CC Minutes 1998 04 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Charles Folch, Anita Benson, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Don Ashworth, and
Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda with the following amendments: dleleting item 4, CSM Corporation request for Preliminary Plat
and Site Plan Review in Chanhassen East Business Center Phase II; and adding a Resolution regarding the
1998 Bike Trail Project, Condemnation/Quick Take Procedure. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Approve Revisions to Municipal State Aid Street System, File PW-033.
1) Resolution/t98-33: Establishing Municipal State Aid Highways.
2) Resolution/t98-34: Approve Revocation of mileage under MSAS System.
Chanhassen Business Center 4th Addition, Audubon 92 Partnership:
1) Approve Final Plat.
2) Approve Addendum A to Development Contract/PUD Agreement, Chanhassen Business Center
Project 93-1.
3) Approve Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Project 98-9.
Resolution/t98-35: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Coulter Boulevard Road
and Utility Improvements West of Century Boulevard, Project 97-1-4.
e. Resolution/t98-36: Approval of Final Reading of Amendment to the Liquor Ordinance.
f. Approval of Gambling Permit, St. Hubert's Church.
g. Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated April 13, 1998
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 24, 1998
i. Resolution/t98-37: Approve 1997 Year End Fund Closings and Transfers.
j. Set Date to Sell the following 1998 Bonds:
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
1) Resolution #98-38A:
2) Resolution #98-38B:
3) Resolution #98-38C:
$4,970,000. General Obligation Park Bonds, Series 1998 A
$1,325,000. General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1998 B
$820,000. General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 C
k. Appointments to the Environmental Commission.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who was not present during the vote, and the motion
carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
AWARD OF BIDS: WELL NO. 8, PROJECT 97-4.
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, April 21st, bids were
received and opened for the Well 8 drilling contract. As anticipated, two bids were received and the low
bid was received from E.H. Renoir and Sons at $2026,194.00. This represents approximately a 6%
underrun from the engineer's estimate. As we also mentioned in the staff report, we're still in the process
of actually formally acquiring the site for Well 8. It's an ongoing process we anticipate to have completed
with a closing in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Therefore, this award should be contingent upon the acquisition of
the property. Also mentioned with your handouts tonight, a separate element to this contract is the
watermain connection to the system for this well. We solicited quotes for that work and Widmer
Construction Company submitted the low quote for completing this work at $9,200.00. So therefore it
would be staff's recommendation to award the low quote for the watermain work to Widmer Construction
at $9,200.00 and in addition award the drilling contract to E.H. Renner & Sons at $206,194.00 and have
the drilling contract be contingent on closing of the property for the Well 8 site.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions at this point for Charles? Any other comments?
Then may I have a motion please for the award of bids.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of Well No. 8 to E.H. Renner & Sons as per the staff report and
second, the watermain work for $9,200.00 to Widmer Construction.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #98-39: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Well No. 8
drilling contract, Project 97-4, be awarded to E.H. Renner& Sons at a total bid of $206,194.00
contingent upon the City acquiring the property (Outlot A, Highover 2na Addition) and also awarding
the watermain work to Widmer Construction Company in the amount of $9,200.00. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW.
Mayor Mancino: City Manager, if you would like to open this?
Don Ashworth: Alright. This is the official public hearing on this item. We do have present this evening
Tom Schroer representing the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and Orlin Shafer, Carver County
Assessor's Office. Again this is a public hearing. Orlin had carried out a pre-meeting where he was able
to provide notice to every owner that he would be present, about 3 to 4 weeks ago. That they would have
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
the opportunity to come in, prepare a, I don't want to call it a complaint form but basically a request to
have their property re-reviewed. I believe Orlin we received right around 100 in that first meeting?
Orlin Shafer: There were about 100 here. It was, I think we ended up with about 70 appeals out of that
meeting.
Don Ashworth: Okay. The City Council will be acting on the 70 or 80 that had previously met with Orlin,
as well as anyone who wishes to speak tonight. If you do not wish to speak, you can still preserve your
right to have your property reviewed by simply asking Ann, off of Odin's staff, or Orlin, or Tom, for a
request or assessment, property assessment review request. Again, you do not need to speak tonight but
you are more than welcomed to do that if you would like. And again, the City Council will not be taking
any action on requests this evening. This is solely an opportunity to take and get your request formally on
the books and then again during the next 6 weeks, somebody from Orlin or Tom's office will be contacting
you, asking to review your property and try to address your concern. Your concerns, as well as his
recommendations will then be presented back to the City Council in approximately 6 weeks. What is the
date of the, that's May?
Orlin Shafer: It's actually more like 4 weeks Don. It will be, let me check.
Don Ashworth: Well while Orlin checks.
Orlin Shafer: May 11th. It will be the second meeting. It will be part of your regular.
Councilman Senn: No, May 11th is our first meeting in the month.
Ann Wise: It's the first meeting of the month.
Orlin Shafer: The conclusion of the Board of Review will be held on May 11th, yeah.
Councilman Engel: What time is that at?
Orlin Shafer: Whatever they put it on their agenda.
Don Ashworth: Probably 7:00. So again this item will come back to the City Council on May 11th with
again recommendation from Odin's office. And before we open this to the public, you may want to, and
this is totally up to you Mayor and Council, see if there's any generalized questions that the City Council
may have of either Tom or Orlin, which may help those in the audience maybe understand the process of
whatever else, what other type of questions you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We always have questions. I just want to go over procedure for one minute,
and that is, the reason why people are here tonight is to come in front of us. We have a list right now, City
Council does, of the people who made application to have their property reviewed and it's as complete as it
was, when did we get this list? Probably last week.
Orlin Shafer: I think we added 5 I believe.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so you've added 5. At this point with this list, we don't know which ones of you,
your staff has met with yet. But will you be meeting with each and every person who has applied or
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
contested their market values. So you'll be meeting with each and every one of them, either by phone or in
person I'm assuming.
Orlin Shafer: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then what you will, what I'm assuming you're going to come back to us with on
May 11th, or 10 days prior to that. I mean we'd like to get something prior to the meeting so that we have
enough time to review it and I'll have other councilmembers ask them on timing. Then we will get back
from Odin's office, the County Assessor's office, a determination after they've met with you, what they
feel if they should make a change or not. And they must tell us that as a Council. Write it down and give
the rationale as to why or not it should be changed, or stay the same. Correct?
Orlin Shafer: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So on May 11th, we as a Council will convene during our City Council meeting
and we will hold at that time, we'll allot time to hear from you after you've gotten back what they've said,
after they've reviewed it with you and you can still come up and say to us, we still disagree with what the
County Assessor says, and here's why. Any questions? Or any additions to what I just said. Or any
correction.
Councilman Senn: Well two quick process ones. You have not contacted everybody so far, correct?
Orlin Shafer: Not yet. We have contacted a lot of these people but we haven't finished the work on all of
them at this point.
Councilman Senn: And Nancy was saying 10 days and I heard at this end I have some advantages, I heard
you say a few days. I'd like to get that ironed out. We need more than a few days to look at this.
Orlin Shafer: The 11th means we would have to have it done in 3 days from now. And if we get appeals
yet tonight or in the mail for the next several days, no way that can happen. We will have it to you on the
Thursday prior to the 11th.
Councilman Senn: Do we have to act on the 1 lth?
Orlin Shafer: Yes. The Board will close on the 11th.
Mayor Mancino: ... on May 7th.
Orlin Shafer: Then there was a request from you...the manager to move that to. The informational
meeting was on the, are you talking about April ma'am?
Mayor Mancino: May.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah. Which meeting were you talking about?
Councilman Senn: You're saying May 11th you're talking about. That's our next meeting.
Orlin Shafer: I'm sorry, I thought she said 7.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Councilman Senn: Which means we get packets.
Mayor Mancino: But you're saying you're going to give us all the information...
Orlin Shafer: To you by the 7th.
Mayor Mancino: On Thursday, on the 7th.
Councilman Mason: That's the way it's been in the past.
Mayor Mancino: Is that the way it's been in the past? Is there any way we can get it a couple days sooner,
or at least part of it that you've already reviewed?
Orlin Shafer: Probably. Yeah. We'll certainly try.
Mayor Mancino: It is helpful for those of us who read every single one of them and go through it. Okay.
Orlin Shafer: I would like to caution, the Mayor said that people could speak again on the 11th. That's
your option but normally we have made our, we've closed it as far as we're concerned by then. So if you
want to do something, that's your option at that point. We do not encourage people to come back to you.
We try to resolve the issue and go on from there. They still have the option for County Board after this
level so there's still one more appeal after this level if they're not totally satisfied.
Councilman Senn: But it's real difficult for us to have people talk to us tonight without their appeals and
we don't even have their appeals in front of us. So I mean, what makes the most sense is what the Mayor
said. I mean if we're going to receive that on the 7th, then the time we would as a Council, I'm assuming
like to hear from these people, will be on the 11th.
Mayor Mancino: We'll be on the 11th.
Councilman Senn: On the 11th, when we have the information in front of us. And then we can look at your
position. We can look at their position and we have something to evaluate. I mean tonight we have
absolutely zero to evaluate.
Orlin Shafer: That's correct. All we've provided you tonight is a list of the people that have made appeals.
They'll be in written format and review them.., everyone written a letter and we submitted it that way. You
would not then have the opportunity to speak...
Mayor Mancino: But Councilman Senn, we certainly do have the right to open that on the 11th and we will
for people who are here and want to speak and we'll have the information in front of us.
Orlin Shafer: That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: So everyone knows that and if you want to come in from of us tonight and ask us more
about procedure, that's fine too.
Councilman Mason: Of course we need to take good notes tonight.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Orlin Shafer: When we mailed the notices out, 7:00 was our starting time. Is this giving us a problem
now?
Councilman Senn: I'd say so if we're 20 minutes early. Is that clock right? Roger, you're falling down
on your job.
Roger Knutson: ...but it keeps stopping.
Mayor Mancino: I think we need a new clock.
Councilman Senn: Or battery or something.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: One other process question if I could. From a timing standpoint, we have no choice but
to act on the 11th or what is the final date that the Council can act?
