Loading...
CC 2003 11 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 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, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Bob Generous, Matt Saam, and Bruce DeJong PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Uli Sacchet Melissa Gilman Rholan Larson 7305 Laredo Drive Planning Commission Chanhassen Villager 429 Halsey Avenue S.E., Buffalo PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Good evening to everybody here and to those watching at home. There are a couple items on our agenda from a modification standpoint. One, based upon the discussion of item A at our work session this evening, there's a memorandum or recommendation from staff, copies of which are at the back table if anyone's interested. Without objection we'll include that as item (q) on our consent agenda. Hearing no objection we'll do that. And then the other item, at the request of staff, item number 5 under new business, which was the consideration of the wetland alteration permit for a dock at 6539 Gray Fox Curve, will be tabled to a future council meeting, without objection. Are there any other additions or changes to the agenda? If not we'll proceed and adopt the agenda as addressed. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 27, 2003 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 27, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 21, 2003 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Resolution #2003-95: Accept Utility Improvements in Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition, Project 02-07. Minnewashta Watermain Loop, Project 02-08: 1) Approval of Financial Agreement with the University of Minnesota 2) Resolution #2003-96: Award of Bid Approval of Consultant Contract for TH 212 Municipal Consent Services, Project 03 -09. Resolution #2003-97: Accept Utility Improvements in Banta Printing, LUR No. 03 -02. Adopt Lease Agreement with the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for Old Village Hall. Acceptance of Portable Radio through Carver County Metro Radio Board Grant Award. Approval of Amendment to Chapter 4 of City Code Concerning Fees. Resolution #2003-98: Project. Resolution #2003-99: Approval of Change Order No. 10, Chanhassen Library Termination of Easement and Mutual Release for Southwest Metro Transit Commission Park and Ride Permanent Easement. m. Approval of Increase in Unreimbursed Medical Expense Salary Deferral for Flexible Spending Accounts. n. Authorize Extension of Auditor's Contract. o. Resolution #2003-100: Partial Release of Covenant Agreement with Bloomberg Companies for Property Located within Market Street Station Project. p. Approve payment to Plehal Blacktopping :for Lake Ann Park Pathway. q. Appointment of Appeal Board for Chanhassen Chiropractic Relocation Claim. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. 2 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PARKING LOT EASEMENT: DATALINK CORP. 8145 UPLAND CIRCLE~ LOT 6~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This property is located within the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. This is a schematic of the 7th Addition. It's the property at the end of Upland Circle. It's currently a vacant lot. The Datalink building is to the west of it. They're requesting the vacation of a private parking easement over a corner of this property. As part of their site plan review the determination based on code was that they required 374 spaces. They can provide 342 on their site. They have this proof of parking that was shown that they could put it on the other site but it was never developed. They did come to the Planning Commission and received a variance for those 32 parking spaces so in essence those additional parking spaces are not required. So they're requesting the vacation of the easement so that now they can sell that additional property. Staff believes that the existing parking on the site will adequately serve this occupant and future occupants and so we're recommending approval of the vacation. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Bob, so the Datalink, they own the other parcel that's shown where the easement is in there right now? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff?. No? This is a public hearing so I'll open the public hearing and invite anyone who would like to speak in this matter to please come forward. State your name and address. If there's nobody that would like to come forward at this time, then we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion on the matter? If not, is there a motion to adopt staff' s recommendation? Councilman Labatt: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2003-101: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Vacation #2003-4 vacating a parking easement on Lot 6, Block 1, City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as legally described in Attachment 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARKET STREET STATION DEVELOPMENT. Matt Saam: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you said, this is for the vacation of easements at Market Street Station, which is the bowling alley site. I didn't bring, this is the third time I'm before you with some sort of easement vacation so I'm sure you're familiar with this site. The City Attorney's office has discovered, in preparation for the closing of the sale of this property, has discovered additional easements that staff was previously unaware of. They are recommending that these be vacated to make the sale of the property a cleaner procedure. Staff is recommending approval. We do have the one condition that these easements, the legal description be supplied to the city prior to recording. With that I'd be happy to take any questions. