The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2003 12 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 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, Bruce DeJong, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, and Matt Saam PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Anna Buller Mitch Davis Pat Farrell Josie Tidke Michelle Gmach Suzy Karius Josh Iskierka Allison Alejo Jeff Windquist Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Tom Kelly Bruce Feik 2862 Timberview Trail, Chaska 679 Woodridge Drive, Chaska 6541 Minnewashta Parkway 300 Pondview Lane 670 Liberty Court 782 Liberty Heights Drive, Chaska 569 Summerfield 7465 Chippewa Trail 8705 Mary Jane Circle 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Park and Rec Commission Planning Commission PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everyone here and those watching at home. Before we begin tonight there are a couple of adjustments to our agenda, which I'll read through without objection. First of all item number 8 has been requested to be removed from our agenda this evening by the applicant. ! assume we'll pick that up at a later meeting at some time, so if anybody's here for item number 8 we will not be discussing that this evening. Let me see, are there any other? We'll pick up the amendments to the consent agenda when we get there. Were there any other amendments or adjustments to the agenda? If not, we'll move forward. 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 November 24, 2003 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 24, 2003 -Truth in Taxation Minutes dated December 1, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 18, 2003 Call for Public Hearing on Municipal Consent for New TH 212, Project 03-09. Approval of Request for Conditional Use Permit #2003-8 to Allow a Food Processing Facility (Main Street Bakery) to be Located in an Existing Industrial Office Building; Located at the Northwest Corner of Mallory Court and Lake Drive West, Welman Sperides Architects. Approval of Request for Wetland Alteration Permit #2003-03 for the Placement of a Dock, 6735 Lakeway Drive, Anthony Roepke. Approval of Amendments to City Code; Including Summary Ordinances for Publication Purposes: 1) Chapter 3) Chapter 4) Chapter 5) Chapter 6) Chapter 7) Chapter 8) Chapter 9) Chapter 1, General Provisions, Definitions, as amended. 6, Boats & Waterways 9, Fire Prevention & Protection 10, Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses 12, Motor Vehicles & Traffic 14, Parks & Recreation 17, Streets & Sidewalks 19, Water, Sewers & Sewage Disposal as amended. Burlwood First Addition, Located at the Southwest Corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Approval of Temporary On-Sale Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, February Festival on Lake Ann, February 7, 2004 Approval of 2004 Meeting Schedule Resolution #2003-104: Approval of Plans & Specifications and Authorization for Bids; Remodeling Project in the Lower Level of City Hall. Approval of: 1) 2004 Police Contract 2) Addendum to Police Contract 2 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 1. Approval of Contract with Casablanca Orchestra for July 4, 2004 Celebration. m. Approval of Resolutions Authorizing Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Lands. n. Approval of Skating Rink Policy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #2003- 7 TO ALLOW A CONTRACTOR'S YARD WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK; LOT 8, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION, BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES. Councilman Labatt: Mayor and council, ! had briefly discussed this with Kate via e-mail this afternoon. What I'd like to do is amend the recommendation, deleting item number 3. I've discussed this with the applicant. ! don't see him in the audience yet. Oh he is here. The Planning Commission recommended that we, that he install concrete brick wall that matches the exterior of his business to screen his contractor's yard. In addition to that, he's fine doing that, at a pretty hefty expense, but they also put the condition that no vehicles or equipment can be stored inside that screened enclosure and ! think that if we're going to put him through the cost of putting the wall up, we could at least let him store equipment such as flatbed trailers or a Bobcat or pick-up trucks in that enclosed area. So ! would ask that number 3 be deleted, and that number 7 be, after the period it'd be no vehicles, trailers or equipment shall be stored be eliminated also. Mayor Furlong: So you're suggesting is number 7 would read, materials stored within the contractor's yard shall be limited to miscellaneous landscaping materials period. Councilman Labatt: Right. Roger Knutson: Mayor? I think that maybe you want something more than that because if it' s just miscellaneous landscaping material, ! don't think that would include trailers and vehicles so you'd probably want to say, limited to miscellaneous landscaping materials and vehicles, trailers and equipment related to a landscaping business. If you wanted to. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Just take out the no? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, take out the no. Roger Knutson: And then say, and vehicles, trailers or equipment and take out shall be stored, and say related to the landscaping business. Or the landscaping business. Councilman Labatt: Okay, I'm good with that. City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: And you're still suggesting item 3 would be... Councilman Labatt: Item 3 would be deleted, yeah. I had talked to Kate, maybe she'd like to. Kate Aanenson: Just for clarification. The industrial use district does allow for outdoor storage if it's completely screened. The applicant was proposing to enclose a screened area, which the staff's recommendation is that it met the intent of the ordinance to completely enclose the screen. The Planning Commission wanted to carry that further and limit what uses could go in there, but it is all outdoor storage would be completely enclosed, which the staff believes met the intent. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion on this matter? Seems reasonable. Councilman Labatt, would you like to make a motion? Councilman Labatt: Sure, I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit #2003-7 to allow a contractor's yard in the IOP district for Beniek Property Services Incorporated, to locate at Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on plans dated received October 7, 2003, deleting number 3 and rewording number 7 to read, materials stored within the contractor's yard shall be limited to the miscellaneous landscaping material and vehicles, trailers or equipment related to a landscaping business. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit #2003-7 to allow a contractor's yard in the lOP district for Beniek Property Services Incorporated, to locate at Lot 8, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on plans dated received October 7, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 3. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicle/equipment shall be stored on the premises. All chemicals shall be stored indoors in property storage facilities, specified by OSHA regulations. 4 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Materials stored within the contractor's yard shall be limited to miscellaneous landscaping material and vehicles, trailers or equipment related to a landscaping business. The northern boundary of the contractor's yard shall be clearly delineated with pavement striping specifically within the 2,971 square feet. The concrete block screen wall shall be made of the like exterior materials of the building. 8. Engineering shall verify adequacy of drive aisle prior to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: ! will request at this time too, ! did receive some calls with regard to speaking on item number 5, which is the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the 2005 MUSA. Given that that has gone through public hearings, a couple public hearings at the Planning Commission, I'm not planning to allow for resident comment at that time so if someone would like to speak to that, I'm just letting you know now so that we don't get to that point and somebody's disappointed if they don't have a chance to speak. So we are at visitor presentations. It's an opportunity for anyone to come forward so please come forward. State your name and address and you're very welcome to speak at this time. Mitch Anderson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, council. My name is Mitch Anderson. ! live at 2853 Timberview Trail in Chaska. That's the Autumn Wood neighborhood which is directly along the western border of the AUAR MUSA 2005 area. My wife and ! and a group of neighbors have been following this AUAR process very closely since it began quite a while ago. We've attended task force meetings and public hearings and have provided written comments on the AUAR and ! certainly appreciate the opportunity to provide that input and feedback to the council and to the Planning Commission. Tonight ! won't go through my previous comments since those are part of the public record but ! would like to make a couple of other observations and comments with respect to this topic that our group feels is important and germane to the discussion. First off it's clear from following this process that the AUAR is derived directly from the city's approved comprehensive plan. However it concerns us as residents that it's, you know in the face of all this data provided by the AUAR, it seems like the comprehensive plan is out of scope. We believe that some of this data suggests that fine tuning of the comprehensive plan might be appropriate and in fact very effective mitigation strategy. The exception of the changes required to accommodate a possible school site within the MUSA area again seems like the changes to the comprehensive plan has been purposely set aside and out of scope. We'd like to recommend that the council use the results of the AUAR as really an optimum reason to revisit the comprehensive plan with the objective of fine tuning some of those land uses and that development scenario to achieve an estimate of less impact on City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 traffic and warrants. I would argue that this is by far the most effective mitigation strategy and one over which you the city have the most control. If you were to review the comprehensive plan at this time, or at some point in the future, we also think that there are opportunities to increase the tax capacity of the area by relocating some of the medium density land uses closer to 212, to the east side of the MUSA area closer to 212. We've got data that shows that tax revenue per acre in Chanhassen is highest for commercial land uses at an average of about $35,000 per acre. Second highest for single family development at an average of $15,000 per acre. In addition both of those land uses have lower cost associated with them for both city services and for the school districts when compared to medium density. Finally I'd just like to mention as ! have in our previous comments, the AUAR puts out some significant issues in the areas of traffic and noise associated with a worst case development scenario. Our concern is that if the AUAR is approved tonight, it's not clear to us what tools the city has at it's disposal to prevent the worst case scenario from becoming the most likely scenario. So in conclusion I'd like to thank you for your culpable review and consideration of the plan and mitigations tonight and I'd like to suggest that you perhaps consider including a review of the city's comprehensive plan as part of the whole mitigation strategy for the AUAR. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? At this point or comments. Very good, thank you. We're still in visitor presentations at this point so if anybody would like to come forward, please state your name and address. Very good, we'll move on with our next item on our agenda. LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE~ SERGEANT JIM OLSON~ CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. You have our calls for service report that we put out for the city in front of you. Also this month ! have included the citation list, the copy of the crime alerts that were put out by Beth Hoiseth, the Crime Prevention Specialist, and Crime Prevention report by Beth Hoiseth and also a couple of miscellaneous items for the council also. Monthly numbers standpoint, total calls for service were up by 209 for the month. Year to date total calls are 10,309 this year. That's through October and the report that you have in front of you is also through October, just so that's clear. Calls for service for the year through October is up by 1,856. Traffic details are up. Some of this is attributed to higher traffic details from 23 last year to 42 this year. Thefts were up from 38 to 52, and ! talked a little bit about that at the last council meeting. Assaults were up from 2 to 6 and that is assaults, domestic assaults, all type of assaults are included with that. Alarms were up from 72 to 95 and personal injury accidents were up from 3 to 13. ! did do a little bit of research into that and it seems like last year was an abnormally low year for personal injury accidents. In fact the entire year last year was down. The year before was 14. Year before that was 11 injury accidents so ! see this as kind of last year was kind of a blip on what normally occurs for the month of October. We're still having a problem with theft from vehicles. Many of these have been crimes of opportunity where people are leaving things such as wallets, purses, laptops inside the vehicle in plain site. People are going through City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 residential areas actually and breaking windows and going into those, and taking those items. I would highly recommend for people to take those items of value out of your cars, bring them into a house. Throw them into your trunk. That will take away that crime of opportunity and certainly save you a personal expense in getting that stuff replaced and/or fixed. I'd like to thank the council for authorizing the purchase of the speed trailer for this year. We'll be using that in conjunction with Project Leadfoot and that's going to be a great education tool, as well as a data collection tool for us to be able to figure out where these problems are and to reinforce that for the residents and people that are driving on that road. So I'd like to publicly thank the council for authorizing purchase of that. Earlier in our work session we went over the work plan 2004 already. One of the things that I want to do is to get squads into residential areas more during the night, and I think that that will help with cutting down on some of these thefts from vehicles and also damage to property calls. Our new year starts on December 15th for deputies. The city will have one change over with deputies for this year. Deputy Ken Brooks will be joining the city on December 15th, and then Deputy Brian Strangberg will be going to a different area in the county. Ken has worked with the county itself for 2 years and before that was in Pequot Lakes for quite a few years. Actually he used to own a bloodhound up in Pequot Lakes as a police dog and went all over the state with his bloodhound that he had, so he's got some experience. He's been around for a while and sorry to see Brian go. Excited to see Ken come. Ken will do a good job for us. Any questions for the Sheriff' s office at all for this evening? I know you have a lot of you plate tonight. