CC Minutes 1999 04 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Senn,
Councilman Engel, and Councilwoman Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, and Bob Generous
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
agenda with the following amendments: deleting item l(b) and the addition of l(j), Temporary Beer
License, Chanhassen Lions Club. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
c. Approve Code Amendment Designating the Planning Commission at the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals 2nd and Final Reading; and Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
e. Approve Resolution Authorizing Execution and Delivery of an Assignment of Mortgage, Industrial
Revenue Bond Refunding Revenue Note, Lyman Lumber.
f. Approval of Bills.
h. Resolution #99-32: Shore Drive Drainage Improvements, Award Contract.
j. Approval of Temporary Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, May 22-23, 1999.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE DRIVE
WEST (POWERS BOULEVARD TO AUDUBON ROAD), PROJECT 98-16.
Mayor Mancino: We pulled l(a). Discussion on l(a) which is to authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for Lake Drive West, Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road, Project 98-16. And Councilman
Senn, you pulled that and discussion on that.
Councilman Senn: I just basically had, wanted to make a specific motion on it. The motion would be
approval of preparation of plans and specifications contingent upon amending the existing agreement with
the petitioner that all costs would be picked up by the petitioner should the project not proceed. And that's
the motion.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: I'll second.
Resolution #99-33: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to authorize
preparation of plans and specifications for Lake Drive West (Powers Boulevard to Audubon Road),
Project 98-16 contingent upon amending the existing agreement with the petitioner that all costs
would be picked up by the petitioner should the project not proceed. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mayor Mancino: Second, you pulled l(g) which is City Council work session, reconvene minutes dated
March 29, 1999. City Council work session minutes dated April 12, 1999. City Council minutes dated
April 12, 1999 and Planning Commission minutes dated April 7, 1999. Are there some revisions? I do
have one for the March 29, 1999 work session. And if it can be revised under the consent agenda
discussion during the work session. (a), Y2K task force discussion. The second sentence should read,
Councilman Senn and Engel were not in attendance. However, each had previously submitted their
recommendations to Todd Gerhardt and were available for review. So that does need to be changed. Any
others? Then may I have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Motion to approve the minutes.
Mayor Mancino: Second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the following Minutes:
City Council Work Session/Reconvened Minutes dated March 29, 1999 as amended.
City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 12, 1999
City Council Minutes dated April 12, 1999
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 7, 1999
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained and the motion carried.
I. APPROVE TH 101 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE.
Mayor Mancino: And Councilman Senn, you also pulled that one.
Councilman Senn: On l(i) I was going to propose that we table that item because I don't think it's
appropriate for us to go ahead and schedule public meetings to review potential design and proceed in that
process when right now two of the major players governmentally are not signed onto the project at this
point. I think we should just wait until we have all of our own ducks in a row so to speak and then go and
start obtaining that public input on it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any discussion on that?
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm in agreement and Mr. Gerhardt had mentioned drafting a letter to the County
just to get a feel for when in fact they'd anticipate being able to reach that agreement with MnDOT. So if
we can get that letter, that'd be great.
Councilman Engel: Is there anything other MnDOT that's... Carver County?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Mine was in the form of a motion by the way. To table.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We're discussing your motion, thank you. Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: I'm in agreement with Mark and Linda.
Mayor Mancino: So the process is fine. It's just the starting time of the process so again, we would be
confirming that the process, Anita that you have written out is just fine. We're just concerned about
starting it too soon when MnDOT and Carver County aren't in agreement yet. Any words that you would
like to add?
Anita Benson: Based on conversations with Carver County, I would anticipate bringing the County back to
the Council in a work session to address the concerns that you have and when that agreement is reached on
the turnback, that we would move forward with this public involvement process that's outlined tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and it sounds like you have agreement with the Council on that. Thank you. Is
there a second to Councilman Senn's motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table approving TH 101 Public
Involvement Process and Proposed Schedule. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, could I just add one point to that last item. How would you like us to approach
Eden Prairie on this? Do you want Anita to send a letter? Do you want to meet with them? Or do you
want to wait to see what Carver County does before we approach Eden Prairie?
Mayor Mancino: Anita, do you want to add to that?
Anita Benson: If I could suggest. We will be putting the brakes on the process right now. I will be talking
to my counterpart in Eden Prairie who I'm certain will inform his Mayor and Council and it may be
appropriate that you and the Eden Prairie Mayor discuss the concerns that we have.
Mayor Mancino: But we've certainly made it very public about the process to be used so that could
certainly be conveyed to them and that we have some concern about starting it prior to the turn back
occurring.
Anita Benson: And my counterpart in Eden Prairie is aware of the process that we're proposing tonight
and is in agreement.
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Todd.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN, PILLSBURY COMPANY.
Dotti Shay: Thank you Mayor Mancino and the City Council for taking a look at this. We're holding a
meeting here Saturday, May 1st to talk to people who live in an area of .2 miles from our plant because we
have two chemicals there that qualify under the EPA's risk management plan to be communicated to the
people around the plant. Now we've done basically your right to know training with our employees for
years explaining what the hazards are with our processes. Of what the chemicals that we use and how they
can make themselves safe if we should have an event. We work with Greg from, Greg Hayes from the
Chanhassen Fire on practicing to handle events all the time and we also work with Carver County Risk
Management Services. In fact they're the people that put this map together for me today. I placed packets
in your mailboxes and I hope that you received them. If you have any questions regarding this I would be
more than happy to get you any information that you need, but it's basically your right to know and...
everybody's safer when they know what problems could be there and how to protect themselves. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for Dotti at this point? Don't have any but we'll
see you on the first. Now how are you notifying neighbors?
Dotti Shay: Mailing...
Mayor Mancino: Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the council during visitor
presentations? Seeing none, we'll go forward to Board of Equalization and Review. In fact we are a little
early. 10 minutes early, wow. Well we're just going to have to take a break. Everybody's going to have
to get together and talk for 10 minutes. No, we'll go ahead to number 4 but that's a public hearing also.
Councilman Senn: Coffee break after 20 minutes on the job or what?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, exactly. I think what we'll do is we'll wait until 7:00 to start the Board of
Equalization and Review and just go ahead with the agenda and if someone isn't here, we'll back track.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE,
TBI LIQUOR TWO, INC., CHEERS WINE & SPIRITS, 530 WEST 79TM STREET, TOM
SCHNEIDER AND ALAN JOHNSON.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. The Cheers Wine and Spirits Liquor Store is selling their
facility over to TBI Liquor Two, Incorporated and staff is recommending approval of that transfer of sale.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address. Excuse
me, anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue, please come forward and please state your name
and address. Seeing none, I'll bring this back to Council. Any questions for staff? Any comments? Then
may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the off-sale intoxicating liquor
license request from TB1 Liquor Two, lnc. to operate the Cheers Wine & Spirits Liquor Store at 530
West 79th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Is everyone here for the Family of Christ Lutheran Church? No. Okay, that applicant
isn't here so we won't go forward with that. We'll wait for number 6 too and let's go to commission
appointments.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK & RECREATION
COMMISSION.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, commission appointments. Planning Commission.
Councilman Senn: I would move appointing Debra Kind and Craig Peterson to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, those are the two vacancies that we need on the commission. Any other discussion
on that?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess just in discussing it I would like to note the level of interest that we had.
We had five applicants for the Planning Commission and it made for a very difficuk decision making
process trying to come down to just two individuals so we were certainly pleased to see so many qualified
individuals, or interested individuals stepping forward and wanting to be a part of the commission.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that statement. So there has been a motion and there
has been a second. Any other discussion or comment?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Debra Kind and Craig Peterson to
the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: And secondly on the Planning Commission we have three seats open on the Planning
Commission. Or I'm sorry, Parks and Rec Commission. May I have a discussion? Any discussion on
that? Yes. We're on the Park and Rec Commission.
Councilman Senn: I'm confused because this was an item on here but at the same time it appeared that the
action had already been taken. That meeting I missed or whatever at least.
Mayor Mancino: No, the action has not been taken.
Todd Gerhardt: It was on two work sessions ago for interviews.
Mayor Mancino: For interviews. We did interview.
Councilman Senn: Oh, so the letters went out based on that or whatever?
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: They haven't been mailed.
Councilman Senn: Oh they haven't, oh okay. Okay. Alright, that's my point of confusion.
Councilwoman Jansen: They were just prepared.
Councilman Senn: Understand then. No problem. I would move approval of Jay Karlovich, reappointing
existing commissioners Jan Lash and Mike Howe.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a second to that motion?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint Jay Karlovich, Jan Lash and Mike
Howe to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: I think Councilwoman Jansen's statement on Planning Commission members also holds
true on Park and Rec. Ditto on that so we had some very good people applying for these commissions.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW.
Public Present:
Name Address
Keith & Pat Gunderson
Bruce Malb
Eldon A. Degler
Don Sennes
6661 Mohawk Drive
75 Stubbs Bay Road, Orono
6711 Mohawk Drive
6680 Mohawk Drive
Todd Gerhardt: Approximately three weeks ago I think, staff had a work session for, where we invited the
public to come in and had Carver County Assessor's office here to sit down with residents or business
people to go through their valuations and concerns they may have. Included in your packet is the 26 names
or applicants that we've received to date on requests for a review of their valuation. Tonight I do have both
Carver County Assessor representatives and Hennepin County Assessor representative here for any
questions that the public may have on the valuations. This is the first time that the City Council has
reviewed this information and tonight is the first meeting to solicit comments on residents information. So
at our May l0th meeting will be when the City Council makes decisions on those valuations. So tonight is
your, the residents and the business community's first opportunity to submit their request to have their
property reviewed. However, if they do not get it in by tonight, they have missed that opportunity and
would have to go through district court proceedings to have their valuation reviewed. So tonight is the first
meeting to hear comments.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and I'm assuming the Hennepin County Assessor will be answering all questions
for those of us who live in Carver County and the Carver County Assessor will be answering all the
questions for Hennepin County residents and businesses. Just to keep everybody straight. Anyone wishing
to address the City Council tonight? Maybe you have your application in and you would like to come up
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
and make some comments to us about your application. We'd love to hear it now. Come up. State your
name and address and your reasons for your application. Anything that the Council should know.
Jules Smith: I always seem to be first.
Mayor Mancino: You're always here.
Jules Smith: Actually I've talked to the Assessor and I just indicated to him that there were a few parcels I
would like to meet with him about and discuss rather than go.
Mayor Mancino: Jules, could you give your name and address please.
Jules Smith: Sure. Jules Smith. My office address is 7600 France Avenue South in Edina. 55345. And
I'm appearing here tonight on behalf of David Beddor and Frank and Marilyn Beddor. I have, as I
mentioned, talked to the Assessor. Here he is. Some of these I don't know. I'd just like to know the basis
of the increase and so I just, he indicated I should just hand him these and he would give me a call rather
than take up your time and go over all the items. If that's satisfactory, that's what I'll do.
Mayor Mancino: That's fine. Thank you very much Jules.
Jules Smith: Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council on the proposed taxes for your home.
Keith Gunderson: Thank you Mayor, Board members. My name's Keith Gunderson. I got a sheet to
follow along with. Okay, my name's Keith Gunderson. I live at 6660 Lotus Trail in Chanhassen. Last
year I stood in front of this board to get the estimated market value of my family's home reduced basing the
final figure on an honest and equitable dollar amount that was mutually beneficial to both parties. This
year I am counting on the Board's fair and honest treatment to arrive at a market value that we can again
mutually agree upon. The comparisons in the area, actual appraised value percentages will show that the
15% increase on my home is too much. Okay the comparisons I have all written down. I don't think I have
to read them. Everybody wants to go home tonight. In a conversation I had with Ann, the County
Assessor on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 she said that her recommendation would stand and had nothing other
to add other than she felt it was right. Instead of feelings let's talk about facts and figures and percentages
of increases and decreases. 3 out of the 6 homes within 100 feet of my property on Mohawk Drive went
down in value. The other 3 went up an average of 3%. These decreases and small increases are reasonable
when compared to my 15% increase. On Lotus Trail, 6650, 6670, 6724 and 6728, all four of these homes
that are next to me went down in value in spite of the fact that Lotus Trail was finally paved. The cost for
the pavement of Lotus Trail was funded by the DNR Watershed Division and according to Keith Kern,
County Assessor, it made no difference in the valuation of the home because some people wanted to live on
gravel. Some people wanted to live on asphalt. The Assessor's office mainly goes on lot size, house size,
market value, value on similar sales and traffic, etc. I do not see any justification when my home went up
in value, value went up 15% because there has been no changes inside the house since the assessor walked
through it last year. Nothing has changed mainly because the house is totally finished inside as it was last
year. Comparisons in Lake Susan Hills Drive, Tecumseh Lane and Utica Lane, which are listed for the
year 2000, went up an average of only 3 %. However prior to 1999 these new homes had zero tax increase
for three previous years. If there is a tax incentive program for new homes I would like to know about it.
