of it. You know Market Street Station is kind of a small part of it so I think what
Councilman Peterson's alluding to too is, is the proportionality of that.
Mayor Furlong: Emphasize the whole area as opposed to one.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, Market Street Station.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: And here' s what' s in there, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: You wouldn't be able to see the LCD from Highway 5 anyway would
you?
Kate Aanenson: Probably not. It's probably more in line with what's playing now, and I guess
our concern was too, can you read that? What's the copy? And we've talked to them about
working on the proportion and I think everybody's agreeable to that. I think what we're saying is
that this is kind of a unique entertainment center because it is the cinema and the park and ride. It
does have a little bit bigger draw area. Little bit more lively so we would support that but we just
want to make sure that it looks good and works well because we don't have any other signs that
10
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
tall off the highway. So we want to say, if we're going to allow this it should be unique and fit
well with what we're trying to do.
Councilman Labatt: Are those color bands, the red, green and blue, those aren't lighted are they?
Kate Aanenson: I believe they're lit.
Councilman Labatt: Near the entrance?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and it's got the chaser lights which is similar to what's on the cinema too.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I didn't know if these were. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, I'll just take a few minutes to talk about the architecture. I did put in, in
the staff report, reviewed the criteria for the design standards. One of the things that we were
looking at, certainly not only materials but kind of the rhythm of the buildings. The cinema itself,
the goal there is to create a grander entrance which we think works well, putting in the additional
stadium seating on the front and a better entrance so you're actually inside the building waiting
instead of on the steps on the outside. So we think that is a nice appearance. Again, this is an
area where, I mean you're not going to get the window openings that are required which is the
cause for variance you have the larger material. Not the smaller brick. Larger materials with, this
is similar what's on the current cinema. The chaser lights. Staff didn't have a problem with that.
There is some under lighting here where some of the concern was and I think it's a little
ambiguous in the condition. We talked about no up lighting and what we were really talking
about earlier in the report, going through the design criteria is the unshielded up lights. I think
that should be clarified because if it's up lit under the soffit and there's a cut off, that shouldn't be
a problem. It's just the lighting that hits the sky and that's what the staff was, and there wasn't
consensus on the Planning Commission on that either, although they voted to take off that. There
was some Planning Commissioners that felt having it lit made some sense, but again just to be
clear on what our direction was, that if there' s no cut off on it, that we didn't want it. So if it was
light in some way on this part of the roof, staff fek that that may work. So this perspective that
you're looking at includes the western side of the cinema and the larger restaurant would be
where the bowling alley was. So that would be the restaurant side. Just to be clear, so we're
talking about this side. This area over here was actually...that the Planning Commissioners
spoke at some length about, talking about putting a trellis on. There are some exiting for the
theaters. They had talked about either mural or doing a trellis, which staff did also support on
that side of the building. This would be the bank building. This does have a drive thru. Some of
the concerns that the Planning Commission had regarding cueing and I'll talk about that in a
minute, but this building again compliments some of the same themes on the other. The read on
this is a little difficult to see some of the movements. It does have lit awnings, which we do
allow. That the ordinance does allow. It does have asphalt shingles. It does have the canopy
entrance and the breaks in the roof lines which is required by code. The one thing that we said
we wouldn't allow would be the panel signs. They have to be individual channel letters, so that
kind of ties back into the requirement for the, or the request for the two monument signs. There
are signs on the building that will have the, if you have street frontage you're allowed that sign
band so the staff was thinking that that might be double copy and we didn't feel like two signs,
monument signs. I know there'll be one for the bank and the retailers wanted some of that
11
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
prominent sign but we know the bank will also need a directional sign to get through a drive thru.
Let me just flip back to the drive thru section real quick. The bank does have a drive thru,
coming in and circulating around. This, in your packet was included how that actually
architecturally matches the building. The Planning Commission did have some concern
regarding cueing, getting into the right lane to make that turn movement, but staff believes that
that can be accomplished and it can function well. Ultimately the applicants are pursuing
possible vacation, we would maintain an easement over that so right now we may possibly
provide a curb cut. While we don't want to get it too close to that intersection to make it work, it
may move somewhere mid-block. There is a curb cut right here for the circulation and coming
out of the bank. Moving back through. That was a concern of the Planning Commission.
Materials that are proposed. The cement board that's on the bank and the retail building does
meet the city ordinance requirements. That's also included in your packet. The boulder on the
bottom. Again we think it's a good compliment. And again taking that existing cinema, trying to
move that up in architectural style and then complimenting that and moving it across. Staff does
support that and think it does meet the requirements of the architectural standards. So the staff
did recommend approval of the site plan. And Planning Commission, as I indicated, did have two
meetings on this. Again mostly to resolve, I think they felt pretty strong about the architecture. I
think their biggest issue was the circulation of the transit and I think we got that resolved. So
with that I'd take any other questions you have. Otherwise I'd recommend approval with the
conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Anything Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Not yet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, very good. Thank you. I see the applicant is here this evening.
Is there a desire to make a presentation?
John Uban: We only have really one issue that we'd like to talk about. My name is John Uban.
I'm a consulting planner working with Kraus-Anderson and Bloomberg Companies. We talked a
number of times with the Planning Commission about the issue of two signs in their view for one
building, and that is the bank building. It really is a multiple use building. We chose to put
together many uses and will include them in one building, very much like a typical downtown
would where you have many things in one building. It stretches out and continues a faqade, a
main street sort of facade with the bank. Or with the cinema and the restaurant. The bank clearly
needs a sign in front and with a drive thru facility, but the retail and the offices that occupy the
rest of that building, we feel are really dependent also on some identification on Market Street.
The pylon sign that's proposed is really primarily for the kind of overall area which includes
many different businesses in there as Market Street Station. But it also is primarily for the
cinema, and we do want to create some liveliness. That's the issue with lighting and so forth. So
we would like to have that second sign. It's a monument sign. It's low. A landscaped sign. Not
really horribly conspicuous but enough to point to that entrance, that faffade on the south side as
the main faqade for the retail facilities. And so we think that's important and I think it's works
well within the design, so we hope you agree with us. And we would like some latitude on the
lighting, just so we can architecturally include some up lighting because it's easier to maintain it
and actual illuminates facades in a very way and we will control it so it does not glare and it's
well shielded. So those are basically the only thing so we're here to answer any questions you
12
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
might have, and we're quite excited about beginning this project and we think it's going to be
very handsome. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Questions.
Councilman Peterson: Before you go, if you would on the signs, while you're on that topic.
Point out on that picture, where you're requesting them to be. When Kate pointed it out, the
camera wasn't on her finger.
John Uban: Okay. This is the sign that brings people into the cueing for the bank and drive thru.
Councilman Peterson: That's the low monument sign you're talking about.
John Uban: Low monument sign.
Councilman Peterson: Def'me low if you would.
John Uban: I think it's about 6 feet in height by, 6 by 8, something like that. With a brick or the
matching, it matches the building. The base will have a rock that matches the building. 6 foot 6
with about 2 feet of base on the bottom. And then the other monument sign is right down by the
other main entrance coming in, so it will be down at this corner to give notification and visibility
and draw people into the retail component on the south side. It's really a south and north side.
Councilman Peterson: But it will be the same, essentially the same configuration as the sign to
the north.
John Uban: Right.
Councilman Peterson:
So, okay. And then the cinema sign is where?
John Uban: Well we wanted it here but after looking at the actual visibility, we're going to move
it actually into the site more. Pull it away from the street, and that's because of the curvature of
Market Street here and there is, it's like a utility box for the railroad tracks. It kind of blocks this
view and so if we just slide it over a little bit, it will have a better view so we're actually going to
move the sign in a little bit.
Mayor Furlong: Just a follow-up question on that Kate. In the staff report you talked about the
location, the setback from the street. Does this new location, is staff comfortable with that or is
that just.
Kate Aanenson: ...we can work out internally just to make sure that there's a height setback and
we can work that out. I think moving it back shouldn't be problematic.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Architectural questions. Who should I direct those to?
John Uban: Milo Thompson, our esteemed architect.
Councilman Peterson: Milo, part of when I was going through the packet what I was trying to.
Glad there wasn't anything there. Part of what I was trying to do, trying to get a better picture of
13
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
the look and the feel. The renderings that had been presented to us, I struggled to really get a
good sense of the feel of it. You know they're black and white, which detracts...knowing that
color doesn't always come out all that accurate but it still gives a better presentation. I took a
drive out to the Arboretum again today just to get another sense because I know you compared
that earlier. And so I guess what I'd like you to do is talk more about the comparison of that.
Starting from the cinema side and moving over. I like the cinema and how the changes, I like that
feel. And as we move to the restaurant area, you know we've talked about that frontier feel that,
at least I didn't really want to focus that much on but I'm starting to get a frontier feel there, and I
know I talked to Kate today and she tried to articulate that there really isn't that feel. I think I
mentioned the word hitching post, and she assured me that that wasn't there, but it still looks like
it so I'd like you to talk about that. And then as we move to the bank building and the length of
that, my only reaction architecturally to that was it's a lot of vertical lines there. You know a lot.
And I don't see the vertical lines at the Arboretum. Obviously it's a different building but again,
it just seems real busy and convince me it's not going to look overly busy as it's put together.
Milo Thompson: Well let me try to enhance the image of this building with words rather than
more pictures. Some of these things are really difficult to portray and I must say that our
renderings of the buildings, in an attempt to clarify the plane difference is probably exaggerated
the shadows of all these vertical lines. In fact, if I could put this up, and could we zoom in on this
one please. This too exaggerates the depth of the lines here. In fact there's only a % inch
difference between these two planes. This and this. And they are about a foot each. So the plane
is probably going to be much crisper than you see here. It's not going to be so heavily textured as
this drawing would indicate. I continue to make reference to the Arboretum buildings because in
my mind this is one of Chanhassen's most, in fact Minnesota's, one of Minnesota's most
distinguished buildings. We aren't intending to mimic this but it is a very nice model for a kind
of character which is I think straddles a sense of being something that is very, in a sense very
casual or kind of a much more suburban then buildings that we would normally do, but it's also
very elegant. It's elegant in the way it's put together and proportioned and so on. That's the part
of this building that we find rather a good model for us. So I think what you should see in our
drawings, or what I hope you can see is the intent that this is a crisper looking building then we
are able to show in these drawings. The stone itself too you might think is a little too rustic. You
know the whole sense of frontier I think came because originally this was called frontier center
and we took that as we began working on this, took it simply as a name and I think unfortunately
it conveyed more than intended in terms of an architectural style. Now just as an example, on
the, what I think you read as a kind of a western sort of aesthetic. As compared to the kind of
thing you see at the Arboretum, in fact is a very crisp, pre-cast section. It's much more like this
building that we've done for Marshal Fields in that these are some large furniture stores in
Illinois, and this is a very, we've done a lot of pre-cast for them and this is a material that comes
out much more classical I think than anything that you are thinking that we are portraying here.