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Just articulate very briefly your view of a dedicated inspector for Chanhassen and why you think it would or would not be a benefit. Sgt. Jim Olson: Investigator you're speaking of councilman? Councilman Ayotte: Correct. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. Investigator I think is real key for the City of Chanhassen. There's a number of lower level crimes such as damage to property and thefts that are you could say falling through the cracks. It's taking more time to get to those and we need to have, to dedicate resources to be able to work on that. The sheriff' s office unfortunately has one detective that's covering the city of Chanhassen and he is tied up on a number of felonies that are higher level felonies that we have. And some of these lower level calls that are solvable, it's taking more time to get to and the more time you take to get to these calls, the less solvability that they have. And I think it's key for the City to look at that for 2005. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not, very good. Thank you Sergeant. Appreciate all your efforts. City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING & ADOPTION OF THE 2004-08 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Bruce DeJong: Yes, Mayor Furlong and City Council members. Tonight we're having a hearing on our capital improvement program. This hearing has been advertised and we recommend that you go ahead and hold this, however in discussions with our city attorney, Mr. Knutson, he' s determined that we need to run these through the Planning Commission according to Minnesota Statute 462.356, which I was unaware of. So I'm asking that you not approve this tonight but that we hold the public hearing and accept comment and then we'll bring this to the Planning Commission and have you table it tonight until we can bring back their recommendation. That will be sometime in January. So our capital improvement program is a 5 year plan that is to fully fund all of the equipment, infrastructure, buildings and other capital items that the city will need as it expands and as it replaces existing facilities. Our program for 2004 through 2008 is slightly in excess of $46 million dollars. That seems like a huge amount but I've kind of broken it out by the funding mechanisms. We'll have about 6.3 million that will be funded through outside agencies. That's primarily the State MSA aid which goes to pay for 10 percent of our primary road system. We also have about 20 million dollars of improvements and additions that will be paid through our utility fees. About the sewer and water utilities and the storm water management program. We have another half a million dollars that will be funded through development fees. This is primarily for park equipment through the park dedication fees that come every time we have a new plat that's approved and brought forward to you. And the remainder, approximately 19 million dollars will be funded through a combination of property taxes and assessment bonds. Assessment bonds will be levied against property that's benefited by improvements that the city puts in, but that is typically not fully funded through the assessments. There is also generally a tax levy associated with that in accordance with your preference that approximately 40 percent of each improvement be assessed. So with that, I'll ask if there's any questions. Otherwise I recommend that you hold the public hearing and accept the input and then table this item until January. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Any purchase of equipment going to be affected by the time line? Do we have a hurry up purchase concern on any item? Bruce DeJong: No, I do not believe that there is. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff?. If not, I will open up the public hearing. Invite anyone to come forward to speak on this matter. Please state your name and address. Come forward at this time. This would be an opportunity to speak. If there is nobody, then I will close the public hearing and move back. Unless there is other discussion at this time, I guess at this point I would accept a motion to either continue or to table to a later date. City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Councilman Labatt: I move that we continue it to January of 2004. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council table the adoption of the 2004-08 Capital Improvement Program until January, 2004. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE 2004 BUDGET AND THE AMENDED 2003 BUDGET. Bruce DeJong: Mayor Furlong, City Council members. Tonight you've kind of reached the end of a long process that we started back in August with the City Council. We've gone through a budget process whereby you adopted a preliminary Truth in Taxation levy th on September 15 after reviewing some preliminary numbers and putting in a preliminary increase in the tax levy of $233,000 which equates approximately 2.7 percent which is the real growth in taxable property in the city. Now throughout the time period since September 15th, we've gone through numerous meetings, both internally with staff only and with the City Council at work sessions reviewing budget items for each department and we've come up with a number of cuts which have been recommended. And we have reduced our budget by approximately $148,000, and we've brought our property tax levy down to a zero dollar increase and a zero percent increase for 2004. ! have to say that is quite an accomplishment and it wouldn't have been possible without the encouragement of the City Council to keep looking for items that we can change, modify, eliminate. We've certainly done a lot of changing of staffing requirements. Taking advantage of some resignations that have happened here along the way. Reduced staffing by approximately $90,000. This has been kind of a difficult process. We started out with an aid cut of approximately $320,000 from the state legislature when they passed their budget back in June. We also experienced some other things that have had a negative effect on personal property tax amounts for homeowners. Part of that is because of changes in general market value. The commercial industrial property has gone down in value in the city simply because it's based on the income approach of assessing that property. As vacancies rise, people have to cut rental rates in order to fill space, and that reduced income also leads to reduced property values for them. So the residential property is shouldering a larger portion of the property tax burden then it was in 2003. The other thing that's affecting residential properties is the phase out of the limited market value. That has gone from 8 lA percent 2 years ago to 10 percent for this year to 12 percent next year. And in 2008 that will be the full market value of each property will be taxed regardless of how much the property has increased each year. So as that's happened, residential property does shoulder a larger burden. This budget however actually allows property taxes to be reduced for most properties in the city, whether they're commercial/industrial or residential because we have a zero increase and we do City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 have an increase in our total taxable property value. And with that I'll end my presentation, if there are any questions. Otherwise staff recommends approval of the budget as presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff?. No? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the council for discussion. Any discussion on the budget. Councilman Peterson: I am anxiously awaiting a motion to approve. Councilman Lundquist: I'd just say that ! was, Bruce I'm glad to hear you say that it was encouragement by the council. Mayor Furlong: ! want to thank the council, Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. DeJong and the staff. ! made this comment last week at our Truth in Taxation but ! think it's worth repeating. And how well the staff worked with the council. It really was a cooperative effort and it makes it a lot easier for everybody, even though it's a lot of work. A lot of effort. In my opinion this is a very prudent and fiscally responsible budget and tax levy for the city. It' s good news for the city and it' s a result of a lot of hard work so if it' s a little quiet up here tonight, ! think that's a very positive aspect because we've put in a lot of effort to get to this point so to everybody, thank you. If there's no other discussion, I'll accept a motion. Councilman Lundquist: ! move that we approve the 2004 budget and tax levy as presented by staff. Zero percent, zero dollar. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2003-105: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the 2004 budget and tax levy as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA-WIDE REVIEW (AUAR), 2005 MUSA AREA, CONSIDER ADOPTION OF MITIGATION. Public Present: Name Address 10 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Terry Matola Krista Novack Jeff& Susan Lundgren Jill & Mitch Anderson Aline Stewart Bryan & Claire Saathuff John Chadwick Eden Prairie Eden Prairie 2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska 2848 Timberview Trail, Chaska 2910 Butternut Drive, Chaska 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is a final action of the adoption of the Areawide alternative review. The last two months we've been spending, actually responding to the comments as we're in the comment period. The Planning Commission did hold a hearing, two hearings as a matter of fact in August and September and after that time it was opened up for comments. During that time there were some comments that needed to be resolved, specifically working with MnDot, but that was, we were anticipating this coming forward a little bit sooner but we have worked on that. ! think it's been a very positive process. I'd like to thank people like Mitch Anderson who's here tonight who lives in Chaska but has been actively following it. This only makes the process better and we certainly know as we move through other developments that we'll continue to have input. We've also had the support of the property owners who have shown up at every meeting and given input, which only makes for a better process so ! think in that regard it's been very positive. And again ! just want to frame up for the meeting tonight again what the purpose of this AUAR. ! do have with me, Mark Koegler, who's a principle at Hoisington-Koegler who's been the lead consultant on this. We do not have our engineering team with us tonight but if there are questions, Matt, our Acting City Engineer would be able to answer those. But again I'd just like to frame up again what the AUAR does and doesn't do and kind of the purpose of it. Again, it's a hypothetical development scenario and again, as was pointed out, we did use the current land use guide. There's a difference between zoning and future land use. In order to develop our hypothetical situation we used the land use that was in place, and how we came to that discussion or conclusion and direction and working with the consultant is that, we just completed the Ehlers study looking at fiscal impacts. Where we are in relation with a lot of other similar size cities and ! shared that information with the City Council in the last few months, kind of comparing where we are with those percentages. ! think in some of the neighbor's situation they're concerned about the impact immediately but we have to step back and look at the broader context of the city. At this point there's some other things that are spinning out there that we're not sure exactly where going to land and what the implication of that is going to be. Can we change our mind in the future? Certainly. It doesn't block it in stone. What this develops is a worst case scenario, so the purpose of the AUAR is to again, take a hypothetical situation and we believe based on our best information that the current land use is the best way to go at this time. We did an inventory of the environmental and cultural resources, and then we took, looked at the cumulative impacts depending on ultimate build-out or as the word that was used that scared a lot of people was the worst case. Again that sets the maximum threshold of development .... each of