It's my request that my valuation not go down like 6610 Mohawk Drive, 6670 Mohawk Drive, 6699
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mohawk Drive, 6650 Lotus Trail, 6670 Lotus Trail, 6724 Lotus Trail, and 6728 Lotus Trail, but rather to
be fair and maintain the same valuation in 1999 and for the next two similar, two years similar to the
homes in Lake Susan Hills Drive and Tecumseh Lane area. Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Keith. Couple questions. Did you, when did you make the improvements on
your home? When did your valuation really go up when you added onto it? What year was that?
Keith Gunderson: '99. It was based on a, in 1998 was a partial taxation. And in 1999 it, Ann appraised
the property at $222 and last year we came in and talked about the same issue and we got it down to
mutually agreed to $186,600.00. And then this year there has been no changes. Again other than the
pavement of Lotus Trail. There's no changes to the house. Inside or out. I changed my driveway from
Lotus Trail to Mohawk Drive but that was just for convenience. And it shouldn't change any value at all.
Mayor Mancino: So last year when you came in, the appraisal was at $222 and we went down to
$186,600.00. And so what did it come in at this year?
Keith Gunderson: 215.
Mayor Mancino: 250?
Keith Gunderson: 15.
Mayor Mancino: 15.
Councilman Senn: Just as a point of clarification. What is the correct address? Is it 6600 or 66017
Keith Gunderson: It's 6661 Mohawk.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so 61, okay. Alright.
Mayor Mancino: Wait I'm sorry. Your address is 6660 Lotus Trail.
Keith Gunderson: No, that's.
Councilman Senn: That's why I was asking. It's two different. If you look here Mayor it's one thing. If
you look here it's another thing.
Keith Gunderson: I put the original letterhead on top. It should be 6661 Mohawk Drive.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Gunderson? Okay. Thank you Keith. And I'm
sure you'll be back on May 10th when we make the final decisions on these. So please come and join us
that night.
Keith Gunderson: I will do that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council?
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Deb Kind: Mayor. My name is Deb Kind. I live on Lukewood Drive. Is this an appropriate time to make
general comments or do I need to talk specifically about contesting my?
Mayor Mancino: You may go ahead and make general comments. Well, it depends how long you're going
to make them. 5 minutes or less please.
Deb Kind: I'll be very brief. I do have a visual. Is this the place to go?
Councilman Senn: We're going to see how your hand to eye coordination is.
Deb Kind: There you go, alright. It's still pretty dang small isn't it?
Mayor Mancino: But we do have a copy of it in our packet.
Deb Kind: Oh good.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. Yes, so if we refer to, I'm assuming this is what you want us to refer to. What's in
our packet and every one's that's sitting out in the audience has it under number 3. It is a memo to the
Chanhassen City Council and City Manager from Steve and Deb Kind.
Deb Kind: I wanted to get it on one page. I don't know if it's appropriate, since this is in the packet, for
me to go over everything.
Mayor Mancino: If there's any key points that you'd like to make.
Deb Kind: Is it of public record by being in the packet?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Deb Kind: Because that's mostly what I wanted was to go on public record.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But having it in the Minutes is even more public record so.
Deb Kind: I'll go really, really public. In October of '98 the City of Chanhassen was ranked number 3 in
the Star Tribune report of property taxes for cities and I saw that and I don't know if freaked out is the
right word but was surprised I guess and I decided to do a little bit more digging and after my research I
came up with these numbers and was surprised at some of the information I learned from the county
assessor and state board of assessor's office. And the biggest surprise was that the State publicly says that
they want valuations at 100% but what they really mean is 90%. And then when you couple that with the
City of Chanhassen being at 95.2% in 1998, that bothers me a lot. Because I think we should be shooting
for the 90%. I just want to encourage you to do whatever you can to keep it close to 90%. That's the
fast...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Ms. Kind from council members? Thank you for
putting all this information together for us.
Deb Kind: I'm glad it was in the packet. Are there extra packets?
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Yes, on the table. There are none? I don't see another staff member.
Councilman Senn: I can get another copy later.
Mayor Mancino: There you go. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Orlin Shafer: Good evening Mayor and Council. I'm Orlin Shafer the Carver County Assessor. In light of
Mrs. Kind's middle of the documentation that she gathered, I think it's necessary for me to make a couple
comments. One is that we are somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% on our sales ratio. Actually it came
out Deb, after you and I talked, more like 93 point something. The reason that we are striving to get to that
92 to 95 ratio is quite simple in fact and that is that, the State uses the ratio study for many things. One of
which is to calculate school aid credits. The second would be to calculate the revenue sharing for the cities.
Another is for the bonding companies to look at the gross tax capacity and the net tax capacity of a
jurisdiction to see that they can bond and how much they can bond for and the security of those bonds. The
document I have in my hand is, I think it amounts to like 12 pages of material, 13 pages. Coming from
Leonard Peterson who is the individual that Deb quotes in her handout. Leonard Peterson is a supervisor
of the sales ratio unit. He has nothing to do with the implementation of whether or not the sales ratio is in
fact above 90%. It's been a long going practice if we fell below 90% the State automatically gives us a 5%
increase. This document is dated July of '98 and that entails all the increases, the State increases awarded
by the State. They range from plus 5% to as much as a plus 15% ifI recall in different counties across the
state. And there was a couple in here that had a couple minuses. Minus 5. Lake of Woods County had
two townships that had minus 5 for residential land and structures off the water only and seasonal rec
structures and land off the water only. Most of the rest were all increases. In fact there's one here for 20%
county wide agricultural land. 20% increase. It's not necessarily correct that they do not give the increases
annually. They do. We get a document like this every year of every county, every jurisdiction that got a
state increase. Carver County hasn't shown up on it the last 5 years. And yes we are proud of that and we
work very hard to stay off of that list because state increases are blanket increases. They aggravate a
situation that might not be totally correct to begin with. The instructions that we get for the State Board of
Equalization which happens the first week in June come from the Commissioner of Revenues Office and
are normally signed by either Deb Volker or Mike Wannamaucher who is the Director of Property Tax
Division. And in that document, ifI can find it quickly, it states that number one. All class of property,
including timber and resorts must have sales ratio between 90 and 105%. Now we've had it where we've
had 89.9 and they've given a 5% increase and they do it annually. There is no grace period. There's
nothing, there's no waiting time at all. That's just to clarify what has been handed out in your handout.
Keith Gunderson: What is the state increase? ...
Orlin Shafer: The state increase is when the Commissioner of Revenue has the right to write an order that
will increase property value at his selection by as many percentage points as he deems necessary. If our
ratio studies drop below 90% for instance and he looks at it and says, we think it needs a 5% increase. All
property in that jurisdiction, whether it be Chanhassen, Chaska, whatever jurisdiction, it could be county
wide, will receive a 5% increase. He writes that order and it has the weight of law. We add that.
Keith Gunderson: ...
Orlin Shafer: That's a blanket. So if you're already at 100%, you're now over 100%. If you're at 80%,
you only went to 85. So that's the reason to stay away from state increases if we can because they're, they
aggravate things that we can normally work out and we like to work with the ratio studies as a tool to tell
10
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
us where our values have to go. Not necessarily that we hit 92 or 94 or 98. There's no target except that
we want to stay somewhere around 92 to 93, 94 because by historically our appreciating factor out here
has been 3 ½ to 4 ½, 5%. And if we go a whole year with 93 for instance, by the next annual assessment
we're at 88. So we know we're going to lag and therefore if we start out a little higher, hopefully we can
hold it around 90% by the time we finish the year. Because they also use them for state, the tax courts.
The Equalization and Tax Courts. So any time you drop below 90%, if anybody appeals in tax court, they
will automatically adjust from 95 on down. Whatever your point is below the 90%. If you're at 88, they'll
adjust 7% on that individual's values automatically.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Councilman Senn: Orlin, just a quick question for you. What's happened since last week? We had what,
26 appeals up to, coming up to middle of last week or so. Where does this thing sit now?
Ann Wise: 35.
Orlin Shafer: 35 now.
Councilman Senn: 35.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah. Is that counting the 2 we have tonight, or 3? Okay, 40.
Councilman Senn: Which is still 100 or more below our norm, right?
Orlin Shafer: Yeah. We've never been this low.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Good question.
Councilman Labatt: Orlin. On the list here there's two addresses that are obviously for businesses that
are out of the city. They're ID'd by the property ID number. Can you give us those, where those
properties are located? The one for Water Tower Partners and Lundgren Bros, which one they're
contesting.
Orlin Shafer: What's the question Steve, I'm sorry?
Councilman Labatt: Where's the property ID in Chanhassen. Where's this property that Water Tower
Partners is contesting?
Orlin Shafer: I don't know. That's their address.
Councilman Senn: ... what we get for the hearing, we'll have all that on there.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah, it will all.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. That's what I just want to make sure.
Orlin Shafer: You'll get this big document. It concerns every one of these...by the time it's done so.
11
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Water Tower Partners is the new industrial building next to the water reservoir going up.
Councilman Labatt: Down at Gateway there?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. They're contesting their value based on a private redevelopment agreement that you
entered into with them and they weren't complete with their building based on that agreement and want to
modify that agreement so you'll probably see that back on an agenda.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Then we will be closing it. Did you come in for the
Board of Review and Equalization. Oh good. Come forward please.
Paul Haik: Paul Haik, 261 Hidden Lane. Chanhassen. It's H-a-i-k.
Mayor Mancino: Oh you can, is there anything that you would like to tell the Council tonight?
Paul Haik: Oh real simple is my issue is this. I'm part of the Marvin Windows DBG problem. And we
have had extensive water problems coming in from that. Some naive home buyer didn't understand that
was a problem I had to address, but I'm facing the circumstances. I've got to replace all my windows and
doors and I've got a home that's just 11 years old. I've made a claim against Marvin but the fact is Marvin
has lost that on a Statute of Limitations and hasn't responded to how they're going to handle the claim so
I'm looking at somewhere around $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 bill. And you say well, no big deal. It will all
work itself out in the end. But the fact is, if I go to sell my home on the Truth and Disclosure form I have
to disclose that I've had a water problem. As soon as I check that box that yeah, I've had a water problem
on real estate disclosure form, which I have to. In any transaction I've got to check that box. And they say
well what's the water problem? Well, these windows are all bad. They have to be replaced and Marvin
doesn't look like they're going to step to the table. And I've just had to go through, tums out when we
came in there we also had to replace our driveway so I mean I'm looking at home that I bought for $169,
putting $30,000.00 into it and I've been there less than 3 years. And to say that the assessment that you've
set me at is an accurate reflection of what that home would sell for in the event that I did attempt to sell and
had to disclose that yes, I do have a water problem. It's not an accurate reflection and I believe I spoke to
the assessor and she's indicating well she'll knock $2,500.00 off essentially on the expectation that there is
repairs going to occur soon. I can't tell when the repair is going to occur at this point. I'm still dealing
with Marvin Windows but I now know that I do have a problem and so if we're setting an assessed value as
to what the market would bear, the market's going to look at the Truth and Disclosure Form and work from
that number. The first thing they'll say is what's the cost of repair and we have gotten an estimate from,
which I did submit to the assessor, Justus for the windows portion it's a little over $20,000.00. On the
doors, they still have to get us an estimate on that but it's several thousand dollars to do the doors. So
that's what my concern is. I recognize that once that's repair my assessed value will increase again but as
of right now I'm in a tough circumstance.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much for giving us that information. Excuse me,
Councilman Senn you have a question for Paul.
Councilman Senn: You're at 261 Hidden Lane, right?
Paul Haik: That's me, yep.
12
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilman Senn: What is your current market value?
Paul Haik: The assessed value I think is, I think was $158 something and I'm one of those that I was
actually able to hit the trigger. You've been increasing it fast enough that I've bumped up again.
Councilman Senn: So it was $158 something and they're proposing to put you at now $1547
Paul Haik: Oh no, I don't have the numbers. They were talking about moving it down $2,500.00 to
somewhere around in that range.
Councilman Senn: So roughly right around where you're at now does it end up?
Paul Haik: Yeah, that's where it ends up now and I just think in light of the repairs I've got to do, and I
have to do the repairs. I mean when it rains tonight, I will have water coming in the house.
Councilman Senn: And you paid what was it, $169 you said for the house?
Paul Haik: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Alrighty, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Just one minute. Orlin would like to.
Orlin Shafer: I would just like to comment if anyone's here for the Board of Review and has not filled out
the appeal form, please do that. We need that for the record.
Paul Haik: My understanding my appeal form was submitted to directly to the County Assessor.
Orlin Shafer: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And that's what the first row is, the County Assessors. Yeah, yeah. It is on our list.
Thank you very much.
Paul Haik: Our home was built in '87, or sometime during the summer of '87 they pulled a building
permit. When they finished the construction I'm not sure. I'm not the builder.
Councilman Engel: You're not a builder?
Paul Haik: I'm the second owner in.
Councilman Engel: When did you buy it?
Paul Haik: I bought it in November of '96 so I'm into my, 2 ½ years I've been there that we're going on.