It's really a very beautifully finished surface. To contrast with that, the stone that we are showing
is something like this. The one thing that I would suggest in addition to what you see here is a
heavier mortar that brings out, brings the surface to be much more clean rather than heavily
textured. So it's split face stone and so typically you're seeing a lot of this cultured stone these
days as river rock which is kind of rounded and they model it. They push the mortar in so it's
very pronounced as a form of the stone. We are trying to make a stone wall that is more like what
you see on some of the wonderful foundations and old farm buildings and so on, which we were,
more mortar and less stone actually, and split face so it becomes much more strongly
architectural. And that's what we're trying to do on the bases of the buildings to provide kind of
a uniform base for the cementicious material that otherwise is used to clad the building to come
down onto. But for certain we are not intending this to be a kind of a western motif. If there's
anything I think that it more relates to is kind of a European model of architecture. I'll go back to
14
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
the cinema and show probably how, what is portrayed here is a little closer to the project that I
showed you as a furniture store with Marshal Fields. This in fact, though not pre-cast is, it looks
like pre-cast because it's coursed and very heavy. In very large proportions...split face stone but
rather rectangular pieces laid in horizontal courses here, with a random division between. So this
part of the project I think is much more classical in it's architecture than the rest. Now on the
restaurant itself, we have had recent meetings as recently I think as last Friday, and so we are
hearing a criticism from the tenants who occupy this building that probably are a little bit like
your's and preferring not to kind of subdue this sense, this reading of some sort of western or
frontier appearance. They in fact don't like the porch, and so as we talk about this, we would like
to know whether or not we have flexibility to respond to their own preference that this building
be a more modern looking building. They like the idea of a pitched roof. They don't like the idea
of the cupola. All of which, from a design point of view I think we can accommodate. What
we're concerned about is knowing whether or not this confuses the issue. We certainly don't
want to come back again for a complete review of the whole project based on, at this time the
potential tenants preference about the exterior. But we're, what I'm indicating is that we are very
willing to and look forward to refinements that get at this character more specifically.
Councilman Peterson: I can answer your question and as I certainly look to my peers to do the
same. I think as one of the Planning Commissioners also said it in the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting, they were concerned about the architectural abruptness of that change and I
certainly would be amenable to making that transition more subtle than it is, so to answer you
question, would I be open to something other than a porch and what it is? Yes. So when you
hear the comments from the other council people, I look forward to hearing those as would you.
So I guess in closing, my questions, which are turning into commentary, the renderings I'm just
concerned that they don't give me a really strong feel for what it's going to feel like. And that's
my only concern tonight. I hear what you're saying about the vertical lines but what I see and
what I hear are two different things so I'm worried about that. Whether or not the type of
materials between the upper windows and the lower windows can be, if you can point me in the
direction where I can go out and look at what that is, and get a better feel. Or whether or not
you're amenable to changing materials somehow so that it's more smooth. So that it does, if you
end up changing the restaurant to be more like the cinema, is there some kind of a relationship
that you could also change the bank building so that products do tie more together, and perhaps
that' s just a smoother facade, like the cinema seems to have so.
Milo Thompson: As I said, the difference between all the lines that you see, the vertical lines, the
difference is only 3,4 of an inch so the shadow that that creates, which emphasizes the vertical line
is really quite delicate actually, and I think what you will see is a more simple building than the
renderings in fact show. But to try to explain this I think we probably go overboard in showing
the shade and the shadow and in this case I think for you it's been misleading.
Councilman Labatt: So in your renderings here, your scale 1 inch equals 20 feet. So those lines
are about an eighth of an inch in width.
Milo Thompson: The shadow.
Councilman Labatt: Your shadow lines.
Milo Thompson: Yeah, but they're drawn much larger than that.
Councilman Labatt: So if you were to try to draw a 3,4 inch line in there, you wouldn't see it.
15
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Milo Thompson: Right, it'd be difficult.
Councilman Labatt: So maybe just the size of the building and what you're trying to do, it can't
be accomplished.
Milo Thompson: Right. And then another thing about the difficulty of rendering building glass
is so, behaves so differently in various lights. Glass can read all the way from black to absolutely
white as it reflects so inasmuch as there is a lot of glass in the office retail building, that
particularly I think is hard to portray in a flat rendering like this. It's hard in a three dimensional
perspective to show that realistically.
Mayor Furlong: Is the, on the office building, and specifically on the second story. Those lines
that you're talking about. Is it a consistent material all the way across?
Milo Thompson: Can we zoom in on this drawing again please? Yeah, zoom in on that as far as
you can. The building is designed on a 5 foot module, which is probably the most flexible for
dividing the building up for small office spaces. It's also a very good module for particular
offices. You can go from 10, 15, 20 feet. These are very flexible dimensions. As you see the
people behind here, you can see that the window sill is brought down to about 20, I think it's 29
inches or so, allowing for furniture, desks and so on to be pushed up against the wall. But it's a
continuous piece of glass. Continuous strip of window, primarily to accommodate a great variety
of how the office will be used, just behind that wall. They I think probably want to refer to the
plan, to help you also get a sense of what the elevation is showing on the relief of the facade.
Over here, at the bank, this is actually a recess and a balcony above. And then it comes, the bank
goes to this point. There is a significant projection there, which is designed as a big bay window,
and then it steps back and comes forward to a piece which is prominently designed as a house
form, if we look at the elevations here. That last thing that I pointed to is this. In addition to
those 3 pieces, here's the big bay window. Each of these offers potential for individualizing
office spaces. I think when we first came to you, this used to be the entrance to the office. We all
agreed that this is too good a location for a tenant to show as just an entrance to the upper floor,
so it is now a major feature for the comer for tenant number 6. And it might be a very sought
after piece. The entrance to the building has moved to the northwest side with it's own entrance
and drop off. I mentioned, I think the Planning Commission that this is a building that doesn't
have a back. This is all a front so this feature back here is a very significant element of entering
the upper level of the building through it's own entrance and drop off. But there are, what I'm
trying to get at here is the building isn't just a kind of a flat faqade. It has these major sort of
projections which divide the thing into episodes along the front. That's tree on the sides as well.
You can see on the office part of it, it's a very efficient kind of arrangement of major entrance,
lobby and the core that is about as efficient as we know how to make.
Councilman Peterson: One more question, now that they're chatting over there. What was the
thought process on using asphalt shingles versus a cedar shake that you compared the buildings
to? Was it purely financial? Was it a combination?
Milo Thompson: I thought I heard in earlier comments that the cedar shake was a little too rustic.
That's what I heard somewhere along the line and we feel very happy with the cleaner, simpler
look of asphalt shingles.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
16
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Again I'm struggling with the renderings here and what I'm hearing is that what
it's going to be is different than what I see but I'm still looking at this so bear with me if I ask you
to repeat yourself. With regards to the office building. Is because of the lines in these renderings
to try to show those shadows, it looks very vertical. Very gray and the cinema looks brighter,
cleaner. Is the color of the cinema building a consistent color across the office building as well?
Or is it a different?
Milo Thompson: Pretty much so. We're thinking of colors that are probably very slightly but not
a whole lot so they have a harmony. And the cinema is probably pretty much the way it is now.
We're showing it with a slightly more yellow tinge, but.
Mayor Furlong: Because it's fairly white now, isn't it?
Milo Thompson: It's fairly white and what we're showing here is just the slightest tinge of
yellow to it to warm it up a bit. To make it, you know it's trying, it's wanting to be, it's wanting
to look more like a travertine stone rather than lime stone, so it has that yellowish cast.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify that further? Maybe you can speak to this. Is the scale of the
cinema being much larger, or actually material on that is larger in scale as opposed to the office
building which has the cement board, is smaller. Narrower. 12 inch.
Milo Thompson: It's 12 inches.
Kate Aanenson: It's 12 inches, so you've got a narrower scale on that, just to make sure you're
clear on that, as opposed to the cinema which has a larger.
Milo Thompson: Yes, and on the cinema, and to relate them, if you'd zoom in on this portion
here. To relate them, there is the same sort of slight relief in this vertical rib here. That could be
slightly more than ~ of an inch. Because the scale of the building is bigger. And so that's what's
trying to relate them so that there's a verticality to these buildings. Now I personally think a
vertical grain so to speak to the building is very important to do this. Otherwise it's going to look
very much, I mean it will look too long. If we emphasize the horizontal line on a building this
large, I think it will look too large and it won't accept very well the kind of way that a building is
divided up with signage and entrances. So an urban building, and this is trying to be a more
urban sort of thing, generally is more successful when it is divided in vertical components. I
think.
Mayor Furlong: From a color standpoint, on the cinema with the vertical lines, is that material a
different color and a different material than what the wall is that it's accenting?
Milo Thompson: No. No.
Mayor Furlong: So it's a constant material?
Milo Thompson: All of the things that you see as shadows, it's merely indicating change of
plane. Not change in color. On all of the buildings.
Mayor Furlong: And that is true across the office building?
Milo Thompson: Correct.
17
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the flexibility on the restaurant. You had mentioned removing
the porch, cupola. Do you see, I mean I agree with Councilman Peterson. Flexibility, we can
certainly be flexible and to the extent it helps with the transition, I think that's fine. How much
flexibility do you see going for?
Milo Thompson: We certainly don't want to confuse this enough so that we are asked back with
it, but.
Mayor Furlong: You're welcome anytime.
Milo Thompson: But we do want to get on with the, or help the negotiations with leasing out the
building and so on, so at this time we have been trying to make everyone happy and at this time
it's the person who is leasing the building that wants to be the happiest. So what they were
describing to us was a simpler building. They liked the idea of a pitched roof. They liked the
idea of a garden, which by the way I hadn't pointed out but we do have a low stone wall, about 29
inches high that defines an outdoor dining area. You could expect to see umbrellas in this
location here, as outdoor seating. We could now, without the porch we can add some trees,
which would be a very attractive part of that garden development. And they like the idea of tall,
vertical, that is tall, vertical, tall windows. We like that idea as a potential there. They want it
from the point of view of letting more light into a brighter interior. We like the idea because it's
more related to what we're doing on the cinema so it would have a harmony on two ends picking
up this idea of a tall window. I think their ideas have been very good actually and they probably
would live with what is here if that is part of the what you need to approve and don't want it to
change. But on the other hand, everyone that I've found related to this project is very anxious to
make improvements. I consider that an improvement.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the lighting. The gentleman before was seeking some latitude on
the up lighting. Can you speak to that a little bit as to where you're looking for that up lighting
from an architectural standpoint?
