1o Approval of MinutesCItANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
APRIL 19, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Senn,
Councilman Engel and Councilwoman Jansen
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: none
STAFF PRESENT: Anita Benson, City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager.
UPDATE ON VOLUNTEER PICNIC
The City Council decided the time of the picnic will be from 12:00 - 4:00 p.m. The picnic will
be located in the Lakeside Picnic Area. This item was tabled and is to be placed on a future
agenda so that additional Council discussion may occur.
TH 101
A discussion regarding the public improvement process utilized by the City of Minnetonka in the
construction of Crosstown was held as a result of Mayor Mancino and Acting City Manager
Todd Gerhardt meeting with Minnetonka officials. It was suggested that neighborhood meetings
be held before conceptual layouts and typical road sections are developed to ascertain what
resident issues are, i.e. noise, safety, fight/left turn lanes, trails, and lighting. By conducting
neighborhood meetings prior to development conceptual layouts, residents would be allowed to
help create alternatives. Councilman Senn stated that previous public hearings did not focus on
the road but rather on the trail construction needed.
The merits of utilizing a facilitator for the neighborhood meetings and other public meetings to
follow were debated. However, no clear direction was provided. City Council did provide
direction that they would like to see neighborhood meetings held, however, it was noted that
since conceptual layouts and typical road sections have been developed for various alternatives,
that this information would be presented to the neighborhoods. Jim Grube indicated Hennepin
County's willingness to accommodate the City Council in conducting neighborhood meetings.
However, it was stated that the use of a facilitator for these meetings may not be the best option
unless real problems arise in communicating with the residents along the corridor.
Based upon the discussion in the work session, the city engineer will provide Council with a
recommended public involvement process at their next regular meeting on April 26, 1999.
COMPUTER TASK FORCE
The Mission/Goal Statement for the Computer Network Task Force was presented to the City Council for
review and suggested changes. Also presented was the 1999 Meeting Schedule and Agenda.
City Council Work Session
April 19, 1999
STRATEGIC PLAN (VERBAL WITH KENT~EKLUND~
On Thursday, May 6, Kent Eklund will meet with the Mayor and City Council from 4~30 ~ 5:30 p.m.
discuss the Strategic Plan. Mr. Eklund will then meet with department heads fromS:30 - 7:30p,m.
PLANNING COMMISSION INTE. RVIEW. S
The City Council interviewed Deb Kind, CraigPeterson, Barbara Link, KurtPapke, and Jar Karlovi¢l~-
for two positions on the Planning Commission. _
CHARLm JAMES PROPEKTY '
The City Council requested staff to investigatethe pOssibilities of cleaning up the CharlieJames site
of the Twin Cities Federal Bank. They ha~ also requested stuff to enforce the site planagreemeni wi~.
Abra Auto Body, specifically the storing of parts outside' their building. _ -
VILLAGES O.N TI-I~ POND
The City Council was concerned withcode compliance regarding erosion control. _Staff will inspect ~is._
GOODYEAR - . ~
Councilman Mark Senn addressed the issue of possible code violation. Staff will inspect. *
SILT FENCE AND INC. REAS!NGREQU!REDE. SCROW_AMOUNTS, -
The City Council expressed concerns regarding the number of developments not installing and/or- ~.
repairing the erosion control on their sites. Staffinforrned the CityCouncil-that the building inspect~s
would be posing "Notices of Violation" at allbuilding site who have not followed the City's erosion;-~
control ordinance. Failure to take appropriate action would result in a stop-work; order or orderly er~ion
control installation and/or repair by the City or a City contractor at the geherat contractor's eXPense~
The City Council preferred that city staff order the erosion control be installed and withdraw money~i~om
the general contractor's escrow accounts to pay for installation. ~-
VANDALISM IN THE PARK AT SUMMIT - ~
The City Council and staffare concerned with the level of vandalism occurring in Catty parks_. Carv~
County and Chanhassen LawEnforcement have volunteered to increase patrolS. . - ~
Mayor Maneino adjourned the work session at 9:30 p.m. ~ ~
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt ~
Acting City Manager ~
Prepared by Gins Burmeister - ~
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1999
Nancy Mancino called the work session to order at 5:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Council members Linda Jansen, Mark Engel, and
Mark Senn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Steve Labatt was absent.
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, City Manager; Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager;
Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Anita Benson, City Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park
& Recreation Director. Public Present: Mr. & Mrs. Bob Ayotte.
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION PICNIC: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent
presented his report on options for the Volunteer Recognition Picnic. The picnic will be on
Saturday, July 10 from 12 noon to 4 p.m. at the Lake Ann Park Pavilion and Lakeside Picnic
area. All volunteers listed in staff's memo will be invited, and it was decided that spouses would
be included. Rather than hiring a speaker and purchasing a small appreciation gift, staff will
allocate the money that would have been spent on those items towards the food and lessen the
menu slightly. Staff will rent a tent, tables and chairs to accommodate those attending. Rather
than hiring someone to create a logo and professional invitation, it was decided to create a letter
invitation in-house.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 PROJECT UPDATE: Mr. Evan Green, MnDOT Preliminary Design
Division, gave a presentation on the Trunk Highway 5 project. The Trunk Highway 5 project
· will have permanent traffic signals at Audubon Road, Galpin Boulevard, and Century Boulevard.
A trail will be constructed along the entire length of West 78th Street from the current end at Lake
Ann Park to Trunk Highway 41. Combination creek/pedestrian crossings will be provided at
both Riley and Bluff Creeks.
The MnDOT Right-of-Way Department has contacted property owners along the corridor and is
in the process of appraising the properties. It is expected that offers will be made to the property
owners in October or November of 1999. The contract bid opening is scheduled for March of
2000 with construction in the spring of 2000 continuing through the 2001 construction season.
The general phasing of construction will include constructing West 78th Street first and then
rerouting Highway 5 traffic onto West 78th Street while Trunk Highway 5 is being reconstructed.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 7/41 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE: The
City of Shorewood has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to construct roadway improvements in the area of the Trunk Highway 7 and
Trunk Highway 41 intersection. Mr. Charles Rickert with WSB & Associates gave a
presentation of the proposed improvements. Within the city of Chanhassen, temporary
construction easements will be taken at the Crossings Mall shopping center and Super America
as well as the property to the east adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. One access closure will taken
CHANHASSEN CITY coUNcIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1999
PAGE 2
at the residence locatedacross from the Minnetonka WestMiddte School. ~This residence
currently has two driveway accesses onto Trunk Highway 41. All properties along theeo~rrid~
that are impacted by the construction have been eontaete~t by the right-of-wayagent. The Cit~of
Shorewood is responsible forpurehasing and acquiring the ~ight-otr-ways and easements.
Construction is anticipated to begin in July, 1999 with completion in l~st October;1999.
City Manager, Scott Botcher, requested that theEngineefing and Park Departments review th
possibility of constructing a trail from Minnewashta Park to the. Crossings shopping Center
concurrently with the pro~eet. An approximate cost estimate will beput ~oge~r based up°n4
per foot co~t basis of tide recent trail ~onstruetionproje6t along Trunl~High-wayT. It was-note~
that if the City of Chanhassen wantedtoconstructa trail in eo~njunction~ith thi~prOject, they~
would be responsible for all costs associated with the trail construction..
LAKE ANN ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BILL ENGELHARDT
Bill Engelhardt of Engelhardt and Associates presented the City Council with a revised cost
estimate for the re-constructions ofthe Lake Ann ParkRoad, Parking Lot, andTrails. The ne~
estimate of $484,295.18 is $98,334.60 less than the original estimate of $582,629.78. The
project is still well over budget and the City Council instructed theeity manager and park and
recreation director to meet withEngelhard~ and AssociateS to discuss phasing option~.
.HOUSEKEEPING/MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: City ManagerBotcher presented a memo~
discussing some housekeeping and miscellaneous items forreview and disCUssion amongst sta~
and council members. DUring this time he diseussedsimple items suchas thedistinctior~
betWeen mayor andcouncil members, mayor and city ma~ager, andcouneitmernberS and city
manager. Additionally he discussed and-~esented reeomm~n~at_ions on howagendaswill b~t
together and that while every effort will bemade to schedule itemsaroundthescliedules of
council members who mayhave a particular interest in a specific item, that:th~fiPenessof-the~
item for action by thegoverning.b(~dyof the City of Chanl~aSsenwoutd be of thefutmost
importance. Councilman Sennmentioned that~emayor ha~the unilateralau~h~i~-t~ to olace'a~-
item onthe agenda. _
A copy of this memois herein madea part of these minutes as~amatter ofre~°rd,
Su~matt.e.d. by Todd Gerhardt ·
Acting C~ty Manager_ _ -
repared by Gina Burmeister
CIT¥OF
G{y Center Drive, PO Box' I47
banhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General £ax 612.937.5739
~gineering Eax 612.937.9152
blic 8afe9 Fax 612.934.2524
~b wwu: ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
DATE: May 12, 1999
SUB J:
Organizational Housekeeping Items
Following two weeks of observation, I felt it productive to develop a memo that
could serve as a white paper conceptualizing issues for the benefit of all.
Placement of Items on Agendas. As a matter of courtesy, I would ask that if
elected officials have items they wish to have placed on an agenda that they
provide staff with as much advance notice as is practicable. This will serve
several purposes; 1) it allows me the opportunity to balance your workload as
evenly as possible across agendas, allowing us to give adequate amounts of
time to issues that require it; 2) it allows staff to perform necessary research
and develop position papers on the issue prior to your deliberation; and 3) it
allows for a discussion between the requesting elected official and my office
should the issue not be ripe for placement on an agenda and doing so may not
be in the best interests o£the City.
I will make every effort to place items of heightened interest to specific
Council members on agendas where they will be in attendance, but please
understand it is impossible to balance out the timeliness of specific agenda
items with the attendance availability of specific council members. As such,
the general priority for placement of agenda items will be the ripeness for
placement upon the agenda. Should a council member simply be unable to
attend a meeting at which an agenda item of specific importance to them will
be placed, the absent council member may submit comments in writing prior
to the meeting where this agenda item is to be discussed. While this does not
allow for the absent council member to exercise his or her vote on a specific
issue, it certainly allows them the opportunity to communicate their position, a
position that can be considered by the attending council members during
deliberations. If the issue is so critical that the attending co-horts wish to have
a specific or all members present, they always maintain their right to table an
issue. (I would use this approach very sparingly.)
B. Participation by Council Members on Committees, Task Forces, and the
Like: I have difficulty figuring out if there are any criteria governing the level
Ci~ af Chanhassen. A growin~ commun/~, with dean lakes, quality schoo& a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and p&y.
Mayor and City Council
May 12, 1999
Page 2
of participation by individual council members on committees, task forces,
etc., outside of the statutory responsibility of membership on the governing
body. It goes without saying that the top priority of the council member is
their service to the city council. I have also had council members discuss with
me the issue of participation on task forces, commissions, committees, etc.
Again, simply from my own past practice, previous employers of mine have
limited participation by council members on standing committees and
municipally created task forces and the like to one or two per council member.
Beyond that, citizens of the community filled task force/committee seats. Our
community is blessed with a wide array of very talented people with expertise
in specialty fields these committees and task forces often focus upon.
Limiting membership of council members to one or two per member serves
two basic functions: 1) it allows for broader participation by those persons in
the community who may have special expertise in specific areas; and; 2) limits
the opportunity for burn out by council members who may be spreading
themselves too thin over the long term. While I may be preaching to the choir,
obviously your role is to deliberate over the major policy items of the city. It
is the staff's job to present to you any information regarding policy issues that
may germinate at the council level or to present you with policy issues that
may yet be unknown to the council, but may be spawned through the day-to-
day activities of the employees. While broad participation by council
members on task forces is not totally a negative thing, ! do want to express to
you that I would consider exercising caution in the amount of participation
each of you have and consider establishing a council policy formalizing the
amount of participation each member may have in "municipal" committees.
(Obviously, a Council member has every right to join and participate in civic
groups like any other citizen. However, simply beginning activity in a group
wearing the Council member hat is some of what I'm trying to touch on.)
In the same vein, I believe it important (and again this is my past experience
with multiple cities), that each city commission have as a member a council
member who serves as a liaison between the specific commission and the city
council. In this fashion, specific council members are able to communicate,
both to and from the governing body and the commission, issues that may be
of importance regarding a specific topic. Obviously, it goes without saying
that the individual council member must take care to communicate their
thoughts on the general position of the council and not their own specific
position on an item. If they wish to communicate their specific position on a
policy topic, they should make it extremely clear what is their personal
position and what may be the Council's position. This should be done in
fairness to the volunteers who serve on our commissions as well as to your
fellow Council members. I really see no need, or great desire, on the part of
Council members to have each of you attend all the commission meetings.
Mayor and City Council
May 12, 1999
Page 3
Civic Organizations: Insofar as participation on civic organizations goes, my
personal past experience is generally that staff members, largely the city
manager and/or his assistant, serve as liaisons to civic organizations. Now
there are certainly more civic organizations than staff members or council
members and every civic organization does not require, nor desire, municipal
liaison membership. This type of relationship between key organizations in
the community and the city is largely a role of the city manager or his staff
designee. I fully expect, and have begun the process, to seek out participation
with those key organizations in the community. If you have any suggestions
as to which organizations these may be, please forward them to me. (Again,
this is not to say that Council member participation as a citizen in civic
organizations should be truncated in any fashion. However, the City
representative/liaison should be my Assistant, designee, or myself.)
Do
Role of the Mayor vs. Role of a Council Member: Certain council members
have asked me to clarify for them specific roles of council members and the
mayor. Essentially the roles of the two positions are very similar. It is the
mayor's job to run the council meeting. In this role, he or she facilitates
debate, discussion, and decision making on policy issues facing a
municipality. Additionally, the Mayor commonly serves in a ceremonial role
as the elected head of the municipality. He or she generally appears at ribbon
cuttings, parades, grand openings, funerals, and these types of events,
representing the city. Beyond that, I cannot think of too much that
distinguishes between the two positions and their roles.
Finally, on a parallel but somewhat distinct note, I have discussed with several
council members the position of the city manager vis-a-vis the position of
council members. While the mayor and council members have attended
introductory lunches with me over the first two weeks in an effort to help
assimilate me to the community, I have also made it very clear from the first
day I interviewed that the role of the council is to deliberate policy issues and
stay above the fray until it is appropriate for you to deliberate and decide or
give direction. This necessarily means that the mayor and council members
will not be attending staff meetings, (generally) will not be attending meetings
staff or I have with citizens, groups, or other interested parties, and should
exercise caution while attending meetings with citizens or citizen groups
concerning issues that may or may not already be before the City. This is not
to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that there shouldn't be constituent
contact between the citizens of Chanhassen and their elected officials--there
should be. This contact provides us with an excellent source of information as
to what is going on in the community, and feelings and positions regarding
issues before the community. However, council members should also have
Mayor and City Council
May 12, 1999
Page 4
the discipline to communicate to constituents the necessity to work through
the City Manager's office or appropriate staff to deal with the issues of
concern to them. Obviously, should the issues be policy in nature and require
council deliberation or participation, they will certainly end up on your
agenda. However, if they are incremental issues, implementation issues, or
issues that are easily handled in-house, they will not be appearing on your
council agenda. Council members are not "doers"; they are "deliberators".
You pay professional staff good money to implement your policy directives. I
have seen some issues appear on your agendas that I personally believe should
have been handled in-house. While I know I've made these statements many
times in the past, I felt it important to say it one last time in this memo.
Unless there are difficulties maintaining this type of understanding, this will
probably be the last time you'll hear me make this statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you through this memo. As always,
please feel free to contact me to discuss this or any other issue. I think it
imperative that the governing body and City Manager maintain close contact and
share feelings regarding issues facing the City. Our weekly gatherings certainly
provide us with the opportunity to do that, but this should not prohibit either one
of us from speaking during the week in order to share thoughts that we may have
knocking around inside of our heads.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MAY 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the work session to order at 5:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Labatt, and Councilwoman
Jansen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Anita Benson, Charles Folch,
Todd Gerhardt, and Scott Botcher
CONSENT AGENDA DISCUSSION:
A. AWARD OF BID FOR 1999 SEALCOAT PROJECT, 99-2.
Councilwoman Jansen asked if the additional numbers from Scott were included. Anita Benson stated
that they were included in the bid.
B. AWARD OF BID FOR MOBILE GENERATOR~ PW016GGG.
Charles Folch handed out an update sheet on the bid openings for this item. Ziegler was the low bid.
Councilman Labatt asked why the other bid was $20,000.00 higher than the others? Charles Folch
explained that there were different brands of generators and because of a custom cabinet being built.
E. APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS~ AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR
STONE CREEK DRIVE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS~ PROJECT 98-15,
Councilwoman Jansen asked if the church project is delayed, does the City carry the cost for the
construction of the street. Anita Benson explained the funding procedure for the road.
I. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilwoman Jansen asked if the incorrect charges in the City Council account had been corrected yet.
Staff stated they would look into the matter.
J. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
No questions were asked on this item.
K. APPROVAL OF AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION BYLAWS.
Mayor Mancino asked about what the procedure was for environmental questions brought up in Planning
Commission meetings or other commission meetings. Do the questions go directly to the Environmental
Commission? Kate Aanenson stated that the questions come to the City Council and then City Council
directs where the questions should go. Councilman Senn asked if the intent statement had changed. Kate
Aanenson saidthat it had not. The only change was the commissionmake-up from9 members to7
members.
VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILLTYEASEMENT. oUILOT C, BRENDEN POND&
OUTLET A. BRENDEN POND 2ND. - -
Anita Benson showed the Counciltheplans and explained the setback of the homes-and showed
impact of the 20 foot front yardsetback _as requested by some oftheneighbors. Kate Aanenson state~
that the developer could go back through the process and ask for a variance for a 2Ofoot front yard i
setback. The Council stated that they ~v0uld be amenable tolooking at a variance request·if it came
help with sight lines on LakeLucy Road. - -
REOUESr TO CONDUCT AOUATIC NEEDS ANALYSIS~THOMAS, R. SCltAF~ER~I~5Ol
DEVONSHIRE DRIVE. ~ - - -- - '
Councilman Senn asked what the Park and RecreationCommission's position was on/his item. In
reading the Minutes from the Park and Recreation CommiSsion meeting itwas un¢learabouttheir
direction. It appeared as though itwould bediscussed by the Park and ~ec at their next regular meetS;
Todd Hoffman stated that the Park andRecreation commission was seeking direction from the
on whether to pursue further with~his item or not.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR. SUBDIVI.SION OF L434;ACRES INT~2
LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 27,41.0 sO._PT. AND 3s,066 Sq}. FT4 LOCATED
LOTUS LAKE` 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, ALICiA HEIGHTS, RAY AND ALICIA-
BROZOVICH. - ' ~ --
Kate Aanenson explained ....
that there was mil one neighbor who may have ~ssues regardingthe shorel~d
setback, but that staff was recommending approval of this item.