Orlin Shafer: No, you can go 20 days from tonight. That's your choice but you must remember there's a
holiday in there and that's what happened last year. Remember we had to hold a special meeting and
wedge it in-between a bunch of other things and it got to be very difficult.
Mayor Mancino: So again, if we have a lot of people we can set up a special date.
Orlin Shafer: These dates were set a year ago.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. But we do have the options of extending it to a special meeting date if
necessary?
Orlin Shafer: And we've gone, I mean we've done our homework. We've gone over this with the
individuals. What you might hear are a few people that would like to speak, and that's normal. That's
kind of an every year occurrence that we do have a few people.
Mayor Mancino: We hope so. I think we will.
Don Ashworth: Mayor?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Two issues. One is, again we'll be getting the recommendation, the completed
recommendation back from Orlin on that Wednesday/Thursday. So anyone who would like to come in and
see what recommendation Orlin has made, you're more than welcome to. Additionally, I've seen a number
of people walk in. I'd like to repeat ifI could the very first part of that which was, this is the hearing. You
can speak if you wish. That's one to ensure that your property will be reviewed by the assessor's office.
The other choice would be to simply get a request form from Orlin or Ann, who's sitting right behind Orlin.
Fill that out and they will come and review your property so you do not need to speak to have them review
your property. If you would like to speak, you're more than welcome to.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Lastly, process question. The recommendation that you make, that we have a copy of, I
am assuming that each landowner who has applied has a copy of that also?
Orlin Shafer: They don't receive a copy of it per se but they do, they're usually informed of what that
would be.
Mayor Mancino: So when you meet with them via, by phone or in person, you let them know what the
recommendation will be?
Orlin Shafer: Normally we do that. And if we can't get in touch with them, then we do follow the last
meeting with a letter informing them what the action was. Everyone gets that regardless. A letter so.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. City Manager. When we have the recommendations here, and at City Hall, can
people come and pick up that recommendation?
Don Ashworth: Yes they can. And again it should be noted that any information that you have turned over
to the assessor's office in regards to your property, you know statistics, comparisons, whatever, the City
Council will be getting that and that will be part of their evaluation.
Mayor Mancino: Can you ID the property owners so that they only get their, the recommendation on their
property... ?
Don Ashworth: No.
Orlin Shafer: That becomes part of the public record anyway. This is public.
Don Ashworth: Right. The only question is, is in all likelihood, whoever picks up a copy will have kind of
everybody's.
Orlin Shafer: The only reason we don't, Madam Mayor, is send out notices, is to cut down in the
paperwork and to try to keep the process moving. We're dealing with about 1,000 appeals in our office at
this time, all within a 50 day period. So it's rather burdensome.
Mayor Mancino: There's e-mail. There's e-mail now. Okay. I'm going to open this up for anyone who
would like to address the City Council. You need to know that in front of us right now is all of you that
have applied. The PID number. If you have applied for it. We have nothing more than that and that the
assessor's office will be contacting you, if they haven't already, to set up a time to meet with you to review
what your concerns are and your justifications, etc and then we will, the City Council members will receive
prior to May 11th, that's when you should come back, we will receive the judgment of what has happened at
that meeting. We'll receive what's happened there. So anyway, anyone wishing to come in front of the
City Council may do so now. State your name and address and if you have your PID number, would you
please let us know.
Julius Smith: Madam Mayor, my name is Julius Smith and I'm appearing here on behalf of several
taxpayers. I have the ID numbers and I recognize that if, and it's my understanding unless an objection is
made tonight, it's all over and my point is, ifI fill out a form. You used to have forms that we just fill out
and the assessors then call us.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Orlin Shafer: We still do.
Mayor Mancino: It's still paper based.
Julius Smith: If you have some forms, I'd be glad to fill them out and talk to the assessor. You know I
mean there's no point in our arguing here. I'll just talk to him.
Mayor Mancino: We'd love to pass you off to him.
Julius Smith: All I want to know ifI fill out the form and I leave it with him, my objections have been
noted...
Mayor Mancino: You've done your legal duty.
Councilman Senn: ... you come back and see us on the 11th.
Julius Smith: Well yeah. That's right. I think that's the easiest way to handle it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Julius.
Resident: I just want to understand that whatever I say tonight, you people don't overrule any decisions
that the assessor's office has made thus far, is that correct?
Mayor Mancino: Not thus far.
Councilman Senn: They haven't made any decisions.
Mayor Mancino: They haven't made any.
Councilman Senn: I want to make that clear. They have made no decision.
Resident: Okay. So I can set up an appointment and talk to the assessor people and then come back on
the 11th if it's not satisfactory and talk about it again.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. Absolutely. Good.
Orlin Shafer: Ann will be back shortly. She went to get those forms. I guess they're upstairs.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Anyone else? Thanks for coming. Anyone else wishing to fill out a form.
Don Ashworth: Ann has those. Tell you what Ann. Maybe if you could put the forms over on that small
table over there.
Mayor Mancino: Why don't we take a few minutes and.
Councilman Senn: Or raise your hand or something if you need a form.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Why don't you, Ann and come on up and get them from Ann. Take a few
minutes. Anyone who wants to get a form.
Councilman Senn: Nancy, you should ask if anybody's here from Hennepin because that's a different
form.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we have two different forms. One's Carver County forms, if you live in Carver
County. And we have a Hennepin County form if you have a business or live in Hennepin County. Right?
Tom Schroer: There's no separate form but if they would fill it out and give it to me at the end of the
meeting, then I can take it. We would be reviewing the property in Hennepin County.
Don Ashworth: It would be better if you could fill those out this evening and hand them over to, or hand
them back into Ann. And again we have a short window in here for them to get ahold of you.
Orlin Shafer: Please put your phone numbers on them. That's a really important part.
Mayor Mancino: Everybody hear that. Please fill it out now. Put your phone number on it. Is there
anybody.
Councilman Senn: And I think it's fair to say, save your details to talk with the assessor. I mean the
form's really not devised to have you put a bunch of detail on it. It's to be very general and to facilitate a
meeting with the assessor, correct?
Orlin Shafer: That's really what it's for. It's to bring it to our attention and get in contact. Make an
appointment and transact it.
Councilman Senn: So save your data. Save your information for the meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Are there first any other questions? Sir, you just walked in. Did you need a form to fill
out? Okay. Thanks. Anyone else here tonight that would like to come up in front of the council on their
estimated market value. Nobody? Jay.
Don Ashworth: You have one here.
Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address? Thank you.
Doug Barinsky: Yes I will. Give me a second here. I have a written copy too of my appeal. Does the
Board want this, plus the assessor should have it?
Mayor Mancino: You can give it, yes. We'll take one and then make sure that the assessor gets it.
Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Barinsky. My PID number is on my appeal but it's 25.0220500. I'm
appearing, I reside at 8731 Audubon Road. I'm appearing before the Review Board tonight to appeal a
change in my property classification. Our property is probably best known as one of the last Chaska brick
farm sites on Audubon Road. The property consists of our house, several farm buildings and 10 acres of
agricultural farmland. We purchased the property in 1987. At that time the property was zoned
agricultural use and was classified farm homestead, eligible for green acres valuation and tax deferment.
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
For the last 11 years we have continued to use this property under that status and have actively used the 10
acres for agricultural purposes. During that time we have made no changes. For the past several years the
Carver County Assessor has decided to remove green acre status from small farms that they do not
consider in quotes, ;;substantial agricultural use". This is a very subjective approach and certainly
discriminates against small acreage land holders. Under the green acres statute, our property continues to
meet the requirements both for the minimum size and income generation. Based on rough calculations from
the Carver County Treasurer's office, this proposed reclassification will add over $100,000.00 of
additional valuation to this property and will effectively double our taxes raising them by at $3,000.00 or
more. This will effectively add an additional $300.00 per acre per year tax load onto the farmland and
force it economically out of agricultural use. We don't feel that the Carver County Assessor's office
should be the judge over whether or not farmland in Chanhassen should be forced out of agricultural use.
Whether it is a small farm in eastern Carver County or a larger farm in western Carver County, if the use is
agriculture, they should be treated the same. This is obviously an emotional issue for me as the owner. We
purchased the property as a small farm and have continually used it that way for 11 years under what we
thought was the classification we'd be able to keep until the use actually changed. Now due to no changed
action on our part, we're effectively going to be forced out of agricultural use and into residential use. I've
also attached in my appeal an affidavit from Gayle Degler, one of Chanhassen's last remaining full time
farmers, attesting to the agricultural use and output of my land. As you can also see from the affidavit that
removing the land from agricultural impacts on his abilities to continue to sustain his livelihood and
farming also. I appeal to the review board to overrule this decision so that Chanhassen can continue to
have some environmental open farmland for a few more years. Do you have any questions?
Mayor Mancino: Now have you met with staff from the County Assessor's office over this yet Mr.
Barinsky?
Doug Barinsky: Yes. We started on this over 5 years ago. This is not a new issue and they came out and
visited and toured my house this year but had absolutely no comments or discussion about the agricultural
use until I received the notice that they were going to make a change. Since then I filled in my appeal
several weeks ago but they have not recontacted me so. I did have one phone discussion earlier with Keith
Kern, the County Ag Assessor so.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this time?
Councilman Berquist: So nothing has changed. You're still farming the land...
Doug Barinsky: I have a pretty good voucher for that tonight. Mr. Degler will be on the agenda here later.
He's helped me farm it with his machinery for 11 years and I think he could vouch that it's exactly the
same as we've been doing it, even before I owned the property so.
Councilman Berquist: To your knowledge has the State of Minnesota legislature changed their rulings?
Changed anything...
Doug Barinsky: In my discussions, my attorney, the Statute is the same but there have been some claims
that it went to court to try to interpret whether or not it's an agricultural use and my discussion with Keith
Kern, he acknowledged that this is a bit of a borderline case because this is highly productive farmland,
even though it is a small acreage. And the court cases that I've read show that the court has ruled against
people if they don't quote, make a substantive use of the property for agriculture versus living on it.
