Loading...
CC Minutes 1999 06 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Senn, Councilman Engel, Councilman Labatt, and Councilwoman Jansen COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Cindy Kirchoff, Anita Benson, Dave Hempel, and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Acting Mayor Senn: The consent agenda items tonight, are there any people present or applicants present who have items on the consent agenda who would like to have those items pulled for consideration under the regular agenda? One at a time and please come to the microphone. Bob Ayotte: Good evening Councilman Senn. My name is Bob Ayotte. I live at 6213 Cascade Pass. I'd like to have item l(a) pulled for discussion please. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, item l(a) will be pulled. Okay. Steve Slutner: My name is Steve Slutner representing Lynmore Subdivision and we would like that item pulled for discussion please. I'm sorry I'm not organized. I do not have an agenda in front of me. Acting Mayor Senn: It's l(e). Okay. Is that, now are either of these issues in relationship to issues you have with the staff on staff report? Steve Slutner: I would say our issues is just a couple minor clarifications that we want, with regards to outlot status. Acting Mayor Senn: Again, trying to save your time more than ours, there's two choices here. If you have things to work out with staff, we can simply table it at this point and you can go back and work those out with staff. Your other option is this will be moved to the end of the agenda, which means it will be at least several hours from now before we get back to this item. Steve Slutner: I think we'd prefer to stay on the agenda. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, you'd like to stay on and wait till the end? City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Steve Slutner: We feel it's just a couple items that we should be able to take care of this evening. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, that's fine. Your choice. No problem. Bob, what about you? Bob Ayotte: I pulled some of our neighbors out to discuss it this evening so we'd like to pull it and have a discussion this evening if we may with council. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Okay, so those, let's see here. Items l(a) and l(e) will be pulled at the request of the audience and/or applicant. Are there any items that council people wish to have removed from the consent agenda? Councilwoman Jansen: If we could remove l(f). Councilman Engel: We're not pulling it, we're removing it? Councilwoman Jansen: Removing it. Acting Mayor Senn: Remove it from the agenda, okay. Okay, so with those being removed then, could we have a motion to approve the consent agenda with the remaining items. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #99-51: Award of Bid for Stone Creek Drive Street and Utility Improvements, Project 98-15. c. Approve TH 7/41 Intersection Improvements Project, PW067D-4. g. Approve Easement Agreements; Lake Drive West Street and Utility Improvements, Project 98-16. h. Approval of Bills. i. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 1, 1999 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 14, 1999 -City Council Minutes dated June 14, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1999 j. Resolution #99-52: Approval of Gambling Permit for Chanhassen American Legion Club. k. Resolution #99-53; Approval of 1998 Transfers and Fund Closings as amended. 1. Resolution #99-54: Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Second and Final Reading. m. Resolution #99-55: Approve Resolution Exercising Local Levy Option, 2000 Transit Services. City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING REQUEST EVALUATION ON LAKE LUCY ROAD~ PROJECT 97-5. Public Present: Name Address Sue & Larry Many Stephen Kerkvliet 2117 Lake Lucy Road 2201 Lake Lucy Road Anita Benson: Chanhassen City Council directed the engineering department to perform a warrants analysis for the intersection of Manchester Drive and Lake Lucy Road to evaluate the need for a four way stop at this location and to provide council with a rationale for the double yellow line on Lake Lucy Road. This item was discussed at the June 14, 1999 City Council meeting. However, due to requests for additional information, the item was tabled. Additional information requested is the impact of installing unwarranted signage as it affects the municipal state aid status of Lake Lucy Road. Traffic count numbers for peak traffic volumes is provided and the public safety department performed a speed study on Lake Lucy Road in the area of Manchester Drive. In conversations I've had with MnDOT staff and the Metro Division State Aid Department, I've been informed that regulation of installation of signs on existing state aid routes is not performed due to lack of adequate personnel. However, if a complaint is received by the State Aid division of the installation of inappropriate signage on a state aid route, they would request that the signage be removed. Additionally MnDOT will assume no liability associated with inappropriate signage installed on municipal state aid routes. I've attached in your packets language from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169 which outlines the local jurisdictions responsibility. Peak traffic volumes are included in the report for Wednesday, April 28th through Friday, April 30, 1999 when the engineering department performed these counts. The correction to the dates listed in the memo presented at the June 14th meeting. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so essentially we have the information in front of us we asked for. The primary question we asked was do we have a say over basically the signage and we've got the answer back on that. Is there any additional council discussion on this information? Does council want to make a motion or? Councilwoman Jansen: So based on this information, you've already had the public hearing as far as taking any input? Acting Mayor Senn: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Acting Mayor Senn: We took the input at the last meeting and these were the items that effectively were questions that needed to be dealt with or responded to before we were going to take an action on it. City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I guess as far as making any comments, with Anita having gotten back to us with this information. The conversation that we just had briefly in the work session, just to share it with the residents, was a question of whether or not we can even enforce the stop sign. We would not be able to do that and so the purpose of putting the stop sign is relatively ineffective. If we provide the increase in speed enforcement. We now have the crosswalk in place and really monitored at this point it would seem to all of us, and again add comment that we can't really enforce the stop sign as requested in that it is against municipal state aid guidelines as presented by staff. I guess I would just add that so that conversation is on the record. Acting Mayor Senn: Any other comments? Councilman Labatt: No. Linda has the same as I had. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay if not, could I have a motion please? Councilman Labatt: I make a motion to, according to staff's recommendation of May 7th memo. Attached on the back. Right before the map. Reinstall the double yellow line. The crosswalk's been installed, and the public safety department to increase enforcement of the 30 mph speed limit on the road. Councilwoman Jansen: I'd second. Acting Mayor Senn: Discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council make the following recommendations for Lake Lucy Road: The double yellow no passing zone striping be reinstalled along Lake Lucy Road shifting it to the north to provide the 8 foot parking lane and 12 foot driving lanes. A crosswalk be installed on the east side of the intersection to provide pedestrian access to the trail on the north side of Lake Lucy Road. 3. The Public Safety Department provide enforcement of the 30 mph speed limit on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR OFFICES AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS PERMITTED USES AND TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY; LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN COURT; 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 8026 Erie Avenue City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Dan Lorinser Jim Murphy P. Benjamin Gordy Nagel Brad Johnson Jim Sulerud Steve Nornes Randy Koepsell Dawn & Les Dahlberg Bill & Pamela Franzen Rod Franks Chris Anderson Mark Spangrud Melanie Wegner Ronald J. & Elaine A. Larson Josh Nelson Sue McCarthy Sherol Howard Jean Mansini Dick & Pat Hamblin Paul Nicolai Tom & Kay Faust Karen Klinsing Brian Steckling Dennis Rakoer Dave Cameron Tim & Adell Glaser David Stason Shari Lindsey Greg Gmiterko Carol Watson 8020 Erie Avenue 8021 Hidden Court 7231 Minnewashta Parkway 514 Del Rio Drive 7425 Frontier Trail 730 Vogelsberg Trail 1451 Heron Drive 1110 Dove Court 1165 Wildwood Way 2370 Stone Creek Lane West 8694 Mary Jane Circle 16886 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie 7487 Bent Bow Trail 8727 Flamingo Drive Waconia 566 Kassel Lane, Chaska 8001 Hidden Court 820 Santa Vera Drive 820 Santa Vera Drive 340 Sinnen Circle 8051 Hidden Circle 541 Mission Hills 8090 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Court 7250 Greenridge Drive 8161 Hidden Court 8140 Hidden Court 250 Kirsten Lane 250 Hidden Court 8121 Hidden Court 7131 Utica Lane Acting Mayor Senn: On this item there have already been one public hearing before the Planning Commission. There's also been a public hearing before the council. The public hearing has been closed. We will allow some brief comment tonight on this item once the staff report is complete. However, that comment will be limited to about 3 minutes per person and will be limited in total to about a half hour at most. And then we will be going on. We have a very full agenda tonight and a lot of items for consideration so we'll do the best we can on that. Let's see here, let's start with staff report please. Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you. This item was reviewed and tabled by the City Council on the June 14th city council meeting to request information to further clarification on several issues. Namely the definition of assisted living facilities. The traffic that is generated by church and the secondary uses, among other issues. The applicant has provided a definition of assisted living facilities and that is located in the staff report in Attachment # 13. They also have supplied traffic estimates for the church uses and secondary uses and that is also located in Attachment # 12. And their information indicates that the estimate would generate more traffic than an office use and staff has compiled a table of the proposed uses for this site, church, office, residential and assisted living and that is located in Table 2 of the staff report. Staff would be happy to answer any questions about that table if you have any. Since the last meeting the applicant has City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 supplied, or has indicated that they have a third requested use and that is an office residential mix. Essentially what they would like is 2 one story office buildings on the northern portion of the site and medium density residential on the southern portion of the site. This mix does offer a transition between the single family homes to the south and the proposed office to the north. Staff does support this use basically because it is a transition and their other use, which was mentioned at the last meeting is an assisted living facility. Staff does support this use because again it offers a good transition. The applicant has indicated they would like another use. A office use which would be up to 25,000 square feet of office and staff does not feel this is compatible with the single family residential to the east and the south. When considering these uses the city council could consider the assisted living facility and the office residential mix as a conditional use and the church as a permitted use under this PUD. The applicant has revised the development standards and based on the staff recommendations from the City Council meeting. However, based on the new proposal the office residential mix, staff has revised the standards. Most importantly the landscaping requirements. Staff would like the buffering to be increased to Buffer Yard C. This is required by ordinance between a residential and a mixed use development. And also staff would like to see the buffer yard maintain a 20 foot width around the perimeter of the site. Staff does recommend approval of a church, assisted living facility and office in conjunction with the medium density residential on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. And also a change in land use plan from public, semi-public to mixed use. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: I want to add one other thing. Again the objective tonight is to look at the land uses. We'd have to, this is the first reading. A rezoning takes a second reading and we could come back, whichever direction the council goes. If you need that, we would come back with the specific PUD ordinance at your second reading. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Just so the audience understands on this one. Parliamentary procedure wise so to speak, this is first reading tonight. First reading just simply requires a simple majority to go to the second reading. But once it gets to a second reading, this particular item will require a 4/5 vote to pass, regardless of how it's passed. So just to clarify that for everyone. Let's start first if we could. Are there any questions from council on staff's report and staff's updated recommendations? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I just pose one question and that being within the recommendation. On the assisted living, are we adding to that, that it specifically be senior assisted living versus it just being an open ended assisted living? Kate Aanenson: Yes, I think looking at the senior. Councilwoman Jansen: That it being senior. Acting Mayor Senn: That's basically guidance the council would have to give staff tonight as it relates to the final action, correct. Councilwoman Jansen: I think they meant to put it within the recommendation which was why I was asking. Kate Aanenson: Well we just left it assisted living. That was your direction at the time. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, they're looking to Council for direction on that. City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was it. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel: Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt: Councilman Engel? Nothing yet. Councilman Labatt? On Attachment #6. Amendment to existing PUD. Under the residential. Under residential A. Assisted living density of not to exceed 60 units and a maximum size of 500 square feet per unit. What potential could be the minimum square footage? Kate Aanenson: Well if you look in the surveys that we have, the neighbors had put together, there was a range of some of the surrounding communities. Councilman Labatt: Right. That's what I'm basing my question on. Kate Aanenson: 400 to 750 1 guess we kind of looked at the average in that. That was the applicant's desire. The 500 square feet. Councilman Labatt: That's their desire for a maximum. Kate Aanenson: Right, but I think we may want to put a minimum. 350 at least. Councilman Labatt: Your recommendation. Kate Aanenson: At least a 350 minimum. Councilman Labatt: That's all I had for right now I think. I'll find some more here. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Alright, so no other questions from council? Councilwoman Jansen: Not at this time. Acting Mayor Senn: We'll open it up for public comment on staff's recommendation of staff's report. Please limit your comments to new information. We've already had two hearings on this. We do not need to repeat old information and your comments need to be confined to 3 minutes. So is there anybody here who would like to offer comment on this item? Jim Sulerud: My name is Jim Sulerud. I'm with the Building Committee at Family of Christ. We earlier decided amongst ourselves that we're not going to have multiple presentations and so I would indulge you for a couple more minutes beyond the 3 minutes and we'll respond to questions on the issues that you might raise. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, try to limit your remarks if you can, as close to 3 minutes and then we'll go to questions anyway. City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Jim Sulerud: Okay. Our theme on May 10 was changed and our theme tonight is compromise. We thank the staff and the council for their patience in the past and for their diligent pursuit of a mutually doable and community compatible solution. Thanks also to the neighbors for their input in our zoning process. Usually zoning and rezonings are barraged by citizens who want to exercise their own control over a neighbor's property for their own benefit. Here however we appreciate the input that these neighbors have offered towards this compromise solution. That recognizes not only their interest but also the interest of the whole community. As the applicant our role is to be the presenter. While some time ago we started out with a somewhat different proposal. We're now before you with an application that represents not only our interests and ideas, but the interests and ideas of many. The proposal is a composite of compromises resulting from weeks, months, and even years of listening, fact finding and deliberation, formulation and reformulation. So while we now appear as the advocate of the proposal before you, you have seen in your materials that there is also, that this is also the same as the staff recommendation. And I'm moving on here. Earlier tonight you did approve in the consent agenda the construction of Stone Creek Drive, which is the drive that goes by our new church facility. So the church has been moving on in it's move toward it's new facility. A full seven years ago this congregation began the analysis for our decision to sell. After being unable to secure a purchase offer from any church, about a year ago we began discussions with the city staff for this rezoning solution. And only this last year did we retain Lotus Realty when it was our recognition that we'd exhausted the possibility of our sale to another church in the foreseeable future or by any time line that would not dramatically hamper our ability to serve our current members and welcome the new folks wanting to join. We were fully expecting that one of the variety of congregations in this area, all with whom we had made contact and that are worshipping in temporary quarters, would see our facility as a similar stepping stone for their growth as a congregation. We met with the neighbors individually, collectively. Sometimes in their setting. Sometimes at our church and over the phone. They were very helpful to us in thinking through our zoning issues. The question was, if not our church, then what? Land screening and berming would respect the neighbors desire for visual and sound privacy. Proposed uses and design standards that would not reach as high as the permitted 40 feet of a sanctuary or church gymnasium also respond to the neighbors desire for a diminished visual impact. Similarly a use that would not have such an aggressive build out as our own church future plan would provide for a neighbor, provide for the neighbors a development of a more neighborhood scale. Low intensity uses would respect the neighbors desire for moderate to low income traffic volumes and directing non-residential traffic only to Lake Drive East would reflect it's collector status and not reroute traffic to the residential street. We backed down from many of what we initially considered office institutional. We looked at high density residential that was early permitted, or was early guided for the site. We looked at many of the uses within office institutional and backed out of many of those as considerations. We settled on a recommendation that we made before you, before for you. Only three uses. Church, office, and a narrow slice of the residential market that was assisted living. That led to our meeting on May 10 when you listened to us. We listened to you, and we all listened to the neighbors. This parcel has served our church well for a particular period of our history and could have served, similarly served another congregation at that same location at that same time period. However, this site has not yet been found to match up with the present circumstance or for future plans of any other congregation. The site was our appropriate choice at that time considering MUSA, roads, and available land for sale. It is not a site that is appropriate for the presently known circumstances of any church today, yet it continues to be our priority to sell it to a church. Similarly, we do not have in hand a proposing for assisted living. We're experiencing some hesitancy due to site configuration. Therefore we've come up with a proposal that you see on the table here which is a compromise directed from the council to work with staff and it's for the mixed use. This is in addition to our request for the, still for the church and assisted living. You've seen and heard the recommendations of the staff. We see this as a compromise position for the church. It is an important part of this whole process. Compromise process. The church concurs in the recommendation set forth by the staff in the City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 recommended motions and design standards with one exception. In design standard, on page 4, number 7 where it indicates no access to Hidden Court. The proposal obviously for the residential use anticipates that there would be access to that site. Otherwise we, in the mode of compromise accept the other suggestions from the staff. Even though we in the city have responded to the objectively stated concerns of the neighbors and others with descriptions that are appropriate to this formal planning process, we do not mean to imply that every single neighbor or every single member of our congregation is supportive of this proposal or compromise. In fact the disappointment of some who wish for no change is a disappointment that compromise cannot satisfy. So with all of this information behind us... private and institutional interest, what is it that stands out for me as the clearest indication that we are right on the, that we are at the right time and have the right, appropriate uses in place. The staff report highlights that if the city looks at this site as a bare piece of land today, one would be led not to siting of a church, a church school, a church gymnasium and related services, activities and offices, but one would most likely be led to what we're asked, what we were asked by staff to consider and that's the mixed use as you see before you tonight. A stepping and a transition from single family residential to the nearby larger office by way of medium density residential and small, low profile office. It's the right thing to do in the absence of the parochial issues and it's the right thing to do after the public process we've all been through. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Since Mr. Sulerud offered to be the only speaker from the church, if there's other people here advocating the church's position, if you'd please stand. And if any of you would like to come up to the microphone and give your name and address to enter it into the record, that be fair. If you want to do that. If you don't, we see that you're here. Audience: Does signing the paper also enter the name into the record? Acting Mayor Senn: Yes it does. Okay, thank you. Okay is there, I hate to break things down this way but I'm trying to be efficient so. Sue McCarthy: I'm Sue McCarthy, 8001 Hidden Court and I represent the neighborhood I guess if you want to put it in that respect. We also took a vote and we felt that it was easier if one person spoke so I will try to be concise because a lot of this has already been put into print through e-mails, letters and reports but there's certain things that I want to stress because things have changed since the last council meeting and I want to make sure that we address them publicly. First of all I want to say thanks. For all of your efforts. For listening to us and answering our questions. On weekends, Sundays, etc. I also want to thank city staff for going above and beyond in supplying us with copies of more zoning regulations than I ever care to see again so one of the things we really want to put forth tonight is that our focus is on... Chanhassen City Code. That a PUD should provide a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than the use of standard zoning districts and development which is consistent with a comprehensive plan and that's City Code 20-501. With that in mind we have come up with a list of comments and recommendations on this proposal because that is our goal. We want to make sure that the PUD does have substantially higher quality than any other type of zoning because that's the whole definition of why a PUD exists. Number one, we are in favor of this property retaining to be a church. That has been said over and over again. I don't think you need to hear that in much more detail, except that I think probably the most important point is that the residents really bought their property with that aspect in mind because they liked the feeling of church, and that's just an unbelievable statement. Number two. We are opposed to the office use only which amounts to spot zoning. In that sense we are in agreement with what the city staff has come forth in their report regarding the use of office only as a permitted use on this PUD. Basically it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan for Chanhassen. It was never anticipated to be part of this PUD and as several people have cited as an example of why it City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 should be, we don't think that the Northcott Office Building on the north side of Lake Drive is an appropriate example as to why we should continue to increase having an office use only in our neighborhood. Number three. Third use. The mixed office residential. We feel that that is problematic for this particular site. This is, as it was proposed to us in this concept plan that you have just seen, we feel that the density is too great to allow for proper buffering with the neighborhood. For example on the concept plan that we saw there is no buffering or berms. They have been deleted. An entrance has been added to Hidden Court, which was not currently discussed with the neighborhood. And we believe that there should be compliance of this particular example with the city codes as it relates to high density and medium density housing. Actually medium density housing for half of it. We feel that the combination makes townhomes too compacted on the amount of land that has been attributed to them and we feel that this will be less desirable to potential buyers on the market. We are concerned with the access to Hidden Court because we do feel that will create traffic problems on Hidden Court. Not even to begin to address the type of concerns that will increase on the Lake Drive intersection with Hidden Court. That's another whole story, especially with Northcott going in this year. Two smaller office buildings are not better than one. We cite the example in Eden Prairie near the SuperAmerica. We are very concerned that our neighborhood does not become like that, which is a small clustering of medical office buildings that have grown and grown in size and it's very unsightly in how it's being put together. We also are probably one of our major concerns and why we want to make sure that this is in public record, is that this is a last minute change and it has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and therefore has not followed proper procedures and processes within our town codes. We're very concerned by that. But we're also concerned that a vote is taken so we just want to publicly say we want to go ahead with it tonight but we don't appreciate the fact that this has not gone through the Planning Commission, as any other particular property would have to go if it was in this state. Number four, assisted living. We feel that assisted living may be compatible under certain conditions. If it is determined that one, there is a market need within Chanhassen and number two, which is probably even more important, that this is the best possible site within Chanhassen for assisted living. Today there is a loose definition as Steve pointed out on what assisted living is. And therefore leaves for appropriate development in question. There is no minimum size defined. Only a maximum. There is no definition on how much percentage of common area should be included. There is also no evidence of market need presented by the applicant as to why assisted living is needed in Chanhassen. The proposed density is too great for this site and overpowers housing based on the plan that's put forth today. The proposed density is 60 units by 500 square feet maximum per unit. Plus 40% common space for a total of 42,000 square footage. This is twice as large as what the church's original site plan, which was approved by the city of about 25,000 feet was planned to be. What do we recommend? As you've heard office we oppose. Mixed office, medium density we oppose. Trying to keep this quickly. Assisted living we opposed but with the following recommendations. One, density. Limit it to 12 units per acre which is approximately 44 units at a maximum 500 square feet per unit to keep with the consistent city code 2671 regarding high density residential standards. Or limit the total square footage to 25,000 square feet, which is part of the original church site plan, which has already been approved. Unit size. Make sure that there is a minimum unit size of no less than 350 square feet, or 70% of the minimum square footage established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for a one bedroom apartment. Why is that important? Because you don't want nursing home rooms and it's very important that we see that actually articulated. We're concerned about building height. Limit it to two stories and versus what the city staff says, it should be two stories and 40 feet, consistent with residential building heights. Not or 40 feet. Setbacks. Increase side lot setbacks abutting housing to 50 feet... Increase setbacks from Hidden Court equal to the building height which is 40 feet, which is the distance from streets suggested by the PUD standards. City Code 20-505(f). Buffer yards. Require Buffer Yard D with primarily or at least approximately 80% conifers landscaping for good year round buffering where the applicant provides 100% of the landscape materials. Again, citing City Code 20-505(m). Market needs. 10 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 There should be a moratorium on development until independent market feasibility studies show evidence of market need and this isn't in compliance with what the Minnesota Department of Health and Alliances said in the fact that they feel this market may be over saturated. Regulation. In order to ensure that the public health and safety require that the State registration of housing with services establishment, quote unquote, and any necessary state home healthcare license obtained be assisted living home health care licensing. And that is to make sure that it does not become a health care agency for the rest of the city. It is just for that particular building. And finally that the monument sign should be limited to 15 square feet located on Lake Drive only. In conclusion, we feel that we want to make sure that we continue to fall within the city code for PUD's as it relates to this particular proposal and again thank you for your time. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Like with the church side, who else is here from the neighborhood? If you'd like to stand. And additionally if, I assume you've all signed in. If you haven't, please sign in and we'll have your names as part of the record. Thank you. Okay we'll bring it back to council for discussion. If we could let's try to maybe break the discussion down into, let's call it two phases because I think it will be a lot more understandable to everybody if we do. First phase of discussion would be over what council feels should be from an overall framework standpoint permitted uses versus non permitted uses versus conditional uses. Just so people in the audience may understand. We do have a vehicle available to us which is called conditional use which means we basically say that that type of use is okay in that zone. But it has to come back to council with a specific plan and everything in the future at which the council can put very specific parameters and requirements on at that time. I think that's an accurate explanation... I don't try to say it like Roger does. Roger Knutson: You did just fine. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so let's deal with that first and then the second part of discussion we'll go to after that would be discussion of particular, depending on what happens in the first one basically then discussion of particular parameters as it would relate to any of those permitted or conditional items. So let's start from there. Councilperson Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess first of all thank you to everyone for bearing with the process. Staff as well as the neighborhood and all the work that you've put into this and the church. It's certainly been a long process. Looking at the proposal as it stands before us, I guess I keep coming back to the original premise for why all of this was being considered in the original guidelines that were posed to us for considering a rezoning. And I'll just read those right from the original staff report that we were given. And in there it's noted, in order to justify the amendment to the PUD and comprehensive plan it must be shown that the parcel has not been given special treatment. The changes are for the benefit of the entire community and the action complies with the comprehensive plan. If the action or request does not meet the three criteria, it can be deemed a spot zoning. Spot zoning is zoning for a lot or parcel of land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with surrounding land uses and that does not further the comprehensive plan. So in trying to apply that condition for being able to consider a rezoning, I certainly applied it the first time through to the senior assisted living concept in that we have identified even within our strategic plan that that is a housing need that as a community we have scheduled for next year to do a feasibility study. So that's an identified and I certainly think then it fits the criteria as far as the whole rezoning concept, though I would go to the next step to say we would definitely have to get very specific with the guidelines and that is what we're hearing staff say we can do as far as trying to guide that to what we need. I keep falling back to wanting a feasibility study to be able to make sure that we are doing those guidelines properly but there's been some conversation over whether we can generally approach those guidelines and still protect the interest of the city and we're trying not to give up the controls that we really need of this property because 11 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 we do need to protect the interests of the city and without a site plan and without a specific proposal for this property, we're a little out of control on it so that's where that second reading would come in as far as being able to put any specific parameters around it. Where I'm having some difficulty is on the new proposal for the office/medium density. How does that fit under the rezoning guidelines. I haven't heard that addressed as a specific need within the community beyond what our comprehensive plan has designated as far as land uses. That availability is out there so as we're discussing this, if we could maybe have that conversation and I'd like to hear maybe other comments as to how this rezoning serves the best interest of the entire community if we're truly sitting back and looking at the big picture and what we're trying to accomplish with the rezoning. Like I said, I can certainly see how we can apply that guideline to the assisted living and to that need but have we identified that we have a shortage of office and medium density locations? And I guess at this point that's the crux of where I am at looking at this and again really feeling like it's ambiguous at this point to be committing to a rezoning and leaving that open to definition at a later date. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilperson Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I think some of the questions I raised up earlier. The assisted living. The size of minimum square footage for the units. I had a question for Kate real quick. On Attachment #7 under permitted offices. Pull up 15,000 square feet on the southern portion of the site is improved with blank or 12 is X'd out. So is it going to be 12 or 12 is slashed out. What number should be in there? Cindy Kirchoff: Actually we'd rather go on the density. That it meet the medium density requirements of 4 to 8 units per acre rather than specifying a certain number. So you just have to meet the medium density requirements. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then the follow up question is, what's the amount of acreage for the southern site? Cindy Kirchoff: They haven't subdivided the property. We're just saying that if it is subdivided, that site could only accommodate medium density residential and that's 4 to 8 units per acre. Kate Aanenson: ... line up to then. What we're saying is this would be... density. Wherever that line falls and how they lay it out. Councilman Labatt: Let's see office zoning in conjunction with the medium density housing and typically what type of businesses would be incorporated? Kate Aanenson: That was one of the instruments. Councilman Labatt: I have so many attachments. Kate Aanenson: Number 4. Office institutional .... business, administrative office. Based on our current codes... That is a broader term and that's.., administrative office and general business office. That's an issue that was raised, or if you had a medical office expanded and a wide range in there of one that's more.., as opposed to one that might have more extended hours. That was one of our concerns in looking... shorten that list. Councilman Labatt: But we could shorten the list to. 12 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: You directed us to say specifically non... Councilman Labatt: 8:00 to 4:30. Kate Aanenson: Well that's hard to say something like that but again there's certain uses that have different hours. Roger Knutson: You'd exclude all offices if you did that. Councilman Labatt: So 10:00 to 2:00 or something like that. Kate Aanenson: ... we could address or mitigate those impacts by saying the traffic will not be... and some of the hours of operation. Those are the conditions that were attached to mitigate. What we're looking at is you don't want a use that might be more like 24 hours which would definitely be in conflict with the neighborhood. That's where you can attach conditions that would, if they impact noise, lighting, that sort of thing. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then, I suppose it's too early to talk about the medium density housing as far as market value. Kate Aanenson: As planners we can address that issue. I guess we just looked at straight rental. We asked whether they'd be owner occupied or rental units. Again the zoning ordinance doesn't address that. We just look at unit, per unit basis. Acreage. We did ask the neighborhood to look at different types of products that are out in the city right now. Whether they're zero lot line. I guess that's something, smaller lots with attached. There's different products out there with different densities. Even within 6 units per acre such as North Bay, those are detached products so there's different things out there. I guess what we asked them to look at was some of the height consideration and materials. I guess that's how we would like to see it in institution. That was an issue. Kind of... Something like north, Walnut Grove. Again, the Craftsman Homes. And that's a detached type product and that's close to 6 units per acre. I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't have to be a detached product. It can be a medium density. Councilman Labatt: And then as far as assisted living. I'm pretty much with Linda on that. I'm fine with that. As long as we're, kind of to find where we're senior assisted living. Minimum 350. Maximum 500. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Well I'm not going to try to give a mind dump on everything I've thought of about this thing but the assisted living is almost a no brainer. It's good for the community. I can see that for the same reasons that Councilperson Jansen stated. So I won't develop that thought any farther. I have a little more trouble with the office and medium density residential because it doesn't meet the standard or the legalese of the guidelines for a zoning change but I'm less concerned about the legalese than I am a compromise solution. And if a compromise solution's better than legalese, then heck with the legalese. And I live near office and townhomes and if they're market rate, you'd be surprised how attractive and expensive they can be. I found them to be pretty good neighbors so I don't have a problem with it from that standpoint. Under the condition that a conditional use permit can be attached which we've discussed that helps to meet all the concerns of the neighbors and the McCarthys put together a very good packet on those concerns and that's a part of the form so. If we could work out the CUP's, if I've got my acronyms 13 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 correct. Conditional Use Permit as part of the PUD, if we get to that point, I would like to see all the concerns they had addressed in the conditional use permits and conceptually I'm not opposed to the rezoning if we can meet all those requirements. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's see from my perspective the church use would be fine as a permitted use and the assisted living as well as office residential would be fine as far as I'm concerned as conditional uses. But have very specific parameters attached to them. To the point that we would go to the second phase or to a site plan review. So with that could we maybe have a motion on the first element of this which would be to outline what would be permitted and non permitted and conditional uses. Councilman Engel: I'm not quite sure that, can we break this up into two votes? Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, because the second part will be direction basically to staff and to the city attorney as far as drafting the actual document for second reading. Scott Botcher: Do you want to vote on the uses separately though Mark? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Engel: I'm questioning if we're going to vote conceptually on the rezone and then move to the basis of the CUP, the conditional use permits. Acting Mayor Senn: What I'm trying to get to is if we just do it as a permitted use then there's no real further discussion needed on parameters. If we do it as a conditional use, there is. If we do it as a non permitted use, again there isn't so it's just kind of break it to a point that we know what we need to discuss further on. And I don't think that's a problem as far as the action, is it Roger or is it? Roger Knutson: If you do it that way or maybe what you'd like to do is, assuming, I hate to put words in. If there's a consensus that the church will be a permitted use, assisted living of some form would be a CUP within the PUD and office medium density would be a CUP within a PUD. If that's the consensus then you might want to just start going through for the assisted living and the office/medium density with directions to staff and at that point just pass it on for second reading and tell us to draft a document in accordance with your instructions. Scott Botcher: The only thing I might give caution for you all to think about is that while I think all of us have been supportive of the church use, I think and I think Kate's probably the one who brought this up to me first. Everyone is, I shouldn't say this. There's an assumption out there that the church use is peaceful, quiet, whatever else. The approved plan for this church when fully built out are not unsubstantial. So, and I think this was said at the last meeting I was at where they talked about change and what happens if the church has to stay here and what are ultimately the choices that all of us face. The ultimate build out for this church is going to have impact on the property in the neighborhood as well. That being said, you may want to give some thought to making a church use a conditional use within this zone if that passes muster with Roger. I mean if we talk about, we talked about traffic standards not less than Level C, D, whatever you want to pick. A church use at specific times certainly can impact traffic standards, ambient lighting standards and noise standards, whatever else to certain levels that you may find acceptable. Unacceptable, I'm sorry. It's just a thought. I'm not bent out of shape about it. Acting Mayor Senn: Those are good points but I think... Roger Knutson: Say what's there is permitted and expansion is a conditional use. 14 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Scott Botcher: Or a change in the function. Acting Mayor Senn: Increase in density or increase. Scott Botcher: Or you know what if the church wants to get more into the education business? What does that mean in terms of traffic patterns and time of day business standards, that sort of stuff so I don't think, I mean I'm unaware of any complaints we've had about the operation of the church to date. These folks you know they don't want to be in the church business at this site. We may have a whole other congregation at that site that may not be as responsive to staff as these folks have been, and you know if you're at this point now, now is when you really have the opportunity to place some conditions on there. Roger Knutson: As far as the existing church, I mean you could say permitted church is the church, the footprint that's there today. If that's what you wanted. If you want to expand it, if you want to do this, change functions inside, then you need a CUP. But what you have there today you can keep if you don't change it. So then any changes, your condition is must remain is or get a CUP. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's go back to if there wasn't any proposal before us other than an expansion of the existing church. Under this PUD. Is that something that we have governance over or not? Roger Knutson: Yes, you could require them to get a CUP to expand the church. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, you could do the CUP to every use except the existing use. Councilman Engel: Right, any expansion. Roger Knutson: You wouldn't want to give a CUP to the existing church. Scott Botcher: I personally don't. Could you? Roger Knutson: Yes you could. Scott Botcher: I think you probably could but I don't think it serves any function at this point. Acting Mayor Senn: So what's the consensus of council? Do we have a consensus on this as far as use of the CUP vehicle and maybe looking at that method to go to the next step? Councilman Engel: Councilman Labatt: I would support that. I would. Councilwoman Jansen: Meaning for the church? Councilman Engel: Everything. Acting Mayor Senn: Everything. 15 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel: Any expansion should be subject to a conditional use permit so we can bring it back and put any kind of conditions on it that the groups might want. Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if you're going to actually call for a vote on this. I would be fine with that on the church as a conditional use. And the senior assisted living as a conditional use only. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: If you'd like me to phrase that as a motion I could do that. Acting Mayor Senn: Well in that we have consensus from 3 out of 4 basically for the, for all the conditional use permits why don't we just jump to the next level of discussion and take on the issue of what or specific parameters we want to give direction or see staff and council address as it relates to going forward on this. So if we could do that, okay? Councilperson Labatt. Councilman Labatt: With the assisted living, obviously I'd like to attach a condition of minimum square footage of 350 square feet per unit. Okay, with the square footage of 350 minimum and maximum, I'm fine with the staff report of 500. Do we need to get as specific as each unit has it's own bathroom or? Scott Botcher: Let me take a shot at this. Do you guys want us to take a run at putting this, these conditions together? Councilman Engel: I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. Scott Botcher: I'll be candid and I know some, most of you weren't at the work session, haven't been at the staff meetings but, and Roger is probably aware of this. I'm the one who's been pushing as hard as anybody else for maintaining as much control on the city's part as ever and the folks at Lutheran Brotherhood and such probably aren't going to like to hear that but my line is so sue me. We represent the citizens and they can just sue me if they don't like it. But I think that for you guys to really reach a consensus on the infinite numbers of conditions that you could possibly come up with, you know if for expediency sake, you know give us the hot ones maybe Mark and let us flush out a balance of an outline Kate I think is a very good point. Kate Aanenson: ... got the neighbors is a very good point. I think there's a lot of concurrence... We'd like to take a stab at drafting that. Work with the neighbors... If it takes a draft by you and then come back with a final... Scott Botcher: We're willing to do that. Acting Mayor Senn: Is everybody okay with that? Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Councilman Engel: I think having the neighbors with the concerns is probably the starting point. The biggest one I saw is I can't recall ifI read it in a report and there's so many pieces of information. Did you look at moving the access from Hidden Court back onto Lake Drive East into the medium density component? I know it'd be. 16 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: ... point on that but I think this, as the neighbors put together, there's some very good points...I think we can work with all of these. I don't know how effective it is to try and go through all that right now but I think we're in concurrence. Scott Botcher: And understand that once we get to the point, if we get to the point that there actually is a site plan before the city, it may look nothing like this. I mean that's part of the crux of this whole issue. We don't really have a firm site plan upon which to base a review. So your point is well taken. If that's a condition you want to place that you'll have no access on Street XYZ, that's fine. This may or may not be the site plan that ultimately ends up there. Acting Mayor Senn: But what people need to understand is the CUP gives us that control when the site plan does come in. Scott Botcher: Correct. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, well if that's the case then could we possibly have a motion then ifI was hearing the consensus correctly earlier to pass on first reading of this with the use, the church use being a permitted use as it exists. CUP, conditional use as expanded. Assisted living as a conditional use and define medium density residential office as conditional use. Councilman Engel: With the, do you have to put an addendum or addition in there per CUP? Acting Mayor Senn: With the direction that the staff and council come back with a specific list of parameters for second reading. Do we have a motion to that effect? Councilman Engel: Okay, I thought you were just wording one. That wasn't a motion? Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, motion that, I don't care. Councilman Labatt: I'll second it. Councilwoman Jansen: Did you say senior assisted living at the start of? Acting Mayor Senn: Assisted living. Councilman Engel: You've got a motion and a second. Acting Mayor Senn: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Acting Mayor Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to the Hidden Valley PUD #85-1 to permit church as it currently exists as a permitted use, any expansion of the church facility as a conditional use, senior assisted living as conditional use, and office and medium density residential as conditional use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley, with direction to staff to come back with a specific list of parameters for the conditional use permit for second reading. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty, so this will be back on. 17 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: We'll try to have a draft within two weeks. It may take a little bit longer. Can we also get a motion on the land use amendment? Can that wait until the second reading? Roger Knutson: I think you might want to wait until second reading on that. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so we don't know if it will be back in two weeks for second reading? Kate Aanenson: We'll be working with the neighborhood... Councilman Engel: When's the next scheduled meeting though because we're at the end of a month here. Scott Botcher: The 15th, 14th. Something like that. The task before us is substantial so I don't know if it will be two weeks or not. Obviously we'll get the neighbors involved and a representative of the church and try to pull it together but. Acting Mayor Senn: So it may very well be the 12th. It may very well be the 26th. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it might be a rough draft to... Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, but you'll keep both parties informed. Scott Botcher: Right. And please keep sending your e-mails. I originally I tried to respond in writing to every one of them. I gave that up. Acting Mayor Senn: But they do get read. Scott Botcher: They do get read. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you all for coming. INTERPRETATION OF PUD DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO DETERMINE IF AN OFFICE/ASSEMBLY-WORSHIP SPACE IS A PERMITTED USE AS DEFINED BY OFFICE USES~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This is pretty straight forward. The applicant has a lease agreement with a church in it's building. It's for office and assembly use. We've interpreted the code to mean that assembly's not permitted. They are requesting that through the PUD they can go to council and have our interpretation appealed.., and that's their request. Staff believes that the assembly is not listed or permitted in the PUD standards. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and if my recollection is correct and I think we have two new council people here since this came through, but if my recollection is correct in relationship to setting up the PUD, we were very specific as to each use for each parcel. Bob Generous: That's correct. 18 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. So there was a fair amount of discussion and thought that went into that at the time and stuff so, from there are there any questions of staff from council first? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, if not would the applicant like to elaborate on their request? Fred Richter: Councilman Senn, I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Here tonight are Don Finger of the New Life Christian Fellowship and our leasing agent Joe Smith with Steiner Development. Basically, let me just give you kind of the background. This is a 4,400 square foot space within a 115,000 square foot building. So it's about 4% of the building and from our viewpoint it's an interim use. It's a four year lease that does not have a renewal clause. It is a space adjacent to the partners in this building, Direct Response Insurance. Their primary goal in owning the building was to have expansion space so we see this as more of an interim use as I said. And obviously with.., owning the building ourselves it would always stay on the tax roles. From a planning standpoint we feel it's a very benign use. It fits in well with our interpretation of managing an office warehouse building in terms of parking, adjacent neighbors and so on. Not only the neighbors within the building but as you know the Arboretum Business Park is pretty much isolated from residential by the wetlands and the future park. In looking at interpreting the PUD, the Planned Unit Development agreement, it's a rather lengthy and we have 89 acres that were outlined and there is the two lots to the north, albeit they aren't labeled assembly but they are labeled hotel/motel, which have assembly, obviously large conference rooms in them. And conference convention center. That is listed on the two lots directly to the north. So, and I guess one other thing, there was no statement excluding churches or religious assembly. So from that standpoint we've kind of walked in this maybe a little naively but we thought we were on logical grounds from a physical sense and maybe in our terms a liberal interpretation but interpretation on the PUD. So I think from that standpoint we feel we're utilizing a local church group. Helping them out as they grow and I think in the future they could move on to further western suburbs where land is cheaper or end up settling in Chanhassen. That's a ways out but it probably won't be in the Arboretum Business Park and this use is really just a relatively small use in this building. And we think it'd be helpful to us to get on, get our building leased and get another building going so we can get it on the tax roles. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of the applicant? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Acting Mayor Senn: Fred, I've got a couple if I could. One is, my recollection is when this came through the first time that there was a fair amount of discussion and concern in relationship to creating a situation of the probability of chunks or parcels of this land going tax exempt, given the commitments we made on a TIF district and all that. So I mean that's an underlying concern at least of mine carrying forward from there. And that's not so much a question but more a confirmation I guess, but it goes to the question that what I was wondering is, would it be acceptable to you guys to simply do an amendment to the PUD contract allowing this use in this size of a space in this situation only? Fred Richter: Yeah. I think our intentions are really just with this immediate, it's kind of an infill thing for us. We're not trying to establish a large presence of a church or off the tax roles. It's a whole other issue. Acting Mayor Senn: My next question is Roger can we do that? 19 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Roger Knutson: Certainly. Acting Mayor Senn: Always have to ask him. Roger Knutson: But you'd have to go through the PUD amendment process which would require a hearing at the Planning Commission and back up here. Acting Mayor Senn: What does that do to you timing wise? Fred Richter: It's my understanding that would probably push us out for all practical purposes a month from now. Maybe a little bit. I guess our important thing, you know timing's one thing. I don't think we want to come back here and face, I mean we're looking at kind of getting a reading tonight to see if this is agreeable. Acting Mayor Senn: Conceptually what the council thinks? Fred Richter: Yeah. I mean we'll be back if it takes that. I think we've got your patience? It's hard to negotiate a real estate deal in public here. Acting Mayor Senn: You're telling us? Okay, thank you. Let's bring it back to council for discussion then. Councilperson Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess that raises the question then to staff. It says the church assembly use requested by the proposed tenant requires separate fire and building code, parking and zoning review and then is required, than is required for an office user. Can this piece of property be retrofitted to meet these requirements? You already know what those are? Fred Richter: Yeah, we just turn this thing, we maybe again got a little ahead of reality but we're always optimist. We had already turned this in for a building permit and those were those issues where 2 hour separation, a few other details. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, very good. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I am not against an interim use there for a church. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: No problem. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Could we have a motion then? So wait, you don't want a motion? You just want basically. Roger Knutson: You're giving them the sense of the council. I think that's what they need. Acting Mayor Senn: I think what you're hearing is there's no problem with the council on that basis and if you'll initiate the process. 2O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: The PUD ordinance doesn't allow that so I guess our interpretation was that you need to amend the PUD to allow a church as. Roger Knutson: That's what I just said. Kate Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. Acting Mayor Senn: I'm sorry, no. That's what we were just suggesting. Oh yeah, what we were talking about doing was basically going back and amending the PUD to allow for this use in this amount of space. Kate Aanenson: Go back through the process. Acting Mayor Senn: Yes. And to basically you know do that in the quickest or accelerated manner that we can and go from there. Councilman Labatt: Can an expiration date be put on a conditional use? Roger Knutson: It's an interim use permit and the answer is yes to that. It's required as a matter of fact. Scott Botcher: And 30 days might be optimistic. Kate Aanenson: I guess my question, what's the trigger? Roger Knutson: I think we should talk about the details. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, I think you guys should talk over the details with the applicant and bring it back. Okay. Scott Botcher: Leave the room Kate, it all goes right in the dumper, doesn't it? Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thanks. So what should we do on that item? Should we table it then or what? Roger Knutson: No, I think it'd be, my preference is always when you have something on your agenda because if we look back in yester years from now trying to figure out what happened to it, I think you should take formal action and if you agree with staff just say, a motion to concur with staff's interpretation that it is not currently an allowed use. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and then as they come back through the process with the other, it gets clarified with the amendment? Roger Knutson: Then it will be fine because if you approve it then... Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel: Councilman Labatt: Okay. Could we have a motion to that effect then please? I'm not quite sure what the motion. Make a motion to concur with staff's recommendation. 21 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel: Move to concur with staff and come up with an acceptable recommendation. Acting Mayor Senn: No. What you should do. Scott Botcher: You're concurring with the recommendation to make them go back through the PUD process. Councilman Engel: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: As Councilman Engel just said through Mr. Botcher. Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council concur with staff's interpretation that church assembly is not an approved use within the Arboretum Business Park PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 19+ ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS; 10151 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF LAKOTA LANE, DAVID TEICH. Public Present: Name Address David Teich Carol Snell 1217 South Monroe, Shakopee 906 East 4th Avenue, Shakopee Cindy Kirchoff: The 7 acre outlot is proposed to accommodate a single family dwelling with well and septic. The remaining 12 acres will remain vacant and unbuildable until urban services are available. This item was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on the 2nd of June and since the Planning Commission meeting the applicant has expressed a desire to dedicate right-of-way for Lakota Lane and this right-of-way is 60 feet in width and this is number 10 in the conditions of approval. The subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance requirements and the comprehensive plan. Therefore staff is recommending approval with conditions 1 through 10 and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay is there any questions from council? Councilwoman Jansen: I have a question. I was just a titch confused as I was reading that the size of the lot, the first paragraph under proposal summary noted the medium density of 1 unit per 10 acres. And this home, ifI gather is going on 7.68. Does it need to be 107 Cindy Kirchoff: No it doesn't. You just have to maintain the density of 1 unit per 10 acres so the total parcel is 19 acres so they can only have 1 home on that whole area but they're deeding or requesting that the 12 acres be an outlot status so you cannot build on the 12 acres. 22 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Actually our ordinance allows you go as small as the 15,000 square feet. We changed that a number of years ago to allow for better subdivision in the future when urban services are available and we did ask the applicant to... ghost plat the property so his home is sited in such a way that it can be further subdivided. But as Cindy indicated the density is 1 per 10... no further building can occur on the rest of that until urban services are available. The person building on that will be on the remaining 7 acres for pasturing horses. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, very good. And then I had one other question. On the landscaping, required reforestation to 77 trees. And you've come up with just requiring the 25%. Where did you come up with the 25%? Cindy Kirchoff: Basically we didn't want to burden the one property owner with the 77 trees and that will be addressed when the property's further subdivided. We decided 25% would be an appropriate number since there is only going to be one home on the whole 19 acres. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I did note of course you've got in here at one point you're saying after it is within the MUSA line, this has been a requirement. Does the reforestation need to be stated that way also? That although you're coming down to the 25%, that they would be required to plant the balance of the reforestation requirement once it is within the MUSA? Kate Aanenson: ... when it's subdivided in the future, when it's platted again, that same.., be in place so I think with the next subdivision that condition would be in place. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Expand the MUSA in what, 20? Councilwoman Jansen: 2015. Kate Aanenson: Again that's when we've got it guided. As we say we're going to bring it in in 2015. It may not be available if there's nobody petitioning to bring it down that way so it may be longer. Councilman Labatt: So is that an issue now? Kate Aanenson: Well the comprehensive plan, you mean the landscape? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, on Linda's issue. Should we deal with it right now and put the verbiage in there now? Kate Aanenson: We can check with Roger but I'm not sure what the point of putting trees out there for 15 years when we don't know how it's going to be subdivided. We've had them ghost plat it. We just think it's probably overkill when he's going to put horses on the property. I guess that was our interpretation. It's been farmed in the past. Pretty much void of most vegetation so we think the number of trees we're making him put on is responsible for the size home that he's doing and the fact that they will have horses up there. And then to further subdivide the property in 15 years... 23 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I'm okay with that. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Other questions? If not, could we have a motion to approve as per staff's recommendation? Councilman Engel: Move approval per staff recommendation with conditions 1 through 10. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the preliminary plat request (99-7 SUB) to subdivide a 19.68 acre parcel into a 7.68 acre parcel and a 12 acre outlot as shown on the plans dated received May 4, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The proposed 7.68 acre parcel shall be shown in the form of a lot and block legal description and the 12 acre parcel shall be shown as Outlot A on the preliminary plat with a subdivision name acceptable to the City and Carver County. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City establishing that no building eligibility remains for the 12 acre parcel until such time as urban services are available. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing two approved septic site and well locations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 30 foot wide right-of-way for Lakota Lane along the southerly 30 feet of the property. 5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees according to city ordinance. Two individual sewage treatment site (ISTS) must be located and shown on the site plan. The sites must be evaluated by a licensed ISTS designer and must be submitted for approval by the City. Twenty trees will be required for reforestation. Five of the 20 must meet minimum ordinance requirements (deciduous 2 1/2" diameter). The remaining 15 will be required to meet a 4' or ~" diameter minimum and can be deciduous or evergreen. The deadline for satisfying the reforestation requirement will be by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the proposed home. 8. Park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building permit application. SWMP fees shall be deferred until further subdivision of the property is proposed pursuant to city ordinance. 10. The applicant shall dedicate sufficient land for Lakota Lane to create a 60 foot wide right-of-way. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 24 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW SCREENED AND/OR ENCLOSED DECKS OR PATIOS; CHAPARRAL 2N~, 3m~ AND 4TM ADDITIONS, CIMARRON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Cindy Kirchoff: This amendment was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on the 2nd of June. Essentially it will allow the fourplexes, existing fourplexes to construct screened porches and/or patios on existing fourplexes. In 1988 the PUD was amended to allow decks to encroach into the 30 foot front yard setback with the three conditions that are listed. The deck cannot extend from the building further than 10 feet. It must maintain a 20 foot front and rear yard setback. And it must be a 10 x 20 foot dimension. This amendment would permit setbacks that are consistent with other townhome developments within the city. Staff does recommend approval of the amendment with the conditions in the staff report. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Acting Mayor Senn: Questions of staff'? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Councilman Engel: None. Acting Mayor Senn: May I have a motion for approval as per staff recommendation please? Councilman Labatt: So moved. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City approve an amendment to the development contract entitled "Planned Residential Development Contract Plat of Chaparral and Chaparral 2na, 3ra and 4th Additions" to allow screened patios and porches on the fourplexes with the following conditions: 1. The screened patios and porches cannot extend from the building further than 10 feet. 2. The screened patios and porches must maintain a 20 foot front and rear yard setback. 3. The screened patios and porches may not exceed a 10' x 20' dimension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 11,095 SQ. FT. 1 ½ STORY RETAIL SHOWROOM AND OFFICE BUILDING; LOCATED AT 550 LAKE DRIVE IN THE VILLAGES ON THE POND PUD, THE PEDDLER CYCLERY, VIGIL COMPANIES, LTD. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This project is located within Villages on the Pond. It's the most westerly site on the north side of Lake Drive. It's shown in blue on the overhead that we're providing. As part of the PUD this is a mixed use development. One of the, this site was specifically shown for a retail office space. It was up to I believe 12,000 square feet and this is an 11,000 square foot 25 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 building. Building elevation. We believe this site plan and building elevation has incorporated all of the design standards that the city had put forward as part of the planned unit development for Villages on the Ponds. We believe it will be a good addition to the Villages and the City and are recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of our staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of council? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Councilman Engel: None. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, if not could I have a motion to approve as per staff's recommendations? Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to approve as per staff recommendations. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second please? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan /t99-10, plans prepared by Lampert Architects dated 4/30/99 for an 11,095 square foot 1 ½ story retail, showroom and office building, The Peddler Cyclery, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. Site plan approval is contingent upon the site receiving final plat approval and recording of the subdivision. 3. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Villages on the Ponds. 4. The developer shall provide bicycle racks. 5. Provided that signage is only proposed on two building elevations, the applicant may choose which two elevations will have signage. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 6. Three decorative, pedestrian scale lights must be installed along the sidewalk from Lake Drive to Pond Promenade. The lighting fixtures shall be designed to provide a 90 degree lighting cut-off. 7. Fencing adjacent to the storm water pond and wetlands shall be decorative and compatible with fencing provided elsewhere in the Villages on the Ponds. The applicant shall work with staff to provide options for decorative fencing around the retaining walls. 8. Two accessible parking spaces will be required for the thirty-four spaces that are provided. The spaces must be located near the main entrance. 26 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 9. Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (post indicator valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 11. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. 12. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 13. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant to city ordinance. 14. All landscaping in planting holes near the building shall be irrigated. 15. All trees in planting holes near the building shall be protected by tree grates. 16. The grading plan shall be revised as follows: Denote a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the plans along the north/south street and eliminate the retaining wall fence and re-grade the pond slopes. Provide sufficient cover around relocated hydrant with a minimum of 7.5 foot bury depth. Revise elevation of storm sewer outlet to 940.0 (normal water elevation). Provide erosion control measures to encompass the north, west and south sides of the site and protect existing storm sewer inlets. Construction access shall be from the east side of the property and not Lake Drive. Show existing catch basin in the northeast comer of Lake Drive and north/south street. Provide valley gutter through proposed drive aisle access onto north/south street. Leave openings in curb for drainage through proposed median to maintain drainage along the north/south street. Clarify responsibility for removal of existing bituminous sidewalk/trail along Lake Drive and installation of 6-foot wide concrete walk in accordance with Villages on the Ponds hardscape plan. Show location of relocated street light and street sign. 17. All disturbed areas as a result of construction activity shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks completion in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook. 27 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 18. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for relocation of the hydrant and installation of storm sewer from the City's Building Department. The applicant shall give a minimum 48-hour notice to the City to request mm-off or mm-on of City water for relocation of the hydrant." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION; LOCATED AT 6728 LOTUS TRAIL~ TODD FROSTAD. Cindy Kirchoff: On June 2nd this item was reviewed and partially denied by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission denied a request for the front and side yard setbacks, but did approve the bluff setback. The applicant is appealing the decision. Based upon the discussion that took place at the Planning Commission, the applicant has reduced the size of the addition from 46 feet to 41 feet to eliminate the side yard variance to reduce the front yard setback variance from the original 12 to 7. The applicant contends that the smaller addition is the lowest or the least amount of area he needs for this type of, it's a log home. Staff believes that the applicant can modify the interior of the addition to accommodate an access on the lower level and can construct a 20 foot by 34 foot addition within the required setbacks and that a reasonable use already exists on the site so staff does recommend denial. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Are there any questions of staff from council? None. Is the applicant present tonight? Okay, can we have a motion to approve per staff's recommendation. Councilman Labatt: So moved. Roger Knutson: Excuse me, and that's based upon the findings set forth in the staff report which you've incorporated as your own. Acting Mayor Senn: Yes, whoever makes that motion. Is there a motion? I'm sorry. Councilman Labatt: To what now? Acting Mayor Senn: A motion to approve as per staff recommendation and findings as found in the staff report. Councilman Labatt: Make a motion to approve staff's recommendations and the findings set forth. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to deny the request for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 578 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 1,000 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE; LOCATED AT 6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD~ CHARLES KLINGELHUTZ. 28 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and denied at the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is appealing that decision. Staff believes that the applicant can demolish an existing structure and meet the 1,000 square foot maximum allowable size for accessory structures. Increase the size of the proposed structure to meet that requirement or attach the garage to the existing house and meet the ordinance requirements that way. The applicant has stated that he is willing to demolish an accessory structure in order to obtain a variance for the 30 x 32 foot garage. Staff does believe that other options exists therefore a hardship has not been demonstrated and staff does recommend denial. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and as a point of clarification then the Planning Commission or the Board of Appeals basically denied it then? Cindy Kirchoff: Yes. Acting Mayor Senn: Good. Is the applicant present? If not, is there a motion to deny as per staff's recommendation and as per findings found in the staff report? Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to deny based on staff recommendation and the findings listed in the staff report. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to deny Variance Request #99-2 for a 578 square foot variance from the 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure size based upon the findings listed in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PLEASANT VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC ISSUES~ PW086B. Public Present: Name Address Rogue Swenson Herbert J. & E. Ella Kask Randy & Rayma Smith David Beddor Steve Beddor Bob Ayotte Mike Gullickson Patty & Anthony J. Recupero Janelle Mason Ed Szalapski Jr. Victoria Beecrofl Szalapski Greg & Barb Hedlund Rebecca Chuna Irene Christan David Santana Marc Hodel 35 Pleasant View Road 115 Pleasant View Road 429 Pleasant View Road 1050 Pleasant View Road 1010 Pleasant View Road 6213 Cascade Pass 830 Pleasant View Road 800 Fox Court 800 Pleasant View Road 850 Pleasant View Road 850 Pleasant View Road 748 Lake Point 6521 Fox Path 796 Lake Point 6614 Horseshoe Curve 330 Pleasant View Road 29 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Ron Mason Dave Robinson Sharon Graef Jeanne & Tom Kraker 800 Pleasant View Road 25 Pleasant View Road 855 Pleasant View Road 801 Pleasant View Road Anita Benson: ... Pleasant View Road traffic issues has been requested by residents living along the corridor. Due to concerns regarding the speeds... Audience: ... we can't hear anything back here. Anita Benson: Can you hear now? Can you hear me? Okay. This issue was raised by resident living along Pleasant View Road. Concerns regarding the speed of traffic and safety. Residents have requested that the speed limit be enforced with a squad car set up with radar a minimum of three times a month. That the roadway be striped and that reflective markers be installed in the middle of the double yellow stripes around the curves. They have requested road signage be installed to warn drivers to watch out for pedestrians and they have requested that the extension from Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View Road not be completed. Additionally several faxes and e-mails have been received since this initial request came in and those have been distributed to council. Speed limit on Pleasant View Road was changed in 1983 due to a speed zoning study which was requested by the city council. Based on the speed study MnDOT recommended authorization of a 25 mph speed limit from a point approximately 800 feet west of Pleasant View Way, or Pleasant View Lane all the way west to Powers Boulevard. The public safety department has conducted a speed study through the corridor and the results of nine separate studies are included in the packet tonight. Additionally Bob Zydowsky, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer did provide a memo tonight and indicated that several of the citations that they have written over the past two weeks have been to resident that live either on or near Pleasant View Road. This indicates that it's not just a problem of commuters going, using the roadway as a shortcut over to 101. Pleasant View Road has been described as a %eautiful, narrow curved road that wraps around Lotus Lake". Pleasant View Road is a municipal state aid route and serves as the only east/west connection between Powers Boulevard and 101 in northern Chanhassen. Additionally Pleasant View Road is designated as a Class II minor collector roadway in the comprehensive plan. Class II collectors focus on inter and intra neighborhood connections. The challenges posed by Pleasant View Road are not new. The comprehensive plan identifies the existing roadway alignment as inadequate in several areas. The characters which make Pleasant View Road beautiful, such as sharp curves, vegetation, garages located at the right-of-way line, Hidden driveways and frequent views of Lotus Lake all combine to create traffic safety concerns. The inadequacies of this road will continue to intensify as traffic volumes increase. Average daily traffic data for 1995, 97 and 99 are included in the report for tonight. Near Powers Boulevard on Pleasant View Road the traffic data for 1995 indicated 1,513 average daily traffic. For 1997 the number increased to 1,603. And for 1999 an increase to 2,504 total average daily traffic. On the east end of 101, near Near Mountain Boulevard, we do not have data for 1995. However 1997 data indicates 3,295 vehicles per day and the 1999 data indicates 3,466 vehicles per day. Due to deterioration of the pavement on Pleasant View Road, the City of Chanhassen completed a maintenance bituminous overlay in 1998. The overlay project reinstalled bituminous curbs and widened the roadway where practical in an effort to address drainage issues and to improve upon the narrow width of the roadway. However, currently the road width varies from 21 to 30 feet. Even with the widening done with the overlay project, the roadway is not sufficient to provide a safe designated on road bike or pedestrian trail. Traffic control devices have been requested for Pleasant View Road and due to the increased traffic levels over the past 4 years and the slight widening of the roadway that occurred in 1998, it may now be appropriate to install the double yellow, no passing zone striping the entire length of Pleasant View Road. However, the installation of raised pavement markers on the curves is not necessary 3O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 or practical as they would be removed by snowplowing operations. The installation of signage to warn of pedestrians on Pleasant View Road is inappropriate based on the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Signage to inform motorists of high concentrations of pedestrians are used in situations such as trail crossings, schools and parks. If petitioned by the majority of property owners in neighborhoods directly accessing Pleasant View Road, a feasibility study could be prepared for the construction of pedestrian trail at the direction of the City Council. The final issue raised by the residents was the Nez Perce Drive extension. The Nez Perce Drive connection with Pleasant View Road has been a point of contention for 10 years. It has been planned since 1989 when Vineland Forest Plat was approved. The need for the connection was identified to improve access needed for local trips and to ensure adequate provisions for emergency services and future development of the adjacent parcel. The city was named in a lawsuit by some of the neighbors along Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive in 1993 and 1994 who opposed having Nez Perce Drive extended to Pleasant View Road. The courts denied the neighbors lawsuit against the city and a settlement agreement was reached. This settlement agreement allows the city to construct the Nez Perce Drive connection not before September of 1998. Nez Perce Drive is identified in a comprehensive plan as a recommended local street improvement. And now we'll get to my recommendations. We recommend the enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit recognizing that other areas of the city require speed enforcement and that all residents living along the corridor take some personal responsibility for their driving habits through the corridor. And also we'd recommend that we install a double yellow, no passing zone striping the entire length of Pleasant View Road. This will clearly define the center line of the roadway and especially on the curves will, if people follow the center line and don't cross over, will be forced to slow down to make the sharper curve rather than utilizing the rest of the road. And if petitioned by at least 50% of the property owners in neighborhoods directly accessing Pleasant View Road, the engineering department could conduct a feasibility study for the construction of a trail along Pleasant View Road. The rationale behind the necessity of at least 50% of the residents petitioning for the project would be that the trail project would likely be assessed. And also as a final recommendation, it is recommended that the Nez Perce Drive neighborhood connection to Peaceful Lane be constructed as stipulated in the settlement agreement. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there any questions from council for staff at this point? Councilwoman Jansen: I think staff answered one of my questions when you did say that the trail would have to be assessed so I gather we don't own much of any of a trail easement along Pleasant View Road? Anita Benson: The right-of-way on Pleasant View Road varies from starting at Powers Boulevard, from 66 feet wide to 30 feet wide to 48 feet wide back to 66 and 73 feet wide at the east end. So there is quite a long segment in the middle that is only 30 or 48 feet of right-of-way currently. Total right-of-way. So in the 30 foot area it'd be 15 either side of the center line is right-of-way. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: As follow-up to Linda's question. I did not see at least in what was reiterated as far as the neighborhood request goes for a trail. Is that something that's being added on our end or what's the basis of that? Anita Benson: The concern expressed by the residents was, the initial request that we had was that signing be installed to warn of pedestrians on the roadway. Such signing would be completely inappropriate. It would indicate that the road's okay to be walking on and it simply is not wide enough with the volume of traffic it carries. Therefore, I put that out as a suggestion and in some of the, actually many of the e-mails 31 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 and faxes that I handed out to you tonight, which you probably haven't had an opportunity to review, there were requests for a pedestrian trail. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. On what, I'm assuming now that many of the homes in that area along Pleasant View and off of Pleasant View, when they built their homes and purchased their lots paid parks and trail fees. Why are you suggesting that this trail would only happen if it were assessed when effectively funds have already been paid towards trails? Anita Benson: I did not intend to imply that that would be an only means for funding it. However it would be a mean of getting a trail constructed ahead of what the waiting list would be for trail construction knowing the high demand that there is and the priorities that do exist with the city. I've been given the indication that this is a very pressing issue with residents along the corridor and presented that as an option. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Makes sense. Alrighty. Good. Let's see here. In the interest of time here I see or assume there's a number of neighbors here. Is there a spokesperson for the neighborhood that could expand on the request or has staff covered it or? Jack Fess: My name is Jack Fess and I represent the 10 to 11 neighbors. I manage Ridge Road which is the Chanhassen portion of the private road that goes up to the chain in Shorewood and Christmas Lake, okay. I don't have any qualms whatsoever about some of the things that are going on with the road. We've hashed this over, as you said, 10 years ago. I think the reason why we're here tonight, the number one reason is, is because we finally got an advocate that had enough of the speeding that's going on on Pleasant View Road. Now it's been going on probably more since we paved it because it's a nice road and it's also as we know, a shortcut to 62 Crosstown. We knew that 10 years ago. Shorewood has their own problem with Covington Road. Same deal. But it is a wider road. The problem we have is that, as I told Nancy when we were up here developing the Mars' property and put 5 or 6 more houses on Ridge Road a few years ago, that Ridge Road is being used by not only the folks that live on Pleasant View Road and Fox Chase, but I'd be willing to bet there's more walkers now walking Christmas Lake, access up Pleasant View and over Ridge Road and around the lake than we have right now walking the new trails on County Road 17. It's the prettiest walk probably in Chanhassen so in order to get to that road you have to come down Pleasant View. And it's, you know so I don't think we're ever going to be able to stop the walkers coming down Pleasant View because they're either going to come up or come down. And every morning there's at least 30 or 40 people just jogging and running and the other problem we have, that road was put on the bicycle map even though it's a private road and we've asked them to take it off. We have at times 25 and 30 of these 10 speed biker groups with their racing, using that trail coming out from other parts of the city. So we do have a real big issue there with the walkers but I think the main thing is, we have to find a way or recommendations to get this traffic back to 25 mph or lower and then look at all the other options or other things on our agenda that I think the real reason why Patty contacted the city was specifically because of speeds right now. And yes there are some other things but I think the main thing is discussing the speeds. How we can get the speed limit down. We have school buses for instance that's picking up over 20 young kids to go to Excelsior Elementary School right there at Fox Chase. We've offered to police. I've talked to them personally. They can put their police car in our road. We have other neighbors that offered on Pleasant View to use their driveways. But I think there's a number of recommendations that both the city has made but I think there's a number of neighbors that disagree with a lot of the remarks that have come back from the city relative to when they checked the times. The time of the day we think we have a major problem. We think it's in the morning and we think it's with commuters getting to 62 Crosstown. We think it's when they're coming home. Now I will admit that neighbors speed but I think we ought to tag everybody. I mean we're not here defending the neighbors. If they want to speed on 32 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Pleasant View Road, they have the right to be tagged. I mean we're not taking any prisoners here. We're just trying to get the speeds down. So let's go from there our group and see what else is on the agenda. Thank you. Steve Beddor: Hi. I'm Steve Beddor, 1010 Pleasant View Road. I lived on Pleasant View Road for over 30 years. I read the city engineer's report to the city manager and the only thing I want to draw your attention to is the police surveys concluding the average speed is 28 mph doesn't jibe with my experience. I live 50 yards away from the road. I have a clear view of it every morning as I have breakfast or every evening as I have dinner, and no, I'm not an expert on speed. I've been a professional driver for over 10 years so I may not.., say 28 mph but I think I can tell the difference between 25 and 35 or 40. Just for the heck of it I went out Friday night, midnight to 1:00 because I have another issue with my mailbox being knocked down or knocked over or people drive on my lawn after hours and weekends. So I was there... visually who is going in my mind over 30 versus under 30 and between 12:00 and 1:00 1 had 7, there were clearly to my mind going over 25 or 30 mph out of 20. 2 of the 20 that weren't speeding were officers which I was very happy to see. Those two were borderline 30-35 and they were in tandem. I got to witness a very ambitious pass over the crest of a hill where someone was impatient being held up by a slower driver going 25 mph. Then from 1:00 to 1:30 at night, 4 out of 9 were hauling ass past, excuse me. Can you edit that? Past, so it's to me a daily aggravation. I have small kids. We used to enjoy walking down that road. I don't have an issue with not having a trail because I feel that if the speeds were down to 25 mph or less, I'd feel a lot more comfortable around those bends. I would love to see the double yellow to minimize some of the near misses on comers. And the last 5 years the amount of traffic has picked up so I'm against connecting Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road at Peaceful Lane. But I'd love to hear from some of the other neighbors here because I've not, we're not a cohesive group that has all compared notes. We all have different experiences, about to hear other experiences of being on this road. Thank you. Ed Szalapski: Council members, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ed Szalapski. I live at 850 Pleasant View Road. For those of you familiar with the road, I live at the apex of one of the sharpest curves on the road. I have young children who are in elementary school and the school bus picks them up there. When we installed our new mailbox, the post office was very instrumental in where we installed it because they were afraid of getting hit and I had to make room for the postal employee to pull into my driveway out of harms way. I would like to state that I think the city engineer's study is invalid. I'm a physician. A lot of what I do has to do with monitoring human behavior. Where they put the stationary speed monitor was on a straight away in plain view where you could see it for over 100 yards and all of us who are physicians know that by simply monitoring a human being's behavior, you can alter it. I would suggest that if you're going to monitor speed, put that thing in the mouth of my driveway where they can't see it until they're 5 yards from it and I think you'll get a different result. It's become dangerous to go out and get the mail. It's become dangerous for my kids to go get on the bus. What I would like to see is just simply see the speed limits enforced as they are. I don't think we need a trail. I think we just need speed enforcement and I think that will take care of most of it. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Ron Mason: Well good evening. I'm Ron Mason. I'm also a resident on Pleasant View and I thank you councilmember for taking the time to hear this difficult situation here we have. We're not really an organized group. We just live there and we're a bunch of concerned individuals and we haven't really organized to do any of this but we truly are concerned about what happens on the road there. I'm also a physician. I used to be a flight doc or a helicopter doc or a trauma doc, and what we used to say is speed kills and it's really, it's essentially what our biggest concern is there on the road. They widened the road 33 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 and the speed got a little faster on the road. And now I'm not really sure that my concern is striping the road may not necessarily take care of the true problem that we are concerned about. The speed of the road. One of my concerns is if everyone knows what side of the road they're on, as long as they can keep their car going to the speed that they don't go over that center line, then they can go as fast as they want and what the biggest concern is, as Jack brought up, there's going to be pedestrians on that road no matter what. And now when you force all the traffic to hug the curb, then the concern is that you might be getting into auto pedestrian accidents. Auto accidents aren't such a big deal. A fender bender as much as when pedestrians start getting hit. So I would personally be more concerned with doing things that take care of the speed. Things like changing the speed limit, enforcing the speed limit, or even putting things like stop signs in the road .... who has the right-of-way with the stop signs. And that would be personally one of the things I would like to see considered. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Tom Kraker: Good evening, I'm Tom Kraker at 801 Pleasant View Road. That is right at the bottom of the curve as you come about a quarter mile east of Powers and we have a interesting driveway as our neighbors say. But the real issue is speed, as several people have said and countless times I drive Pleasant View to catch Crosstown and many times I have been driving 25, maybe a couple miles over, and I've been, had many drivers during rush hour again, tailgate me and pass me along Pleasant View Road because I was going too damn slow for them. And it happens at rush hour and I jotted down a little bit of the times and the speed study. I know council and everybody's busy but the times are all, the only time that was even close in the 9 or 10 studies was 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday the 16th. That was the only one that was even close to rush hour. So I would really encourage the council to commission some more thorough studies that really get to the heart of the speed problem. And I would like to recommend that we do lower the speed limit. There are hazardous driveway, blind driveway signs that were erected at roughly Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View on the west side and Fox Hollow Drive and Pleasant View on the east side and that is the critical area where you have lots of blind access.., to get the view of Lotus Lake. That is the critical area. It's only one mile. A 15 or 20 mph speed limit is not that big of a hardship to anyone for one mile. A stop sign or two along that stretch is not that big of a hazard or option, or excuse me. Inconvenience for that one mile. So that would be my recommendation to put that into the agenda, into your plans as the priority. Not do the trail. The striping I'm neutral on. Again, I think that could cause people to think it's more of a freeway with the striping than a peaceful residential road. Thank you for your attention. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Patty Recupero: Hi, I'm Patty Recupero. I live at 800 Fox Court and I just wanted to thank the council. I've talked to a couple of you and I appreciate you being receptive to my concerns. I have small children and that's what caused me to get involved with this. I got tired of driving down the road and having people in my lane of traffic. And you know, I need to protect my kids and there's no way I'm going to ever let them walk down Pleasant View. We stay in Fox Chase where I live or we go Ridge Road. And that's ridiculous because we live in a beautiful area with a beautiful lake and we should be able to enjoy it. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. One is the traffic surveillance. I'm looking at 151 cars measured according to this traffic speed survey that was done. Only 12 are at or under the speed limit. 139 were over the speed limit. Two citations were written. I'm wondering how fast somebody has to go before they get a ticket. The other question I have is, you know I agree with the comments made was that if you go 30 and you're going around those curves, you're really hugging the road. And I really think that we need to 34 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 lower the speed limit. And the last thing I wanted to talk about was Nez Perce. The road extension I think is just going to be too much on Pleasant View Road. It's already crowded enough and I think we're just going to add more problems down the road. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Sharon Graef: Appreciate the time to talk. My name is Sharon Graef and I live on Pleasant View Road. 855 and I've been there 55 years. And my family and myself were involved in getting the speed limit dropped to 25 mph with the expectation that it would be enforced, which has not happened and it would be a good idea to have it even lower but we went to a great deal of work to have that happen and had signatures from the whole area. And it's very scary to lay in bed at night and hear the cars screeching and think do I get up? Do I look? Do I see if they made the comer? I'm very much in favor of more law enforcement on that road. And since they put the curves in, it's all the harder. Ifa bicyclist is riding down the road, he can't get out of the way. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mike Gullickson: My name is Mike Gullickson and I live at 830 Pleasant View Road which if you're familiar, it's next to Ed but it's on the curve so as you go around the curve either way, it's a blind driveway. Councilman Labatt: Which curve are we talking about? I'm looking at a map here. Acting Mayor Senn: Which one of the blind curves? Councilman Labatt: Which one of the blind curves? Can you go up here and just show me real quick. Where 830 is. Mike Gullickson: From Powers Boulevard, we would be right here. And it is a sharp curve and you go down this hill and as you go down the hill from either side. My mailbox happens to be on the other side so I have to run across to get the mail, run back. And needless to say I have two young children, they are not allowed to get the mail. They also, I have one that has to go, well I'll have two next fall, that have to go down to catch the bus. Well they're not walking down there by themselves. Because it is way too fast. People fly down that road. The police could sit in my driveway and really catch people because it's a hidden driveway. You can't see it until you're on it. And many of our friends have told us that. They go we missed it. We missed it. So I really would have liked the speed limit even lowered and I don't think the striping will work. I'm a runner and when I run I try to stay off of Pleasant View. I will go down to Ridge Road and come around but either way to get back to my house I have to get on Pleasant View again. And I mean I grew up there so I know over the years, yes. It's increased and we've got development but people are way too fast. And they're not safe. I mean even 25. I go 25 and people get up behind me. They honk their horns. They give me obscene gestures. They roar by me and then they slam on their brakes. They've done that, that's happened to me probably 5 or 6 times and we've only moved back there for a month and in that time I think that's pretty bad. To have only been there a month and had all these people. My wife is afraid to even go out walking because she's almost been hit twice so something needs to be done to slow people down. And that's just my opinion. I just think slow way down and do something. Thank you. David Santana: My name is David Santana and I live 6614 Horseshoe Curve. Horseshoe Curve and Pleasant View Road intersect at the top of a hill. The speed has been so bad in addition, the new curbs that 35 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 have been put have been destroyed on my yard already from cars just sliding around the sand and going so fast on that mm and going up and down the hill, that it's not even worth. I've already replaced sod and grass up to 15 feet into my yard. Don Miller who's my neighbor has had to replace tremendous amount of yard work because of the same thing. I have never seen a policeman on our road and would appreciate if one would just come visit every once in a while. It is too fast. We cannot walk. Our hills are hidden. Our curves are very treacherous and no one is monitoring it. You've got to slow it down. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. A1 Kramer: Hi, my name is A1 Kramer and I live off Pleasant View Road on Indian Hill Road which is a little dead end street that comes off of the only stop sign on Pleasant View Road. And I've been there for 20 years and kind of witnessed the transition of the area from more of a rural character to it's more urbanized nature as all the cornfields have been filled in with houses and Powers Boulevard has developed and that of course has resulted in a lot more traffic coming through the neighborhood, although Pleasant View has still managed to retain it's rural character and it's parkway charm. Although the landscaping continues to grow so the sight distances don't get any better. There's more people all the time. More people driving in their cars and more pedestrians walking on the road. And the area draws people from a large area to walk. I have people in bike. I have friends who live in the city of Minneapolis and they come biking through our area and they drive down Pleasant View Road with their bicycles because it's such a nice drive. I've seen people out there with their baby strollers and kids with skateboards and you know, I just don't think it's a very safe situation. I took a drive down Pleasant View about a year ago with my pastor from my church and he, as he saw what road we were turning on he went oh. You're going down the raceway. And that was his term for Pleasant View Road because of the way he observes people driving on it and that really disturbed me. As I said, I live right by the stop sign. There's a school bus stop there and my 8 year old daughter picks up the school bus every morning down there and I've been down there several times watching her at the school bus and observed cars blasting through, not only the stop sign but past the school bus with it's flashing lights and arms out and the bus driver just kind of looks at me and throws up his arms like it happens all the time. And that's really very disturbing. I think it's just kind of indicative of the careless nature and the way that people drive on Pleasant View. I think enforcement of the existing laws that are in place would really do a lot to help the safety of the neighborhood. I think the laws as they exist have not been enforced. I think it's just a joke the way traffic is enforced on Pleasant View. You look at other roads in the neighborhood like Mill Street going into Excelsior. You don't dare speed on Mill Street. You just know at the bottom of that curve heading into Excelsior you're going to see a patrol car there on Saturday mornings or whenever. Vine Hill Road is a similar situation. In fact, my wife and her sister have both gotten tickets on Vine Hill Road when they've gone barreling down the... You know when's the last time anybody's seen any police enforcement on Pleasant View Road other than that generated by the recent publicity? You know I really think it's been a joke. And the last thing I'd like to do is just read a quote from a letter that the MnDOT...traffic engineer wrote back in 1983 recommending the 25 mph speed limit. And it describes Pleasant View Road as a narrow winding street with restricted sight distance on numerous locations. Vehicular speeds may vary considerably from one location to another along the road because of these sight restrictions and because the 10 to 20 mph speeds required for negotiating the curves. 