The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1998 01 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1998 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 Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, and Anita Benson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Mancino approved the agenda with the amendment adding an update on "Old Town" by the Planning Director under Administrative Presentations. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: Councilman Berquist: I'd move Councilman Mason as Acting Mayor. Mayor Mancino: And is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Councilman Mason as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Then can I have a motion for all the organizational items as stated in our staff report. Councilman Berquist: I move approval that Chanhassen Villager be named as the official newspaper. Rules of Procedure be modified as indicated in the staff report. Campbell Knutson as the attorney. Springsted as the bond consultant. Mayor as the Weed Inspector and Deputy Weed Inspector to be Bob Zydowsky. Fire Chief as elected by the Fire Department. Dr. McCollum as the health official. Tautges Redpath... Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following organizational items: a. Resolution #98-01: Rules of Procedure b. Official Newspaper c. City Attorney d. Bond Consultant e. Acting Mayor As amended in Section 1.01. Chanhassen Villager Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs Springsted Councilman Mike Mason City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 f. Weed Inspector Deputy Weed Inspector g. Fire Chief h. Health Official i. City Auditors j. Official Depository All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino Bob Zydowsky As elected by the Chanhassen Fire Department Dr. McCollum Tautges Redpath Chanhassen Bank CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Resolution #98-02: Approve Resolution Authorizing Involvement in Operation Night CAP. d. Appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Commission. e. Clarification of Livable Communities Act. f. Approve Easement Agreement with Brent and Kathleen Miller (1200 Lyman Blvd.) - Project 93-29. g. Resolution #98-03: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Arboretum Boulevard Project No. 95-21. h. City Council Minutes dated December 8, 1997 City Council Minutes dated December 22, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated December 3, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 9, 1997 j. Resolution #98-04: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 4th Addition, Project No. 97-3. k. Resolution #98-05: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in The Meadows at Longacres 3rd Addition, Project No. 96-3. 1. Resolution #98-06: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in the Woods at Longacres 2nd Addition, Project 96-3. m. Resolution #98-07: Accept Utility Improvements in Highover (Phase I), Project 97-15. n. Resolution #98-08: Accept Utility Improvements in Golden Glow Acres, Project 96-19. o. Resolution #98-09: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 1st Addition, Project 97-14 p. Resolution #98-10: Accept Utility Improvements in Walnut Grove, Project 97-13. q. Accept Donation of Three Trees Installed with a 90" Tree Spade at Bandimere Park, Mr. & Mrs. James Sabinske. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 A. NSP FRANCHISE ORDINANCE, APPROVAL OF FINAL READING AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES. Mayor Mancino: What's your question up for discussion Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Roger, as I understand this agreement, or effective, I guess ordinance effectively. This ordinance effectively authorizes the creation of a franchise, correct? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. I pulled this item because while based on it's action tonight it does not institute a franchise fee tax, it says authorize a franchise fee tax. And I am opposed to creating yet what I view as another new tax without additional language effectively requiring an offset of existing tax if this new tax... Mayor Mancino: Okay, but for clarification again it is not the implementing or creating a franchise fee tax at all and I think that has come up in front of the council before and the majority of councilmembers voted that down. So it gives us the opportunity at any time in the next 20 years, because this is a 20 year agreement. Roger Knutson: That is correct. You have that existing language in other franchise agreements currently. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But so this is boiler plate in other franchise agreements that we have? Don Ashworth: It was specifically put in. Roger Knutson: The only reason I hesitated, since it's not boiler plated. They're worded a little differently and negotiated. It isn't, yes. You have similar language in all the franchises that you have with other gas companies and... Councilman Mason: With that I'll move approval of item 2(a). Mayor Mancino: All those in favor. Second please. Councilman Berquist: I'll second with a comment. I understand what Councilman Senn is saying and to a great degree I agree with him. However, I am reluctant to include language that.., simply because I think this Council can look at it and decide whether or not to implement the franchise and adopt a corresponding reduction in revenues on a different end. However, I don't think it's in the long term interest of the city to handcuff another company with that.., restriction. With that I'll second the motion. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the NSP Franchise Ordinance final reading and summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. B. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP FOR PARK REFERENDUM PROJECTS. City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: I pulled this item because I do not wish to vote for this agreement. I don't like the fact that it is purely open ended. There's no benchmark.., bids in there. I guess, and I specifically don't like the fact that it has not been bid when it's going to be a fairly substantial contract. And I also don't like the fact that even in spite of no benchmark on hours or bids on the.., on that basis at all includes no even outside estimate of what this agreement will cost the city. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions that you have for Todd at this time? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any discussion on that? Councilman Berquist: I have some more questions. However, in talking to the Park and Rec Director regarding those questions it became evident to me that his job is to oversee exactly this sort of thing and I think he's perfectly capable of doing it. I think the agreement that's structured on a time and material basis is fair. The consultant Hoisington Koegler has indicated an ability to put an estimate together. Approving this document without that estimate is, at this point, having discussed it again I would move approval on it. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agreement with Hoisington Koegler Group for Park Referendum Projects. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried 4 to 1. Mayor Mancino: Todd one more question about it. Will this go to the Citizens Oversight Committee to be reviewing finances that come in on this particular part of the project also? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: METER READING PROJECT~ NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY~ RAY GROVER. Mayor Mancino: Tonight Ray Grover from Northern States Power Company is here telling us a little bit about the meter reader project. Would you come forward. State your name and address. John Teist: First of all I'm not Ray Grover. He couldn't make it tonight. My name is John Teist, Community... Manager for NSP... I'm trying to fill in for Lou Howard who just happens to be in Florida for three weeks starting last Friday. Good timing. But I'd like to, I've got Tom Scott from Cellnet tonight and also Rich Cook from NSP to answer any technical questions that council persons may have tonight. But I do appreciate having the time and opportunity to update our automated meter reading system. Last we entered in a contract with Cellnet to have the automated meter reading system in place and some of the benefits right now. We're sure there'd be a better than 98% reading on the meters. It will eliminate some of the estimated bills throughout the year and also it's going to improve our operating efficiencies. ... status, by the end of 1999 we'll have over one million automated gas and electric meters installed throughout the metro area. And we'll have at present they're installing about 1,050 meters per day and when they get more staff on board they're probably replacing 3,000 meters a day so it's a pretty aggressive City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 system. As far as the City of Chanhassen, they'll replace probably 5,500 residential meters and it's a pretty quick process. It probably takes us a minute if everything goes well, and then they'll be installing 20 microcell controllers which, one of them is right here. The gray box. And they'll be put on NSP wood poles throughout various locations in the city, and the City Engineer and Don's got a copy of the locations as of now. Customer impact. Probably 3 weeks before we start installation. Each residential customer is sent out a postcard and at that time they can contact NSP to make a particular arrangement for change out of meter because nowadays people are playing stock markets or anything else with home computers and they don't like to be bumped off the system. It only takes about a minute. And also we'll notify the police department in Chanhassen probably 2 or 3 days before we start the installations because Cellnet has actually contracted with Honeywell to do the meter installations so it will not be NSP personnel on the premises in the residential areas. And also Cellnet has contracted back to NSP to install the cell masters on the power poles so we... So it's pretty brief but is there any questions you may have of me or else Rich or Tom tonight? Mayor Mancino: Any questions of Council members? Councilman Berquist: Technology. How does the... ? John Teist: I'll hand that over to my friend Tom to explain that one. Mayor Mancino: Don't get too technical please. Tom Scott: I'll keep it real short. The meters that go on the houses, pardon? Councilman Berquist: Never mind. Tom Scott: The meters that go on the houses are just like the meters that are on there now. We take off a face plate. Put on this device that counts the disk rotations and then transmits out a reading every 5 minutes. It transmits it out into the air and the box behind me, the MCC. Those are on, usually on overhead power lines throughout the area. That collects it. Stores the information until the system comes out and grabs it over the air so to speak through a cell master and collects all the meter information. Puts it into an oracel database downtown at NSP's office. Then they interface into that database and send out bills, just like they would on a normal schedule. Councilman Senn: A couple few weeks ago I was reading that there was a new system that was just being patented where they can read the meters effectively through the electric lines? Tom Scott: That's like power line carrier. That's actually been around for a while. Different technologies. It's a lot slower because you have to send the packets through transformers and things like that. It works. It's really good in some rural areas where our system isn't as cost effective. But in higher density areas, cities across the country, our technology or competitors use similar technologies over the years, it makes more financial sense. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. John Tiest: Any other questions? Mayor Mancino: I don't think so. Any other questions? Thank you. City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 John Tiest: Okay, I appreciate the opportunity to explain that to you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks very much. Is there anyone else here tonight that would like to give a visitor presentation? Would like to come up and address the City Council on any issue you'd like. Seeing none, we will move ahead on the agenda. REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL CARLSON. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Mr. Carlson was before the City Council back in November. The City had...Mr. Carlson. As part of that he was to clean up his property and fence the site. In November we brought it back to you because to date he had not put the fence in place. Your motion was to get bids for the fence. Have him escrow that bid by January 2nd and then proceed in May to put the fence up. Mr. Carlson is reluctant to put in place the escrow. He asked to have that appealed. He informed us more than likely he would not be at this meeting. We said.., to have that be considered... Staff isn't really commenting on that. We just want to bring it to your attention that the concern was the escrow of the fence. We have received the bids to go forth with placing the bids and having that assessed. The fence placed in May and having that assessed but his question was whether or not... Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Is Mr. Carlson here tonight? Okay. Comments from councilmembers. Councilman Berquist. Do you want to? Councilman Berquist: Well... back in November was fairly specific. If in fact development is going to take place on the property, I hate to spend anybody's money. His money in this case, to have the thing demolished within a year or whatever. On the other hand, things have a tendency to go slower out at...town. Perhaps. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mr. Carlson. Would you like to come and, in from of the Council? We're just on your item. We moved quickly tonight. So if you'd like to come in front of us, please do so. You might need some hot coffee or something to warm you up. Lowell Carlson: Well where were you or what were we started on? Don Ashworth: They had already given the staff report or the Council's report that was sent to you. They just started discussion of the item and you walked in. Lowell Carlson: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So I would like to give you a few minutes to say anything you'd like to us. Within reason. Lowell Carlson: Well at the last meeting there was supposed to be reports and stuff sent to us and a tape of this last meeting before. And we received these papers January 7th, which we called, my wife called and asked to have all this information sent out so we didn't receive any of this until the 7th of January. So I mean the meeting I guess we knew about before that but as far as the papers and the information that was supposed to be agreed by the Council and sent out immediately and so on and such, which reads in this thing, we just got them the 7th. But okay, what are you looking for or what are you? City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well we're having a discussion because the, obviously the fence is not up at this point. Lowell Carlson: Right. Mayor Mancino: You were here December 3rd and at that time the Council said that the fence needed to be up by May 1st of '98. And by January 2nd of this year you were to give escrow to the City for the fence. Lowell Carlson: Okay. Mayor Mancino: And we have not received your escrow amount. Lowell Carlson: So I guess that's what we're talking about is the escrow money right at the time. Mayor Mancino: And we wanted to hear your request at this point. Mrs. Carlson: Okay, no this was a meeting at November you decided on this? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Oh, was it November? Councilman Engel: November 10th. Mayor Mancino: November l0th. Mrs. Carlson: At which point you were going to send out a report to us because he doesn't hear. When he came home the next day I asked him. He knew nothing of what was going on. So they were going to send out a report right away on what was all decided on and what you had discussed and which was going to be within two weeks after that meeting and we never got anything until Friday. Mayor Mancino: Well you got something on December 3rd. Mrs. Carlson: But nothing of to what this was, what was decided on. Kate Aanenson: There's a lot, Cindy has talked to Mr. Carlson. Mrs. Carlson: Okay yes but you were going to send me a copy. They were going to send us out the meeting, the Minutes and stuff. I was ill. I was unable to attend that meeting so. Mayor Mancino: So Mrs. Carlson, did you receive the letter of December 3rd? Mrs. Carlson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: That came to you that said. Mrs. Carlson: Okay, I called in and asked, yes I did. I called in and asked and what I wanted, when I called in and asked I think I talked to a Cynthia and what my question is, is where, what fence is going City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 where? I wanted a diagram of what we're supposed to comply with and I never, ever got that. And I still don't know. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It's the same one we've been working on for 7 years... Mr. Carlson has a copy. It's part of the agreement that the Judge decided and Mr. Carlson and Elliot put that map together so, and I can give you another. It's the same one we've been working on. Mayor Mancino: So I don't think anything has changed from, when was the court case and the judgment? You said 7 years ago? Kate Aanenson: '94. Mayor Mancino: '93-94, okay. Lowell Carlson: Why we were looking at this is because they had an estimate shown often thousand some dollars and what we wanted is what they figured which was wood and which was. Mayor Mancino: Okay, chain link. Lowell Carlson: Whatever so, did they send us one? Mrs. Carlson: No, we have that copy. It's from the judge... Lowell Carlson: All right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it's the same kind offence as was described in. Mrs. Carlson: ...the judge. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Part of it being the wood and part of it being chain link. Kate Aanenson: It would be chain link with slates along there...that the front was to be screened. So that was...that's all on the plan and where it was to be screened. Lowell Carlson: But then it was okayed or changed that the front part that runs parallel to Kings Road did not have to be put in until the building was built because the fence started or run up to the comer of the building. Then the building, then the comer of the fence again. Am I right? Kate Aanenson: Right. What we talked about was that it'd go along the front of the building... Mayor Mancino: So the building would be part of the buffer and part of the fence? Okay. So why we're here tonight is that we have not received the escrow for the fence and the fence is not up. Mrs. Carlson: I don't have the money for this.., and I'm sorry about that but. Mayor Mancino: Okay. City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Lowell Carlson: Okay, I guess we'll finish this first. But I guess maybe, okay where, where does the Council and the people get the authority to trespass on private property or go onto property without permission. Taking property without permission the way they want to do it. If you're familiar with a piece of property down by my place on the northwest comer. There's a lift station put in there. And anyway, we finally okayed to put the dirt in there and that that would be filled up to the ditch. But the City of Chanhassen has now ripped out all the fence. Tore down all the trees. And they were supposed to leave the ditch. Put back the ditch the way it was. Is now filled. It is now with red rock on it and it is black topped. Who gives this authority without any permission or Council meetings or anything else and we're kind of talking about a little fence but this gets kind of a little you know, who gives that authority? How can you walk up and just take somebody's property? (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Charles Folch: ... our first steps were basically to acquire a right of entry. We've prepared the necessary documents. Tried to get a signed document for right of entry. That's a process you do with any...get into a project. Do the improvements and during that same time process you then.., negotiations for acquiring a permanent easement. We did not get a written signed right of entry, is our understanding. In talking with Mr. Carlson in the past, we were given a verbal to go ahead and proceed to begin the work. We've attempted through this last.., to continue to resolve the easement issue as far as what compensation would be worth so it's nothing that we've overlooked or it's not an oversight or anything like that. We've been trying to put this matter to closure but we just haven't had...just be an active involvement in trying to close it at this point in time so we're certainly willing to complete that easement negotiation process but we, it was not our willful trespass or anything like that on our part. We were fully in communication with Mr. Carlson on. It's also a sanitary sewer pumping station that will benefit Mr. Carlson's property in the future when he develops .... good portion of the property.., so it's a benefit to the area. Mayor Mancino: So for you to meet an agreement, what does that take? Does that take you sitting down with Mr. Carlson and resolving? Charles Folch: Agreeing upon.., amount. Mayor Mancino: Are you ready to do that? Are you Mr. Carlson ready to sit down and come to an agreement? Lowell Carlson: Well if it ain't just about $100.00 at a time, I guess maybe we could at that point, some time to spend. Mayor Mancino: I think that would be a very good idea in the next month to do that. Lowell Carlson: Because they raised it $100.00, but anyway I guess we got off the subject but it's kind of something. Mayor Mancino: No, it's good for us to know and I think that should be resolved as soon as possible. Now let's resolve the fence issue. Lowell Carlson: Well I sure appreciate it that, but it kind of gets back to the problem on my property you know. We're kind of... and things ain't got done and things have got done, the way it looks. But I thought City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 somebody had to okay someday. They drew me up a letter that I didn't sign. They've got a, wanted something drawn up and for some you know, what we were coming up with a price of some sort. And it isn't signed. I've got a copy at home. I don't know if my wife's got it here with her or not but anyway, it was not okayed. Maybe in mine okayed by somebody whatever somebody heard I said but I'm not stepping on any toes if I don't have to. But I just kind of, I don't like to be here anymore than probably you like listening to me here anymore but anyway. We were probably going to swap even up for the $16,000.00 escrow for the easement down there on Kings Road. And I thought it'd be kind of a fair deal. It'd be kind of a fair deal if you, you know. Mayor Mancino: Is that easement worth $16,000.007 Anyway. I understand where you're going. Lowell Carlson: What's that? Mayor Mancino: I understand where you're going, okay. I understand the request and we'll talk about that in Council in a minute. Lowell Carlson: Mayor Mancino: Lowell Carlson: Well I sure try to be here. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Okay. I guess that's about all I've got to say for the time being. Okay. Appreciate your coming up and coming tonight and speaking with us. Thanks. Councilman Senn: Roger. In that we have a motion this past November l0th, if we want that motion to stand we just don't.., motion for reconsideration of procedure of what? Roger Knutson: That would work just fine. Mayor Mancino: Comments? Councilman Senn: None other than I think the motion of November l0th I think stands. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Well I don't see the issue so much the escrow as more to the issue of a fence needs to go up there. So, and I know Councilman Berquist came up with a thought at the work session that I thought would work and if he'd be willing to share that, I'd appreciate it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I can't remember what it was. Mayor Mancino: 30 days? Another 30 days? Councilman Senn: But the reality is we're past the escrow period anyway. Councilman Berquist: That's true. 10 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: What we have right now is the May 1 deadline. fence up and if not, we go in and put the fence up and assess him. to... Either have a fence up or not have a I don't understand why we would need Councilman Berquist: I am curious about one thing. During the original discussion back in November there was conversation..., this is speaking both to you and Mrs. Carlson at this point Mr. Carlson. There was a lot of discussion regarding development of the property and I'm curious as to whether there's been any progress or any further discussion. And it's not my business but I'm curious. I'd like to know. Lowell Carlson: I don't mind you asking... Councilman Berquist: Okay. All right. And is it possible to provide us a copy of the proposal and a signed contract? Mrs. Carlson answered from the audience and it was not picked up on tape. Councilman Berquist: All right. Well insofar as nothing really has to be in place until May 1st. The reason we chose May 1st is because there's no sense in trying to put a fence up in this god forsaken weather. Councilman Senn: Now you're going to start a debate with Mason on that. Mayor Mancino: He'll go out there and do it. So is there a motion for reconsideration or, is there a motion for reconsideration? We're just going to leave it as is if there isn't. Councilman Berquist: The onus is still on you to put the fence up or provide escrow, or provide some proof to the Council or the City that in fact the fence is ordered and a foregone conclusion... Mayor Mancino: She's got it. Okay, is there a motion for reconsideration? Okay, we will let it stand as is from the motion from November. The fence needs to be up by May 1st and that's it. I would also say get together with city staff to conclude the easement and the payment of that and I would do that quickly. In haste. Thank you for coming. REQUEST FOR A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2~ BLOCK 1~ SUN RIDGE INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RR~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 8850 AUDUBON ROAD~ STEVE AND MARY PAT MONSON. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The property owners are requesting a metes and bounds split of their parcel. It's currently zoned rural residential which is 2 ½ acre lots. Each lot would be comply with the ordinance requirements. The only issue with this really is regarding drainage and utility easements and the revised trail alignment. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the 12 conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Bob, as I understand it. Procedurally basically everything within this request falls within our ordinance requirements, correct? 11 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Bob Generous: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. In your recommendations, one of your points is you're effectively requiring them to dedicate land to the city. Now are they doing that out of their own free will or are they doing that because you're requiring it as a condition of this thing? Bob Generous: We're requiring it as a condition of approval. Councilman Senn: Okay. How can you do that without compensation when there is nothing in here that is outside of... Kate Aanenson: We did... Bob Generous: ...that requirement for the easement. Mayor Mancino: The SWMP fees, the water quality and water quantity are approximately $1,000.00 and is that... Councilman Senn: So the 17 feet that you're requiring them to dedicate along parcel 1 and parcel 2 is worth.., dollars? Kate Aanenson: If you look on page 4...those specifications. Yeah, I guess we're looking at, we looked at for the wetland project. That was part of the SWMP credits in the back. Councilman Senn: Where is it, page 4? Kate Aanenson: Page 4. SWMP credits. The City is conducting a project on the southern edge of the property to benefit both water quantity and quality because the increased easements are necessary... Mayor Mancino: But you're asking about the other... ? Councilman Senn: I thought there was more... Bob Generous: No... for Audubon. Kate Aanenson: Audubon. Subdividing... Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're requiring them to give the dedication for water quantity in the drainage easement basically. Okay. And you're crediting them a trade off to that. Bob Generous: SWMP fees. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then you're also requiring them to give you 17 feet of right-of-way along parcels 1 and 2 in addition to that. Without compensation. Bob Generous: Right. Except for the approval of... 12 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: Which is perfectly within ordinance requirements. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: You do it on subdivisions. Kate Aanenson: Street dedication. Councilman Senn: We do? Kate Aanenson: If additional right-of-way is... Roger Knutson: Do you want me to? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Yes. Roger Knutson: I don't want to butt in. Virtually, I won't say every plat but virtually every plat, hopefully every plat that comes through that you approve meets ordinance requirements or you shouldn't be approving it so I assume when you approve a plat you.., meet all those requirements. And typically when you require, when someone plats property, you require them to do two things. Dedicate the streets and dedicate the drainage and utility easements internal to the plat... Councilman Senn: Internal. Roger Knutson: Or next to the plat. Part of the property. You can't, we don't require people to dedicate the property they don't own outside the plat. Or outside the subdivision. In this case that 17 feet is I presume part of their property. Is inside the subdivision. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: Then Bob as far, okay now the trail. Does the trail fall within that 17 foot area then? Bob Generous: No. It's along, it's one of the attachments that shows it. We have an existing trail easement over it but the easterly and west portions of it fall, of the proposed alignment of the trail, fall outside of that easement and that's.., they revise the trail alignment. Councilman Senn: I'm having a hard time following this. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, can you show us that visually? Can you tell us where Audubon and. Bob Generous: Audubon is on the eastern portion. The trail, the existing trail alignment follows the southerly alignment of the parcel. The eastern half and the western.., proposed revised trail alignment... outside of the alignment. Mayor Mancino: Where does it go? Bob Generous: ...up there. This whole area is... 13 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: That's why it was recommended that we move the...that's why we credited the water quality fee... It only made sense to move the trail outside of that poor soil. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And we'll have to hear from the applicant.., a problem. Councilman Senn: Okay, but your existing utility. Your existing trail easement is which of those three alignments? It's really hard to see what's up there because of the shadows. Mayor Mancino: Oh, that's helpful. Okay. That's the existing. What's there right now. Councilman Senn: Okay, so basically the area inside of those three lines is the existing? Bob Generous: ... alignment. Mayor Mancino: And it looks like existing is part of the wetland. Is it in the wetland? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's why we said we needed... Mayor Mancino: Got it. Councilman Senn: So those lines aren't on there? The new one? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. We just drew them... So on the western edge it's just a little bit north of where it was, but on the eastern edge it's changed quite a bit. Councilman Senn: Right. And it's.., impact the driveway which is why the condition is on the driveway, correct? Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: And you're requiring to also dedicate that. Bob Generous: The trail easement, yes. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Senn: That's it for questions. Councilman Berquist: I have one question. Usually this is... why was this 5 acres? ... anything regarding the.., house or how it drained. How something worked requiring a 5 ? Bob Generous: Nothing we could find in the file.., proposed plat. 14 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: The question is...to add 2 ½ acres to make one 5 acre lot. Something doesn't add up? ...maximize the land. To leave this lot 5 acres... Bob Generous: However the property to the south also was a larger parcel. That was subdivided two, a year ago. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Mancino: And the hook-up fees for the water is approximately $1,500.00. So in your condition, the condition number 3. The water hook-up is approximately. Bob Generous: $1550. Mayor Mancino: $1550. And they have to hook up to water? Bob Generous: By ordinance, if you're within 500 1 believe. Mayor Mancino: Charles do you know if the hook-up fee for water, is that within 500 feet of existing or 200? Do you remember off the top of your head? Okay. We'll just do a double check on that. Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this time? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come up in front of the Council and ask any questions. Steve Monson: Yeah my name's Steve Monson Mayor and Councilmen. I think there's two issues here that, all we want to do is get a lot split and we've been working on this for over a year. About a year I guess. And now all of a sudden they throw in this, you know the trail. Mayor Mancino: Is the new trail alignment a concern for you or does that work? Steve Monson: Yeah. I mean it devalues that lot by, I mean you know, I don't know, probably half or whatever. I mean you've got 2 ½ acres. Where there's going to be a big trail right through it. It uses our, they're going to use our driveway that we, you know that we had there. You know we weren't going to spend any money on even putting another driveway in or, but I mean it's just kind of like the City's just, I mean you don't want to use blackmail but I mean, we went through all the, jumped through all the hoops. Everything's fine and then they come in with the trail. I mean and nobody, they knew we were trying to put this lot. Why didn't somebody come to us before. The only time we knew about it is when someone came out there and put stakes in where they wanted the trail to go. So I mean there's, I just don't understand why the big, what is, you know why do we, for this trail they should be giving us a whole heck of a lot instead of us giving them everything. I mean $1,000.00 or whatever on this water hook-up, I mean you can't even hook, it's so far away from the street there to get the waterline to the house. I mean you're not going to do that. It'd cost you twice as much as just drilling a well or whatever. But I mean that's just. Mayor Mancino: That's one of your concerns? Steve Monson: I don't understand all this kind of. Mayor Mancino: All right, are there any other concerns so that we can answer you? Please ask now. 15 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mary Pat Monson: I'm Mary Pat Monson. No, I guess I just agree with Steve that what we were looking for and what we understand and when we read the findings that the division of the property falls within all of the guidelines and the trail to us is a totally separate issue. I don't see that it should even be in here. And then back under the findings. Mayor Mancino: And which page are you on please? Mary Pat Monson: I believe, sorry. On number 4 on page 5. It says the proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewer, on and on, and the finding is, is that the proposed subdivision is served by private well and septic as permitted by city ordinance. So I guess under the finding is that the subdivision can be served by private well and septic but then over on the other page the recommendation requirement is going to be that we hook up to the city water and I think that should be. Mayor Mancino: Okay. It says as permitted by city ordinance and I've just asked the City Attorney, Roger. Excuse me Roger and Charles. You found in the ordinance where. You don't have an existing well on this new lot that you want to subdivide, do you? Mary Pat Monson: No. Mayor Mancino: There's nothing there right now. Mary Pat Monson: No. Mayor Mancino: And just one second because I want him to be able to answer you. But what does our ordinance say about a new subdivision which has city water near it but there's not a well on the existing land that's going to be subdivided? Roger Knutson: Before a building permit can be issued, you have to hook up to water within, if the property's adjacent to a water main.., which is 150 feet of a water system, you have to hook up. Mayor Mancino: So you have to hook up. Steve Monson: 150 or 1,000 feet? Roger Knutson: 150. Mary Pat Monson: So if the house is further than 100. Roger Knutson: Lot. Mary Pat Monson: I'm sorry? Mayor Mancino: The lot. Steve Monson: The lot? Mayor Mancino: Yes. So what would be cheaper for you to hook up to the city water than it would be to drill a well. 16 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Steve Monson: It'd be cheaper to do the well. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Steve Monson... Mayor Mancino: Isn't it a per unit charge Charles for hook up to the water? I mean how does that? Charles Folch... Mayor Mancino: Okay. So anybody who's hooking up, it's the same fee? But you still have to get it to the house. Okay. Roger Knutson: How long is the line? Steve Monson: Well 300... Mayor Mancino: But regardless, by city ordinance yes. You do have to hook up to city water. Mary Pat Monson: Okay. I guess where we're at then, you know without even getting into that is still the whole issue of the trail and. Mayor Mancino: The trail, okay. We'll bring that back and discuss it. Todd, do you have any comments to make on the trail? Todd Hoffman: Sure. I'd like to address the timing issue for everybody here. The referendum was approved in June and planned long before that. The Bluff Creek trail was a part of that planning process. They were aware that we had the existing 20 foot trail easement in hand so there was really no need to communicate any differently an additional easement at that time. Then later on the fall, Howard R. Green in September was retained to go ahead and investigate the implications of designing and installing these trails and the easement which was taken, how old is this plat? The original plat? The original easement? 15 years? 20 years old? 107 So the trail easement was taken you know as a planned amenity of the Bluff Creek corridor but long before the proposed project. So then in November-December it became apparent that an additional easement would be beneficial to the design of the trail to get it up off of the creek corridor and to accomplish the trail in just a fashion which benefited the environment. And then by subdivision it allows the Council the ability to acquire or modify that trail easement. Now whether or not you feel that's fair or not is your judgment. It's certainly by ordinance it allows you to modify that trail as proposed by staff. Mayor Mancino: And had there been discussions with the applicant Todd as to just moving that easement and getting the credits? I mean has both parties come together and talked about that prior to our meeting tonight? Todd Hoffman: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. That may need to take place. We'll bring it back to the councilmembers comments. Councilman Senn. 17 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: Well when I first read this I guess I... very quickly viewed it as a simple lot split. Taking 5 acres and diving into two 2 ½ acre lots which seemed pretty, a change so to speak or pretty much normal. More than normal for a 2 ½ acre lot. By the time I was done reviewing the conditions, I quite honestly thought that we had crossed the line of fairness and reasonableness. I mean it just, it really took me back. You know I just started going down them and number 2 said, you know dedication of drainage and utility easements. Hook up and connection fees, number 3 and paving the driveway 40 to 50 feet... $450.00. Mayor Mancino: There's not an existing house there. Councilman Senn: ... your existing driveway. $450.00 in administrative fees. Requiring relocation of the existing driveway because of a trail easement that we're not acquiring. You have dedication of a 17 foot strip and dedication of revised trail easements. I'm sorry but I think the City is taking advantage of these people and I do not believe that it is either fair or reasonable to do so, given their request. Mayor Mancino: So what would you like to see? Councilman Senn: I would like to see the applicant and staff go back and resolve some of these issues in a manner that is fair to both parties. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Well, that begs the question what's fair to both parties. I guess I, maybe it's semantics. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with Councilman Senn's intent but I don't think there's anybody on the city staff that would be unreasonable or unfair so I, that sets me off. If on the other hand the rest of the Council agrees that these recommendations do not serve the best interest of everybody around, then staff and the Monson's can get back together. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think I'll react to what you said prior to going to the rest of the Council and that is that, the hook up fee for water is in our ordinance and has been and we treat everybody fairly about that. It is very straight forward, etc. The driveway, the paving of 40 to 50 feet. I think that that's something that the applicant and staff can talk with. I don't think that that's something that's always hard and fast. I know that there have been environmental concern about the creek and the wetlands and I think that's where they're coming from so that maybe we can get together and talk about that. Decide the best way to handle that. And I understand why that was brought up in here. And I also think the trail easement, I mean there's no question that part of the amenity in living in this area and it's quite visibly shown by the passing of the referendum, that it is, the trail is an amenity and there was a trail easement already on the property and again I would like to have you and staff review that, where that easement is and where it makes the most sense. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just point out one thing. One thing we might be able to do, and I just, we whispered a discussion with Todd. This may be possible to vacate for example part of the existing there now that is not needed with the new alignment. So maybe we can, getting some easements, we can give some back. Whether that does anything for them, they will have to decide. Also just point out one other thing. There's no park charge or trail charge being imposed on this subdivision which you otherwise could do. 18 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: There would be another park fee? Roger Knutson: No there isn't. Todd Hoffman: There isn't a $1,600.00, $1,600.00 has not been assessed as a part of the overall contract. Roger Knutson: Which is your ordinance, so I guess you could say in giving us the trail easement as it stands, you're waiving, by this action, the park charge and the trail charge which your ordinance has. Mayor Mancino: Well and I think that that has to be sit down and talked about so that they understand it because I think there are questions. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: There's just too many open issues. There's 12 points of discussion here, the biggest of which it seems like is the trail easement. I'd like the Monson's and staff to go back and see if you can't resolve that one first. Maybe we can get a little.., but go back and resolve that trail issue and come back because there's just too many, too many bones of contention here. Solve that one first and see if you can make some more headway and then come back. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I'm of a different opinion. We have one chance to build a community and a subdivision allows to do certain.., to build that community.., when the trail referendum passed in June. So it's not as if there was anything hidden from the applicant. I believe that the water hook up charges within the ordinance. It has to do with lots. It doesn't have anything to do with where the house is located. The main... As far as the driveway goes, the driveway's going to be paved for the first 40 or 50 feet off of Lyman. Or off of Audubon. I don't know what the reason for that is but I would suspect it's probably, as Nancy said, watershed. I would guess it's something to do with runoff on the road... It makes sense... require that. If I was the applicant.., so I understand that. $450.00 for administrative, GIS and recording fees does not seem extraordinary to me. The right-of-way does not seem extraordinary to me, in keeping with my previous comments. I also am aware that, or I believe that I'm aware and I'm right saying that this property, the original property... I think that the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report, are in keeping with the ordinances. In keeping with the property and I think they're, I think the applicants can achieve their goal by adhereing to the conditions in the staff report and I think the City can achieve it's goals by adhering to the conditions. Mayor Mancino: Okay then may I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the subdivision as outlined in the staff report with conditions 1 through 12 intact. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve the metes and bounds subdivision #97-11 of Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge into two lots subject to the following conditions: A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. The plan shall include driveway grades/location, tree 19 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 preservation plan, lowest floor elevations, top of block and garage floor elevations, culvert/type/size and location, existing and proposed grade elevations around the structure pursuant to city codes. 2. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement up to the 100 year flood elevation and wetlands on site. Hook up and connection fees for water shall be collected at time of building permit issuance for Parcel II. The driveway grade shall not exceed 10% and shall be paved for the first 40 and 50 feet off Audubon Road. The developer ;shall pay the City $450 for administrative, GIS and recording fees before the City signs the recording documents. 6. The driveway shall be located outside the City's trail easement. 7. The developer shall dedicate to the City the easterly 17 feet of Parcel I and II as right-of-way. The developer shall dedicate a revised trail easement, as described in the attached Exhibit A, over the proposed trail alignment on the parcel and provide a temporary construction easement to the city for construction of the trail. Protect each ISTS site in accordance with Chanhassen Inspections Division Policy # 10-199 prior to any activity (grading, construction, recreation, etc.) near the sites. 10. Submit a new 1"=50' scale survey of Parcel I meeting the requirements of Chanhassen City Code, Section 7-19, 1-6, 10-12, 14, 15. Show both ISTS sites on the survey. 11. Submit a revised survey of Parcels I and II showing the correct locations of ISTS site on Parcel II prior to recording of the subdivision. Septic and soil absorption systems must be set back a minimum of 75 feet from a wetland or creek. 12. Requirements for building setbacks on an ag/urban wetland are a 10 foot buffer zone in addition to a 40 foot building setback. Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist voted in favor. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Mancino: Is there another motion? Councilman Senn: I'm not sure we need a motion. I guess what I'd rather do is direct to go back to staff. That these items be addressed with the applicant to see if they can be worked out. Mayor Mancino: And then come back? Councilman Senn: And then come back. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there any clarity? 20 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: I think we should discuss that because you've got two fifths of the Council that accept the numbers as is. If you want to continue that, you'd better put more direction on it besides work things out. Councilman Engel: How about resolve the trail issue first? Councilman Senn: Yeah if you want to get specific about it. I mean it's very hard in my mind to deal with each and every one of these issues individually because collectively I think is where they form the problem. There's a certain amount of reasonableness on our part in terms of what needs we may require out of a 5 acre parcel that's split into two parcels in terms of dedication and easements. The key one here is of course the trail easement. And now we're talking about broadening the trail easement beyond the current easement and in a fashion would it, which it impacts the property more. And in a fashion would, if we were to vacate other easements, really it shows no benefits to the property owner because dedication would be separated the rest of the property by a new easement and trail. I think if we do those things in relationship, and resolve some things maybe over the trail issue, you know maybe right-of-way.., still makes some sense. I mean there are some trade-offs on the wetland issue or water quality issues. I think there also needs to be trade offs on the other dedication. If trade offs can't be achieved then I think we need to get to the point that again I think we're providing not a situation where we're turning around and effectively charging the applicant for everything as well as requiring them to create a lot of additional expense that it... As it stands it's... You know to me that flies in the face to say, to dedicate a trail easement but you're also going to require you to relocate your driveway.., and that's effectively what we're doing. So those are the types of issues that need to be more specific. Councilman Berquist: Now let's just talk briefly about relocate driveway. Relocate driveway at their expense is for the 8850 property or the property that will be created? Bob Generous: The new parcel. Mayor Mancino: The new lot. Councilman Berquist: There's no driveway there? Bob Generous: It's a gravel. Councilman Berquist: But it's that road that goes down and you'd better be in four wheel to get down too terribly far? Steve and Mary Pat Monson made comments from the audience that were not picked up on tape. Councilman Senn: You've got drainage considerations. You've got to bring in a whole bunch of fill and subgrade to keep it up so you can afford a driveway. There's a fairly substantial expense in what you're talking about here. Councilman Berquist: Maybe... understand why it was a 5 acre lot. Councilman Senn: You have to go out and really look at it but if you go out and look at it, it becomes very obvious. 21 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Well is the direction clear enough to staff and the applicant to get together? Steve Monson: It's not clear enough to me. Mayor Mancino: To resolve the issues that are outstanding that you have. Mary Pat Monson: ...the question that I have is what you're saying is, that this, that we don't meet the criteria to split this land into 2 ½ acres. Is that what? Mayor Mancino: No, you meet the criteria. You have enough. Mary Pat Monson: We do meet the criteria? Mayor Mancino: You have enough acreage to split into two. But it's more complicated. Mary Pat Monson: Okay, no but it isn't really. We meet all the requirements of the city to split it. Councilman Senn: Okay, I don't mean to be confusing to you okay. What we're talking about doing is basically approving your lot split. It's a matter of what conditions that are being attached to that approval. Our debate is over defining some of those conditions so there's a little more agreement between, you know basically you and staff over how those conditions are resolved and read. Councilman Engel: Right Mark that's, I don't think, I don't know if you understand this or not. We're faced with a decision, we either approve it with all these conditions or we don't, and that's where we're at. Mary Pat Monson: Okay, and that's. Councilman Engel: To approve with all the conditions, okay. Mary Pat Monson: No, no. Councilman Engel: I didn't think so. Mary Pat Monson: I mean obviously, because I really see the trail as a separate issue and when you said that there's a $1,600.00 park fee that's attached, are you telling me that every owner. I mean in one of the letters that we got about this trail it was, it said you know with these color stakes this type of compensation would be done. We never had any kind of conversation about any kind of, all of a sudden it's just we're going to move the whole trail you know and. Mayor Mancino: Any time there is a subdivision there is a charge for park and trail fees. So there would be a fee for your subdividing your 5 acres into two 2 ½ parcels. Mary Pat Monson: And that was in original paperwork under a simple metes and bounds or whatever we talked about, there is a park fee involved in that? Because that wasn't. 22 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: Maybe a simple way to explain it would be, if you'd wait until a year from now with your application, you would be then approached on a basis of purchasing in the meantime a trail easement on your property under the referendum and.., passed. Mary Pat Monson: Right. Councilman Senn: Then if you came in after that and asked for a subdivision, for a lot into these two, then that issue would be past. What's happening here is your coming in and asking for a subdivision now at the same time the city is looking.., and negotiate and acquire or negotiate.., under that trail expansion. Kate Aanenson: Except that she would still be charged a trail fee. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Yes. Yes. Regardless now or in the future you would be charged that. Councilman Senn: And it may be part of what you work out to define what these are to them. That they understand what.., and there's writing here. You don't have to pay. I mean under this agreement, I mean you can go back two months... There's nothing in here saying you can't. So what I'm saying is. Kate Aanenson: ... storm water. We're saying we're waiving those. Councilman Senn: But it doesn't say that Kate, I'm sorry. It does not say that in here. Mayor Mancino: It doesn't say that, so they should know that. Councilman Senn: ... either accept it, reject it. Mayor Mancino: So what we want you to do, and we've tried to explain it, is to go back through the conditions and explain what they are and if they're agreed upon and those that are city ordinances are just, if you want to negotiate instead of paying park and trail fees, you can not pay that and give the new easement alignment for the trail. Because the two are the same value. That's up to you and what you're going to have to talk about. But nobody's going to charge you any more than what we would charge anyone else in our ordinances. Mary Pat Monson: Okay. And I don't know what those fees are because I've never seen them but. Mayor Mancino: Well and they're in print and staff will show them to you. Mary Pat Monson: Okay. I just, I maybe.., a little, you know it gets a little frustrating because we've been trying to work with the city for a year on doing this and when we came up. Mayor Mancino: So hopefully by our next City Council meeting we'll see this. By the 26th and if there is a date that you can meet with staff in the next week or two and get this finalized. I think I've said that twice tonight. Gayle Degler: Pardon? Did I miss. Mayor Mancino: Could you please come forward and state your name. 23 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler, 1630 Lyman Boulevard. Did I miss the public input to this subdivision? Mayor Mancino: No. There was no public hearing. This is just new business but you can certainly come up. Gayle Degler: Then my letter was wrong. I've got a letter saying this is a notice of public hearing. January 12th at 7:00 for this. It said, the third thing would be comments received from the public so I don't know who sent this letter but. Mayor Mancino: Gayle, it isn't listed under public hearings but you're certainly welcome to make comment. Gayle Degler: I mean I don't know who sent this letter but I figure all the property, neighboring properties got a hold of this and there was, you know it says public hearing. Just a couple comments, couple questions on this. As a neighbor I'm going to support my neighbors obviously but speaking as the Chairman of the County Planning Commission, a couple questions. When this subdivision first was introduced, Chairman Berquist kind of alluded to it. Are there building eligibility's left on this parcel? Didn't the original developer take all the building eligibility's and group them in this lower area and kept the last one basically used it up in housing area? I was surprised to hear that there was even a building eligibility left here. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Degler brings up a good point. That was back in 1987 when we signed on with the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. We had the 1 per 10 density requirement and that's what this was...the 1 per 10. But because it's inside the MUSA area...we've made the interpretation that as long as they meet the 2 ½ acre minimum requirement, they can subdivide but that's the minimum. Until the neighborhood comes back and wants to change the character...that's what's taken us so long to find the drainfield sites and trying to... Gayle Degler: That was my question. Inside the MUSA you can still put in septic systems and that's what this would be. Kate Aanenson: Right. We try not to encourage that but there are some areas that...talked about the property further developing.., they did not plat the other lot. They left that as an outlot. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Gayle Degler: Okay, then as part of this, was that whole wetland meadow down there? Was that wetland delineated? There's stakes all the way around there now. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Gayle Degler: Are those stakes, I farm that land all the way around it. I actually farm their property too. Are those stakes permanent? Can I move them? Can I take them out? I mean obviously it looks like I did the delineation for them. They just went right along where I plow. Mayor Mancino: I hope they didn't pay anybody for that delineation. 24 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Gayle Degler: I'm sure they paid somebody. But they didn't pay me, that's for sure. Obviously I cut that meadow twice and the first time I cut in about another 100 feet while the second time it was a little bit wetter I didn't get in that far and well obviously that's where they put the stakes. Kate Aanenson: The city has had an easement over a lot of that property.., when that plat came in and we're working with... Water quality project on that property. That's why... Mayor Mancino: And do you know how long the stakes will stay? Kate Aanenson: I can check with the Water Resource Coordinator on that but I know he's working on that right now and.., have an answer on that. Gayle Degler: I don't have to know until next spring obviously. Kate Aanenson: I'll let you know. Gayle Degler: Okay, and the third question is, this part of Audubon Road is now a city street, right? Okay. There's only one sign as you're heading north for a speed limit. That says 45 and then there's another one up further. Coming south, the only speed limit sign is right across from Park Road. Right south of McGlynn's, so anybody heading south I'm sure has no idea what the speed limit is and with another access for a resident, I mean I use that access now to get to the field and it's perfectly, well it's usable. But on the county level, the county has certain distances that you can get access to properties and I don't know what the city ordinance is, and especially with this speed limit, is a safety concern there. I'm sure you've looked into it but. Kate Aanenson: That was one of the concerns we have with the driveway. Mayor Mancino: That it has to be so many feet next, or away from another access. And it meets the requirement? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Gayle Degler: So they can be fairly close because obviously the ones to the south is real close. Kate Aanenson: The one to the south is already... Gayle Degler: Yeah, but it does meet... Right, I agree with Mr. Monson that if the trail takes the existing driveway, there's going to be quite an expense to make another driveway because the incline gets to be a problem. SO yeah. So those were my major concerns. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you for your comments. Next item on the agenda is number 7 was deleted. 8 was deleted. Number 9. Kate Aanenson: Can we get a motion to table? Mayor Mancino: Oh! Do we need to motion to table? 25 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Roger Knutson: So the record is clear what happened tonight. Technically you don't have to but it might be a good idea just so looking back in years you can say what happened... Mayor Mancino: Well, I motion that we table request for metes and bounds subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge into two lots on property zoned RR, rural residential located at 8850 Audubon Road. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the request for a metes and bounds subdivision on Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge into two lots on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 8850 Audubon Road. All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist and Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WHICH WOULD PERMIT A CHURCH/INSTITUTIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE ON 27.3 ACRES~ LAND GROUP INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS~ BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER. Bob Generous: The application before you is a conceptual planned unit development. Conceptual planned unit development allows the developer to flush out the issues regarding the proposed development to find out what concerns the city has. It also permits the city the opportunity to provide the developer with direction on how to proceed with their project. Before us is a mixed office industrial park planned unit development. The number one issue that they want to flush out and provide direction is whether or not a church facility is appropriate use as part of the planned unit development. Staff believes that due to the design of the project, the use of shared parking opportunities, that a church facility within an office industrial park could make, enhance the development. Primarily we evaluated what the potential use of the site was. We, quick rule of thumb of 30% of the lot be...that could be developed. If that was the case we would have 190,000 square foot building and use the ratios of office and warehouse and they would provide 147 parking stalls. We believe that the church facility, because of it's different hours of businesses and manufacturing can provide those 147 spaces during the week to office and warehouse and industrial development around them. Our primary concern with designing the project is that we make the parking, the shared parking areas, more accessible and convenient for the office and industrial as opposed to just for the church use. This project went before the Planning Commission in December and they were okay with the use of the church use as part of the facility. Their primary concern was that this project be designed to preserve the primary corridor within the Bluff Creek corridor. As part of the discussion about that, the city had been using 100 foot rule of thumb for determining setbacks. Within the Bluff Creek study we delineated a primary and secondary zone. However, the city is in the process of developing a Bluff Creek overlay district that provides developers and property owners an opportunity to more accurately define what this line should be and that can be done through the study of soil, hydrology, vegetation, topography on the site and so the applicant has initiated that process and we're.., looking at discussing what exactly that line is. The site characteristic, the site primarily, rolling topography has been used for agricultural purposes. This development would preserve the Bluff Creek corridor, both the east and the main branch of the development. We believe that it can, through proper landscaping, enhance those corridors and create a Bluff Creek corridor that is consistent with the.., of the Bluff Creek study that would provide both the natural area for, and a habitat area for the creatures in the community. Generally in a concept plan we don't get as far as developing development standards. However in this one, since I had a proforma 26 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 available, I provided a draft copy so both the developer and the city could provide some comment. This development standards looked at... the permitted and ancillary use of the property. Various setbacks in the site coverage, building square footages, building materials, landscaping and screening. We believe that these standards provide a starting point for this development and would request that the Council look at that and provide us direction on whether or not the uses should be included or eliminated. As well as... design standards .... provide a pedestrian walkway or condition.., staff is recommending approval of the concept plan and we have some 30 conditions that we'd like them to address... With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions before the applicant presents from Council? Councilman Berquist: The plan that you've got on that table, is that the same that's dated... Kate Aanenson: January 7th. There was discussion regarding the date on the plans which was not picked up on the tape. Bob Generous: Correct. What they is they responded to the Planning Commission and staff comments and they came and showed how they're addressing them. Councilman Berquist: What date was it at Planning? Bob Generous: December 3rd... Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, say that one more time. Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear we still have the site plan... Councilman Berquist: Right. Mayor Mancino: And our land use plan guides the entire space office industrial, correct? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to present? Come up to the podium and state your name. Liv Homeland: I'm Liv Homeland from Land Group Inc. We've been working on this project for approximately two years and did go to Planning Commission with a plan that we felt you know had merit. And we have been working with Family of Christ Church pretty much through that period of time. They are here also with some of their members as well to discuss further their site specifically. Okay, the top then is north along the highway so that helps I think there. We're very pleased to be able to be before you today. We did meet with the Planning Commission in December and we have changed our plan substantially in response to staff comments and recommendations which are the 34 points that they mentioned. Of those 34 points we really are at only two that we have some questions about, but other than that I think we've either revised all the points that they've discussed or we've agreed to them so I think that there's only two in that portion that we have, though there may be new considerations because we have changed the plan. The plan that we had previously worked on was showed more office along the highway 27 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 and it was, at that point there was difficulties with the screening. The large buildings were difficult also, even though that was the market that we were after was more the office warehouse buildings. Warehouse had loading docks, and no matter which way we turned them they were screening from the wrong directions so we have gone with office. As it tums out, in that period of time we also have been working with two users now which make office more viable. We're working with a clinic in the northwest comer that would like to be on that site and that makes, you know very good use for that property. And we're working with an office, a tenant that is a financial institution that would like to be part of the office building in the northeast comer. So we have changed our plan accordingly. As part of that, also the church has been working with us for approximately two years and they've been very actively involved in the process as developing this for, what they would like to be their new home in Chanhassen. And we have also, we have spent a great deal of time, we are working actively to provide the crossover shared parking. I think that's an issue and that's a concern and I think with the heavier office use, I think that does addresses that better as well. So we have a number of changes that we feel have been effective. The site itself has a great deal of, is a difficult site. Has a lot of constraints to it. From the north along Highway 5 we are dealing with the taking, you know there will be some additional improvements there for Highway 5 as it expands. From Highway 5 to Coulter Boulevard there's a significant drop. The topography is very difficult on this site. This is another reason why the office buildings in the north end work better than the office warehouse because there's a rolling topography and it actually drops about 40 feet from Highway 5 down to Coulter Boulevard. And this plan will require a lot less grading and a lot less massing of parking which was of concern previously as well. In this part. We're bringing in office users into the site. The north/south road that is shown on the site was previously approved by Council and was requested by staff and there is a MnDot approved right-in and right-out on the highway. In our previous plan that we came to Planning Commission, because we were trying to do office warehouse, the large buildings, we couldn't fit the north/south road on the site so our previous plan did away with that but we're trying to retain that MnDot approved access in case that we should go with office, and we've elected to, we very much want to keep the MnDot approved access point and the north/south road and therefore office makes more sense for us. There is on this site also is other constraints. There is a power line running right through the middle and we've pretty much kept the road where the power line is. The other constraints are, there's flood plain on the side and then we have primary creek corridor on the west side towards the school and a secondary corridor on the east side. So they're two corridors that we're working with as well. I'm going to introduce to you our architect Ron Krank of KKE Architects and he will go into more detail on the project and overall appearance and what we are trying to do here and then our engineer as well and the Family of Christ Church thereafter. Thank you. Ron Krank: Thank you Liv. Good evening. As Liv has told you, my name is Ron Krank. I'm with KKE Architects. Our role has not been as much as architect as assisting in the planning of the project and I thought what I'd like to do is explain a little bit of more background and tell you how we arrived at what we have. As Liv said, two years ago she came to us and she indicated that Family of Christ Church was interested in the property and she wanted to accommodate that opportunity and we talked about how that could happen. At that time the thought was that this would be, the remainder of the site would be office warehouse and she was thinking she could continue on with the opportunity and look for users. One thing that remained constant all the time, the church was very interested and is very interested in that property and a good team player in helping us get through all the issues of the ponding and the wetlands, the creeks n both sides. The access to Highway 5. All of the difficulties on this property and as you can tell from the staff report, it is a very complex site. There are a lot of engineering issues that dictate many of the design elements and Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madson will go over that with you. But we feel a real commitment to the church. They've been with us this entire two years in working with us and trying to get the project done. They've been very good in terms of redesigning their building and relaying it out on this site to 28 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 accommodate the very topography and where the road was in or out. But we feel, and we felt from day one that they were an ideal beginning user on the property. They're a good compatible use for the school to the west. For the residential to the south. Very quiet, soft use. They don't create noise. They're off peak use. The traffic is off peak, and of course the opportunity to utilize their parking for the office building, office warehouse and vice versa made a lot of sense to us. As you may know, we did many iterations of plans that took all those items into consideration. The reason you see a second plan today is coincidental with the fact that staff prepared a very thorough report and listed all the elements of concern. Coincidental with the fact that two users came to the table very, very recently and that being, as Liv indicated, an office user, medical clinic user actually and a financial institution. So with those two users we know much more about the site now and can be much clearer to you in the direction the project is taking. Frankly when we began the project, we put this first set of drawings together, it was a guesstimate on our part. We admitted to staff it was conceptual, but we are committed to maintaining the quality that the Highway 5 corridor study expresses concern about. We know about the need to create outdoor living room spaces so to speak. Outdoor living areas. We know the need to shield the parking from the roadways and create as much berming as we can. We're aware of the need to do our best to create the urban edge. We are aware of the quality that you're looking for with materials and design. The minimizing of large expanses of walls uninterrupted by texture and windows and detailing. We, I know we can do a good job in doing that. We're pleased in that the church is most likely, if you accept the plan, going to be the first building on this site or at least the first design through to you and they certainly have indicated a desire to have a very quality building and I'm reluctant to use the word signature because that sometimes means a very strong design but something well done. That will be the beginning for what we intend to do with the rest of the property in tying it together with design standards that would relate to the landscaping. The trails. The lighting standards and so forth. So we're here to tell you, one we're pleased that staff has given a positive recommendation. Planning Commission has done so. We're pleased we're able to get to you a revised plan, even though unfortunately it wasn't to you a long time ago but it takes us time to work through all the issues. So at this point I'd like to turn the presentation over to Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madson to go through the engineering aspects. Thank you. Ken Adolf: Good evening. Again I'm Ken Adolfwith Schoell and Madson. I'll quickly review the new site plan. As was stated, the significant modifications to the site plan was made in response to the recommendations in the staff report and also with better information being available as far as users. The significant addition is more south, the public street that passes through this site. This lines up with Stone Creek Drive on the south end. For orientation, this is Coulter Boulevard. The bridge is right here. Existing Highway 5. This is Bluff Creek. This is the pond that was created. Then on the east side of the project is... This area indicates the future eastbound lane of Highway 5. The existing lanes are going to become westbound lanes. We have stated adjacent to Highway 5... buildings. These are two story office buildings with the.., which provides at grade access to... It also allows making the grade transition with some grading.., west and southwestern site. These are two smaller office warehouse buildings. L shaped buildings with a shared truck dock area. This allows screening of the truck dock area with the buildings themselves. It's one of the items that staff...truck dock area and... This is a proposed storm water pond that would collect the majority of the runoff from the site. Provide some.., and rate control... This is a consolidation of two ponds. The initial plan had a smaller pond in this location and that's been... The church, the center portion is what.., also a two level building with.., some future phases proposed. The shared parking that has been discussed is in the.., portion of the church lot. There's 170 parking stalls that are within 400 feet of these three buildings. That is the parking that is, that shared parking... Setback issues on the creek first of all on the northeast branch, if I understand the requirement to be is a 100 foot setback from the center line of the creek for structures. We are proposing this area that... 80 feet and additional width be picked up on the east side of the creek. The applicant does control the property on each 29 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 side of the creek.., square off the creek setback... On Bluff Creek, the initial plan that was submitted had used that same 100 foot setback criteria. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission was that the recommendations of the Bluff Creek management study should be utilized. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the church has been relocated on the site. The previous building was an L shaped building. ... building in this area. That has all been moved farther to the.., somewhat farther from the creek. We have reviewed the management study and believe that there are some reasons that there should be flexibility in the width of the creek corridor rather than just realizing what we're shown in the study .... have shown here, in the blue line, the.., wetland boundary. Some of that has been changed by the.., of this pond. ... original flood plain boundary, and again that was changed from the earlier pond. What is shown in red here is the approximate primary creek corridor that was shown in the management study. But in this particular area the elevation of the corridor or into the corridor... Then in this area, the creek corridor is actually designed where the flood plain is actually... We feel that there's some questions about where the edge of the corridor should be in this area primarily because of topography. However the new plan did try to provide some additional separation from. Regarding the, some additional information on the impact and benefit of the shared parking. This plan is the same for the entire site with the exception of the church lot. What we have shown here is another office warehouse building on the church site. 170 stalls of shared parking that are required.., parking needs of Lots 2, 4 and 5 are in this area so the parking needs for this office warehouse building have to be met in this area. This again is an L shaped office warehouse. We offer some screening of the truck dock area which is back in this area. This plan shows a building area of 42,000 square feet which is significantly smaller than the 108,000 that was included in the staff report. I think one of the reasons why the general rules of thumb as far as building ratios and so forth don't work is because of the significant setback requirements from the creek and some other issues. But again if you probably lay this out somewhat more efficiently and squeeze in more square footage but you get from the 42,000 to the 108 that we'll have to... I should say that these office warehouse buildings are based on 60% office, 40% warehouse. Parking needs are calculated on that basis. Councilman Berquist: May I ask a question? This 49,000... indicating, are you saying that that parking adjacent to it would be used for that building as well as the rest of the building? That parking would be roughly 75% of what you've got.., church there. That area there. Is that correct? Ken Adolf: Right. This parking would be assigned to this... This is really parking then that's necessary to satisfy the parking requirements of... We tried to utilize the previous plan and then just see what could be done with the church site. So this. Mayor Mancino: So you can still get shared parking on it? Ken Adolf: Well no, there's no shared parking proposed here because you'd have all of the uses would be using the stalls at the same time. Councilman Berquist: Well what you're saying is, staff.., is 108,000 feet here would really, I mean you're questioning 58,000 square feet of it...more feet of parking. Or some ratio that's smaller than that. Go ahead. Ken Adolf: Well I was just going to say. I think some of that area's taken up with creek setbacks and so forth... It's not that you have 58,000 square feet more of parking. You've got some more parking but you probably... Councilman Berquist: All right, sorry. Go ahead. 30 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Ken Adolf: The point being that as far as the tax impact, basing it on 108,000 we feel is...not appropriate because... Mayor Mancino: But that's using the primary zone. Bob Generous: Yeah, that would.., assuming a... with a perfect world that... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Ken Adolf: And of any site, this is...probably this site because of the restrictions on the site. Next I'd like to address the siting of the church. The church on the previous plan was an L shaped structure, single level. Staff, one of the items in the staff report recommended looking at a two level church structure and that's what this is. As I said it walks out to...walks out to the north. The layout works very nice. The parking is... with at grade access for the upper level. I'm not sure how it would work to shift the church to the south. The structure to the south. It, in my mind, would eliminate the ability to do a walkout on the lower level. As Liv indicated, the design plan.., items in the staff recommendations, the first few items... some of the items were just standard items. The applicant is agreeing to essentially all of those items. One of the exceptions is a requirement that the applicant coordinate the storm sewer... As I said before, we previously had another storm water pond in this area and it was recommended that we consolidate that, which we have done. By doing that we now need to utilize all of the storage volume that's available in this pond just for the on site needs so there really isn't any storage volume available... Further we believe that it's really MnDOT's responsibility to do the coordination and contact the property owners if they need to acquire some property for their own ponding needs. With that I'll pass this onto the Family of Christ Lutheran Church representatives. I'm not sure if Jim Sulerud is going to start. Jim Sulerud: Hi. I'm Jim Sulerud and we're pleased finally to be before you. I'm on the Building Committee of Family of Christ Lutheran Church and we want to be respectful of both your time but also your interest to know what we're about. In that regard, first of all you'll hear from Pastor Nate Castens about who are church is and some of our history. Following that you'll hear from SMSQ, Steve Edwins, our architect and he can get into some more detail. It sounds like there's some staff concern about where the church is on the site. And then following that we can, I'll be glad to have with you a discussion about some of our siting issues. Where we looked. Other places. Concerns about how does a church fit here. What our past couple of years of history on that issue has been. Nate. Nate Castens: Good evening. I'm Nate Castens. I'm a resident of this community on North Erie Avenue and one of the Pastors of Family of Christ Lutheran Church. I'm pleased to be here, not to introduce our church to you but to really bring you up to date on where we are, and think that it could be helpful in our conversation to do some talking with you specifically about our relationship in the community. In reference to our being corporate citizens in the city of Chanhassen and I'll really begin by doing some conversation about our background and our history. We started in 1980 on Easter Sunday. Our first worship service being in historic Old St. Hubert's church. 9 years after that and 9 years ago, we moved into our current building on Lake Drive East on Christmas Eve. In the last 5 years, really in the last 7 or 8 years we have been growing considerably as a congregation but in the last 5 years in particular our membership has grown by 46%. Our average weekend worship attendance is around 500. Every year for the past 3 or 4 years we've seen an increase of children's enrollment in programs of 25 to 30% which has pushed us on Wednesday night programs to using some of the facilities of the recently vacated old St. Hubert's gymnasium and school. So we're trying to do two sites at the present time. When we project ourselves 31 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 into the future, there are a couple of different ways to talk about projections and the one that you see is the one that I feel best about using which is briefly stated, if we're doing our job as a good congregation, if we're meeting the needs of our community and the needs of the people of our church, we will continue to grow as a congregation. And any good church in Chanhassen will continue to grow is if we have the facilities, the parking, the elbow room that we feel is necessary to allow our church as a corporate citizen of this community the options for us to be able to respond in ways that meet needs of the community and our religious community. Not knowing what's ahead, we would like to be able to have options. The space, the parking, the elbow room necessary to provide us with a variety of options. Another way of looking at projections is to talk about numbers. Two years ago when we were deeply into the study of whether to relocate or not, this is 1996 figures. Five years from then would be 2001, isn't it? We were thinking, 3 years from now at any rate. Our attendance would be somewhere between 1,000 or 1,500 people on a weekend conceivably given facilities, and our children's enrollment somewhere around 500 to 750 children in our programs. Family of Christ's mission is first and foremost certainly to be a Christian church. To be a church of, a place of worship, education and programming. A place for the families of our religious community to be together in Christian worship and service. And not incidentally for a place for residents, new residents and others to put down roots of faith and friendship. We see this all the time, as other churches do in our community. As new residents arrive, one of the places that many new residents look for relationships and for roots of stability is a Christian congregation. We think that benefits a community considerably. There are several key words or phrases that we use in our congregation, our church life. Children and families certainly a part of that. We're not overlooking our ministry and mission to people my age. Almost empty nesters, but if you look at our community, our school district and our church, clearly children and families are part of the primary mission that we have. Music is another key word for us at Family of Christ. Little known fact. A too closely guarded secret is the fact that in Chanhassen, Family of Christ Lutheran Church has the largest, regularly scheduled contemporary worship music program of any Lutheran church within a 10 mile radius. That includes St. Andrews in Eden Prairie. Mt. Calvary in Excelsior and a whole variety of others. Our regular Sunday morning, 11:00 worship music program for contemporary music is bigger than any others around. We don't really say that a whole lot and maybe we should. Service to others is also something that we have historically used as a key phrase in our church life. I'll say some more about that in a few minutes. But we also, historically have budgeted 3% of our weekend worship offerings to designate to local social service and church run social service agencies. Non church agencies that we've contributed to in the past, and always entertained contributing presently, would include Southern Valley Alliance for Battered Women. Carver County Big Brothers and Big Sisters. There's an Edendale Camp for Disabled Children. My indication is that we do not simply focus on church activities or church run facilities but others as well. We think that churches are more than simply religious institutions in a community that have a discreet impact only on it's own membership. Churches also are community citizens and along with specific agencies consciously partner in promoting and supporting the well being of the neighborhoods and the communities that we serve. As such I believe that churches and the well being of churches has a direct impact on the well being and on public, the well being of public life and even on issues of public money and taxation. Family of Christ Lutheran does not believe that we need to duplicate the good quality programs that school districts and other social or community agencies do, but as a community citizens with that relationship written right into our church mission statement, we think it's real important for us to support these community agencies and school. For 18 years Family of Christ has been a quiet and substantial citizen in our community, beginning from day one when we began at a crucial time in it's preservation. We began a daily use and maintenance of old, historic Old St. Hubert's church in Chanhassen. They're renting that facility and on a daily and a weekly and a monthly and a yearly basis were maintaining it. Were providing the utilities for it. Were paying rental payments. At a time in the community's life and in that building's life when there was some fair uncertainty about it's viability as a historic structure. Pastor and leaders from Family of Christ were 32 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 instrumental, along with some people at St. Hubert's, in beginning