10
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Councilman Berquist: How do they define substantive?
Doug Barinsky: Pardon?
Councilman Berquist: How is substantive defined?
Doug Barinsky: It's a court determination. There was not any economics attached to it necessarily so.
Councilman Engel: No dollar amounts?
Doug Barinsky: No specific. The statute itself only indicates that you have to have something more than
$300.00 per year of agricultural income so beyond that the court cases that I read are all over the board so.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think Orlin will be looking for comparisons and some of those I think we have
questioned whether they have been used agriculturally or not.
Doug Barinsky: Well there's no doubt, if anyone comes out and looks at this property, the corn was just
planted yesterday so this is not a marginal use of land for grass or horses or whatever. It's as prime of
farmland as you're going to find in Carver County even though it's small acreage and that's where I think
it's in my case I'm being a bit discriminated against so.
Councilman Berquist: And it's apparently outside of the Metropolitan Utility Service line?
Doug Barinsky: Sorry, it's inside.
Mayor Mancino: It's inside the MUSA line.
Doug Barinsky: Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Mr. Degler.
Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler and I'm also representing my parents, Dean and Lois Degler. Now did I
understand right. All we have to do is write the appeal and basically we'll come before you at a later time?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: May 11th.
Gayle Degler: Okay. I'll give just a brief overview. Our concern is the gross valuation, estimated market
value has climbed substantially. Ours on our 80 acre parcel has more than doubled 2 1/2 times and I think
on my parent's it's almost tripled within about $5,000.00 of tripling and.
Councilman Engel: Are you inside the MUSA?
Gayle Degler: No. We are not inside the MUSA line. And I mean without going into too much detail, I'd
like to know what changed to increase our market value of our ag land. We're outside the MUSA line. We
have made no major building improvements and for ag purposes, that's what we make our living, we're in
agriculture and with our estimated market value, I called into the office and found out that our taxes would
11
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
probably be like $24,000.00 on 80 acres. That comes to about $300.00 an acre and there's not very many
crops, I can't think of any legal crops that I could raise if I had 80 acres of tillable land and forget part of
that isn't tillable. And the point was made to me that sure, you're still covered by green acres. What's that
mean? If I sell the land next year, how does green acres cover? I still have to make up 3 years past. So I
sell 2 years from now. That's $24,000.00 for 2 years. I might as well give you what, 6 acres or 3 years,
that's 7 ½ acres of land at my valuation just to cover taxes. Estimated market value is way out of line and
that's what my concern is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. I know Gayle, you're right at the line aren't you?
Gayle Degler: Yes. The road would be the line.
Mayor Mancino: ... Lyman is the road so you're right on that other side.
Gayle Degler: Right. Right. So there's no way we can possibly hook-up.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Please come forward. State your name and address.
Marion Michael: This is my property. You saw this a couple weeks ago in the paper about this old house.
Mayor Mancino: Can you say your name and address please.
Marion Michael: Okay, Marion Michael, 8941 Audubon Road. I'm not as eloquent as the rest. My
husband was the one that was so I'm without him now so I'm going to make this short and I have, if you
want a letter, I have one all made out if you all want one.
Mayor Mancino: Sure. We would, thank you.
Marion Michael: I'm trying to make a presentation. I hope it makes some sense. I am 72 and widow for 5
years on a fixed income. My house was built in 1896. Other farm buildings here are in bad condition and
not useable. The barn could be saved with considerable cost, and I mean considerable. However I will not
be doing that. No major improvements have been in the years. In 1930 we got running water and electric.
10 years ago, well you can look at my age see. 10 years ago we put in a new fuel furnace. And by the
way the electric, we just got a little bit more electric in the house then the 1930. I have papered and painted
and sanded the floors in 1993. It's a beautiful old house inside. And outside. Maintained house, roof and
bricks and painted the outside. Sewer and water go by my house. Now I'm down in the valley. If you
know where that is, if you can remember this house, it's right on by Lyman and Audubon and it's down the
hill. Sewer and water, but sewer hook-up is not feasible near my house. I must go to the pump house on
17, if you know where that is and Audubon Road, and it seems about 2 blocks to hook-up with the sewer. I
have never had a bid as I know it will be very expensive. There's no sense in me having one. My property
is at a bad disadvantage for that. For me. Now maybe for somebody else it wouldn't be but for me. I'm
not hooked up to the water yet either. Bluff Creek runs through my property. Much of the lower property
is marshland. Most, not even good for pasture. I am doubting any housewife would accept a kitchen
without cabinets and work counters, which is my kitchen. Two rooms upstairs are not heated. One room
downstairs not heated, and of course not the two porches. There is no laundry room or hook-ups because
of the water is very minimum supply. Only one bathroom and that is upstairs. I have the figures I have
listed there and do I need to read bills or not? You men have them?
12
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: We can see them, thank you.
Marion Michael: Okay. So I come up with, and I have 12 1/2 acres. I come up with $106,800.00 that is
the amount that they have raised it. With no improvements on the house, or the buildings or the land, I
respectfully protest this $106,800.00 increase. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Marion?
Marion Michael: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Can I ask you a couple questions? You respectfully protest the $106,000.00 increase.
That's in one year?
Marion Michael: No, I don't really know. See I told you I'm not good at that. I think it's supposed to be
3 years. I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: Then I'm assuming, has someone from the County Assessor's staff contacted you to
review this with you?
Marion Michael: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, they will. Ann, have you done?
Marion Michael: Yeah, she went through my house. Yeah, her.
Mayor Mancino: And have you talked this through?
Ann Wise: I've got it on my desk.
Marion Michael: Oh good.
Mayor Mancino: So Ann will be contacting you again to review it with you.
Marion Michael: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming you'll call her yet this week? Ann, to set up a time? Okay.
Councilman Engel: When was the last time this was assessed?
Marion Michael: A couple of months ago.
Councilman Engel: Prior to that?
Marion Micheal: Oh, I don't know.
Ann Wise: ... years but this year.
Councilman Engel: Inspected. Re-appraised. 1, 2, 3, 10, how many years?
13
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Orlin Shafer: I was out there, it's probably like 6 years ago that I was.
Councilman Engel: 6 years, okay.
Orlin Shafer: It might have been looked at since then. I'm not sure.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So Marion, Ann will meet with you and review it with you. And then you may
certainly come in front of the City Council on May 11th.
Marion Michael: Oh I have to come back huh?
Mayor Mancino: You get to come back.
Marion Michael: Oh, get to come back, okay.
Mayor Mancino: Unless you agree with her decision.
Marion Michael: Her decision?
Mayor Mancino: If you agree with it, then you do not need to come back. If you don't and would like to
come in front of the City Council again and say you do not agree with it. Then at that time we'll be making
a decision.
Marion Michael: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council tonight? Anyone else? Or else
I will close this part of the agenda tonight unless anyone else has a question or a comment.
Councilman Senn: If nobody else is coming up, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the public hearing
until May 11th.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Don Ashworth: Recess.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, just so you know. It's new business, and I don't know if that makes a
difference or not but it's not a public hearing. I mean just so you know. I don't know if that makes a
difference but just to be.
Councilman Senn: Okay, recess the hearing until May 11th.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to recess the Board of Equalization and
Review until May 11, 1998. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PLAT APPROVAL FOR 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND FOR
AN OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT THAT WOULD PERMIT A CHURCH/
14
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
INSTITUTIONAL USE; LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER
BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE; BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER; LAND
GROUP, INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. This is the second time this project has been
before the Council for review. Back in January the Bluff Creek Corporate Center was granted conceptual
approval of a mixed use PUD. Conceptual approval gives the developer and staff marching orders on
bringing a proposal forward for additional review. This is actually the first reading of the rezoning of this
property to planned unit development. It would permit office/industrial uses as well as a church facility on
one of the parcels within the development. It's preliminary plat approval for the project. Final plat
approval would include any construction documents for actual improvements within the development.
There is a small wetland located in the north central portion of the site that is being filled as part of this
proposal. This is below the.., requirement. However it still requires the wetland alteration permit. The big
issue regarding this was whether or not to permit the church facility. At the conceptual level City Council
requested that staff provide an analysis of what the potential tax ramifications were based on this
development. The applicant has agreed to provide additional office space in the northern part of this
project. By doing that they've increased the potential value of the development and therefore the tax
revenues. The potential office industrial site in the southwest comer of the site can then be replaced with
the institutional use and the net tax benefit to the community is a slight positive gain so from that
standpoint we believe that the City is not losing out on this proposal, as well we'll be gaining additional
social benefits by permitting the church facility as well as creating a transition from the office/industrial
uses to the less intensive uses to the west and south. One of the big items of discussions and concern on
this are the setback requirements from Bluff Creek. The applicant has been working with a 100 foot
setback from the original Bluff Creek corridor. Part of staffs review, we are recommending that the
corridor should include the mitigated wetland area and then from there we would use the 100 feet. In
essence what that would do is require the developer to shift over a future phase of the project to
approximately 60 feet to the east. We believe this can be done on the site and it is not detrimental to them
developing the property. Planning Commission was supportive of that interpretation of the Bluff Creek
corridor and recommended that a 100 foot setback from Bluff Creek be maintained throughout the
development. The other area that that would potentially impact is in the northeast comer of this site where
the applicant and the staff had made it an 80 foot setback from the east branch of Bluff Creek. In essence
they would require that that additional 20 foot setback be proposed there. As part of this staff has prepared
preliminary development design standards for the project. If approved these would be the design standards
that the development would have to follow. The total development would be a maximum of 260,000 square
feet of space. Approximately 60,000 of this would be for the church facility. The balance would be an
office/industrial use. Again the developer has committed to provide more office use than light industrial
warehouse use so that would come to approximately 62% of the total development. Staff is recommending
approval of the preliminary PUD and subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. We'd be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Mancino: I just have one and that is, in regard to the 100 foot setback. Is that, I'm just looking at
the report right now and on page 4 under background. On January 12, 1998, on page 5. That was
condition 14. Have we looked at a conceptual...then?