Milo Thompson: Again, we're very anxious to get this all worked out with staff so we don't have
any problems with their direction on this. From what we heard, they seem to be very accepting of
most of these things, and particularly when we clarified that any lighting that we're proposing
does not escape beyond architectural features. Up lighting that we had here is really ended on the
soffits here, and lighting these days can be really shuttered down so that you can control the light
from doing what you don't want it to do, that is to shoot off in the sky or present glare for
someone. We know, we understand the intent of your requirements for lighting, and I think
they're all very good and the lighting that we're proposing here is to feature the building and the
use of this building as entertainment. Draw attention to it. It has the disadvantage you know of
being kind of in the background so it needs to have as much as you permit to, to bring some life
and animation to the architecture. So that's really what that's about is to light this feature. In
addition to light that comes from the window itself, this is a big rotunda that is the lobby. So we
will have light coming from the building itself but so it isn't like a, we don't want this to look like
a pumpkin so it needs lighting on the surface as well to bring some life to the point of entrance.
Mayor Furlong: So through the extension of the soffits or blinders or shuttering on the lights
themselves, it's your intention that all the light would be contained to the building and that
there' d be.
18
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Milo Thompson: With the exception however of these things that are inviting to be looked at,
like chaser lights, but they are, it's a much lower level. There are chaser lights proposed here,
which they have now.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they have those currently on the cinema and we don't object to that.
Milo Thompson: Yeah, but those are much lower level of lights and it's movement more than
light.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Peterson: Just one last question. Is your intent on the pre-finished fiber cement,
where it's going, for that to be smooth or rough cut?
Milo Thompson: Smooth. The texture, in my mind the textured product does not convincingly
look like wood so why should we make it look like wood.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. I'm done with my questions.
Mayor Furlong: Done with questions. Steve any?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. You have one of these books, correct?
Milo Thompson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to figure out here, on page 13, just a black and white
rendering. Show me on that drawing, the new building, on the east elevation, what is the current
level of grade above the entrance?
Milo Thompson: It's pretty much what's shown here. We've just moved the exterior stair to the
inside of the building.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Milo Thompson: So it's virtually the same.
Councilman Labatt: It's virtually the same but the new rounded portion encompasses that
stairway and.
Milo Thompson: Correct. And so we now don't have problems for handicap accessibility and
snow removal and maintenance and all that kind of thing. In addition to making an exciting
lobby.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Okay, I just. Okay, let me just go through my laundry list here quick.
I like the cinema. I think it's very neat from what it is right now. I will agree with my counter
parts up here on the restaurant and giving the flexibility to removing the porch and cupola and
coming back with a new look at that. Craig, I kind of agree with you, it does remind me of the
Hitching Post but, so I'm excited to look at that. The lines on the office building, I'm not too
concerned. I mean.
Milo Thompson: Which page?
19
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Councilman Labatt: On 6. Just to kind of talk about Craig's point. It's going to be hard to show
a 3,~ inch line on a building that's over I don't know, 100 feet. Or so. So I'm okay with the look
on the building. I think it's a nice touch. And I don't think any of us talked about the signs and
the variances and the number of signs that we are going to allow, but in looking at the picture of
the drawing on page 1 and where they're proposing them. I see that their need to have the signs
at the north entrance and the south entrance, the monument signs is valid in there and with the
cinema pylon sign, I'm okay with having that there and if they want to relocate that a little bit to
get a better sight then that's fine, but so I just want to touch on those.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess just as a point of clarification. Councilman Labatt, when he
comers back to, what was the first page we looked at? 16 was it?
Councilman Labatt: 13.
Mayor Furlong: 137 On 13. It speaks here on the lights up at the top, that there are actually roof
lights as well for those up lights, so I guess just from clarification, when I was asking the question
before, I was envisioning the walls only but you're actually proposing roof lights as well.
Milo Thompson: Let's see, I think at the Planning Commission we talked about removing those,
but I'm not sure. In any case if we have them, I think we could assure you that the light is not
going to escape around whatever it' s supposed to light. With the possibly potential of this finial
which I think is, we can't light it probably. But any light here really would be lighting this one.
It would graze the roof itself, which is pretty heavily modeled. That has a, that's a so called
Bermuda style roof which it's bigger than asphalt shingles with lifts about an inch or so. It's
metal. And there's a picture of that in your book on page 14. You can see there's a stronger
horizontal line created by a metal roof that bends down and creates this profile here. And so what
the light that you see here is doing, is featuring that and being caught here. I personally would
not mind if these lights disappear but the cinema people may want them very much. I don't know
that. If we had the flexibility to keep it or not, I think that would be very good for us.
Todd Gerhardt: Milo, are those windows on the top?
Milo Thompson: These are windows all the way to the top.
Todd Gerhardt: No, on the very top.
Milo Thompson: No, those are louvers to just ventilate the attic.
Todd Gerhardt: Can they be windows?
Milo Thompson: Not practically.
Todd Gerhardt: Because I was thinking if you put the windows in there and put your light, you
would flood out light from the windows onto the roof...
Milo Thompson: It's a very difficult sort of detail because...is a major problem actually on
something that high. We've done that, we work on a lot of churches and it's often used to light a
cupola like that but it's always a difficult thing to re-lamp and,
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
20
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other questions for the architect or the applicant? Very good,
thank you. Any follow-up questions for staff? Or issues at this point. If not, maybe we can
bring.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilman Labatt: I just want to talk, okay on these lights on page 14 on the roof. I just, I don't
want to see a light up there that the church over off of Coulter had illuminating the cross on the
top that beamed for, I think over Lake Minnetonka.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: I tried to land an airplane over it one night.
Kate Aanenson: I think what we can do is ask for the photometrics on that. If it is cut off, as
they indicated, it's going towards that louver. If it does cut off the light because that's the goal I
think that we don't have spillover lighting. If they can show us how that works.
Councilman Labatt: So do we need to re-word a condition in here to. incorporate, is that okay
Mayor?
Kate Aanenson: There is a condition in here that talks about.
Mayor Furlong: Number 20.
Kate Aanenson: I think maybe to say the removal of any unshielded or any light that is not cut
off.
Mayor Furlong: I mean the purpose of which is to prevent over flow. Not to minimize but to
prevent.
Councilman Labatt: So you want to say, 20 should say removal of any up lighting on any
building that is not shielded?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or yeah. Or spillover. I mean he used the word shuttered. Spillover.
Mayor Furlong: That isn't shielded sufficiently to prevent spillover. Is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Do what about spillover?
Kate Aanenson: Prevent.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Milo, if you're having a tough time selling this to the cinema, tell them it's going
to be very difficult to re-lamp those on the outside too as much as the inside.
21
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Milo Thompson: I know.
Mayor Furlong: Let's bring it back for comments then. On the variety of issues that came up this
evening. Anybody want to start? Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Sure. I think I said my comments once. I'll just, I like it all. I like, I mean I
agree with Mayor yourself and Mr. Peterson about let's put a little flexibility into that restaurant
that's attached to the cinema. To make that a little more modem looking where it flows better
with the cinema. I'm okay with the variances on the sign. And I'm excited to see this portion of
the city repaired and modernized.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: That leaves me huh.
Mayor Furlong: You're next.
Councilman Peterson: I think that my comment, I guess we've all three of us have already
summarized them but I think that the changes to the restaurant, I think just keeping in mind to
make it more relationship driven to the cinema than to the other building I think is more
appropriate and I'm looking forward to seeing that change. As it relates to the signage, I think the
two monument signs on each end, of each entrance, I think are appropriate. I think it will actually
frame the development a little bit and improve it. As it relates to the Market Street Station,
cinema sign, however you want to characterize that, I'm a little concerned about that. I think I
would like to see Market Street Station more prominent. What I don't think is appropriate are
the chaser lights on that sign. I think it just, you know we've got in theory I think we're trying to
build elegance into this part of town and the chaser lights don't correlate that to me. It's a little
Las Vegasish on the cinema building but when you pull it out near the street and you've got lights
chasing each other, I just, that doesn't work for me. You've already got activity with the LED. I
think that's enough attention getter right there so I'd support it if we drop the chaser lights and
make Market Street Station more prominent. Lastly, as it relates to the bank building. Part of me
would like to table this to bring back a design that I really feel more comfortable with, just from a
visual standpoint, but I don't, I'm hearing what you're saying and I don't think you can do that. I
don't think you can bring me a picture that's going to say councilman, this is really what it's
going to look like just because of the design. You know personally I'd like to see it a little bit
more contemporary and I don't know if just, and I think the vertical lines are what's making it a
little bit less contemporary and less you know, you've got two big buildings here and we're trying
to correlate them a little bit with the cinema and the bank building and I don't know if you change
that middle section to that, whether it' s EIFS or whether it' s a flat surface instead of the vertical, I
understand your point where it's a long building. It'd be interesting to see it without those lines.
Just to see what this is standard EIFS or a standard flat surface would do architecturally. And
again that's just my thoughts but that would be the only critique I would give on that building
itself. I like the design. I like the articulations in it. I like the way you move the entrance and the
only thing I'm a little bit uncomfortable with is just those vertical lines below the windows.
Other than that, let' s, you know I'm very happy.
Mayor Furlong: It's good for you to be happy.
Councilman Peterson: Some days.
22
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Well good, thank you and further comments without repeating. It was
mentioned a little bit but when I look at these renderings, starting with the cinema, I get good
comfort and excitement and it's the challenge of moving to the left across there that I've been
struggling with since we first looked at these. It's been helpful here tonight to try to hear the
words behind the pictures and it' s, I with Councilman Peterson's struggle with if there's no better
ability to get picture, this is the best we're going to get. Overall I guess in terms, I don't want to,
our comments and questions have been focused on the architecture. I think that's a key
component of this. Backing up a little bit in terms of the overall site plan and the improvement
that it's going to make to this area, I think is wonderful. I think it's great and I too am excited
about getting this part of town redeveloped and I think this is a great process. The flexibility on
the restaurant, absolutely. I think that would help solve some of the discomfort that I've heard up
here and thought myself in terms of that look, to smooth that transition. The signs, I believe from
the monument sign standpoint I can be comfortable with that as long as there isn't significant
redundancy in terms of the names on those and that they're for separate purposes and help define
Market Street as an area to come to. And I think that gets me to the pylon sign, and I concur with
creating more of a prominence with Market Street as a destination point. Not necessarily one of
the occupants within Market Street in terms of the cinema. Cinema having signage there, I think
that's good because that helps draw people in, similar to the park and ride. I think that's
important that that has some emphasis as well. And I'll just comment on some of the earlier
renditions we saw where there were flags on top and it looked like a.