BAY COMMUNITY.
No questions were asked on/hisitem~ -
Councilman Senn asked whatthe group waMooking
they ~erelooking forclarifieation on theCouneil's position on
that
RETURN-TO DISC1
Councilman Senn stated that
h onsuttant's m tofvew C 1 s
t e c: ' p 'n- i,, a. ounci .man_Senn thenstated (hatthe Minutes i iS
work session meeting did not mention the discussion regarding the Council's pos~ti0n to hold upon t~
neighborhood procedures on Highway 101 until the turnbackquestion is clarified. _Anita Benson and:~
Scott Botcher explained Roger's positionregardingtheneed for neighborhood meetings forFYt isbe~ei
-
than not saying anything to the neighborhoods. The tumback agreement is not final yet, but staff
believes the need for the neighborhood meetings to show preliminary design options. Anita Benson
stated the two options to consider would be no options presented until the turnback agreement is
finalized, or present options and continue to work on the tumback agreement. Councilman Senn stated
that if the State, MnDOT, ends up owning the road the design will be totally different than if the county
owns the road. Mayor Mancino asked how long the maintenance agreement for the turnback would take.
Anita Benson stated that for Highway 101 south of Highway 5 would take 4 to 6 months to get done with
MnDOT. Charles Folch stated that no agreements had been signed yet. Scott Botcher stated that if the
Council chose to do nothing about this item, it may get taken off the turnback list entirely.
OPEN MEETING LAWS CLARIFICATION BY CITY ATTORNEY.
Roger Knutson stated that there were some questions surrounding the open meeting laws as it pertained
to the City Council and conversations via e-mail. He stated that it is a violation for 3 or more council
members engage in discussions without public notification. Therefore, if 3 or more council people are
communicating or interacting with each other via e-mail this would constitute a violation of the open
meeting laws. It is alright to send group e-mails to all City Council members if there is no interaction or
interchanging of ideas.
Councilman Senn asked about the League of Cities advocating for raising limits on bids without asking
for input from cities. Scott Botcher explained that was a reason for staffto stay close to the League of
Cities to keep informed on their actions.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the work session meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
3
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Maneino, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Labatt,
Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Scott Botcher, Todd Gerhardt, Anita Benson, Todd Hoffman, Kate
Aanenson and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
amended as follows: addition of item 1(1) under the Consent Agenda, Set for Public Hearing on
Development District Plan #4-1 for July 26, 1999 and direct staff to develop a plan for that district. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO WILLARD JOHNSON AND CAROL
WATSON~ BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
Mayor Mancino: Next on the agenda is a presentation of the Maple Leaf Awards and that goes for those
who have volunteered their time and service to the city and we have two of those awards tonight. One is
to Willard Johnson and one is to Carol Watson and we as a City Council come forward and we'd like to
present these awards to both of you.
The Mayor and City Council presented Maple Leaf Awards to Willard Johnson for 29 years of
service to the City and Carol Watson for 16 years of service to the City.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the city manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #99-41: Award of Bid for 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2.
b. Resolution #99-42: Award of Bid for Mobile Generator, PW016GGG.
Resolution #99-43: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for Stone
Creek Drive Street & Utility Improvements, Project 98-15.
i. Approval of Bills.
Approve City Council Minutes:
Work Session Minutes dated April 5, 1999
Work Session Minutes dated May 10, 1999
City Council Minutes dated May 10, 1999
Receive Commission Minutes:
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 5, 1999
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 27, 1999
City Couneil Meeting - May ~4, 1999 ~ - ~
k. Approval of Amended Environmental Commission Bylaws. '
I. Resolution #9.9-44.: Setfor Public Hearing onDevelopment District Plan g4-1 for July 26,~ I~9
and direct staffto developa plan for thatdistrict -
All voted In favor and the motion carried. ' -~r
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACA~TION OF DRAINAGE &UTILITY EASEMENT. OUTLOT-C~ {
BRENDEN POND &OUTLOTA~BRENDEN POND 2N02 5 _- . ~_ _ .
Anita Benson: The City has received a request from the developer of BrendenPond,Gesta~h-Pauls-~[n
Construction to vacate the unused portion of the drainage and utility easements over OuttotC,Brend~n_
Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2"a Addition. Therequest stems fromthe rePlatting°f-Brenden. _]~d~
andBrenden Pond 2nd Addition into Brenden Pond 3 ~ Additior~ In eonjunctionwith the platting of~
Brenden Pond 3r~ Addition, the wetland area on Block 2 was determined to be less than the original
delineation. Thus the existing unde21ying drainage andutility easements expanded further thanneee~
into Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Brenden PondYa Addition. Inaddition the existingeasements may impe~
the buildable area of the lots. The recorded plat of Brenden Pond 34 Addition~reflects the dr~}nag~_-_~d
utility easements necessary for maintaining the existing stormwatefpondand Wetland. The drainag~nd
utility easements dedicated withBrenden Pond 3~ Additionare bein~ Preservec[in their entirety an~[~
subject to vacation with this request. Staffhasreceived a written co~ent fr0mMinnegasc0 nor
objecting to t ,h,e_ vacation and atthe time of the staff report waswritten, onlytwo other inquiries Were~?
- received and I m not aware of any additional ones since the report was written_ AIl the easementsth~-
~ were~ that are being vacated were dedicatedthrough the platti~gprocess arno cost~tothecity and the~
developer is paying for the cost of recording of the legal work-that needstobetaken-careof to vacat~e
easements.
MayorMancino: Thank you. Any questionsforstaff? This~ apublic hearing. And_ye_ne wishingt01~ -
address the council for this public hearing, please do so. A~d i~f you could stateY0~r~name, a~nd~addr __~.
Steve Kerkvliet: Hi, myname is Steve Kerkv~et, 2201: Lake [ucYRoad, C
comments~could I_.comments asfaras whattakesp!aee withthe vaeationof e~semenrs. · _ -
MayorMancino: Sure. Anita, canyouan~swOrthat? _ -- - '-:--' -
Anita Benson: What takesplaceis theexisting drainage md utilit~ eaSement whici~-o~-rac
- county that was previously dedicated, the vacation would null and-void that~o itw6ul~tal{e that~-
- . encumbrance off of the property. - - - - -- - _---- '~_~
- SteveKerkvliet: Does that include the distancebetween'homesor the distanc~ that'was ~n0rmall~
aside betWeen what wasdesignalg_d as wetland and,the rear part ofthelot? -- - ~ -
· _ --~·:~_
Anita Benson' No, that does notaffeet sit°Plats~in anyway - ~ ~ ~ ¥~ /'-
SteveKerkvliet: Okay. It'sunfortunatethat thonoighbor that S dkectlyaffected,-ErinRad°n, has
stuck in traffic and can't get here_ She's got allJthe'~rigina! paperwork ~ndinforma~iofi ~with regards
this plot and what has been promised overlhepast mor~ths, if~r~otlonger bY thebuilder ~d ther~ are
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
substantial objections to this request. Part of it may be due to not fully understanding but there is severe
concern of the home perhaps being placed closer to the Radon home. Also how the wetland is affected in
the back side of the lot and also the amount of distance increase between the curve to the front of the
home and how it would affect the appearance of the rest of the neighborhood. Being different than the
rest of the houses.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Steve, is she on her way here right now?
Steve Kerkvliet: She was supposed to be here at 6:30.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Why don't we just table it for a little bit and do you have a problem with that
Anita? Okay. We'll just go ahead to the next and when she comes in, we'll fit it in appropriately.
Okay? Thank you.
REQUEST TO CONDUCT AQUATIC NEEDS ANALYSIS~ THOMAS R. SCHAFFER~ 6501
DEVONSHIRE DRIVE.
Thomas Schaffer: Hello Mayor and Council members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be
here. I am Thomas R. Schaffer. I do reside at 6501 Devonshire Drive in Chanhassen. I'm a 12 year
resident of Chanhassen. And what I did was I went to the Park and Recreation Commission and asked
them if it would be proper or okay to conduct an aquatics needs survey of the community and I got their
recommendation and they said I have to go up to council and pose the question to you. And basically
what I'm asking for follows your strategic plan under quality, amenities, action steps, institute a process
for determining the need of future public facilities. That's all I'm trying to do is conduct a survey to see
if there's any interest in an aquatic facility of some type. Indoor. Outdoor. Small. Big. Aquatic park.
Water park. Swimming pool. Just to see if there's interest in the community or not and ask the question
of how it would be paid for if they'd be interested, if the citizens would be interested in paying for such a
facility. And that's really the only request I have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions for Thomas on this from council members? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any comments?
Councilman Senn: Todd, when's our next, well I guess a question for Todd ifI could. When's our next
joint meeting with Park and Rec?
Todd Hoffman: Coming up June 7th.
Councilman Senn: That's pretty soon, isn't it?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me that it makes sense to kind of put it on the agenda for that joint
meeting because I mean we do have kind of an established set of priorities at this point. If we are going
to do a survey, maybe the survey can make a broader context rather than just this one issue and that's
something we could maybe talk about collectively with them on the 7th since it's not too far away and see
where we go from there. I didn't, at least in reading the Parks minutes, I didn't get a real good feeling for
3
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
what they really thought about it or felt about it in relationship to displacing existing priorities or
anything else so I think it's just a good way to throw it into kind of a work session and talk about it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That would certainly work. Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: I really echo the same comments. Wondering if by addressing just the aquatics,
if we're raising the expectation that we're about to move forward on an aquatics program so I wondered
if we're too focused on one piece of it. If we should be looking at a broader survey for other facilities.
Because I did go back to the Parks and Rec survey that was done for the referendum and it was equal
numbers in support or opposition to indoor or outdoor swimming facilities and I realize that that's not
what the referendum was about. But it certainly didn't excite me to think that we should be moving
forward aggressively on this until we really get a weighting of all the different activities and put it in
there with what else would they want in a community center. What are the other facilities that we're
missing and rank them in terms of priorities.
Mayor Mancino: So put it much more comprehensively and in context with each other.
Councilwoman Jansen: Exactly.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I concur exactly. Don't need to add any more. It should be a more encompassing
decision.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I'm in agreement. I'd like to...have a big pool or community center and it's
one of their visions for the church. And somehow... One of their goals and.
Councilman Engel: Todd, and you're aware of that?
Todd Hoffman: Yep. Westwood Church.
Councilman Engel: It should be something that should be discussed as a whole rather than a separate
little satellite I guess orbiting around this goal.
Mayor Mancino: ...all together. Mr. City Manager, any?
Scott Botcher: Just a couple things I guess. If you, and I don't disagree with the idea of doing a
comprehensive survey. If you do a scientific comprehensive survey, don't get sticker shock because it's
not cheap to do that. I have no idea how much but it's not going to be a thousand bucks. Secondly, on
whatever issue is delineated in any survey, I wouldn't necessarily discount the applicability of having an
individual survey on that issue. I mean my concern with this survey again was it's scientific applicability
is the data that we're going to get be any good. Secondly, I think that if you do surveys like this, you
really need to ask them the question, are you willing to pay for this and how much are you willing to pay
for this and that's not part of the survey. So I agree with you guys. I think that's fine. Just I think that if
you want to do that and do it well, it will be a substantial undertaking.
4
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: When we did our park referendum survey it was $7,500.00. $7,500.00 and we asked
those exact questions. How much are you willing to pay and monthly, yearly, etc..
Scott Botcher: And sometimes when you get such a large survey, it's like taking a long test. By the time
you get to the end you're sort of just yeah, okay whatever and you're clicking boxes so you know there is
some good to be said about taking a survey about a specific item. Whatever direction you decide to go
though, if you go individually, I would recommend maybe we do something on the questions to focus
them a little bit and really ask the questions that are germane. I mean it's easy to say yeah, we don't want
it. That doesn't really tell us anything so that's, those are my thoughts.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. So Thomas, I think what we'd like to do, a consensus here is to get
together with our Park and Rec Commission and we do have a meeting set up on June 7th, and talk about
this and some of the other priorities that we have and then get back to you.
Thomas Schaffer: That'd be fine.
Mayor Mancino: And you're welcome to come to the meeting too. Okay? Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Since it's a new business item, we probably better move to table it to the June 7th
work session with the Parks and Recreation.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And may I have a motion.
Councilman Engel: Move to table.
Mayor Mancino: And may I have a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the request to conduct an aquatic
needs survey to the June 7, 1999 joint work session with the Park and Recreation Commission. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT, OUTLOT C. BRENDEN POND &
OUTLOT At BRENDEN POND 2ND CONTINUED.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Kerkvliet
Erin Radon
2201 Lake Lucy Road
2237 Lake Lucy Road
Mayor Mancino: So it really wasn't Highway 5 that kept you here right, Radon? Are you ready? Okay.
Do you want to come up please? We are going back to item number 3 which is a public hearing.
Vacation of drainage and utility easement, Outlot C, Brenden Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2nd
Addition. Could you state your name and address please?
Erin Radon: Yes, I'm Erin Radon. I live at 2237 Lake Lucy Road. Mayor Mancino, council members.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Thank you for letting me address you and I guess reworking your agenda here so I apologize for that but I
appreciate it. I'm not sure I fully understand the whole request for a vacancy of the utility easement. I
exchanged several voice mails with Dave Hempel who was very valiant in trying to address my concerns
but I thought this issue was a little bit put to rest last year with several meetings we had. And I thought
that the final plat drawings had been approved with...on the land and the new lots that were delineated
after the change of the boundaries in the wetland. So I guess my first question is, are things much
different with this request on where the house will be on the lot next to us? When we purchased the lot
there was to be one lot and then there was a change with the wetland and now there are two lots. And the
entire Centex development which is where Mr. Kerkvliet and I live, the houses are linear. In a row
basically. Probably exact distance from the wetland. Now my concern is where this house will be built
in relation to the homes that are already built there. Secondly, I just was wondering why the city
wouldn't vacate their own utility easement. Why this would be at the request of the builder and why the
lot would be, or the plat. I'm trying to figure out how you, the terminology for the foundations of where
you put the homes are, but I thought that was all decided so I'm very confused and was very interested to
get this letter and to be back here that we have some unresolved issues. So if we could address that and I
might have more questions and I apologize but I'm very concerned. I don't know if you can show this on
the overhead of where the homes are adjacent to this but I brought the Woodridge Heights. Okay, here
we go. Now ifI can try to show this area here. Okay. It looks like the area for the wetland. Here's
where we live and you can see where all the homes are in a straight line and probably equal distance from
the wetland back here. Now there is an additional storm water pond that was put in last year. Last fall
and so my concern basically is in the lot adjacent to us and I think I speak for most of the homeowners
too that this, the building site here not be moved back here to disrupt the layout, what the development is
so far. So I don't know if I'm making myself clear but I'll sit.
Mayor Mancino: Let's try and answer. Just stay there and so we'll try and answer. If you have other
questions, you may ask those too as we go, as long as we're not here for an hour. No, just kidding.
Anita, first of all. Placement of the house. Has anything changed about the final plat that we've gone
over as a council and approved?
Anita Benson: No, and I do have copies of that and I can put that up in a minute. I'd just like to explain
the vacation process. With the previous Brenden Pond and Brenden Pond 2nd Addition, drainage and
utility easements were dedicated where we anticipated the wetland delineation was. Where we would
need it. They were placed over that outlot at that time. As you are aware Erin, Brenden Pond was, 3rd
Addition was platted. The wetland delineation was proven to be further to the south. Therefore, with the
3rd Addition plat we require the developer to dedicate an additional drainage utility easement over the top
of if you will, slight shifted further to the south of the original one that was dedicated with Brenden Pond
2nd Addition. However, there is a legal process whereby the previous one needs to be vacated. Certain
costs associated with that and since the property was owned by the developer, they were required to
initiate the vacation process. The city no longer needed that because the wetland delineation had shifted
and we had a new drainage utility easement dedicated with the final plat approval of Brenden Pond 3rd
Addition. And I do have copies.
Mayor Mancino: So we're just making it right from the change that happened last year with the
delineation of the wetland.
Erin Radon: Okay, but the cover memo to the recommendation for the staff report says the existing
easements may impede the buildable area of the lot. Now if the plat was drawn, or redrawn last fall,, was
it approved without the vacation of these easements?
6
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Was it approved without the vacation of the easements? Yes. And that's why it's
coming up now. That's why we're here.
Erin Radon: So if it was approved last year, it wasn't approved as a buildable, it wasn't buildable as it
was approved last year. Correct or incorrect?
Anita Benson: If I could, the function of a drainage utility easement is to allow the city access say over a
storm sewer or sewer or watermain pipe should there ever need to be repairs or access to a pond to clean
it out. So the purpose, that is the means through which the city acquired the drainage and utility
easement. Under the guise of the necessity for access for maintenance of the utility. So that is why, with
the shift it was no longer needed. That area was no longer part of a drainage area due to the wetland, the
new wetland delineation which was accepted.
Erin Radon: In the report it states that the vacation of the easement also asks for property east, the
vacation of the easement that is east of this site as well and that is where the major construction project
took place and where the actual, I mean the culverts that they put in were at least 6 feet in diameter so if
we shift the, if we take away that utility easement, if anything goes wrong with this drainage area, there
won't be a city easement to repair that pipe, if my understanding from the way I read these reports.
Mayor Mancino: Is that correct Anita?
Anita Benson: That's a misunderstanding. We're maintaining a 10 foot drainage utility easement on the
Gestach-Paulson property and we also have an additional 5 feet along your property line and that is being
maintained.
Erin Radon: But if the culvert, if these concrete culverts are 6 feet wide, that only gives you 4 feet
additional on the Gestach side of the property. Is that enough?
Anita Benson: Actually I believe from my recollection, it's a 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe so that
would be, not be a 6 foot pipe. What we have we believe is sufficient.
Mayor Mancino: You feel like you have sufficient easement to be able to go in and fix it or clean it out
or whatever needs to be done?
Anita Benson: Correct, and why don't I lay out the drawings here for you Erin so you can see how the
house was approved with the final plat. The house pad.
Erin Radon: Yeah, I'm not talking about the pipe. I'm talking about the culverts that are bigger than
these desks. The concrete, I'm talking about the diameter of the entire hole. Not just the, you know I'm
sure the concrete is.
Anita Benson: What Erin's referring to are the storm sewer, the structures. Man hole structures. We
have sufficient room to get in should we ever need to maintain those.
Erin Radon: Okay.
Anita Benson: It's more the pipe that is a concern because you have to dig deeper to actually do any type
of repair. Why don't I put up the drawings.
7
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that eastern easement is going to stay.
Erin Radon: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it is going to stay at, Anita 10 feet? A I0 feet easement. It will stay.
Erin Radon: Maybe then you could tell what the rules are, how close to an easement can you build a
structure?
Kate Aanenson: Right up next to it. The setback goes from a property line so the easement can be
encumbered in the setback. That's always been in place.
Erin Radon: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So it doesn't increase the setback. It still maintains the same. So if it's a 10 foot
setback and the easement's in that 10 feet, it's the same area.