those again the whole and see how that works out. So ultimately what we develop is a mitigation strategies and again that's what we've been spending the last couple months on trying to resolve is the mitigation and make sure that 11 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 we can manage that, and how that can be done. Again, this document itself is one of numerous planning tools that we'll be using as this area, the 2005 MUSA area evolves. Again I want to clarify what the AUAR does do. It's a framework for development. Assists us in budgeting. Helps develop mitigation strategy. Again takes a holistic approach. We had one project that came forward. Instead of looking at one piece we wanted to make sure all worked together so we took the whole 600 acres. Again it helps us in phasing for development, or for infrastructure. What this doesn't do, it doesn't advance the MUSA. It doesn't make the property develop any sooner. It doesn't approve any specific development proposal. It doesn't re-zone or re-guide any piece of property. Any piece of property that was to develop forward would have to come back before a public hearing before the Planning Commission and at that time the staff would do it's normal assessment of whether or not it's premature.., adequate facilities to make that development go, so that's a whole separate process that will leave numerous opportunities for public input. So with that I did mention how we came up with the land use recommendations. Again the staff feels comfortable with that. Some of the things that we learned through this process, as Mr. Anderson pointed out, the two most important things that we discovered is traffic is a big issue and how we mitigate that, and noise. And the noise is something that we'll be working with the Planning Commission trying to, as we move through the 212 process, ways that we can come up with a landscape plan. Things that we can do to mitigate some of that, not only on site but off site. Traffic mitigation, we're certainly working on that as we move through the 212 study. But one of the things that we'd like to do and kind of what's next is looking at a feasibility study. Certainly we anticipate a project coming forward requesting a feasibility. We probably, and one of the recommendations that was in the study itself in the mitigation was look at the entire piece of property for feasibility. How we provide sewer, water, and street, and timing. Which development may be able to go, advance in lieu of certain improvements. Again those are all identified in the traffic. So with that we are recommending approval of the AUAR. There is a resolution that we are recommending adoption of, and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: If the next step is feasibility and what is the time line associated with the feasibility studies following this effort? Kate Aanenson: Typically there's a development proposal that would want to advance a feasibility study. There's two ways that could happen, or the staff would come back to the council and request a feasibility study. So I'm anticipating one or the other happening. Either one of the developer, or property owners down there, in this area, would recommend that they would want to see how they could provide development to their property, and our recommendation back would probably be best again to take a holistic approach and see what our cost is so we can be building into our capital improvements plan some of those costs. 12 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: And the gentleman's comments from Chaska for the consideration of a review of the comp plan, what would be a time line target for the review of the comp plan if you see that as being a viable consideration. Kate Aanenson: I'm not recommending that at this time. Again I think there's a lot of variables out there yet. Depending on where the school district was to land, what land use they would absorb. Again, you have to step back and look at this piece in context with the larger, you know what our goals are for commercial development in the core. How does that relate to what we're having? We've always said we want a majority of the commercial in the core of downtown. There's opportunities for support commercial. We know that there's going to be some commercial at the interchange of 101 and Lyman so we need to kind of keep all those things in context so ! think as we're moving through the feasibility study and each property develops, they're not going to all be able to go at once. We know we need to get roads put in place, so there's going to be some staging of that, and ! think some of that's going to play out as development. Councilman Ayotte: Let me try another way. To reference your comments, what is spinning and when would it settle? Kate Aanenson: The school district's one item that's out there that we don't know where it's going to land. Right, and waiting for 212 for some of the improvements that come along there, and the feasibility study. That's going to tell us part of the feasibility study we're anticipating is going to tell us some of the cost. How we can share some of those costs for development impacts. And then we'll have a better economic impact assessment. Councilman Ayotte: The school, 212 and the feasibility study are the things that are spinning? Kate Aanenson: Correct, correct. Then we get a better idea of maybe some key intersections we want to put some support commercial at those. ! think at this point it's still a little premature. Councilman Ayotte: I'm trying to boil it down so that collectively people understand that there are certain things, certain trip wires that we should be looking towards that can then either raise concern or settle concern. Is that true? Kate Aanenson: That's true, and I think the feasibility, and Matt can correct me if I'm wrong, but the feasibility is also a public process. As we're looking through that and we anticipate that being a pretty lengthy process. And again, somewhere in January- February when that moves forward, that that would be a study document that also allows some public input so it's another trip point. Besides the specific project coming through. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. 13 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Other questions. Follow up question on the feasibility study. Did I understand that it might be as early as first quarter of 2004? Kate Aanenson: I'm anticipating, yeah. Ifa development proposal doesn't come forward, then probably the staff would want to initiate because we need to plan some of our capital improvements. If a public institution decided to land on that property, we'll want to see how we could service it. That might be another reason to bring it forward to you to say we need to look at these costs. Mayor Furlong: Is the, would the feasibility study, if it's initiated by a developer, which I think you said was one of the possible scenarios, would it look just at that particular development or would it look at the entire area? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. It would, but it would be the staff's recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Would which? Kate Aanenson: That they would just look at their property. But Matt and I have talked about this and it'd be our recommendation that we look beyond that. ! think that was also the finding in the mitigation strategies is that we look beyond just one particular piece of property. Kind of like we did with the AUAR. To share those costs. Who's benefiting? While someone might be required to put a signal, there's more than one person benefiting from a signal. A traffic signal. Some of those sort of issues. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, back on Mr. Anderson's comments. The land use that's, the diagram that you put up before that's in our, in the report. Those land uses are set now or. Kate Aanenson: They have been since we did the comprehensive plan update in 1998, yes. And we did go through extensive study and the staff again, when we did the Ehlers financial impact, we kind of went back and reaffirmed those so. Councilman Lundquist: So our ability to make any changes, additions, anything that now has to go through a change in the comprehensive plan process? Kate Aanenson: Correct, and we can do that at any time. It's not really tied to this. That's a legislative action you can make at any time. Typically we've done it with a proposal to say you know, this is something we want to have happen on this property. We have thought of it. We want to change things around, but we don't have those, that's what I'm saying. Some of that may be premature. Councilman Lundquist: So approval or non-approval of this AUAR has no bearing on those land uses at this point? 14 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, except for the fact that it sets a maximum development, so if you were to change around, as long as you didn't exceed the threshold, which we set for traffic.., it may affect but ! would think that's probably the biggest part of it. Mark Koegler: Traffic is the big key indicator, and as Kate alluded to, it is. Councilman Ayotte: Pull your mic closer to you. Mark Koegler: Oh, I'm sorry. Traffic is the biggest indicator and it is an issue of setting kind of a maximum threshold so the comprehensive plan change certainly could occur, might be brought to you even by property owners once 212 is more eminent than it is today. And as long as it fits within that entire structure of the AUAR in terms of traffic noise, all the rest of that, it's still in keeping with the environmental review process and would not need to be amended. Councilman Lundquist: So how do we hypothetically we go through a comp plan process, decide to change the land use to something that is going to bring more traffic onto that site. Then we have to go back through this process again? Kate Aanenson: We have to amend the document, yeah. Mark Koegler: There is a procedure for amendment, and again as Kate alluded to, it's kind of a holistic approach. So if you change something on one side to increase the intensity and you change something on the other side and decrease the intensity, it may be a balance and you may not be required to make changes, depending for example on traffic and which way it' s distributed. But there is a provision certainly that this can be amended in the future. There also is a provision that it has to be essentially looked at and reported upon every 5 years as an ongoing tool. Councilman Lundquist: And that's only if we would exceed that. If you come in and zone it, or if we came back and did land uses, all residential single family then obviously you're going to be less so there's no need to amend at that point? Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's a good point because ! think that was some of the beginning arguments or discussion points we had at the Planning Commission. They were concerned that we were shooting outside and we could come under it. Councilman Lundquist: That whole worst case scenario discussion. Kate Aanenson: Right. We can always come back under it but it's a little bit more complex to amend to go over that, so we felt we'll try to shoot for the outside. It's hard to anticipate sitting here today in 5 years what may end up on that property that we haven't thought about so. Councilman Lundquist: Yep, okay. Thanks. 15 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Good. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt or Peterson? No? Kate, what does the AUAR do in terms of placing a commitment or obligations, either on the city or on future councils. Obviously it's a document that addresses issues, raises issues. Comes up with mitigation scenarios. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct, that's a good question. Again it's a planning tool, and I'll let Mark add to this after ! get done but it's a planning tool that as each development comes in, it tells us to make sure that these things are also addressed. So it scopes out environmental, kind of the red flags that might be out there. We've identified some cultural resources that might be out there and tells them what they need to scope, so whether there's a different council, the rules would still be the same. Mayor Furlong: Okay. By planning tool then it helps the staff and the city do a better job when development occurs. Kate Aanenson: That's the intent. Mayor Furlong: Okay. That's the intent. I love intentions. But in terms of actual obligations or commitments, those are ! mean we're not. Kate Aanenson: No. There's not a fiscal. You're not tying anybody, promising any improvements at a certain date. Mayor Furlong: Or any developments or any land use or zonings which Councilman Lundquist... Kate Aanenson: No. Again right now we stated that this is the 2005 area. It doesn't magically in 2005 happen. Someone would have to petition for the city to extend services, and that would be one way to start the. Mayor Furlong: Feasibility. Kate Aanenson: Correct. We're anticipating that probably would be sooner. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So this is a start. Kate Aanenson: This is the beginning. The very beginning. Mayor Furlong: Very beginning, okay. Good. Is there any other questions? For staff. If not I'll bring it back to the council for discussion. Any discussion? Councilman Ayotte: I just want to make a comment since there' s, I believe there's some folks here that have an interest and folks at home, but the school board has a task right now that we do, that I do not believe this council really influences and 212, although we have an interest, we don't influence so going back to our, Kate's comments. Those 16 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 things that are spinning and have to settle, involve others. And then once that does settle, and ! would suspect this council would react to it. And ! make mention of that because ! know a lot of folks that I've talked to passed a referendum with the intent of having a school in Chanhassen. So make sure you're talking to the right decision makers. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Lundquist: Just comment on the land use as well. Again, ! have some concerns around that land use and where it's out but with Kate's comments about you know some give and take allowed in there and some of that, ! think I'm comfortable moving onto the next step with the understanding that there still is a process where we can get through that if need be. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion points? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: I guess I'd like to, there was a lot of effort put into putting this document together, both on staff's standpoint. Certainly our consultant. We appreciate all their efforts, but also for the residents and the property owners and all the other people that have put in their time because of their interest and looking out for what's best for this area and for the city and for their property as well, and we do appreciate all their effort. This has been going on for many months. There was a task force, members of the Planning Commission put in extra time after even, with their two meetings a month, they were putting in time on the task force. We do appreciate it. This is the beginning, I'm told, and there are open items that ! think the council has as well as the staff and other people as well so. ! believe it makes sense to move forward on this document this evening, recognizing that it is a beginning and there are other issues that we'll have to address going forward, but ! do thank everybody for their involvement and input into this process because we have a better document and better tool because of their help. Any other discussion? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: ! move to recommend the adoption of the attached resolution, do ! need to read it? Mayor Furlong: Without objection we'll waive the reading. So ordered. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? If none, we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2003-106: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the resolution adopting a final alternative urban Areawide review (AUAR) and mitigation plan for the 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area 17 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 (MUSA) as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ 114 SANDY HOOK ROAD~ SAWHORSE DESIGN. Public Present: Name Address Rick Riley Sawhorse Bill Chenvert Sawhorse Brad Schoen Sawhorse Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicants on Sandy Hook Circle on the lakeshore are requesting a variance. This is an existing home. You see the lakeshore. The house is, this is the addition here. The existing house sits closer to the shoreland than the proposed addition. The Planning Commission recommended approval of that portion of it but where they struggled was the recommendation of reduction of impervious surface because it's over. They felt with the addition not increasing, or moving further away from the shoreland setback, that that seemed to appropriate. But the original proposal that the Planning Commission came up with, this is a horseshoe driveway on this lot. They're removing a portion of the horseshoe driveway. Some of the asphalt. There wasn't concurrence on the Planning Commission. Some felt it should be left completely. Some felt we should move to the 25 percent and some felt that maybe 27 percent, while they're at 29 was kind of meeting them halfway so there wasn't concurrence. So with that it was a 4 to 3 vote, and because there wasn't a super majority, therefore it acts just as a recommendation as this item comes forward to City Council. In reviewing it with, after the Planning Commission meeting the staff kind of backed off the 25 percent and had actually recommended a proposed change in your staff report to the 27 percent. Again if you look at the intent, it's not to increase the non-conformity but to try to lessen it. So and kind of keep with the integrity of the house if you looked at the layout, the garage. Some of the garages are on the front part of the house in order to have a turn around.., appropriate to leave some of that turn around on the front side of the house, so with that it kind of moved closer to the 27 percent. The only other place to remove some of the hard surface was the existing patio on the back, and that seemed a little onerous too so with that staff kind of moved from the 25 percent to the 27. Again the existing is the 29 percent, so one of the issues on this became the hard surface coverage, so with that they were recommending approval of the other setback, just this portion. ! did show in bold in the conditions of the staff report, the changes that the staff had. Again, the one driveway and there was a concern too in saving some of the existing willow trees, and those were also modified in the recommendations, starting on page 7. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. 18 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, as ! read through the Planning Commission minutes, ! wanted to make sure that this house was built before the setbacks were changed or made more restrictive? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So at the time that the property was built, even though it wasn't the current owners, it was within? Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that's why ! think they felt comfortable with that, having a problem with the increasing the building. Just the impervious. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thanks. Councilman Peterson: So Kate, looking at that picture, are you recommending taking out the, leaving a turn around in or putting the driveway all the way through? Kate Aanenson: Putting the turn around in. Councilman Peterson: So eliminating the circle drive. Kate Aanenson: Correct, this part. The horseshoe part of it, correct. Councilman Peterson: ! know there was some discussion as ! was watching the Planning Commission, about leaving that circle drive in. Was that a part of the discussion that you had afterwards or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes it was. It was pretty split on that. Some felt to move it, and some felt it was, it's in already. Leave it in so that's why there was the 4 to 3 vote. Councilman Peterson: If we left it in, do you have any idea what the percentage would be if you left it in? Kate Aanenson: We'd still be at the 29 percent. Just a little bit of... Mayor Furlong: So point of clarification then. The proposed addition does not increase the hard surface coverage? Kate Aanenson: There is a portion of the front entry that would encroach into that. This front entry does push forward. Quarter percent, half a percent. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Because in effect they're putting the addition or the expansion on existing impervious coverage. 19 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Kate Aanenson: To go back to Craig's point, it's over an acre lot and ! think that's where some of them struggled because it was such a large lot, but it is a large rambler. Kind of on that lakeshore lot, but that's where some of them were struggling because it was such a large lot and to be over the 25 percent, but that's the way that house was built. In an elongated form. Councilman Peterson: Part of the reason why ! asked the question is, is there any merit, if you put the, if you leave the driveway as it is, that means you're moving the impervious surface farther away from the lakeshore, but if you do a turn around then you've got more impervious surface closer to the lakeshore and ! don't know whether I'm splitting hairs or not, but ! know we've always tried to keep impervious surface away from, as far away from the lakeshore as we can. And ! don't, you know my first reaction is I'm a little bit indifferent to asking somebody to rip out a driveway to save 2 percentage points and not wanting to get into the details but unfortunately ! am but. So anyway. Mayor Furlong: Additional questions for staff. If not, is the applicant here this evening? This would be an opportunity if you'd like to present anything to the council or expand upon issues raised at the Planning Commission. If you could state your name and address please sir. Rick Riley: My name is Rick Riley, I'm with Sawhorse Designers and Builders in Robbinsdale and I'm here tonight on behalf of the Palmby's and they're the homeowners at Sandy Hook Road here. And I'm going to ask the council, ! am staff architect and as an architect I'm sure you've probably heard of the saying, architects know a little bit about a lot of things. You also hear the statement that they know very little about a lot of things, and hopefully after I'm done you'll have an opinion one way or the other. So we worked with staff on the project.., looking at doing an addition. They're not encroaching any further to the lake. The proposed addition that we're doing. In fact it's about 11 foot back from where the closest point to the lake is so ! think everybody's in agreement on that issue. The hard cover issue, one thing that I'm not sure you would know from the photographs or if you individually go out to the site, they have some features associated with this property that ! think if you look at this property individually and say that it's perhaps performing a little better than the, right now as the property sits out there, it's 28.9 percent hard cover, by the legal survey. The addition we were proposing would have pushed it to 29.5. The planning office did, the planning department did suggest to find a way to get it down to 25 percent. Everybody' s first reaction was to cut the driveway in half. Get rid of the turn around driveway. We're down to about 27 percent and that's where everybody kind of keyed into. They said let's go for a 2 percent variance for this hard cover, so that's what we're here today to talk about that. A couple features of this property that ! think are really important is the foliage that's on the site. The slope of the site and material that the driveway is. I'll talk a little bit about each one of those. This is a very mature site. It's got very mature trees. It's got very mature plantings, gardens that the owners have developed and maintained. This is a site where it's strictly grass, water coming off the roof would act in a different way. This site has very mature trees and plantings. It is absorbing that product. Second, the slope. From 20 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 the front driveway. From the front turn around that's out here, to the cul-de-sac it's 90 feet. There's a 9 inch drop in 90 feet. Not 4 feet, not 3 feet, 9 inches of drop in 90 feet. Water that starts up at the house that's on this impervious driveway, has 90 feet to try to go someplace else. So the slope of this property is very level. The water is staying on this property as a whole. The material itself, and the planning department has suggested that they don't take into consideration different properties. I guess I'm looking for the council's maybe intuitive sense of what's going on with this property. The materials that this driveway is pavers. 4 by 8 pavers in a pattern. There are 24 lineal inches of pavers. Creases, cracks for each one of these pavers. There's roughly speaking 8,000 square feet of driveway pavers here. With 4 lA bricks to each square foot, there's roughly speaking 500,000, a half a million cracks for moisture to go through. So part ofthe...impervious piece of property is that the material, if this driveway material were concrete, it would act differently. If it were asphalt it would act differently. This is a pavers driveway with 9 inches of drop over 90 feet. I guess I would look for the council to be intuitively sense that the moisture that's getting onto this driveway is in fact going through, sifting through, getting through and filtering through properly. I say there is a certain portion if it is. So we are suggesting that we would go down to the 27 percent. We are willing to reduce it, our addition was actually take it up to 29.6, 29.5. We're willing to take out 2.5 percent of hard cover material to get it down to 27 percent. Now how that happens I guess at this point we're past the season of doing it. We're willing to work with staff and we have initially done that and said okay, let's take out this one driveway and put in a cul-de-sac, let's do it that way. We're not sure, our homeowner has expressed some concern. They also weren't present, were out of town for that to listen to the Planning Commission' s thoughts on that. There was a gentleman on the end that raised a question, just as this gentleman did, that should there in fact, is there a reason to take out the horseshoe. We're not sure there is. I think the planning staff suggested there's an ordinance or something like that going on that perhaps that turn around should be taken out. That horseshoe. So we're here to basically ask that the recommendation of the following condition, that condition 3 be omitted is what we're actually requesting. We're willing to go down to 27 percent. We're willing to find that 2.5 percent of hard coverage, you know whether it's towards the lake. Make it better towards the lake where most the pavers toward the lake, or most the hard surface towards the lake will be also the pavers material. The same pavers material. The same very low slope on the back and a lot of plantings on the back. But our owner is willing to look at where to get this 2.5 percent. And one of the things that we'd like to say as far as the applicant about maintaining a driveway, is this is the same map just blown up. Our property is the gray property right there. The properties A, B, (2, D, E, F and G all have horseshoe driveways. They all have two entrances in and out of their properties. I have the pictures of A and B, which would be. Property A is the one closest to us. Brand new construction .... going to the front in the garage areas and then a driveway going around to the front door. Here is the next property away. Following along with C. D. E. F. And G. So as I stated, our wish is that yes we will find, get down to 27 percent hard cover. We're not exactly sure where that should be achieved yet but we're willing to work with staff on it. We'd like the council to consider taking out the condition of having more than one driveway. And we're good for questions. 