Councilman Engel: Thank you.
13
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: And we'll be making some decisions on these on Monday, May l0th. The second
Monday of the month in May so if you'd like to come back, there you go. I'm not sure you want to spend
your birthday here... Champagne and cake on your birthday.
Paul Haik: Well we just actually had my father-in-law's 60th birthday and had champagne and he's from a
farm up in northwestern Minnesota and we had the accordion player in. We were dancing on the.
Mayor Mancino: Hey we're ready.
Paul Haik: ...
Mayor Mancino: No, I think we're fine. Thank you very much and we'll have this on public record.
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council. Okay, seeing none. We will go ahead and close
the Board of Equalization and Review and then see everyone back on.
Councilman Senn: I move to continue the Board of Equalization to May 10th.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you close this public hearing process and then.
Councilman Senn: We closed the public hearing. We don't have to make a motion.
Mayor Mancino: No we already, I just closed it.
Councilman Senn: We need a motion to basically continue it to May, what? May l0th, correct.
Mayor Mancino: And a second.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to continue the Board of Equalization and
Review to May 10, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, Steve has a couple of documents that needs everybody's signature as a part
of this process.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 17~140 SQ. FT. CHURCH FACILITY
INCLUDING ASSEMBLY~ CLASSROOMS~ OFFICE AND NURSERY; LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF STONE CREEK DRIVE AND COULTER BOULEVARD~ FAMILY OF
CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH~ SMSQ ARCHITECTS.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. This is a site plan review for a church
facility. It would be the first building within the Bluff Creek planned unit development. As a part of the
approval for the subdivision, one of the lots in the development could be used for institutional uses. Part of
the PUD we developed parameters for the siting of the building on the site. The proposed development is in
the southwest comer of the project and the site plan before you basically complies with the concept plan
that was approved as part of the PUD. The only issue we have with it was.., appropriate architectural
detailing on the building. It went to the Planning Commission... asked the applicant to iron out some issues
that they had. It went back to the Planning Commission and they voted unanimously to recommend
14
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
approval of the site plan .... to the community. It does a good job of using the.., and it will provide some
enhancements to the Bluff Creek corridor which is one of the areas of significance in the community. Staff
is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Questions for staff at this point from any council members. Bob,
can you talk a little bit about the shared parking because this really wasn't, it wasn't in a condition when
we will be more specific with the shared parking.
Bob Generous: The shared parking requirement was approved as part of the subdivision. Before they can
actually develop this site they have to go through final plat approval and within the subdivision approval
process, that shared agreement and cross access easement will need to be executed and recorded with the
second addition I guess it was. The first addition just created outlots but there's no development on them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so there will be very specific language about the shared parking.
Bob Generous: Right. It will be an executed agreement that they'd record with the subdivision.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the
council please.
Steve Norness: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Steve Norness and I'm Co-Chair
of the Building Committee at Family of Christ and I've been a member of the church since 1992. I made a
mistake several years ago. I was talking to my pastor about our church and about our growth and lo and
behold Pastor Nate put me on a committee and I never thought I'd be here this evening in front of you
talking about our church and our growth but I'm glad that I am. I recommend to be quiet at meetings or
you could volunteer to participate. We are here this evening seeking site plan approval for a 17,000 square
foot church, that includes assembly, classrooms and office. Family of Christ Church is seeking relocation
because we are growing out of present site. Our master plan has positioned our church to build a 60,000
square foot building and have at least 500 parking spaces. The key to growth is adequate parking in which
we secured through an easement agreement with our developer to share parking. We've also researched
church growth and studied why churches have grown and why they have not and it's very clear, lack of
space can inhibit your mission. We want to be flexible to meet our church and community needs and
therefore we're looking to relocate. If money was not an option, our first phase would be to build at least a
25,000 square foot building. This would meet our program for the next 1 to 3 years. To provide you with
a point of reference our current site would expand about 20,000 square feet and would have approximately
150 cars. We are growing at a rate similar to Chanhassen area. We have studied the growth patterns and
know we must position the church to be ready for the community growth. Family of Christ is awaiting, we
are waiting our new plans. We have a dynamic ministry that has strong involvement with good education
for youth, children and for adults. We have a strong and dynamic music program. We have plans for the
future to look at preschool and we are looking for opportunities in the future to develop programs that
would help and benefit this community as this community grows. The move is right for us right now at
Family of Christ. The congregation is excited and we are ready to move. We have raised the money and
we have lined up financing contingent upon the sale of our current site. We are proud to be a member of
this community and look forward to being part of growing this area. We want a community that will work
together, worship together, learn together and play together. A community we are proud to call home. My
church, a neighborhood of places where I'm developing my friendships. I'm here this evening, tonight
because I want to develop a community and church that my children and I can go and live in, and this is
important to all of us and it's important to the members of our congregation. We thank you for the
15
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
opportunity to share our plans and we encourage the continued dialogue as we take our journey of growing
to our new site. I'd like to introduce Pepe Cryzda. He's the architect with SMSQ. Pepe will lead us
through the church plans and there's plenty of other church members here this evening so if you have
questions, we'll be happy to answer them for you. Again thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Pepe Cryzda: Mayor, Council members, Bob, good evening. Pepe Cryzda from SMSQ Architects. I'm the
architect working with Church of Family of Christ and working on their plans for development and for
future growth on the site that you have before you. I apologize, my speech won't be as inspiring as
Steve's. I do have some graphics that I hope will keep you awake. I'll also pass out copies of the stuff that
I have to show you so you can look at it at close range. I have five copies so if you wouldn't mind sharing.
I'm going to give you a streamlined recap of the presentation I gave earlier to the Planning Commission.
Giving you all the graphics except for the slides which were mostly of the current site. They weren't
terribly exciting but they did kind of fill in the context for some commission members who weren't clear on
exactly what was going on on the site. This first graphic that you see is a figure ground diagram at a very
small scale showing the church property, not only in the context of the larger PUD development, but also
showing the adjacent developments that currently exist adjacent to the property. The building structures
and sites items are labeled on the far left side. Number 1 is the existing church and community center.
Sorry, not church. The school. Item number 2 on the lower right comer is the existing townhomes. Item
number 3 is the proposed church with the future wings dotted in on both sides. It also shows the extent of
the parking lot also with future development or future expansion shown dotted. And then item number 4 is
the proposed retention pond that will service the entire PUD development. And the buildings labeled 5 are
the current, most recent incarnation of the office warehouse buildings that the developer plans to put on the
rest of the PUD site. Those are sketchy and blocky in nature because that's as far as they've gotten with
developing them. However they do show pretty accurately the scale and proportions of the buildings that
will land on that site at some future date. The point that I'd like to make with this drawing is that number
one, the church is located among buildings that are rather large in scale. At least relative to the church
property. And even when the church is built out to it's maximum size, shown dotted, it will still be more or
less dwarfed by both the school and the future office warehouse buildings. The second point I'd like to
remark on is that there is quite a bit of open space, landscaped space surrounding both the school building
and the church building. Somewhat less around the office warehouse buildings. And three, the last point
I'd like to make is that in at least in scale, in terms of absolute size, the church building will resemble more
the townhouse development in the lower right comer than say the larger school building to the west.
Second drawing in your packet is a side section that goes all the way from the church, the proposed
location of the church on the far right to Coulter Boulevard on the far left. It shows you in elevation what
the vertical relationships are between the various elements as you go from Coulter Boulevard up to the
parking lot and then eventually to the church on the right. I also drew there, if you look closely there's on
Coulter Boulevard there's a person standing on the sidewalk. The existing sidewalk. And from that person
there is a dotted line drawn across the site and eventually landing on the roof of the church. That sight line
shows you more or less the cut off angle of what that person might be able to see from Coulter Boulevard
as first of all you penetrate several layers of landscaping between you and the building. Four in fact. One
consists of the planted trees along Coulter Boulevard that exist now. Two is the layer of upland plantings
and shrubs, low shrubs along the southern edge of the parking lot. And then within the parking lot there are
two more layers of over story trees. All of these landscape materials serve to soften or shield or conceal if
you will the building... The next drawing is a perspective drawing that was included in the original
application package that shows a view of the proposed church as it would appear from Highway 5. If I
were standing on Highway 5 looking south and somewhat southeast. Sorry, southwest. This is the view I
16
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
would see. Again I'd like to remark that what is evident from this view is that the building is surrounded
mostly by landscaping and not a lot of other buildings are visible here. This view would be somewhat cut
off by whatever proposed buildings are built on the north edge by the developer but we don't know exactly
what those will be. The next drawing is, this and the following drawing and supplementary perspective
views that illustrate what the building might look like from the opposite side from Coulter Boulevard. And
this view here is approximately the first full view you get of the church as you drive up Stone Creek Drive
from Coulter Boulevard. There's a somewhat of a steep incline there and it's also shielded by a berm so as
you drive up Stone Creek Drive and this berm recedes, this is approximately the first full view you get of
the church. Obviously it's also evident that part of the church will be concealed or shielded by the over
story trees parked on, or planted in the parking lot. The next perspective view is yet another view of what
the church might look like if I were standing in the far southeast comer of the parking lot south of the
building. Again, here the point is that the overstory trees that are proposed on the site will also shield or
soften the view of the building. And finally in your packet there are some color elevation renderings. They
are fairly accurate from the actual colors. Just to summarize what you probably already know from staff
report, there is a primary building material on the exterior and that is brick. I also have samples of all these
materials which I will pass around as soon as I'm done. The primary material on the exterior is brick.
There is a secondary complimentary material on several locations which is drivit or synthetic stucco. The
roof is an asphalt shingle. It's a high quality, 25 year warranty. It's a little better product than you would
normally find on say residential project. And then the accent colors, mainly on roof edging and flashing
and also the aluminum cladding on the windows are all kind of a dark burgundy red. I'll pass out the
materials so you can look at them.
Mayor Mancino: Where the future addition will go from here?
Pepe Cryzda: ...knock out panels.
Mayor Mancino: Right, just this part?
Pepe Cryzda: Yes. Here are the samples of the proposed colors for the drivit. This one is intended to
resemble or blend in with the brick. Contrast with the brick. Notice that both of these colors merge so to
speak from the brick, the brick has a fairly lively and variable color and both of these drivit colors go well
with that.., color of the asphalt shingle on the roof... This is the proposed color for the aluminum cladding
on the windows. The color for the flashing on the roof... With that I conclude my presentation and open
the table for questions or comments.
Mayor Mancino: Questions from council members.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I have one. On the color renderings where we're showing the B material
in-between the windows. Do I gather that's just the drivit where you're eventually putting the addition on?
Why would it be a different material than complimenting the windows along that stretch?
Pepe Cryzda: There is a good reason for that. We need that portion of the wall to be solid because that's
the background wall for the alter platform and it's important not to have say the pastor or the presider back
lit because then all you see, you don't see features or gestures. You see a silhouette highlighted in color, or
in light, I'm sorry. The reason you see those panels that way is number one, they complete a design on the
elevation and they also allow for the possibility of putting windows in in the future when this space is no
longer used as an assembly space.
17
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I'm just, I guess I'm reacting to the fact that it stands out in such contrast.
Not that I'm a designer but you look at the building and it looks like we've just simply patched something
versus it being a complete structure or facade.
Pepe Cryzda: Well in my opinion it would look a little stranger if there was nothing there. It would look a
little off balance.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen, I think the planning commissioners had that same question too.
When I was at the planning commission meeting they had the questions about the lighter color of the drivit
versus your darker color, which blends in a little more with the brick so. That was a concern for them too.
Building on that Pepe, are all the areas where it is that lighter drivit, are all the areas on the building, as I
mentioned before, on the east side also where you may have additions to put on to the future growth of the
church? And what happens on the west end? I noticed that the west end.
Pepe Cryzda: The west elevation, as you see, consists of two parts and three dimensions... The lower
portion you see, I'm sorry, that's the south elevation.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. Do we have the west here? Well this is the front, the west, but you can see it
straight on. When you add onto this, will it stay?
Pepe Cryzda: ...
Mayor Mancino: But you'll stay that lower level or add?
Pepe Cryzda: The portion of the building that's on the west side is the classroom wing and it's already, the
proportions of that and the dimensions of that part are already pretty much set for additional classrooms.
That's also the portion of the building that will, that is and will remain two stories in any future expansion.
Mayor Mancino: And the second story will be the west side going down.
Pepe Cryzda: On the north side.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the roof will remain a flat roof on the addition?
Pepe Cryzda: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone else presenting? Anyone else presenting?
Okay, thank you. Anyone here tonight wishing to make any comments? Okay, bring this back to Council.
Any discussion? Any comments from council members?
Councilwoman Jansen: I have a couple questions. I guess one being the additional access point that this
property will have to Coulter Boulevard. It has the access onto Coulter as well as the Stone Creek access.
I'm looking at the property that's on the east of that. Will that property also have an access that comes out
onto Coulter? Will we eventually be adding to.
Mayor Mancino: Well on this site there's only one access onto Coulter, correct Bob?