Anita Benson: ...shows the drainage utility easement that is dedicated with the Brenden Pond 3rd
Addition... And ifI can address Erin's question regarding the setback of the home. The utility
easement...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Steve Kerkvliet: ...but I'm just curious why that's not consistent.
Mayor Mancino: Well a lot of times Steve it, in one subdivision, in a lot of them we will have houses
right next to each other. One's 20 and one's 30 and we do it at staff's request and the applicant's request
because they're trying to save trees in the back. Because ora wetland. For all different reasons. It's
never always the same. I mean in one subdivision if it's on farmland that there doesn't need to be a
variation, but when we get into areas where there are wetlands and mature trees and topography, etc,
yeah. They really can vary.
Steve Kerkvliet: Okay. And the final question and perhaps Erin may need to address this as well. If I'm
correct when we last met and worked with the builder in that area, with the destruction of trees and the
addition of a pond, I believe that the builder was going to put some additional trees along the median on
the eastern side of his property as a replacement. Does this vacation of easements affect his obligation of
the foliage that's going to go along that line? I don't know where I've heard it but I've heard a rumor
that he's requested that it not be there. And again that is just something I've heard. That he wanted to
put it behind and the whole purpose of our agreement, or if you could call it an agreement, was to make
sure we had some kind of foliage between the properties.
Mayor Mancino: Anita please.
Anita Benson: That's rumor as far as I'm aware. There is no intention to reduce the trees out there.
Additionally with the Lake Lucy Road project, the city capital improvement project, the landscaping has
not been completed yet. The weather hasn't been quite conducive for that this spring but we will be
getting that done soon and you will be seeing a change order for the addition of the trees in the pond area
as discussed when the pond work was done at your June 14th meeting.
8
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I hope that's your answer and, okay. Any other questions that you have?
Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Engel: I'd like to add a little extra. If you want to see an example of this, where the home
might be way offofa setback compared to it's neighbors. Go down to Lake Susan Hills on the east side
of CR 17, Powers Boulevard south of TH 5. About a mile or so down there's two entrances on Lake
Susan Hills Drive and it will loop around. If you go to the second one to the south and drive in there and
go all the way around, look to your left and you'll see some big houses that are probably about 50 to 60
feet back for the most part. Maybe 80 and then you'll come upon one that's a white one beyond some big
trees, it's about 150 back so he's way back. So just give you a feel for what it looks like.
Mayor Mancino: May I please have a motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: If I could comment?
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Councilwoman Jansen: The work session, when we started talking about the setbacks and the differences
between the Centex development and Brenden Ponds. That 10 foot difference. Though we can't require
that the builder come closer to Lake Lucy, we did have the conversation that Council's amicable to it, to
at least suggest to the builder that we would be, look favorably towards his requesting that variance to
come back closer to Lake Lucy in order to provide a better sight line for the neighbors and keep him out
of the wetland. In fact staff, Anita had mentioned that it may save him some of the cost of fill to bring it
closer to Lake Lucy than punching out that additional 10 feet but seeing as all those other homes on that
south side of Lake Lucy are 20 feet back, if he would look at it favorably to move forward, it would
certainly be nice to encourage that. If the rest of council would be favorable towards that.
Mayor Mancino: Well I kind of leave that open to the developer and what the developer would like to
do.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well and certainly leaving it open to the developer but if the developer doesn't
know that we're suggesting that that might be a favorable alternative for the neighbors and to council, it
really should have been addressed when the final platting was done but that was done last year so I gather
we don't really want to put him back through the whole process again in order to be able to address that
but if it's something that we can at least put out there as a suggestion.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, would he have to go back through the.
Kate Aanenson: ...process. We did look at that. They are shared driveways. It's compromised as far as
parking space so we did look at that. This is another PUD. You have variations. Sometimes you try to
taper that. 25. Step it down to 30 but it's hard to tell with the curvature of the road. We can work with
the applicant and site their home on there so they can see exactly but when you've got a shared driveway
situation, you're already compromising some parking spaces and with the parking on one side of the
street already, we did look at that so. The individual homeowner also has a right to come in and ask for a
variance. Whoever buys that lot also has the right to proceed with a variance request. But we did look at
that.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. So when an individual homeowner, when they decide to buy the lot, they can
come in and ask for that too. Okay.
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Kate Aanenson: ...forward.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's true. So you're kind of back to the same situation. Well if
councilmembers would like to respond to that. Councilman Senn, any?
Councilman Senn: Well I would think probably what makes the most sense tonight is to pass on the
drainage and utility easements but I think staff's gotten the flavor of that between the work session and
now and they could address that with the developer, the homeowners. You know if we're going to ask
them or say that we're so inclined to do it, then we should probably let them know that we'd waive fees
for them to do it because that's kind of unfair to double them up on that. And secondly, I just would
want people to understand that with the curvature of the road to the north there, 10 feet is not going to
solve the problem. 10 feet difference will still effectively leave you know, how do I say this? You can't
put houses within 20 feet of the road and the houses on this within 20 feet of the road still not impacted
because the road curves to the north substantially there. So you're still going to have the sight lines
regardless and I just wouldn't want to create the impression that by even asking or doing a variance it's
going to solve the problem because it won't. It will simply reduce that sight angle by 10 feet but you will
have... There's not much we can do about it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: I have no problem with the neighbors, developer, staff can work it out. I have no
agenda on it.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of vacation of drainage and utility easement and staff has direction
beyond that.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second please?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #99-45: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a resolution
vacating the drainage and utility easements dedicated on the final plats over Outlot C, Brenden
Pond and Outlot A, Brenden Pond 2na Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.434 ACRES INTO 2
LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 27,419 SQ. FT. AND 35,066 SQ. FT.; LOCATED NORTHWEST OF
LOTUS LAKE~ 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE~ ALICIA HEIGHTS, RAY AND ALICIA
BROZOVICH.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Miller
Ray & Alicia Brozovich
John & Sandra Cunningham
24925 Glen, Shorewood
6609 Horseshoe Curve
6665 Horseshoe Curve
10
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Kate Aanenson: When the staff first met with this applicant there was quite a substantial amount of fill
being brought into the site. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards and we had concerns about that based on
that neighborhood and the width of the streets and changing the character. This lot slopes severely down
to the lake and we worked carefully with the applicant to try to reduce the amount of fill being brought in
and they have revised their plans to 400 to 500 cubic yards of fill being brought in but what that did is,
we had to compromise on the driveway grade. So the driveway's sloping down at maximum of 20%.
The lot is further complicated by the fact that we had the shoreland regulations that say you shouldn't
block the sight lines because there are existing homes on either side. One of them being the applicant's,
it's impossible to push the house any further without compromising either the amount of fill or the
driveway grade. The adjoining neighbor was concerned about visibility, loss of privacy. The applicant
had worked since the Planning Commission meeting to move the house forward an additional 6 feet and
on the most lake side, moving it further 4 feet from his property line. In addition putting landscaping or
stone on the property. There is trees on the one side and putting additional landscaping on the other.
The Planning Commission looked at this on their May 24th and recommended approval of the
subdivision. There was a discussion on additional right-of-way dedicated for Horseshoe Curve. We had
a similar subdivision that came in previously. While we certainly concur that the narrow streets add to
the character, it's always the staff's choice to get the dedication at this time instead if we had to go back
and acquire it for easements of whatever type that we would have to do that at a later date with
compensation. So the engineering, while the Planning Commission felt that there's established character
to the neighborhood, it may not be needed. The engineering department and staff still recommends
consideration of the 10 additional feet of right-of-way. With that we are recommending approval of the
subdivision with the conditions of the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff?.
Councilman Senn: Kate I went by and looked at the site this afternoon. Now effectively, I mean other
than the suggested location of the house, I mean did you look at alternatives? I couldn't really see any
other way to do it.
Kate Aanenson: Right, we did. And the builder did too. Really there isn't a lot of opportunity because
of the slope.
Councilman Senn: Right I mean.
Kate Aanenson: You'd have to really substantially change the size of the home, and it is an oversized
lot. Both lots are above the minimum for lakeshore lot so it's really what's driving this is the slope. The
topography. So it's not really a self imposed. It's the topography of the lot. And we were concerned
about the amount of fill being brought in and what that would do to the lake so we tried to find a middle
ground there. Obviously the one neighbor would prefer to have it brought forward. Or moved further
away from his house but it just can't.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for staff?. Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like
to address the council?
Ray Brozovich: Well it's been quite a trip. Starting in December and then proceeding.
Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address.
11
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Ray Brozovich: Ray Brozovich, 6609 Horseshoe Curve. I didn't know I was going to become such a
developer of what I assumed was going to be a simple metes and bounds splitting of a parcel of property.
But the big positive has been that that big sign, which I really was kind of resenting initially, is drawing a
lot of attention to my current home which is for sale. So granted I thank Sharmin, who's not here, for
really working with us and getting us all that extra mile that she did. And I just didn't realize it was
going to take as long as it did but hopefully we'll be on our way. And I've been known to plant a few
trees in the neighborhood so hopefully I get some type of tree that will offer some type of a buffer for
them, but thank you all and thank you Nancy for showing up yesterday and going through the property
itself.
Mayor Mancino: You're welcome. I do have a question for you. How do you feel about the 10 feet
right-of-way? The additional 10 feet.
Ray Brozovich: It's a very unique neighborhood in terms of the character and that is a big issue. I think
there'd be a lot of destruction of the character of the neighborhood by extracting I0 feet all the way
around Horseshoe Curve. And there are many structures that are actually practically sitting on
Horseshoe Curve with their garages, etc. So it would probably be quite an imposition on most
homeowners in that area.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this? Okay, seeing none.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of preliminary and final plat request for subdivision of 1.434 acres
into two lots with an area of 27,419 and 35,066.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino: Would you take a friendly amendment on recommendation 11 ? Deleting the additional
10 feet of right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve.
Councilman Senn: Oh yes. I thought that would only be added if we added it. Maybe I misunderstood
that.
Mayor Mancino: It's added in, it's number 11 in the recommendation.
Councilman Senn: ...the only way we have...future bad decisions.
Mayor Mancino: Then you'll accept the friendly amendment, correct?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And will you second that addition of the friendly amendment?
Councilman Engel: I will. I misunderstood the same way he did.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat
with a variance allowing up to 20% grade for a driveway and an 81 foot lakeshore setback for
12
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Alicia Heights Subdivision//99-4, as shown on the plans dated May 11, 1999, subject to the
following conditions:
o
o
o
10.
The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees according to local
ordinances. Currently, the single family home rate is $2,780 per acre. Based on the size of 0.63
acres, the new lot will have a SWMP fee of $1,749.88. These fees are due at the time of final plat
recording.
Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances.
Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees before
grading can begin.
Building Official conditions:
a. A permit from the Building Inspections Division is required for any retaining walls over 4 feet
tall.
b. A final soils report must be submitted to the city for any filling or soil correction done on the
site to determine the bearing capacity of the soil.
c. The proposed sewer and water connection details were not reviewed at this time. Contact
Randy Debner at 937-1900 ext. 138 for information.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy. Premise Identification, Fire
Prevention Policy #29~ 1992. Copy enclosed.
b. Any trees removed from the site must either be chipped or hauled away. Due to close
proximity to other homes, no burning permit will be issued.
The developer will work with staff to review the existing topographic conditions of the site so as to
find a location that would have the least impact to the neighbors to the east.
A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of
building permit application for city staff to review and approve.
Drainage swales shall be installed along both sides of the proposed home on Lot 1 to manage
runoff from the front yard to the back yard. The drainage swales shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide
to minimize erosion potential along the sides of the house. Roof gutters shall also be installed on
the home to redirect roof runoff to the rear of the home.
Additional erosion control measures may be required along the sides of the home on Lot 1 within
the drainage swale. Erosion control fence will also be required in conjunction with the sanitary
sewer connection by the lake.
A sanitary sewer service shall be from the existing 8 inch sanitary sewer along the south property
line. Water service will be extended by the city at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to
13
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
the north property line of Lot 1. The applicant will be required to escrow $2,500 to guarantee the
cost of the water service extension. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and
water hookup and connection charge at time of building permit application. The cost of extending
the water service across Horseshoe Curve will be deducted from the watermain connection charge.
11.
The final plat shall dedicate standard 10 foot front, rear and 5 foot side yard drainage and utility
easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary
sewer line which runs through the southerly portion of Lots 1 and 2.
12.
If material is imported or exported from the site, the developer will need to provide the city with a
detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. If material is proposed to be imported from
another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the other properties will be required to obtain an
earthwork permit from the city.
13. The applicant will work with staff to keep the setback as far from the ordinary high water mark of
Lotus Lake and minimizing the building profile at the same time.
14. A variance to the ordinance to allow a 20% driveway grade and an 81 foot setback from the
Ordinary High Water Mark for Lotus Lake.
15. The applicant shall bring in to the City Council a reforestation plan for the east side of the site to
buffer the neighbors to the east as much as possible.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-2637 AND A 27 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A 52 FT. WIDE DOCK~ AND A VARIANCE OF ONE OVERNIGHT DOCK SLIP TO
PERMIT FOUR OVERNIGHT BOAT MOORINGS ON OUTLOT F~ NORTH BAY~ NORTH
BAY COMMUNITY.
Kate Aanenson: In 1997 when the City Council granted final plat approval for North Bay, this was the
outlot remnant which they had always considered for the beachlot and they are now prepared to present
that for your approval. Beachlot conditional use permit which requires a separate permit. We believe
that the beachlot layout is well conceived but we do have a concern about the request for the variance for
the additional dock width. There's minimal tree removal and we did have some concerns about as far
as... and we are working with the applicant to resolve that issue. When the Planning Commission
reviewed this application they recommended denial of the variance as part of the development. This
would be for the dock itself. They do allow it to have a dock with the slips and they will have up to 3
boats and they did recommend denial of that because they felt with the marginal requirement for a
beachlot and if it was to be a single family home, they wouldn't be able to have that additional. There
are spaces for canoe racks and the like. The other issue that came up was the access to the beachlot and
safety. Traffic on Lyman Boulevard. Engineering department did look at the warrants for a crosswalk
and that is being put in place right now. They did recommend approval of the conditional use again with
denial of the variance. They did ask the staff to meet with the applicant to see if there's a way to resolve
the width issue. Staff did present some alternatives. If they want to put a bench out there and still
maintain the required width. While we could make it work it's not the first choice of the applicant so
they are still requesting a variance. Just to be clear again the staff is still recommending denial as did the
14
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Planning Commission. So with that I'll recommend denial on the variance and approval of a conditional
use with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and you think you can, thank you. Work through the toilet.
Kate Aancnson: It's just a matter when you're doing normal maintenance. We're just concerned about
the wear and tear on our trail and again the concern was the people at the association have to cross the
street. We got the crosswalk in. That was a big concern of safety of the people in the area too.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for council members to staff at this time? Is the applicant
here and would you like to address the council? Please state your name and address.
Josh Redding: My name is Josh Redding. I live at 8791 North Bay Drive. Thank you Council and
Mayor for reviewing our proposal. Everything that the Planning Commission approved or denied we
agree with, with the exception of the variance for the dock. And we're not looking for the 27 foot
variance anymore. We're asking for a 7 foot variance. The reason being is that the dock has an L section
on the side of the piece of the dock that goes all the way out and maybe if we could get it up on the
blueprint.
Mayor Mancino: That in front of us, that would be helpful.
Josh Redding: You'll see from, we will not be going this additional L section here. But what we would
like to do is add this L section. The dock is 4 feet wide and then this piece would be an additional 24 so
we would ask for at least a 4 foot variance...3 foot variance here .... this 28 feet. Then another 4 feet
here for an additional section on the end to have a bench area... That would be an additional 7 foot
variance...
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can just clarify. The intent of getting the bench on is that you can still pass
safely while, so someone can be sitting on the bench and you can still safely pass. So what they're
asking for is additional width to accommodate that. In that one segment and then along the common
walkway. The segment...
Josh Redding: ...4 foot length section that would butt it up to...enjoy the lake.
Mayor Mancino: So instead of the dock being 25 feet wide there, it would be 32 feet wide?
Josh Redding: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. 25 is the ordinance. It says yeah, one dock with a maximum width of 25 feet
and so for that extension they want to make it an additional 7 feet wide. 32 feet.
Councilman Senn: I thought the extension's only an additional 4 feet. In width.
Councilman Engel: Probably 7 in length.
Josh Redding: Right. What happens is we have, to get two boat slips there as we have it plotted, we
have three 8 foot sections that come off the main run of the dock. So that's 24 feet. Then you add the
additional 4 feet of the main run of the dock and that's 28. Then you add another 4 feet for the additional
15
City Council Meeting ~ May 24, 1999
bench area at the end of the L section which is another 4 feet. Does that make sense? So this area right
here.
Mayor Mancino: What does that have to do with width?
Josh Redding: Well the way I read the ordinance is that maximum width of the dock can be 25 feet.
Right now if we just add this section right here to here onto the dock, that's going to...
Councilman Engel: And another 4 in width when you get out to the end which is 7.
Councilman Labatt: In that one comer there, couldn't you just position the adjoining piece, instead of
like this, coming like this. Shorten your depth for the two boats but how big a boats you going to put on
this lake?
Josh Redding: Well the research we did, part of the reason we have the dock set up the way it is is
because of the water depth in that area. It's a maximum maybe of 4 feet. It's probably a little higher
right now because of the high water depth.
Councilman Labatt: Bearing on which way you put that angle.
Josh Redding: I think what you're saying is if we take this section and remove this section and put it this
way?
Councilman Labatt: No. No.
Councihnan Senn: No, what he's saying is you end up with basically a gap of 20 feet and the only way
you'd need 20 feet as a gap is if you were putting in boats with a 10 foot span.
Councilman Labatt: 10 foot beam.
Councilman Senn: And there's no way you're going to put 10 foot span boats on Lake Riley. You're not
even going to put 8 foot span boats.
Councilman Labatt: Move your finger down to the, right there. And then where the run comes out to
the west. You come out like this. You're going to come out 24 feet, right?
Josh Redding: Right. That's three 8 foot sections.
Councilman Labatt: And then instead, like you did in the drawing here. You're asking for the variance
for another 4 feet to put the dock over here to come out. If I understand you right. But if you put it just
like you've got here, then you're not going to need the other 4 feet.
Josh Redding: Well fine. I was under the impression that...that that would count as 32 feet the way it's
plotted right now.
Kate Aanenson: The 25 feet refers to the length of the run, not the width.
Councilman Senn: We're not even talking width?
16
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Kate Aanenson: Not an issue, yes.
Councilman Senn: We're not even talking width?
Kate Aanenson: No. It's the length of the run is 25 feet.
Councilman Senn: The length of which run? Okay. And we look at that as width because you consider
in the overall width is what you're saying.