25 mph was found to be a comfortable speed for most locations between the curves. And obviously the curves are the worse part. Enforcing a 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View is not like trying to enforce a 55 mph speed limit on an interstate freeway that has a design speed of 70 mph. Freeways are designed so you can comfortably negotiate vertical and horizontal curves at 70 mph and where there's adequate stop and sight distances. And apparently that doesn't exist on Pleasant View Road for speeds above 25 mph, which is the norm. I'd like to see those speed laws enforced. Thank you. 36 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Rogue Swenson: Hi. My name's Rogue Swenson. I live at 35 Pleasant View Road which is on the east side of Pleasant View. It's the third house in from Highway 101. On three occasions probably in the last four months I've been passed as I'm turning off of 101. I already have my signal lights to pull into my driveway and I've been passed three different times. I don't know, I think that's pretty dangerous and you can't even just barely get around the comer and get your signal turned on right as you make the mm and you've got people, worrying about people passing you on three houses in. I think there's been a lot of really good things said tonight and I think you should really work hard on trying to resolve this problem before somebody get hurts. One of our kids. Someone killed in a car accident because of it. Just some other ideas. I think this stop sign is a really good idea. How about maybe no thru traffic or no trucks. I think that might cut down on a lot of short cuts to 17 or to 101. So thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Bob Ayotte: Councilman Senn, I don't want you to laugh at this comment but I jog down Pleasant View Road. Acting Mayor Senn: Bob, would you give your name and address please first? Bob Ayotte: Bob Ayotte, 6213 Cascade Pass. I'm just going to hit some high points here because a number of people that want to present their position. I also want to point out a couple of the council people that are working very hard at public safety. Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen have been working extremely hard on a task force. Their hands are tied and I'm speaking not only to the council but to all of you fine citizens and I want to bring these points up because people who just recently moved in like Patty and Tony and I'll put your name, help me. Recupero. I won't say that right, but they've been here just recently and yet they've had the intestinal fortitude and intellectual strength to stand up and do something about a very, very catastrophic situation in my view. I hope being point number 10 on this agenda does not demonstrate the council or the city staff's concern or interest in public safety. Public safety must be number one for this city. I took a stroll this past week and my wife and I, Sherry had interviewed a number of people just that our personal quality assurance survey that I've been trying to get the council to consider. And out of the first 13 of 17 people I talked to who lived along Pleasant View, 13 of them were victims. One of the couples that I stopped, two years ago Officer Gamblin was the one who took the report. Their child was struck in a car head on. Mr. Don Johnson who lives on the comer. His experience is just not with the traffic. The traffic is a synergistic affect with the vandalism that's in our neighborhood. I contend it's the young people. I've talked to the police officers from Carver County and they tell me, I'm not saying this. They tell me 3/4 of the activity in Chanhassen is vandalism and this type of soft crime with the cars. The cars are weapons. Another thing I found interesting. You may or may not realize this but we do not have a city prosecuting attorney. This fine gentleman is our attorney for the city but the prosecuting attorney services that we receive are at the county level. When I approached Mike Fahey, our Carver County Prosecutor, he could not give me any data to demonstrate how many of the citations ended up in the appropriate punishment. Incident to police report to punishment. If we do in fact put police on Pleasant View, they will be taken from someplace else. We have a depth of one police officer in Chanhassen at this point. Am I correct? Is it one right now? Just Officer Zydowsky or do we have two? Councilman Labatt: We still have two. 37 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Bob Ayotte: We still have two? Councilwoman Jansen: But that's not counting the deputy service. Bob Ayotte: ... service our community do not have communication capabilities in their vehicles. They are some of the lowest paid county sheriff's in the state. And we pay the third highest taxes. These people are doing their job. However I implore you that you assist them in the construction of a request for proposal. That's why I'm asking to the council, identify the public safety requirements. Totally. Along with the Pleasant View issue which is one large requirement. But we do not understand our scope of work and before we can solicit the police department to meet our needs, I'm requesting that we have a total scope of work written down that substantiates what the needs are. We haven't done that yet. We have a task force that's working extremely hard but we're looking at data based on communities that do not parallel ours. I have, and Mr. Botcher, I don't know if this is appropriate or not. I've written a letter. IfI submit the letter, will the points in the letter be considered as public record for this meeting? Scott Botcher: Yeah. Bob Ayotte: Okay, then I'll submit the letter and not belabor the specifics. But I would ask you to realize that we don't have enough police officers. That we do not have a dedicated city attorney which may be alright, and we do not have any information with respect to what the police can do in prosecuting those people that do go too fast in our community. Or drive recklessly. Or commit vandalism. 13 out of the first 17 that I spoke to on the Pleasant View area were victims. In the last two years. So thank you very much. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Dave Robinson: Hello. I'm Dave Robinson, 25 Pleasant View Road. I'm a neighbor of Rogey's that talked a couple times ago and I just want to mention a couple things that have happened to me. You know I'm probably going to echo a lot of things other people have said but you know we're just a couple houses in so we come off tat and like Rogey said, we've had a number of people pass us. Going around. Their looking down at their foot pedal or something and they're giving it the gas right away. That's one thing. The other thing is we've got, there's a hill, a crest of a hill right there by, at Near Mountain and so people come over that hill. If I'm backing out of my driveway, they're flying way too fast to slow down and they've had to slam on their brakes because I'm backing out of my driveway. The other thing is when people come down tat and turn onto Pleasant View, they're going so fast. They go into the other lane a lot of times and if there's anybody there, you know a car or anything, it's dangerous. I wouldn't be opposed to having a light at Pleasant View and tat. It's just, that's a horrible intersection. And we're so close to that intersection, we've seen a lot of, we've heard a lot of people screeching and we've seen I don't know, probably 5-10 accidents there in the last you know, we've been there 12 years now. And it's just, you know it's getting really bad and dangerous. Someone's going to get hurt bad there so that's about all I've got. Thanks. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Marc Hodel: Hi. My name is Marc Hodel. I live at 330 Pleasant View Road, which is right across the street from North Lotus Lake Park. I work at home so I get to see the traffic all day, every day and it gets better at times but it is very bad in the mornings and very bad at the rush hour when people are returning home. Unfortunately those were the times when most people walk up the street to park. I frequently see 38 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 people jump into my lawn to get out of the way of oncoming cars. Unfortunately that may not afford them much safety because since this spring I've put up posts with reflectors in my lawn and they've been knocked down three times from people going around the comer. I think it's just a matter of time until one of our kids gets the same fate so I'd just like to bring that up to your attention. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, we'll bring it back up to council for discussion. Councilwoman Jansen: I think if I could, a couple of points were raised that maybe if staff could maybe speak to them a little bit. It's the 101 upgrade isn't fresh in my mind and the most recent issue that was just brought up was the light at Pleasant View and 101. Was that one of the, go ahead. Intersections that would have a light? Anita Benson: As many of you may be aware, some of you may not, we are currently working with Hennepin, Carver County and Eden Prairie to bring a project to construction for 101. With that project will be included traffic signal lights. However that project is in the future, 2002. 2003. 2004. We don't know for sure at this point. There's a lot of upfront work that needs to be done before we can deliver a new roadway out there. Councilwoman Jansen: And that is one of the signaled intersections on that plan? Anita Benson: Correct. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. And I guess the other thing that was again mentioned here towards the end that I was going to ask about is we keep hearing that the residents have vehicles actually coming up into their yards. The one gentleman mentioned having put the reflective post in his yard and having those knocked over. Is there a form of barrier that can be put up to make it even more obvious to a vehicle driver that they've strayed outside the zone? Councilman Labatt: Boulders? Councilwoman Jansen: That's not what I had in mind but something that's permanent. Anita Benson: Guard rail comes to mind. Typically on higher speed roadways where there's a drop off. It's not real pretty but that is a barrier. I think providing a barrier just doesn't seem to be addressing the real problem out there which is speed. Councilwoman Jansen: And again bringing it back just to comments. I know that as we've been in conversations with Sheriff Olson as far as the flexibility in his department to be able to target problem areas. He has voiced a full support that as the city identifies problem situations, being able to jump on that sort of enforcement with us as a, in a partnership. As he did with the graffiti problem in the neighborhood parks at the beginning of the year. And I'm wondering what sorts of conversations have been had at this point or is that what you need from us as far as direction on targeting Pleasant View for the enforcement? Scott Botcher: No I think a lot of what happened here was, you know we received, we had a lady write a letter to the editor. And actually I had a couple calls before that happened and what I had asked Bob to do, Officer Bob, was to go out and make this a targeted area for speed enforcement. I mean the reality is we 39 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 could, and Anita and I have talked about this and I know Linda you and I have talked about this. We could make this road you know safer. We could make it pedestrian friendly with all sorts of stuff. At the same time we want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. I mean it is a special, unique neighborhood within the city of Chanhassen and we don't want to go out and make this thing standard width throughout. We don't want to have the 3 meter clear zones on all sides of the asphalt. Take down all the trees. Take all the vegetation. That would destroy everything that everyone lives there for. So that's a bad, that's not a good solution. You could put barriers up you know and I think I told you, it'd look like the Fuji course on Pole Position. You know it's got barriers. I always played that in college but you don't want that to be there either. The reality is, it's a poorly designed road. And it's probably not built for much in terms of vehicular traffic. It's not made for the, it's not made a Celica. I mean it's made for a '78 Bonne with a small engine. I mean it's just, it's not a great road and our options to address the speed are really down to one and that's enforcing the heck out of it until we get a reputation that that thing's a speed trap. And now I will go back and I will defer to Todd Gerhardt who drives a certain section of Powers more than I do and we have had contact with the Village of Shorewood administration and I remember a police officer sitting there as you cross from Chanhassen into Shorewood. They have not been there for two years. And everyone thinks they're still there. I think they're still there. My wife thinks they're still there. They're not still there but they have the reputation of that being a speed trap. If you call Craig up in Excelsior, you would be amazed on how little enforcement Excelsior does when you go into Excelsior anymore. They did, I mean I remember. Even growing up, they were always there. They're not there so much anymore because the reputation has been made. Now what the council and citizens and everyone is going to have to understand is obviously this is not the only public safety issue we have going in the city of Chanhassen. Unfortunately it's not. And we are going to have to be somewhat sneaky as city management as to when we send the officers out there to hit them. My last conversation today with the county was I think they had written 10 tickets in the last week I think is the number I got. 8 were residents of Pleasant View Road. And that's okay. That's okay. We need to do that for an extended period of time and then honestly there are going to be times where you won't see officers as much because we do have other issues with you know 20 other, 20,000 other citizens that we need to address. Beyond that, and Linda you've heard me say this, I don't have any other magical solution to offer except to build a reputation that that is a speed trap. And that sounds horrible. We want to do it to the greatest extent possible until the attorney tells me I'm bordering on entrapment. But that's how we need to do it. And because we don't want to destroy that neighborhood. Councilman Labatt: What would happen if they increase.., themselves? Scott Botcher: Well you know, and I was making notes up here and a couple folks talked about lowering the speed limit. I'll go in that direction first. There's an old argument out there that if they're not doing 25, or not doing 25 when it's 25, what's going to make them do 20 when it's 20? And I may be a simple Norwegian but I'm not, that's not going to work. If you increased it to 30, and I don't know what the engineers will tell you. Having done enough of these speed limit things in my day, it builds an additional cushion. I mean when people do the speed limit, Steven in your officer job, I mean people think that you can do 5 to 7, 8 above whatever is posted. Until you get to a point where it's a speed limit that the driver considers to be so ridiculously low for the traffic, that they're not going to do it regardless. And so I'm not sure, I think 25 is appropriate. I've taken that. I've driven it at different times. 25, I mean I've been passed by people. 25 is probably about as low as you can go and have a balance between enforceability and safety. You know if you go to 30, people are going to start doing 40-45 and to me that's a little quick. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, any other comments from, or questions from council please? 