Councilman Labatt: Renaissance.
Mayor Furlong: It was a renaissance fair. This is much improved. Much improved so you
moved me well along on that one. You know in terms of moving forward, I think it makes sense
to move forward unless there is anything that can be done to help with the comfort level on those
vertical lines, and if it really is just what I'm hearing tonight is it's a common material. It is
shadowing only. Perhaps that's okay. I guess I'd be somewhat interested, well I'm not, you
know is there some flexibility there? Or not. But it's the looking at those vertical lines that
continues to give me the challenge to get over. The up lighting, as long as it's properly shielded
such that it prevents any overflow, I'd be comfortable with that. I think then that becomes part of
the architecture and doesn't become a, is it Mystic Lake that has the teepee that goes up in the
air? We're not looking for that so, and that's probably the extreme. Those are my comments. I
guess unless there's other, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: I would just agree with Craig on the no chaser flashing lights. I think the
LED is sufficient out there. Let's give them the variance for the sign. Get it out there, but I
would support no chasers or movers. I wonder, just as I was thinking about this Tom from your
comments. If the color of the building was a little bit lighter to match more the cinema, would
that get you guys?
Councilman Peterson: I think it' s supposed to match the cinema.
Councilman Labatt: It is going to match it so, I mean it's just the way the, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There will be other color introduced with the rock and from the canopy
and that sort of thing.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: The only other thing, I mean maybe this would just make me feel better.
23
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
If Milo you could give staff just a version without the lines. Whether it is EIFS or some other
material without the vertical lines and let you and staff just talk about it. I'm comfortable letting,
giving staff the opportunity just to look at it, and say is this a better design or not. Let them
make the ultimate decision.
Milo Thompson: Could I just offer one more comment? Whatever material we use here, will
require some sort of vertical line because we do need to show expansion or contraction lines
somewhere along this long, long building so probably a maximum of maybe about 30 feet apart.
That would be just for that control points and movement of buildings. But then depending on
what the material is, there would be other lines because there' s sort of maximum areas and so on,
so if we were thinking of EIFS for instance, in a long strip, I think we would still be wise to show
some kind of vertical line and so it might occur every 5 feet, as an example. And then you would
just repeat the window module but that joint, that's just kind of a construction line and it doesn't
have any architectural, real architectural quality to it except as a technical expression.
Councilman Peterson: And it may be that, not to say eliminate and I'll retract my earlier
statement. It may not be eliminate but reduce the number of vertical lines may accomplish
alleviating my concerns that albeit right or wrong. So it's eliminating isn't necessarily what I'm
directing my comments are. It's lessening I guess is maybe more appropriate.
Milo Thompson: Yeah, I know your guidelines do permit EIFS but it wasn't encouraged at all so
what am I hearing tonight?
Councilman Peterson: Well I'm throwing that out as a smooth texture versus, you know I think
we allow what, 15 percent?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, it's only allowed 15 percent and that's why we moved towards this
product because we have a preponderance of EIFS and I think your point's well taken. We just
need to make sure that we can see the difference.
Milo Thompson: Yeah, this material does come in sheet sizes too so we don't have to have it all
linear. It does come in I think 4 1/2 foot wide sheets as well.
Councilman Peterson: Well I'm just raising the question. I think it'd be interesting to present
something less than what you have vertically and talk to staff about it and make a decision.
Mayor Furlong: And for clarification, you'd be comfortable with staff working through that and.
Councilman Peterson: Yes, and not seeing it again.
Kate Aanenson: Can I, as long as you're on the clarification issue, just to be sure. As long as the
restaurant thing was thrown out there. Was it your intention to bring that back or was your
intention, I think what they're saying is okay. To take the porch and the cupola off, and if they
work through that and just stay with the same material and the look, you're okay?
Mayor Furlong: That's for the restaurant that's attached to the cinema. We haven't seen
anything on the stand alone restaurant.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So we would see that before anything went through there.
24
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So as we're working with the site plan this evening.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and we'll still forward this to you administratively so you can see what
the changes are made.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, and the guidance, I think you heard from all three of us is, the
restaurant, the changes to make it more similar to the cinema feeling is what we're trying to get.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: So, in going through these conditions Kate. From what we talked about here
and Tom.
Mayor Furlong: What page are you on in the staff report?
Councilman Labatt: Page 25. I've changed a couple of them from our discussions here. Number
20 is removal of any up lighting on any building that is not shielded sufficient to prevent any
spillover. Does that sound from what we had discussed Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: I think so. Is that, are we comfortable with that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Number 21 is removed because we're all in agreeance that we can allow two
monument sign, so 21 is gone. Okay. And then ! added 34 because the original motion allows
for the variance of the pylon sign. Number 34 then was going to read that no chaser or flashing
lights will be allowed on the pylon sign located on Market Boulevard. Is that okay Craig?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, with Market Street Station having more prominence than the
cinema. Or having the prominent position on the sign.
Dan Engelsma: Mr. Engelsma from Kraus-Anderson. On that last comment I think it's critical
that the cinema in order for them to be located behind these series of buildings really does need
some prominence out there. I think they're fine with the chaser lights but I think to say Market
Street Station would be more prominent than the cinema, I think we'd have a real problem with
the cinema.
Councilman Peterson: Or equal, would that be? I mean you're splitting hairs. I'll split hairs
right back.
Dan Engelsma: Yeah, I know except that we're really pushing the cinema hard to do all of this
stuff with us because we think it's critical to clean up that entire area and there's been only a
couple of major obstacles that we've experienced with the cinema and that signing is one of them
that they're insisting on so we sort of took a back seat to them purposefully to try to make them
happy with that sign because right now because there's no other buildings there, they really have
a dominance view off of Market Street and they're really going to lose that.
25
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Councilman Peterson: Good point. Is there some happy medium so that we can at least, as I look
at that sign, I mean you just don't see Market Street. ! think there's value in that.
Dan Engelsma: I would suggest that there's always a happy medium and we can work. I wish the
cinema was here tonight to speak for themselves but I know that that was just a real critical issue
so we can improve the dominance of Market Street. That's fine. We have no problem with that,
but we're trying to keep the sign overall to a certain size. We certainly have to take care of
Southwest Metro, and we're trying to make sure the cinema is very happy with this whole project
so they...
Councilman Peterson: Point well taken. I don't think that just putting on to having Market Street
Station have a more prominent place on the sign than it currently has.
Councilman Labatt: Is the Chanhassen Cinema, is that back lit on this sign?
Dan Engelsma: Yes it is.
Councilman Labatt: Is Market Street Station back lit?
Dan Engelsma: Yes it is.
Councilman Labatt: They're both back lit? Okay. So with Market Place Station having what
Craig?
Councilman Peterson: Just a more prominent position on the sign than it currently has. To work
with staff to realize that dream.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the Southwest Metro park and ride on that sign, was that a
concern as well Kate, from a prominent standpoint?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's really just working with someone who's expertise is the graphics and
read just so we get the easy read. The right back lighting. The right coloring and I think we can
work with these folks to get that.
Mayor Furlong: Then Councilman Peterson, you're a commissioner on the Southwest Metro
Transit.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, from the Southwest Metro standpoint, that's just where you go. It's
not advertising it from the street or anything so I don't think that's a driving force.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Craig, is it the location or the size because you mentioned location?
Councilman Peterson: Size.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, that's different.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, so is that one clear as mud then? Right now I have it worded as no
chaser or flashing lights will be allowed on the pylon sign located at Market Boulevard. With
Market Street Station having a more prominent position on the sign than it current does.
26
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Todd Gerhardt: Size.
Councilman Labatt: Prominent size.
Councilman Peterson: Size yeah, it's semantics.
Councilman Labatt: Size.
Councilman Peterson: We have the prominent position so it's the size.
Councilman Labatt: Position but not the size. Fair enough sir? Okay. That' s all I had so.
Kate Aanenson: Can I get one more for clarification? I believe you did talk about the possibility
of flexibility in the restaurant. Removing the cupola and the porch. Work with staff with that.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: To provide the flexibility.
Councilman Labatt: You want 35 comment.
Mayor Furlong: Is that a condition?
Kate Aanenson: That's what I heard you say and I just want to make sure that that's clear. That
I had the authority to work with them on that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, we'll make that a 35 and how do you want to word it?
Kate Aanenson: Provide the flexibility for the possible removal of the porch and the cupola on
the restaurant attached to the cinema. So it's flexible. It may or may not. Or you definitely want
it off?.
I'm giving them more autonomy than that. Redesign it to make it look
Councilman Peterson:
more...
Kate Aanenson:
Mayor Furlong:
Okay, work with staff to redesign that restaurant fascia.
And there's also a desire I heard for staff to work with the architect to look at
some alternatives with regard to those vertical lines that we're hung up on. I don't want to say
vertical lines again tonight.
Councilman Peterson: You've got a lot to do in 2 weeks Kate.
Kate Aanenson: I know.
Mayor Furlong: Well overall this is, while we get stuck a little bit on some of these things, given
the size of the project and the scope, this is wonderful.
Councilman Labatt: And the benefit.
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. This is doing well. Any other discussion or if not, is there a
motion?
Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion that we approve Market Street Station site plan review
03-9 with a variance for the fenestration on the cinema and pylon sign conditional use permit
2003-5 for only one building on lot rezoning 03-03 for general business to central business
district as shown on plans dated August 15, 2003, and September, 2003 based upon the findings
in fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through we'll call it 35. With
number 20 being changed to the current wording of removal of any up lighting on any building
that is not shielded sufficiently to prevent spillover. Removal completely of condition number 21
which talks about allowing only one monument sign. We're going to allow two. Condition 34 is
added to state no chaser or flashing lights will be allowed on the pylon sign located off of Market
Boulevard with Market Street Station having a more prominent size on the sign. And 35, to
provide staff the flexibility to work with the applicant on the cupola and porch of the restaurant
attached to the cinema. And to work on the vertical lines on the office building.
Councilman Peterson: Chaser lights.
Councilman Labatt: We covered lights in 34.
Councilman Peterson: Did you say it? Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we' 11 proceed to the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve
the Market Street Station, LLP, for Site Plan Review g03-9 with a variance for fenestration
on the Cinema and the pylon sign, Conditional Use Permit g2003-5 for more than one
building on a lot, and Rezoning g03-03 from General Business to Central Business District
as shown on plans dated August 15, 2003, and September, 2003, based on the findings of the
staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer and drainage calculations for staff review before site plan approval.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Metropolitan Council's SAC fee
will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permits issuance. All of these charges
are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. The current
2003 sanitary hook up charge is $1,400 per unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876 per
unit, and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit.
4. On the grading plan:
i)
ii)
iii)
Add silt fence Type II around the construction limits.
Show rock construction entrance.