and also making certain of it's continuing the now 19 year tradition of the community ecumenical Thanksgiving service that we have. Family of Christ sponsors and we hold in our building, we have video tape for, or have rebroadcast a couple of times the, on the cable access channel, the City Council candidates election forum. We like providing this for the community at an evening time when people who are working may be able to attend or be able to see this on their televisions. We are a polling place. We have 18 year history of, if not weekly, certainly monthly food donations to PROP as well as some considerable cash contributions and volunteer participation. Family of Christ presently is host to at least one of one site in Chanhassen of District 112's ECFE. Early Childhood Family Education program. Right now it's a 3 full day program. For a couple of years it was a couple of days and two evenings until we had to tell ECFE we need the evening space. And during these years we did not charge the taxpayers of District 112 any cost at all for any occupancy. Rental, snow removal, garbage removal, utilities, insurance, upkeep, any of that. I certainly acknowledge there's benefit to Family of Christ for having ECFE in our building. There's clearly a benefit to District 112 taxpayers to have ECFE in our building. I've been a resource occasionally to Scott Harr and Chanhassen Public Safety. Particularly in talking about disaster preparedness in our community and coordinating that with professional clergy and other non-public services. And with the fire department as well a couple of times in talking with them about stress related and work related issues for fire fighters. Family of Christ hosts multiple groups. You see the list there. Sometimes it's on Tuesday evenings I believe we have three Brownie groups meeting. Not always on the same evening but multiple groups, none of which we charge for use of our building in any way. AA makes a token contribution of $10.00 a month and that's I believe the only income that we receive from any of these community groups. In closing I just would, I would say that churches are not the only source for volunteers and for the care and feeding of volunteers in a community. But for people of faith, and in Minnesota that's a considerable portion of the population. For people of faith, churches are one of the important sources for volunteers, coaches, civic volunteers of a variety of sorts. Not only a source but the encouragement of and the care, the feeding, the nourishment and the renewal, which is critically necessary. Thanks. I'll mm this over to Steve Edwins, our architect. Mayor Mancino: How long have you been pastor there? Nate Castens: I've been pastor since day one. I've been a member of this community for 22 or 23 years. Steve Edwins: It's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the church. My name is Steve Edwins from SMSQ Architects in Northfield. I'm going to align this drawing a little bit. And we've been doing the master planning work and the building design work for Family of Christ over the last year or more and I'd like to just talk briefly about the way the building, as it's been planned and designed, responds to the forces on the site. This has been dealt with in the larger scale of the whole site, up till this time by Ken Adolf. Very ably. We have had a struggle with this little hill, shoulder of the site simply because of all the forces that kind of collide in this one spot. We have, first of all topology that is, if you can see here. The topology of this shoulder kind of coming down to a narrow point by Bluff Creek. High at this side. Low at this side. Where a building is located, compared to a driveway at Coulter Boulevard is about a 16 foot climb up to the building. The road that will be the extension of Stone Creek will go from about 35 feet up to a total of 50 feet. From 930 to 950 at that side. So it's a hilly area and we want to take advantage as best we can of the topology and the views that the church will have and the views that people will have of the church. Along the guidelines that the city has set out. So we've placed the building high on the site, up here with a loop road that connects from the new Stone Creek extension, which allows people to find the church easily when they come off of Highway 5 or from driving west on Coulter. They'll find this location handy. We need to have a long, kind of drop off zone. There's not enough room on the site for really a mm around so 33 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 we're proposing kind of a long drop off area because it's very important for parents to drop off kids and people to pick up people who are leaving a service and starting at the next service. In fact we don't quite have enough room for that on the site as it stands right now but this will work. And the parking is on the south side in our view because we really want the entrance to the church to be on the sunny side, the south side and use the building kind of like an agricultural shelter belt that protects the farmhouse from the north winds and from the cold. It really works best in our climate to have entrances to churches facing towards the south, as well as for other buildings. We've been in church business for about 49 years. I've been designing churches for 20 years and the difficulties we find of having north facing entrances are huge in our kind of climate. As far as being hospitable and gracious and friendly to people who are coming to church. In this case, with the parking sloping down towards Coulter, there's a natural way in which because of the topology the parking is going to be somewhat hidden from Coulter, and certainly hidden from Highway 5. Yet it presents kind of where the front door is quite easily and visibly to people either driving on Coulter or who might mm up Stone Creek Drive towards the main part of the development. Now the building is also designed so that it can grow. The core will contain the first worship area which will become the future fellowship hall, offices, restrooms and education. With the entry here, the concept will be to allow the building to grow this direction, toward the east for it's assembly spaces. We're not sure how big the final assembly space might be but that makes sense to have that on the high part of the land. It will be the tallest part of the building and it will be centered then in a way that access from parking on all sides makes a lot of sense in the long run. Running this way from the gathering space that's right in the middle of the building will be offices. Offices facing south where people can see where to go for help and where the staff can kind of monitor the building and people who are coming and going. And behind on this side and to the west would be really education. And the church is going to start off by having a place for small kids. A child care effort that actually will benefit the whole site because where the preschool and daycare possibilities on site, it really is an advantage to everyone in the development. This part of the building grows this direction as education grows. And it could easily be a two story extension where the topology goes downhill. On the east side we don't necessarily need to have something underneath the assembly space in a basement level. So it takes advantage of the site in that respect. We've kept everything under possible construction behind the 100 foot setback discussed for the Bluff Creek corridor. That line is approximately here on this drawing so that even parking, a small amount of parking that we envision and the future phase of the church would not encroach into that line at all. The smaller, shorter parts of the building would be towards this end again and the taller parts climbing the hill up this way. For people viewing the site from the walkway, the trail that's going to be basically on the west side of Bluff Creek, looking across the pond and looking across towards the east, they'll be able to see kind of through the building to the site and it will not have a big impact in that respect. The concept is true with what is turning out to be the concept for the whole site of having kind of a village of buildings rather than having lots of large buildings on the site. That you can kind of see through and in-between to take advantage of the topology. This drawing also illustrates some of our responses to the needs for good landscaping, especially on the Bluff Creek side of the building. The rest of it doesn't show up in this drawing yet, with a concept of using wetlands, plantings around where the retention pond would be. Using kind of approved plant materials of native grasses and things along the whole Bluff Creek area and the trees, both canopy trees of the old growth forest type, because there's a real reforestation project going on along Bluff Creek, as well as ornamental trees for screening and shrubbery for screening of parking. The main parking here is very close to the front door and as shown in the more up to date drawing that Ken presented, parking on the east side is available to the other parts of the site. We do want to have a small amount of parking low on the site that is connected to the other parking which will be, facilitate the children and families using the building in the long run and this is also a place where people from the public generally can come to the Bluff Creek area and enjoy the setting without it being a very large parking lot. This parking lot would follow the contours and the creek bed as much as possible. So that in a nutshell is kind of the reasoning for 34 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 the building being placed as it has been on the site and if there are questions that come up, I'm sure I can fill in some more details as those do. We're very concerned about following the guidelines for the kind of tree planting in the islands and the whole parking area so that we have a well landscaped, well lighted, well defined parking area and we've made a shot at doing that in, on a really very tight conditions of slope in this part of the site. Mayor Mancino: Steve, you said you've been designing churches for 20 years. What other churches have you designed? In the area. Steve Edwins: Well let's see. We're working right now in the northern suburbs, in Brooklyn Park with St. Gerards Catholic Church. We're working with Emanuel east of here in Eden Prairie. Normandale Lutheran on Highway 100 is one of our projects. We've worked on St. John's Lutheran downtown. Or south Nicollet. We're working with Mary Mother of the Church in Burnsville. We have about 15 church projects in different stages of development right now. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Jim Sulerud: Back to me. I'm Jim Sulerud again. What I'd like to do is just step through rather quickly some of the concerns that have come to us, some directly and some indirectly, with regard to how is the choice made. How might a choice be made by the city or city staff to locate a church where there might otherwise have been some other revenue producing development. Obviously we as the church look at it 180 degrees different and I'll kind of step that, step through some of that for you. I think it comes to answer the same questions and maybe the same outcome. Let's see where we are here. Here we're identifying what our considerations have been. These are the headings for our, for the next pieces that I'll talk about but first of all it's how much growing room will we need as a congregation. That was our first, our first question that we came up with. You're maybe familiar with our present site. We're located just to the east here behind the Legion fields. A little obscure right now. Maybe for people driving by on Highway 5. We were on what was originally going to be Highway 101 when we bought our property. Highway 101 was going to travel right by and it was, we were going to be at a major intersection of Highway 5 and 101. Well that didn't happen. We also, a siting decision at that time had to do with available sewer and water. First of all, getting back to where we are today. Our site right now is 7,300 square feet on about 3 ½ acres of land. If you drive by the site you'll see that it's not fully developed. Our present site could accommodate up to maybe 19,000 square feet, so we could be a little bit more than double the size. Our current programming, our current programming, looking at what the present members of our congregation have stated for needs, would develop a site plan for about 20 to 25,000 square feet of construction. So that would outstrip the needs on the site. That would be for our present need, what our congregation right now would like to see built. What we're going to actually afford to build will not be, we don't expect to be at that, but the current expectations for current programming, based on what the congregation would like to see, would call for more than what our site would offer. On our site plans, looking ahead at those nebulous numbers in the future, we're looking ahead at trying to accommodate 60,000 square feet so well beyond what the present site would provide. Next we looked at, the question was can we stay where we are. Obviously it might be most prudent to add on and so we even went beyond the consideration of our current land. We looked across the street at buying property in the retail area across the street. Area that's recently been considered for the auto dealerships. That of course would be taking more dollars off the tax rolls but we looked at that as being maybe shared parking as well, so that could let us grow a little bit more on our site. We also looked at purchasing of adjacent residential property, and I think we included in your material just a sketch of what properties those might be. We identified between 14 and 26 homes that would have to be acquired to meet an acreage that would be similar to what we might be looking for with 35 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 shared parking. The current market cost on that would be about 2 ½ to 4 million dollars and current taxes to the city of those, of the larger number of residents, the 26 residences would be $15,000.00 annually. As you can imagine, acquisition by a congregation moving into a neighborhood to the east, and expecting to acquire 14 to 26 homes would be kind of a major undertaking with a lot of disruption, both to that neighborhood and probably not even feasible. But that's just to give a flavor to the size of the acquisition that we'd be talking about. Even if we were to consider shared parking across the street in the commercial area. So we left that as a consideration and we identified some goals that we had as we looked at other sites. This dating back 2 and 3 years ago. We were looking for a site that had visibility to Highway 5. We consider ourselves to be a congregation that serves Chanhassen. Also serves some Eden Prairie residents and some Chaska. We looked to the west, probably not locating beyond Galpin. Looked to, but certainly to the east of TH 101. I'm sorry, to the west of TH 101, but not to the west of Galpin. Churches, similar churches shouldn't locate on top of each other, and certainly we wanted to be in, stay in our Chanhassen market area. Again we wanted room for 60,000 square feet of building, which we interpreted variously over this time as being 8 to 15 plus acres. Maybe up to as many 20 if we didn't have the shared parking possibilities. Another thing that was critical to us two years ago, and certainly is critical today is that we had to look at properties that had infrastructure development that matched up with our time table. We couldn't be buying property, expecting to construct and build well before the public improvements were coming through. Some members of our congregation have raised that question about why do we buy what we've got? Shouldn't we have thought further in the future? Well, that's as far as sewer and water went those days. In fact we waited a little while for that. Not everywhere in the community but I mean we couldn't have considered where we are now certainly. And we looked to areas that would have a residential character, or an institutional neighbors. That would be our preferences. We didn't set out to look in industrial and commercial areas for locating our church. Our siting experiences. City staff early was helpful to us in identifying property owners as well as potential sites that they felt might be suitable, residential and otherwise. Both Kate and Bob have been with us through this whole process and have been very helpful. Back in '95, middle of '95 Bob had a list that was made available to us and to others where some of these sites, because I think he was getting many questions, daily from churches, where do we go? Identifying 8 to 10 parcels back then and we pursued not only those but the count came up to be 27 parcels that we looked at. Some of them very marginally suitable. I think south, looking at the intersection of what would be TH 101 and 212, when that might happen. Going to the west, to the southwest, at the south end of Audubon. Where that adjoins Lyman. Looking at it even farther west there, is an industrial piece that backs up against the wetland. It's farther west on Lyman. Heading north, looking even in the, at TH 41. Comers of TH 41 and Highway 5. Even though that was beyond where we wanted to be. And then all the way back east on the Highway 5 corridor to our present site. Looking at, talking to the residential developers, the commercial developers, all property owners and back then two years ago we got a lot of no, we're not interested. Or no, we're not interested in a church. Or we're already far along, too far along. We've got a townhouse development planned. But what we did find was that the Land Group site matched up with our timing. They weren't too far along and yet they were making plans for the inclusion of, expected to support the Coulter Boulevard petitioning and north/south road and so forth. So that became a first choice for us back then and it has remained that, even though since because of our time delays and some difficulties, we have gone back into the marketplace and made inquiries. But we have focused in on that site. Looking at some tax implications here and these are obviously there are going to be some stretches here but also some real type of numbers. You can see my first one here, I've quickly done some scratching out and inserting some other numbers but because things keep changing. I'm suggesting here that if we follow on Ken Adolf's suggestion that we put a 42,000 square foot facility on that site, it might be, if it's a basic office warehouse, it might be a million and a half structure. The City, or the County indicates that on a comparable building currently constructed in the city, they have these ratios worked out so that that would generate about $15,000.00 of city taxes on the property. So those are city dollars I'm 36 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 using here. My earlier number there was for a smaller size square foot building because as you saw the placement that Ken Adolf suggested, it intruded further to the west on the site and I expect that that wouldn't even be a feasible one in our proposal but as I previously suggested, if we acquired all of those other properties to the east of where we were, that would remove about $15,000.00 of city taxes again for those 26 parcels. And then here's a conjecture. My third point there is to say that if we were to acquire a free standing 15 to 20 acre site, in a new residential setting that might otherwise be occupied by 52 $160,000.00 homes, that would generate an estimated $39,000.00 in city taxes again. Taxes to the city. So that puts that, puts some dollar figures. I know that we can bat those around considerably but it isn't hundreds of thousands and it isn't a million per year. It's, but it still offsets some. My sort of a last point is kind of a restatement of some of the things that Nate was talking about. Is that it may be a little bit different but unlike city, county properties and so forth, churches pay for their land and pay for the development of their sites without taxpayer dollars. So we're not, it's not a parallel to a public use coming in and looking back to the taxpayer to fund the development and the construction. And yet for the most part it's a very public benefit. And then piggy backing on Nate's comments. Churches not only, in this community provide millions of dollars annually that primarily fund the facilities and salaries. There's a large revenue stream that flows through these congregations and they're primarily for two things. For the buildings, as Nate's talked about. They're very public buildings and they're for salaries for staff people who are in the business of providing a very public benefit. Beyond that you can extrapolate thousands and thousands of volunteer hours that are fostered by these facilities. So all of this in contrast to the lost revenue, it's maybe a bargain purchase. Reminds me that I missed one other point in this presentation was that in initially going to the city staff, we asked the question about are there locations that have been identified for congregations? Church sitings and that hasn't been a practice of the city. There's been a more broad siting issues that have been use types that have been identified but there hasn't been an identification that well here's where we'd like to see a church or here's where we'd like to see a church. And so we didn't have that as a benefit to go from. So anyway that's kind of a potpourri of who the church is and what we've been about for 2 years or more and, or 18 years. And we've been pleased to work with Land Group. They've been patient with us. We've been patient with them but I think just as equally the staff has been patient with us as well so I guess we're all ready to respond to questions. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Liv Homeland: I'm going to make this brief. I think everybody's losing it at this point. We really appreciate all your attention and concern. I just wanted to make a little recap on a couple of items that are very important to us. In going through, you know talking about the site concerns. One consideration is that first and foremost this is concept approval and we do have, there are 34 items that have been recommended to go with that, which is unusual at this stage of the development, but we are in agreement with 32 of those 32 and I just want to be very specific, since we revised our plan and did that, just want to be very specific about the two that we are not in agreement with. And the one of those is, we definitely want to retain the right-in, right-out access and the road going through the site, which was previously approved but when we went through the Planning Commission we had put that on hold and said we wanted to retain the right. We weren't sure we going to use it or not. We are now using it and I want that very clear that we do want to use and stay with that right-in and right-out and with the road that we had previously been approved. So I want that very clear. That is item number 27 in your staff report. And the second item that is very important to us. It's, the way it is worded in there, I think it makes some sense but that's item number 21 and this is in regard to our working with MnDot and that was addressed at some extent by Ken Adolf. I just wanted you to note which item that was. And we're perfectly willing to work with MnDot but we don't want to be the ones that have to approach them. They should approach us. We don't want to be responsible for doing something. You know if they have any issues, let them come to us and let the city 37 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 staff deal with us on those issues. Or the city deal with us. We don't want to have to be the ones to do their work for them in any way, shape or form. So we have a concern there. The other item that we wanted, when we're talking about uses, the third. We had talked about, we are now working with the clinic. There's a whole list of uses that the staff has put together and a clinic is one of those included uses and allowed uses for the site. One that is not on there is a financial institution such as a bank and we do have a user we're working with that would like to be an anchor tenant. Be a tenant in the office building in the northeast comer so bank is one that we want to add. That's a very specific add if you will. Because we are going so much office and you know increasing the density of the site, the other item that we, other use that we would request would be the use of a restaurant within the site, and that is another one that we'd like to have you look at and consider. Beyond that I think the other items are ones that we would certainly deal with and you've heard from the church and all the people involved so if you have any questions, I think we'd like, we're all available at this point for questions on your part. If there are any issues that you would have for questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Councilman Berquist: I just wanted to clarify the approval that you, took place at some point in time, the right-in/right-out. When was that? Liv Homeland: That was last year for the, it was to extend Stone Creek Boulevard all the way from Coulter. It goes up to Coulter now. Coming from the south to Coulter and extended from there to the Highway 5. The MnDot approved right-in/right-out has been there as long as we've had the property. That was there prior to our acquiring the property. Mayor Mancino: But it's not approved... Kate Aanenson: We looked at, and Charles can add. Stone Creek was always intended to go... north/south to go onto Highway 5. When Coulter was being designed, Charles... and they decided at that point, we said you have to decide now. Once Highway 5 gets built.., our recommendation was to have that right-in/right- out to take a lot of traffic off of Audubon. Going past the.., straight out and get onto TH 5 at a future date. Liv Homeland: The only reason there's some confusion on it was because a plan for the Planning Commission, we were trying to show office warehouse and so we at that point requested, we want to reserve the right to come back to that right-in/right-out and Kate and staff said, well either take it now or don't, or forget it you know kind of thing and we said well we can't afford to forget it and we, if we're not going to do the office warehouse, which was right in the middle of where the road would be. We couldn't fit it onto the site otherwise, and there were topography concerns. We couldn't use the roadway through. Therefore we went back to there and said okay, fine. We'll just stay with it the way it is and that's what we're asking for is to stay with it the way it is. But item number 27 in there doesn't, you know says that differently and that's why I noted that. We want to stay with the roadway running through the site north and south. Councilman Berquist: Is the others... 27 you talk about... Liv Homeland: Yeah, right. Kate Aanenson: It refers to the other set of plans. 38 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: Say that again? Kate Aanenson: It refers to the other set of plans. Liv Homeland: The office warehouse plan with one big building in the front, which is not the one that we're asking for approval on tonight. Kate Aanenson: Maybe you can let Charles comment on where.., design plans for Highway 5... Charles Folch: That's correct. The opportune time is now. The property has had a field access for a period of time. MnDot, as a part of their improvements to Trunk Highway 5 to a four lane facility is willing to allow a right-in/right-out condition to stay. Initially stay at that particular access. In order to close it they would have to purchase that right from the property owner but they have said for a couple of years now that they would be willing to allow a right-in/right-out controlled access. At this time MnDot has their design plans at about 30%. Anita and I have met with them back in late November, early December and the issue of this access point did come up again. From MnDOT's standpoint it is, they'd like to know where officially you know draw the line. Where does the access point be? There is a range, if you will, of distance where this access point could be adjusted based on highway design standards and at this point, I think they have the most possibly of just leaving it off their plans until they know exactly where the property owner would like to have the access point. If it fits within that criteria of allowable sight distances and things like that. I don't think MnDot has a problem with keeping a right-in/right-out access or adjusting it slightly if necessary. Mayor Mancino: Has there been a traffic study for the right-in/right-out? Charles Folch: There's not been a specific traffic study, no. But MnDot is comfortable to allow that condition to occur with. Mayor Mancino: Without doing a traffic study on a road that is at service level F at this point? Charles Folch: That's correct, with a right-in/right-out condition. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Comments from commissioners. This is a conceptual approval and what that means is obviously we're conceptually approving if we choose to do so. It doesn't hold us to, when we come back and see a sight plan, we can certainly change.., at that point. But I think we want to give good direction to the applicant. I think obviously one of the major questions, and we have dealt with this before. Can you hear me? Excuse me. And we have dealt with this before is when we've had commercial industrial zoning planned and we are very concerned about our tax base as a community, as you know. Will we rezone it for something else? We have, I'm not sure we have done that in the past, have we Kate? Have we looked at commercial industrial? When we've had a request for rezoning. Taking it off the commercial industrial zoning. Kate Aanenson: The commercial... Mayor Mancino: It was on residential so it has less of a fiscal impact on the tax base being from residential. And Jehovah Witness. What percentage of that commercial industrial area was rezoned for, is that rezoned institutional? Or was it rezoned? 39 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: No. It was intended to allow a church on... lot. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Which was approximately how much? Kate Aanenson: ...60. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it was like a 2 ½ acre. Mayor Mancino: And as we look at this, has staff looked at this to flip flop. If we're losing some CI tax base here, can we gain it somewhere else? Kate Aanenson: A good point was brought up and that was that.., look at providing.., update of the comprehensive plan we have done, have looked at other uses. As was in... putting studies together quite a while ago, properties that were available. Fortunately... assembled and held for development... The comprehensive plan in 1991 didn't.., specifically. Mayor Mancino: Specifically for institutional. Kate Aanenson: Well, which we... update the comprehensive plan. We have an opportunity where we think makes sense based on a collector. There's certain criteria.., uses or criteria... That's what we looked at... but there wasn't a lot of... Mayor Mancino: There weren't a lot? I know that the Highway 5 corridor stipulated some as institutional. TH 5 and 41 etc. Kate Aanenson: ... although it's a lot smaller size. I think when we looked at institutional I think maybe we have smaller scale type lots.., starting to look at 90 and 100 acres. Churches now are looking at lots... Those institutional that we gave were all under... Mayor Mancino: Okay. But this is, of the approximately 27 acres, this is on, this will take up 8 acres. Correct, which means about what, 30% of the entire Cl. Now and that includes the shared parking. Kate Aanenson: Right, well and that's some of the concern we still have. We understand the design concept of south facing and taking consideration of the views but we still have concerns how that works with circulation of the shared parking. Mayor Mancino: That's my concern too. Kate Aanenson: ... church, typically it's the highway concentration, Sunday across the road is a less concern than the office people crossing that road. There's some issues there, we want to see how that... cross access. See if there's some... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Have we performed tax... 40 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: We have.., it's such a nebulous...I think you have to look at the... It can be very... Councilman Senn: Well let me term it another way then. How many square feet, I've heard several numbers and several... In terms of the church parcel, square feet do you have? Bob Generous: Well the 42 would be a legitimate number. The 108, assuming the entire site... Councilman Senn: So we have a big difference between 42 and 108. Give me what's real and... Bob Generous: What's real. Probably about... Mayor Mancino: Probably a what? Kate Aanenson: Whole area of .2. Bob Generous: .2 which is... Mayor Mancino: And you would still be able to get parking that's required? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Okay, and if you use, if you do use the same ratio basically that is talking about a 60/40, then you're looking roughly around 3.2... You're looking at roughly $192,000.00 in taxes. Mayor Mancino: Is that city taxes or is that overall, total taxes? I mean out of that 192, 17% is city taxes so what is that? 19 plus 30. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, well I don't want to delve into that because I think that's a separate issue. I want to analyze it purely on the basis of city taxes. I think we have...that's okay. I mean the effects are much bigger.., large portion but that doesn't lessen the tax impact. Kate Aanenson: But see then you get into a whole other gray area Mark which we could have gone through that whole.., it gets very complex and we're.., and Bob and I started going down that path. We've done that before. All we do is get more confused. I think you have to go back to the argument... Mayor Mancino: Well that's the good part about protecting the CI because not only do you get the taxes but you don't have the other impacts on school and other services that you use, and I'm just trying to think, is there. I mean you have a double whammy. So I'm just wondering, if there is, I have two big questions. Number one, is there another area in the city where we can pick up more CI if we lose it? Secondly, as we have other churches that may want to be expanded in our city, you know, we have to decide right now because obviously churches would like Highway 5 exposure. It is where we have our commercial industrial.., tax base so saying yes to one, what does that mean if other churches want to expand or come into other CI areas in our city? And we know that there may be a few other so that is my concern also. Because we only have so much land. Kate Aanenson: Right. And we... 41 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: CI and much is, and please don't anybody get me wrong. I mean there is a tremendous value that you give to the community. There is, every one of us feels that. We also have to be very practical about the financial impact. Jim Sulerud: Maybe two things that would particularly relate here because we're an existing user. We will be leaving a facility which means that if another church user comes in, they will not be looking for an alternate site to place a church. So I mean the net of our making a move has less of an impact. Secondly, you would have the opportunity, probably, to have a conceptual plan for the neighborhood that we're leaving to say we have retail, commercial to the north. Let's have retail commercial where the church is leaving. Or some other intermediate higher use that would be a public private and generate some taxes. Mayor Mancino: I would like to think so but in reality, as you know, it's very, very hard to. Yeah you would have World War III in that neighborhood. Jim Sulerud: But there is that trade off. We're not a net, causing a net loss in the same way. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn, you were saying. Councilman Senn: To me the overall and very difficult issue is precisely what you were talking about. Essentially land use designations.., or at least to an extent it does. I thought a lot about this one before coming in tonight and didn't come in with it resolved, okay but I'm still unresolved basically. To me that's going to be key to deciding whether this thing makes sense or not. It seems to me like the plan.., coming together. I think it's got a ways to go. I share the concern, whoever it was that raised it over the orientation of the shared parking. Of the shared parking. And the orientation which is now laid out. counter productive to that but again I mean this is so... concept, right? So I'm assuming they'll work. So I guess, I don't know. I still think deal with the other issues. You know I'd really like to give you and answer on it tonight. But I'd be fibbing I guess because I'm not sure how... Mayor Mancino: So what would you need, or do you even know, what would you need to resolve that? Councilman Senn: Well, coming into tonight I tried to look at all the.., of the residential parcels available. Tried to look at effectively what we had in relationship to CI and the overall tax base, both now and well into the future. I guess I can't really think, at least from my perspective, over the last 4 or 5 years.., an issue that remains.., not be quite as important as this one as it relates to the.., where we're going and sort of how we're going to get there. Again, I don't want to downplay anything at all about the group because the.., in relation to the church couldn't be a better group of people and a more involved group in the city and everything else. It definitely makes it harder to come to that conclusion. Because my first tendency when this all started out was just simply to say I can't see it. I'm not going to say it's that strong anymore. At the same time I certainly haven't come to the point where I'm... saying I think it's something we should even look at at this point. Mayor Mancino: I'll come back to you on that .... that Liv wanted us to respond to. The whole issue of the CI and the tax base. It's a hard one. Councilman Mason: Well I personally agree with Kate on that one. I think that one's a real slippery slope. I don't, I'm going to back track. I've been sitting here for over 7 years and this presentation was the most thorough, thoughtful and intelligent presentation I've come across here and I do want to thank you all for 42 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 that. You made me think of some things I would not have thought of. It's clear in my mind that we're dealing with a, a very special issue here and we're also dealing with a group of people that I think are very aware of those issues and are doing everything they can to... and mitigate those issues. And thank you for coming with all of this in mind. I want to talk briefly Mayor about what you said about a precedence we're setting here. You know if this happens, then that will have to happen. I'll tell you what my problem is with that. Every time I, as everyone knows here, I basically don't believe in voting for variances because I maintain it sets precedence. Now every time I say that, at least two people on this Council say, we look at each one of these on an individual basis. Now with that said about variances, for heavens sake I would certainly hope, and I know it is, looked at the same way when a situation like this comes down the pike. So I personally, I don't agree with that argument. Mayor Mancino: ... if another church came and wanted to go... Councilman Senn: If I, in my mind, if I thought it didn't help the City and it didn't fit with what we have going on, absolutely. That's what I'm here for and I hope that's what we're all here for. I wrestled with tax implications. All of that. I say here are the gains. Here are the losses... I think in my personal feeling is, in the long run, for the city, as far as yes we might marginally, city and school district, might lose some revenues. As I look at this proposal. As I look at the recommendations that staff said, you know we need this, this, this and this for it to work and even for conceptual approval, the group came back and said, okay. This is how we'll handle this. This is how we'll handle that. In terms of conceptual, and I hope everyone understands that this is conceptual. Not preliminary. It's not final. The whole thing could blow up if this gets approved and go down the tubes. Having said all of that, the concept of this to me I think would look very good on Highway 5. I think it would overall benefit the city of Chanhassen. I understand some of the concerns staff still has. I also understand, I'm hearing everyone saying, I think we can work this out. Now I also understand we're going to lose some CI property on this. I'm also understanding, it sounds like we can gain some back in some other areas as we redo the comp plan .... I mean am I? Mayor Mancino: Can you respond to that? If we do lose some here, can, are there other areas where we can pick it up? Kate Aanenson: Well we've provided other places where we see industrial zones in place. I'm not sure... but we've also provided opportunities for institutional... Mayor Mancino: So are you saying as we go..., are you saying that as we go to look at the comprehensive plan that we're working on, and I'd like to hear other Council members respond to that. This. That where we have designated institutional is only where institutional can go? That again we would not, this would not come up again? Kate Aanenson: This same issue came up with Eckankar... my understanding .... is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: I believe that's how... Mayor Mancino: Well then let me say it this way. So that as we look at. Kate Aanenson: ... industrial zone. You have to right to exclude it in the industrial or commercial. Not a residential. 43 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: But not a residential. So as we're looking at the revised comprehensive plan, we will be very proactive and say that churches that are locating are in institutional or residential. Kate Aanenson: Residential. Which is where we try to stir people.., and that's what I'm saying. They went through that exercise and were unable. The properties that we have that are available in residential... Mayor Mancino: Well Sojourn's piece on TH 5. They've got a big sign up. Kate Aanenson: It doesn't work. I could go through all the... Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're saying we still may end up here again? Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. I mean it's going to happen. Someone's going to always come back and request it, but you have to remember.., when we did the Bluff Creek, we went through that. We revisit them. Councilman Mason: So having said all of that, I like the concept. I think it's a good concept. Again, I think it was very well thought out. I think both, on all sides of the table have worked long and hard at this. My only, my concern when I heard bank and restaurant. Those are definitely some issues that, I'm only speaking for myself on this one but those, I would see those are possible, potential sticking points. Which we could certainly go into now or at a later point but conceptually I. Mayor Mancino: No, I think those are... Councilman Mason: Well sure. I mean for me, one of the issues that we continue to have the concern that we want downtown remain downtown of Chanhassen. And then certainly in the seven years that I've been here, and I think since everyone's been here, we tried really hard to maintain some limits as to what downtown is and I would think we'd need quite a discussion as to whether we feel that expanding the size of downtown. Whether we want people to think that downtown goes that far. Again, I'm not saying I'm opposed to that at this point, but they're definitely, quite honestly I see bank and restaurant as perhaps bigger impact to the city than whether a church goes there. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I look at this project as one in which we need to minimize affects of a non-profit going on CI land.., whether or not. Given what I know about the Family of Christ looking for land and approaching landowners.., and various people about the.., locating on their space and given criteria that they wanted to achieve or remain within in terms of land price. For land, for locations. This is one of the very few sites that made any sense. This project, the way I look at it anyway, tends to drive the rest of the first phase. So for that reason alone, I mean that's one reason to take a serious look at a lot. I do have concerns, assuming that.., said what I said and I'm in favor of the project conceptually. I'm going to try and cut to the quick. I've got lots of notes. I could talk about a lot of stuff but everybody's getting pooped, including me. The parking as it currently lays out, would seem to benefit the church. I don't see necessarily that it benefits the office warehouse as much as I would like it to. And maybe I'm wrong because I'm just looking at the numbers and parking spaces that we have... They seem to be well in keeping with the normal structures of that size so there's really not any benefit to the church, but there's not any benefit to the office warehouse. I'd like to see more of a benefit there. When I first saw the north south road, after looking at the other ones that was dated back in October, I was aghast to see the north 44 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 south road. I thought the last thing we need is another access into and off of TH 5. I have a right-in, what amounts to a right-in, right out off of TH 5, although it's supposed to be both ways. And right-in and right-out is dangerous as the dickens and it's not going to get any better .... get widen, I don't see it improving. On the other hand, I certainly see the discussion points regarding accessibility to the area. I certainly see the discussion points regarding the office warehouse to access TH 5 and not... Coulter and go by the school. As to whether or not I'm in favor of that north/south road, I don't know. I've got to be convinced one way or another a little bit more on that. The north/south road obviously makes the two uses that you've got on the northwest and northeast quadrants at the intersection. Without the north/south road, those uses disappear. I, like Mike though, I concur with Mike that, and yet I'm reluctant to add any sort of commercial along that area. That far west on TH 5. So it'd be, ifI was to pick a building like over in Eden Prairie, the...bank building by Eden Prairie Center. 