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. If there are none, we'll open up the public hearing. Invite anyone to come forward and speak on this matter who desires to speak. Please state your name and address. Since there's no one desiring to speak, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Bring it back to council for discussion. Any comments from council? Again, fairly straight forward and similar to what we've dealt with before so. Councilman Labatt: When is the closing Matt? Or Justin. 14th? Justin Miller: We're still working on it. We were hitting for the 14th. It's probably going to be later in the month. But still by the end of the year. Councilman Lundquist: By the end of the year or the end of the month? Justin Miller: Hopefully by the end of the month but with Thanksgiving, at the end of 2 weeks, it might be pushed back until December. Councilman Labatt: No other questions. Mayor Furlong: Very good. If there are no other questions or comments, is there a motion to adopt staff' s recommendation? Councilman Labatt: So moved. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2003-102: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve a resolution vacating existing easements located within the Chanhassen Bowling Alley redevelopment property subject to the following condition: 4 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Legal description 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 5 to 0. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION, 900 HIAWATHA DRIVE, KENT & MARY BRAUN. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is an appeal of a denial by the Planning Commission which met on October 21st. The applicant's site is located on Western Drive between Western and Hiawatha Drive, just west of Nez Perce. The applicant would like to convert their existing garage into living space and expand the garage on the east and south side of the property. Unfortunately to do this they need a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement. Staff and the Planning Commission concurred that there is adequate area on the property to make an addition without granting a variance and therefore are recommending that the variance be denied. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: Bob, do we have very many homes that, well first of all. When you look at the garage, the new garage. How far will that be from the road? 13 feet, how many feet will it be from the actual road or from the right-of-way? Bob Generous: From the pavement? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Bob Generous: About 45-44. On new housing, because you have about a 14 foot boulevard behind the street and then the property line starts and it's a 30 foot setback. Mayor Furlong: That's on new housing? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Peterson: On this one, compare this one on how many feet to the pavement. Councilman Lundquist: 17. Councilman Peterson: Is it 17 to the pavement or 17 to the right-of-way? Bob Generous: 17 to the right-of-way. ! think they're looking at about 30 feet approximately to the pavement. City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?. Councilman Lundquist: Bob, when you say that you feel there's adequate room on the site, you're talking about for the new garage or what's your? Bob Generous: Well for any expansion, yes. The garage, the house. They have all the property to the north of the them. There's additional room to the east. They're approximately 38 feet from this exposed expansion to the eastern property line. Ordinance requirements are 10 foot side yard setback, so they could reconfigure this and get a big garage in there. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? For staff. If not, the applicants are here this evening. Mr. and Mrs. Braun, if you'd like to come forward and say anything, you're certainly welcome to. Kent Braun: Kent Braun. Hiawatha. Mary Braun: And Mary Braun. Kent Braun: What we've got here is just some, a drawing from just right down the street from us. It was done in '96. It shows it's a pretty good sized lot and the garage that was allowed to go in is 17 feet off the road. And from a drawing here, I mean it's pretty small but it's got the 40 foot road setbacks or easements, whatever it is. And when we had purchased the property we got a thing from Chanhassen here and it shows just kind of when we bought the place, we had looked at many houses. We had talked to a lot of people up at Chanhassen and it says that the standard setbacks are 30 feet from each road, and so we were thinking, thought it was from the road and not you know from the setback so when we bought the property it was you know, for the fact that we couldn't do what we wanted to do and what we had checked on, it seemed like we didn't need no variances so we went from that. You know that's all I have to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great, thanks. Any questions for the applicants? Councilman Ayotte: More to staff. Reaction from neighbors? Discussion from neighbors? Issues from neighbors with regard to what you proposed? Mary Braun: We had none. Kent Braun: Well we had no complaints. We had neighbors coming up and saying, I think it was Halloween and there was no objections. They did like to see us have a bigger garage and they thought it would look better. Would improve just with the shape. You know just not having I guess 100 foot long rambler with a little bit more coming out towards the road. Being 30 feet off the road which seem to be fine and so no objections from