18
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: The one onto Coulter and then they've got the access onto Stone Creek. When I
was referring to two, I was referring to the Stone Creek access. Yeah, sorry about that. And then as you
move to the east, I'm wondering if we're going to reflect the same traffic movements. Will the property to
the east also have an access point from Coulter as well as the driveway onto Stone Creek?
Mayor Mancino: Bob?
Anita Benson: In all likelihood we would review that with the site plan for that parcel. We would
discourage access on Coulter but we would have to review it with any site plan submittal. That segment
from Stone Creek Drive to the east is very close to the pedestrian bridge and an access point there
wouldn't, on the surface be a good idea in that short distance. However without a site plan to review we
can't make that determination.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I was surprised and maybe you can speak to it a little bit. I know that
you're very cognizant of keeping your access points limited onto these type of roadways. As to why for
this property we would be adding one instead of maybe reflecting two points out onto Stone Creek or just
the one.
Anita Benson: Well with the site plan review the access onto Coulter Boulevard, in reviewing what was
submitted to make the church facility site work, the access on Coulter is needed. And additionally the
access on Stone Creek Drive is needed to facilitate the shared parking between the different sites with the
development. And the location that it is with the church facility poses no concern as far as sight lines for
an access point.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so it more is conducive to this type of facility that you actually have this
flow?
Anita Benson: Correct.
Councilwoman Jansen: Traffic flow. Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Comments? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Question for the architect. As far as your window materials go, are you using timed
glass? Clear? Did you give any thought or was there any reason of why you wouldn't just simply carry
the glass treatment where those panels are and basically back build over them so you'd have your solid wall
on the inside?
Pepe Cryzda: Are you talking about curtain wall construction? That's a little more expensive than what
we're proposing. I don't think it would fit the budget.
Councilman Senn: Alrighty, thanks.
Councilwoman Jansen: I have two more questions.
Mayor Mancino: Go ahead.
19
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: In reviewing the grading and the filling that I realize was noted in our packets as
having been approved previously. April 27th of '98. I was looking at this particular site. It would appear
that if not in, it's very close to the secondary zone of the Bluff Creek watershed. I'm wondering on the
ponding where we'll be doing the grading to put in the regional pond, is that going out into that secondary
zone of the Bluff Creek? And I'm looking at it and I'm relating it to what came before us for the Eden
Trace development, when that was punching out into the flood plain. The DNR had come back and
mentioned that they would request that we not impact the flood plain and we move the pond back onto the
development site and out of the flood plain. What's different about this that we're doing the pond out in the
flood plain I guess is my question. Not to belabor it.
Anita Benson: I'm not certain where the pond is located in accordance with the flood plain. I don't see it
on the plan here. However, as far as what's different. The Bluff Creek corridor primary and secondary
ordinance was not passed at the time that Council did approve the grading in this area. That would take
place for both the building and the ponding. But we would have to check on the DNR and the flood plain
with the pond.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so this has not actually gone to the DNR then yet as far as getting their
approval for where the pond would be constructed?
Bob Generous: The plan was submitted...as part of the PUD. Not of the site plan. The site plan carries
forward that. So we would use any comments are incorporated in the PUD standards.
Mayor Mancino: It does say in the report that, if you don't mind my adding onto your comments. On page
4 of the report under grading, the second paragraph. The 1, 2, 3, 4, fifth line up from the bottom of that
second paragraph it says the storm water pond is proposed to be constructed within the 100 year flood
plain boundary. So I guess that's your concern and question.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: So if we could make sure that we put a condition onto this that the DNR check it and we
look into that. Is that what you were getting at?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Especially since it is in the Bluff Creek watershed and I guess I was reacting
to that knowing that we were trying to protect that on that previous development proposal we had had. And
then maybe as this comes around to council as we continue the discussion, if we could speak about the
sidewalk issue and I realize that the Planning Commission belabored whether we should keep the sidewalk
or not. And I did try to put myself in the position of using these trails and these sidewalks and out of
respect for private property, I think I would have a tendency myself if I were using these sidewalks and
trails, to use the exterior sidewalks more in that public access versus walking up through the church
property in order to go between Stone Creek and Coulter Boulevard. And it's been noted coming up to us
from the planning commission that they were presuming that pedestrian traffic would use that sidewalk
provided in front of the church. But then I picture them walking Fido or the kids on their bikes after school
and they're zipping past the church. If there's pedestrian church traffic, you've got a conflict of the two. If
they had the exterior sidewalk.., and up to Stone Creek. So I'm realizing that we have the sidewalk all
along Coulter Boulevard and that the original. Go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: No. I'm in my mind visualizing. Sorry, I'm painting as you're talking.
2O
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: So as you come along Coulter Boulevard along the sidewalk now, if you did want
to cut up to Stone Creek, you'd either have to cut through the church property along their sidewalk or cross
over to the east side.
Mayor Mancino: Of Stone Creek.
Councilwoman Jansen: Assuming that we require that development put that north/south sidewalk in but
we're causing them to have to cross what could end up being a busy street if it does punch through to
Highway 5. And now you've got through traffic so I'm hesitating to eliminate these sidewalk.
Mayor Mancino: On the west side of Stone.
Councilwoman Jansen: On the west side of Stone Creek.
Mayor Mancino: Bob, can you take a few minutes, if you don't mind, and show so that we can all see
exactly where the trail and sidewalk is and what has been, went to planning and was eliminated and the
sidewalk that will take, since it's shared parking, people from the different lots. Thank you.
Bob Generous: Well as part of the subdivision we... one side of Stone Creek with a sidewalk These
connections are for the convenience of people in this development to go over... It'd be more convenient for
the northerly part.., and cross Stone Creek and get onto the trail that will eventually go under Highway 5...
Internal connections are on the west side, or the most easterly parking lot in the church lot. That will bring
you down to this loop roadway system where these two driveways will align. It will be like an intersection
so we believe it will safer crossing. Additionally on the north end there will be a crossing approximately...
so that's the movement we envision. People coming down on the east side, to continue over to the east or
going this way.., stay there to cross Stone Creek Drive but that will be a controlled intersection on the north
side. We're not sure if this project will generate enough pedestrian traffic warrant having sidewalks on
each side of the street.
Mayor Mancino: But if we give it up now we don't have any options, right?
Bob Generous: On the right-of-way, correct. We'd have to come in and retrofit that. But we have
requirements within the PUD that they provide these internal connections, including making them friendly.
Having them protected. Using them on going across landscaped islands in the middle of a parking lot. So
it's not all walking across these seas of asphalt. We're going to see those broken up as each parcel comes
in.
Mayor Mancino: On this particular subject, any other discussion by council members on the trail and
giving up the one on the west side of Stone Creek versus going ahead with it? This is kind of smack, dab in
the middle of the Bluff Creek and the tributaries on both sides so it's, and with the school there and
everything else being so well, you know people are just drawn to it. And then having the underpass under
TH 5, it's a pretty pedestrian friendly area.
Councilwoman Jansen: Will Stone Creek eventually go through, across TH 5 to the north? Will it have a
compliment on the other side? No, okay.
Mayor Mancino: No.
21
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: It will be right in, right out.
Mayor Mancino: Well and they said it may be the right in, right out. It may end up that that northern
piece is one big corporate center and may not go out on TH 5.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because actually if it ended up being the dead end, I would see this getting
more use because people would do the loop. They'd go down and around.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion or comments on that? Okay. Any others? Okay,
Councilman Senn. Comments.
Councilman Senn: The only thing I'm not real excited about is the panels on the visible side. But at the
same time I guess considering where the building is and I guess this building's going to kind of set a higher
than normal design standard for probably the entire area it's in. And again it's hard to look, I guess it's a
little hard to look at plans until lots of them come out but this doesn't quite look like it belongs. Beyond
that I guess I'd like to see the build on the trail, or the sidewalk I guess. Because I'd like not to have to
deal with that later and I think the way everything else in that area hooks together as far as the trails and
everything goes, I think that makes more sense. Of course that's coming from somebody's who's still
hoping to get his first trail.
Mayor Mancino: We'll let that go.
Councilman Senn: So that's about it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen. Kind of brought up your concerns and spoken to
them but anything else you'd like to add?
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually minor point, and I feel like I'm dominating things here but it is noted
within the development design standards that each of the sites would provide areas for bicycle parking and
storage. I'm assuming that that's just part of what happens around a church site for bikes. Is that part of
this? Are people actually biking to the church?
Bob Generous: It wasn't specifically. They have ample opportunities to do that.
Mayor Mancino: And backpacks too.
Councilwoman Jansen: But otherwise my issues were the grading and fill and the flood plain and really
wanting to see that public sidewalk left as a part of the plan just to enable them to not have to cross through
the church property.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I think I'll just stick to the two issues that have been raised, other than the panels that
seem to be drawing some attention and the only viable alternative is putting glass windows in to make it
match the rest of the building, and I know the cost issue and I'm not prepared to tell them to do that kind of
a thing if they don't want to. I don't know what the alternative is so I'm going to leave it as it is. In my
opinion it's okay. And as far as the trails go, I think it's important but I'm also confident staff can work
22
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
that out with the developer so I'm not going to dictate. Either I'll see it if you bring them back but I don't
have any set in stone ideas on how it should be done. Outside of staff's idea.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Point of clarification. You're talking about these two panels here Mark?
Councilman Engel: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. I just want to make sure, my question is kind of, I agree on the sidewalk
leaving that, the Bluff Creek but with the lighting and the fact that the lights from Bluff Creek, from the
Rec Center already cast a lot of light in the area. I just want to make sure that Bob, that these lights here
are going to comply with the new lighting ordinance and won't add to the light pollution. With the Stone
Creek neighborhood and the neighborhood north.
Bob Generous: They'll comply with the lighting ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: You can see the lighting of Bluff Creek all the way down Galpin.
Councilman Labatt: You can see it in Plymouth. I just wanted to hear what the comments are on the
lighting.
Bob Generous: There's only some light spill off. We're going to have the cutoff shielded light fixtures in
the parking lot so it will direct all the light down. We don't have the glow up from the lights directly but
there's always some bounce.
Councilman Labatt: Is there, and maybe someone from the church or the developer can answer this. Will
the parking lights be on 24 hours a day? I mean all the way sundown to sunrise? Or do they go out after?
Steve Norness: ...
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So after events in the evening are done, the lights will be out.
Bob Generous: Street lights.
Councilman Labatt: The street lights will be there but the parking lights won't be on.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you for the discussion. I'll just add to, I mean I don't want to go back
through what everyone said. I agree with the checking out the storm water pond and the 100 year flood
plain and with the DNR on that too. Also we have learned many, many, many times to get the trails in and
I don't think we've ever said we've had too many trails so I think keeping that in on the west side of Stone
Creek is important. Trash enclosures. Bob, just make sure that staff and the applicant, I didn't see
anything about trash enclosures and maybe a church doesn't need one but anyway, if they can work that
out architecturally too. Was that it? I guess that's it. With that, great plan. Good architecture. Thank
you for coming back a second time and working with the Planning Commission. That was very, very
helpful for them so we appreciate that. May I have a motion please?
23
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: I'll make a motion that we approve, what approve staff's recommendation points 1
through 27. Adding point 28. I don't know how it needs to be worded, to require the construction of the
sidewalk along Stone Creek Drive. I couldn't find the point where it had actually been deleted to just use
that wording. And then maybe point 29 being that we check with the DNR on the 100 year flood plain and
pond location, being sensitive to the Bluff Creek watershed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and if I could just kind of add a little friendly amendment to that to say that the
City Council approve Site Plan #99-2 for a 17,140 square foot church facility including assembly,
classrooms and offices for Family of Christ Lutheran Church subject to the following conditions, 1 through
27 as stated in the staff report. Adding 28 and 29 per Councilwoman Jansen. Is there a second to the
motion?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve Site Plan #99-2 for a 17,140
sq. ft. church facility including assembly, classrooms and offices for Family of Christ Lutheran
Church, subject to the following conditions:
The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Bluff Creek Corporate
Center.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security
to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
Site plan approval is contingent on the city granting final plat approval for Outlot A, Bluff Creek
Corporate Center, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the church is to be
built.
4. Future expansions of the building shall be reviewed through the site plan review process.
A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole
shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All fixtures shall be shielded with a
total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees.
6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit and shall comply with setback requirements.
All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public right-of-way by
walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background.
Revise the landscaping plan to include shrubs to the south of the electrical transformer located at the
southwest comer of the building.
A ten 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 Chanhassen firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9-1.
24
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
10. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy (Chanhassen Fire Department notes to be included
on all site plans). Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991.
11.
"No Parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required for the main drive through. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991.
12. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding pre-plan. Policy #07-1991. Copy
enclosed.
13. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
14. Comply with Chanhassen Water Service Installation Policy for commercial/industrial buildings.
Pursuant to Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.
15.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic
water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.
16. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #47-1998. Copy enclosed.
17.
All boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant.
Where trees need to be removed for entrances or site grading, they must be replaced elsewhere along
Coulter Boulevard and guaranteed for one growing season after construction is completed.