Bob Generous: Yes. That's what we started out. It was a carry over from the original, when we reviewed
the Creekside development, which is the townhouse project to the south.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, so this is not new news. This is something that we were, okay.
15
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Bob Generous: That we've been working with.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Okay, is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council at this time? And please say
your name and address and who you are.
Liv Homeland: I thought you guys would take much longer than this, sorry.
Mayor Mancino: We're fast, efficient, clear. Let's go. We'll be done in a few minutes.
Liv Homeland: Wonderful. Couldn't be better.
Councilman Senn: And we're approaching a record and they have a chance to either make it or break it.
Mayor Mancino: Just say yes and we're done.
Liv Homeland: Okay. Sounds good to me, whatever it is. Well we're glad to be here again and thank you
for your consideration in the past. We've made a lot of changes to the plans. I think you've seen that.
We've tried to be responsive to you and to the Planning Commission and to staff, to all the input that we've
gotten so we're kind of working I hope in the direction that you want to see it. We've shifted, I think one of
the most important things, can you see on the plan here. We shifted the road, location of that north/south
road. Stone Creek Drive further to the west so it reduces the parking on the church site, which was at a
special request to do that and we've been able to accomplish that so that increases the parking on the office
and warehouse side of the road. On the office side, on the office and warehouse side we've gained 89
parking spaces and of the parking spaces remaining on the church site, 153 spaces are available for cross
over parking, for use by the office and warehouse. We've prepared a plan for the church parcels showing
potential alternate use for the office/warehouse. At one point it was requested, how much warehouse could
you get on the site and when you consider all the parking, there really is like 120 spaces left that could be
purely dedicated to an office building or warehouse building on that site. And as a result of that, that
would allow for a 38,000 square foot building. And obviously though taxes are generated, would be
generated by that building and an offset to not having it there and to letting the church go there instead
where I think we're more than compensating by having the office. Putting, you know the office along
Highway 5. Try to balance that out. And obviously a church benefits community in many ways that are
both tangible and intangible. In regards, one of the other things we've done, we've gone through the
landscape plan quite extensively land have significantly increased the number of plantings and this was at
the request of staff and Planning Commission as well. We're using a primarily, we're using a lot of
plantings that have been recommended by staff so we're in keeping with what they have suggested. And
these include prairie flower plantings, not just prairie grasses but also the prairie flower plantings. And
along with the appropriate trees for lowland, hardwood forest, reforestation. We're trying to keep in the
right mode there as well. Along Stone Creek Drive we've utilized overstory trees as recommended.
However, the power line, there is a power line running parallel to the road and in some locations we can't
do overstory trees. They get in the way of the power line. But we've done it where we could. Walking
trails have been expanded throughout the site to connect with the surrounding trail system so we've worked
on that as well. The landscaping for the Bluff Creek corridor has also been substantially increased both on
the primary corridor, which is the west corridor and secondary corridor to the east. The area being planted
in prairie flowers and grasses has been made much larger as can be seen on our new landscape plan. I
think Bob has a copy of that. Okay. I think you all have a copy of that as well. Okay. So we've
16
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
expanded this along the creek edges quite substantially. Per staff's direction also we've reduced the linear
appearance of plantings. They were trees running kind of in linear fashion and we changed that to
groupings of trees and shrubs with a heavy utilization of native species. The prairie flowers and grasses
will be low maintenance with no need for sprinkler systems for watering, which is nice. The Family of
Christ Church has pulled back it's building footprint significantly from the creek area. I think that was
also an objection before and they have moved that. They were in this area before and they've pulled
back...to change. They are now, they've worked really hard on their site and I guess now at this point they
feel they're as constrained as they can possibly be by the combination of reduced site acreage by moving
the road, and the expanded creek setback area. The setback from the creek, as recommended by staff,
begins at the edge of the pond created on site by the reconstruction of the creek. I guess you can see that
area. Our feeling is that we, the 100 foot setback should begin at our property line, which the original
center of the creek is where we feel it should be, which is where it originally was before the pond was
created, which has about 2/3 of an acre of water that was created on our site. And we feel that that line
should still be at that original site location... This is the, the blue line is the original center of the creek
before the pond was expanded. And the red line is now the edge of the pond, is that correct? Yes. Oh,
that's the 100 foot line, sorry. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And what's this new... ?
Liv Homeland: That's the 100 foot from the pond, okay. Okay. Sorry. The blue line is the original creek
line. Original center of the creek and the solid red line is 100 feet from that line. And the dotted red line is
100 feet from the edge of the pond. It shows the difference between the two, between the two red lines. I
guess our feeling is, we have given the city permission to enter on our property for installing sewer and
water lines but we were surprised that at it to see the large amount of pond we ended up with, with the rock
waterfall because that's basically about 2/3 of an acre of our site. So that was something we didn't have
notice. All of a sudden we're going, it's there you know, which is fine but it was not something we were
expecting. And this is an area if we have questions, otherwise too we have the church here as well and they
will address that as well. In one of the, I'm going to another subject for a minute. In our previous
submittal we had requested a bank facility on site. I'm talking about the uses that we're looking for. We
are willing to yield to the city's wishes and forego this. I mean to say fine, we can do without that. We
would however like to continue our request for some type of restaurant facility such as a deli or coffee shop
within one of the buildings. Not a free standing but within one of the buildings. A single tenant user, if it
becomes a single tenant, may have their own cafeteria but if it's multi-tenant which is by far the most
likely, they're not going to have a cafeteria facility you know of their own and it would make sense to have
someone provide that service, especially as the rest of it becomes developed. You know most people will
eat their lunches in the office most of the time but they don't want to necessarily have to mn downtown
every time either to go out. So that's something we're asking for. I think that we kind of see that as being
within walking distance for these people. That this is part of the new urbanism that they can walk to a
restaurant instead of have all of these get in their car and drive somewhere. We look forward to receiving
your approval tonight. We're anxious to proceed and the Family of Christ Church would like to begin their
fund raising in earnest for their new facility. We appreciate your efforts and those of the Planning
Commission and staff in considering our proposal. We expect this project will be an enhancement to the
community and a source of pride for the city as well as for us. I'm going to introduce the other members of
our team and I think they're all available for questions. The first one is Ron Krank of KKE Architects and
Ron is available for any questions you may have. Ken Adolf, Schoell & Madson, our engineers. And he
does, has been working on the parking issue, landscaping and trail systems and you know Bluff Creek
corridor study. Jim Sellemd of the Family of Christ is here as well and would like to speak for a briefly.
And Steve Edwins, from SMSQ Architects which is the church's architects. Thank you.
17
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. It sounds like we have two issues that you would like us to look
at from the staff report. One is the setback from the creek and secondly, is the deli/restaurant in one of the
buildings. Otherwise everything else is, seems to be fine. Who would like to speak for the church? I guess
Jim on the setback or Ken. Talk a little bit about that and the expansion, etc.
Steve Edwins: I've been elected. Steve Edwins from SMSQ Architects and I was here a month ago or so
when we did the conceptual plan review. I think we do have some points of interest to you about the new
change in the setback along Bluff Creek. We have worked on the site over the months, about 8 months
now, and I would like to in detail explain some of the reasons again why the building is sited the way it is,
to take advantage of the topology. To actualize the goal of having shared parking with the other office and
warehouse users and the reasons programmatically that we have the church where it is on the site. And to
end up really by saying that we're finding that this additional 50 to 80 feet is represented by this dashed
line, is a powerful and perhaps untenable result of the last month's reviewing, that's going to make it very
difficult for the church to be on the site. So here are the reasons. First of all I might say that the site is an
ideal one for the church to be located on because of it's... We're suggesting that the building really needs
to be on this portion of this shoulder because it needs to have a south entrance. For weather reasons and
simply to have the front door viewable from Coulter Drive. In our climate it just doesn't make sense to
have a north entrance, and this is breaking one of the original development rules which has now been
okayed by staff to have the parking in the front and have the building behind. We've emilerated that by
having a rather narrow parking band, and this is raised up above Coulter so that the view across a parking
lot is simply not there because the parking is higher than the street. We're also raising the building up on
the site so that there's very little kind of movement or excavating of the site itself. We're in fact using
some of the excess fill from over here, moving it into the parking so that the exportation of fill from the site
generally is not as severe we thought it might be at first. Well, with the narrowness of this peninsula, with
the fact that we are keeping the building high, with the need to share 150 some spaces with the developer on
the other side, with the fact that the road has been moved to the west, so more of the parking is assigned to
this side of the road, we're finding that this is as tight as we can get the building to work on the site. Now,
programmatically, or the internal forces that help drive this site location have to do with the way the church
needs to go in the future. The core part of the building, which is represented in the part that's outlined
here, is the original or let's say the first phase aspect of the property which is about 13-14,000 square feet.
Probably on two levels with a walkout lower level and an upper level that's associated with the parking.
An education wing of the future and expansion for the final worship space in the future. These two
expansion items need to be on opposite ends of the building. So education can go that way, so worship can
go this way. We want to have the worship at this end of the building because it doesn't need to have a
lower level underneath it and also communicates the idea that people are visiting it. They're right in the
core of the parking zones of the site, and easy therefore to get into the building from parking. The other
end of the site where we have the two level possibilities and kind of the walkout lower level, looking over
the Bluff Creek area, is ideal for small rooms and classrooms and we're intending to have initially and then
relocated here, a preschool effort for the church. Because that's going to be on the lower level, we really
have to have some parking at the lower level for easy drop-off of kids. We're talking about from 10 to 15
spaces at most, which is the regular kind of venue that takes place in churches for people who are dropping
off their kids right before work or changing between sessions at noon hour. So as you can see, if we had to
live with this rule of the new line proposed by the Planning Commission, we have to shift the building
further east. We have said we can do that but it means this parking grouping drops out of the picture. It
means we have less possibility of really having parking associated with the lower level of the church. It
means as on Bob Generous' map, that actually this road has to change it's curvature. Right now this is an
8% grade coming up to the front door. We can't make it any steeper than that. The net effect of that kind
18
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
of movement, I think we're going to reduce parking on the site. Make it harder to build a church. So we're
very concerned about that additional setback requirement from the edge of the pond as Liv was talking
about, rather than the original 100 foot setback that we've been planning along that is the dark red line that
comes from the center of the creek.