30,000 square foot. They take up about 10. Liv Homeland made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on the tape. Councilman Berquist: Not a bank first and ancillary tenant second. Okay. Well that would be more. Councilman Senn: With drive thru I assume? Liv Homeland: I would say... Councilman Berquist: Anyway. The overall theme is that I'm not of a mind to allow a commercial retail sort of flavoring along this area of Highway 5. What is some of the other. Well I also want to compliment the presenters. It was wonderfully presented...Nate, you did a great job. Development did a great job. Particularly impressed with the way.., discussion that occurred. Let's see, what else did I want to talk about? I've already said the important things. Oh, I know what I wanted to ask. This is an EDA, right? Within an Economic Development Area? So for how many years every dollar they pay in taxes does the district... ? Don Ashworth: This is a 9 and 11 year district. The district exists for 9 years. It will exist for 11 years and pay... Councilman Berquist: So if I use the average numbers that we were, somebody said $180,000.00. Somebody else said $49,000.00. That's going to be anywhere from $125 to $270,000.00 using... Let's say $180,000.00...that within that district. The other question I had, the north/south road. Who's ticket is this? Liv Homeland... Councilman Berquist: Is that a negotiable point of discussion? ... approval. Liv Homeland... Councilman Berquist: That value that I believe this discussion has from our perspective, ... would this be the last thing that's coming up as well all know, right? I think it's making us look at what we want and given the use, given the acreage, and all the other stuff, I don't know what would make more sense but I can tell, we've got an 80 acre.., non-profit for land use. Kate Aanenson: 40. 45 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: I heard 80... Maybe 100. And churches, religious organizations, congregations, I'm all for them. Let me take that back. What a silly thing to say. But it's just... It gets us looking at something that we've got to look at. One of my ideas all along has impact to the school system. Well do we partner with the county and with the school district. Perhaps write down residential land and.., put these things, put the non-profits on residential. That's kinds of questions. Yes, it is all nebulous. There must be, I mean we cannot be the first community to be thinking this. There's got to be other communities in the United States that have gone through exactly the same exercises. Mayor Mancino: Well there's no question that we know that the impact on residential is much easier for the community. There's no question if a non-profit were to locate on residential. Residential hardly pays for itself in a tax structure, and that when it is on CI where the class rates are much higher and there isn't the use of school, etc. and Nate and everyone here knows what District 112, how our schools are growing and needing every tax dollar they can get. And hopefully in places where they also don't have more kids. They get the fiscal part of it and yet not to, don't have the kids. It's obviously beneficial to them. We all know that so that goes actually without saying. Councilman Senn, you didn't make any remarks on the request for bank, restaurant, PUD nor did you make any remarks on the shared parking or the north/south road. Would you like to make those at this time? Councilman Senn: Well I did make a comment on the shared parking. Saying that I thought the orientation of the parking. Mayor Mancino: That's true, thank you. Councilman Senn: ... As far as the other two issues go, I don't know. As far as the restaurant and bank goes, I guess you're asking the person that asked both of those be deleted from the Gateway project as far as potential users.., it was allowed there. I guess that puts me back up in the air... As far as the north/ south road goes, the new one... I don't know what.., are in relationship.., access. If you basically go back to our plan, give consideration as to what's going on Coulter and what's going down by the school and stuff, that is our plan...that's basically a major frontage road servicing all the... And it becomes also the... to accomplish that plan and install the road so if we're going to do with that, stick with it, I first off... Mayor Mancino: Well I'll make a few comments and hopefully I'm not too redundant. Let me bring up the first one being uses, as far as... permitted uses and Liv, recommendation that we add restaurant and banking. I would like to make sure that we don't get retail in this area. I don't want to take away from our downtown. I think the banking is real, what it is a financial, is retail banking. So I conceptually would not be in favor of adding a restaurant. And again, the retail.., in this area. Number two. The shared parking, I agree with staff and with other council's suggestion. If the shared parking concept is to work, that it certainly doesn't look like it benefits the entire PUD and the other office buildings on the east side. That the shared parking would need to be moved and that would be so that it is in closer proximity to the office buildings. And I would also like to see conceptually within that shared parking, making sure that it is pedestrian friendly in it and out of it. To the office building. To the employees. To the people that are going to be working or visiting those office buildings so that they can get from this, which will be a fairly big shared parking area, to the places that they need to do in a certain fashion. Third, on the north/south access to Highway 5. I do also share the concerns of the councilmembers about Highway 5 and access onto TH 5. I know a right-out only. I'm very concerned. I would like to see a traffic study on that. Differences and have... You have a highway this is already at service level F and putting in more accesses seems contradictory to helping the congestion on TH 5. Four, the whole basis or one of the ideas, one of 46 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 the foundations for me to approve a church in an industrial complex would be that it is very clear, and is very stated up front.., about the shared parking. That there is, and I don't know if it's a legal contract but I want it to be very, very clear what this shared parking lot is. How it's to be used, etc. Roger Knutson: That'd be part of the PUD agreement, if it reaches that point. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I would want to have very clear language on it. And I would be concerned, and I just have a concern for Nate about, as the congregation grows, etc., will it in fact be able to stay shared parking? I mean will you have users there that will want to be there during the day when the offices are supposed to be using that parking. Does that make sense? I mean I don't want to have this great plan and it doesn't work for you and it doesn't work for the other users in the PUD. And you're coming to us and saying you know we need more parking now. Nate Castens: How much parking would we have immediately adjacent to the church? Couple hundred. I can't imagine a use, through the week on a regular basis would require more than 200 cars. We're talking about a preschool. It's been never suggested to have an elementary school or a high school. That'd be an entirely different ballgame. I can't imagine, although I talked about options, I can't conceive of an option that would require more parking than 200 immediately adjacent to our church. We're very interested in the shared parking too because we definitely want shared parking on weekends and on Wednesday nights as close and accessible to the church as possible. So we fully endorse making it pedestrian friendly as shared and we fully would expect that this would be a legal easement on both users' parts. Kate Aanenson: Nancy, maybe we could cover that too as part of the PUD agreement. Certainly any change in use would require approved parking... Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just want that real detailed, drilled down so everybody is very clear what that means. The other part is, I also want to make sure that the rest of the PUD has a certain square footage of commercial industrial. If we are, we will in fact, the tax base will be there to make up for the non-profit site. And it won't completely, I understand that but what I'm looking on this conceptual plan of 200,000 square feet Cl. And so what I want to make sure if we get different site plans that come in. They do add up to a certain square footage so that we keep that constant. And that would be a condition of approval for it. Liv. Liv Homeland: Just kind of a brief comment. We have increased the square footage a lot and one of the ways we've done that, frankly is by putting that road through there because it makes it work for us for office. And those two go together. When we were looking at office warehouse, it was a lot less critical because they could come in from Coulter. It was a little bit different of the visibility but if we're going to do the heavy duty office along the front, and there is certainly the possible. Right now they're showing for topography purposes, as two story buildings. There's certainly the possibility of making a three story building, you know that kind of thing. Right now they're shown on two levels, parking on both sides. You know to use that topography that drops off so significantly. There is also the potential, this is why it's so critical for us to have these users because if we have the clinic going in there, you know the clinic to some degree will drive it's size and we're going to be to some degree dependent on that. It's our intention to do a larger building than what they need so we can put other multi tenants in there as well. This also is the reason we wanted to do the small financial user in this other building because it puts an anchor tenant in there and gives us the ability to you know start developing that. If we can do office on these two, we would very, very much look at taking these office warehouse buildings and doing office there as well. And doing you know office down through this whole site. We are working with another user, builder that would 47 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 consider doing small buildings, you know office buildings of 30,000, 20,000, that kind of thing, through this whole site and increase the density even higher. And to give us that. As far as the right-in/right-out goes too on the access point. First of all, the right-in right now, the way it would be now versus when the highway's redesigned are two different issues. That's, you know you're going to have a different traffic flow when you've got your widened highway. All this traffic goes on Galpin or it goes on Audubon that would otherwise can hear. It's all still going to go onto the highway so it's just a question of does it flow more easily you know onto the highway when these people are sitting at the light and flows onto it in that point. So I think we can certainly do a traffic study to address your concern and I think that we have talked with traffic people, you know previously when we were looking at this before so we have had done that. So we are very open. It is our desire to get as much density as we can on here. I guess that's the point. We would also put in place, we've already been talking with the church extensively about putting in place a parking contract in essence, or with the, running with the parcels, where everyone would have to abide by those rules. That there may, each user may have some small portion of private parking right next to it's door. I mean the pastor may need a spot and a few people may have almost invariably they want something right in front of their door that's a few minor spots that are always there. Even if they come in on a Sunday morning and the church is in session, that they have a place you know, a couple people have a place to go. But other than that, there will be cross over parking throughout and we are showing, we can also work with moving the road one way or the other. We've been trying to put it where it is because of the power line. We're losing space because of the power line no matter what we do. So we have to work around that but we can swing the road a little bit one way or the other to make some of that parking fall on the other side of the road instead of on the church's side. The church has moved it's orientation you know quite a few times already and they have some ability to put some extra parking spaces along the side of their building that could be used for that northern side of the site as well. So we certainly are willing to address those issues. Mayor Mancino: Okay .... density and keep tax base of CI on there to shared parking. Let it work with the PUD. Also keep the church here. See if we can make it all work and be a benefit to the community. But there are definite things that I think still need to be worked on. I don't want to see it come back before I would approve a PUD. Was that clear enough? Councilman Berquist: I understand you. Mayor Mancino: Other councilmembers? Councilman Mason: This is conceptual. Mayor Mancino: Well I just want to make sure I am for staff and I am for the applicant. Are there any questions.., from staff for us? Kate Aanenson: No, I think we've got pretty good direction. Councilman Berquist: Question for.., given our concern about.., is it within our right to be able to restrict a use within a building? For instance, I don't know if you're looking at a copy of what... Let's say we have a 50,000 square foot building. We wanted to, we didn't want to, well there's a clinic that wants to go in here. We have clinics downtown. There's an interest by perspective, protecting those clinics.., is it possible for a body like us to put limitations on... limitations on specific properties? Roger Knutson: The short answer is yes.., short answer. There might be some enforcement issues. 48 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: Well they're requesting a PUD so...that's how the staff approaches it. We didn't recommend... Roger Knutson: And the concept that you're really talking about, identified in certain land uses you wanted to be in the downtown area. You want a viable downtown area. You don't want them to start.., your downtown.., that kind of goes to the heart of planning. If you've got.., basic planning... Mayor Mancino: And every time you want... I just have a couple other things that I just wrote down to make it real clear, or I had staff help me write down and that is. Just under parking I said comprehensive pedestrian walkways shall be provided between them and within all parking lots. The buildings and the public sidewalk and trail system. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas. Permanent cross access easements and a joint parking facility shall be protected by the record instrument acceptable to the city. Under landscaping and landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards shall be incorporated as part of the pedestrian walkway system within the parking lot areas. This may require larger landscaped islands, peninsulas and boulevards. And I just put under miscellaneous to make sure the CI base there is, the developer leaves and commits to provide the minimum of 200,000 square feet of commercial industrial office warehouse uses within the Bluff Creek Corporate Center. So with that do we need, for conceptual agreement. Don Ashworth: Roger and I were talking.., require four fifths. Discussing the potential for a motion... approving subject to the applicant meeting the... Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we were just talking. I know concept requires a public hearing and concept does require a majority... Roger Knutson: Four fifths. I looked. Kate Aanenson: We've written it all down. I think we're pretty comfortable... Don Ashworth: ... applicant approving it subject to the applicant... Mayor Mancino: Gosh, I've got a list here I think of all my concerns and... May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: Move concept approval with the Minutes of this meeting being used as the criteria to go back to the applicant and staff... Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Mancino: I love that. Yes. Roger Knutson: I don't know if I should interject too much. Just to point out procedurally where you're at. Four of you...the motion was made and seconded. If that fails, to reconsider, someone who voted on the prevailing side much move to hear it at the following meeting. Councilman Mason: That voted on the prevailing side? Roger Knutson: Right. 49 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Don Ashworth: ...again, he can go... Roger Knutson: Effectively, yes. There are court decisions. Councilman Berquist: Well you know what my motion is, it's predicated, we all made comments. Whether I vote no or Mark votes no or Mike or Nancy, it makes no difference. But my motion is to take the comments that were made and put something together that is amenable for all of us. Hopefully. Councilman Senn: Well it sounds like we can do that without a motion. I mean if that's. Councilman Berquist: That's what Kate's saying. Kate Aanenson: I didn't go with... Mayor Mancino: Legally Roger. Roger Knutson: To advance to the next step, which is preliminary approval, you have to officially get by this step. So they can't. Mayor Mancino: So we have to vote on the motion? Roger Knutson: At some point. I mean you could give staff direction to work on it and bring it back but at some point you're going to have to vote up or down concept approval. It wouldn't necessarily have to be tonight but at some point. Mayor Mancino: Well even if it's voted down, they'd come back with another concept anyway. Roger Knutson: Well if it's voted down and there's no motion to reconsider, that's the way it was, you'd have to start back from ground one. Back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: I'll be gone the next meeting... Councilman Berquist: ... motion to table it and. Mayor Mancino: And come back with a new concept plan. Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: You're looking at as part of the PUD right now. Councilman Berquist: I don't think it will hold you up from a timing point. It's only going to hold you really up with is formal approval process... Kate Aanenson: I don't think the Planning Commission would approve the preliminary PUD without Council approving the concept. We'll figure that out. Mayor Mancino: We'll figure that out. That's fine. 50 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Mason: We should withdraw the second then? Roger Knutson: Or vote. Councilman Berquist: Motion stands. Councilman Mason: So does the second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Concept PUD #97-2, noting the discussion outlined in the Minutes and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit site coverage and impervious surface calculations for each lot and the overall site. 2. Staff recommends that the church commit to provide approximately 160 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. 3. Staff recommends that the amount of parking and impervious surface on Lots 2 and 3 be reduced. Staff believes that a U-shaped building on the northerly portion of the property would be more appropriate to address pedestrian circulation to the proposed warehouse as well as address the sight lines for the truck loading facility. Staffwould recommend that the building orientation be primarily toward Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard, especially for Lots 1 and 2, rather than the orientation shown on the concept plan. This would require the building on Lot 1 to be reoriented 90 to 180 degrees and the building on Lot 2 to be reoriented 90 degrees. Staffwould also suggest that the church investigate a walkout type facility, similar to that used for the St. Hubert Catholic Community in Villages on the Ponds, to help reduce site grading. To improve the layout, staff suggests to design a parking lot on both sides of the building and add sidewalks. Staff strongly recommends all 34 boulevard trees be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. 6. Additional landscape islands are required in the parking lots; a minimum of one island for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area. 7. The loading docks of the southern warehouse building are visible from Coulter Boulevard and require evergreen plantings to screen the area. 8. Visibility of the expansive parking lots from Highway 5 should be limited as much as possible. 9. The applicant shall incorporate increased evergreen plantings and berms to obstruct sight lines into the parking areas. 10. Plantings along Bluff Creek and the proposed storm water pond should be chosen based on wildlife food and/or cover value. Proposed overstory and ornamental trees could be a choice of quaking aspen, amur maple, willows, black cherry, serviceberry, swamp white oak, or aborvitae while proposed shrubs 51 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 could include highbush cranberry, winterberry, elders, sumac, and red-osier dogwood. City staff shall approve final landscape schedule. 11. In lieu of parkland dedication and public trail development, the city shall collect full park and trail dedication fees for this development. In the event that the applicant deems the dedication of the "creek" outlots into public domain desirable, the Park & Recreation Commission would review this offer. But, again, no park fee credits would be granted. 