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 or Coulter Boulevard right-of-way.
18.
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.
19.
Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the site design. A 15 foot wide
pathway along the west side of the pond shall be preserved free of landscape plantings, i.e. trees or
shrubs.
20.
The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. Permits for installation of the
private utilities will be required through the city's Building Department.
21. No buildings/structures shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede
access to perform maintenance functions to the utility system.
22.
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 wetland, creeks at the base of slopes in areas
25
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
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.
23.
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.
24.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage area map for 10 year and
100 year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant 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.
25.
The applicant 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.
26.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of
Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
27. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
28. Require the applicant to construct a sidewalk along the west side of Stone Creek Drive.
29. Check with the DNR on the 100 year flood plain and pond location, being sensitive to the Bluff
Creek watershed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND
UNDERGROUND PARKING TO BE COMPLETED IN TWO PHASES (PHASE I - 40,553 SQ.
FT. AND PHASE II, 31,500 SQ. FT.); AND A ONE STORY HEIGHT VARIANCE; LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LAKE
DRIVE EAST; NORTHCOTT COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING, MORTENSON COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tom Lander
Tom Gerster
Mark Clarey
Karen Klinsing
9379 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie
300 First Avenue North, Minneapolis
7030 Hillendale Road NW, Elk River
8090 Hidden Court
26
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Kevin & Donna Becker
8060 Hidden Court
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. This is a two part review of the site plan for
an office building in the property zoned Neighborhood Business District. Office use is a permitted use in
the district. The second part is a variance from the height restrictions. BN district permit a one story
building. The applicant is requesting a two story building. In reviewing this we believe that allowing them
to go the additional story, actually reduces the amount of impervious surface on their site. They are
permitted to go up to 65% impervious surface. Plans as proposed are approximately 57% impervious
surface at build out. This was in front of the Planning Commission. They're concerned about parking.
The applicant has revised their site plan to incorporate 155 parking stalls for the first phase. Parking on
Lake Drive East is prohibited in this area. They're also concerned that landscaping wasn't adequate. As
part of our review there were some deficiencies from ordinance and we made recommendations to improve
that. The applicant has agreed to make these changes. One of the conditions, or requirements was to look
at a crosswalk on Lake Drive and Hidden Court which is the primary entrance to the project. The
applicant is agreeable to this condition. Lighting for the site will comply with city ordinance. The proposal
is in the highway corridor district. The district regulations would permit development up to three stories
and 40 feet. With the top of the parapet in this for over the entranceway, the total height is 32 feet. It is a
two story building. We believe the design of the building architecturally is very well done and that it would
be an asset to the community. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and variance for a two story
subject to the conditions of our staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff'? Bob I just have two and that is on page 14 under
recommendation, on recommendation number 3. I'm assuming that we need to change that, where it says
five accessible parking spaces are required for the, it should be 155 spaces?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, for the 155 spaces that are being provided. Secondly, do we usually approve these
one and two at the same time? Can you talk a little bit about that because sometimes.
Bob Generous: If we know what the architectural will be like on the second phase. Basically they're
proposing a mirror of the first phase of development. Family of Christ we only approved the first phase
because we had no idea what the future phases would look like. We have some general notion that they'll
continue the roof line on the west side. Or increase the roof line on the east side but we don't know exactly
how those are going to fit together. In this instance we are confident that we know what we're going to get
with just looking at the one side.
Mayor Mancino: So all the plans that have been done, all the grading and everything that you've reviewed,
takes in both phases?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And let's say you know they build Phase I now and they want to come in and do
something different for Phase II. I mean who knows what. They would have to come back before us and
go through the process again to change Phase II?
Bob Generous: If it's a significant difference, yes.
27
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And can you, you know what's kind of a significant difference?
Bob Generous: Changing primary building colors. Increasing the square footage by more than 10% from
what's approved.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the Council?
Tom Lander: I'm Tom Lander. I'm Director of Development for M.A. Mortenson Construction Company.
We are owners of the property. We have it under contract to sell to Northcott Corporation and they have
selected us as their design builder to build their new facility on the site and that is why we're handling the
zoning...tonight. I've got a sort of standard presentation that I'd like to quickly walk through. There are
some specific things we were asked to bring to the Council tonight such as building materials which I'll
certainly show you. I was also made aware of a letter that I guess came into the city today that raises some
issues and I feel the need to speak to that letter also. So if that's alright with the council, I'll get started. I
would like to say as back-up that as part of our notification in addition to standard notification of city
meetings we sent out letters to the surrounding neighborhood and held a neighborhood meeting on
Thursday, March 11th and as part of that announcement I gave out my home phone and my office phone
and asked people that were not able to attend that meeting to give me a call. We had about four families
represented at the meeting and I re-fielded four calls from that. Also at the Planning Commission meeting
on April 7th there were three parties that spoke. Two issues related to the project. Two of them are houses
that do have direct sight lines to our property and I did meet with those residents on April 17th and one of
the comments from staff about the changes to the future landscape plans really come out of some of the
discussions and comments made at that meeting and I'll hit on that as we get into the presentation. If we
can zero in on the smaller drawings. The site is 4.26 acres. Lake Drive East is to the, I would say the
south of the site. Highway 5 then is to the north. The bridge head is directly to the east of the site and then
the Legion property bounds the site on the west. As I say we are asking for two phases of building to be
approved and specifically that relates to the fact that it's being bought by Northcott as their corporate
headquarters facility and it is being bought with the idea that it will handle their future long term expansion.
Frankly if the council does not see fit to approve both phases I and II as we are presenting them, obviously
without changes in the future, we will not be able to proceed with the project because the site will not
accommodate their long term growth. They would not buy the site and build just the first phase because
obviously they're making a commitment to the community to be here as their corporate offices on a long
term basis.
Mayor Mancino: Tom, when do you expect to build Phase II? Is there a?
Tom Lander: We don't have immediate plans for Phase II. In discussions with Northcott we anticipate
that that's a 3 to 5 year time frame but as I say that will be totally dependent upon their growth and needs
for the space. They have never intended that this be a spec office building. The first phase does include
about 5,000 square feet of space that they anticipate leasing out on a short term basis to allow for their
growth. Once they've grown into that, then they would be building the second phase. The site, first phase
building is basically back to the east, to the bridge head and then the second phase comes out parallel to the
highway. The parking then is incorporated and if you were going to the southeast, the entrance drive after
review of the traffic study with city staff, is paralleled with the, I want to say Hidden, get the right street
name here. Hidden Court so this is a true intersection at Hidden Court and that intersection location was
done based on the traffic study. The office use is allowed for in the zoning ordinance. It is not the use
issue that we are asking for the variance. The variance has to do with the fact that we are talking about
28
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
doing a two story office building instead of a one story building. In fact a one story retail building could be
built on this site that exceeds the height which we're proposing. Our base building being 28 feet and then
there is a section in the center of the building that rises to screen the mechanical equipment and it raises
another about 8 feet to screen that equipment. But a one story retail building could easily be built on the
site that would exceed this height. The other issue is by going with a two story building we are able to stay
well with under the site coverage ratio. We're allowed 75% coverage and we're going to need about, first
phase our coverage is substantially less, 40%. But since you're looking at both phases I and II, even with
the second phase built we'll be 57% site coverage. To also facilitate that issue we've incorporated as much
under building parking as the structure would allow so we have both parking under the building in Phase I
and Phase II. I keep going back and forth from big to small drawings. I don't know if I'm just confusing
her. This is the rendering of the... This is the rendering of Phase I and it's taken, Hidden Court, the homes
on Hidden Lane are screened from Lake Drive because there's a major berm of large setback and a fence
which goes about halfway through this lot 250. Which is one of the residents that I met with and then the
houses at the end of Hidden Court, 1000, or 8001, which we also met with, then had fairly open sight lines
so the rendering that we took is basically taken from the intersection looking back. So you're getting
approximately the perspective of those people who can see the site from their homes would have of the
building. The second phase building will come out along the highway in this direction so this is the first
phase sort of gets us closest to the residents. The building materials. The base of the building will be a
natural tone split face masonry unit. Then the major portions of the building are very traditional brick
color. And then the top parapet cornice detail is done out of an EFIS material, stucco like material. And
what we've tried to do is limit the impact of height through the selection of materials. I talked about this
center section coming up to screen the mechanical. You can see we've accented the entrance to the building
and that's the location of the screening. Here is the entry to the building. Entry in relationship to the
neighborhood. What we saw when we went over and photographed the site, ... sights with the neighbors
and with staff is that the most of the houses will look across the open area of the parking lot and because of
the grade change you're looking up and at it. So that the contours, the natural...parking field. But we
have some concern and I think it was a legitimate concern that the entries to the lower level parking area
where we're going down and into the building and that is also where we've built the trash enclosure. There
might be some concern that that would be exposed to the residential properties that are here as they look at
the site and so one of the things that we've done is in the grading and contouring is we've created a berm at
this location which literally gets at this high point to be about 10 feet up so that's naturally screening this
rear elevation of the building from the residential properties here to the east of the property. And there was
a concern that there be evergreens on the site. Working with the city staff, normally boulevard trees are
planted to create canopy and so we don't use evergreens, conical trees in the boulevard. And so we do have
in our plans today, I believe it's 17 six foot evergreens that are going to be planted on the site and what
we've agreed to with city staff and what we've committed to the two neighbors that we met with is that
we'll work with the sight lines from their property when this berm is in place and the building mass is in
place on the site, actually place those trees to maximize their impact as far as screening this end of the
building. Because obviously we don't want them all to be on top of the berm. What we want to do is use
them to expand and impact the berm. So that was agreed to and incorporated in discussions with city staff.
My understanding is it's in the written proposal. There are still, we've submitted two landscape plans. We
don't have our tree count matching specifically with the ordinance. Our commitment is to city staff that we
will submit a revised landscape plan and work with them until we have got full count so we can get the
trees that we're supposed to have. So that's my formal presentation, except for specific questions. I would
like to hit on the points of the letter that I was given a half hour ago that came into city staff today. There
are basically four comments that are finalized in here and I guess I'd say we sort of agree with two of them.
We find two of them a major concern and hope that we can address that concern here tonight. First of all
I've got a note that the office use is allowed under the zoning. It's the height variance that we're asking
29
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
for. The height variance has to do with the fact that we're doing office. If you're doing a retail building
you could exceed the height that we are providing. The issue on the landscaping we certainly would agree
that we need to add landscaping and have made a commitment to work with city staff to do that. They
raise some questions as to the traffic study that we submitted and they're pointing out a variance in square
footage. The issue is the traffic study is based on square footage in the building that's occupied as office
space because that's how you count the number of stalls and traffic coming in and out. Our square footage
of building footprint includes the underground parking so the square footages used in the traffic study do
not include that as additional occupied space and that's why there are some discrepancies and these are
noted here. The traffic study does reflect the project traffic and has been reviewed by staff and at the time
it was reviewed with staff there was no discrepancy or concerns expressed. I would note that the office
building or the type we're talking about will have less traffic impact than if this were developed as retail.
The issues as far as Phase I and Phase II, as I say Northcott Corporation is making a major financial
commitment here to this building we're talking about. By the time it's all built out we will be well in
excess of $5 million. They will not proceed with the first phase if they feel they do not have a site that will
allow them to remain for their growth period is incorporating the second phase. As the Mayor has asked,
and we would certainly endorse, if we come back with a phase that proposes a small retail use or proposes
a larger or a new building with all glass or something like that, we would obviously have to come back in
with new plan approval. You're not approving something that isn't consistent with what's been shown to
city staff. So having made those comments I'll be here to answer any further questions but we would
appreciate your support as we had from the planning commission. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this time? Thank you. Tom, will anyone else from your
team be addressing us?
Tom Lander: The architect is here if there are some specific questions that I can't answer.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any specific architectural questions at this time?
Councilwoman Jansen: Nope.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the council? Please come forward.
State your name and address.
Donna Becker: Hello, I'm Donna Becker. I live at 8060 Hidden Court and I'm the one that wrote the
letter. And Mayor, I met you last Wednesday right after the meeting and just talking to a few of the
residents I felt maybe a glimmer of hope that I could write a letter. Talk to the people in our neighborhood
and see if we, I'm not opposed to the office building. I just think the requirements need to be met and that's
what I thought I would point out in the letter. Maybe if I can have clarification on the traffic study because
I read the staff report that I picked up Friday and my numbers still aren't meeting yours. I just, I need
some clarification because when somebody says 84 or 80 trips and you have 155 stalls here with a potential
up to 225, how are you only getting 80 trips? Can someone just explain that to me.
Mayor Mancino: Do you want to ask all your questions now and then we'll go through and try and answer
them? Does that work for you?
Donna Becker: Yes. That was one question. And in regards to going to a two story variance, my concern
is again view line and if you had a plan I can show you where I'm located. Do you have? I'm actually
3O
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
located four houses down. In my back yard I can see the church. I can see the hills. I have a feeling I'm
going to see this, and again I'm not.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, you probably will.