Mayor Mancino: So what we're seeing Bob on our March 2nd '98 isn't right, correct? What I have here
that shows 100 foot setback.
Bob Generous: That shows their proposal.
Steve Edwins: So I'm just bringing up from the church's point of view, we're quite concerned about that.
That additional setback from the edge of pond. Another little colored version of this just for reference as
we talk about it. I'm not sure if the meaning of the setback also includes the retention pond or whether it's
simply the ponding area here.
Bob Generous: From the wetland.
Steve Edwins: It's just from the wetland over here. So the line is basically this line and extending up this
way through what we would like to call one of the second phased buildings and a small parking area for
access to the preschool area of the building. Are there any other questions? While I'm here.
Mayor Mancino: Other questions? Okay. I guess there are none. Not yet.
Jim Sellemd: Hi, I'm Jim Sellemd. I'm from the building committee of Family of Christ Church. And this
is sort of to give maybe an explanation point to some of what you've already heard. But we're, believe or
not, we're glad to be before you again this evening. And certainly not as adversaries but we're, we know
we have different roles. We're in the private institutional role with Liv and you in the public role and
hopefully through this process we all create a project that has the greatest value. We know we're not going
to pave it from comer to comer, but we also know that there's, we're not going to return to some original
landscape, some undetermined date back when, when it was, when the deer ran this way and that way and
you know who picks that date? I don't know. But we're arriving at some midpoint that really does provide
value to us all and meets the public purpose. Certainly this is an expensive process. We've spent lots of
hours in doing this and you know as public officials that your role in this process, it's expensive for
everybody, but hopefully we're arriving at a greater value in going through this. We've even in the
Planning Commission meeting, we even got down, this is to let you know how constrained we feel on this
site. We've been squeezed from the west and squeezed from the east. We even got down to talking about
should kids be carried up and down stairs or not for different, that kinds of activities. We didn't quite get
to the point of talking about do we squeeze our toothpaste in the middle or at the end but you know we're
kind of micromanaging the site, even before we design a building. So to really put an explanation on this
we're, this site is squeezed. We've been told, here's where the parking goes. Here's the building footprint.
Well you can't even move it a little bit this way or you can't move it a little bit that way. And here we are,
concept approval and preliminary plat. I know we're going to deal with some of these issues again when
we talk about approval of the site plan and building plans, but we're amazingly far ahead in this process of
saying well, this is all you've got. We started out coming in with an application. A modest application of
10 acres. You've heard talk of, and maybe more than talk of churches coming in and church institutions
coming in at 20 and 40 acres. We said well, 10 is the modest request to take off the tax rolls. 10 is what
we need. Well we said we didn't need a north/south street. Well, a north/south street is put in. That
subtracts the makers from the site. The west boundary gets moved in. Now we're down to, on the
19
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
preliminary plat we're down to 5.77 acres. We thought we'd be at 10 acres. Well we're down to 5.77.
We also then have that western boundary line by the Bluff Creek ordinance definition moving in further
from the west. So we're now probably under 5 acres. We maybe should have come in asking for 20. I'm
not sure but we do feel highly constrained. I think we've got, well speaking specifically then to our four
requests and one of these will be new information for you this evening but I've talked with the planning
staff about this but specifically we'd like that the, that you establish the watershed zone boundaries. Now
these may be a new term. I don't mean to be informing you but this is your first time through this
ordinance, the Bluff Creek ordinance. We'd like to establish the water zone, watershed zone boundary, the
primary and secondary such that the existing application is approved. And that setbacks not distinguished
between building and parking use. You know here we've set forth, here's where we think our parking's
going to be. Here's where we think our building's going to be. We haven't had the opportunity even to
design the building because we're being moved around on the site. We would like to have some elbow
room to say, here's what we've got to work with. And so we'd like that, we'd like our, again the watershed
zone boundaries, the primary and secondary, to be established such that our application is approved
without delineation of the parking versus building. Primary implication there is to say well, if we want to
slide our building into what's now parking or parking into building, we can do that. Secondly, that you
find that sufficient land value has already been taken for park and trail use, so that you waive park and trail
fees for Lot 1, Block 1. I talked about, we started out at 10 acres. Now we're down to less than 5. The
ordinance for park and trail dedication says, well that doesn't matter. We can take whatever we take,
what's ever wetland, you know we can take that. You pay anyway. We're asking that you waive those.
Third, that you waive the height. This is a more, up to, the last two are kind of particular issues. That you
waive the height restriction in the sign ordinance regarding our sign in the northwest comer. You have an 8
foot limitation. The lot's down in a hole. I don't know where we are going to establish the floor for
measuring up 8 feet but we'd like that waived, otherwise that sign isn't going to be seen. And then the
fourth one that's new. That you amend the design standards to permit an antenna as an accessory use if
attached to an existing approved building. Or related structure. What that means is if we can combine a
cellular antenna into a bell tower, into something else on the building, it meets one of your objectives in not
having free standing towers. I don't know that we're in the right spot. We've had some conversation about
that, but as the design standards are set out right now, it would be prohibited. We'd like that still to be on
the floor for discussion. Those are the specific requests and be glad to answer any questions.
Mayor Mancino: And did you review these with staff prior to? Have they been able to, Bob have you been
able to make comment on these for us?
Jim Sellemd: First one is just as our application stands. We're asking for those parameters. The second
one, the waiving of the fees has been commented on before by staff is that, no. That isn't what happens.
You pay the fee anyway. The third, the sign one came up. We introduced that at the Planning Commission
and the fourth one I talked to staff about, was the cell phone antenna.
Mayor Mancino: There isn't a sign permit with this tonight?
Bob Generous: No. They would have to come in for a separate one.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they can certainly come back and ask for a variance in height due to how low
it is, when they come back for the sign. Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Senn: What was the first one?
20
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: First one was the watershed zone boundary.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. The 100 foot.
Mayor Mancino: And the second one was for park and trail fees waived, which I don't think we've ever
done. Waived the height restrictions for signage.
Councilman Senn: Right now we've got four issues from the church and one from the developer.
Mayor Mancino: Pardon?
Councilman Senn: Right now we have four issues from the church and one from the developer, correct?
Councilman Berquist: The sign size we're not even.., speaking of tonight but somewhere in here there's
something.
Mayor Mancino: There's a lot that has to do with signage in here. But I'm saying no one here is coming
forward yet to ask for a sign. That will come later. Okay.
Jim Sellerud: Our particular concern about the Bluff Creek ordinance is that, at the Planning Commission
there was some confusion on the part, well on the part of everyone as to what the ordinance said and how it
was to be applied and there were, there was discussion about 300 foot setbacks and so forth. Well none of
this language appears in the actual ordinance. There's a procedure established for the planning department
and the planning director to establish a line, to establish the primary zone line and the secondary zone line.
And that that's to be established after a certain, some certain documentation. Well we all came into this
kind of halfway through the process. The ordinance kind of overlapped our process.
Mayor Mancino: And that happens quite a bit.
Jim Sellerud: So that didn't really happen in that way. And yet the information that's called for to
establish that line does not say specifically that it's to tie to a date in history. To say well, we want to
establish what was here back in 1880 or you know there's this overlying theme of big woods but it's just a
theme. It's not, it's kind of arbitrary. Our point is that we're bringing value to that area and that the
establishment of that line did not happen by the planning department, so we're not really appealing their
determination under their, or their delineation under the ordinance. They made a determination based on
other criteria that, and we're now, everybody's kind of backing into the ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: Exactly. That's happened before. When we did the Highway 5 overlay. When people
came in, there is a set period of time where you're starting an ordinance. Pulling it all together and you
have developers that come in and we try to facilitate that.
Jim Sellerud: Right, but what I'm saying is, there doesn't seem to be any higher standing on the part of the
City saying well, we're going to tie to this ordinance. We're relating to this ordinance as opposed to our
standing and saying here's, we think we've sensitively laid out the site. I don't think there's any higher
standing on the part of the city saying well we're going to tie to this ordinance. We're relating to this
ordinance as opposed to our standing and saying here's, we think we've sensitively laid out this site. I
don't think there's any higher standing by saying well the ordinance is there, because that isn't what's been
followed anyway in getting to where we are. Do you understand what I'm saying?
21
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Jim Sellemd: Okay. Thanks.
Ken Adolf: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Liv Homeland has asked me to address in a bit more
detail the corridor issue. We have a panoramic photo here, or actually a series of photos. Maybe I'll first
show where the photos are taken and maybe the camera can zoom in on the photo. The photo's, I'm
standing approximately at this location and then a series of... somewhat a feeling of what the site is looking
like. And the intent is to show that this really is a farmfield. Perhaps you could zoom in a little bit closer
on some of the, on the photo. On the west part you can see the rip rap dykes which form the pond. And
over here, if you can pick-up this part, is the curb cut that was put in on Coulter Boulevard. And to give
you a feel of the size of...this is a woman standing probably.., so the elevation does rise up significantly
and I'm guessing that the proposed setback is someplace in this area. So that it really, the setback does go
across the top of the hill in the area between there and the end of the water really is where the, there isn't
any vegetation there, such as trees or wildlife habitat. The landscape plan does propose to re-establish
those types of, that type of vegetation and based on what's there now, we feel is a reason to go with the 100
foot setback from the original creek line which when we started this whole process, the pond didn't exist
and we were measuring from the creek. I'd be happy to address any questions.
Councilman Berquist: So you're suggesting that the, where that woman is, to the left of her, at the edge of
that, whatever that structure is. That sign. That's the approximate 150 setback?
Ken Adolf: I'm just estimating that because looking at the topography, the setback does go across the top
of the slope and I believe that's about where that sign is.
Mayor Mancino: Ken I just have a question for you again, the original, the setback was 100 feet from the
creek originally but it also had a 50 foot buffer area too.
Ken Adolf: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: So originally from the very first time in January we said that the, let's see. It says the
proposed landscape plan along.., buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with
a 50 foot buffer area. So from the beginning it was 150 feet.