Show a bench mark (mean sea level datum).
28
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
o
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
iv)
v)
vi)
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Show existing and proposed property lines.
On the utility plan:
a. Show the location of the proposed water and sanitary services.
b. Show the existing sanitary and watermain in profile view within the
construction area.
Add the latest version of City of Chanhassen detail plates//1002, 1004, 1006, 2101, 3101,
3102, 5201, 5203, 5206, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300, and 5301.
Submit private easement for the shared storm sewer before building permit issuance.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit haul route for city
approval prior to any hauling.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Construct public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Submit detailed construction plans and specifications for the public utility improvements
and approved before final platting.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval in the amount of
110% of the public improvement cost estimate.
Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must
be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed
District, MnDot, etc.
Concrete driveway apron, per City detail plate//5207 is required at all the access points to
the site.
Dedicate on the plat a 35 foot wide drainage utility easement over the public utility lines
located in the main drive aisle.
The applicant may choose from the plant schedule on the landscape plan dated August 15,
2003 only honey locust or red maple as the unifying tree along "main street". Staff
recommends that the applicant choose honey locust as it's unifying tree species.
The applicant shall install landscape island width to a minimum of 10 feet or install
aeration tubing.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval.
Any existing tree shown on the plans will be required to be replaced if it dies.
29
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
19.
Street furniture including benches, planter and bike racks shall be added throughout the
development.
20.
Removal of any up lighting on any building that is not shielded sufficiently to prevent
spillover.
21. The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
22.
The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
23. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing
structures.
24. Provide an engineered utility plan for review.
25.
The location of property lines, existing and new, will have an impact on the code
requirements for the proposed buildings. The plans as submitted do not have the
information necessary to determine code requirements. Provide a preliminary site plan
indicating the proposed property line configuration so code ramifications can be
determined.
26.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
27.
Provide and construction waiting areas adjacent to the Frontier Building for drop off and
pick up as shown on the plans dated October 1, 2003.
28.
No parking signage shall be added to the south face or the south side of the Frontier
building and the east side of the Cinema building.
29.
Drop off signage shall be added as well as striping to the drop off area adjacent to the
Frontier building.
30.
Applicant will consider a combination of trellis vines and murals/mosaic on the exposed
cinder block wall west of the cinema.
31. Remove all abandoned utilities on the site.
32.
No chaser or flashing lights will be allowed on the pylon sign on Market Boulevard with
Market Street Station having a more prominent size on the sign.
33.
Provide staff the flexibility to work with the applicant on the cupola and porch of the
restaurant attached to the cinema and the vertical lines on the office building.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank everybody for that issue. We have the next item on our agenda is a
public hearing for the vacation of drainage and utility easements. So I'll ask for a staff report here
please.
30
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
B. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS~ FILE NO. 03-03.
Matt Saam: Thank you Mayor Furlong, council members. This proposal is fairly straight
forward for the vacation of some existing easements on the site, Nann, if we could just zoom in a
little more please. There we go. What we have are some existing sewer and water lines which
basically bisect the site. You can see them right here. As you can see they're right where the
new bank, new restaurant and new addition to the cinema are going, so as part of the site
development the applicant is proposing to realign, put a new pipe around the new buildings. With
that we'll vacate the old easements and we'll get new easements for the new lines on the plat.
That's basically the extent of the vacation. We're recommending approval. I'd be happy to take
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Very good. This is a public heating, so at
this time we will open up the public heating for anyone that wishes to discuss the issue of
vacation of the utilities. Please come forward and state your name and address.
Resident: I just had a question for you. Is there a public heating on this proposal that was just
discussed?
Mayor Furlong: For clarification, I believe the public heating occurred at the Planning
Commission level.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Public heating was held at the Planning Commission. The
public heating is not required at the City Council level on that part of the process.
Resident: I was in at the Planning Commission and they said... The Chair said you know, he'd
be willing to answer questions but I sat in on it.
Councilman Peterson: That' s probably at the second meeting.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The second meeting where they could choose whether or not, they had
closed the public hearing. There was just some follow-up, right.
Mayor Furlong: So the Planning Commission, as I understand it.
Councilman Peterson: There were two Planning Commission meetings. The first one was a
public hearing. The second one, you don't need a second public heating so you were probably at
the second one, is when he made that comment.
Resident: Can I get tapes of that first one?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.., The first meeting was September 16t~. And the second meeting was
October 7t~.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: You want to give her one of these copies?
Mayor Furlong: If anybody would like to come forward, while we're going through the
paperwork to comment on the public utilities.
31
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Resident: ...the public thing on the easements?
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the easements. If you could please yes, because that's the issue
open. Very good. Thank you ma'am. Seeing nobody coming forward, we'll go ahead and close
the public hearing and bring it back to council.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second please?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Heating none we'll proceed with the vote.
Resolution g2003-88: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the resolution vacating a portion of the public drainage and utility easements at
7880 Market Boulevard, subject to the following condition:
1. Legal descriptions of the easements to be vacated must be supplied to the City for
recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
TO COMMERCIAL AND A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A FAMILY ACTIVITY CENTER
AND TOWNHOMES ON 14 ACRES; LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD; JOHN PRYZMUS~ SWINGS.
Kate Aanenson: The applicant, Mr. Pryzmus is requesting a land use amendment. This property
is located on West 78m Street, immediately west of Galpin Boulevard. It does have Highway 5
frontage. The applicant is requesting a land use amendment to allow for a kind of a family
recreation center and a townhouse project on the north side of West 78m. So this is Galpin,
Highway 5, West 78~h. This item was heard before the Planning Commission on September 16m
who did review the project. The staff had recommended leaving this low density in place.
Immediately adjacent to this project is low density and kind of showed on the first one, and
you've got the Vasserman Ridge which has a lot of twinhomes. Twinhomes is an option in the
low density zoning district. Having said that, the Planning Commission did review this
application and did recommend kind of the family recreation services. The Planning
Commission, the staff felt that a retail use probably wasn't the best use on this site but did feel
like there was an institutional or an office type use, if that's what wanted to be considered under
the PUD. The other option, because this is PUD and it is in the Bluff Creek, there are wetlands
on the site. It is in the Bluff Creek, which does allow the density transfer. One of the things that
staff had proposed, which the applicant chose not to pursue was to do the density transfer. While
you could get some of the units and transfer those to the other side of the street to make them
more vertical project, this still could be residential. Because in the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
in order to capitalize on the density, you actually have to upzone to the medium. Not necessarily
increase the density, but that would allow you to go vertical and changing that to a PUD. But the
Planning Commission did review this application and felt that the possibility of the rec center,
family style rec center could be considered as a possibility. This is a conceptual PUD so with
32
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
that, the legal standing is different than it would under a preliminary plat. So conceptual means
they're coming forward to get a read from the Planning Commission and the City Council
whether or not to pursue this. Should you give some direction today and the applicant pursues
that and it's not further articulated and it comes back and you change you're mind, you're not
legally bound by that conceptual review. So again what they're looking for is some direction for
you. The Planning Commission did recommend leaving the low density on the north side. Again
it is in the overlay district. The wetland wasn't identified. It's not really detailed to the level that
we would need in order to review this type of project. They did look at the 8 acres. They did
recommend the family center but what staff is saying is that if you are going to put that use there,
that we would recommend if it was the desire of the City Council to consider some other zoning
options, that you actually add maybe another use or two to that list and that you would consider,
if not institutional, that you would consider office as a use. Again, the next level of review would
have a lot more detail regarding landscaping, storm water calc's, civil engineering drawings,
building drawings, but again at this level they're just, the intent is just to get a read so there's not
a lot of cost involved at this point. Just kind of conceptually. So what you're doing today doesn't
change any zoning. Doesn't change the land use. All it does is provide the applicant some
direction to come back and further articulate the plans, so with that the Planning Commission
gave a long laundry list of conditions if you were to come back, these are the things we'd like to
see. And the only changes the staff would recommend on that again is if you're going to go with
the family rec center on that site, and you are considering some others that actually you add the
possibility of office or institutional. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to that recommendation on those conditions, is there a particular
condition that you would recommend be amended?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If you go to the motion, which is on page 11. Under recommendation,
the third paragraph. It says the City Council approves the concept PUD for a development of a
family activity center. It would be staff' s recommendation, if that's the direction you were going,
that you take the word family activity and change it to recreational center and we actually define
that to meet the needs of Mr. Pryzmus and what he feels falls in there, and maybe make that use a
little bit broader for other types of recreation type centers, and then also add the word office or if
you want, if you chose to add the word institutional. So that gives 3 zoning options on that piece.
And then again the north side would remain low density residential.
Mayor Furlong: And for clarification, when you say institutional, what types of uses does that
include?
Kate Aanenson: Typically institutional would be a church. Something in that, kind of a non-
profit kind of something that's incubator or small piece. So with that I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Are there questions for staff? Thank you. I see the applicant is here this
evening. If there's any issues that you'd like to address before the council. Great.
Tom Goodrum: Mayor, council members, my name is Tom Goodrum. Senior Planner for
Schoell and Madson. We're a civil engineering, planning consulting fn-m representing John
Pryzmus tonight and I am pleased tonight to present to you what we believe is a quality project
that fits well within the city. I'm also pleased to say that it is a project that we are asking for a
PUD for both sites, as mentioned. It is the commercial recreational family center on the south,
with a townhome design on the northern area but the entire site will be a PUD for the mixed use
33
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
for both those parcels. I'm also glad to say this is a concept plan tonight. Nothing near 3A of an
inch or a sign on this either so you get to look big picture. After the last hearing I'm glad to say
that. What we've prepared is a plan that we see as being harmonious with the surrounding land
use areas. R does meet the criteria of your zoning ordinances under the PUD, and also under your
standard zoning if you're used to fall back on those basis. And with that again to fall back to the
Planning Commission. I'm not going to talk too much about the activity center since that was
pretty well documented and versed at the Planning Commission. That it's pretty obvious that this
front piece is not suitable for low density. We recognized it when we viewed the plan. The
Planning Commission recognized it also. That a commercial site or I agree with institutional,
some other type of use may be more appropriate. We like to see the activity center here. We
believe with the previous use of a driving range and the miniature golf course on there is one that
the city recognizes. Is one that the citizens have used and has shown that it fits here. Also we see
as being very compatible with this area. We do have commercial surrounding this site, with the
gas station across the street. A future service orientated business over here that hasn't developed
yet. Specifically with the Chanhassen Rec Center across kitty corner from here, I see it
personally as a family person. I have 3 kids. I know the use of, you bring one kid to a sporting
event, to a softball game or soccer game, you have 2 other ones that you have to deal with that
don't want to be there. To have something where you could bring them to is very beneficial. To
have different type of activities. They are compatible. They're not competitive. Both outdoor
activities. They also provide some activities for kids after the school in the nearby area. So
enough with the higher density uses, it is a place for people to go that are inside recreational and
alternative to the soccer fields and your softball fields, and so we see in this area, especially with
the higher densities on this site, and on this site, that it fits well and it transitions well throughout
this area. However tonight, I want to give a quick view of how, if you could zoom in on that. I
want to show this off a little bit because we are proud to say this is what we are presenting or
proposing. Our architect rendering of the facility. It's going to meet the Highway 5 corridor
requirements. We don't see it only as a transition from land uses, but also as a buffer from the
residential areas. Here you have this facility to this architectural design that's going to buffer the
traffic on Highway 5 to the residential areas to the north. It's a physical buffer and a nice
transitional buffer too so we are pleased to present both those goals as part of this plan. As you
see in the plan also, the last thing I want to say about the activity center, I think it's a pretty
obvious choice and I'll answer any questions to that afterwards but in looking at this, we looked
at the big picture. We did not see, we want a commercial site here and town houses over here.