Donna Becker: And that's also my concern is I did not, we asked for an elevation view at the city planning
commission and I was under the impression that I would see something from that sight line. I have yet to
see anything. That was also my concern. In regards to what the property can be developed for, it's
ambiguous to talk about the future, to say a retail is going to go here. Whether it's going to be Pizza Hut
or a Target, I don't know because I think each time we have to present in front of the city council. You
make your best recommendation. I am for this office building. I don't think you should propose it in two
phases. I think it should be in one phase until you realize the impact that it will have on the neighborhood.
And in regards to, I didn't want to read my letter over again because I think everybody did but the traffic
count was one. I appreciate the landscaping, that he will go back and add those requirements in. And then
in regards to adding a four way stop. Currently there is a strip center down here that has a daycare. There
is a lot of traffic along Lake Drive. I think a lot of the residents in this area are single family homes with 2
or 3 kids, young to teenagers, and a concern is the traffic there. I do not feel that the crosswalk with just
painted on the asphalt yellow with a sign is going to make people stop. I thought if you're going to have
that much traffic going out, make it safe because you've got the curves here and I understand that's the best
location of it because when I was talking to people, they would rather have seen the parking exit out here. I
just kind of referred to the report. Showed them that and felt that do a four way stop right there or
something else I would ask for. As the pedestrian bridge is up there and my understanding that is just
recently put in. And again it was a concern of the kids crossing Highway 5. I think that's all I had. If we
could just answer those questions.
Mayor Mancino: Sure. Why don't we go ahead and try to answer them and then you can come back if you
want to ask any more from our answers or need to clarify it. So we'll just take some time now and go over
those. Tom, if you want to come up and talk a little bit about traffic study and give Donna some time to
kind of get her numbers together with yours and Bob can talk a little bit about retail versus office and trips,
etc. Okay.
Tom Lander: The issue on the traffic count is the 80 trips has to do with the time period in the morning
and the time period in the afternoon at which Lake Drive East has it's highest traffic count and that's when
they do the analysis for quality of traffic A, B, C or D. And so what they're saying is during that time
period 80 trips will be realized. And obviously there will be more than 80 trips over the whole day, okay.
With the impact of that additional 80 trips, we do not change the quality of traffic congestion on the street.
It still remains an A quality, probably because it was designed as a collector street when it was originally
platted. I think I addressed the issue as far as discrepancy of square footage but do you want me to go
through that again?
Mayor Mancino: Sure. If you could take a few minutes and do that.
Tom Lander: The issue is the square footage that the traffic study reflects is the square footage of occupied
office space in the two phases. And if you go and just look at the staff report and take square footage of
building, that includes the parking. I mean the portion of the building that's storage and also the portion of
the building that's underground parking and so that's why there's a discrepancy. The traffic study is
correct and was done by the firm that the city asked us to go to. So we endorse it. The issue on four way
stop. We felt it was important to get a clean intersection here because of turning lanes and stuff. We
31
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
would certainly endorse stop signs at that intersection. My experience in the past is most cities do that
based on warrants or their own engineering determination of the need for those. But if it would be helpful
as far as the neighborhood is concerned, we would endorse that if it's determined and appropriate that we
would support it and not oppose it.
Mayor Mancino: I'll stop you right there and go to Anita, our engineer to kind of add onto that. Now you
looked at the traffic study also I'm assuming and the counts that were done, etc. When the Legion site is
developed.., occupied and then.
Anita Benson: You would want the traffic, the office building to be built and occupied so you could get
traffic counts reflective of what it's actually going to be. The actual traffic study counting period does not
take a long period of time to do that. We could do that within a month's time. But you would want to have
the level of traffic you're going to expect because we would just end up redoing the count if we did one now
and then did one when the office complex is in.
Mayor Mancino: And so what does it take to initiate a traffic study for a four way stop? Does that mean
that residents need to come in and petition for that? Does that mean it's something we can put on our
tickler file now and say once this gets built and occupied we will do it?
Anita Benson: We can note that right now and just do that once the building is fully completed and
occupied.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But we can put in the crosswalk now?
Anita Benson: We can put in the crosswalk.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Going forward.
Tom Lander: Well the only thing I wanted to add on the traffic study is that the study that was done at our
request did include traffic from the.., anticipating it was developed as a retail site and I figure my
remembrance I think it reflects 270 trips on and off of the site as a retail development. If it were developed
out at it's anticipated zoning allowed density. The issue of sight lines as I say, we took photographs
through the neighborhood and reviewed them with city staff. Since I thought we had addressed the issue, I
apologize for not bringing the photographs with me tonight. I have no problem working with city staff to
again do as we agreed with the other residential locations as to maximize the impact of the landscape plan
based on specific sight lines that are of concern. I didn't bring those photographs tonight.
Mayor Mancino: And would it work out Tom, I know that when you talked to the two other residents, two
homes on either side, that Donna be in on that conversation when you get into doing plantings and selecting
where those plantings will go on the berm. That would help.
Tom Lander: Sure. I mean in fact as I say, I've got the mailing list that we sent out before. As I say, the
best time to do that is when the site grading is finished and the building is up. I don't have a problem
making the neighborhood aware of the fact that we're going to do our trek out there and site trees. So I
mean if that would be a way of addressing it that the neighbors feel comfortable with, we would just
expand that notification and use the same mailing list we used before so that they can have their input.
32
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: You get too many out there you'll have one on one place and one wanting it some other
place.
Tom Lander: So far I haven't been able to get.., four at any one place at any one time so I'm not too
concerned but I would rather let them know so they have a chance.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and lastly could you talk a little bit about the one story variance.
Tom Lander: The major variance that we're asking for here is the fact that we're talking about doing a one
story building, I mean I'm sorry. We're talking about doing a two story office building. The site as
neighborhood commercial has only one stipulation and that's that you can build one story without the
variance on it. We've asked for two story because of the efficiency. It allows us to dramatically reduce the
size of the building footprint. As I say, it increases the setbacks. It also reduces the total site coverage and
in working with city staff you'll notice we've gone with the one story building and we've tried to keep the
parapet down to a minimum so that our two story building height is less than most of the two story
residences in the area that have pitched roof and would be equivalent to a major retailer going in there. So
yes, we're asking for a two story variance. We've tried to design the building to keep it as low as possible
and to keep it consistent with what could be built as a one story retail on there.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions on top of those questions Donna?
Donna Becker: I just want to, I guess I just want to end and say that it's hard to see from pictures and nice
photographs the elevation level. I think you need to take into factor if you're driving east to west on
Highway 5, you see the pedestrian bridge up on a hill. You're going to see this two story office building
and you're going to see two of them. I just think the sight line there is not appropriate. A lot of the houses
on Erie Lake that I've talked to, the houses at Hidden Court, on Hidden Lane, are all concerned. I think
they want something very nice to be developed there. They see this as being it. I just don't think it should
be a two story and I don't think you should approve Phase II until really you see the impact of Phase I.
And whether he has to bring another customer in to here, I think you have to be open minded to that and
not, this is a permanent building. This isn't something that can change. I'm in commercial property
management and office industrial and retail I manage. I think I have a little expertise in this area. Maybe
it's not coming across as that but the people that I talked to, the reason they didn't show up at the Planning
Commission is they were just unaware. Unaware of maybe the ramification or impact that an office
building would have on them. Understanding that prior there was a car dealership being submitted here
before the city planning commission and they got it rejected. And they felt like yes, we did something. But
now they feel a little helpless because we can't keep going and getting everything rejected. Something's got
to go here and I'm all for it but I think it needs to be within your requirements. I don't think you need to
put two of the office buildings there at this time. That's what I would say. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to address the city council? Please come
forward. State your name and address.
Karen Klinsing: Karen Klinsing, 8090 Hidden Court and I was one of the people that was unaware prior to
tonight and I guess I have a concern with the amount of parking that's available when the building's are
fully, when all the people are going to be in there. I don't want people parking down our street. And I
don't know how much parking underneath the buildings was allowed for and how many people they project
to be in both buildings but that is my concern. I don't want them parking down our street. And I don't
want the lot turning into a parking ramp.
33
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Good. Well we'll try and have Tom come up and answer a little bit about how many
parking spaces. I can tell you that I would think that they would not want anyone to have to walk all the
way from your street in cold January to get into the office building either. That they try and plan so that
there are parking stalls right there.
Tom Lander: This issue was raised at the planning commission and in fact we worked with city staff to
verify that the parking ratios we're using, one are consistent with the ordinance. We are providing exactly
what they asked for under the ordinance. Two, are typical for this type of office building. And three,
based on our use, we should not have a problem as far as exceeding it. It is not the intent of Northcott, as
the user of the property, to park on East Lake Drive or in the residential neighborhood. As you point out
major concern is the proximity to the building. We're sort of at a point where we're providing everything
that's being asked for under the ordinance. We're providing everything we feel is appropriate and we're
providing what the owner of the property feels is appropriate.
Mayor Mancino: And do you feel that our ordinance is up to date and is about right because you build so
many office buildings as far as the number of stalls per square footage?
Tom Lander: I would say it's consistent with most of the communities in the metropolitan area. And as I
say, we have several properties and it's consistent or exceeds what we have at our other properties as far as
provided parking. None of our other properties are we allowed or have on street parking in the surrounding
areas.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the city council? Any questions?
Comments?
Kevin Becker: Hi. I'm Kevin Becker. I live at 8060 Hidden Court. Couple questions. The elevation that
you're talking about of the building, I understand it's 28 feet high. Is that correct? What is the actual
height or what would the height be when you take into consideration the hill there? We talk about, I know
28 and you're talking it's consistent with houses there. Well the houses all are down in the valley and
you're up on a hill. So what is going to be the actual height from say Highway 5 was one of my questions.
I'm not exactly sure on the pictures that you were talking about. I saw you taking some pictures but
pictures are really misleading. When you take a picture of something it gives a view of things being a lot
farther away than they actually are. If you go take a picture of your back yard, it gives the impression that
you may have a big back yard when actually you probably may not. And so when you take pictures from a
distance away, yeah it's going to look like it's a farther distance than it actually is. So that's kind of my
concern. He was saying that it looks like it farther but it really wouldn't be with the pictures. The other
question, and I'm going to go back to this again because I still don't think it's clear in my mind, is the
report that was done for the traffic. When, the original letter that was sent to us from the Mortenson
Company stated that the buildings would be, the first building would be approximately 34,000 square feet.
And the second phase would be about 21,000 square feet and that was dated on March 5th. Since then it's
been changed and it's been upped now and the report, I'm wondering when that report was actually done.
Was that done when you guys originally thought it was going to be 34,000 square feet or was it actually
done after you proposed the larger building which is now what, 41,000 1 believe. Yeah, 41,000 or 31,000
feet. Or excuse me, square feet. What was I going to.
Mayor Mancino: So Kevin, you want to know when that change took place?
34
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Kevin Becker: When that changed and why, if that report was done prior to that, the traffic report, and I
still don't understand. If you have 225 stalls, why are you only figuring there's only going to be 80 people
when you have a business, majority of people in a business go to work at 8:00 in the morning. They leave
for lunch. They come back and then they leave again around 5:00. So to me it seems like you're going to
have 225 cars. If that's the space you've got for, I would think that that would be, you know with the
traffic reports. I'm not sure if that traffic report was done, what there currently is? If there's 84 people
that are leaving now from the area or if it's done on what the projection's going to be with that added
traffic so that's what I'm, my questions I guess.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Tom Lander: I'm trying to address the confusion that there seems to be about the traffic study. If you look
at the first phase, in the lower level we have 5,312 square feet of office space. On the first floor we have
13,700 and on the second floor we have 13,200. So we basically have approximately the 32,000 square
feet. That's the way the calculations work. The traffic study was done based on the plans that have been
submitted to the city and reflects as we believe, accurate square footage.
Mayor Mancino: And there was a change between the letter and the plans?
Tom Lander: No.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay.
Tom Lander: I mean the only, you know there may be slight variances of you know instead of being
31,500 we might be 32. We might be 31,300 because as the structure is defined and the way dimensions
are taken in the building, it will vary slightly but no. The traffic study has been done on the size and intent
and on the parking ratios provided. As I say, the number of trips being discussed, not the total number of
trips during the day. It is during the peak traffic periods for Lake Drive East in front of the site. And those
lap according to, I'd have to pull the traffic study out. Do you have the time of days that they're
referencing in there?
Anita Benson: 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 in the evening.
Tom Lander: And so what you're really saying is that some of your traffic's going to come before 7:00.
Some of your traffic's going to come after 9:00. Same thing happening in the afternoon. The peak traffic
on this road on this road in the afternoon will be later than typically this office building will be let out. As I
say, traditionally office building use is a low traffic generator as it relates to street congestion. The issues
of sight line and elevations. Okay our drop off in the front of the building is 970. The first floor elevation
is 971. And if you were to add 27-28 feet to that, that would give you the height, total height of the
building. 971 plus 28 would give you 999. Approximately. The site sits, if you look at the pedestrian
bridge, you're stepping up the pedestrian bridge so you're about at our second floor height when you're at
the base of the pedestrian bridge. If you look at the web structure of the pedestrian bridge, it begins to
approach the roof height of our building. The site is higher than Highway 5. It contours along Highway 5.