Councilman Senn: No. No, I don't think so.
Mayor Mancino: That's what it says right here.
Councilman Senn: It included.
Ken Adolf: The 50 feet was included in the 100 feet.
Councilman Senn: It was included in the 100 feet.
Mayor Mancino: But it says with a 50 foot buffer area. Was it included?
Bob Generous: Yes.
22
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Ken Adolf: Those are the same standards that were used on the townhomes at Creekside on the south side
of Coulter Boulevard. The 50 and 100.
Mayor Mancino: ... included in here so I had to make sure everybody was understanding the same thing.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah. I'm not understanding that. Now I'm confused. What you're telling me is
that 100, we originally gave the condition that it was going to be a 100 foot setback.
Mayor Mancino: From the creek.
Councilman Berquist: From the creek edge? From the creek center? From the what?
Mayor Mancino: The edge of the creek... It's not a very large creek.
Councilman Senn: A creek defined by the center line basically.
Councilman Berquist: The old creek center line?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Which would make a difference in the footage.
Councilman Berquist: It wasn't 100 feet plus the 50 foot buffer? It was 100 feet including.
Bob Generous: Yes, with the first 50 feet to be buffer area.
Councilman Berquist: That condition originally back in whatever, is significantly different than...
Bob Generous: Which is based on the interpretation, Bluff Creek edge should start at the edge of the
wetland. It's the same 100 foot measurement but it starts at a different place.
Mayor Mancino: Which makes it 60 feet different right now.
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask one other question if you don't mind while I'm on this. You've been in
on this since the get go so you remember the original time that we sat down and looked at this. Didn't we
talk about moving or doing something with the parking? ... more shared parking...
Bob Generous: Yeah, that idea was to make the parking more convenient for the office industrial users.
Councilman Senn: If it was going to truly be shared parking.
Bob Generous: Yes. Part of it was through the installation of the sidewalk system. They have an
extensive system and we've worked with them on connecting that appropriately. The other thing is they
shifted the roadway over to the west.
Councilman Berquist: And explain to me the reasoning behind that again.
23
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Bob Generous: Well it created additional parking spaces on the industrial side of the road in essence. Two
more rows of parking in the central area. Underneath the electrical transmission corridor.
Councilman Berquist: So we have that in addition to the double width lot that is at the far east section of
the proposed church site. Originally this two rows of the parking that were on the Lot 2 office warehouse
were not there?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: The road was further to the west. The church was further to the west. Or I'm
sorry, the road was further to the east. The church was further to the east.
Bob Generous: The church was further to the west. The building was. Closer to the Bluff Creek corridor.
Ken Adolf: I do have a plan here that is the same as the plan that was brought to you in the concept stage,
if that will be helpful. I can just quickly change this. These buildings are for the most part the same. You
can see where the road is and we've got really just one parking here. On the new plan the road has been
shifted to the west about 65 feet which allows for extra parking in this area. So that's where the big change
has occurred. I'd also like to address the issue of the wetland, the edge of the pond is now being called a
wetland. Just to clarify. The original wetland before this area was impounded was very close to the center
of the creek. There wasn't a real wide band of wetland in there so the wetland is, as you're calling the edge
of the present pond the wetland, that's really the wetland that was created by the impoundment.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions because we'll go onto comments unless someone
else would like to come up and address the Council. I think we have a few issues here. As they pertain to
the setback of the primary zone, the watershed zone boundary, park and trail fees. The height restriction
for signage and allowing an antenna. I just have one question before everybody makes their comments.
What about antennas in the lOP? Do we restrict that?
Bob Generous: They're a conditional use. It could be the tower and the antenna. It's a permitted use if
it's attached to an existing structure.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thanks. Comments. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I'll run the risk of over simplifying. 100 feet from the creek versus the pond.
I'll go with the 100 feet from the creek. No waiver on fees. Signage, one monument sign per property.
Antenna, CUP. Okay, if it's incorporated into the design and is invisible, not subject to change. Cafeteria,
or restaurant use would be no. Parking. I'm still uncomfortable with, and the reason I'm, I don't know.
As... photos I guess maybe I understand it more but my uncomfort now with the parking lies in the fact that
if a private building's going to rely on 153 stalls, as I'm understanding this from the church, I'm not sure
the church has 153 stalls to give, given the act of operations it's going to have going on at that facility
during business hours. So that is a concern of mine.
Mayor Mancino: And what are you talking about active activities?
Councilman Senn: Active activities meaning just administrative, church administrative functions.
Programming. Daycare. Etc. Okay, I mean I start attaching space to each of those things and there aren't
24
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
enough spaces to furnish 153 plus take care of those functions on... property so I'm uncomfortable with
that. That's something I think that can be dealt with, with staff because the numbers aren't coming out in
my mind on that so.
Mayor Mancino: Do you have a greater concern as they expand and add education?
Councilman Senn: Well yeah, and then they expand and they do have a proof of future parking but again,
you know what was it, 15 spaces only wasn't it?
Bob Generous: Oh, on the lower level?
Councilman Senn: Approved for additional parking or something.
Mayor Mancino: The lower level.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it was like another 15 stalls or something wasn't it? So that just in my mind kind
of, they enhanced that concern as the building expands. So I don't know. Not knowing the, but at same
time I mean I know office industrial property and I mean I hate to say it, you could have 100,000 square
feet requiring 1 person. You could have 100,000 square feet requiring you know 100 people. I mean you
just don't know. There's no way to gauge that but I just, I don't know if there's a way for us to work out
some type of control on that to make sure we don't end up with a problem out there because you know
we'll have a problem as soon as people want to start parking on the street, etc so.
Mayor Mancino: There is no parking on the street, correct? Normally do we allow in the IOP, parking on
the street?
Charles Folch: On any collector routes you haven't, no.
Councilman Senn: So, that's it.
Steve Edwins: Mayor and Councilman Senn. Just to clarify the programmatic needs of the church for
parking. The master plan, as it's shown for parking shows 208 spaces for the church, 153 of which are
shared for office/industrial. That leaves 55 spaces on the upper part that the church can use for it's daily
activities. Plus the 12 to 15 for the preschool operation. Just for quick in and out or for kids. Now
because of the time sequencing of activities, the church uses it's parking mostly in the evenings and on
weekends. And that usually syncs pretty well with the business needs on the rest of the site which is
daytime and weekdays rather than weekends.., plus possibly a director so something along those lines.
Mayor Mancino: But we have such parking problems at the Bluff Creek Elementary that you know that I
think what we're looking at that in some of the educational areas. New ones.
Steve Edwins: The permit is 1 staff person for every 10 in the preschool.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand but I mean when you have 40 kids you're going to have 40 parents
dropping off 40 kids. And picking up 40 kids. And then you're also going to have your educational stuff
going on outside of that, correct? I mean that's not your only educational function.
Steve Edwins: That would be it.
25
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Councilman Senn: That's it?
Steve Edwins: Yeah. Just to summarize, the amount of parking on the site is planned to be 15 plus 55
which adds up to 70 spaces. Over and above the shared parking requirement.
Mayor Mancino: Is that helpful for you?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I agree with Councilman Senn about the 100 foot line. I don't have any trouble with
that. I also agree with, I think they need to pay the park and trail fees. The tower deal I'm also okay with.
Well we do differ, no. I'm not going to say we differ on the deli, but I'm not as opposed as Councilman
Senn is to that. I think if it's something small, no more than x number of people or whatever, I can see
some kind of need for something like that there. I don't see that as a restaurant drawing things off
downtown so much as I do a quick snack kind of thing.
Mayor Mancino: So you would.., deli restaurant into a square footage then?
Councilman Mason: Whatever formula, yeah. Yeah. But other than that I think Mark and I are in pretty
much agreement with everything else.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I think I'm probably just going to echo some of the things they said. I'm alright
with the setback variance. I have no problem with that. The cafeteria, initially I'm a little chilly to, to be
honest with you but it depends on the size. If it's small. If it's small, pardon the pun right. If it's small, I
would not have a problem with that. I'd just like to see the size. So I would like to see the size projected.
Number of people. Square footage dedicated to it. I can be convinced on that one. Tower okay. No
waiver on park and trail. I don't think we do that for anybody. Parking spots on the lower expansion, if
we can't come up with, work around there. Perhaps a circle drive thru, something like St. Hubert's has for
drop off and pick up. But... hard and fast on that one either.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well, if we're not going to let a restaurant go in there, we should let a lumber yard.
Councilman Engel: Where'd that one come out of?
Councilman Berquist: I think we're all pretty much thinking along the same lines, at least the four men.
Simply the fact that we are four men that happen to be thinking alike at this point...
Councilman Mason: How does that fillet of sole taste Councilman Berquist?
Councilman Berquist: ... I'm okay with the line that we're talking about. I'm okay with the footprint. I
want park and trail fees I'm afraid. I have no problems with the bell tower or something similar being used
for a telecommunications facility. So that's 3 of the 4. The sign issue we do not need to address. The
restaurant issue, I've been at a lot of office buildings. Not too many office/warehouse buildings but a lot of
26
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
warehouse buildings that have some form of a deli or restaurant or coffee shop. I don't think I'd want one,
I don't want one in both of them necessarily but I would be amenable to one in one building, tied to square
footage.., with the goal being to be protective of the downtown.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is, number one this has come a long way. I think it has worked very well...
position, etc. So I'm really happy with it. A couple of comments is I just want to make sure that on
Highway 5 that the parking, as we've done the Highway 5 corridor, we were not going to have parking
abutting Highway 5 so I just want to make sure that that's screened. And not just from Coulter Boulevard
but from Highway 5 also. Secondly, as far as the 100 feet from the creek, I'm fine with that. I wanted to
make sure that that is what we had set up and said from the very beginning in January. Park and trail fees.
No, I would not waive those. And I certainly wouldn't waive height restrictions for signage at this point. If
you came in and showed where you want the sign and if it was in a lower area, we could certainly look at
that for a variance. But I am not even in favor, under signage, of having a sign on Highway 5 that's 20 feet
in height. In fact you'll find in most, in Chanhassen in our business parks that are abutting Highway 5, I
don't think there is a 20 foot sign. Now there is in our CBD, in our central business district, but in our
office park I don't think we have any 20 foot signs on Highway 5. Do we Bob at this point?