We looked at the whole area and what's best suited for this property. And our goal was to do just
that. With the Vasserman Ridge development up there, single family homes, twinhomes, Schoell
and Madson, we were the engineering consulting firm for that project so we're not going to do
anything that's going to be harmful to our client for that project and actually work cooperatively
with those people in putting this design together. That's why we bring forward tonight a different
transitional uses that you see. And in developing this site, we pushed everything in this
commercial site to the commercial corner at this intersection. The outdoor activities with the
miniature golf areas are in this corner. They're buffered with the building from the residential
areas. Next is the commercial building on this site, and that's the rec center on this side. Parking
lot the same way. Pushed to the east side next to the commercial activities. What we did was left
the west side open. Provides for the green space. Provides for an open area...landscaped in a
way where it buffers and provides open space between somewhat commercial. You see more of a
community facility than a commercial facility, similar to the rec center. To the residential areas
to the north. So we are, as part of that, that's how we looked at this transition. Seeing it as
commercial first. As a transition area second. That leads me to the north part or the townhomes.
I do want to focus on this area. I believe the Planning Commission was getting near midnight by
the time we were finishing up on this. I don't think there was enough discussion on the benefits
of what we are proposing on the northern end with the townhomes. What could have been said
34
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
that night. There is 2 acres of buildable area in this area, and makes for a great residential piece.
You can't deny that with the wetland on the site with the Bluff Creek along the property, with
Vasserman Ridge over to the west side. It is a beautiful residential site and we want to use that
with having 2 acres of buildable area, it does allow for some type of housing to go on there.
What we're proposing is because of the shape of the property being this long, narrow piece.
Because of environmental aspects of the property, we do have a wetland on the site. We do have
Bluff Creek that runs all along the northern borders. That there are some constraints in what you
could do with this. Under the typical R-4 zoning, which is the highest zoning under low density,
you're limited to single family homes. You're limited to twin homes. You have lot sizes of
10,000 to 15,000 square feet. To do that you're limiting yourself to just a couple of house pads
and so what we brought up to the Planning Commission is in the staff report, that when you look
at the two pieces together, under the R4 zoning, you could probably get 18 lots on both those
parcels. You have about 15 lots on the south. Probably you get another 3-4 lots on the north.
Staff report had a concern with losing housing units in this area. We're trying to provide the
housing, both on, that there won't be any housing lost in this development. You have a total of
18 units. We're putting them where they're best fit, up on the northern area. We're also looking
at a transitional area where because again you have some natural amenities and because of what's
happening around here. Three twin homes. That matches twin homes at the Vasserman Ridge set
aside. Buffer from the commercial. Transition into the twin homes. On the narrow end where
we do have some more constraints because of the way that the lot was cut by the road, we are
limited in what could be done. There's some other row houses of 4 units. Seem to be the most
appropriate for that site. Especially with you have 4 to 6 units density over across the street from
here with the higher traffic. Both on this corridor, and also with the proposal of this commercial
activities over here. A transition from medium to low to twin homes and over. You've got to be
aware, we are not asking for any higher density. What we're proposing is again under the PUD
you do have the 1.2 or 6 units an acre or 4 units an acre. On this parcel you're allowed up to 24
units under your low density calculation. We're proposing 18. We're still within the low density
area. We're just providing another option on housing that transition that fits well with the
proposed project. So we are not asking for anything more than what is allowed under your R4
and that's why we're asking for PUD.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify something? Just because what you said is a little confusing.
In order to accomplish that you do have to up zone the property. Okay? You're asking for a
PUD. Legally you have to rezone the property to get it to a higher zone to accomplish that
because in a low density you have 3 zoning options. Twin homes, PUD, which is average 11,000
square foot lot. Excuse me, average 15,000. Smallest 11 and they can average, or the twin
homes. Did I say all three? So if you were to do anything beyond those three products, you have
to up zone it to accomplish the PUD. So you are asking for a zone change. You have to. We
don't have a zoning low density that would accomplish that type of a product.
Mayor Furlong: And for clarification.
Councilman Peterson: The quads. Because of the quads.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: The quad units, okay.
Kate Aanenson: So you're getting more units than you would have under the other zoning.
35
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Councilman Labatt: But if you were to take each one of those three quad units and make them
twin units he'd be fine.
Kate Aanenson: Well but then you'd have to do the 10,000 square foot lots which is what
Vasserman did, correct.
Councilman Labatt: But that could be done.
Kate Aanenson: Could it?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. They're choosing not to.
Tom Goodrum: If I can continue.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if we could allow him to continue.
Tom Goodrum: Thank you. It's my understanding, and I apologize if I've misread the
ordinances. With the PUD I was under the assumption that you do have flexibility with your
zoning ordinances. You don't need to meet the 10,000 square foot lot. The PUD would allow
you to avoid that or lessen those requirements. Also would allow you to allow for a row house or
quad instead of a twin home. With the PUD, and again I'm sorry if I'm wrong on this, but as
long as you stay within the density requirements, you can't go to a different guide area, You
can't have a medium density within the low density guide. But under the low density, or the
guiding area, you have the flexibility what you're allowed within that guided area. If you want to
go from a twin home to a row home or a quad, may be possible. You just, when the PUD's
approved, you stipulate that in this PUD you're allowed row houses or quads. That sets it apart
from any further PUD's so you're not setting any precedent to the city or any future development
similar to this type, so there are some protections in the PUD. Again that's why we wish to
follow that. We don't want to see this guided up to a medium density. We don't need those
number of units. We don't want to even open those can of worms. 18 units is what fits our
needs. It's a number of units that we compensate for the entire parcel. And so the PUD we
believe was the better route then. Even trying to open up the issue of medium density on a site
that doesn't have the need below the low density requirements. Also with the staff report the
mention of the environmental parts of it and that wasn't clarified enough in the Planning
Commission. Again I just don't believe there was enough time in the Planning Commission to go
over it. The wetlands have been delineated. We have wetlands in the northwest corner. We have
had the delineator out there. We've delineated it. It was approved by the city. It's marked on the
plan with the required setbacks so we have met that condition. There are two other wetlands on
the property. Again we were out there. We worked with city staff. They are exempt from the
wetland codes. We knew this was going to be a tough site. We followed what staff
recommended. We had constant connection with staff in trying to make a plan that works with
their needs. And in question to the Bluff Creek corridor. Again we were aware of it. We want to
work with it. Talking with city staff, there isn't a lot of environmental sensitive items on the
north parcel. You have the wetland which, it was delineated, provided setbacks for. Bluff Creek
along the north property line. Other than that it's pretty well meadow. John has planted the trees
you see on there were all planted. Landscape trees that John has put in. No natural environment.
There's a couple of trees along that side, that's it. And again, speaking to staff, if their
environmental Bluff Creek setbacks. The 40 foot setback from your primary zone and your
second zone also. Bluff Creek, we have a sewer line that runs along the northern property.
36
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Because of the sewer line and it's easement there's an 80 foot setback that we can't touch
anyways from the Bluff Creek. So in looking at your primary zone, which would be Bluff Creek,
maybe some overhang of the canopy of the trees that are over Bluff Creek that overhang the
property, but well exceed the 40 feet. The houses are no closer than 80 feet from that north
property line, and again we took this into consideration when we put this plan together. We're
asking for a rezoning and reguiding. It's tough to ask without knowing what we're up against and
we want to make sure we address those questions up front so those were the things that were
important to us. So in looking at this, we are again worked closely with staff. I do want to thank
Bob Generous in your staff. He was very helpful. He answered all my questions when I called
and he answered them pretty straight forwardly and candidly, and I appreciate that when you're
putting a project together. We want to be known that he told us it's a tough hill to climb. And we
came in knowing that. There were no surprises in the staff report. We were pleased that the
Planning Commission looked at the commercial side of it. Again I'm disappointed we didn't
have a chance to talk about the northern site but it was late and everybody was tired and so for us
to bring back to the City Council instead, they go home and get some sleep. Looking at the staff
recommendations, again we have no issues with the recommendations that staff had provided.
The only one that we would want to bring forward are the ones regarding access points. The first
one was there is a stipulation so access on Galpin Road, no closer than 300 feet or it should be
300 feet from West 78th Street. That we can live with. We wanted to push it as far north as
possible. We're sitting at around 150 feet so it's a minor adjustment to make that but because of
where we wanted to put the outdoor mini golf areas and having this building used to shield those,
moving the access point further north. Getting it away from the Highway 5 intersection was
something we had hoped to do. However, seeing that their access point is 300 feet away, there is
a median so having direct access, it's not necessary. You can't cut across the two streets. It's a
right-in/right-out. We felt that moving it further north, maybe it would talk about 50 feet, we
would prefer. If you have to go 300, we'll do that. The other one that is a little different concern
is the one on 78th Street. StafFs recommending only one access point off of 78th Street and it has
to be 600 feet from the intersection, so that puts the only access point back in this comer. Again
looking at the project as a whole, we have a commercial site here. Try and keep all the activity as
far to the west as possible, this side as possible. Having an access coming off this way, keeping
the traffic away from the Vasserman Ridge, single family homes, twin homes. We want an
access point on this end of the site. With that, having a separate access to the quads also
benefited that area so we have direct access between the two. And having a second access for
these three twin homes gives them a little more privacy. They're not hid away from the
congestion. We're seeing a transition from higher density, commercial and transitioning down
with three twin homes on a cul-de-sac, We don't see that as a big issue. I also see that. It also
kind of throws me a little off where a 300 foot access is perfectly fine on Galpin for both two
commercial sites and this site, on a much more busier road than 78th Street and here on 78th Street
they're both collector streets. We have to jump to 600 feet to serve 18 units. A little discrepancy
on what's being allowed in the same corridor so again at this, we believe that the site plan as we
provided, provides a much better traffic control and separation between intensities. Between our
land uses. Those are the only two items I want to show on the, with the staff s recommendations.