21 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Just for clarification. You said you're willing to stick with the 2 percent variance knowing that you've got to go somewhere and find roughly 2 lA percent. Whether that be the turning the driveway into a horseshoe or some other piece of it. Rick Riley: You're right, we haven't found out how to do it. We've actually looked at reconfiguring one of the garage stalls. It affects an underground electrical service panel and a major service panel that's there. ! would assume that...the existing home is 28.9 percent. We were going to add roughly 400 square feet. We'll take 400 square feet out and staff recommendation was to try to get more. So we backed off on that so we're not sure where it is but we're certainly willing to look with staff to see that we can find it. And ! guess the intuitive thing that ! put before you of the property itself, the plantings, the slope of this property, the pavers system itself. Certainly some other owner could come in here and buy this. Put in a concrete driveway, which would probably be the worst situation, the least impervious material. And asphalt would be the next ! think. Pavers is probably the way this property is working, it might be working under 25 percent right now. Councilman Lundquist: So the home itself right now as it stands today without the addition is how much hard? Rick Riley: 28.9 percent. Councilman Lundquist: Is that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Kate, any response to items raised? Kate Aanenson: I guess we've always made the interpretation that brick pavers, because they're compacted, are a hard surface coverage. It'd be very nominal. I'd be leery, if you're making that interpretation. If you wanted to grant the variance, that's fine. We're not opposed to the horseshoe driveway. Again, we were looking at the literal interpretation of to try to move to reduce it, so we wanted to get them the flexibility. That was just one idea. It's not that, certainly move from two driveway to now this current code, we've moved from that but that wasn't the issue. It was just a way to get the reduction down. Mayor Furlong: A quick question. The three non-conforming components of this project, one is the setback from the lake. Second is the hard surface coverage and third is two driveway entrances. Are there other non-conforming aspects to this property? 22 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: Not that we're looking for more. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so those are the three. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: And by removing the driveway we basically, and going to 27, we'd be reducing two of the three. What I'm hearing here is, we'll reduce the hard surface coverage, just give us the option of how we go about doing it. Is that? Okay. Alright, thank you. I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, ! think mine are reiterating what ! shared before. ! think unless we're going to go down to what the code is at the actual 25 percent or below, then ! think the delta between 27 and 28.9, asking them to do that is a relatively small in nature, but potentially costly. I'm comfortable maintaining their old percentage. Letting him keep the horseshoe drive and moving ahead. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: ! don't see any problem with it either. ! agree with Councilman Peterson. Mayor Furlong: Don't increase it but okay to keep it. Councilman Ayotte: Right. Mayor Furlong: At the 28.9 or whatever it is at now. Councilman Labatt: Did ! hear the new addition, with the driveway as is brings it up to 29.6? Kate Aanenson: Correct. They would be adding. Councilman Labatt: They would be adding so, are you telling them they still have to take away their 400 they talked about? Councilman Peterson: Getting it down to what it was previously, 28.9. So not increasing the, they're decreasing it. Unconformity. Or maintaining it ! should say. Kate Aanenson: Maintaining it. 23 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Other comments? Questions? I guess the challenge I have, and I understand the comments made. If I'm reading our code correctly, we're supposed to be looking for lessening our elimination of the non-conformity if we're going to allow expansion. Do we see that by allowing them to stay at their hard surface coverage that we're doing that? Councilman Peterson: I think my response to that is you look at each situation independently and you look at where they're at in the end of the cul-de-sac and it's a private, you know and ! understand Kate's point but on the impervious surface but even if it's 1 percent or 2 percent better on a paver versus, paver versus blacktop or cement, that's a benefit. And ! think that driving by this site, you look at the property and it is landscaped very nicely to further mitigate some situations like that so ! think there's enough extenuating circumstances to relieve my concern to adhere to the code that strictly. Mayor Furlong: And giving them the flexibility of how they achieve it, rather than dictate it has to the driveway 100 percent behind their, that's one of the questions. Do we request some accommodation down to 27 percent or are we really splitting hairs and adding costs that's not necessary? Councilman Peterson: That's where I'm at. Mayor Furlong: What essentially we're saying is they're not going to be able to expand if we go forward with this motion, expand to the 29.5 or 29.6, but they'd have to find a way to stay within. Councilman Peterson: That's right. Mayor Furlong: Well ! can be comfortable with that. ! think given, as you said, the property itself is unique. The multiple driveways, while that's non-conforming, it's at the end of a cul-de-sac. ! don't see it as a safety issue by any means, which sometimes we do see with multiple driveways. Then the issue is with hard surface coverage, especially by a lake, but we're not improving the setback anyway with this so, you know are we accomplishing or adding undue burden. Other comments? Questions? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: ! would move that the City Council approve variance #2003-17 for 21 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback as shown on plans dated 9-30-03 prepared by Sawhorse Designers and Builders and approve a 3.9 percent hard surface coverage variance from the 25 percent maximum standard, based on the findings in the staff report, conditions 1 amended to read, the applicant shall reduce impervious surface to 28.9 percent. Condition 2 to remain as is. Condition 3 deleted. And condition 4 remain as is. Councilman Peterson: Second. 24 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Variance #2003-17 for a 21 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/30/03, prepared by Sawhorse Designers and Builders, and approve the 3.9% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum standard, based upon findings in the staff report and with the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce impervious surface to 28.9%. The applicant shall install a silt fence prior to any excavation. The applicant shall protect the existing willow trees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CLINIC; LOCATED AT THE SOUTEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD~ PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES~ BWBR ARCHITECTS. Public Present: Name Address William Kenney Ed Terhaar Duane Spiegle Bob Verstraete Pam Hargis Connie VanderTop Cindy Schallock Mick Johnson Pat Hallisey 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park 10417 Excelsior Blvd, #2, Hopkins 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park BWBR Architects, St. Paul 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd, St. Louis Park 7501 Canyon Curve Wayzata Blue Circle Investment Company Mayor Furlong: Busy night tonight for planning. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting, Park Nicollet is requesting approval for a 3 story clinic with the variance to go up to that high and site plan approval. This property is in a neighborhood business district. At the time that the Legion owned both parcels, they came in with a plan that showed moving the Legion over and ultimately development of the Park Nicollet site so this has been in the works for a while. They had a series of neighborhood meetings and work sessions with the Planning Commission to get some input. With that they developed their site plan. They did come back and meet with the Planning Commission to get some feedback. When the original property to the south, where there's a gas station, was put in place there was a 25 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 requirement with the Legion that there be a common driveway. When that proposal came before the Planning Commission in a work session the Planning Commission directed the Park Nicollet to investigate possibly saving more trees and having separate driveways so that's the direction that that moved in, and that became a discussion when it went back to the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 18th. The actual, two access points. Right turn only. Both of those would be, I'll talk about that again in a minute. Again, this zoning district only allows one story. There's a lot of discussion. When the Legion came in, how we would address that. We talked about that time doing a PUD which would build in some different standards or whether we wanted to change the zoning district. At that time we have some other kind of sensitive neighborhood zoning that we didn't want to change the district at that time but felt that the tool that would be appropriate with this, based on some neighborhood input, was to allow the variances and stay with the underlying zoning district. They need to know if they can have their approval. The variance at this time is only for 2 stories because they need to build the footings and foundation to accommodate, as well as the heating and ventilating to accommodate the 3 stories, so at a future date when they do come in with their third story, it would, we'd have them come back through the planning process because they'd have to demonstrate that they've got adequate parking and how that all lays out. So again, while the two stories are being built now, that third phase, or third story would again come back through this public process. I'll go back to the Planning Commission meeting on the 18th. Talked about the two driveways. The applicant did work with MnDot to get approval of those. If you have additional questions regarding the acceptability of that, Matt Saam can answer some of those questions but again that was a concern that the Planning Commission had. Both whether it was a common driveway or two driveways, does meet city standards and state standards. The other concern the Planning Commission had was, they were trying to save some trees. They felt like maybe some parking should be lost and look at additional, I'm showing that on the bright yellow. Some additional buffering. Moving the retaining walls out to increase the survivability of those trees. Looking at the site plan itself, again the interior part where the HVAC and mechanical stuff will be built at this time. The two stories, ! have the material samples. Again we believe it's a very well designed building. ! think the Planning Commission felt the same way and did receive comments. They did have an open house with the neighbors and again it does meet the standards that the city has. One of the other concerns was regarding the height, whether the four stories or the 47 feet. Looking at this type of a building, in order to get for a medical building, you need taller stories than normal. 14 feet is what they needed in order to get all their mechanical equipment, electrical equipment in the roofs so that made for a taller building so again we, besides the three stories there was clarification of what a typical story was, so they were allowed to go the additional height. Originally the applicant didn't get down into the height but that, we are recommending approval of the 47 feet. Yeah, 47 feet. The maximum height. Originally, the 40, the district is 40 but it is 3 stories and that's what was needed again to accommodate the 14 feet. Again, one of the other concerns is how long will we wait to see if we can get three stories, because it was a variance request they did put a time line on that and the Planning Commission had recommended 10 years so if it doesn't come back in 10 years, the site plan doesn't have any standing, because they need some buy in if they're going to come back and ask for it now. Typically we have 26 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 some sort of assurance on a variance, whether or not it would be to move forward so they wanted to give that a time frame so they would know that would happen. Again the Planning Commission, I'm reading on page 19, the conditions, were concerned about the right-in/right-out. That is a condition in your staff report. If the council is not in concurrence, that would be a condition you may want to remove. And then the other one, ! mentioned 29 was the increase in the parking lot, and there was another condition which regarded four way stops. Some of the discussion on the four way stop included the background so there was a traffic study that looked at not only this site, but the Villages on the Pond which is also continuing to this intersection, so ! think the concern there is that we just measure the merits, and that's something that we'll be talking to the Planning Commission too about too in the next work session, is they understand how, kind of the input to traffic study and then also looking at merits or when they're warranted. Talking about the site plan again too, this is just a conceptual but ! wanted to show you that it does have three stories. This is conceptual. Do you want to zoom in on this? This would be the third story, the darker of the lighter. Moving up. That does show the third story. Again they would have to come back and get site plan approval because it doesn't meet the underlying standards which specifically in this case is regarding the parking standards. They have worked very closely with the staff. Been a very positive process. We are recommending approval. Again the Planning Commission recommendations are in your staff report, so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: As I'm looking at the site plan, there's really two entrances. You've got the one off of Great Plains Boulevard that's just north of the gas station entrance, and then also one on Lake Drive that basically shares the Legion entrance, is that, am I looking at that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's the existing, kind of the old Legion entrance is right here. And then the current access into. Councilman Lundquist: Oops, I must be looking at a different one. Kate Aanenson: They have worked out a cross access agreement, and that's this document here. Between the two property owners. The owner of that gas station, his property is here tonight too. They had worked out a cross access agreement was one of the conditions of that. That's ready to go. So that was our request that if you're in this site, part of what we do on all our projects is try to provide that, whether we had looked at the MCI and Target where we try to provide that so you don't have to get back onto a collector road. If you want to get gas and then go to the Park Nicollet, you still have that opportunity without getting back onto the collector street, and that's part of the planning thing that we always try to accomplish. Councilman Lundquist: About that access of Lake Drive, people are just going to be turning a U-turn on Great Plains and sneaking back in there, right? 