Starts at approximately 959 and then steps up to the property so the property does sit up from the
highway... The residential lots are lower than the site and that's one of the advantages. The berming and
plantings done along Lake Drive will break up the elevation of the building to look at. We'll be the first to
say that this building is not going to be hid. We can't put enough trees on this site so that people won't see
it. That's one of the reasons that we've worked with city staff as far as character design of the building.
35
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
But the fact that you're looking up at the building from a distance, it does reduce the perspective of the
building. But this is a high point and yes, we have... And one of the things that the photographs show,
which I don't have with me so I can't show, is it does give you the perspective of the pedestrian bridge
structure so that you can see how high...
Mayor Mancino: And you're also doing some berming on Lake Drive. 4 to 5 foot berming that parallels
Lake Drive.
Tom Lander: The issue of the berm is to deal with the site lines of Lake Drive East. We have to keep this
site level 20 feet in from the property line. Once we get behind that, yes we are doing berming. The major
berming has been concentrated on either side of the areas where we come into the lower level of the
building... There will be minor berming along the parking area but that berm...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address council? Okay, bring this back to
council for comments and then a vote. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: In my mind this project should be a win/win for everybody especially given everything
else we've been through on this site. You know in a way I can only wish that more of our buildings
downtown met the same design and material standards that this building's going to meet in relationship to
it's construction. The information clearly points that there will be far less traffic with the office space
rather than retail space being developed on this site. That's been reaffirmed by additional, look at that
issue with staff. At the same time though I think the concerns and the issues that the neighbors have are
very real and need to be addressed. The impression I get is that the only thing we kind of seem to be
lacking here is maybe time to really understand it better and resolve it. You know given effectively that this
site could develop as a retail use with the same height building and there wouldn't be one single thing we
could do to stop it and given what I already said about effectively producing higher traffic volume and
everything else. You know if you take all of those things and consider it, that's why this is a win/win. But
at the same time I think I'm not really right now in my mind the one who has to be convinced of that. I
think there's some concerned people out there that still need to understand that that's the information and
be convinced of that. And I'd really like to see us you know take a couple more weeks or whatever it
means to basically go out and spend the time with the concerned people. You know review the sight lines
and everything with them. Review the you know expanded upon traffic information that we have and what
staff has looked at beyond that you know to review, I'm going to say also basic rights that go with the land.
Somebody could put this size retail building on there and we couldn't stop it or disapprove it. And some of
the ramifications of that. And I think once that is all understood, I mean to me there may be some tweaking
but that tweaking should be done and we should have, I think we should have a workable deal here. I have
no, with the issue, the other only issue really outside of that that was brought up was the four way stop sign
and I have no problems with that at all. I think that would be, I mean if there's anything we can do to
hasten that process or to act on that or to encourage others who have to approve it to approve it, I think we
ought to be because I think with this project I think that could be you know I mean a good or a necessary
element especially given the circulation there and again everything else we've done with trails. I mean
that's our major, we've spent a lot of money, like it or not, to make that effectively the major not a great
crossing for Highway 5 so I think at the same time with what leads to it we ought to make sure that it
remains safe and remains friendly regardless of necessarily what maybe some other peoples rules are. We
ought to get them to compromise the rules.
36
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. I just have a couple questions to ask you on it. When you say the neighbors
need more information and do a win/win. Are you saying neighborhood meetings? What are you
suggesting? Practically.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean it seems, practically speaking it seems to me that's already happened. But
it seems to me practically speaking at the same time we still have 20 concerned people here. So I mean I
think we should focus on the 20 concerned people, and some of them haven't seen sight lines and... These
people ought to be contacted and I think follow it up with either in small groups or individually. And their
concerns should be addressed but at the same time I mean you know, I think staff should be involved with
this so the proper information from our side gets out and people understand what our latitudes are and
aren't. As time goes on in this project because I mean I hope there's somebody not sitting out there with
the hope effectively as long as we keep saying no to everything we'll get what we want on that piece of
ground because ultimately if we keep saying no to something like this, which in my mind is a pretty
responsible and pretty I'm going to say, I'm going to say it's a better use than what could be there under a
lot of different circumstances that we couldn't say no to. I think people need to understand that and know
that because I think if we ended up at that point after saying no to everything else, everybody's going to
really be upset. But we'll all have nobody to thank but ourselves. And so I think that's important to kind
of be aired out and put out there on the table now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anita, as far as the four way stop, because this is a MSA route, I'm assuming
because it's an MSA street. It has to go through State or is that something that as you said we'll do the
warrants etc but.
Anita Benson: We could do based upon the traffic study, predicted traffic levels, we could do a warrant
analysis based on that but we would have to do a warrant analysis to install a stop sign.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: The project overall I think is really exciting, and all the comments that you've
made about the input that you've given the neighbors and the interaction that you've had with the
community in trying to get the right fit is much appreciated. You've spent a lot of time at that. I guess
again just, I don't want to repeat anything that Councilman Senn said but the three issues that I wrote down
being the parking, traffic and sight lines, keep coming back to how do we make those things as friendly to
the neighborhood as possible. But I'm not hearing we don't want the office building. The height's an
issue. We may not be able to address that with this particular project. I'm looking at the project and if
what I'm hearing is that the neighbors aren't opposed to it being an office complex if we can make the
traffic and the parking and the sight lines more compatible with their needs. Office is okay. You're not
directing us necessarily to your needing a retail neighborhood area. Okay. That's where I started from.
Was thinking that where the neighbors were coming from was that they wanted services closer by but if we
do that we add the significant amount of traffic. So there I'm definitely in favor of this office project
because it is meeting your needs if traffic is a major consideration. One of the questions I would throw out
to staff I would suppose is any kind of traffic management criteria that we can put on the developer that
within the last proposal it was noted under the alternative access section. One of the points was the
developer and site users shall promote and encourage traffic demand management strategies. If there's a
way for us to encourage car pooling. Encourage staggered shifts. I don't know what Northcott is actually
looking at as far as their shifts and what sort of flexibility they would actually have in using this facility. If
we're improving it for the neighborhood by maybe stretching those traffic periods out or not. That would
be one thing that we might be able to effect.
37
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Anita Benson: If I could address that in part. The traffic study does indicate that with the peak hour
traffic, the intersection is still operating of a level of service A, which is not bad at all. Certainly the
developer could encourage through the office building use of bus or transit for their workers but I don't
know that there's any way we can incorporate this in. I think in the other development it was a condition of
the PUD.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thanks. And I guess the sight lines being addressed one on one with the
neighbors and actually allowing for them to come out and maybe help with some tree placement. I can't
think of anything more neighbor friendly than that. If we can rally them at the time that you go to actually
do your placements. I guess those were the main issues as I was hearing them. I think it looks like a great
project. If we are looking to have office within this particular location, it's better to have it go maybe up,
not too dramatically but if they were to spread it out it becomes an even I think more monstrous thing to
look at if you spread it. And so I like the two story versus saying that we're going to cover more of the
property by trying to spread this out and cover more impervious surface, even though that's available. So
I'm in favor of the project.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Question on the acreage there. Is there a, and this may be out of bounds but I don't
know so I'm going to ask it. Is there a way to move more of the soil from the entire site closer to and
parallel to Lake Drive East to offer sort of a larger berm which would allow you to sink also the height of
the building and offer some sort of a gateway entrance through there. Some sort of a monument and
gateway entrance so as you're driving through you're actually going into a little I guess depression is what
you're going to create behind a berm, which would help the sight lines. I don't know, I'm just asking.
Tom Lander: We like to think we're doing that. But there are specific limitations as to what can be done
as far as the berming because of the fact that we have to keep the site level 20 feet back from the property
line. Because of the sight lines as you pull out into the intersection...that's a critical sight line for safety
reasons.., but it takes a large area to do that to keep the slopes very natural...
Councilman Engel: Who controls that by the way? Do we control that or does the State control that? Can
we provide variance from those sight lines or is that irresponsible?
Anita Benson: That would be irresponsible.
Councilman Engel: I knew you were going to say that. But I wanted to ask it anyway.
Mayor Mancino: Public safety wise.
Councilman Engel: Of course. I think it does bear repeating. Mark said it but, and Councilwoman Jansen
didn't want to be repetitive of it but it is important to note there's been some, in my opinion, hideous ideas
for that place that have gotten shot down. Thankfully. And you could get a two story retail building which
I think would be worse for you. You're going to get more traffic through there and this is just my
impression. First shot through here I may change my mind but my first impression when I look at this plan,
this is a pretty good one. It could be worse and I hate to say it's the lesser of two evils but god help us if
we put this thing down and 6 months later here comes the one you can't deny and you don't like it any, and
you like it worse. And I don't think this one's that bad. Just from what I see now. The tree locations
38
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
might be better served I think by pulling them closer to the building to break up the silhouette but keeping
more of the soil open and raising the building height, it could happen anyway and they could still cover a
lot of that soil. It could end up being a net loss on both that and the traffic. So I'm not opposed to this
thing under those conditions.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well, for a resident who used to live in your development, Brook Hill, and I moved
out just when the car dealership was coming in and that put me into a tizzy. If I still lived there, I wouldn't
mind having this there because as Mark said the lesser of both evils. But I'm concerned with Councilman
Senn's, I'm concerned about the sight line plan and seeing to it that the residents have a chance to see that.
I looked at the elevations here and look at the building and they said it goes to about 970. Is that correct?
So you're just below 1000 feet. And the berm in your back yards is approximately how big? Without the
fence.
Audience: ...
Councilman Labatt: You're down. Okay, but how big is that berm in the back yards of those homes just
on the south side of Lake Drive.
Mayor Mancino: Four feet? Four or five feet.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Pretty good size.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, it's a tall one. It's nearly 12.
Mayor Mancino: Oh you mean with the fence too?
Audience: ...
Councilman Labatt: So I don't know whether, I mean I'm not opposed to the project. But if the residents
have a chance to...berm that goes along here. So I'd like to see a four way stop sign too and the hours of
the business, it's generally going to be closed down 6:00 p.m. or so. So there won't be a lot of evening
traffic. Those are the comments I want to make.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll just finish up with a couple comments. First of all I think that the office is a
great use for this site, especially near the neighborhood. Of all the uses that I see in our ordinance, I think
it's one that works well with having a neighborhood so close. I mean again you only have two peak times
when there's traffic. There's no traffic at night. There's no traffic on the weekends and having people in
and out there. So as I look at some of the other uses, I think that this is again as Mark said, a win/win for
the neighbors. I really do. And also the aesthetic and the quality of the buildings I think are the best, will
be one of the best office buildings that we have in Chanhassen so I'm very, very pleased that way. Sight
lines, I think that the applicant again has stated and has met with neighbors already and will continue to
once they get it graded and has made that commitment to the neighbors in the neighborhood and I'm sure
would work with you. On that and it can certainly be a condition of approval how we want that to work.
Traffic studies. Our staff and the applicant have gone over them. A engineering firm has prepared them
39
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
and I'm certainly not an expert on that but everybody has reviewed it and felt comfortable with it and the
service level that will be on the street so I have to go along with that so I feel very comfortable in going
ahead with this recommendation and with the plan and going ahead and approving it as it is. So may I have
a motion please.
Councilman Engel: Move approval of site plan 99-3 and a variance from the one story height requirement
to permit a two story building for Northcott Company Office Building, Mortenson Development
Corporation as shown on the plans dated and received April 16, 1999 subject to the conditions of the
attached staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
Mayor Mancino: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Do we want a friendly amendment to add a point 32, to do the warrant analysis for
a four way stop sign? Do we need to add that to this? No? Okay.
Councilman Labatt: What about in number 3. Do we need to make the correction of parking stalls from
147 to 1557...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so if you'll accept the friendly amendment Councilman Engel on number 3. The
147 to 155 spaces.
Councilman Engel: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I'm still, at least myself, uncomfortable with not the fact that information is lacking but
that information is not understood. And I don't see it as a big negative to make sure that people do
understand that, and at least have an opportunity to then address remaining issues if there are any. Because
I sense that most of the issues right now being raised will be resolved with the proper information going
down and getting to people. But I think we kind of shortcut the process here a little bit by running
effectively to approval and leave a taste that that opportunity hasn't happen. Now I mean don't get me
wrong. I mean I understand we've had hearings. I understand it's gone through the Planning Commission.
It's gone through the Council and everything else but it always disturbs me when we get to this point and
you know there's still 20 people that you know are just uneasy with it or don't know something. And
especially in situations like this where like if they're given all the information I don't think they should be
and stuff. So I mean don't get me wrong, I think the conclusion's wrong but I think how we're getting
there should be a little extra time and I don't think we should be like I say, effectively rushing to approve it
and assume that's going to happen. We keep better control of the process by saying let's go do it and
come back in a couple of weeks. Then we make sure it happens versus just letting it go out of here and
assume that it will happen.