Bob Generous: Not that I can remember.
Mayor Mancino: And this being a very classy, really nice office park, I would not be in favor of a 20 foot
sign on TH 5. I think we've handled it very well. Now if in case, as Jim brought up, the land, the contour
of the land is down and it's not level with Highway 5, then I can understand it being a little tougher but you
know mostly monument signage. The amending the design standards to allow antennas, again that's a
conditional use permit which is fine with me. If it comes in and it's just... I do have a problem with a
restaurant. I would not be in favor... What else? I also just wanted to commend the developer and the
church on what you're going to add to Bluff Creek and I think it will be exciting. The prairie grasses and
sticking with some of the indigenous native area that we have. So I think it will be wonderful for the
church and hopefully your industrial park people that come and are in the offices will enjoy the creek also.
You need to know that Pillsbury, they have very, very active environmental group at Pillsbury and they do
clean-up on the creek and have also been very interested in the trails and what they can do. They actually,
one of the people that work at Pillsbury has decided to live in Chanhassen and decided to be a member of
the Environmental Commission so we do want to pull in our corporate users into what we're doing, the
amenities in our city so that not only our residents but those that are working here can...
Councilman Berquist: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Regarding your reluctance to accept a restaurant... Is it your belief that, since you
spend a lot more time in these types of buildings than I do, is it your belief that the services, the snack
services, the soda, sandwich, chili, sorts of services, that could be provided to occupants of buildings like
these, can be done well via vending machines? Because that's what's going to end up happening.
Mayor Mancino: Well restaurant is very different than an area in an office complex where you can go
down and buy a coke or you can go down and buy a packaged goods. A restaurant.
Councilman Senn: I agree. I mean you know because essentially you have to separate two types of
buildings here. Okay, where you have a single user, they can put in their own employee cafeteria or
27
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
whatever. What you're really talking about is the non-single use or the multi-tenant buildings. Okay, and
if you effectively reflect back on what our philosophy's been, not only as it relates to downtown but as
we've zoned property for specific uses, you know and separated those out and spread them around
effectively through the corridor and elsewhere else to service those people, I think that's, I mean as soon as
you start departing from that, you're going to end up with this building's going to have a Bruegger's in it.
You know, this one's going to have a Caribou in it. You know whatever, and I don't know how we're
going to control that. I mean I think that's going to very, very difficult to do once you effectively break the
floodgates so to speak. I understand what you're saying by trying to limit it by square footage or
something like that but to me that's going to be difficult at best to define and then I mean if you define it by
the food service. Do you define it by the seating? You know if you define it by the food service, well then
you can just abuse the hell out of it on seating. I mean I don't know. I mean to me it's just kind of like,
you know it's an area, do you want to go there and kind of the better part of my judgment says no. Let's
not go there. Let's stick with the philosophy we've had and also allow the businesses who are effectively
invested greater dollars in the property for those types of uses, to enjoy you know the potential or the
benefits of those versus using you know effectively you know lower priced land or whatever to do it.
Mayor Mancino: Once Highway 5 gets upgraded and you go underneath Highway 5, there may be...
Councilman Senn: Well there's one zoned for there so. So I mean there should be stuff.
Councilman Berquist: The answer is vending machines are going to be it for, that's what's going to
happen. There's going to be a series of.
Councilman Senn: That's what happens at most multi-tenant buildings, correct.
Councilman Berquist: Long Lake just went through this and they chose to look at it from a... as to how
large an area it could be. I look at it from a standpoint that, do we really want, if I'm a worker, if I'm in
here doing work and I want a sandwich, is it in anybody's best interest to...jump in my car and drive into
town to pick the sandwich up, get back in my car and drive all the way back.
Councilman Mason: Of course I've been bringing my lunch to work for about 10 years now so.
Councilman Berquist: Well, you're anomaly.
Councilman Senn: Maybe the easiest way for me to answer that is I'll throw you in my car and I'll take
you over to a place on Washington Avenue in Eden Prairie where somebody came into literally an open
warehouse building, started out with about a 500 square foot restaurant to service the industrial employees
in the area. That restaurant I believe is now probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 square feet.
Inside an industrial building. Taking up industrial space. Now attracting and servicing a crowd which it
has no parking to service and a whole bunch of other things. And I even frequent the place so I mean. But
I'm just saying, Steve that's the problem. I mean how do you get into it. How do you control those things?
You know how do you, you know. How do you keep your thumb on it and how do you police it? And so
again we've tried to lay those services. Yeah, lay those services out where we plan on services on servicing
those areas and people have made their land decisions based on that. I don't feel like kind of, how would I
say it, reinventing the wheel on it at this point.
Ron Krank: We are proposing the food service operations simply to enhance the users of the park, the
office park. We really feel it makes a lot of sense. We're willing to suggest that the hours be only during
28
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
the business day, not on weekends. Maybe 7:30 in the morning until 5:00 so you could come and get coffee
on the way into their office. We would be willing to suggest that the size be limited to let's say 1,500
square feet so it might be 60-70 people. Those two would be excellent options for us. We would agree
with you Councilman Berquist that business parks or office buildings that we have done that have been by
themselves, where you've had to get into your car and drive away, are not as desirable as one where you
can simply walk to or be part of a building that does have the food service. That's simply why we're doing
this. We do not intend, obviously to pull people from the downtown. That's not our suggestion here so
we'd be pleased to abide by those two suggestions.
Councilman Berquist: Hang on, forgive me Mr. Krank. You said that the conditions on the footage and
what did you say?
Ron Krank: Right. Hours. 7:30 to 5:00. And let's say 1,500 square feet. 1,200 for kitchen and
dishwashing and maybe 60 seats. 70 seats. Something like that.
Councilman Berquist: And practically, one building or the other? I mean that's something that would be
amenable?
Ron Krank: Yes. Only one building.
Councilman Berquist: Slippery slope.
Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of preliminary PUD, preliminary plat approval for wetland
alternation permit, conditional use permit to excavate fill and grade, based on the conditions in the staff
report with the following clarifications and/or changes. The 100 feet would be a measurement from the
creek versus the pond. There'd be no waiver on park dedication. Park and trail dedication fees. An
antenna, CUP may be applied for and it would be considered as a CUP as long as it's incorporated into the
design of the building. Let's see here. And let's see, no food service use in the multi-tenant buildings.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to the motion? I'll second it.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve preliminary approval of PUD #97-2,
including the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill the small wetland located in the northern portion of
the site and Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the following
conditions:
The church facility shall commit to provide approximately 153 parking stalls for the industrial office users of
the property. In addition, the office and industrial site shall provide parking facilities for the church. A
document acceptable to the city, protecting the joint use of the parking facilities, shall be recorded.
2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
· The developer shall add understory trees to the landscaping along Highway 5.
29
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
· The developer shall add native overstory trees to the proposed plantings with the Bluff Creek
corridor. Recommended species can be found in the Bluff Creek Management Plan.
· All Amur maples shall be removed from the Bluff Creek planting plan and replaced with an
understory species recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan.
· All landscape islands shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. If islands do not meet minimum
width, aeration tubes will be required.
The developer shall revise the landscape plan to include overstory boulevard trees every 30'
along Stone Creek Drive. If 30' is not possible because of lighting or access points, the closest
spacing will be accepted (i.e. 40 feet, etc.).
Additional native overstory trees and shrubs selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan
shall incorporated into the landscaping around the proposed pond and western parking lots
between the church and the building fronting Highway 5.
The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. The developer shall
dedicate to the City an easement for trail purposes, 20-foot wide over all existing and proposed trail
segments.
The proposed industrial development of 19.33 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality
connection charge of $89,556 and a water quantity fee of $84,279. The developer will be eligible for credit
to the water quality fee based on stormwater treatment designs. These fees are payable to the City prior to
the City filing the final plat.
Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a
maximum of 300 feet apart. 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.
All 34 boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall 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. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive right-of-way.
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
All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4:1 overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water
elevation. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the design.
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 to staff
30
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The
private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates and/or state plumbing codes.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the
street improvements.
13. The developer shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding amendment
to the existing floor plain boundary. The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the
necessary documentation to have the Federal Flood Plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions.
14. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading and access to the site to be
compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans. In addition, the
developer shall coordinate the adjustment, relocation, and cost of the power lines with MnDOT.
15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat public drainage and utility easements over the existing
and proposed utilities and drainageways (creeks).
16. No building shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to
perform maintenance functions to the utility system.
17. Individual driveway access points as well as sidewalks/crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive shall be re-
evaluated with the individual site plans. There are numerous access points onto Stone Creek Drive
which staff believes can be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning
movements into the site. It may also be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides of Stone
Creek Drive to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive.
18. Depending on MnDOT's construction schedule and phasing of this project, the right-in/right-out access
onto Trunk Highway 5 may have to be constructed by the developer. Security and/or language in the
development contract will be required to guarantee construction of the right-in/right-out access and
right mm lanes on Trunk Highway 5.
19. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type
III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks at the base of slopes in areas
exceeding 3:1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site
runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the
pond once the pond has been constructed.
20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
31
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
22. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the developer $20 per sign.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the developer $20 per sign. The developer shall vehfy the
location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the
utilities are accepted.
23.
The developer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The developer shall provide detailed
pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet
model.
24.
The developer will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the
State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented
prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
25.
The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer."
27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically
100 foot setbacks with 50 foot buffer area from the creek.
28. A cellular antenna connected onto the building or building structures will be reviewed as a Conditional Use
Permit.
29. No food service shall be allowed in any of the industrial buildings.
All voted in favor except Councilman Berquist who opposed, and Councilman Mason who abstained. The
motion failed, needing a 4/5 vote to pass.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, it takes a 4/5 vote to pass.
Councilman Senn: On all of them?
32
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Roger Knutson: On the PUD.