27 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's an opportunity, or if you go to the one, which was an option too that the Planning Commission. If you went to one, you could still, would this be in place. Possibly. Possibly not. How that works. That's part of the issue. There was a requirement that there be one. MnDot did approve the second as they went forward with the traffic study. ! think the bigger issue is yeah, how do we combine these two. Who pays for the movement and the relocation of all that? The developers were willing to do that. They were redirected so that's kind of, you came to that point. Councilman Lundquist: Well wasn't that the whole purpose of the Planning Commission is to not have that access between the gas station and the Park Nicollet? Kate Aanenson: ! think it was more, Bruce was sitting here. ! think, pardon me? Audience: He had to leave. Kate Aanenson: Oh, Bruce Feik was here. ! believe it was more just the two access points. Correct me if I'm wrong Matt. ! mean certainly we always want to combine, when there' s an opportunity to use both without... ! think it was more that there were just two right turns so close together and the traffic on Great Plains. Matt Saam: Yeah, they did bring up Councilman Lundquist, traveling from the Park Nicollet to the gas station and potential conflicts but one thing to keep in mind, even if we go down to one access, it'd be a shared access so they'd still have that common open driveway area. Kate Aanenson: So you could go left or right. But there'd be more congestion actually at that point possibly. Matt Saam: Potentially. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions. I guess just point of clarification. The schematics we had ! think showed the three stories. You said they're going with just two now. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The Planning Commission did ask to see what the ultimate three stories would look like. This is just a schematic. It'd probably be pretty close to something like that, but that' s with the final drawings. ! just wanted to share that with you because the Planning Commission wanted to see that for their edification. Mayor Furlong: And does that, does the dark brown, is anything going to be above two stories at this point except the mechanicals? Kate Aanenson: No, just this portion right here. 28 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that's basically mechanicals? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what they need for the ultimate build out, correct. Maybe ! can show you the reveals on the other, that's the two story and then this would show all elevations here. If you can back that out just a pinch Nann. That would show all the elevations. You can see where the mechanical would be. That'd be that three stories, just this portion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the Northcott building. That's what, a two story? Three story building? Kate Aanenson: Two story. Councilman Lundquist: It's in a different zone. Kate Aanenson: ! think if we looked at the, it's pretty similar.., about a foot higher, right. Councilman Lundquist: About a foot higher than, so it's 48. Kate Aanenson: Right, it's dropping down in elevation as you get up towards the bridge. Correct. It's about a foot higher. If you look at grade. Councilman Lundquist: But that's obviously in a different zoning. Kate Aanenson: No, it's actually you gave a variance... Councilman Lundquist: We did have a variance for that? Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and the reason on that one is because it was tucked into the bridge. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and so it was screened from that. And they do have a potential for another addition on that building too. Mayor Furlong: Kate, could you explain a little bit. You mentioned some open houses with the neighborhood. Just how those went and what was discussed and the feedback from those. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, ! think all and all we've had a lot of different uses looking at this. Going way back to maybe 6-7 years ago. Actually had an auto dealership looking at that piece of property. Coming in for a rezoning. They actually pursued the rezoning. There's been a lot of different uses looking at this. ! think it was well received as far as 29 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 the view of the building. It's up against Highway 5. They're getting the parking on that side so it's actually in some ways acts as a buffer from some of the impacts of Highway 5, so ! think it would, they've seen a lot of different proposals and ! think it was pretty well received. There's a concern with traffic certainly, and something we try to manage. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff?. At this point. If not, is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. Bill Kenney: Hello Mr. Mayor. My name is Bill Kenney and I'm the Operating Vice President for Park Nicollet Clinics at 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard in St. Louis Park. I'm here tonight, along with other members of our staff to answer any questions you might have. Park Nicollet Clinic is not for profit community organization with 21 clinics located in the west metro area. Our plan is to move the Eden Prairie clinic, which is located on Highway 5 and Eden Prairie Boulevard to the proposed site. In January of 2001 we expanded that site to include urgent care, really to test out the market and it's been very successful. Chanhassen is a community that's very familiar with Park Nicollet Clinic. 25 percent of the residents here in Chanhassen do go to a Park Nicollet clinic. The services that we've planned here for Chanhassen would include family practice and urgent care, which currently is in Eden Prairie. Pediatrics and internal medicine. OB/Gyn, cancer care and cardiology. Eye services. Radiology to include CT and MRI. And home care products, a laboratory and a pharmacy. All these services are based on a community need and our program has evolved over the past two years as we've been planning very extensively looking at the changing demographics of this area. We held two community meetings at the Legion and one was held on February 27th with a follow up meeting, and answered many of the issues that were brought up at that February 27th meeting on April l0th. We addressed issues including the pedestrian sidewalks, the trees, water drainage, parking, specifically the sharing of the parking with the Legion. Meeting space and building height, as well as bringing back to the group at that point the commitment on the part of the organization to bring OB/Gyn services to Chanhassen. We, as you can see are eventually looking to build a three story building and we are anticipating growing needs of this community. We'll allow for family care to include the pediatrics and OB/Gyn departments as well as addressing the older needs of the population here with internal medicine, diagnostic services and rehab. We've been very committed to a community partnership here. We've been working with school district #112 to provide access to children needing immediate care during the daytime at the request of our school nurses. We have funded an enhanced preschool screening program that was at the throngs of budget cuts. Then we restored a level of service to Chanhassen has been familiar with. We've supported the no shots, no school initiative which provides kindergarteners to be fully immunized on the first day of school. And in a previous packet to the Planning Commission we had a letter from Bev Stofferahn, the Superintendent supporting the clinic. ! think it's important to point out that the Chanhassen Planning Commission unanimously supported our plans on November 18th, and all the citizens who attended this meeting spoke in favor of the project. Our location is a major connection with the community and our future clinic is consistent and compatible with the Highway 5 development. We've discussed with the neighbors and have their support in a fully developed three story site, which we believe is needed as 30 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Chanhassen grows. I request your approval of this plan with the change to allow for item number 28, which provides dual access on Great Plains Boulevard per the Planning Commission's site plan review number 2003-10 as specified in the staff report dated December 8th of 2003. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions of the applicant. So just for clarification, you're requesting we remove item, condition number 28? Duane Spiegle: Mr. Mayor, members of council. My name's Duane Spiegle. ! work with Bill in the facilities department for Park Nicollet. What we have been doing is consulting with our neighbor to the south, Mr. Hallisey, who's here tonight to speak also and there was just a little confusion between the staff' s report and what the recommendation is. That in essence it's not that big of a deal whether there's two or one because we got approval by MnDot to have two access points and they're both there currently. But MnDot did require that we extend the median further to the south on Great Plains Boulevard to just allow for the right-in/right-out for both the existing access points. So ! guess we would agree to one, but our preference was to have the two and have the connection and relieve some of the congestion that could occur at one and we also had some concerns about the large tanker trucks that support the gas station and just the, where they park and how they park and how that may or may not cut off access potentially to our site. So after we thought about it a little bit more we, and talked with our neighbor, we're more in favor let's say at this point of the two accesses then the single access point. And Pat would be willing to speak as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good, thank you. If you'd like to add something, thanks. Pat Hallisey: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm Pat Hallisey. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, thank you. Pat Hallisey: Okay. I'm the managing partner of Blue Circle Investment Company. We own the little strip center right to the south. The first thing I'd like to say it's been a real pleasure working with Park Nicollet people. They've been, they've done all that they possibly can to accommodate us, as well as the rest of the neighbors, and it's been a real pleasant experience. ! have two things that I'd like to bring up tonight. One, ! don't know if we can zoom in on it. We've gone through many, many site plans. We have a concern about this area right here, which is a planting area. Our center is about 15 years old and it' s about 4 feet lower in elevation than the parking lot for the Park Nicollet site. For 15 years we've had melt and runoff coming down our hill and into the back doors of the shops in our shopping center. So when we saw this plan we requested that the applicant put a storm, a catch basin in there and pipe water out. As that started to go through the review process there was a problem. They felt that would cause a problem with some of the trees. Councilman Ayotte: A problem with what? 31 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Pat Hallisey: Pardon? Councilman Ayotte: A problem? Pat Hallisey: With the trees. Disrupt some trees and possibly kill them. The applicant was willing to do that, but in an effort to preserve the trees they said we'll just agree not to place any snow there. What we then requested, both in writing to the Planning Commission and verbally in front of the Planning Commission, was that they make that as a condition of approval of the development. Somewhere along the line in all the discussion of the other items, that issue got side tracked and never came back to so I'm asking tonight that the council make that as a condition of the development. Speaking just a little bit more about the access situation, going back in history when the council initially put this request and MnDot put this request of a shared access on this property, this was Highway 101. And it was always planned to be Highway 101 and carry a tremendous amount more traffic than what Great Plains Boulevard does. As we all know Highway 101 got re-routed so we no longer have the 101 issue. Staff kind of encouraged in the development process the site plan that came forward in an effort to overall help with a better development as far as trees and things of that nature. It became a very workable flowing development. At the Planning Commission this suggestion of going back to one entrance only was made after public input, so there was really no chance to discuss it with the Planning Commission after the public meeting had been ended. What really happens if we move that, this thick line represents where the City Council initially said the access should be. It's not there now. It's at this point here, which aligns with the driveway coming into and through the Park Nicollet property. We're very happy with that. If we move this back and go back to the council, the original council's recommendation, then you can see it creates a very, very poor access situation within the lot internally. These people have to come in and make a movement here and then go through, whereas if they leave that access as it is, they just flow right into the parking lot. ...brought up the issue that's strong in our mind that the, we feel very strongly that the two accesses allow much better circulation and allow the service trucks servicing these Kwik Mart to do their job and stay out of the flow of traffic, so we strongly recommend that we keep the two accesses and ask that you place a restriction on them not putting any snow. They have agreed to that by the way. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. And I guess I would ask a representative of Park Nicollet if there is agreement in terms of the request on the snow placement. Duane Spiegle: That's correct. We would agree to that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, as a condition. Okay. Duane Spiegle: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And staff work on some wording? Kate Aanenson: Yep. 32 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, any questions at this point, or additional questions? Councilman Labatt: Can we just get Matt maybe to address what Mr. Hallisey just brought up with the alignment of that entrance. It looks like on page, well it doesn't have, on the color site plan here in the book it shows the entrance is pretty well aligned on the drawing that Mr. Matt Saam: Yeah, I think what Mr. Hallisey was referring to was the old, a previous council approved layout for where that shared driveway would be. It's not what they're proposing now. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: They're just south of the most northerly one. Matt Saam: Yes. They're basically proposing it in the existing location of the old Legion entrance, if I'm not correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other questions at this time for the staff or applicant? If not, I'll bring it to the council for discussion. Any discussion on the item? Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with deleting 28. I look at this and I see the benefits of the two accesses. And making the common between Park Nicollet lot and the Citgo, so I'm okay with deleting 28 and ! think Kate' s working on 31 right now to, for the snow plowing. Other than that my only comments are, this is an exciting opportunity for Chanhassen, our residents to get a great facility into Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: I would agree. My only concern is on that water issue for the other strip mall. ! just want to, Matt and maybe you can help me be more comfortable. What ! don't want to do is have this larger impervious surface area now somehow making it worst. Even though we agree not to have snow there, I'm not a proponent of ripping out trees when we don't have to, but it sounded like adding storm water thing there would be more prudent. Matt Saam: Yeah, one point I'd like to clarify is that they're actually decreasing the amount of runoff that will go toward the building because of the curbing going around the parking lot. None of that impervious is going to go towards the building. It's all going to be collected in the storm sewer. Councilman Peterson: That's what I wanted to hear you say. 33 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Matt Saam: So even with leaving that little grass area and the trees, leaving that to drain towards the building, it's going to be less than what they're having now so. Councilman Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. No, ! think it's a great looking building and let's break ground. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Point on condition number 30. Kate, was that one when you went through your presentation, I mean we're not talking about putting up stop signs there? Kate Aanenson: No, I think the Planning Commission wanted that but I think the staff's position is we do warrants first and maybe Matt wanted to add something to that, but I'm not sure. It's all background, not just necessarily the clinic but there's also Villages on the Ponds as Presbyterian Homes finishes up so I think it's onerous on the city to go back and look at the merits of warrants. Matt Saam: Yeah, we'll definitely monitor that on an annual basis, the traffic. Councilman Lundquist: I guess to my point then would be, I'd like to take number 30 out as well right now and just leave that up to the normal process that we address stop signs rather than just dropping one in there now. It seems to kind of stop the flow of traffic through there, so. Mayor Furlong: Or to require any expansion if the traffic doesn't warrant it. Now it may at that time, but to put it, let's address it at that time. And let the traffic counts address when we have to increase. Councilman Lundquist: Right, we have normal processes that we use to go through that stuff so it doesn't seem prudent to drop that in as a condition here so ! guess I'd like to see that taken out too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, any other comments? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I just had one more. Our Senior Commission' s always been asking us to keep them in mind on these buildings with designated senior parking stalls, and if we could maybe encourage Park Nicollet to designate X amount of stalls near handicap for senior citizen parking only, and the signs can be obtained through the Senior Commission. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: So what that number might be, I think we'll just leave it for staff to work out, if that's okay with Park Nicollet. 34 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: So maybe we can make that 32. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Should we have staff work on that wording too? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, okay. We've got to quit working on wording up here and let the experts do it. Any other comments or discussion? ! guess I'll add mine. ! concur with my fellow council members. This is going to be a very welcomed addition to our city. It's a beautiful looking site plan. It's going to be a great location. It is nice to hear and my sense is that the neighborhood to the south really does like this as an addition to the city. And you know as much as we've been, ! guess ! want to add too, as much as we've been taking out some of the things added in by the Planning Commission, one thing ! do like is that they, in looking at the detail, which we like them to do, they said you know what, we've got these parking places too close to these trees. Let's give a few less parking places and give some of those old oak trees a better chance of hanging around, and so ! think that's a good condition to leave in. ! would concur with eliminating 28 and 30 and moving forward on 31 and 32. Depending on the wording of course, so with that is there any other discussion? Questions on this matter. If not, would somebody like to make a motion? Councilman Labatt: ! move that we approve Site Plan Review #2003-10 for the construction of a three story clinic with a variance as shown on the site plan received September 19, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 27. 28 being omitted. 29 as worded. And 31, or 30 being eliminated. And the addition of 31 and 32 as staff has. Kate Aanenson: Drafted. I'll just read this real quick because I've got one other. As part of your motion, if! may, we left out the wording of the variance findings in the staff report so add that language as part of your motion. There is a variance. We do have the findings in the staff report. ! just want to reference those as part of your motion. Other than that. And then for 31 ! have, there shall be no snow storage north of the Blue Circle property. And then 32 ! had, applicant shall work with the Senior Commission providing senior parking signs. Councilman Labatt: ! will amend mine and we-word mine to include the findings of fact for the variance. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Based on the staff report. Councilman Labatt: Based on the staff report, yes. 35 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? On the wording for condition 32 with the Senior Commission, do we also want the staff involved in that process? Kate Aanenson: The staff and the Senior Commission? Mayor Furlong: Staff and Senior Commission. I guess I would offer that as an amendment. Given that the motion is seconded. Is there? Councilman Lundquist: Second on your amendment. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the amendment? Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to amend condition 32 to read, the applicant shall work with staff and the Senior Commission to provide senior parking signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That amendment carries. Is there any other discussion then on the original motion as amended? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #2003-10 for the construction of a three story clinic with a variance as shown on the site plan received September 19, 2003, based upon findings in the staff report and with the following conditions: The applicant shall install tree preservation fence around trees proposed to be saved prior to any grading or construction activities. Fencing must be placed at the furthest possible distance from the trunk of the tree and must remain intact until all construction activities have ended. Root area must be mulched with wood chips and trees must be watered regularly during dry periods in the growing season. Any tree lost due to construction damage will be replaced at a rate of2:1 diameter inches. Parking areas along Highway 5 shall be screened with shrubs reaching a minimum of 3 feet at maturity if berms do not fully screen the parking. Eliminate the catch basin and associated grading located near the existing oaks to be preserved along the southern property line and any utilities within the peninsula. 36 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 The applicant shall work with staff to reduce grading along the curb line near the existing oaks to be preserved along the southern property line. Submit private easement for the shared storm sewer before building permit issuance. Update the plans to include the latest revision of the City of Chanhassen Detail Plates. Cross access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 8. The applicant must obtain a permit from MnDot for grading in the right-of-way. 9. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 10. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. 11. The lot will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. 12. 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, Carver County, etc. 13. On the utility plan: a. Relocate the 6 inch gate valve toward the south near the proposed fire hydrant and add another 8 inch gate valve at the beginning of the north branch. b. Show all existing and proposed utility easements. c. Show the proposed pipe slope, class and length of the storm sewer. 14. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Type I silt fence must be used. 15. Add tree preservation fencing at the limits of tree removal. 16. On the site plan: a. Revise the south easterly drive aisle width to 26 feet. b. Show the private and public drainage and utility easements. c. Show the block and lot numbers. 37 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. d. Any retain wall over 4 feet will require a building permit. e. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit haul route for city approval prior to any hauling. f. A concrete drive apron, per City Detail Plate #5207 is required at the Great Plains Boulevard access point to the site. g. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event for staff review and approval before building permit issuance. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detail sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on the north and west elevations only. The sign area shall meet standards set in the sign ordinance. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. The applicant shall include site furnishings such as benches along the entrance of the building. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to 2000 Minnesota International Fire Code Sec. 503.3. c. The builder must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding the maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 38 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. d. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. e. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. f. The building must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. g. The southern most hydrant indicated on site plan must be relocated approximately 100 feet west. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant to be relocated. Building Official's conditions: a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Contact the Fire Marshal and Mechanical Inspector regarding the size of the combined fire protection and domestic water service line. d. Provide an access cover for the sanitary sewer cleanout located in the parking lot. e. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are provided. f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Lot 1, Block 1, Park Nicollet Addition is subject to a park dedication fee at the time of building permit application. The total park dedication due from this parcel is $25,620. At the time this parcel was platted, $6,932 of this total was pre- paid. The remaining $18,688 shall be collected at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall include site furnishings such as benches along the entrance of the building. The expansion of the third story will require site plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Approval of the expansion will be contingent upon providing adequate parking as one of the criteria. The maximum building height may not exceed 47 feet. Approval to expand the third floor shall become null and void if not exercised prior to 10 years after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 39 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 28. The applicant will work with staff on the parking lot configuration deleting 4 parking spaces to ensure the survival of the oak trees numbered 7, 13 and 14. 29. There shall be no snow storage north of the Blue Circle property. 30. The applicant shall work with staff and the Senior Commission to provide senior parking signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. As ! mentioned earlier at the beginning of our meeting, item number 8 has been removed at the applicant's request. And we have, we'll pick that up at a future council meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2004 PROSECUTION CONTRACT WITH CAMPBELL KNUTSON ASSOCIATES. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council. Staff is recommending that we change our prosecution contract from the city attorney's office. Carver County attorney's office to our city attorney's office. I've got Elliott Knetsch from Campbell Knutson this evening to talk about the transition plan and also to talk about their experience in prosecution in the metro area. AT this time I'd like to introduce Elliott Knetsch from Campbell Knutson. Elliott Knetsch: Thanks Todd. And ! met some of the council at the city golf outing a while back and ! just want to assure you that my prosecution game is a little better than my golf game. Mayor Furlong: Okay, there's one question. Elliott Knetsch: As Todd indicated, we're looking forward to the opportunity to represent the city in prosecution of your criminal matters. The city's obligated by law to prosecute gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors that occur within your city limits. ! have met with the county attorney and some of his staff to organize the potential transition from their office to our office and we have that in place. I've also met with the Carver Court Administrator to organize a schedule and help them help us provide management of your cases. Prosecution is an integral part of the package that we offer at Campbell Knutson. I've been practicing law since 1985 and ! have been a prosecutor all of that time. We currently have five other cities that we do all their criminal prosecution for, and we have a number of other clients such as Chanhassen where we had been doing some prosecution for. Most of you are probably familiar with us doing your code enforcement matters. These would be your typical zoning things or nuisance matters or other things that are outside of the state statutes and are found in your city ordinances. And so we've been doing that ! think since, well as long as I've been around which is again 1985. So ! think the transition plans are well in hand and in place and ! certainly stand for any questions. 40 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Ayotte: The time line to, for lack of a better term, do a data dump between the county attorney's office and you will be what and what's the time line associated with you picking up the actual service. Elliott Knetsch: Okay, the plan now calls for transition date of January 1st and the way it would be handled is, all the open criminal files on January 1st would be transferred to us and most of those we'll already have established court dates they would follow so we would just pick up the files. In fact the county attorney' s office is already in the process of gathering those files for us so we'll have them prior to their court dates so we're able to prepare, be ready when their court dates come up. There are some civil forfeiture files that will, that the county has been handling that will come over to us. Since those are civil files and it's a little bit different than the criminal in that there would be a complaint filed. For instance if there's a forfeiture related to a DWI. If the person who's losing their car wants to challenge the forfeiture, they file a civil action. We thought it would make sense as the county would prepare an answer to that. Any of those cases filed before the first of the year where the county has filed a response, they will handle those to their conclusion. Councilman Ayotte: How many files are you looking at do you think? Elliott Knetsch: We're not looking at tons of files. Your typical quarterly number of cases runs right around 90. That's everything from petty's to gross's. Your last quarterly report indicated there was about 5 gross misdemeanor, DWI's. 9 other gross misdemeanors. Approximately 40 misdemeanors and the rest petty's. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Lundquist: ! have a couple. First thing is, do you call it practicing law because you never quite get it right? Elliott Knetsch: Learn every day. Councilman Ayotte: You like that one Roger? Councilman Lundquist: Never heard that one before have you? But no, on a serious note. The last page of the staff report talks about cases that would still be prosecuted by the county attorney. Can you talk a little bit, or maybe Roger or Elliott, if you don't have the staff report in front of you. What's the difference between what we're talking about in those cases that are listed out there and then do we still have to, are we still obligated to pay the county attorney to do that prosecution? 41 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Elliott Knetsch: ! did not see the staff report but I'm assuming. Councilman Lundquist: There's 11 cases on there. Elliott Knetsch: Right. Todd Gerhardt: These are not cases that we will have to pay for. Our baseline service that you pay in your property taxes are paying for this service. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah that's correct. Those particular cases, for whatever reason, the legislature has seen fit to, there's a general statute that says, city attorney prosecutes all gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, petty' s. These particular statutes the legislature has said, we want the county attorneys to handle these. They're primarily malicious punishment of a child and also criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree, so things that are more typically fall into the county are more like felonies, even though they're gross misdemeanors. And so the county attorney's obligated by law to prosecute all felonies without charge. That's a service that the county provides to all cities in the county, and these particular cases are designated to the county attorney. Councilman Ayotte: I've got a. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: For the civil, so you're talking about if there's a criminal prosecution, that if something civilly falls out of that, then you may be handling the civil matter? Is that what ! heard? But it has to stem from a criminal activity. Elliott Knetsch: There are, the legislature again has set up a forfeiture scheme that primarily involves either drugs and DWI are basically what they fall into. And so if there's a designated offense, a drug offense or DWI offense, the state is entitled to forfeit a vehicle. Forfeit a boat. Sometimes even forfeit a house, cash, if it's contraband in connection with the crime. And for DWI forfeitures, the legislature says city attorneys, you handle them because you're handling DWI's already. Since the county attorney has been acting as your city attorney, they have been handling those kinds of cases so far. With this transition then we would take that over. Councilman Ayotte: ! understand. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Councilman Labatt: No, no questions. ! had a couple comments. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knetsch, question for you that's been raised to me. And that is a difference perhaps where the county commissioner and a private law firm providing this service, that there may be a profit incentive that would suggest that private practice would seek to settle cases sooner rather than taking them to trial because of the nature of 42 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 the, can you comment on that? I know that you served in this capacity for other cities but if you could address that issue and concern. Elliott Knetsch: Well first of all, Todd said I had to promise I wouldn't make any profit on this contract so. No, I mean we in my mind the only incentive in doing this is to serve the needs of the client and what we charge for that never figures into the equation. In fact you can't figure it into an equation. It's impossible. I can look at a trial calendar, ifI have a typical Monday I might have 5 cases set for trial and the one that I think just might possibly go to trial ends up settling and the one that I thought never would go to trial, is the one that goes to trial. I mean I don't pick and choose which cases go to trial. I look to obtain the result that justice calls for. The result that the officer and the staff that I've been working with is looking for and thinks is reasonable and either the person is going to plead guilty and accept whatever the plea agreement is, or they're not. And ultimately it's not up to me. So that really isn't a factor that I ever look at when I'm handling a case. I'm looking for a fair result. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you. I'll bring it back to the council for discussion then. Councilman Labatt, want to start? Councilman Labatt: Sure. I've spoke with some of the fellow police officers at Plymouth and Burnsville and St. Louis Park that ! know that have worked with Campbell Knutson and especially Elliott and spoke very highly of his skills in the courtroom, and in fact ! couldn't find one officer, and some of us are very opinionated about prosecuting attorneys who tend to plea bargain more than the average schmoe out there who practices law. And they all found Elliott to be very aggressive in the courtroom and that we couldn't go wrong with him. ! just want to pass that onto you guys. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions, comments. Or comments I should say and discussion. No? Very good. I know this was initiated by some changes at the county attorney's office but I guess the one thing I would say in my conversations with our city manager is that it was never an issue of performance at the county attorney's office that has led us to this but it was more a budget and financial issue and I think that's important to get on record of why we're considering that this year. Todd Gerhardt: The change is due primarily to try to keep our budget at a flat level. Our prosecution budget last year was approximately $21,000. This year's contract with Campbell Knutson is about that same amount, depending on out of pocket costs. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With that, if there is no additional discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: I'd move that we approve the 2004 prosecution contract as submitted by staff. Councilman Labatt: Second. 43 City Council Meeting - December 8, 2003 Mayor Furlong: It's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the 2004 Prosecution Contract with Campbell Knutson in the amount of $1,700 per month plus out of pocket costs incurred. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Met with the water treatment CAP group last week. That meeting went very well. It was just staff, our core group from Hoisington-Koegler Group there to update the CAP on where we've been, where we think we're going. We've scheduled a second meeting for Thursday, December 18th. Bob Ayotte, Councilmember Ayotte will be in attendance at that meeting. We're hoping to go through the pros and cons of each of the alternatives with a strong recommendation from the CAP group to the City Council. Then after that meeting we will, if there' s an additional meeting that needs to come, but ! don't think so, but we would then make that presentation to the City Council at a special work session on January 5th I believe. Councilman Peterson: Are we going to have financing options available at the same time? Todd Gerhardt: We will have some preliminary rate increase issues to discuss at that time. ! think we have another meeting this coming Monday with Ehlers to fine tune some of the numbers as we continue to look at hook-up charges and assessments as a part of the funding mechanism for future utilities. City Attorney Roger Knutson has been attending those meetings also to provide feedback on cost and how we share those costs. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for city manager or staff on items? If not, very good. Any discussion on the correspondence packet received? If not, before we adjourn tonight. ! guess I'd just like to say thank you to fellow council members, to the City Manager, staff. It's been a very successful year as we finish up here with our last regular meeting of this year. Hopefully our last meeting of this year. ! don't anticipate any more. And ! guess I'd wish everybody a happy and safe holidays and best of luck in the new year so with that, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 44