Kate Aanenson: Right, it was misinterpreted.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but you could just as easily cut that down as far as, you wouldn't have to use
three full length sections. You could use a half section and do full eight foot sections and still then meet
the requirement. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Got it, okay. Any other questions for Josh at this time so we can understand this?
Councilman Senn: One other quick question for Kate. Isn't there a requirement as far as a platform at
the end like that? I mean aren't we limited regardless of what our ordinance say by the DNR in terms of
how wide that platform at the end can be?
Kate Aanenson: I don't believe so.
Josh Redding: It's my understanding this plan was submitted to the DNR and they had no issues.
Kate Aanenson: Well there is on the length as far as depth to get to a certain, whatever it takes to get to.
Councilman Senn: No, they actually have, at least they used to. Maybe things have changed but they
had a requirement for platforms at the end that you know, you basically could have a 4 foot dock going
out if added another section at the end for a platform, you were limited in terms of.
Kate Aanenson: Like a boat lift or something?
Councilman Senn: No, just pure.
Councilman Labatt: No, I don't.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Senn: They had one at one time. I don't know if they changed it.
Mayor Mancino: Well it went through them so it should be okay.
Kate Aanenson: We updated this.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so they reviewed it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
17
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Josh Redding: I have a question for staff. They brought up an issue about trees that we were going to,
for vegetation and removal of vegetation that we were going to work on.
Mayor Mancino: And did you resituate the gazebo?
Josh Redding: Yes. Yep, that was the issue, okay. Other than that we plan on preserving all the
vegetation that's on the lot, for good reason.
Mayor Mancino: Oh I had a question about the fire pit. Is there going to be a kind ora council fire pit in
there or is that going to be actually something man made that you're going to have fires in?
Josh Redding: It will be something that will be in the ground.
Councilman Labatt: Concrete or rock?
Josh Redding: Concrete or rock, yeah. Correct. And we will be moving it off the beach.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, because there is a certain size from the fire marshal that you are allowed to have
a fire anytime in a fire pit but it has to be a certain size. It can't be over 3 feet by 3 feet so you know that.
Josh Redding: Maybe the apartments should abide by that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Actually that brings up another point. Fires out in the winter time.
Josh Redding: I don't think we plan on doing that. But we can make sure that.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, snow.
Councilman Labatt: ...I tried that.
Mayor Mancino: It doesn't work?
Councilman Labatt: It didn't work. The only water source was a shovel and a big pile of snow.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Unless you have any other questions or comments for us. Okay,
thank you. Anyone else tonight wishing to address the council on this issue? Okay. Let's bring it back
to Council. Comments from councilmembers.
Councilwoman Jansen: The only issue that really came up with the other homeowners on the lake was
the safety factor and I think limiting the slips to where there were 3 overnights versus the 4. At least help
to answer that, though I don't think it's truly going to impact the overall safety of the lake. We think
some of the other comments that Josh and his association have made are going to play more to the public
safety. They seem like real conscientious lakeshore owners and we're all pleased to have a nice group
18
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
working with us on the lake like that but as far as the homeowners were concerned, I think they're okay
with this.
Mayor Mancino: And Josh, you feel comfortable with the, you do have racks for, what is it, 24 sailboats
and canoes?
Josh Redding: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Any other comments? Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Move approval of the conditional use permit as per the Planning Commission's
recommendation and denial of the variance request.
Kate Aanenson: The variance request is really baseless. Should they make a motion on it?
Roger Knutson: I think you could find it moot. Make a finding that the variance request is not needed.
Councilman Senn: And find that the variance request is unnecessary.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, a second please.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council finds that the
variance request is not needed, and that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #99-1
for a recreation beachlot at 8901 Lyman Boulevard, Outlot F, North Bay, also known as Lot 1,
Block 1, North Bay 4th Addition, for the North Bay Community subject to the following conditions:
1. Must comply with Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
2. Must comply with the site and landscape plan, and grading and drainage plan prepared by Pioneer
Engineering dated 3/30/99.
3. The dock shall not be constructed as shown on the site plan but must be a maximum of 25 feet
wide.
The gazebo shall not be located as shown on the site plan but must maintain a 75 foot setback from
the ordinary high water elevation (865.3) and a 30 foot setback from Lyman Boulevard.
Structures must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the side property lines.
The dock may only be extended out to a point where the lake reaches four feet in depth or fifty
feet, whichever is greater. The applicant shall submit the lake depths in the vicinity of the beach
lot to the city prior to the installation of the dock.
Timbers or retaining walls shall not be permitted to the lake side of the sand beach area.
The fire pit must be a minimum of 10 feet from the ordinary high water elevation.
o
19
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
o
The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash
escrow in the amount of $2,000 to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration and repair
of city streets/boulevards as a result of construction activities.
10. The proposed section of Class V gravel trail between Lyman Boulevard and the city trail shall be
deleted.
11.
A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained at a construction access point from
Lyman Boulevard. Staff shall review and approve all construction access locations prior to
construction commencing.
12. After construction of the site improvements, driving on the city's trail along Lyman Boulevard
shall be prohibited.
13. Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of all (volleyball, horseshoe pit, shore slip
areas, beach, etc.) grading limits.
14. All pruning to existing trees must be done by a certified arborist.
15. Any existing trees removed in excess of approved plan will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1
diameter inches.
16. Landscape plan shall be revised to clarify existing lawn areas. The term "sod limits" in the
shoreline areas shall be replaced by the term "existing lawn".
17. Grading equipment access to shore slip and beach areas shall be limited to proposed pathway. No
equipment shall be stored within or allowed access through existing treed areas.
18. The proposed beach area shall provide a sand blanket slope as specified by the no permit standards
of the DNR.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
EASTERN CARVER COUNTY COLLABORATIVE GROUP CONSIDERATION.
Scott Botcher: Pursuant to our discussion at the work session, this group is seeking, and I guess
representatives of the City of Chanhassen who participate with this group are seeking if nothing else
reconfirmation of the direction that you would like us to represent on the municipality's behalf. I did
distribute to you some text as well as a flow chart. Or not a flow chart but a matrix indicating in a
conceptual sense where the facilitator might thing the City of Chanhassen may participate at an
unspecified time for some of these activities and we get to the point especially as you all are aware, the
planning grant dollars, or the planning dollars that were sought from legislature were not received and at
some point I think they're looking for a little bit of a reconfirmation. Sort of a check in on where
everybody is. Certainly you are not under any obligation to provide them with more of a position
statement than you feel comfortable with. If your position is geez, you know we're just sort of going to
participate and we're not really to ready to commit one way or the other, that's fine. If you want to look
at them and say we're out of here. You can say that too. And anywhere in-between. I guess just for
those of us who participate with this organization, you know we'd like some confirmation of the
2O
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
direction that Council would like to take. Beyond that we've got a couple of folks who have participated
in the group longer than I have and maybe you could add some thoughts if I'm misspeaking.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Todd, you've been on the budget committee. Do you have any thoughts
and, I think actually the budget committee is the one that kind of said okay. So where are we now?
Where are we going?
Todd Gerhardt: Well of the five alternatives, I've got to believe that item four would be the most
interested position that the city may want to look at participating in. As Chanhassen continues to grow
and grow, there will be a larger and larger need for additional soccer fields. I know Mr. Engel,
Councilmember Engel has expressed interest in more youth football fields which too are being
considered for the outdoor recreational space. And doing a joint facility, I see us doing more joint
programming with Chaska/Chan/Victoria for recreational activities in the future so of all the programs, I
think that one, I would leave at least the door open for further discussion. I know it's a long ways for our
residents to go but you know for the economic benefit of the land prices in Victoria compared to
Chanhassen and the sharing of the cost of the development, I think it may be something that needs
additional research.
Scott Botcher: I think one of the questions that wilt come up at the meeting Friday is whether or not, and
I don't know if this will happen but since the planning dollars were not received, if it's ante up time, to
continue to play I guess may be the best way to put it. If there is some push on the part of the leadership
or the facilitator to still move ahead with some of this planning process, that obviously will have to be
funded somewhere. And if and when we get to that point, that's where this will really get to be
interesting. You know how much are we paying for. I have spoken with Mr. Hoffman and Todd and I
have talked. There is functional utility I think for Chanhassen to participate in the construction of the
recreational fields. The rub is how much is, how much economically is it worth to us to participate and
Todd's right, there is no way in God's green earth any of us can pull out a number and say this is what
it's going to cost, because we don't know. As the Mayor said, it probably will be phased. We don't
know the interest rates. We really don't know the land costs even. I mean we sort of have a ballpark
number but we're not quite there yet. So as far as that's concerned, I tend to agree with Todd. That
maybe it's something that we take the position that we say no. We're interested in helping and maybe
playing with this, but we reserve the full right to say no. You guys are asking us for too much money.
It's not worth that much to us. We're going to walk away and if they know that up front, I think we're
being fair with them. They can plan on that basis and maybe thirdly, it maybe gets us a little better a
deal.
Mayor Mancino: Let me also pose the question, because this is a three fold question as it's coming out
is, would everyone respond to whether I think that they will, it's just my guess, that they will stage this
and the recreational fields won't probably come on board for 3 to 5 years. So if the question is asked, is
it something you want to participate in now or is it something that you would be willing to see if you
want to participate in later on, how do we answer that? Because our needs assessment in 5 years may be
different than it is now. So we're throwing all that into the kitty right now.
Councilman Senn: Well maybe what we really need to do is just simply reaffirm our already existing
motion or position statement that we made which was effectively at this time we're very interested in
continuing to be at the table discussion wise and participate in the process. But Chanhassen is making no
financial commitment, okay. And we may change our mind in the future. You know in the future
depending on what comes up when, but I mean we lack sufficient information to evaluate that now.
21
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: So would you be willing to get that information that we need? The question is asked
then, would you participate in dollars for planning without that information?
Councilman Senn: That was our previous answer.
Scott Botcher: And that's fine. We just need to know that.
Mayor Mancino: That's what we need to talk about.
Councilwoman Jansen: ...that that initial planning of the thousand was to carry us through the end of the
first phase and that's really what's coming to completion. So now they'll be coming back to us for what I
understood at least initially could have been another 10 grand to go into the next planning phase. But
that was if they had gotten half of the planning money from the House or the Senate, if it had gone
through. So we're talking some number above 10 grand if they still work with what they're saying the
planning could cost us. So I guess when I looked at this, I did go through the questions that were posed
to us. What would it take for us to go forward with the project, and those questions led me to do we need
the components that are in the project? Which took me back to the recreational fields. Well now if
somebody could maybe speak, and I don't know what goes into a new middle school as far as the
recreational facilities. Does that encompass football? And right now the school district is considering,
and of course we're a long way from getting anywhere with it but consideration is being given to putting
a middle school in Chanhassen. Now will that, or could that encompass some of the recreational
facilities that we find we need and hence get them into Chanhassen? And then another step to that is do
we have a site that would be conducive to our also being able to attach a library? A community library so
in essence we would be doing within Chanhassen a smaller version of what is being proposed out in
Victoria, but it would be more closely located to our residents and accommodate more the needs of the
community.
Mayor Mancino: Well and that's exactly right. I mean one of the whole rationales about having this
collaborative process was to say this is the first one that we're going to try here in Victoria and as other
school needs come on board, let's make sure that we use the same model that we used here at another
school site. Now it may have different components, like you're saying. I mean there may not be a need
for a library but would there be some other components that we would want to collaborate on as the three
or four cities, so we were trying to take the model that we've been working on here and adopt it and use
it again for, in other areas that the three or four cities would be working together. So that's right.
Councilwoman Jansen: ...come as a surprise that Chanhassen would already be proposed at the same
time as the elementary school in Victoria that we'd be being proposed for a middle school. So again it
opens up the question to us in Chanhassen, if we're going to be spending dollars, are we better spending
those dollars in our community at the facilities coming on board. We're one-third of the population of
the county and we're going to tell our one-third of the county residents that they need to go to Victoria to
access this facility? I don't know how well that plays. Now if, and I've heard sOmeone mention that
Victoria is eventually going to be as large as Chanhassen. Well, in their comp plan it's still showing out
at 2010 at 7,800. So if we're addressing immediate population needs, I guess I would like to maybe
challenge us a little bit to maybe move forward more aggressively with our own strategic planning and
get our facilities up to meet the needs of our community and I go back to the '97 survey where our
taxpayers are saying they're sitting in Chanhassen and they're tax dollars are not giving them the services
that they consider they are, should be paying for. Our services are not accommodating what our
residents are paying in taxes and they see a disparity. So it seems that if we can address our own needs
within Chanhassen, that should be our immediate concern versus going out to Victoria where again one
22
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
of the concerns that was raised on Todd Hoffman's part as we were attending one of the programs,
committee meetings, was that Victoria doesn't have the staff to really be able to address how to do trails.
How to do the maintenance of these facilities. All of those things within this recreational piece of this
project don't have the supports in place in Victoria to address them. And they have the 40 acre park that
they just acquired that they need to address so which is going to come first? I think if we look at the
needs within Chanhassen, our field needs are going to happen here before maybe Victoria's even set up
to handle their situation. But those are just some of the comments that came about that really led me to
wonder if we aren't looking out to Victoria a little early when we have possibilities here to address.
Mayor Mancino: Mark?
Councilman Senn: Scott, I think what's really important, any time you start talking about a collaboration
such as this, the easy thing to do is to say the collaboration includes you know five people, you know and
everybody's equal parties or it's based on population or whatever. Okay. Effectively I think what we
need to make sure of is that there's a base or a threshold and cap as any collaborative effort like that goes
forward. You know we have already provided substantial city subsidy to you know facilities that are
already used in collaboration, okay. And benefit you know people from some of those other...cities.
Historically we granted a great deal of recreational subsidy here at City Center Park backing up to an
elementary school. We subsidized the other elementary school in recreational facilities to the tune of
about $4 million. You know nobody else helped contribute to that process at the time. And going
forward I think it's unrealistic to just kind of assume and forget all that and start...based on population or
whatever because we have many of those fields and many of those facilities in place. We've done
through referendum or you know TIF districts or through a whole bunch of other different mechanisms.
And so I think it's really important to measure that up front and consider that up front...kind of have a
discussion on how we move forward from here. Because otherwise we do ourselves injustice and it
becomes a very convoluted process. I mean all the subsidy that we've pumped into recreational facilities
in Chan schools around here benefit half of the residents of our city thus far. Because it's only the
Chaska school system. We have provided them subsidy through the Minnetonka...which serves the other
half of our city for subsidy in terms of recreational facilities. And again, I'm not saying whether it's
good, bad or indifferent. But it's something we have to keep in mind for our city...between two school
districts and access to and use of facilities especially when they're attached to a school or very limited in
nature or probably say confined in nature by it's relationship with the school district. I think that's all
stuff we have to consider going forward and I think remain open to that...
Scott Botcher: Well and that's understood.
Councilman Senn: ...separate kind of consideration.
Scott Botcher: Right, and one of the things that I've tried to communicate to people on the library issue,
and sometimes I've said it more directly than others because I want to communicate a message but
Chanhassen is an 8,000 pound gorilla in this county. And we need to be aware of that and we need to be
able to utilize that to our benefit. And sometimes we need to act like it. And if it's time for us to walk,
then we walk. And that goes without saying. On the other, on Linda's stuff, I'm not sure that, and
maybe I've just missed it. That the school district and Chaska has ever publicly talked about siting a
junior high, middle school in the city. I mean that's sort of been the rumor. Talk behind the scenes but I
think that's probably as far as it's gone. And if it's there, then that's great but I guess my understanding
is that the middle school will follow the elementary school and if that's the case, then we can plan that
for the future. I think that makes a lot of sense to consolidate that sort of stuff. I agree. I think that's a
good methodology. On the flip side, just because I'm paid to ask devil's advocate questions, there is
23
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
some economic utility to have non-taxable park property right on your border outside your city limits so
you don't have to give it up within your city limits. There is some functionality to that. And you know
it's probably what, 5 miles there? I asked you this once Nancy. Was it 5 miles?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: Or so to the park site. And instead of giving up how ever many acres of taxable property,
you make some other guy next door give it up in their city. And you've got, you know we've got a lot of
people that live on the western edge of the city. Just as well as on the eastern edge. And I know that's
not how the recreational programming goes but sometimes you think economically, maybe that's not
such a bad deal to have it outside the city. You know what are you giving up in terms of tax dollars
forever just so you can say it's in the city. That's another thing you've got to consider. But I think I get
your message. I mean as a group I get your message and we can just continue to play along. If they want
planning dollars, just sort of say we're punting at this point.
Mayor Mancino: Well and the fact of the matter is, from what Todd has told us at a work session, we
don't need in the next 5 years, or his assessment, and I don't know to what rigor he made this assessment.
That we do not need any more fields for right now in Chanhassen. For the next, I think he said to us at
the work session, 5 years. That he thinks that we're doing pretty well and after everything that we've
built from the referendum dollars, that we're in a good space so I think that also goes into not going
ahead in the recreational part.
Scott Botcher: Well I just, we needed to just sort of again get your consensus and if it hasn't changed,
we'll stick with it.
Mayor Mancino: Well we still haven't heard from Councilman Engel. Any comments?
Councilman Engel: I'm easy. You hit the nail on the head. You'd like to have it in your city for exactly
the reasons Councilwoman Jansen says. To feel you have ownership of it. You should provide it being
you are the large part of the population and you're putting dollars into it. At the same time, you preserve
a little taxable land. I'm kind of caught up in, what I don't want to see is we put a bunch of money into
planning and feel an obligation to continue this thing. I don't know what the amount of money is that's
reasonable for planning. I thought the thousand we put in would get us a little farther I guess. I'm a bit
unrealistic about that, I didn't know we had to put another 10 in.
Scott Botcher: And I don't think they've asked us for any money Todd, unless, we're just sort of
blowing numbers around.
Mayor Mancino: But they will because they have to. Now that they didn't get any.
Councilwoman Jansen: That was the number that they were kicking around if they only got half.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, and Linda could very well be right. I just, I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: They didn't talk about it at the steering committee. They didn't talk about an amount,
did they?
Councilwoman Jansen: It was the meeting that you missed.
24
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: They talked about if you recall, that I then became aware of and memo'd
everybody that there was this $10,000 number being kicked around at the city level.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, because it was on the radio.
Councilwoman Jansen: I heard it there and I subsequently heard it from a commissioner so it was
definitely confirmed that it was going to be $10,000.00.
Todd Gerhardt: Linda Jansen made a good point regarding Victoria's capabilities in managing and
maintaining a facility like this. And at the finance committee we had discussions where resources either
from county, city, Chaska, or Chanhassen's contribution doesn't need to be money. It could be just
maintenance would be our contribution. Or management of the facility. So that we have the equipment
that we can go over there and mow something like that, and I know there's a dollar associated with that.
Councilman Engel: So it's not cash out of pocket up front.