Councilman Berquist: If that's the.
Mayor Mancino: Should we revote?
Councilman Berquist: If it's as simple as that...
Councilman Mason: Mayor. I wonder if it would be, if anyone would consider dealing with everything with the
exception of the, leaving the cafeteria question open at this point and just see what staff and the applicant could
come up with. I feel like, I'm not going to say I'm caught in the middle here but I do think I understand exactly
what Councilman Senn is saying and I agree with what he's saying 100%. However if we could come up with
something that our attomey would consider full proof, well. Well, I know.., with this group finding anything fool
proof is at best a risky venture, but something that would give us some solid ground. Because I do share Mayor
Mancino's and Councilman Senn's concem. But I also think if we can figure out some way, and I don't even
know if we need 60 people in there quite honestly. And I don't even know if you need those long of hours in
there. Well, so maybe we don't need 60 people. What I'm saying is, can we move on everything else tonight and
leave that cafeteria question open?
Councilman Senn: Let me attempt to respond to that, okay?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Councilman Senn: If you're going to move on everything else tonight, how are you going to fix your parking
when you agree to where the cafeteria goes because the parking requirements for a cafeteria are going to be much
higher than the office are.
Councilman Engel: I think the cafeteria that he's considering is a walk to thing...
Councilman Senn: But what I'm saying, in reality you can't look at it that way.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I guess and I'm just shooting from the hip now but I'm looking at something so
small that you come in and buy a cup of coffee and a muffin and that's it. Maybe there aren't even seats. Maybe
they're just stools. Not even stools. You know the high tables or what, or maybe there's no seating at all.
Councilman Engel: What if the hours are 7:30 to 3:00?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, maybe there's no seating. Maybe it's just something where you can, you know
there's the refrigerator deal with some sandwiches and the pop and that's it.
Councilman Senn: ... but from my standpoint if a person wants most of the things you've described, it can be
handled in vending.
Councilman Mason: True.
Councilman Senn: If they want a fresh product or something like that, they can stop at all the existing places in
the future planned places we have that are going to deliver those services. Again, you're talking now about kind
of starting to create hybrids of land use you know that are outside effectively of what.
33
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Well let's go ahead with a new motion then. If you want to give a motion. That motion didn't,
or is there, or does the old motion want to come back up again?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, Steve? Mike? I mean give me some altematives. I mean what are you talking
about? Something including seating area, less than 500 square feet?
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm looking at practically, to my way of thinking...number .number but really 1,500 square
feet including service area, including storage, including freezers or the cooler, as well as seating, you're not going
to, I mean you're going to have maybe 25 to 30 people in there. Otherwise they're going to be right on top of
each other and the hours of 7:30 to 5:00 are very restrictive .... What is served. It has to be prepared food and
brought in that way. It can't be prepared on site and... Perhaps with those sorts of restrictions they would choose
not to even do it. It may not be viable. I look at it as an amenity for the district. I look at it as a method by
which...the tenancy can be enhanced. I don't see, what I'm envisioning as being a threat to the downtown. I see
it.
Councilman Engel: Roger, what's your take on all this? Can we do this?
Roger Knutson: ... sure.
Councilman Senn: But you say 1,500 square feet. I mean that's a Bruegger's. That's a Caribou. That's
whatever. I mean just to put it into perspective to you, that's what you're talking about.
Councilman Mason: Okay, that's why I'm suggesting changing it because I'm not conversant enough in sizes
and restaurants and this and anything to put any kind of square footage on it right now. But I think it is
something worth visiting. But I'm not, like I say, 1,500, 1,000, 2,000, 500, I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: Remember we also have an industrial office park coming into the east of this too.
Councilman Senn: Well and you have one coming to the west where there's already restaurant uses and these
type of uses approved too.
Mayor Mancino: Well, you can certainly make a motion.
Councilman Senn: I mean if everybody's more comfortable I'll just take the cafeteria element out of it for now,
but I don't think it's going to be an easy issue to resolve.
Councilman Mason: Well it may not be and ultimately I might say I don't want it. I'd like to have, quite
honestly I very possibly may say I don't want it but I would like to see what some options are.
Councilman Senn: Okay, let's just pull it out right now and say that issue's got to be re-visited then.
Mayor Mancino: And direct staffto come back.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, with some options for us.
Councilman Mason: And I think that both staff and the applicant knows our concems...
34
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Mayor Mancino: ... office/industrial park because again if we open it up, I want to know what precedent it sets.
What faimess issues we get into, etc. And I want to know, I think it's been the feeling of the Council not to have
it be a restaurant. I get that from everybody ....
Councilman Mason: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: What happens if this becomes...more specific to an office building for that office building, for
the employees that work there. Some research on when that happens. Does it draw from the other industrial
parks around it. Certainly does downtown, everybody goes to the Pillsbury building, goes to the cafeteria there.
So it will draw, and what it does to parking. I have some now concems if we are giving a preliminary PUD
approval, are we giving site plan approval? We aren't are we. Okay. So also what affect that it will have on
parking. I mean are those the...
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: So we'll go with the original motion.
Councilman Senn: Motion and I'll amend it to take out the determination on the cafeteria for now on the basis
that staff come back with some recommendations and we'll revisit it at a future meeting.
Councilman Engel: I'll second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to grant preliminary approval of PUD #97-2,
including the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill the small wetland located in the northern portion of the site
and Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the following conditions:
The church facility shall commit to provide approximately 153 parking stalls for the industrial office users of
the property. In addition, the office and industrial site shall provide parking facilities for the church. A
document acceptable to the city, protecting the joint use of the parking facilities, shall be recorded.
2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
· The developer shall add understory trees to the landscaping along Highway 5.
· The developer shall add native overstory trees to the proposed plantings with the Bluff Creek
corridor. Recommended species can be found in the Bluff Creek Management Plan.
· All Amur maples shall be removed from the Bluff Creek planting plan and replaced with an
understory species recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan.
· All landscape islands shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. If islands do not meet minimum
width, aeration tubes will be required.
The developer shall revise the landscape plan to include overstory boulevard trees every 30'
along Stone Creek Drive. If 30' is not possible because of lighting or access points, the closest
spacing will be accepted (i.e. 40 feet, etc.).
35
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Additional native overstory trees and shrubs selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan
shall incorporated into the landscaping around the proposed pond and western parking lots
between the church and the building fronting Highway 5.
The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. The developer shall
dedicate to the City an easement for trail purposes, 20-foot wide over all existing and proposed trail
segments.
The proposed industrial development of 19.33 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality
connection charge of $89,556 and a water quantity fee of $84,279. The developer will be eligible for credit
to the water quality fee based on stormwater treatment designs. These fees are payable to the City prior to
the City filing the final plat.
Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a
maximum of 300 feet apart. 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.
All 34 boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall 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. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive right-of-way.
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
8. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4:1 overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water
elevation. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the design.
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 to staff
for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The
private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates and/or state plumbing codes.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the
street improvements.
36
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
13. The developer shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding amendment
to the existing floor plain boundary. The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the
necessary documentation to have the Federal Flood Plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions.
14. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading and access to the site to be
compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans. In addition, the
developer shall coordinate the adjustment, relocation, and cost of the power lines with MnDOT.
15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat public drainage and utility easements over the existing
and proposed utilities and drainageways (creeks).
16. No building shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to
perform maintenance functions to the utility system.
17. Individual driveway access points as well as sidewalks/crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive shall be re-
evaluated with the individual site plans. There are numerous access points onto Stone Creek Drive
which staff believes can be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning
movements into the site. It may also be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides of Stone
Creek Drive to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive.
18. Depending on MnDOT's construction schedule and phasing of this project, the right-in/right-out access
onto Trunk Highway 5 may have to be constructed by the developer. Security and/or language in the
development contract will be required to guarantee construction of the right-in/right-out access and
right turn lanes on Trunk Highway 5.
19. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type
III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks at the base of slopes in areas
exceeding 3:1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site
runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the
pond once the pond has been constructed.
20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
22. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the developer $20 per sign.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the developer $20 per sign. The developer shall vehfy the
location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the
utilities are accepted.
37
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
23.
The developer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The developer shall provide detailed
pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet
model.
24.
The developer will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the
State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented
prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
25.
The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer."
27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically
100 foot setbacks with 50 foot buffer area from the creek.
28. A cellular antenna connected onto the building or building structures will be reviewed as a Conditional Use
Permit.
29. The issue regarding food service being available in a industrial office building shall come back to the City
Council at a future date for review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Also I think another thing we'd like to see Bob is kind of a clean cut. I mean what is the
difference between a deli, a restaurant...
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Mason: I move approval of resolution authorizing acquisition of property for the 1998 trail project.
Councilman Senn: I'll second it on the basis that...
Mayor Mancino: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: I'd second it on the basis that before we actually.., into it, we figure out some good way to
communicate with the people rather than through a court notice.
Councilman Mason: A personal note from the Mayor.
38
City Council Meeting - April 27, 1998
Councilman Senn: Well maybe our attomey should.., explain to them what's going on... and Hoffrnan should go
along with them as kind of.
Mayor Mancino: You're serious about that?
Councilman Senn: Yes I am.
Mayor Mancino: And would you define that a little bit more? If you're serious about it, what are you thinking
of?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I'm serious enough about it that I would like to review it but I mean I don't know
how we'd do that based on, I mean I'd like the Council to review it. I just, this thing to me has disaster written all
over it and.
Don Ashworth made a statement that was not picked up on tape.
Mayor Mancino: Sounds fine to me.
Roger Knutson: I'd suggest that maybe a letter from the Mayor.
Councilman Mason: No, no, seriously.
Councilman Senn: No, I don't think the Mayor should have to take the heat on it.
Roger Knutson: This is going to be a nice letter.
Councilman Senn: Well I think the letter should be from you and Hoffrnan or something like that. That's why
you guys get the big bucks.
Roger Knutson: No problem...
Resolution/t98-40: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve a resolution for the
1998 Bike Trail Project, Condemnation/Quick Take Procedure. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino
who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39