12. The applicant is required to plan private internal trail connectors from their site to the surrounding public trail system, thus maximizing their benefit of the recreation system already in place. 13. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 ft. trail easement over the trail segment located in the southeast comer of the site that lays outside the Coulter Boulevard right-of-way. 14. The development shall maintain the natural vegetation and landscape where it still exists, intensify the proposed landscape plan along the creek to improve the buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with a 50 foot buffer area. 15. This area has been identified by the Bluff Creek Management Plan, as a candidate for floodplain forest restoration. The applicant shall incorporate some element of forest restoration in the landscape plan along both branches of bluff creek. 16. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 17. The applicant's engineer should review the possibility of connecting into the City's existing storm sewer in Coulter Boulevard from the southerly drainage pond or combining the pond with the proposed storm water basin north of the church. If the developer desires to construct the southerly pond, the City shall not be responsible for maintenance and the developer shall not receive credit against their SWMP fees. 18. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4:1 overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water elevation. 19. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall incorporate temporary sediment basins to address site runoff during the grading operations. 20. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations and drainage maps including pre- and post-development conditions for a 1 O-year and 100-year storm event will also be required by City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 21. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in coordinating the storm drainage system from Trunk Highway 5 into the proposed stormwater basin north of the church site. The applicant may be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees as a result of pond oversizing and pipe extension. 52 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 22. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 23. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. 24. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly comer of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. 25. Public streets shall be incorporated to provide access to all three lots. A 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac shall be incorporated into the site plan. The private street shall be constructed to a 9-ton design. 26. All parking lot drive aisles adjacent to 90 degree parking shall be a minimum of 26-feet wide pursuant to City Code. Drive aisle configurations near the intersection of Lots 1, 2 and 3 lot line shall be reconfigured to minimize drive aisle points onto main street. 27. The developer's right for a future right-in/right-out access to Trunk Highway 5 shall be extinguished upon final platting unless the developer negotiates with MnDOT to transfer the right-in/right-out access to the adjacent property to the east. 28. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the streets. 29. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 30. Install post indicator valve on fire water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. 31. An additional fire hydrant will be required near the church main entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant. 32. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Sect. 10-502. 33. ~No parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within jurisdiction when any portion of the facility, or any 53 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building, is located more than 15 0 feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. When access roads cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 (b). Note: As building plans become available we will review the plan to determine if standpipes are required in any portion of the building due to the fact that we cannot achieve 150 foot access of all portions of the building." All voted in favor and the motion carried. (After discussion regarding Councilman Senn's first vote to abstain.) Councilman Senn: I'm abstaining. Roger Knutson: The motion fails. If you abstain the motion fails unless you abstain because of a conflict of interest. You need four votes. Councilman Senn: Why is that? Mayor Mancino: I thought a vote of silence is a yes. Roger Knutson: That's not an abstention. That's not the same thing. Saying silence, your vote is recorded as approval. If you formally abstain without a conflict of interest, you don't get the required four fifths vote. What the Supreme Court. Councilman Senn: Roger, you have to explain these things before hand. Roger Knutson: What the Supreme Court has said. Mayor Mancino: Why don't you ask to retake the vote. Roger Knutson: When someone abstains because of a conflict of interest, the size of the Council is seen to be reduced by that vote or that person so we no longer have a five person Council. We have a four person Council. Councilman Senn: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I have a clarification of your motion? Your motion was just to outline the Minutes criteria and come back? It wasn't for concept? The motion was not for concept approval. Roger Knutson: I thought it was. Councilman Senn: Yes it was. 54 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: We needed that clarification. Mayor Mancino: Yes it was. It was. Councilman Senn: Either that or I misheard it. I took it to be Council. Kate Aanenson: I thought he restated it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I say let's go for another vote but I'm going to make a statement when the vote's done. Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's fine. Can you do that? Why don't you make the statement and then we'll go for another vote. Councilman Senn: Okay I will but... Roger Knutson: That's fine. Councilman Senn: You know again, conceptually as I stated, I have no problems with what the church group's presenting. In my mind I have a very difficult time with a decision to simply take a piece of CI property, which could normally produce somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000.00 of property taxes, and turn it into zero. And with the realization that the existing site will remain as zero. Okay. And with the realization that, we've been through this before. We keep talking about it but there's still no understanding as to overall net effect and where this all comes out in the end. Okay. I do not take that decision lightly. I am not prepared to make that decision tonight, okay. But I will vote yes on this because I'm not going to let, what I consider sometimes to be an idiotic procedural rule to govern over how many people need to be here and vote on this or that or whatever, okay. You three are obviously very comfortable with that decision and are prepared to charge ahead but I am not. Okay. But I will accept that the three of you are and I will change my vote to yes to allow this to go forward on that basis, but I'm not, you know again, I'm not comfortable with it. I'm prepared to say yes.., decision at this time. Councilman Berquist: I just want to say that I understand, I think I truly understand where you're coming from and after.., the conversation that we had a few times in the past, every time we get a little closer to getting some things worked out. I look at this as an issue of stewardship. There are many different forms of stewardship. Not only financial. Am I completely comfortable with this? No. But there's a lot of things in life that I end up doing and going ahead with that I'm not really comfortable with. Am I comfortable enough to grant it tacit approval? Yes. Therein lies the reason for my motion. Councilman Senn: Well, I understand that Steve but I also am not convinced there isn't a residential property where this could sit on. Maybe it's not right on Highway 5, but I look at what staff has given us ... I don't know. Again, I don't think we have enough information at this point to make that .... if we do or we don't. All we've done is evaluated a site that somebody has made an application on. Limit your discussion and you limit your purview of...and kind of lose track of the rest of it. So I will, I don't know if you have to revote but I'll change my vote. 55 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Roger Knutson: Mayor, that would be sufficient. Councilman Senn has changed his vote to a yes, therefore the motion passes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Roger. Everybody understand that? Good. Good. I want to take one more second in this discussion to say, what I would like to do is to have a discussion as a Council, and all of us. If this does come up again, as far as could...the way Mark has quantified and there's no question, to quantify numbers and tax base. It's much easier to do that than some of the social and.., from non profit but what I'd like to do is to talk about in CI property, is there a percentage, and over percentage that cannot be non-profit? I mean this may happen again. At a certain point do we say, and I don't know how hard and fast...that over 10% in any CI zoned property, that we will absolutely not allow over 15% to ever go non taxes. You know into a non-tax producing. Can we do that Roger? Roger Knutson: We had this discussion a while back. The short answer is no. Mayor Mancino: Oh. Well forget everything... Roger Knutson: You can kind of get there. You can restrict uses but, like churches you can keep churches out of certain districts and you can keep this kind of use out of the district and that kind of use out of a certain district but when you talk about non-profit. Kate Aanenson: That includes group homes. Roger Knutson: That's not a use. That's a tax status. I think my last example was, I may be a, the only one that comes to mind. I may be a publishing house. I manufacture books. Whether it's on the payroll or, whether it's on the tax rolls or not, it may just happen to be based upon who owns the darn thing. If the church owns it, it may not be on the tax roll. And if it's privately owned, and a profit corporation, it would. The use is the same inside except for, who happens to own it. That's not a use issue. You can control the use issue so you can look at the non-traditional non-profit type uses and put it that way. This couldn't have an ordinance that says not more than 15% non-profit because that's not a... Mayor Mancino: Okay. So if we knew we were going to have the balance of financial strength.., and spiritual strength in our community. So we get to balance those two all the time and they're not mutually exclusive. Councilman Berquist: Do you remember the wordage we used in... Gateway? Mark... words in a development contract, as I recall, that was.., gave Council the ability to look at any non taxing... Councilman Senn: No, we weren't able to do that. We talked about it. Mayor Mancino: Because of what Roger just said, yeah. Kate Aanenson: No. We restricted the percentage of commercial. What could be in there. Councilman Senn: Another one of those back door... Mayor Mancino: Well, I think we're ready for, is everybody ready to go ahead? 56 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE 1998 POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN AND 1998 GOALS. Mayor Mancino: Somebody's going to have to explain to me what all this means. Councilman Senn: Could I, given the hour, etc. A lot of the issues, you know a number of issues have been addressed that were raised with last year's classification plan but I would really rather see this put on a work session and go through it in detail and talk about some of the issues in it versus doing that tonight. I don't know how the rest of the Council feels about that. We did provide a fair amount of correction last year to what we'd like to see and the issues we would like to have addressed and like I say, a good attempt's been made to do some of that and I would really like to challenge and talk about it in depth and detail and I think if we start doing that tonight... Don Ashworth: Well what would Council think... Mayor Mancino: I had just written the next work session, which is a holiday. I will be back for the. Councilman Mason: There will be a work session that day anyway. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, so I will be back for the first work session in February, which is what? February 1st or 2nd? Yeah .... and I would do this and I'll be here. If we...to February 2nd. We have nothing on our work session for that anyway. But if we do put it on the February 2nd work session, I want to make sure that the questions that Councilmen have and Councilmember Senn said he had some and I have a few, that we give them to you prior to the work session so you can be prepared at the work session to answer those specific questions and we just don't keep coming up with new ones. That we frame some questions around it, and I have quite a few and I will certainly get those ready for you before I leave. Does that sound reasonable? Don Ashworth: Very reasonable but.., formally adopted the plan by the City Council. Assuming you did a work session... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, can you also get together you know your questions. Councilman Senn: I already have them all ready. I called Don this last week. Mayor Mancino: Great. And you have all his and there's nothing new? And you have nothing new to ask? Councilman Senn: No, I have all the questions that I've asked. Mayor Mancino: I might look at yours to make sure that I, so I don't have to write the same ones. Councilman Berquist, that's fine with you? We'll go ahead and put this on the next work session. I forgot to add that I will be giving you a blow by blow of my trip at the end of this meeting so everybody, I would... COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 57 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. Kate Aanenson: I'll be brief but I refuse to be short. Okay. Comprehensive plan update, just to let you know where we are in the process. We've taken it to the Planning Commission for their review. The original draft that was basically explaining where we've been since 1991. Where we're going. As far as changes that we have made and a traffic development pattern and the like... Bluff Creek Plan we did look at zoning.., the rest of the City and we're reviewing that. What we planned is for the February 18th meeting we'll be looking at the land use.., and on the March 18th meeting we're looking at public facilities. That includes transportation, sewers, park space, storm water and water elements of the comp plan. Also the capital improvement plan. We're planning to have all these drafts available. Certainly you'll see those... department heads before we go out to these meetings and we also want... Assuming that we've collected a lot of input from the Planning Commission and department heads... In April we'll have neighborhood meetings. Right now we'll plan on... but really what we're looking, the major impact is in the southern area, except for the... We're looking at (a), the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing...then in June a review and adoption by the City Council. We'd like to encourage you to attend those Planning Commission meetings and.., and the public hearings by the Planning Commission in May. So really we're hoping to have this submitted to Met Council by July. We've got some... Any questions on that? Mayor Mancino: I just have one request and that is, much like, and I want to talk about this generally process anyway. Much like the, what we talked about in the park meeting earlier. And that is, I, no question, I will try and attend the Planning Commission meetings so I have a working knowledge of the end use of public facilities. But before things go to neighborhood meetings and out there, I would like to make sure that it comes first in front of the City Council for some sort of review because once it gets out to the neighborhoods. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well we'll be able to do all the drafts. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But will you take some time, special time to meet with us so we can ask you questions prior to it going out to neighborhoods? That's what I want to make sure. That we have a meeting and we have some education directly to the Council, not through the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: That's why I was saying. I was hoping you would attend the Planning Commission. I mean to go through each of these separately, they're probably you know 3 to 4 hour meetings. I'd be happy to do that again but I think it'd be helpful if you come at the same time, if you can .... if you want to put it on the regular agenda and give your input as to where we are, but I guess I was looking at the Planning Commission as... You need to be brought along through the process is what I hear you saying. Mayor Mancino: Well not only brought along but if I go to Planning Commission meetings, I'm going to sit there and listen and to the public input, etc. And I would like to have a time at a city council session prior to it going to the neighborhood, to ask questions about what we learned at the Planning Commission meeting. Kate Aanenson: Sure...that's why I was saying it may be helpful to do this on a regular Council... Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Kate Aanenson: Skip real quickly to the Old Town. I gave you a draft of what was originally called historic and Planning Commission decided to change the name to Old Town. There some consensus that 58 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 historic really.., discussion going on about that and to be politically correct we're going with the old town. Downtown overlay kind of district. Back in December the Planning Commission... What we want to do is get the feedback for them. Based on what you had looked at, is are we studying the right area? Do we have the right framework... We also wanted to include the neighbors. So instead of coming back and forming a task force, speaking with a group in the area.., properties that we identified. St. Hubert's. Councilman Senn: Which one? Kate Aanenson: The old. Well, not the old, old but the old St. Hubert's. Those properties that are in transition. And then people within that neighborhood, and Sharmin's having a, Sharmin and Cindy are facilitating this first meeting at the senior center and I would invite you.., and I hope some of you can attend that meeting and get involved with that process. Their first meeting will be tomorrow at 6:00. Then this time. Mayor Mancino: At the senior? Kate Aanenson: Senior center, yes. And again the purpose of that first meeting is to try and develop a vision statement. Direction they want to go and then we'll come back to the Council and share with you that vision statement and then we'll try to work on the detailed property. Again we've talked some things that are happening down there. There is a school.., at the old St. Hubert's building.., but we're looking at the neighbors, do they want architectural.., and what sort of issues do they have for their neighborhood... identified kind of that framework. They're going to work through all those different areas and bring back a plan. We certainly think the issues are open...but we want to get this plan. It's kind of an aggressive schedule but we want to be in place so we're ready for summer and spring construction. We're going through the same process that maybe that Nancy laid out with the comprehensive plan... Hope that some of you... Mayor Mancino: Well and I think too, we also need to have a little bit...but it's where they live. It's the area that they love and that they want.., which I think is great because you know so many times we ask for public input and we can.., here we have a group of people who are very willing and open.., and I think it will be great .... and again, I don't know but it's...Thank you Kate for the update. Councilman Senn: Can we get an update... Don Ashworth: ... now we're back on for Thursday. I should be... Mayor Mancino: But at this point, at this point the County Attorney. Don Ashworth: ... Fahey and our attorney write the opinion... Councilman Senn: So at this point you're going to meet with him and see what he has to say and then at that point there will be adequate time for it to come back for us to be prepared to respond... Todd Gerhardt: Yeah she never provided any.., her statement. Don Ashworth: ...were looking at it... 59 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Todd Gerhardt: And it all deals with the bankruptcy is what the confusion is of the whole thing. The money sat in bankruptcy and held up the process... Councilman Senn: We also had the TIF finance analysis packet.., scheduled that for a session to talk about it. Don Ashworth: The next one I was looking.., with MacGillivrary... slowly outline the requirements for the State of Minnesota and how... Councilman Senn: When are we going to do, or when's the... Don Ashworth: I don't know. Councilman Senn: What's your feed, soon? Don Ashworth: I think starting around... (The microphones were cutting in and out during this discussion.) Mayor Mancino: Okay, February 17th, TIF analysis. One last question that I have and that is, and Kate you may be able to answer this. I'm not sure about the Notermann's. The fence behind the postal service. Is the fence that's up there now according to plan? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Sharmin went and looked at that today... Mayor Mancino: Okay, and is she taking care of those, it was in front of us. Is she taking care of the Notermann's who had a question about that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anything that you would like Council? Kate Aanenson: No. I think we just explained that she had an opportunity to work with the neighborhood association and kind of negotiated that whole deal and she wasn't unhappy with that. We said the neighborhood... 2(I). APPROVAL OF BILLS. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, do you have some questions? If you're not ready, I'll just ask a couple big ones. Councilman Senn: Well how about. Mayor Mancino: Are you ready right away? Councilman Senn: It's late. I'm tired. I pulled it. I seriously doubt if I'm going to vote for it. Why doesn't somebody else do a motion. 60 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Mason: Move approval of item 2(I). Councilman Senn: I think it's a lot of over spending... Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Second it. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the bills as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 61