Todd Gerhardt: Not cash out of pocket but you may have to put on some additional summer help or
something. And right now we're not in the crunch so it isn't a top priority so it is, but Scott makes some
good points regarding tax base. The distance. There's a lot of factors involved. This hasn't really been
done in many places. We share a lot of Eden Prairie's resources. We use their ice in the past and now
and we use their bubble. My son in the Minnetonka school district has used Eden Prairie's bubble and
we don't contribute to it, with the exception of the fees that we pay to use the facility. So you know it's a
sharing of resources as cities grow and add more services so this is just a way of trying to economically
provide those. But right now we're not in the...soccer fields is unbelievable.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt. Any comments you want to make?
Councihnan Labatt: Just a couple comments .... already alluded to is the fact that I question, do they
have the infrastructure in place out there and the employees and resources... What is the cost to the city?
I'm not opposed...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Great, thank you.
Councilman Engel: Enough for him to go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: I do just have one question, talking about the middle school. Is this, in our Admin
section. Good transition to the Admin Section I guess. Is this is really the first time I've seen you know,
about the core team recommendation about a middle school.
Scott Botcher: Is that...?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes it is.
Scott Botcher: When is it? I missed it.
Mayor Mancino: It's about third from the back and it's dated May 14th.
25
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: And then on Thursday of last week they had the core team recommendation to
the Board so I would be curious to see if there was any board reaction to this proposal showing the new
elementary school.
Scott Botcher: And this I remember seeing. I guess, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said that
they recommended a middle school for Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Jansen: That's what the school board members told us at your open house was that the
middle school was being recommended.
Mayor Mancino: I think that one of the school board members said that he would like to see.
Scott Botcher: There's some interest among the school board members of seeking, analyzing all possible
sites for a middle school. But I'm with you on that one Linda. I'm with you on that one, yes. I just, I
misunderstood maybe what you said then because obviously the folks in Chaska obviously may think
differently.
Mayor Mancino: Going into Administrative Presentations. Any questions on the Admin Section?
Councilwoman Jansen: Can I just for a minute go back to the collaborative?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: On Friday my understanding is that there will be a question posed as to where
are we putting our X's in the box. Are we putting X's in boxes or are we saying that.
Mayor Mancino: We don't feel comfortable. I mean at least that's the impression I got from everybody.
We don't feel comfortable putting X's in boxes.
Scott Botcher: The X's are sort of just one guy's opinion and I guess what you guys are saying, like
Steve said, we're talking but there's no checkbook on the table.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm also hearing that we will, people participate in the collaborative continue go
to meetings but we're not putting any checkbook out there. So that we know what's going on and that
we're part of the process, yeah.
Scott Botcher: I have two things if you're still on Administrative and if you're running off it.
Mayor Mancino: No, go ahead please. And I do have a question about how to bring up something for
reconsideration.
Scott Botcher: Oh! And I forgot to ask you that with all the other stuff today. So I'll ask you that. And
then Todd has one thing. Two things. I do have in my hot little hands, and you guys can take one and
pass it down. A memo concerning the elimination of one work session each month. Call this the Engel
Calendar. Not really. And it just, we felt it was important to communicate clearly and early to you all
and to the public when we're actually meeting and when we're not and so those are the dates that we
picked. I think it's June 7th and July 19th will be the two work sessions. The other two work sessions
have been unscheduled. Postponed. Cancelled.
26
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: For those two months.
Scott Botcher: For those two months. Candidly in August, I don't know how you're going to get your
work done but if there's a chance that we could bump August, we'll try to bump it but I just, I'm looking
at the work load with the budget stuff coming up. It's hard enough to skip one in July and June. But
we're going to do our best.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Can I just make a suggestion on the one in July because I think we're
going to starting to do budget. So could we in July, and other council members please respond. Our July
work session talk a little bit about the budget. The objectives we have as a council for the 2000 budget
so that staff can get going, so you can get going with staff in repairing that. Talk about what we'd like to
see as far as caps and all sorts of things.
Scott Botcher: Now understand that what this schedule does, and this is just the way, and Todd, please
correct me if I'm incorrect but from my conversation with Don and with the financial advisory firm, since
we have basically two weeks between the 19th of July and the 2na of August, you will set your targets to
the staff on the 19tI'. The levy publication, the Truth in Taxation levy publication comes along pretty
quickly in August? You're sort of put in the position once again, primarily because of the calendar this
year, of at least publishing the maximum possible levy and then following up probably at the end of
August a balance budget to be submitted which may or may not be at that levy amount. Which is all
okay. It's all legal. All that sort of stuff. But that's just the reality of bumping a meeting off in June and
July. I mean honestly, my honest opinion, I'd rather have meetings in June and July. If you ask me. Put
a gun to my head. We've got a lot of work to do. But if you can go with this calendar and go with this
work load and go with the understanding, we can do this.
Councilwoman Jansen: To have the work sessions we need a quorum of the council, not the entire? Is
that.
Scott Botcher: Well I don't think you ever need everybody there but do you need a quorum for a work
session?
Roger Knutson: Statutes don't recognize the term work session. They don't really exist under
Minnesota statutes. It's informally used by, everyone knows what it means, unless you get down to the
specifics. Under the, the short answer is, which isn't short. You could have a work session with two
people there if you wanted to. Sure you could. It wouldn't be, but under various rules it would not be
considered a meeting of the City Council if you don't have a quorum there but two of you could still get
together.
Mayor Mancino: Well and it wouldn't, again recognize a majority of the council. Couldn't we just start
the work sessions an hour early or something. You know the two that we have in June and July. Just
start those at 4:00 or something and get more done.
Scott Botcher: Welt one is starting at 4:30.
Councilman Senn: Whoever can show up.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I mean I'm only one council member.
27
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilman Senn: I really hate to put us in a position for example we said last year that we will not
adopt the maximum tax levy again as our goal. We said we will be out in front and we will be ready and
we will do it that way. So now you've got to start considering, are you going to alter the schedule and
give up a night or two or are you going to go back on what we said we weren't going to do?
Mayor Mancino: Well also we have three council members who really wanted, the majority of the
council members, wanted to try and do one month, in the summer, they just wanted to limit the monthly
work sessions to one a month. Which you know at that time everyone said fine. A majority did so.
Scott Botcher: I'm responding to just the majority will of the council. I understand what you're saying.
It is, but in your smart guy, you know it's simply a publication. It's a notice. You're not bound to levy
that but it's, you're right. It's a little bass ackwards.
Councilman Senn: I really think you ought to, I mean I don't care whether it's me or somebody else
because I mean ifI have something come up and it's important to me, whether it's family or whether it be
other things, I mean I'm going to miss anyway. So I don't expect everybody else to alter the schedule as
a result of... I think we need to schedule because we're so cramped up as it is. I think we ought to keep
our Monday night's sacred and we ought to keep going.
Councilman Engel: I have no problem with the meetings continuing to be held. I'll just, I mean if I'm
going to miss, I'll talk to you ahead of time.
Scott Botcher: What's the majority want? I guess tell me what you want. I just, I think if nothing else, if
you do this and you put for example the budget issue. And I guess my gut tells me June 1, '99 we might
as well skip that now. I mean we're a week out of that. We might as well skip that but if we go and put
the, you know we could, well maybe not. We could put the public works expansion on June 1 possibly. I
assume Charles is available. The other stuff is pretty much targeted to June 7th. I don't think we're going
to be moving those committee people around. I don't think it's fair to them. And tackling the schedule
for June 7th and the strategic plan stuff. So that is pretty much what is June 7th. If you want to, you know
if you want to start talking about target budget goals, etc, I have no history with you folks. I have no idea
how long it will take. I know how long it took in Delafield. It took about 5 to 10 minutes because they
knew exactly what they.
Mayor Mancino: It will probably take a little longer. This will take a little longer.
Councilman Senn: It will take a little longer.
Scott Botcher: But I mean just to set your targets. Now I mean it's very, very theoretical. Very
conceptual. You may look at me and say you know we want the gross levy to go X or Y or Z. That's all
you really need to do. You don't need to talk about you know we want four dump trucks and five snow
plows. That's not, you know we're just setting targets.
Mayor Mancino: We could probably talk conceptually on June 1st.
Scott Botcher: Sure. Yeah, and that's all that staff's looking for and I think that's all you want to
communicate. Is this is the framework.
Councilman Senn: I mean out of fairness though, I mean that's less than a week away .... made other
plans I think. Forget June 1st at this point and go with the schedule but I mean.
28
City Council Meeting ~ May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Well, how does everybody feel about June 1st first of all? Will you be in town?
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm okay with it.
Mayor Mancino: You're okay with it.
Councilman Engel: I'm in town.
Mayor Mancino: And Mark, you're okay? Well, everybody's okay with June 1st.
Scott Botcher: That's a Tuesday.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we'll check with Steve. But so far.
Scott Botcher: And if we just make June 1st then, maybe we'll just make it just a budget. It may not be
that long but at least then we've done it. And it frees up the 7th a little bit.
Councilman Senn: What time June 1st.9
Scott Botcher: I've got 5:30 here but.
Mayor Mancino: 5:30? And we can just get out all the questions or all the things we want to talk about
the budget. I mean I don't know how far we'll get but let's put something on it. Are you okay Steve for
that?
Councilman Labatt: I might be...
Scott Botcher: We've got to get it done Todd.
Councilman Labatt: What's your schedule like Mark?
Councilman Engel: I'm in town. I'm okay for that. I'll be here.
Mayor Mancino: So it would help Steve to start at 6:00 or 6:30.
Councilman Senn: Let me look and see if I've got anything.
Scott Botcher: So if we start at 6:30 and just keep it almost like a one item work session. Just budget.
Yes? No?
Councilman Senn: I do have it in here. Yeah, the later you start the better because my son's getting
awards at the high school for graduation. Awards ceremony. It starts at 6:00. So I won't be there until
it's done. You guys can do without me.
Scott Botcher: If you have thoughts and such that you want to communicate in writing, just send them to
my office and I think that would be appropriate. If you so choose. Okay. We will reschedule that. Is that
okay with the press? Can you make that? Okay. It's important that the citizens know when we do this.
29
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: 6:30?
Councilman Senn: If you can't, believe me we'll change the meeting.
Mayor Mancino: But you have to come with questions.
Scott Botcher: We'll give you the different time. Alright, fair enough. We will do that and then the 21st
and the 6th, we can remain. Can remain as cancelled because then that gives staff June and July to pull
together the budget. We may look for then a, whatever the meeting is in July, July 19th. IS this a work
session? July, well we'll have to talk about it Todd.
Councilman Senn: June 1 is on you're saying and which ones are cancelled?
Scott Botcher: Well the two that are cancelled are still cancelled. I'm just talking, and Todd you and I
will talk about when we'll actually make the presentation to the Council to give them their budget so they
can begin deliberations. My guess it very well could be the second meeting in July but we'll have to talk
about that.
Mayor Mancino: So this will allow us to be proactive with budget. Great.
Scott Botcher: Be ahead of it. The other thing that I have, and this is just, this is a minor thing. Nancy,
you will have in your, and I don't know if Karen has shown it to you yet. I've been in contact with
PERA on the opt out. And instead of a motion, a consent agenda motion, they want you to sign a
resolution and so we've done a resolution. You can execute it. The second thing is, well actually what
is it worth to you? And here's the other thing. PERA does not want big, evil employers coercing us
poor, helpless city managers into not participating and saving 4 ½% or 4 ¼% on the come. So what
they're saying is, they approve these things but they want it to be a bump to the city. You know what I'm
saying. The 4 point some percent that you did contribute, unless of course you're a police officer. Then
it's like 30% or something but, anyway that 4 point some percent will be contributed to a deferred comp
plan as opposed to PERA. And so you guys will pay the exact same amount you paid before, but last
time I told you that I didn't care. They said no, it should go somewhere and I okay, I'll tell them. So
there you go. And then Todd does have.
Councilman Senn: It should go somewhere at our option or at their option?
Scott Botcher: Well actually it's your option and my option. But you don't have many options quite
honestly. I mean you don't want to go out and buy Janus for me. If you want to you can.
Councilman Senn: ...PERA though.
Scott Botcher: No but that's what they're saying in an effort to support the poor, helpless employees
against the scourge of the employer. I'm making this up. That would be you guys. They don't want you
guys, bottom line is this. They don't want you to save 4%.
Councilman Senn: ...you ought to stay in PERA.
Scott Botcher: Well obviously that's what they want but since they've done this and they don't want the
city to realize economic gain or to put the city into the position to coerce the employees, they said just
put it.
3O
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilman Senn: ...
Roger Knutson: Mark, that's in the statute.
Councilman Senn: So we have no choice is what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: You pay whether he's in PERA or ICMA or whatever.
Councihnan Senn: Alright. That's the question.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, do you have something for us?
Todd Gerhardt: I accomplished mine on the consent agenda.
Scott Botcher: Oh did you, I'm sorry. Oh you did add it Mark, you're right the (1). I'm sorry.
Todd Gerhardt: ...Beth's article in...in your packet.
Councilwoman Jansen: Would now be an okay time for me to ask the law enforcement task force
question of how we proceed with the process? And the timing so that we're on board with when
council's anticipating getting a report. I assumed work session or we assumed work session and that it
would eventually go to public presentation but maybe if we could speak to that a little bit.
Mayor Mancino: Boy, in task forces. Usually we get a report from staff on the task force and the
recommendations.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm asking timing as to.
Mayor Mancino: Well the timing was supposed to be April 26th, but because we didn't really get it going
until May 1st. Well how far along is the task force?
Todd Gerhardt: Tomorrow night to conclude...whatever you next work session is. Get some feedback
from the council and fine tune it after that and then bring it back to a regular city council for public...
Scott Botcher: Do you want to do it on the 1st, or is that pushing it? Todd, I guess you're the gentleman
who will be writing the staff report. Is that asking too much?
Mayor Mancino: That'd be great.
Todd Gerhardt: It will get done tomorrow night.
Councilman Senn: ...if it's going to be a presentation with a recommendation by the task force, I mean.
Mayor Mancino: We can do that at a city council meeting.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it should just come into a city council meeting. It doesn't need to come into a
work session. Because then we're going to take it from there and work with ourselves and go from there
31
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
so I don't see reason for us to sit through two public presentations. One,in a work session and one in a
council meeting. Just put it on the council agenda and bring it in and we'll...
Councilman Engel: That gives you two more weeks.
Scott Botcher: We can do that, fair enough.
Todd Gerhardt: That's fine. Just in the past we usually kind of run things through a work session.
Mayor Mancino: I don't think we did with the Highway 5 task force or those others.
Scott Botcher: I just know how generally you guys like to have them at work sessions first but something
like this, that's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Great.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll put it on for you Council meeting for June...
Scott Botcher: The 14th.
Mayor Mancino: Not for a while. Good. How do I bring up the reconsideration? Roger, if I want to
reconsider an item that came in front of the council last spring. The guys who did, is it Rain or Shine, the
212. The golf course and they had ask, the driving range and they had asked for lights and we had said
no. The Planning Commission said yes. We had said no because we wanted to see if something was
actually really going to happen there and it has. And we said that we would reconsider maybe the lights
if after they got going. So how do we as a council bring that up for reconsideration? What is the formal,
legal way to do that?
Councihnan Senn: Roger, to refresh your memory. It was a 3 to 2 vote and Engel and I were not on the
prevailing side.
Mayor Mancino: And I was on the prevailing side.
Councilman Senn: And Nancy was on the prevailing side and neither Labatt nor Jansen were on the
council. So if that helps frame it for you.
Roger Knutson: I remember the discussion very well.
Mayor Mancino: It was that good ora discussion.
Roger Knutson: No, I didn't remember the vote. I couldn't give you that but I could tell you about the
discussion about night lights and all that. Two terms are used kind of to mean the same thing when
they're really not. Under Robert's Rules of Order, reconsideration must be made at the next meeting
after action is taken. That's what Robert's Rules of Order says. And then even then you can't reconsider
certain items. You can bring it up as a new business item at any time. Under your own housekeeping
rules, you use reconsideration in a broader sense of bring it up again. Not in a parliamentary sense I'll
call it. And this says six months after the initial approval. Any time after six months has elapsed. This
is your own internal by-laws.
32
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Mayor Mancino: So we have to wait for six months?
Roger Knutson: That's what your rules say, yes. It's been more than six months.
Councilman Senn: It's been more than six months.
Roger Knutson: You could bring it up at any time now.
Mayor Mancino: So let's put it on the next agenda. Thank you.
Roger Knutson: I recall in that case they got a CUP wasn't it? It was more than a site plan review. It
was a CUP I believe.
Councilman Senn: I believe you're right.
Scott Botcher: So do you need to hold a hearing and amend that then?
Roger Knutson: Right. I mean you can bring it up for discussion at the council but if you actually
wanted to take action on it, it would have to go back through the process. The process is a CUP
amendment.
Todd Gerhardt: That means they'd have to go to planning commission-and the council.
Roger Knutson: Yes, because they have a CUP right now. My recollection is right on the process.
Todd Gerhardt: ...application to Kate and submit a new site plan.
Councilman Senn: But I thought we left it more open than that. I mean I thought we left it, if they
wanted to come back and talk about that, they could come back and talk about it to council without going
back through the whole process again. Because I thought that was brought up at the time that it wasn't
fair to, you know basically go back and start over through the whole process when all we're really talking
about is a narrow.
Roger Knutson: I'd have to pull the exact, I remember the discussion generally but not specifically as to
exactly how it was left but normally that's how you amend a CUP. But if you left it we will leave this
issue open and bring it back in six months, or a period of time, we pull out those minutes of that meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I'm not sure we were that formal about it. But if you would check, that would
be great.
Councilman Labatt: Is there a way that they can just pull the minutes from that meeting and send it out
in the packet?
Councilman Senn: Well or if they just pull the minutes...
Roger Knutson: That was a winter issue wasn't it, if I remember right.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it was a winter issue.
33
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilman Senn: ...fire chief took kind of a shot at the council I think a couple weeks ago in an article
about pension plan. It's my understanding that that whole issue...squarely, flatly nowhere else other than
the fire department at this point. They were supposed to go back and come back with a bunch of
information for us relating to the pension plan and I mean they, last time they came in and they had
absolutely no details. No information. The guy appeared before us. He said he had the details and we
said go put the whole thing together in detail form so we can understand it and then come back and talk
to us about it and we would continue consideration of it. And at least that was my memory of it and I
could be wrong.
Scott Botcher: And other council members have said the same thing and it's one of the things that Todd
and I have on our joint list to get to the bottom of.
Councilman Senn: And we had asked, I even remember specifically at the time that we asked to get
somebody involved that, from the other end who is not directly a participant or involved...help evaluate
it for us.
Scott Botcher: Right. In fact after this meeting I'm walking across the parking lot to meet with the fire
officers. Why don't I just ask them over there and see what's up.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions on administrative section? I think that's it.