I do want to show that the twin homes, that would be, that we're looking at developing on this
site, are one again that will match the Vasserman Ridge. Will transition over to those
developments. We do have a concept plan showing all twin homes on this site to keep it within
that low density PUD requirement that were brought up to you tonight. It works but as far as
planning works, or zoning works, as far as market and what you see on this site, to have these
type of twin homes put in a comer where you have a busy intersection with two commercial sites,
medium density. This recreational facility. We didn't know if the market could support those
type of twin homes. We do know that the row houses will provide a transition. They will fit
nicely what' s happening in that area, and also provide more of a mixed use of housing. Get those
37
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
units up to 18 units that we see that could fit both sites. Get that number back up to this site in a
nice transitional and a mixed use area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Tom Goodrum: Again, I just want again thank your staff. They've been wonderful to work with
and a pleasure to be here before the City Council. I'm here to answer any questions. John
Pryzmus is also available to make comments and...
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great, questions.
Councilman Peterson: The only question I had, is there anything outside other than a miniature
golf around the center?
Tom Goodrum: Right now if you measure it off, the only thing that's definite to be on the site,
we have looked at, including some batting cages or else maybe even a skate park on the outside.
And those would be down in this comer. Inside the facility you're looking at multi-purpose uses.
Hope to have a virtual reality golf, volleyball courts. It has just, the outside court will be
something of a track type of use where you have BMX bike around there or go carting around
there, and those type of, activities all enclosed and all away from being a nuisance to the public.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Just for Kate. Do you want me to ask them?
Mayor Furlong: That would be great.
Councilman Labatt: Oh. Could we just address some of the comments that the gentleman from
Schoell and Madson made about, well first off in the letter from MnDot. September 25t~. Back
of our packet. The second paragraph. They recommend that we remove the access on Galpin as
it crosses their right-of-way, correct? They're saying it's too close to Highway 5.
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And in their drawing they're still showing it there and they want it there,
right?
Matt Saam: Yes. If I could have clarification of condition number 12. As brought up at the
Planning Commission meeting, there was discrepancy between that condition and condition
number 10 which the applicant spoke to. Condition number 10 lists the offset of the driveways
from the nearest intersection at 600 feet. Condition 12 at 300. They should both be 600. That's
why in condition 12 we start off by saying the proposed access onto Galpin will not be allowed in
it's current location, and that follows with the MnDot letter that we received also.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Matt Saam: They're both collector routes, as the applicant said, and so the distance requirement's
the same.
Mayor Furlong: So is that a typo that says minimum of 300?
38
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Matt Saam: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That should read 600.
Matt Saam: And I apologize, that should have been corrected when it came before you.
Councilman Labatt: So it's 600?
Mayor Furlong: What is the distance from West 78th to Higl~way 5? Approximately. I mean is
it.
Matt Saam: 500-600 feet. The entire distance?
Tom Goodrum: If you look at the commercial site, with their access, they're 300 feet from 78th
Street. They're also 300 feet from County Road 5, or Trunk Highway 5.
Matt Saam: If I could add a little background to the Kwik Trip site, which he's referring to. I
believe in their negotiations with MnDot, they got that put into their agreement with the
Highway 5 negotiations, that they would get access off of Galpin Boulevard. So typically, like
MnDot says in the letter, they wouldn't want to allow access that close to a state highway.
Councilman Peterson: It's not our decision anyway, right?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Peterson: So.
Matt Saam: Yeah, ultimately he would, they would need MnDot approval anyway so you're
correct.
Councilman Labatt: What about, what's your feeling on the access off of West 78t~? It has to be
600 feet from Galpin. Correct?
Matt Saam: Correct. Per current code, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Was that also for those townhouse units too?
Matt Saam: Yes, you're referring to Vasserman Ridge?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Matt Saam: The ones on the north?
Councilman Labatt: Two little cul-de-sac up north.
Matt Saam: Yep. In our condition number 10 we're recommending that the site on the north be
limited to one access point.
Councilman Labatt: One access point.
39
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Matt Saam: So basically make that whole thing a public street. It would come in at one point and
curve to the right, maybe something like that. Have a cul-de-sac at the end. And again this is
concept. That's just trying to give them some direction so when they redesign.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Okay. And then Kate, we're just talking on that zoning of the north.
What could we put there for units? What's allowed?
Kate Aanenson: This whole area is guided low density, as was Longacres. As is Vasserman
Ridge. Vasserman Ridge came in as a straight R-4 and then a RSF. In order, this area here is
guided low density, and if you look in our PUD section, in low density for PUD there's only 3
zoning options, and I went through those, and that's the 15,000. If you could only do one thing in
PUD and that's the average of 15,000 lot. Go smallest one and that's your only choice on the
PUD. If you want to do a cluster development in a PUD, you have to go the medium density.
There was a lot of discussion on the Pulte, are we giving something away, but you have to up
zone it. The only thing you can do in the PUD low density is the smallest lot, 11,000. So you
have to up zone it, which would also require a reguiding of the land from low density to medium
density. Otherwise the zoning option that appear on the site would be to give it a PUD, which
allows what I spoke to, or under the current RSF, twin homes, 10,000 square foot lots. Or to do a
traditional single family development. What's hard to read on here, because this is...on the low
density is that the way we figure, calculate for density under any scenario is that first you have to
take out, and Bob does mention a little bit of that in the report. You have to take out what would
be wetland. What would be right-of-way and that's what you're left with, density. So for us, I
can't calculate what the density is on this right now because there isn't a total upland area and
number of units, But for the gross area, it's 6 acres. So we've got.
Councilman Labatt: It's 6 acres north?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. 18 units, and that's gross, and I'm pretty confident it's less than
that because that wetland goes into that area, so I'm assuming it's probably closer to.
Tom Goodrum: You'd have 5.4 acres once you take out the right-of-way and the wetland.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Tom Goodrum: And giving us.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with what you're... I'm just saying our PUD ordinance
doesn't allow, that you'd have to up zone it to get that number of units. So what this is saying is
that it would be 18 units on the 5.4, or 3.3 units an acre. I haven't calculated that to that, to see
so you'd have to go back and up zone it and I'm just saying, you know, if that's what you do, but
if that's what you choose to do, I just want to make that clear that would require rezoning. It
would require a land use amendment.
Mayor Furlong: And the 3.3 requires the medium density. Is that what I'm hearing?
4O
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Kate Aanenson: No, it requires our PUD ordinance under the low density, it doesn't allow a
clustered project. It's, we pointed that out as a flaw in the ordinance but to get a detached
product, you have to be in a medium density. In a PUD. And that's the part that...
Tom Goodrum: Bob did indicate that part.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, but you do have to rezone it.
Tom Goodrum: That's what we were hoping not to do but if that's what they're required to do.
Kate Aanenson: That's a legal requirement. I can't give you it otherwise so.
Mayor Furlong: Question on that, you mentioned 18 units and 24 units at one point and that you
weren't adding any units. Is that 18 and 20, is that within the, as you see it, is that within the 5
acres on the north parcel or is that across the entire south and north? I'm looking for
clarification. When you said you weren't adding any units but it sounds like you're getting them
closer together. I'm trying to understand how to do that without adding units.
Tom Goodrum: Under the low density standards of your zoning ordinance, you're allowed 1.2 to
4 units per acre. And you have a 6 acre site. That gives you a range of 6 to 21 units for that, for
this 6 acre site on this north parcel. We're just talking the north parcel. So with your low density
range, 6 to 21 units, we're proposing 18 units. So we're within that low density range just for that
north parcel.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and you had mentioned at one point you mentioned 2 buildable acres.
Was that also on the north site?
Tom Goodrum: Yeah, if you take in the setbacks from street right-of-way, side yard setbacks,
wetland setbacks, the easements on there, you have 2 acres of land that are within all the zoning
setbacks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so where...where does the ratio in terms of number of residential
units per acre, at what level does that get calculated.
Kate Aanenson: How we calculate density is we take out and get to a net. A net is minus right-
of-way and wetlands. That gets you to a net unit. What he's doing is one way to look at it but
that's not the way our ordinance addresses it. So yes, you're still within the low density range
according to the comp plan. The problem is we don't have zoning that accomplishes that.
Mayor Furlong: The type of product within there. Not the number of units but it's the product.
Councilman Peterson: .... in this whole thing, it's the quad homes.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and so we treated everybody else the same way. We've up zoned them.
Rezoned it to a higher density to allow that, right. Because we don't have that. We couldn't do
it.
Tom Goodrum: Again I apologize if I misunderstood Bob or the ordinance, but to up zone it to a
medium density with the PUD, there are still plenty of protection that you're not going to get
anything more than what you're seeing before you on this site. And that's what we believe is a
quality product and a transitional product for this area.
41
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. Very good, any other questions for the applicant?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate your time. I'll bring it back to council and for
comments.
Councilman Peterson: Conceptually, I'll pre-empt my comments because that's why we're here.
I' 11, first of all my comments to the south side of the road where the rec center, quote unquote is.
As long as there's no noise outside. No noise activities. I am not adverse to taking a look at a
product like this. I don't, I certainly don't want go carts, any kind of noise activity in that
reasonably close to residential area. Even a batting cage, you know those can be noisier than hell.
Popping those aluminum bats so I would, I'd be open to the family activity center as long as it's
contained inside and no noise outside. And I think it's, I think staff's recommendation on moving
it and changing the exact language of a rec center I think is appropriate to get more flexibility. As
it relates to the north side, I haven't got a problem with the quad homes. I think it seems
reasonable where they're placing them for the transition. I haven't got a problem rezoning that
with the only caveat being, historically whenever I've done any kind of rezoning, I really want to
hear the public. I want to hear what the neighbors who bought the houses in the area expected
that to be, and if they're comfortable with it. So there goes the public heating is really going to
be a critical factor. I can sit here and say it seems reasonable, but I don't own land that's
contingent, contiguous to that so my ultimate decision is really going to be based upon what the
citizens have to say regarding the possibility of rezoning. Conceptually again I'm open to
considering both to be rezoned. It seems like a nice amenity to add to our city. It seems like a, it
does seem like an appropriate spot for it. Having that little piece inbetween the road there just
doesn't seem, it certainly doesn't seem to be low density residential, from my perspective. So
something else would probably be better. So I'm open, but I want to hear from the people that
live around there that made conscience decisions to buy there, and assuming they did their due
diligence to see what's going on there. That's it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I guess I agree south of West 78th. With the building and the caveat
that absolutely no noise. I mean I can't imagine when people hear go cart tracks, they're going to
think outside first and they're not going to realize it potentially will be inside. Loud speakers and
so, we'll just make that known that the south shall remain quiet. The north side though is going
to be an issue. I'll go back to what Pulte went through, and the residents on the north side of that
swamp, wildlife preserve. Marsh. Whatever you want to call it. Will be loud. So be prepared.