neighbors. City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Bob Generous: And we didn't receive anything either. Councilman Lundquist: Your thoughts about staff's comments that there's a possibility to reconfigure your addition or space to fit within variances that would then added cost or just that's the fact that then it makes your 100 foot long rambler, or any specific objections that you'd care to share with us about not doing it without the variance. Kent Braun: I guess it's just the configuration of the house where the living room and the dining room is and the entrance into the house, and to have it more a center, you know where the family is so it's not, it's more usable for a family. Mayor Furlong: Have you thought about any other configurations that wouldn't encroach so much into the right-of-way and still, it sounds like you're, which ! certainly understand you're looking to try to maintain the street appeal of the house, but are there any other configurations that might work without the level of variance that you're looking for right now? Kent Braun: Sure. You know with the space we have, I'm sure there probably is but it wouldn't work as good as, or the look from the street. Having the L-shape of the house. Configuration. And then there's a large tree right in front there so that would be a shame to get rid of because that would push the house, or the garage more to the east, which would interfere with the large tree that we have. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Councilman Peterson: Just one. Not for the applicant. Just for staff. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kent Braun: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Bob how, you know it's, I don't want to put you on the spot but your best guesstimate. Have we made any variances that bring a home that close to the road that you recall? Or do we even have any that are that close that you recall? Bob Generous: In Carver Beach we have some. Mostly for like porches and things like that. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, and Carver Beach is a bit of an enigma in itself. Bob Generous: Right. We have the very small lots. City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Yeah ! can't think of another one that we've given a variance that intensifies it so much. Bob Generous: Not that ! can remember. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not, we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Labatt: ! have a question for Bob. Bob, just refresh me real quick. On the side yard setback where they have 38 feet on the east side of the house. What's the setback on that side of the house? Bob Generous: Minimum setbacks are 10 feet. On the side. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions or bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: Well, ! struggle with the applicant's desire to having a more architecturally interesting house. However, that really is the compelling reason being presented and all of our setbacks are there for a very specific reason. And for us to go away from our ordinances as it relates to those setbacks, without a real compelling reason, then why have the ordinance? Why have the setbacks? So I, you know and ! search for a more compelling reason then just the design of the house in particular, just kind of the look and feel of it and that's not from my perspective a real defining reason or compelling reason to do it unfortunately so, although I'd like to find one, ! haven't found one yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilman Lundquist: My comments would be similar to Councilman Peterson's in that, especially in this area there's a lot of homes that would, are on the small lots and especially in Carver Beach and some of that. However it seems like there is room on the side and again the architectural, the aesthetics of it is in my mind not a compelling enough reason to grant a variance. ! believe there's other ways that that could fit in there without a variance and still get the Braun's the extra living space they're looking for. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Not to sound redundant here. I always try to find a way to give a variance, but I believe there has to be an effort on the homeowner to exhaust every possible scenario, and when they have 28 feet they can build on the east side, I think there's other options and the hardship in this case is created by the owner here and not by other means so there's other options for the Braun's to get what they, to achieve what City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 they need to get done on the property without a variance and it' s a tough one. I hate to say no but you know. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments Councilman Ayotte? No, okay. My comments are similar. You know if there's some way it can be done without the variance that would be preferred and it looks like there are some options and ! guess would encourage those to be pursued but, because you'd like to be able to let people improve their property to the way they like to. But for a variance there needs to that compelling reason, as Councilman Peterson and Labatt mentioned and so those are my concerns here as well. Any other comments or is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: I'd move that we deny Variance #2003-13 for a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement based upon the findings of the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to deny Variance #2003-13 for a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement based upon the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: As I mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, item 5 has been removed from our agenda. Tabled to a future meeting. WALNUT GROVE 2ND ADDITION, 7305 GALPIN BOULEVARD, KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT: 1) REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R4). REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 5 LOTS CONSISTING OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND FOUR TWIN HOME UNITS WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A 3) PRIVATE STREET. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Mayor Furlong: Before I request a staff report I'd just like to say that the applicant in this case, Klingelhutz Development Company is a client of my firm. And while we City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 haven't been involved in any direct, had any direct involvement in this matter or any financial interests in this matter before the council, I'm going to recuse myself due to the possible perception that ! may have a conflict of interest. With that I'll ask the Deputy Mayor, Councilman Peterson to lead the council in it's consideration of this matter. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: With that, staff report please. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a 3 part request. The first is to rezone the property from A2 to R4. First, this property is located on the northeast corner of West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard. It's access will be through Baneberry Way West which is a private street. As part of the subdivision for Walnut Grove they did receive the required easement for access purposes. Under the land use designation of residential low density appropriate zonings are RSF, which is single family residential, R4, which is what the applicant is proposing. Which permits single family homes or twin homes, or is part of a planned unit development. When we first looked at this site we thought that there would be more units that would go in there but due to Bluff Creek corridor, which runs on the south end of this property, it really constrained the developable area of the site. The applicant did come in with the two new twin home, or 4 additional units and keeping the existing home. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to R4. The proposed units are very comparable in size to the bungalow homes which are the detached townhouses within the Walnut Grove development. They'll be slightly larger than the townhouses that are immediately to the east of this. So we believe this development is very compatible with that. As part of the subdivision request they need a variance for a private street. One of the issues at the Planning Commission was that they were leaving in the existing temporary turn around. The applicant has revised his plans to provide a hammer head, which is adequate for the engineering department and our fire marshal both signed off and said this is adequate for meeting their purposes. The other concern the Planning Commission has was that configuration of the Lot 5, we would like to see a more rectangular shape to that, and they feel that this Lot 5 is very constrained by the setback to Bluff Creek. Staff had encouraged the applicant to plat the Outlot B because that preserves most of the primary zone of the Bluff Creek corridor. We currently own the property immediately south of this. We received that as part of the Galpin Business Park. We think this will be a good addition to that permanent open space in the community and it will help to preserve the corridor. So while the lot configuration is sort of, not rectangular, it does comply with ordinances so we are recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report. Finally there is, because it's within the Bluff Creek corridor, there's a conditional use permit required for any development. We believe by preserving the corridor they will protect the Bluff Creek and so we're recommending approval of that. The Planning Commission did vote to recommend denial of the rezoning and subsequently the subdivision and conditional use permit. Again their condition was that the turn around hadn't been addressed and they were unsure how this really fit in with the neighborhood. We provided additional information in the report to show how it would fit in with the Walnut Grove development. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. 10 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Any questions of staff?. Councilman Labatt: Bob, is that existing house on the property, will that be accessed off of Galpin then? Bob Generous: Yes. It will keep the existing access point that it has. Councilman Labatt: And can you just give me the rationale for why that, why we wouldn't want to pull it off of Galpin? Bob Generous: Well we would if they were making a new house there or new development. However there is a significant slope up to the back of that site from where the end of this driveway will be, or this private street. And so to access the garage they'd have to build, basically build a new garage. As you come to the end of this, this is north and then it'd go uphill and the garage is already entered that way. They're not going to change anything on the existing site. Councilman Labatt: But there's been other times when we've pulled other lot splits like this off and re-routed the access. Correct? Bob Generous: That's correct. Councilman Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Councilman Lundquist: Bob, how do you respond to the Planning Commission's concerns about that sort of being shoe horned in there and however else they described it in the lot shapes and things like that. Bob Generous: Well they're correct. It is a tight site, especially the Lot 5. They could have shown alternate lot designs in a split building. However these are big twin homes. They're 1,300 square foot for one floor is big. Big property. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. And has the applicant made any alternate proposals for other layouts in there to address the Planning Commission's concerns at all or it's just a, you know it's a concern and here's the development as it is? Bob Generous: They've revised the lot lines slightly, but not a lot. It fits their plan I suppose, and we did have that one condition about no egress opening or door openings on that site so we wouldn't have people that would have a walkout to the side who want to expand. Put a patio or something in there. They have accommodated the deck area and porch area and they do have additional expansion areas towards the sides of the building and that's how they oriented these structures. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Any other questions? 11 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Labatt: Bob, I'm still kind of hung up on why we can't make this guy to access off the private drive. ! mean look at the elevation change and from the end of that hammer head on the north is 974 elevation and his drive's at 981. So you're looking at 7 feet grade change. And so is this guy in the existing home, is he selling and Klingelhutz is going to do a lot split and develop? Is that what's happening here? Bob Generous: Yes. The house is being sold to another party is my understanding. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Bob the only question that ! had is, ! don't know whether you were involved in the meeting two weeks ago where we had a conceptual conversation about the property across Galpin and.., how do we compare this development in area obviously and with the presentation, is there, we were kind of negative towards that but then it was a little bit more intense but how do you compare the two, if you can? Bob Generous: Well this one would be much less intensive development of a property compared to the townhouse project. And also it doesn't front onto the main drag. This is sort of into the neighborhood. The orientation's a lot different. Councilman Peterson: Alright. The applicant, are you the applicant by chance? Are you the applicant? John Klingelhutz: I'm the applicant, yes. Councilman Peterson: Alright, go ahead. Make a presentation if you'd like, over and above what we've already heard. John Klingelhutz: Well, you know one of the things... Councilman Peterson: Name and address please. Could you state your name and address please. John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek Drive. If you change the driveway, the layout for that house doesn't work very well. First of all, grade. Second of all, the way you enter the garage and third, most of the trees that are on that site you know, that used to be one of the Lyman residences and a lot of those trees are 100 year old trees, and most of them would go away. So ! mean we believe that leaving that driveway for that one residence, ! mean it's been there all these years and ! don't think it' s going to increase or decrease any traffic or be a hazard to anything on that road. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Fellow councilmen, any thoughts on this? 12 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: Any comments from our beloved commissioner from the Planning Commission? Uli Sacchet: I'm Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South. I'm representing the Planning Commission. We were really struggling with this particular application. I think it has a lot of merits. It's a good project overall. However, we found that basically the two things that staff already highlighted, that the cul-de-sac was not addressed, we felt had a very big impact on the layout of this whole thing. And we had an application just the same night, the same meeting before this application came up where we had a development where houses were put not on the setback line but close to setback line and we face requests for variances. We see encroachments. People are going to go out there. They're going to have fireplaces. Fire pits in there. They're going to want to have decks. They're going to want to have pavers and what have you back there, and in this case the lot, the setback line is pretty much coinciding with the smaller unit of the twin homes. We felt that it was not, at least some of us felt that that was not in line with the comprehensive plan's idea of trying to preserve the natural integrity as much as possible, even though it does meet the letter of the ordinance. We felt that was a reason to oppose this, and see some additional effort put in in terms of alternatives being explored, which that hammer head seems like there's a little bit of an alternative but I mean it's up to you to decide whether that's sufficient. It still seems relatively small effort in terms of actually looking what the alternate possibilities are. There's a lot of constraint with that wetland right in the middle of the site so it's definitely a difficult site to balance all the interests. Basically from a Planning Commission we felt there should be more effort and it should go back through the system. I don't know whether an option will be for council to refer it back to the Planning Commission with that consideration to refine those aspects or, I mean that's in your hands now at this point. Any questions from my end? Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. Any comments gentlemen? Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to know what the down side would be to bring it back to the Planning Commission for a little bit of the...what is the negative to that? Does it bring adversity to the project? Councilman Peterson: I think it goes back to timing. I assume it's. Councilman Ayotte: That's the question. I mean. Bob Generous: Let's see, Planning Commission meets once in December and then in January again. Then the council into January. Councilman Peterson: So we're probably delaying it 45 to 60 days if we do that? Is that safe to say? Bob Generous: That would be right near the envelope for city review. Today's actually the end of the first 60 day period. 13 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: ! mean we could approve it with a condition that staff continue to work with the applicant to improve the cul-de-sac area. To continue the process. Councilman Ayotte: I wouldn't want to put a roadblock in. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Other comments to that? Any one else? Councilman Lundquist: I guess my comments would be, why I asked the question about the extra effort. That I would tend to agree with the Planning Commission that we're probably setting ourselves up for variances and other non-conforming type issues to come. However, they're currently meeting everything that they're required to do by ordinance and everything else so I guess it's hard to say no, although I would encourage us, the staff to keep working on that to mitigate some of those future potentials. Councilman Peterson: Councilman Labatt, anything additional? Councilman Labatt: Well I think Brian's on, and Uli I thank you for your comments. The Marsh Glen was, that was proposing to do the same thing. When they came in with those town homes and we kicked it back and we said no because we're setting ourselves up here. And Brian, I think you're right on. You hit the nail on the head here or the noodle is going uphill Bob, is that how you say it? I think we're setting ourselves up for potential of having variances here by putting these buildings right on the setback lines. These homeowners are going to buy these properties, it happens in my neighborhood. Lundgren Brothers has put these buildings right on the property lines and the setback lines and they can't put a pavers stone deck in. So I'd say we either get the applicant to give us a written extension or we deny it tonight based upon the findings of fact in the Planning Commission report. Councilman Peterson: Okay. I probably feel the same way. I think that we could have a better project given more time so, although ! don't like not making a decision. ! don't like the decision we have to make right here so I'm comfortable in doing it. The only other alternative would be to send it through with staff working on addressing the issue of the cul-de-sac, but that doesn't address the setback issue. So ! would entertain a motion. I'll pay somebody a dollar for a motion. John Klingelhutz: Could I say one thing? Councilman Peterson: Go ahead. John Klingelhutz: We're willing to work with the staff to do whatever we need to do to make the city at ease with this project. Whatever that might be. Does that mean that we need to take the site that is tight and take a little more off of the part that goes into the Bluff Creek area to have the lots look like they're bigger or whatever that might be, we're interested in making this work. 14 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. ! guess with that being said, you know a possible resolution could be sending this back with specific criteria as it relates to the cul- de-sac and to increase setbacks by a certain foot percentage or a percentage to address the concerns that you might have. Councilman Labatt: So Bob you said we're at the end of our first 60 days. Bob Generous: Yes. You can take it up to an additional 60 days to review. Councilman Labatt: So that puts us at January l0th, 1 lth? Bob Generous: Somewhere around there. Councilman Labatt: And when do you have a Planning Commission meeting? It has to come back to the council in January. Bob Generous: Yes, and that's where we run into a problem. Councilman Labatt: Can this get on your December Planning Commission agenda if we kick it back to the Planning Commission with some direction? Okay. Bob Generous: Theoretically if they can make revisions. Councilman Labatt: ! think Roger wants to chime in here. Roger Knutson: The applicant's indication his willingness to work with us, and considering your difficult time constraints, maybe they would give you an extension until you can deal with it appropriately in January. ! don't know when you meet your first or second meeting in January. Maybe they could just give you an extension to the end of January. You could ask ifthat'd be okay with the applicant. John Klingelhutz: Like I said before that would be fine. Whatever we need to do. And it's getting pretty late in the year to do anything so ! mean we have to wait til spring. It's really not the end of the world so let's just figure out what we have to do and make it work. Councilman Peterson: Alright, thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Appreciate it. Councilman Peterson: Alright, that makes the motion a little bit simpler. Councilman Labatt: So ! would move that we table this and kick it back. Table it at the council level, kick it back to the Planning Commission for their meeting in January with the direction to look at the cul-de-sac or hammer head more closely and on Lots 4 and 5, 15 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 to look at the setbacks and the building size and location. Proximity of the lot. Any more direction or things you want massaged on it? Councilman Peterson: Is there a second to that? Councilman Ayotte: I'll second that. Councilman Peterson: Any further discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council table the Walnut Grove 2"d Addition request for rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit and send it back to the Planning Commission with direction to look at the cul-de-sac or hammer head more closely and on Lots 4 and 5, to look at the setbacks, building size and location. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Councilman Peterson: The next item on the agenda is a motion to permanently transfer power to the Deputy Mayor. Mayor Furlong: You're out of order. I've got it back now. I've got the microphone back. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Councilman Ayotte: Provide comments to the city manager regarding our meeting with public safety. Todd Gerhardt: Bob Ayotte, Councilmember Bob Ayotte and myself met with Mike Fahey and discussed some CrimNet data with Mike Fahey and how our deputies can access that information. Right now that information can only be gained through an e- mail address and, or calling down to the dispatcher. So right now our deputies haven't had access to that information. ! haven't had a chance to talk with Jim Olson, our Sergeant, but he is, one of the things we would do is have them directly call the dispatcher. The CrimNet program that the County is doing, it's a pilot program and it's a computer system that would allow the deputies to access criminal information from every county in Minnesota. So if they would pull somebody over, they could call the dispatcher with that person's driver license and get information that may have court pending litigation against that individual. Right now the deputies do not have that access to the computers in their cars so one solution to that is to call into dispatch. Right now our deputies aren't doing that and I'll be working with Sergeant Olson to ensure that the deputies do have that option available. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other council presentations? 16 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Just a question, actually on that one. I noticed I read a lot of things lately regarding the CrimNet and other things. A lot of the, there seems to be a lot of groups that are concerned about all that transfer of information and who has access to it and is it really relevant to all of those different things. Was there any discussion on those upcoming battles or battles? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: It is very political. Councilman Ayotte: Very political and there is disparity. One of the reasons then we would like to test bed it so that we can evaluate ourselves pros and cons. Maybe add to the heat to give some direction to what seems to be a controversial application right now. Councilman Lundquist: So you're asking to be a guinea pig for the political fray so to speak? Councilman Ayotte: Why not. Mayor Furlong: Any other council presentations? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: ! will share with the council, I've been invited to serve on a mayoral advisory committee for Senator Norm Coleman' s office, which is a group made up of both metro and outstate mayors. I'm not sure the total numbers. I'm going to guess a couple dozen perhaps. But the first meeting was last Friday. We discussed some housing issues, as well as some other issues going on. ! will attempt to let the council know when those meetings are coming up so in case there's specific issues that we want to make sure we raise. ! did have a chance to talk with staff in advance of that meeting and they were able to give me some information on what we're doing and some of the things as well, so it' s just an opportunity to represent Chanhassen' s interest perhaps a little more directly in some matters at the senator's office so. Councilman Ayotte: Do not bring up CrimNet at this. Mayor Furlong: ! will not. ! will not. If there are no other council presentations we'll move to administrative presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: As ! promised at the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, there will be sod in the park and sod should go down sometime this week. Mayor Furlong: Let me see your hands. 17 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: I'm all crossed. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So I'm covered. And the project's moving along nicely. We had some issues regarding the layout of the brick and to Todd Hoffman's credit, he was able to stand his ground and they are making adjustments to meet the standards that were in the specifications. So there were some different design elements than what we had laid out and they made adjustments to those so it's moving along nicely and 50 degree weather this week, we'll have sod down. Mayor Furlong: His fingers are still crossed. Very good. Councilman Labatt: So will they meet their completion or successful completion by the 14th? IS that what that memo said? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Right now they're making adjustments on the bricks and for the most part the brick work has been completed. Irrigation is about 75 percent completed. Hopefully in the next 2 days that will be completed with sod coming Thursday and Friday. They made good progress the last 2 weeks when it got really cold. Councilman Labatt: Was it the weather or was it Justin's memo? Todd Gerhardt: Combination of both. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for the city manager? If not, if there's, we'll move on to the correspondence discussion. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 18