Councilman Engel: Well I'm prepared to withdraw and table for two weeks if everyone's comfortable
with that. I have no problem with that.
4O
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Well I think that we should ask the applicant about that too. Can the applicant address
that?
Tom Lander: This is a difficult position because obviously we'll wait two weeks if it's the difference
between getting positive support for the action or not getting positive support. The problem that we have is
we have been working actively with staff and the neighborhood to try to get these issues out on the table.
We would like to be able to proceed with the staff to refine the landscape drawings to meet these specific
needs but until we know that the site is approved for the office building as intended, we can't release and
start construction documents and it is critical that we get this building into construction this construction
season because frankly we haven't made provisions to carry it through winter construction. So as I say, if
that's the only way that we can make you comfortable, I guess rather than have it voted down, we ask it to
be tabled but if there's any way that you can see fit to have the building as it's drawn approved and limit
the approval to a review of the site plan with staff and the neighborhood, that would allow us to release the
working drawings and get started and then we can refine the landscape plans with city staff and the
neighborhood. That's what we would request and I think is a good faith effort to address the issues. Thank
you.
Councilman Engel: Think you can word a motion to pass by all counts there? Or give me an amendment
that would do it.
Councilwoman Jansen: If you just make it a condition, as he just said. Make it a condition of the approval
that the applicant and staff review with the.., their issues.
Councilman Senn: Well I just, you know here's what makes me uneasy. The lack of information can
sometimes mean that all the information isn't not only understood but may not be there. I think it should all
be on the table and they should understand it and be comfortable with it. And you can't kind of take that
back, and this is a simple site plan review, right?
Roger Knutson: And variance.
Councilman Senn: And variance, but I mean effectively once it's passed on, I mean you can't mm around
and put conditions on it later one way or the other, correct?
Roger Knutson: That's correct, although you can, if you saw fit, assuming they haven't started
construction in the next two weeks. You haven't done building plans, I assume they can't.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean that was kind of my assumption.
Roger Knutson: You could move in two weeks to reconsider your action if something occurred in that next
two week period. To bring it back to you. Move to reconsider.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We could do that. Then we could. Let's go ahead and do that and then do the, if
we need to reconsider, we'll do that in two weeks. Let's just, that works for you Tom?
Tom Lander: Well as I say, if people are uncomfortable enough that we have to come back in two weeks, I
would ask that we table it for two weeks. The issue is I can't release the architects to start drawing the
building if the building is in jeopardy.., wait two weeks to resolve issues. I was hoping that we could get
41
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
the building concept approved and resolve the landscaping and the site plan issues with city staff so that we
could release the architect to proceed. But as I say, if we can't, we can't.
Audience:...
Mayor Mancino: Planning Commission meeting.
Audience: ...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. We'll go back to the council. My only concern is that I think the
council feels pretty comfortable about where this is heading and I would hate to give.
Councilman Engel: False impression here.
Mayor Mancino: False impression that we're not comfortable where this is going and I feel very, very
much that way so that I could even pass it tonight. Now, do I want the neighbors and the residents to have
the full information, understand the traffic count and everything else? Absolutely. No question about it.
But do I feel comfortable with what they've come in front of us with and the two story? Yes because our
ordinance says that it just limits it to one story. It doesn't have how many feet so somebody could come in
with a one story building being 40 feet tall. And this is 28 feet on three sides so I just don't want to, I'm
concerned that I don't want you going away with false expectations. So I'd like to talk about that with
other council members.
Councilman Engel: I'm very concerned about the same thing. Very concerned about that.
Councilman Senn: I mean you know you come real close to summing it up basically by saying that
effectively the project that's before us tonight, given what we know, we're not going to have a better
project, okay. And we know that. Okay. And what I'm hearing at least.
Mayor Mancino: We've seen a lot of them come through here.
Councilman Senn: ... same thing, okay. But at the same time our level of understanding at this point is
elevated compared to everybody else's because we see this stuff all the time. We deal with it. We
understand the codes and ordinances so we understand what our choices are, etc. Okay. I think if there's
people that are still concerned once they understand that same thing, which is all I'm saying, I'd like them
to understand. Then I think they would be here with the same, this is the right project for the area. Okay.
I'm not talking about two more weeks to get more people involved or concerned. I'm talking about if
there's, you know the information needs to be out and needs to be understood and the choices need to be
understood and the ramifications need to be understood and then like I say, to me at the end you end up
with a, like I said earlier, the kind of the win/win. I mean I know. I mean it's a dynamic process so what
do you do?
Mayor Mancino: Well you can also give all the information and two people will have the same information
and they'll still come up with different conclusions so.
Councilman Senn: But at the same time after listening to the five of us talk, if I were the person doing this
development, I wouldn't stop for anything and I would keep going but without a whole lot of risk in my
mind but so I wouldn't let the two weeks bother me. But at the same time that at least leaves the avenue
42
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
open for the level of understanding to be heighten and for all the information to be understood. That's all
I'm saying.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Where were we with the motion? Roger, do you remember where we were?
Roger Knutson: Motion's made and seconded and Councilman Engel was talking about withdrawing the
motion or something.., so right now you have a motion made and seconded.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: With a friendly amendment on that one parking.
Councilman Engel: Yes, for the 155.
Mayor Mancino: The friendly amendment of the one parking. Okay. So I think we should go with that
motion right now and that is the standard motion to accept the recommendations that were in front of us
and with one change to the parking, correct? Okay. So that's, so we'll have a vote on that.
Councilman Engel: You know, Mark summed it up good at the end here. I think in the interest of
everybody involved here, knowing the full reality of where everybody stands on this. We know. You
know. The developer knows. I'm okay with withdrawing and move to table. I will do so now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, you'll second that withdrawing and move to table. Okay, so there is a move to
table this to our next meeting which won't come up till when? May 10th. IS that the second Monday in
May? Okay. All those, table it until May 10th.
Councilman Labatt: ...
Mayor Mancino: Pardon, what's the question?
Councilman Senn: ... is that three weeks out then or what?
Councilwoman Jansen: Two.
Councilman Senn: Oh it is, okay. Two.
Councilman Engel: Two Mondays.
Mayor Mancino: At our regular City Council meeting. So the motion is to table. It has been seconded.
Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table action on Site Plan/t99-3 until
May 10, 1999 and a variance request from a one story height requirement to permit a two story
building for Northcott Company Office Building by Mortenson Development Corporation. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
43
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: So we will see this in two weeks. Neighbors, please know that you do have a council
that is very supportive of the plan and that we just want to get the information out there. Have it
understood, etc. Let's also staff, I'm trying to figure out with that motion and with the discussion that
we've had, how to go forward and how to get the information out and that might be when Kate comes back
and you get a hold of Donna and maybe hold some neighborhood meetings with staff at City Hall. And let
us know when they'll be. I think that would be helpful.
Councilwoman Jansen: And maybe even put together some of the information that we're all comfortable
with that helps address these four bullet points that they've put out there as to traffic and.
Councilman Engel: Height.
Councilwoman Jansen: Height and all of those issues as to what the difference would be if this was retail
and what the other options end up being in height.
Mayor Mancino: Some talking points. Thank you.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. UPDATE ON PEG (PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, GOVERNMENT) ACCESS FACILITY.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions on PEG? Please go ahead Acting City Manager on these.
Todd Gerhardt: That would be the question I would have. Any questions from Council. I do not have any
further updates for you. Haven't heard back from Brian yet this week regarding his negotiations with
LMCC or Triax. If you have any questions regarding. Right now our playback where you'll see this
council meeting and planning commission meetings, that playback station is located in Mound in one of
their older school buildings. We have a small office in there and that's played back over the cable access
channel. And the school district has decided that that, keeping that school open is cost prohibitive for them
so they're closing it and have given us notice to vacate the premise. Our two options are to move into the
new LMCC building, which is located right behind the Minnetonka Mist in Spring Lake Park. Pardon?
Spring Park, sorry. And the second option is seeing if Triax would allow us playback capabilities at their
current facility in Mound. Again, without any studio space though. So if the council's main objective is to
do playback and that we'd have to work here in the near future to figure out studio space and providing
that, either somewhere here at City Hall, Rec Center, or contracting with LMCC and renting their facility.
So right now.
Mayor Mancino: So this is temporary?
Todd Gerhardt: Temporary.
Mayor Mancino: Great. Any comments or questions on that?
C. COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM LAYOUT.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff received bids from Metro Systems and Work Place 2000. Two of the options that
staffwas asked to get formal complete bids on were alternatives lA and B which are the same and Option
44
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
2. lA and B are the three 9 foot by 30 inch tables. Option 2B is the circular table with four sections. Low
bid in both cases are from Metro Systems with the three tables at $1,107.00 and the circular tables at
$1,969.00. And neither of the two would give us anything for a trade in with our current conference table.
Councilman Senn: But you'll build a new conference room downstairs and put it in it, right?
Todd Gerhardt: If that's a motion.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any comments on the tables? What we want to go with.
Councilman Senn: I assume we can go with the 9 x 30 table and the lowest bid.
Councilwoman Jansen: What are doing for chairs? For seating. If we're going to 14.
Councilman Senn: The analysis was we had plenty of chairs.
Todd Gerhardt: We may have to do some, just to get the color coordinating correct, we may need to do
some reupholstering of a few. Just to make sure.
Councilman Senn: ... and the purple together, come on.
Councilman Engel: Make them all bright yellow or something.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other comments?
Councilman Senn: Whether we go, my only comment would be, whether we're going with A or B, I think
you ought to trash the couches and get them out of the room. Otherwise you're not going to accomplish
what you want to accomplish.
Mayor Mancino: I can understand that. It's kind of nice, I mean the reason that we wanted to go with
tables was to have everybody coming up and being with each other at the tables and you know that kind of
forces us to be together and I think that's what we wanted to see there so. I don't know where else the
couches could go. Maybe they could go down here in the waiting room. When people are waiting to come
into City Council meetings or something but I kind of agree with that. Any other comments? Okay.
Councilman Labatt, any particular, I mean this is not. Let's not waste a lot of time.
Councilman Labatt: No, no.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: No comment.
Mayor Mancino: So everybody feels comfortable with the three 9 x 30's and go with the lowest, great. So
we can accomplish getting everybody up here together and talking. Good. Consensus is there.
Councilman Engel? Great.
D. CONSIDER SALARY ADJUSTMENT WHILE SERVING AS ACTING CITY MANAGER~
DECEMBER THROUGH APRIL.
45
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Let's see, consensus on 8(d). And this would be, I know that Todd also talked to our
new city manager who will be starting and went over this with him also. He was in agreement so any
questions on that?
Councilwoman Jansen: He was in agreement with granting the adjustment?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm just, I'm just curious. Noted at the bottom this has been a past practice
of the city. Have there been extended periods where someone has covered in an acting position?
Todd Gerhardt: Jerry Schlenk and Karen Engelhardt took the duties I think twice when the city was out
without a city manager. They shared the responsibilities of the administrative duties and the council at that
time had paid them for those extra responsibilities.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. With that in mind, is it only ever been with the city manager position? Are
we looking at needing, if we're going to do this, out of fairness, look at some of these other positions. I
don't know how we're, how are we handling Acting Building Official?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, the Acting Building Official has been promoted to the Building Official.
Councilwoman Jansen: When did that happen?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I was going to ask about that too.
Todd Gerhardt: Boy, I thought I informed you on that.
Mayor Mancino: I think there was a memo, a six month temporary. We got something on it.
Todd Gerhardt: Let me pull out what information went out on that but I'm sure I informed some people on
that.
Councilman Senn: Well he was put in on the job on an acting basis.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Councilman Senn: The newsletter implied he got it permanently.
Todd Gerhardt: If he met certain conditions in his employment letter.
Councilman Senn: Let's get back...
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, let's stick to this if we.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Everyone feel comfortable with this?
46
City Council Meeting - April 26, 1999
Councilman Engel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: With giving Todd more money?
Mayor Mancino: Okay, anything else under administrative section?
Councilman Senn: After you said I never go along with staff recommendations, are you kidding? Is that
your recommendation here?
Todd Gerhardt: That's my recommendation.
Councilman Senn: You said I should never go along with staff...
Todd Gerhardt: Well you should once in a while go along with staff recommendation.
Councilman Senn: ... you won't forget that you have to...
Todd Gerhardt: This is going right to the vet clinic anyway so.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for the update in here.
Todd Gerhardt: Well if you do the math, it's not a lot of money.
Councilman Labatt: After taxes.
Todd Gerhardt: After taxes, there's not a lot.
Councilman Labatt: It wasn't worth it?
Todd Gerhardt: It wasn't worth it. I want my hair back.
Mayor Mancino: In the administrative section .... for an upgrading on the trails. That was good to see all
these punch list things in writing. Y2K information. That's it. Any other questions on administrative?
Thank you.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47