Councilwoman Jansen: I have one other thing, going back to the council presentation. I guess that
segment of the meeting. But in regards to the Park and Rec Commission meeting minutes. I'm sorry. In
the minutes of April 27th there was a great deal of conversation about the skate park and the youth
resident that has now been on and off our agenda twice as far as presenting a petition. This is the most
information that I've read on what that's going to encompass but he apparently has solicited signatures
from both residents and business owners and he's created a financial plan and a fund raising plan for the
skate park. So when I read that it took me back to our February 22nd City Council minutes to, it seemed a
little out of sync with what we had requested as a council and where it's now going to come from as far
as some of the answers to our questions. February 22nd, reading through those minutes, there was no
opposition from any of the council members to there being this skate park proposal. Everyone seemed to
more so be saying the when's and how does it fit into the total. And comment was made by Councilman
Engel that it go back to the commission or the committee to come up with a budget and a plan. Mr.
Labatt asked a question. Councilman Senn thought it needed to get kicked back and go into the other
priorities. My questions had to do with how big a project are we talking about as far as the funding for it
with the whole drive. The maintenance and Mayor Mancino you were pretty much on the same wave
length as far as where does it fit within the total and are we going to be soliciting the community for
additional funds on other projects. I guess where I'm going with this is, what are we all thinking is going
to be the next step because I was anticipating that we might be getting some of the answers to these
questions versus the community maybe now thinking that we are opposed to a skate park to the point that
they would be coming in with this petition and this gentleman asked, how many people could be
accommodated in the council chambers so ! mean they're looking at bringing in, as Mr. Hoffman worded
it. He said this is the biggest grass roots initiative that we've seen in quite some time. Well I would hate
to have this gentleman come in thinking that we now really need to be railroaded into this project simply
to turn him back over to the parks and rec commission to say well no. We asked several questions on
February 22nd that went back to parks and rec.
Mayor Mancino: And we haven't gotten any answers.
34
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: Exactly. I think we need, and I wanted to make sure total council was on the
same page that we're looking for what is that plan? How much is it? How are we proceeding? I don't
think we were anticipating that we'd be forming the committee yet but maybe getting the feedback from
the commission as to.
Mayor Mancino: How to go about and how they saw structuring it, yeah. Yeah, no that's true.
Councilman Senn: The only thing we got back from Todd informal comments a couple weeks ago saying
that you know...undertake a private fund raising deal and it came out beyond what the council allocated.
Mayor Mancino: Which we were talking about when we were having, talking about the strategic plan.
That we had budgeted $15,000.00 and then maybe he saw it being somewhere between maybe 50 and 80
and there'd be private donations. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: ...but then we said let's go create a plan. I mean nobody has come back to us at that
point and stuff. I mean the framework that we provided up front at budget time was here's what the
council and the city is allocating. Now come up with a plan and tell us.
Mayor Mancino: And what Linda is saying is we have not seen that plan and yeah, and instead of some
group coming.
Scott Botcher: Can I have that gentleman's name and contact, address, phone number? Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: I thought Todd had a concept plan that he put together.
Mayor Mancino: And maybe that would be something that would be very important to put on tomorrow
night's talk with Todd to have the commission talk about that.
Todd Gerhardt: I know he had a preliminary budget and I thought he had a concept plan for how it
would lay out.
Councilwoman Jansen: And if it's going to be staged based on donations. You know what's the ultimate
build and what are the stages then if we don't get all the funding.
Todd Gerhardt: ...at that point. It's easy to do that with playground equipment but skate park, the
boards.., look for the input of the kids that use it on what would be your first priority. What would you
do second? Do you want bars or do you want...
Councilwoman Jansen: So that's more the committee that comes up with that detail?
Todd Gerhardt: I would think so. Because I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Because they're the users.
Scott Botcher: And they're all preparing for the X Games right now so, give them some time.
Todd Gerhardt: The City of Plymouth has a parent over there that invested a lot of money into the skate
ramps and Todd's talked to them about trying to buy those like 10 cents on the dollar.
35
City Council Meeting - May 24, 1999
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because they went bust.
Mayor Mancino: So, just so we get this right. So next steps really should be that the park and rec
commission is going to put together a plan and have us, come to us with that before we get everyone
involved in doing a raising of money and everything else.
Councilman Senn: But again trying to do within what we set as the financial framework.
Scott Botcher: I think part of Linda's concern is just maybe the public perception as much as anything
else. I think you're, that's an extremely good point. That's true.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks.
Scott Botcher: As long as you've got the guy's name and number, we'll be alright.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anything else? Everybody have a good Memorial weekend. See you on the
first.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
36
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Matt
Burton and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchoff,
Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1%490 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS
CENTER 3RD ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK~
AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE WEST~ DOVER BUILDING~ D. GREG SHEPHARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Radloff Architect
Bob Beduhn 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North
Kris Dahl 1774 Valley Ridge Trail North
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Where's the applicant at related to the berm versus the additional coverage? Do you
know where they're at or not by chance?
Kirchoff: No, I'm not aware of that.
Peterson: Any other questions of staff?.
Kind: Are the dormer windows functional or are they just for looks?
Kirchoff: I believe that the applicant can answer that question.
Kind: Okay. And do you think that the trash shelter area could be moved so that it's not along
the residential side?
Planning Commission Meeting- May 19, 1999
Kirchoff: They could move it in front of the building orto the north but they mayhave a
problem with the second phase going in. It would have to be redesigned .to be on the north.
the Planning Commission wishes that.
Kind: Do you think that the way it's designedis sufficient enough for the amount of trash th~
an office building would generate? I'm thinking compared to like Abra where it seems like
overflow their trash area.
Aanenson: Because it's not, a warehouse, I think the offi,c.e type use, it probablyis. What we'~e
done in the past when there stwo buildings like that, we ye sometimes done combined and
can maybe look at that possibility too. On anticipating a future expansion that we maybeput
something in place that would work for both buildings. We've looked at thatbefore too.
Examined that.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First of all, we've got a hard surface coverage
of about 26% right now with the first building. If we put a second buiiding in, can we assume~
that it will be about 52% or is that simplistic? Where are we going to be atwith the second
building?
Kirchoff: We can make that assumption. They did provide a sketch ofwhat the Phase II wou~
look like on the lot. It would probably be a little greater than that. You have anadditional
parking area to the east of the secondphase. .
Blackowiak: It's still well within the 70%.
Kirchoff: It would have to be, yes.
Blackow~ak: Okay.
Aanenson: Well, letme correct that. '.Actually inthe PUD you can over on onelot as longas_
entire PUDbalances. That's partofthereading of thePUD. Because the_ ~t_.h;er Service an{:
some of those other users have additional green space.' If this onegoes over, we re just runninl~a~
balance on the entire piece.
Blackowiak: Second question. Interiorparking. Iseem to remember somethingwith thepost~-
office, the interior parking. If it was-conditions tha~ were plae, ed onthe Post Oftice'and I .don'{' ~
know if itwas Fire Marshal conditions or whatever but tdidn t see it addressed at allin this.
Was there something or can you help mewith?
Aanenson: They have parking forthe mail vehicles. Building code issues.
Blackowiak: Okay, so I mean do we need to address that or.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: We can just double check and make sure he's looked at that.
Kirchoff: The building official did review the plans and he didn't have any comments on the
interior parking. Except that they.
Blackowiak: Okay. Some reason I thought there was something about that and I couldn't
remember what it was. Okay, and then finally it talks about the mix of the building area, 20%
office, 25% industrial, 55% warehouse. Where are we now and what changes are we going to
have to make?
Kirchoff: We're very limited in the additional space for office. There are two parcels left in this
PUD and when a second one, or when the next one comes in rather, we may have to amend the
PUD to shift, allocate space for manufacturing or warehouse to the office allocated space. But
this application is fine. They won't be affected by that amendment.
Blackowiak: So you're comfortable with making shifts in the future to meet any needs? Okay.
That's it, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee like to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Charles Radloff: Good evening. My name is Charles Radloff. I'm the architect for this project.
One, I'd like to commend the staff. We've had a very excellent working relationship and they've
been real straight forward to deal with in terms of what was necessary. When it was due and it
was quite clear and from that standpoint I would say that we agree with the staff report. We find
very little things to comment on. We have a couple minor items that we can discuss shortly but
first I guess I'd like to talk a little bit about how the project came to be. Greg Shephard is present
here and he has his own company. He's been on a search for several years to find a site or an
office building or an office for his company and has looked around and looked around and ended
up down this dead end road of an industrial park that is fairly typical industrial park and saw this
magnificent site and view and vista and said gee, I know this is an industrial lot and it could have
variety of occupancies but as an office building it would be just a wonderful place to have my
office. And he could see that his office would be located in this area. He had no idea at that
point what the building might look like but he knew that's where he wanted his office and he got
in contact with me through a mutual friend and we started talking about it and walking around
the site and spending some time there and thought that what would be most compatible with the
property, adjacent property, the trails and the uses was to try to build a large scale house.
Residential character is the way we worked at it. And this residential character would be an
attempt to be compatible with the neighbors and the people using the trail so that the obvious
solution whenever a client comes in and gives you an assignment, you always do an obvious
solution and that's to put offices up by the entrance of the drive and then put warehouses or
docks in the back and then you put up some screening to block the stuff from the, from whatever
adjacent property requirements you have. Industrial it's not a big deal but in this case here's this
magnificent parkland out there and it seemed to me that you'd just do it just the opposite. You
take your building and make it a part of the landform. And there was a large, I call it a stockpile
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
of dirt there that is about, the top of that pile is about where the eave of the new building would
be and then it'd have a pitched roof on top of that. We talked a lot about how we make a
building compatible with residential character and we don't want a bunch of rooftop units. Even
if they're screened they end up looking like boxes with boxes around them and so on and how do
you do that and still keep a pitched roof. So your question of the dormers was a proposal that
said in some manner we need to vent the rooftop equipment in some manner. We're going to use
a much smaller scale furnace on the inside of the project. In the 16,000 square feet we're
probably have 10 to 12 individual units which will then need to have some smoke stacks and
some air vents and things like that. So the idea would be that we started with some dormers.
We've been working with the mechanical contractors in terms of how you would actually pull
this together. We think that another solution might be to pull them altogether and put some
fireplace type smoke stacks up there with the intent is to keep a nice, clean low profile roof plan
there. The building, as is mentioned in the report, kind of takes the place of the berm as it gets
down the way from the east property line. We're preserving the berm on the east end of the site
and the building then sits low and takes the place of the berm as it wraps around. The planting
that you see here is at this point a dogwood hedge...privacy and barrier from the pedestrians that
go there, but not a sense of visual screening to the village because this trail is quite low as it goes
past the building so as you look up you'll look into the dogwood and it will shield the building
from, and the pedestrians from the building at that point. We had a discussion with the
neighborhood group in terms of visibility and how this project will impact the various houses. I
had our surveyor go out and locate these existing houses as they related to the site. The closest
house here is 265 feet from the building. I think the only, I think the impact of the neighborhood
meeting, and I know we have several neighbors here, was that they were concerned that my
sketches showed a real, bright green roof and we didn't have our material board with us and our
intent is, it's a gray green. In fact we were in a position where we said, you know when we get to
pick that color we can get the neighbors back together and make sure that we're all in a
reasonable agreement over colors and materials. Materials of the building will be an asphalt
shingled roof. We've vacillated between a standing seam metal roof, which implies a you know,
we're looking for a Class A building and that seemed like it was a solution but it didn't seem
very residential to me. It seemed like it would be shiny and have some glare and it wouldn't be a
friendly neighbor. And so we thought a high quality asphalt shingle. Below the building itself, if
I can get these two together here... The building, this is a view from the entry and the parking lot
side but what it says here is that on the building we have a band of windows. Below the
windows we have a decorative rock face block but to accent that we put a stone sill in at the
window. We have a dark green, not a shiny, bright green but a dark, forest green window frame
with the tinted green glass. Not a reflective... The trim colors and the roof colors will be along
these lines and it might be a little grayer in color as we go so that the dimension from the ground
to the bottom would be 8 feet. We've tried to keep this whole thing just nestled in and tucked to
the ground so that it has a feeling of being just part of the site. And I go out there all the time.
The other day, I was out there yesterday and I drove a big stake in with a red flag and that stake
and flag represents that comer of the building as you come down to...walk around the trail and
saw it, that's where the building starts and angles to the west. One of the other benefits I guess
from locating the building there other than from my owners standpoint of picking this site for the
same reason the neighbors picked their housing site there is the fantastic vista. Is that it then
provides a screen to anything that happens on the site from now on. They asked us about a Phase
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
II. We can show them how a Phase II could work but anything that happens on a Phase II is now
totally blocked and the edge of this site is now fixed in relationship to the neighbors. And so if
we can work out any problems that they might see in terms of views or vistas, we'll have it
solved and it will be done and there will be no open ended Phase II that we have to renegotiate
and stuff like that. This proposal will kind of put this edge of the site to bed. I know that we
have a neighbor here who expressed some concern over a view and some areas and from where
we're coming from, we're very willing to work with the people who are adjacent to the property
to make sure that all the views and vistas and conditions are met. It's an easy enough thing to
move the trash container either farther forward or over or behind the berm. The berm that exists
is here. It will stay there. It's 8 feet high and our trash container is like 6 foot 6 and I can move
it and tuck the berm around behind it so that you'll just see dirt from the back. That's not really
too difficult and I think that staff and we could work that out. If they felt they really wanted to
move it over to the other side of the property, that could be done also. I have some, it's easier to
access it here because on the other side is where I put the underground parking so that those
garage doors and stuff were as far and as shielded from the house as is possible. To get to the
underground parking you drive down this driveway here. The next phase would come here. It
would be stuck between them. Still not even...from the trailway so I guess I would argue that we
wouldn't want to put it here because here's...and I think we can shield it very nicely on the side
of the property where it's at and put in a couple of more conifers and we'll be in good shape. I
think the other thing in terms of trying to communicate with the neighborhood group and the
planning commission to where we're coming from. We're building a Class A office building
here. My client is taking some risk in terms of putting a building at the end of a cul-de-sac but
he's convinced that when people see the site and the magnificent character and it's relationship to
trails, that they will come and be part of his project. The hours of operation for example on this
office building will be normal daytime. There'd be no night time operations here. Maybe
somebody stays late at night. If there's an architect in there, they might be around a little bit later
but. Weekends and, so again I think an office building is always to me then one of the most
compatible residential relationships in it's operating hours. It's low density. It's low traffic
volumes. And no tracks. I mean the only tracks we're going to get is when a guy moves in and
out and once a week the trash guy comes and everybody has that. The only other comment is that
we have one, this is a section through the site with this house being the last house on the sight
line. Down in the comer and a cross section from my surveyor and in terms of the contours and
the grade so that the back yard of this house is at 909 and the elevation of our building is like at
927 at the top of the berm. This grouping of trees exists there and provides most of the screening
between the houses and the building. Comment on, staff's comment in terms of adding a screen
hedge. I believe that, we call it sumac here but we upped the quality of the shrubbery to
dogwood. A plant that greens out earlier and... That gives us a nice screening effect from the
trail. It doesn't do much in terms of screening from this particular back yard and I do have a
picture of the worse condition that I guess I could imagine and it would be what you would see
from the back yard of this house in a January day of 5 below zero. But this is a kind of, if you
can zoom in on it. This is taken from the comer of the house. Superimposed over a graphic
image of the building and the colors are slightly off on both of them because it was such a dreary
day and then, but you get an impact of this is where the berm. This is the top of the berm right
along here. This is where the berm ends and that's right about...so even on the worse possible
day when the screening is at it's minimal, there's certainly a considerable amount of texture and
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
screening that is provided by the existing trees. And we have pictures of what it looks like today
and it's just dense foliage. I went and stood where the building was and took a series of
photographs and I can show them to you but you know what they look, it's just solid green trees.
You can't see a house from this side so I guess that, I think that that pretty well, unless you want
to get farther into detail in terms of how the building is put together, is where we're at and where
we're coming from on this thing.
Peterson: Pass around the original talking board, the picture, the first one you laid down. I think
it'd be helpful to see the building in this color rendition. Just as an FYI, I think it'd be valuable
as you go to council, in their package to give them a color. Spend a dollar or $5.00 to give them a
color rendering. It brings dimension to it and a lot easier to look at.
Charles Radloff: Yeah, and I'm real proud of it...
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant while we're passing this around?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I was thinking about, well I would like to compliment you on a
very good job of presenting the views and describing the building and how it impacts the
residential area. I was thinking it might be beneficial if you kind of show where your proposed
lighting is and how that is relative to the building height and what the neighbors might see.
Charles Radloff: Sure can. Whenever I approach one of these projects I contract my lighting
engineer to make sure we have a lumin plan. Some cities are insistent that the plan exists and it
just makes sense because there's almost always an ordinance...and I believe this plan is in your
packet somewhere. But to explain it... What we did is we lit the parking lot with the three posts
with two lights of standard shoebox down light at 20 feet high. These light fixtures should be
from the trail, from the houses across the way, it shouldn't be visible at this point. Maybe from
the third story you might be able to see the light fixture but at that point you certainly won't see
any glare because they're turned down lights completely. We put in, and I know the ordinance
says it's got to have a 90 degree cut off but we also put in, we put in a couple of lights and these
may end up going to phase two. At this point we've...some street lights for character and these
lights would be. These would be an architectural light that looks something like that and so that
in essence they don't send out a long distance light and they're more like a little walkway street
lamp and they'd be like 8 feet high. And again, because the berm is 8 feet high here, the top of
this light is lower... Now the owner is concerned about security and...office building and how
you handle that kind of security so we have some, we're going to propose down lights in this
overhang. Down lights will be there and it will be activated by a security motion sensor so they
won't be on. We're not going to light the building up at night and make some sort of glowing
image out of this thing but we're going to have these lights under the soffit so that if somebody's
up and trying to, we can see back in here because it's back behind the trail and we can drive our
truck down the trail and...these lights will all come on all around the building and down light.
And he tried to talk the neighbors into saying, if the lights go on, call 911. But I'm sure it would
be connected to a security system at that point. But that is in general the lights. We have one
wall pack type light and that's down below over the...
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second
please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name's Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in
Chanhassen. I'm one of the neighbors adjacent to this project. And I'd like to just point out a
couple concerns in general. I'm not opposed to the project but I had a couple concerns and this
gentleman did address a couple but if I could use one of these drawings. This is my house
located right here. And my concern is if you look at the sight line of the house, I point right into
this comer where one of the planning commission members talked about trash enclosed with a
berm and landscaping. My one concern is that this plan is not highly accurate with the pictures
and the landscaping. There's a gap in the trees right here and this gentleman did provide me a
photo of that document. That is the case and so my main level, my house sits level,
approximately level with the top of the berm. And so my main level of my home I look directly
inside the building and my concern is if there is no screening in this location, there's definite
gaps, it's interesting to hear about this ordinance that requires the berm to be there. I don't know
that myself and my neighbors, I wasn't aware that, I was always told that this was just a stockpile
of dirt. Not that there was a berm requirement...and so that was very, that was interesting for me
to know and I guess my comments...today with the owner was that, I'd like to see somehow that
this berm either can continue down or landscaping treatments be continued down so that I would
have some screening. Right now I have none...this plan is laid out. And so that's my, I guess
that's mine and my wife's concern is the trash receptacle. Our elevation of our house looks at the
site and that...from my personal residence. And so that's my main concern there. I don't have
control of the property on top right here. This is one of my neighbors.., or anything like that.