You know they bought, and I live in that area. They're my neighbors. And we all bought
knowing that this was all low density, and when you come in and try to up zone it, you've up for
an uphill climb. I'll make that known. Pulte went through it and they worked with, Vasserman
Ridge came in there and it was low density, and they didn't put up a fight. So I'll make that clear
to you right now that you're up for a battle. From the resident to the north. So I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Appreciate your comments. I do concur with, starting with
the south side. I think the request here is a reasonable request. I don't think it's unreasonable at
all given the location and the proximity of the roads. I concur with regard to the noise outside. I
don't think that is something that would be welcome. I think there's going to be issues with
regard to, and I'm going to be very interested in anything that comes back with regard to the
entrance and egress from traffic standpoint. From a safety standpoint, especially for a family
42
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
activity center. One would expect that there would not only be cars coming to drop children off,
but children might be riding their bikes there or walking there as well so safety at that intersection
and those points of entrance in there is going to be a concern. So overall I think that the south
side, from a concept standpoint is very workable. I think there are going to be issues that are
going to have to be addressed. Expanding it beyond just the family activity center, to include
institutional and office I think is very reasonable and would also be good uses. And yet I think
that provides some limitation as to the types of uses given the current and pending development
along Highway 5 so I think certainly the family activity center fits as well as a couple of other
things but going much beyond that I'd be hesitant to do. On the north side I struggle when we
start trying to squeeze too many in. Too many units into a site when there are other physical
constraints there. So I'm, am I against a medium density level of development? No. The
question, is this the right place for that, and are we trying to squeeze too many in to come up with
some number of units per acreage when there are physical constraints there that would suggest
that that's not the proper way. Similar to my colleagues, the public hearing on that will weigh
heavily ultimately on how that goes. So I am comfortable with the Planning Commission's
recommendation which strictly relates to the south part of the parcel. Perhaps they didn't have
the information that we received here tonight but at the same time, given what, I'm a little
hesitant to go forward at this point with regard to the north side in terms of making that change.
Am I going to be against it or if something else comes back? I can't say that but I can't say right
now that I'd necessarily be for it either, so. That one might be a little more difficult as
Councilman Labatt said from the public standpoint. Those are my comments. Any other
comments or follow-up? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Do we need one on a conceptual?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: So does this have to be a 3-0 tonight?
Tom Scott: No.
Kate Aanenson: No. It's conceptual so it doesn't have standing so.
Councilman Labatt: So it can be a 2-17
Mayor Furlong: Simple majority, good.
John Pryzmus: Could I make a comment?
Mayor Furlong: Very quickly John? Please.
John Pryzmus: Yes. Like Tom had said with the constraints on the north side, and to have the
transition of the buildings, you know from Lundgren's standpoint they couldn't market a
townhome that close to commercial up on Galpin Boulevard. And so I've talked with one of their
representatives now from Lundgren's and their interest is in maybe tying this development to
their's and they believe that it was a great transition so I just don't want you to think that we're
trying to squeeze them in, as much as it makes sense from you can't, if you can't sell a twin
home, you know because they're building upscale twin homes. I mean they're selling for
$400,000. You're not going to put one way up right next to commercial. It just wouldn't work.
So I just want you to know, I mean I'm going to be talking with them after this meeting so I
would prefer to not have, I mean and I'm sure that the residents will come and I think they would
43
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
be able to show a nice product like they have next door to me you know with the twin homes that
they're building and they just wouldn't work, and the piece maybe wouldn't work to try to put
just 6 pads with just twin homes so I am working with Lundgren's to maybe they might buy it.
I'm going to be a builder I mean but so, just to clarify that. We're just not trying to squeeze a
whole bunch of stuff on there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
John Pryzmus: Okay?
Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. We misunderstood that.
Councilman Peterson: I didn't. I would make a motion that the City Council approve the land
use map amendment from low density to commercial for 8 acres south of the West 784 Street
based upon the facts of findings in the attached recommendations contingent upon development
stage of a PUD and the Met Council review and approval. That' s the first motion.
Todd Gerhardt: Concept?
Tom Scott: We're not actually approving the land use amendment tonight?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Todd Gerhardt: Just concept approval.
Kate Aanenson: It should just be concept approval.
Councilman Peterson: So noted and changed. That one doesn't say it by the way.
Councilman Labatt: I think it' s the next paragraph down.
Councilman Peterson: That' s the second motion.
Mayor Furlong: Are there two components Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Well the first motion would be, actually it shouldn't be the first motion. It
should be the second motion is all you should do. The first one shouldn't be in there. This is just
going for conceptual. You wouldn't recommend it until you get to preliminary plat and that
would be contingent upon approving the final plat after it goes up to Met Council. So that first
paragraph shouldn't be in there.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, rewind the tape. I would make a recommendation the City Council
approve the concept plan PUD review for a development of a rec center for the 8 acres south of
West 784 Street based upon the facts and findings in the attached recommendations subject to
conditions 1 through 21.
Councilman Labatt: Friendly note from the side. Do we need to fix number 12 so it's 600 feet?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: And do we want to add office and industrial, as Kate had asked?
44
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Councilman Peterson: The answer is yes.
Kate Aanenson: Office institutional.
Councilman Labatt: Office institutional, I'm sorry. Office institutional.
Mayor Furlong: So rec center, recreation center, office.
Councilman Peterson: Institution .... can we just say office?
Kate Aanenson: You can put whatever you want in there.
Councilman Peterson: I would rather not have institutional. So I would just say office.
Mayor Furlong: Recreation center or office.
Councilman Labatt: Fine with me.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Is there any discussion?
Councilman Labatt: Just quick, this is only dealing with the south side of West 78t~?
Kate Aanenson: Right. That doesn't preclude them from moving forward. They can still come
back and request under the preliminary.
Councilman Labatt: Right, but anything north of the road, it doesn't go to townhomes, quad
homes, row houses.
Councilman Peterson: They heard our roar.
Kate Aanenson: Right, but they still could come back and request at the next level.
Councilman Labatt: I realize that but what we approved here tonight is just for the south, right?
Mayor Furlong: This is the south side only.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, that's right.
Mayor Furlong: South of West 78th so there's no residential being proposed. Okay. If there's
any other discussion?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a development of a recreational
45
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
center or office for the eight (8) acres south of West 78th ?Street based on the findings in the
attached findings of fact and recommendations, and subject to the following conditions:
The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial
and office institutional developments. Additional detail needs to be provided to ascertain
the quality of the proposed development.
Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for
the project.
The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan
(BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development
of the plan.
The Bluff Creek corridor primary and secondary zone boundaries will need to be
determined and surveyed. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek Overlay district
boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan
for this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek have
historically been included within the primary zone.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
6. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared.
The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The
development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to
discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development
runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be
sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards.
An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted. Type III silt fence shall be
provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is
to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
A minimum 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement will be required on all
public utilities outside of the public right-of-way. All buildings must be outside any
existing or proposed easements.
10.
Accept points to West 78~ Street, a designated collector route, shall be limited to one
access on both the north and south side of the street. The access location must be offset a
minimum of 600 feet from Galpin Boulevard, and the north/south access shall be aligned
in the same location.
11. A MnDot and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site.
12.
The proposed access onto Galpin Boulevard will not be allowed in it's current location.
The access will need to be offset a minimum of 600 feet from the intersection of West
78m Street. City approval of the access location will still be contingent upon MnDot and
Carver County approval of the proposed access.
46
City Council Meeting - October I3, 2003
13.
The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along
with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation.
14. The applicant will be required to pay park donation fees pursuant to city ordinance.
15.
The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections from the site to adjacent trail
and sidewalks.
16.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 10 feet) must be
maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed
and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and
must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual
wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements
as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback.
17. The creek and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan.
18.
The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant
landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th
Street.
19.
The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation
of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal.
20.
Development will require a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff
Creek Overlay District.
21. The applicant shall incorporate stepped back roof lines as presented in the renderings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Furlong: I'll just mention that last week City Manager and Planning Director and I met
with the Government Affairs Committee for the Chamber of Commerce. Talked about a variety
of factors and the desire to consider land use, especially along the 212 corridor. To look for
opportunities with regard to additional office and commercial space when available, and I think
the general response from staff was that we always look to do that, and certainly the 212 corridor
wouldn't be an exception. But to the extent that there are opportunities there, as we're looking
through the 2005 AUAR or other places along the 212 corridor, they really emphasize that that
would be some good opportunities perhaps for some more corporate residents.
Todd Gerhardt: I think the perfect example that Kate used is the Pryzmus site. You know had a
different zoning and comes through conceptual approval and you bring it through the process and
it works.
Mayor Furlong: So.
Councilman Peterson: Little painful but it works.
47
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2003
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. You don't like to change your guide plan too much.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other council presentations? Hearing none we'll move on to
administrative presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Todd Gerhardt: I have nothing to add this evening. We are working on putting a packet out
again this week for our special meeting on the 20t~. Talk about Highway 212 and the AUAR.
Councilman Labatt: That meeting will be here right?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. The meeting probably in the courtyard.
Councilman Labatt: Are we going to have enough room?
Todd Gerhardt: Should.
Councilman Labatt: The public.
Todd Gerhardt: This isn't a public hearing. This is a work session with council to update you on
the 212 process. Municipal consent. The public hearing for 212, or it's an open house that will
be held in the library on October 30th from I believe it's 4:30 to 7:00.
Mayor Furlong: Sounds right.
Todd Gerhardt: And so we want to sit down with the City Council and talk about that process
before they begin it.
Mayor Furlong: And with regard to that open house, that's going to be a good opportunity for
residents to come. See the plans as they're currently proposed and also provide some feedback to
the staff at MnDot and staff here at City Hall for any concerns that they have or compliments that
they have about the plans so it's a good opportunity. At this point, if I'm not mistaken, I believe
the formal public hearing with regard to the municipal consent process will probably take place
sometime in January. So this is in advance of any public hearings but it's a good opportunity for
residents to learn more about what the current plans are and what some of the proposed plans are.
Todd Gerhardt: And we'll try to get something on the cable access about the open house. The
times. And get something on our web site. Get the word out.
Justin Miller: And there will be notices in the newsletter going out in November also.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Okay, anything else?
Todd Gerhardt: That's all.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
48
City Council Meeting- October 13, 2003
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52
p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49