That's not my property there to do that with. The other concern I had is his comment about the
post at the 20 foot elevation. I'm not sure what the elevation of the parking lot is. Again, with
my house sitting high and pointed right into the site, you know I know these downward lights
don't project much light but I am kind of concerned about how that ties in with my residence.
The lower homes probably wouldn't see those posts because they'll be blocked by the building.
But those are really my main two concerns as far as the site that I'd like to see addressed. So
thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kris Dahl: My name is Kris Dahl. I live probably way up here further from the development
area. I kind of look at the trail and I think it's designated a wildlife sanctuary trail. And with this
type of development being built, looking down on, you would kind of consider it a wildlife area.
You destroy any aesthetic value that the trail has in that area. That was number one. I'll agree
with Bob that his house would be starting at that corner of the developed area. The thing is that
the berm is probably set there for a reason and so that people that use the trail do not have a
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
building looking down upon them as they're biking or jogging. I'm pro development. I'm all for
it. I work for a CPA firm. I'm a CPA and if you look at the development that happened just
before it, you've got the wooded fence line that was supposedly supposed to be hidden by trees.
The city was supposed to plant trees to prevent people from seeing this kind of eye sore there
going down. That's never been taken care of. Hopefully that someday someone will take care of
that issue. I can't, I think it's a very beautiful building. Where it's going to be built, that's the
only problem that I consider this a scenic area for future people to use and we should keep
residential separate from commercial but that is kind of residential and kind of wilderness. So all
I'd like to say is that I hope that the City of Chanhassen, the planning council values this natural
habitat and it's integral part of the city and will determine the best use of our scarce resource in
that area. They can only improve the value of houses within Chanhassen if we leave areas open
for people to use rather than keep building buildings on buildings. I moved out to this area. I
moved to this area to avoid the houses right next to each other and corporate America. So that's
the only issue I'd like to state. Oh, there was one other issue. Drainage. I don't know if the
developer knows but that's all clay there. And right now the water is drained through and into
the wildlife, kind of sanctuary park. I think State law requires that it should be drained into a
holding pond and I don't see any plans for where that drainage is going to go. I know that the
post office had problems with the clay and hopefully the developer knows about that. Everybody
knows that clay just holds water. It doesn't go away. And I think that's an issue that needs to be
looked into. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to close the public hearing?
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Any thoughts? Comments? Additional questions?
Burton: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Engineering on the drainage issue. Can you...?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This property is located in a subdivision
that has prepared a comprehensive storm water management plan for all the lots of the
subdivision. Majority of the runoff from the sites will be conveyed through existing storm sewer
system in Lake Drive West which conveys the storm water runoff to a regional storm water pond
located north of Lake Drive West, just south of the railroad tracks. To pre-treat the runoff from
the parking lot, part of the building prior to discharging downstream into wetlands.
Peterson: Thank you. Kate, could you spend just a couple minutes regarding the residents
comments this evening on the foliage between the house, his house and the building and what
really our buffer regulation is and who it affects and how close you have to be, etc., etc.
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to and if it's okay I'd like to also address the
issue regarding the wildlife and the EAW that was done on this project. Maybe I'I1 just start with
that and then move forward. When this project came in in the mid 1990's, the city did require an
environmental assessment document. As a part of that document the city purchased Outlot A.
The reason being, we felt that was an area that was a wildlife corridor that we felt was a good
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
connection with the ravine to tie into the railroad truss to make a connection. We also put the
trail in there specifically for the business park. It's very similar to what we have around Lake
Susan which is very popular with the residential on one side and Rosemount on the other. If you
go there on your lunch hour, a lot of the employees go out and walk which is a big benefit so it's
serving not only the people that are in that park but it's also serving the residents, which is a
wonderful experience for both parties. We did, as I indicated, and Dave also stated, put together
a master plan for this entire project. It was always intended that this be a buildable lot. We
accomplished preservation of open space with the Outlot A, which is that large area just
immediately to the west. As a part of this PUD we did require additional setbacks from Audubon
and from the neighbors to the south so there already is a 100 foot setback and that was kind of
the buffer. It's been called a berm. It's been called a buffer. There was some stockpiling done
on this site, but the intent is, there is a lot of different things that come in here. Could come into
this property. We felt the office space and some of the other things that's happened along the
south side was really a good use. We had an architect that was willing to listen and do some
interesting and we think it's a very nice looking building. Fits in well. Residential in character
so we felt it was a win/win. We could move the trash. I think the applicant's recommendation or
proposal to landscape it is a good one. To screen that. We could move it. Cindy and I were just
looking at it between the two buildings where the garage doors are. I'm not sure, again you could
bury it there if there's room to back up and make the movements but we certainly will look at
that. I'm sure the applicant again could put some additional screening. Again, no matter what
use goes in there, we looked at this with the EA. We're going to have lighting as some of those
issues but I'm certain if there's a tree or two that we need to place in there, the first gentleman
that spoke is a significant ways away from the property. Through his concern though, he can't
put trees to block. Maybe he could on the edge of his property but he's, I'm assuming over 3,.4,
maybe even 500 feet from the subject site. But we can certainly look and it sounds like he's
willing to do that if we leave the dumpster where it is to screen that. But we certainly can look at
putting it between the buildings at the end of where they turn into the underground parking and
maybe do a combined one there. Just to make sure we've got back-up would be an issue for the
trash. The other thing with this type of use as compared to an office, you have significant less
amount of pick up for, as they indicated, deliveries. There's not going to be as much trash being
generated so you're not having that same volume of delivery trucks and waste from the building.
So again that's another positive. I think that answers the questions.
Peterson: All right, other questions or comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for staff. I was looking through the PUD
standards and one of them was to have an interior recycling space and the finding is that they met
all the requirements and so does that mean there is that space in there?
Aanenson: Yeah, they have to provide, yes. Paper, cardboard, correct.
Kind: I have one other question. How was this area zoned when that residential neighborhood
was built?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: It was always zoned industrial but when it came in we did the PUD for those specific
reasons. We wanted to balance the impervious surface and then put some other,~ the PUD also
provided for some additional architectural standards and then actually we went forward with the
trail and the acquisition of that park property are some of the other reasons. We got a benefit by
getting the acquisition. Worked to negotiate a good price on that lot. Everybody, all the
residents and so we got something and the developer got something.
Kind: So when the residents bought their homes and did their due diligence and went up to the
city to check out what it was going to be zoned behind them, it was industrial?
Peterson: Anything else?
Conrad: Just a comment Mr. Chairman. I have nothing to add to the staff report. This is as good
as it gets. Compliment to the architect. It's good stuff. And there are some things that maybe
staff can look at but I wouldn't even include them in a motion. This is very good so ifI were a
neighbor, this is better than a house. That's all.
Peterson: I agree. It's an exceptional job of integrating the concerns of the neighborhood.
Interesting office building so is there a motion?
Burton: Well Mr. Chairman, to keep things moving here, I'll move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as
shown on the plans dated received April 16, 1999 and subject to conditions 1 through 14.
Conrad: I second that.
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as shown on the plans dated
received April 16, 1999, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the eight foot decorative light fixtures meet the 90
degree cut-off as required by ordinance.
2. The lighting plan shall show all existing light fixtures that may impact the site.
3. The sign plan must be revised to delete the external illumination for the monument sign.
4. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view.
o
Staff and the applicant shall work together in resolving the following storm sewer
modifications:
a. Extend a catch basin southerly along the west curb line to the northeasterly comer of the
parking lot.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
0
10.
11.
b. Redesign the storm sewer system from the underground garage drive aisle to the west.
Include a 3 foot sump catch basin with catch basin No. 4.
c. Erosion control fencing (Type I) will be required after the storm sewer has been
installed west of the building.
The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in lieu of the 6 to 8 foot high earth berm
along the southerly portion of the building to provide screening/buffering from the
neighbors in Bluff Creek Estates.
The applicant will need to supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
The applicant will need to apply for and obtain a grading permit through the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. All areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket
or sod within two weeks of completion of grading activities in accordance with the City
Best Management Practice Handbook. All slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with
erosion control blanket. The city's boulevard area along Lake Drive West shall be sodded.
The applicant shall escrow with the city $2,500 to guarantee boulevard restoration and
installation of the driveway apron.
Plumbing permits will be required by the City's Building Department for extension of the
utilities through the site.
The Building Official requires that with 74 parking spaces provided, 3 must be handicapped
accessible. One must be located in the parking garage.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. The owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy premise
identification. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
b0
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 Uniform Fire Code.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
e. Submit size of address numbers to be included on monument sign to Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
go
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
Copy enclosed.
13. All signage shall require a separate permit. A monument sign shall be limited to eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area and eight (8) feet in height.
14. The applicant shall pay two-thirds of the park fees at the time of building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Bob Beduhn: Can I ask a question? I'm not sure now. Did you say that, ask them to address
that trash thing...make it a part of the motion.
Peterson: Staffwill, again what our intent was is that staffwill work with the applicant to create
either screening and/or move it as an option. That's our desire.
Bob Beduhn: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO 19~632 SQ. FT. OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2~ BLOCK 1~
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED
IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO.
RD. 17~ SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD
TRACKS ON LAKE DRIVE WEST~ MONK PROPERTIES BUILDING~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions ofstaff.
Conrad: Sure. Page 7 Sharmin. Explain the needs for the Stockdale parcel to me. Show me if
you could what the easement would be...
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Hempel: Here's Audubon Road. Proposed Lake Drive West. Subject parcel. The Stockdale
parcel is directly north. It currently has an existing...at some future point it might have
development potential and...minimize the curb cuts for the... I'm sorry, this location.
Conrad: So it's not, it's a primary access?
Hempel: Equally.
Conrad: You just need two to choose from. Based on what might come in.
Aanenson: Exactly, future options.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Dave. Sharmin I'm just, this is in general. On landscaping stuff. As I
read the grid I get confused. I was confused on the first one but I came in late so I didn't ask any
questions on that. But now I'm here on time so when I see the grid on required and on proposed,
and I see 27 overstory required and 12 overstory proposed and 41 understory. How do you
balance those? Is it an absolute? And I didn't go back to the ordinance but if it's 27 overstory
and 12 proposed, does that obviously mean in your mind that they're deficient?
AI-Jaff: We've often allowed the City Forester to work with the applicant on this issue as long
as the final numbers balance out.
Conrad: Okay. So we get 53 trees versus the required 27 and we're kind of just saying, you guys
know what you're doing in terms of.
Aanenson: This is the requirement for replacement and a certain amount of canopy coverage.
What the Forester does in looking at these plans and trying to give some balance to the site is to
say, instead of the 27 overstory. It may be too compact. It may not work. That to compensate
that you go with the understory or the smaller trees because if you put all the overstory, they're
going to over kill, okay. So what we're looking at is what's the best planting to give us what
we're trying to accomplish.
Conrad: So it's not an absolute. It's...
Aanenson: Right, because some sites, we had the discussion on the Northcott where the
neighbors wanted more intensity along that Lake Drive but we said if we put them that tight,
they're not going to survive. So it's the balance of what's the right species and the type and so
that's what Jill goes through. You're right, it does seem confusing the way we've laid it out.
Conrad: I've got it now. Or I understand. When it says in parens, shown 75% of total. What
does that mean? And it's on 3, what is it saying? In the grid on page 8 and it was in the previous
staff report I think. Audubon Road, buffer yard B. Shown, 75% of total. What does that mean?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
A1-Jaff: You include the width of the buffer yard. Then in addition to that, depending on...so
they need to provide 75% of the total required by ordinance which is 14 trees. 75% of 14. Does
that make sense?
Conrad: No, but I don't want to, because it comes, is that your call or is that the ordinance call?
A1-Jaff.' That's the ordinance call.
Aanenson: Remember what we did on the buffer yard, just to refresh everybody's memory. We
went back and we said you can reduce the amount of landscaping if you increase the separation.
We came up with an A, B, C, D, E. That Chinese menu. And so you can have the B which says
within B now, depending on the width of that, you have certain number of trees. So we went
through and calculated are they meeting what's required under B?
Conrad: Okay. And the previous applicant in there, in the parking lot they needed a canopy
coverage of 2,708 feet and they came in exactly on that. Is that possible to come in exactly on
that?
Aanenson: Yeah. Some applicants it's easier depending on the type of use. To get the landscape
islands. And they've got a lot of buffer already around them so it works.
Conrad: It's just an amazing number to hit it on the nose. That's it, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Well I've got a question I guess. I should have asked it maybe again with the last
too but one of the recommendations, one of the conditions of the previous applicant was 2/3 of
the park and trail fee at time of building permit. And that's the first time I've seen a specific like
that. I usually see full park and trail dedication fees as is written in this recommendation.
What's the difference?
Aanenson: I'll let Dave answer that.
Hempel:
that time.
issuance.
At time of final platting the city requires 1/3 of the park and trail fees be collected at
So the remaining 2/3 of the fees would be collected at time of building permit
Blackowiak: Okay, so then what, then tonight or for this item at the time this gets platted they
put a third down and you're just not writing that?
Hempel: That's goes with the final platting on the property. For a site plan review it'd be the 2/3
of the park and trail fees would be collected then.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: You guys make it difficult don't you. Did you make that decision or who did?
Aanenson: The reason we did that is we used to defer it until we got building permit so
sometimes we incurred a lot of cost so what we did is we said at the time that the subdivision,
when you're subdividing the property we get it. And then when they pull the permit, we'll
collect the rest. It just covers a lot more cost that way.
Peterson: Got it. Other questions?
Kind: I have a question about the park that's on the, let's see it would be the southeast side along
the new Lake Drive. Will there be extra buffering at that park? Between the road and this
industrial park.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that one .... Lake Drive West public improvement
project, we will be planting some boulevard trees in the boulevard but no berming to speak of.
And the tree spacing is typically 20 to 30 feet...
Kind: The question obviously safety of children and I'm not a big fence person so, would you
address that a little bit? What do you think about that?
Hempel: There is a proposal for a parking lot, a small parking lot to service that park as well but.
Kind: It would be on that side so maybe be a buffer.
Hempel: ...park plan for that area.
Kind: I just noticed looking at the site from Audubon because it's hard to, the park's way down
there. I realized that that will be on the road when that does go through. Right now it's kind of a
cozy little neighborhood park you access between houses or something. They're going to have a
little surprise when this all comes in.
Aanenson: But with the grade I don't believe you can access it. You won't be able to from Lake
Drive.
Hempel: There's going to be a trail.
Kind: Lake Drive will be offofthat park quite a bit? Is that what you're saying?
Aanenson: ...with the grade though, it drops off. What's the change in grade Dave?
Hempel: There's a 22 foot wide boulevard between the curb and the property line where the
parkland would start. Then I'm not sure where the park activities, how far that is from the
property line. Looking for a park plan...
Aanenson: I see an Arbor Day project.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Blackowiak: Our troop did that, excuse me. Our Girl Scout troop cleaned that park. It's actually
very far south.
Kind: But the road's not there yet.
Blackowiak: No, I know but it's very, the playground equipment itself is, the park kind of dips
to the south and the playground equipment is in kind of in that dip.
Kind: How do you know where the road's going to be Alison?
Blackowiak: Well...
Kind: Because it looks like it's dips to me.
Blackowiak: ...I don't think it will be that close.
Aanenson: No, it won't be that close. There is, I certainly can look at doing additional plantings.
The city can.
Burton: Mr. Chairman ! have one more question. When I look at the grading, drainage and
erosion control plan on the front and right, it looks like they're talking about the edges of wetland
and wetland basin and I see wetland all over this, but I don't see any discussion of it in the report.
I'm just wondering, are there any wetland issues here that we should be concerned about? Or am
I missing them if they were address. I don't know.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I think that's all been addressed with the preliminary plat and then a
final plat which will be coming up shortly.
Peterson: Was it ever mitigated to increasing the one in the center and a couple other ones were
moving.
Burton: Right, I just...this parcel I guess they're all tied together.
Aanenson: Right. One of the other lots does provide a wetland...
Burton: Okay.
Peterson: Seeing no more questions, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If so, please come forward.
Mark Undestad: Hello. I'm Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. I really don't have a lot to add
here. If there's questions on what we're doing again here, I'd be happy to answer those.
Peterson: You guys move fast I'll give you that.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Mark Undestad: We try. The rain doesn't help but.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. One of the conditions of approval,
recommendations is that the north parking is deleted from these buildings. Are you comfortable
with that?
Mark Undestad: Yes.
Blackowiak: So you're not going to come back next year or something and say you really, really
need more parking please?
Mark Undestad: No. We have more than enough parking on there now and that was just shown
as future if they needed a proof of parking but we're not adding onto the building. We're not
changing anything on there so we're fine with that.
Blackowiak: You're okay with that, good. Okay. That was my question.
Peterson: Okay. I guess I only have one comment. As you probably or may have heard me share
with the previous applicant. I think it's important to spend a little bit of extra time, particularly
going to council, I think if you colorize the renderings, it makes a huge difference. They get a
feel for the building and the textures and I'd highly recommend doing that. All right, thank you.
This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please?
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward.
Stuart Brown: Well I'm here just to check out the process and I have absolutely, I'm just a
neighbor on the, I know exactly where the park is and I could answer all those questions. I just
think, I have generic, a couple generic questions. And I want to know...but the other people you
know with the thing down by the post office there they talked about these meetings with the
neighbors. Have there been meetings with neighbors already? Are there going to be? Should
there be or you know, they talk about we addressed some of the neighbors concerns and etc. Is
this the place where the neighbors should be now tonight or is there some other meeting we
should be having with Eden Trace that, or...answer yes to all of that but. I don't have specific
concerns. I just happened to be, I love the little private park right now, but I've known since the
day I moved in 10 years ago that, how it was zoned so this is not like, oh my god, what's
happening to my park. So I can't, but it's just nice, that's why I'm here just to learn but I guess it
sounds like there's no berming. I always envisioned there'd be some little thing to the road but it
sounds like the park will just go right to the curb and maybe that's, if that's what ordinance says.
If that's not bad, or you know wrong, then that's just fine. And then park and the playground
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
equipment is pretty far from where I know the road's going to go. You know I mean there's a
ballfield, baseball field and I should probably be at the park plan meeting to answer some of
these because I don't know where cars are going to park to get to that baseball field back there.
Right now it's like your own private baseball field but you know left field and stuff will go up
against this road and I don't know what the plans for all that is but that's actually well beyond
your concern now bec.ause you're the first lot in and I'll save those comments I guess when you
move further into the development there. So ! don't have any real specific questions other than is
this the one and only time for neighbors to come and ask questions? And if so, obviously not a
lot of people...
Peterson: To answer your question I think, many times a developer will call a meeting prior to
coming to the commission meeting...I think they laid out the lots and how they were going to
position them and so there's an opportunity there for residents to share their respected opinions,
as is tonight. As is during the council session in a couple weeks. So there's a myriad of
opportunities. Quite often, unless you read the paper and look around, you do often miss
unfortunately.
Stuart Brown: This one I got a letter at home so it was right in my face but that was great. Okay,
I don't have any specific questions beyond that. I think this is off the trail and the first lot in and
I'm just learning tonight.
Peterson: All right, good. Glad we could help.
Aanenson: Maybe I can just add to that too. What the staff, neighborhood meetings are not
required. Generally when the subdivision comes in we kind of gauge the flavor. What issues are
out there and we kind of make that the project before. There's been some contentious issues out
there. We know those are areas that they need to meet with neighbors. I guess we gauged it,
based on when this came through the subdivision process, we always notify within 500 feet but it
didn't appear to be that there were was a lot of contentious issues out there. Certainly people
have the opportunity to come in and speak but that's kind of the staff's position on this.
Peterson: Okay. Seeing no other individuals, unless Dave, do you want to...the public hearing?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman I could maybe shed some light on where the proposed driveway access
for the parking lot would be for the park. If you like to know. Either that or Park and Rec
Commission I'm sure too. There is a master plan that we have upstairs that you're certainly
welcome to check out.
Peterson: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing?
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Comments.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Kind: I have a question for my fellow commissioners. I'm interested in your philosophy On
industrial buildings architecture and just the history of it, quickly. So I can learn.
Peterson: I've already given her my respective comments so anyone else want to tackle that one?
Burton: I'm in the same boat as you I'm guessing. I'm learning.
Kind: Specifically to high standards of architecture. Or not.
Conrad: Tough issue, and I personally stay away from it. I'd hate to be somebody that didn't,
builders, developers, architects deserve a standard and then they can hit it. If you don't have a
standard and we take pot shots at them, that's not fair. So you either have a standard or you let
staff, who is better than we are to review this. If they have that flexibility in a PUD, you let them
manipulate it. You pray for good developers. That's the bottom line. I tend to stay away from
architecture controls. I tend not to believe. I think we need some minimum standards and then
beyond that, it's up to the people bringing the project to us. I'm probably not one of many. I
think there are very few like me who, I think you'd like to control it. You'd like to improve the
standards but I have a problem with government doing that. Other than setting some minimum
standards. I think when we did some Highway 5 stuff, I think that was relevant. I think that was,
and I think we have some debates on some of the things that we allowed. Especially out at 5 and
41. It's not what we thought we were going to get. But on the other hand, to lay out a guideline
to say it has to, you've got to be so savvy to set up a standard, that passes through time.
Economic conditions. Sometimes it's extremely unfair when you put some standards out there
and you hold the landowner hostage.
Peterson: And I can certainly echo both, all of Ladd's thoughts. In addition I think part of what
we struggle with is when we do deal with the architectural side of it, is it, does it integrate in with
it's neighbors. Whether it's an additional office, industrial or not. I mean what's appropriate
architecture from there. Have more responsibility on than.
Kind: To make sure it fits with the neighbors, yes?
Peterson: Exactly.
Kind: And this particular one fits in very well with the neighbors. I just see PUD requirements
that call for high architectural standards and I'm trying to figure out what that is. And for
industrial it seems to be a little bit different than for say the apartments, which were pulled from
tonight's agenda and projects like that so I was just curious.
Conrad: The best thing you can do, if you believe in architectural standards, is to put in an
architectural review committee and develop standards. But don't take pot shots of the
architecture individually here. We are not experts. They are. But if you want standards, then
you should put in the rules that do it. But don't let us do arbitrary things. We all have different
opinions on what is good. If you believe in it, tell these folks what it is. Turn it into an
ordinance. Turn it into a review committee. You'll scare a lot of people away. But that's how
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
you do it. They manipulate a lot of better design just by, not because they have total control but
just by, through good negotiations with people coming in.
Aanenson: If I could just comment on that. I think the one thing that we do do in industrial
buildings that a lot of other communities do, is make sure that there are no large unadorned
walls. We work hard at trying to mix materials. It's hard when you've got one user doing a lot
of development because it kind of reflects a certain style of that developer, or user. Coming just
back from the National Conference in Seattle I can tell you Microsoft buildings all look the same.
That's Bill Gates' thumbprint so, I mean it does happen. We try to vary. Sometimes in the
varying it will look worse than trying to vary a little, we've had that discussion before, but I think
we work hard to make sure that the backs of buildings look as good as the front. Window
treatments...materials, that sort of thing. But it is hard when it's an industrial building. That's
it's function. And form and function, you have to relate cost and competing in the marketplace
so again relating, I think Craig was right on. How's it work with the neighborhood and I think
that's kind of the first starting point. Does it need to be more residential in character?
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Other comments? Seeing none, may I have a motion.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #99-4 for office warehouse buildings with an area of 19,632 square feet each to be located
on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans
dated April 16, 1999, subject to conditions 1 through 26.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: All those in favor. It's been moved, this has been seconded. Any discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan #99-4 for two office warehouse buildings with an area of 19,632 square feet each,
to be located on Lots I and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as
shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30
foot setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm. The
berm shall be extended along Audubon Road to maximize screening of the parking lot.
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
o
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business
shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90
square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages.
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. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided
prior to requesting a building permit.
o
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
o
The applicant shall provide 5 accessible parking spaces. The location of these spaces
must be dispersed among all the accessible building entrances.
7. Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
c)
Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
o
The applicant shall provide details on the decorative elements along the upper portion of
both buildings. Details shall include materials and application.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted prior to city council
review. Street lights consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet
intervals, staggered from one side to the other.
10.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state
statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the
recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code
(MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be
provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space.
Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure.
11.
Rooftop equipment and ground mounted mechanical equipment are not shown on the
plans. All equipment must be screened from views.
12.
The 30 future parking spaces shown along the northern portion of the site shall be
eliminated.
13.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
14.
15.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Final grading shall incorporate berming along Lake Drive West and Audubon Road
outside of the city's right-of-way.
The applicant shall work with staff in revising curb radii on the plans to accommodate
fire apparatus vehicles.
A cross-access agreement for parking and utilities purposes which also addresses
maintenance responsibilities and scheduling shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against the benefited lots (1, 2 and 3, Block 1). In addition, a cross-access
agreement for driveway purposes shall be granted to the parcel north of the site
(Stockdale) over Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to gain access to Lake Drive West.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event shall be
submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
The proposed driveway access onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial
driveway apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the city details and pedestrian
ramps.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
Ail areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the city's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be revised to
provide individual sewer services to each lot from the property line and lower driveway
grade at entrance off Lake Drive West to 4.0% or less.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
24.
No berming is permitted within the city's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may
be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
25.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
26.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 48,565 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3~ BLOCK II CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARK~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO. RD. 17~ SOUTH OF
THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS ON LAKE
DRIVE WEST~ CHANHASSEN LAKES PARTNERSHIP~ LLP~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Dave, you noted in the last report that the Lake
Drive West extension probably wouldn't be done until November. So then are these buildings,
Lot 3, Block 1 and one we'll be seeing here, Lot 4, are they going to be not started until after
November then? Am I correct with that?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I've had conversations with the developer. That
jumped out at his attention as well. What we discussed was interim access, separate road is you
will that they're willing to build to gain access while Lake Drive West is being constructed. The
major concern is from public safety to access the building and in this situation it's not a stick
built, if you will like residential homes. It's more metal and bricks so the risk of fire is much
lower. So the main concern is the Fire Marshals and that will be addressed with interim access
road from Audubon Road. Either paralleling or somewhere through the parking lots to gain
construction access to these building sites.
Blackowiak: So they will begin as soon as.
Hempel: Final plat has been recorded and the project authorized for Lake Drive West.
Blackowiak: Okay, and you're comfortable with an interim road and?
Hempel: I am engineering wise. It seemed like public safety was too.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: I have one. This is the one that does get closer to the park, if I've got my bearings right.
I'm curious, which side of Lake Drive is the sidewalk on? Is it going to be on the north or south
side? North side? And so the business people will be able to use this sidewalk and if they want
to access the park, will there be a crosswalk at that point or intersection with the parking lot or?
Hempel: Correct. A crosswalk at about I believe where the access for the parking lot for the
park is. On the radius of Lake Drive West there.
Kind: And do you know if there's a speed limit set for this new Lake Drive?
Hempel: The road is being designed for a 35 mph speed limit. Fairly typical for a collector road.
Kind: That's all.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward.
Mark Undestad: Again, the access is going to...
Peterson: How many businesses do you foresee in this unit, just out of curiosity?
Mark Undestad: In this building...
Peterson: Thanks. Any questions of the applicant?
Mark Undestad: ...pictures...
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant before he sits down.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman I guess, well Sharmin has the materials but could you describe the colors
and the materials again.
Mark Undestad: We're using, again we're trying to... These will be gray... Somewhat difficult
with the colored blocks with the painted building...
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Kind of feel obligated, don't you?
Stuart Brown: Stuart Brown, 1420 Heron Drive in Chanhassen. I'm just curious of all these
trees, and I don't know which map I'm on now but.
Aanenson: You're on a different project.
Stuart Brown: ...many, many trees or little proposed trees. Is that part of the project or is this an
city envisioned plan? I guess this is what provides the barrier. You know the park's over here.
And the ballpark's over here. This is our barrier to the road I guess. So this is not part of their
plan. Is that part of a city plan for these trees?
Aanenson: Correct.
Peterson: Dave, could you respond to that?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. That landscaping along the south of the road adjacent to the
park is going to be installed with the city's street project, Lake Drive West.
Stuart Brown: The things shown here, these are real...
Aanenson: The other side is pretty representative. It's 1 tree for every 30 feet so it's probably
pretty representative. He's just calling and showing what he's responsible for.
Stuart Brown: Gotch ya. And that's part of the Lake Drive, post November completion project.
Okay. Just curious with that one. Thank you.
Peterson: A motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Okay. Hearing no other comments, is there?
Kind: I have one quick one.
Peterson: Certainly.
Kind: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on my architectural question. I was not inferring
that I wanted more color or more wildness. I like the plainness of that. I think when some of the
buildings get a little too carried away with color we're going to be able to tell that that was built
in 1994 or whatever. Neutral is probably better in this case so I just wanted to make sure that you
understood where I was going.
Peterson: Okay. Is there a motion and a second please?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Conrad: Sure. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#99-5 for a 48,565 square foot office warehouse building located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999, subject to the
conditions of the staff report 1 through 27.
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
site plan 99-5 for a 48,565 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 3,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated April
6, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30
foot setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm.
o
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business
shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90
square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
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.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
ho
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff
should be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
o
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
o
The applicant shall provide 5 handicapped accessible parking spaces. The location of
these spaces must be dispersed among all the accessible building entrances.
7. Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c)
Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
o
The walls along the east and west side of the loading area shall be built of the same
materials as the rest of the building and incorporate the decorative bands.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Street lights
consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet intervals, staggered from
one side to the other.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state
statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the
recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code
(MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be
provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space.
Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All
equipment must be screened from views.
The 34 future parking spaces shown along the northern portion of the site shall be
eliminated.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Final grading shall incorporate berming along Lake Drive West outside of the City's right-
of-way. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping
improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
The applicant shall work with staff in revising curb radii on the plans to accommodate
fire apparatus vehicles.
A cross-access agreement for parking and utilities purposes which also addresses
maintenance responsibilities and scheduling shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against the benefited lots (1, 2 and 3, Block 1). In addition, a cross-access
agreement for driveway purposes shall be granted to the parcel north of the site
(Stockdale) over Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to gain access to Lake Drive West.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
Ail driveway access points along Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial
driveway apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the City details and pedestrian
ramps.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
20.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
21.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
22.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be revised to
provide individual sewer services to each lot from the property line and lower driveway
grade at entrance off Lake Drive West to 4.0% or less.
23.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
24.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
25.
The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control measures around the downstream
side of the grading limits and adjacent the pond.
26.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
27.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 18~388 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 4~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARK~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO. RD. 17~ SOUTH OF
THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS ON LAKE
DRIVE WEST~ CHANHASSEN LAKES PARTNERSHIP~ LLP~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: Questions of staff?.
Kind: I do. On the landscaping plan there was a little note at the top that said design build.
What does that mean? Does that mean the landscaping can change or?
AI-Jaff: No, what's proposed, when we find a landscape plan, that's what has to go in. The
applicant has the habit or providing more landscaping after the project is done than what was
approved on the plan.
Kind: More? That's a good thing, isn't it?
A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Kind: But what does the design build mean when that's on there? Does the applicant, do you
know what that means? On the landscaping plan it says design build at the top of it. Does that
mean you can freelance, once you meet the minimum you can add on?
Mark Undestad: ...put a tree in and it needs to be over 10 feet...
Kind: I just wanted to make sure that what we're seeing was roughly what we're getting at least.
Peterson: Any other questions? Any further comments by the applicant? Can I have a motion
and a second for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address, please come forward. Come on.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Any comments?
Conrad: I just had a comment for staff here. I looked at all the conditions. There was a time in
our lives here on the Planning Commission where the fewer the conditions the better. Meant you
did your job. And iron things out before the commission but I really like seeing all the
conditions. It tells you what happened. What they've got to do and the staff reports are very
good. It tells the applicant what we're expecting and I think that's just, it's better than it had
been years ago. Cool.
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: I noticed there was an outdoor play area. Is that going to be child care happening there?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
A1-Jaff.' The applicant hasn't signed a lease yet but if that does become a daycare, then they will
have to come in with a conditional use permit.
Kind: That's the intent?
Aanenson: Flexibility, yeah.
Kind: Cool.
Peterson: Motion please.
Blackowiak: Well I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
#99-6 for an 18,388 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 4, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999,
subject to the following conditions and those would be 1 through 25.
Conrad: I second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of site plan 99-6 for an 18,388 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 4,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated April
16, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall Increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30
foot setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm.
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business
shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90
square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
a0
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
c. All signs require a separate permit.
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.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff
should be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
The applicant shall revise the southern exterior elevation by adding windows or
landscaping to breakup the blank portions.
7. Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c)
Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
h) If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site.
Due to close proximity of neighboring homes, no burning permits will be issued.
o
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Street lights
consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet intervals, staggered from
one side to the other.
o
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state
statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the
recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code
(MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be
provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space.
Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure.
10.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All
equipment must be screened from views.
11.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
12.
Final grading shall incorporate a three to four-foot high berm along Lake Drive West
outside of the City's right-of-way.
13.
Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type III erosion
control fence.
14.
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a
parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement.
15.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
16.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
17.
The proposed driveway access onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial
driveway apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the City details and pedestrian
ramps. The other access point at Marshland Circle shall also incorporate an industrial
driveway apron.
18.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount f $5,000 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
19.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
20.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
21.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
22.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
23.
No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may
be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
24.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
25.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: This issue came up maybe last week. Maybe it was Alison that brought it up
regarding if something gets pulled. And I know Matt and I have been talking via e-mail and I
think it'd be great if you do have e-mail, I'm going to pass this around. If you want to give me
your e-mail address and then I can keep you current. If something's been pulled, I can just plug
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
that in real quick. I always talk to Craig the day of or the day before the meeting to let him know
what's going on. If someone's not going to be there, etc. But as soon as I know something like
that, ifI can just e-mail everybody in a group e-mail.
Peterson: Can we get all your e-mails too?
Aanenson: Yes. We'll take care of that. Actually what I think we can do, if you give that to me
now, we'll put that in the next packet and then everybody will have each others so I think that
would be great. Then we're not relying on people getting back on phone calls, etc. That's it. I
do have some ongoing or old, if you want to just continue, if that's okay. I put a note in your
packet, on Monday, June 7th, the City Council will be having work sessions. I'll be meeting with
all the groups. You got scheduled for 7:30 and they're allocating approximating 45 minutes. I
think the intent is just to talk about how things are going. I did include the goals that we had
talked about as part of the last item in your report .... relates to what the Planning Commission or
the planning department is doing. I didn't put the Environmental Surface Water. I think I
mentioned last time we were scheduled for a public hearing on May 13th before the Met Council.
Commissioner Mondale decided to table all hearings before the Met Council for the month of not
only April but May because of the new appointments. So we're tentatively scheduled for June.
The staff has recommended approval of our comprehensive plan so we're waiting to get that and
as soon as they get that done, then some of these other things are going to start in motion. The
rezonings and update of the PUD, etc. But we are working, we do have an intern in place that's
working with Phil and Jill, putting together our neighborhood meetings that we had talked about.
So we're excited about that. We're putting together a neat packet and we're targeting
neighborhoods where we do have a tree conservation and a wetland buffer ordinance in place so
if anybody chooses for us to come to their neighborhood, let me know. But we'll be sharing that
list with you where we're going if you want to add any comments on that but we want to get that
set up for the end of June and July. We do have a lot of stuff coming in still. Continuing so
we're fully booked for the first meeting in June and the second meeting in June. Arboretum
Business Park has another industrial building. We're doing a lot of industrial. That will be
coming in on the June 2nd. Two variances. The Bike Shop I think I mentioned that to you. That
was in the Villages. Really nice looking building. Bob's worked hard on that one. One lot
subdivision out in the rural area. Pretty straight forward. Foss Swim School. I mentioned to
Craig, we've been meeting with them. We're going to have another meeting set up next
Monday. We're trying to keep them on board. Working through the architectural issues. That's
a great use down there and then we're meeting tomorrow with the apartment people. The reason
they pulled it, they were concerned about the number of conditions. Can they alter their building
plans to meet those and still make it work so some of it's technical. As far as some of the
grading comments we had the like so they should be back on in the next meeting. And I did
receive comments about notification. I want to make sure that we get that cleared up for the next
meeting. The sign goes up and that we notify everybody on the lake. Make sure that happens. I
think that's it as far as ongoing but we will have just as big a meeting the second one in June too.
I might not be able to give you the 4th week off. You know I've done that in the past.
Peterson: Kate, can we make it a matter of practice that we request the applicants to do color
renderings?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: Yes. I know the restaurant that we'll be seeing, Ruby Tuesdays which is in, that we
will see the second meeting. We did indicate to them to bring in, because it was on Villages that
they have full color renderings and they do. And Sharmin and I were just talking about that. We
certainly, that's a good comment. We'll do that.
Peterson: I mean it literally costs a dollar, if that, to go to Kinko's and get a color copy of it for
us just to get a sense.
Aanenson: ...It's hard when you read in the report, the colors. You're trying to understand.
Blackowiak: I want them in the packet too.
Aanenson: We'll do that. We'll just make that standard practice, yeah. It's not a big deal. Good
comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ladd Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated May 5, 1999 as presented.
Burton moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission
meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37