4O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel: Question on the trucks. Can we limit trucks? Anita Benson: No we cannot without jeopardizing state aid status. Councilman Labatt: So it is a state aid road? Anita Benson: Yes. Councilman Labatt: That was my question. Acting Mayor Senn: And the fact that it's state aid... Anita Benson: There aren't any state aid route or state highway, county highway within the state. We have to request that MnDOT do a speed study to do that. They go through a process where they determine what the majority of the cars are actually traveling the road. They call it the 85th percentile speed and that is generally what the speed limit will be set at. The reason behind that is more accidents happen because of the difference in speeds rather than the actual speed itself. Vehicular accidents and that can be evidenced by the concern with people passing out on Pleasant View Road when someone's going 25 or less. The people behind that want to go faster will try and pass and it creates a hazard for head on traffic. So MnDOT sets a speed limit on municipal state aid routes which Pleasant View Road is. Scott Botcher: The other thing that I'd like to bring up before I forget is the whole issue of striping and I've been asked how I feel about striping and I'm sort of, you know I don't really have a problem with it. I don't know if I'm a big fan of it. The issue that comes up, and I think Anita mentioned it to me. I think it's probably very accurate. If you get to the point where you stripe the pavement, and I don't care if it's single striped, double striped, whatever. If you put the buttons down the road, snowplows are going to take them all up. I mean we might as well just throw the money down the hole instead of put buttons down. But you don't, you have to be cautious that you don't create a perception amongst the pedestrian or bicycling traffic that in fact there's a passable lane there. You know some of the asphalt widths and some of the right-of- way widths are somewhat goofy and to get to the point where you've got a, and this is maybe not the way to say it but you have the ability without the striping for people to take their driving lane not exactly on the far right hand side of the road which you know if there is a lane and they feel like they need to stay inside that double yellow lane, are we in fact increasing danger to pedestrian or bicycle traffic? We very well may be. And you know I'm not sure, I won't stand up and fight against striping. I'm just not sure it's really in our best interest. I'm sort of in the middle on that one. Audience: Could you address stop signs? Is there a possibility of putting one or two stop signs just to make people stop.., dangerous curve? Scott Botcher: I think we're back to the same state aid issue that Mr. Senn brought up. I'm not, I can't imagine any way that a stop sign would be warranted and again you get down it, if you stop the traffic. How long does it take to get your car back up to 35 mph? Audience: What about at Fox Chase? Scott Botcher: Again, it would have to be warranted. I'm not sure it's ever going to be. 41 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Basically because the road's a municipal state aid road the, how would I say this. I wish you were all here when we went through a long, arduous task of the S curve on 101. It was real interesting because absolutely nobody came out and I was a lone voice basically sitting there saying this is going to be a disaster to 101. To Pleasant View and everything else and they were redesigning the S curve to push more traffic that way. The original design on the S curve put more traffic down Dell Road. And all the residents in Eden Prairie turned out and kyboshed that and they redesigned it. And you know at that time we really pushed to try to, or I should say a couple of us really pushed to try to get some considerations out of that but nobody was out so it was just kind of like a non type of a deal. But the stop sign issue we raised at that time too and you know the reality is, yeah. You can put up, we can put up stop signs wherever we want. The problem is is they get a complaint, then they'll probably tell us to take them down. That's the way it works essentially with the state aid roads because they have the ultimate say on whether those stop signs are there or not there. That doesn't mean we can't do it. You know Pleasant View's been a, how would I say, time and time again an issue and the, I mean the speed limits are very definitely a problem there and I mean there's got to be a better way to do it and maybe it is time that we do take a whirl at some different things even if they aren't necessarily all correct. I mean we've talked about everything over there from speed bumps to stop signs to whatever. We've talked about striping and you know like I say, there's a lot of debate both ways on that. Let's see here, I'm trying to think. Oh the other issue that was raised about connecting Nez Perce. That neighborhood connection through Peaceful Lane. I mean that was a long, long deal. I think you, let's see I can't remember. I think Mark was on the council at the same time too but Mark and I were the only people that voted against that connection. So essentially the connection was put into a deal to go ahead and maybe this is a basis or a time to reconsider that because these are all issues that relate to your traffic concerns. Councilwoman Jansen: And to add to that, Steve and I weren't here. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah. I mean a lot of this is a new council so I mean that's part of what makes it maybe a new consideration to take a look at or whatever so I don't know. What is council have any... at this point. Councilwoman Jansen: I don't think I have any other comments except that everyone very consistently was saying enforce the speed limit, which I gather from Mr. Botcher is definitely something that we can jump on and encourage with the sheriff's department to get that follow through. One of my questions would be following up as far as the prosecuting attorney. If we're issuing citations and those people are getting fined, correct. Does that go up if they get multiple citations or is that a prosecuting attorney function? Roger Knutson: Prosecuting attorneys don't fine anyone. Judges fine people. The prosecuting attorney brings the citation to the court and makes a recommendation. The judge does what he does with it. Or she does with it. Councilwoman Jansen: Do we need to provide maybe the direction that we do want these citations at least pushed as far as court so they are being fully enforced? I mean are they ever just forgiven? Roger Knutson: Again we're not involved in that but I'd be very surprised if they're just forgiven. I mean that would be, you don't call up the prosecutor and say I'm sorry and they say okay. If you want to give that message, it wouldn't hurt to let the county attorney know that you feel strongly about that. That's fine. But I would assume he's doing everything he can to successful prosecute the citations that are presented. 42 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Scott Botcher: And we don't how many of the citations that are written are actually contested. I mean there's a lot of people, they might just write the check and send it in. We don't have that data. Roger Knutson: You could request that data. Scott Botcher: Don't have it tonight. Acting Mayor Senn: We've got a long agenda head of us. Councilman Engel: I've only got one other one...before we go. This thing with trucks, if we could limit it I'd love to. The thing with stop signs. I don't mind tweaking the state whenever we can, as long as it won't cost us any substantial money in court so I want to be clear about that. I don't think it'd cost too much to put a stop sign up and have it taken down if we're forced to. So I wouldn't mind us exploring that. Condition number 3 in the staffs recommendations. The trail. I'm concerned that it would alter the character of that neighborhood too much. There's just not enough. I look at my homes on my side of the lake and one of the things my wife and I see all the time is the traffic is a little bit tough, depending on what time of day you're there so I know what they're saying is true but the trail I don't think is the answer. The enforcement's the big thing. And number 4, the constructing Nez Perce Drive. Mark and I discussed this earlier. I was against that when I first got on council and I think it's a poor idea and we ought to reconsider it. It shouldn't be done. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Kind of a historic reality that 80% of the people cited were your neighbors. Please do. I hope they do. But I think you guys as neighbors here, concerned enough to be here tonight to police each other too. Whatever you can do. Audience: If I give you license numbers, can you get names and addresses... Councilman Labatt: You've got to go through Carver County for that. I work for Hennepin County. Okay, but you can as a citizen write down a guy's license plate. You've got to try to identify him somehow. Look at him. His build. His hair color. Whatever you can do. His license plate. Call the Carver County Sheriffs Office and make a complaint. Audience: Councilman Labatt, I did that with a guy who passed me and they did, or called his house and let him know that... Councilman Labatt: You've got to press the issue. You've got the press the issue that you want to make a complaint and you're willing to sign a complaint and put your name on the dotted line. Okay. It's happened to me. I'm not going to sit here and say Pleasant View Road, I've driven it so much in the last two weeks that I was passed too. Right between 101 and, right in front of where the deputy lives on Pleasant View. And his car's in the driveway. Acting Mayor Senn: Right where the car's parked all the time. Councilman Labatt: And I got passed and I couldn't believe it and I wrote the license plate down so. Audience: ... 43 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: But we've got to keep going here. There's also a point of concern of mine is that Indian Hill Road where the stop sign is for both east and west bound. When you're driving east bound, that sign is so hidden in the shrubbery that whoever lives there needs to take some responsibility and cut that hedge back. That also presents a sight line problem that can both benefit and be a negative. It can be a benefit because it's so hard to drive around there. That you've got to drive slow but for pedestrians it's a problem because you're not seen. And I'd like to ask Anita. Pleasant View Road east of 101 between Dell and 101, Eden Prairie put up the two stop signs there. Acting Mayor Senn: Try four. Councilman Labatt: Okay. What designation, and maybe you don't know but maybe you could find out what the designation is of that part of Pleasant View Road. How they were able to get those stop signs up or what the rationale is. Anita Benson: I can certainly check into the designation. I believe that they were installed during the construction. Acting Mayor Senn: Reconstruction of the S curve. Anita Benson: But I can check into what the designation is. Councilman Labatt: Good. That's all I've got. I mean I think we as a council could put forth a strong request for use some force. If it's 25, you've got to give or take a few miles an hour but when you see these speed limits of 34, 35, 36, that's unsafe. Acting Mayor Senn: Well rather than sit around and talk about it more I'm going to make a motion that's going to bring a number of things to a point that I've tried to do over the past several years. One is a motion to provide enforcement of a 25 mph speed limit. Aggressive enforcement let's say of a 25 mph speed limit. And that the council directs staff to undertake an effort to do that. And that two, we install double yellow lines, no passing zone, stripe the entire length of Pleasant View. See if that helps. Number three. That we direct staff to install stop signs at Horseshoe and at Ridge/Fox Pass to help slow down traffic. And four, that we amend our agreement to not construct the Nez Perce Drive neighborhood connection to Peaceful Lane. That's my motion. Roger Knutson: Councilmember Senn? Just on the last thing about Nez Perce. We have no obligation to build it. We have the right to build it. Acting Mayor Senn: No, I understand. Roger Knutson: And there is no further agreement. The land was conveyed to us. That's the end of the agreement. Acting Mayor Senn: No, I understand but it also said that, the agreement said essentially that the city can basically build or construct or provide that segment any time it wanted to after the date in 1998. Roger Knutson: Correct. So now we own it and it's just like any other unimproved right-of-way we have. So there will be nothing to go back to Mr. Beddor with. 44 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so we don't have to amend the agreement. We can just simple make the decision not to extend it. Roger Knutson: The sense of the council is you're not going to build it. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. So I would not say amend the agreement but the council go on record as saying they will not construct the Nez Perce neighborhood connection to Peaceful Lane. So that's in the motion. Councilman Engel just seconded that motion. Is there any discussion? Councilwoman Jansen: ... question on the double yellow and I don't know if Scott would like to, Mr. Bother you'd like to speak to this. But we'd had a conversation earlier today as to whether or not double yellow does anything different than a single yellow. Other than free up a few inches as far as getting those cars maybe away from the curb. I am concerned about the pedestrians and again, there was conversation on maybe that yellow line is pushing the cars closer to the right hand side where you might end up with more of the vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. But do you have a conversation on that? Scott Botcher: I won't sit here and claim that that's the ultimate answer. As far as the difference between double and single, I would defer to Anita on the engineering answer. As a lay person, I honestly couldn't tell you what the difference is except for a couple inches. Anita Benson: Thank you. The conversation here concerns tonight as a professional engineer. And first we'll address the double yellow striping versus a single yellow. We have specific standards that we follow when we install traffic control devices and markings on any roadway. The standards are there to ensure uniformity. Not for enforcement and also for drivers perception wise, they know what a double yellow line means. Double yellow means we can't pass. It's a no passing zone line. And if we are going to follow standards which I would strongly recommend as your city engineer, that any striping be done out there would be double yellow. And I again would caution you, as I have in the past, at the installation of unwarranted stop signs. I have correspondence in the files on Pleasant View Road indicating that the stop sign at Indian Hill Road, nobody stops for it. That creates a hazard in itself because the stop sign being there makes people, drivers and any pedestrians out there think that the cars are going to stop and they don't. It creates a hazard. To go and install unwarranted stop signs on any roadway is doing a disservice to the public that you are here to protect. There are many misconceptions regarding stop signs out there. What they can and cannot do. One thing that stop signs have been proven in many studies is that they cannot control speed limits. Only the drivers can control their speed and diligent enforcement. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Any other questions or discussion on the motion? Otherwise there's a motion on the. Audience: ...can I make one... Councilman Labatt: I just want to comment on the motion that I wonder if we're, don't get me wrong. I wonder if we're trying to put the cart before the horse too much by trying to do all this here in one night. Acting Mayor Senn: Some of us don't feel that way Steve. We've been trying to do it for six years. Councilman Labatt: See what the increase in enforcement will bring. I mean it's such a pretty road, do you really want double yellow lines down it? Then Mark okay, I want to offer a friendly amendment to 45 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 remove that. Increase the heck of enforcement on that road. Tag them. Tow their cars, whatever you've got to do and let's see what that does for right now. Acting Mayor Senn: Sorry folks. Folks listen. Councilman Labatt: The stop signs, if they're unwarranted. We have to listen to our professional engineer here. You know if they're unwarranted, it becomes an enforcement issue that there's an illegally placed sign. We just went through it with Lake Lucy Road where we couldn't designate. We couldn't put the sign up there. So now we're going to do it to this road. I hate to do this but let's see what we can do with the increase in enforcement. I'd love to put a stop sign out there but if it's an illegally placed stop sign. Councilwoman Jansen: Then it can't be enforced. Councilman Labatt: It can't be enforced, so it does no good. Audience: ...stop signs... Acting Mayor Senn: Folks listen, I'm really sorry because there's a whole bunch of other people here waiting for other items okay and this is not proper procedure. We don't get in discussions. Okay, this has been brought back to council. We have heard you. We have listened to you okay. We've given you your say. Okay, now council needs to discuss it. There's a motion on the floor. We will act, okay. So let's just kind of leave it at that and let's quite trying to being a disservice to the other people in the room who have been sitting here for three hours waiting for us, okay. Please. And I don't mean that vindictively but it's just common courtesy, okay. Alright. Any additional comments? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: And then with the Nez Perce. I wasn't a part of that conversation or any information on that so I'd like to pull that until I have a chance to review what the documents were behind it all before I go and offer a vote on that. I mean I think that's only fair. I wasn't part of the council. Councilwoman Jansen: So that's out of the motion? As I understand it. Acting Mayor Senn: Well wait not. Hang on. Councilman Labatt is making some comments. If you'd like to make some comments, you've made your comments, okay. After he makes his comments I will say what I will do or wont' do with my motion, okay. Councilman Labatt: Those are my comments. Yeah, I'm done. Acting Mayor Senn: And from my standpoint Steve, no disrespect intended. You know this has been going for six years. This isn't a new issue. None of these are new issues. You know it's time that people either go on record to help it or not. I mean there was little or no help when the S curve was done. There was little or no help when a lot of this stuff was done. So you've got to either take a position or not take a position. You know my motion's going to stand. It's seconded and if you want to vote against it, that's up to you but the reason I'm going with the double yellow line is that's something that staff has suggested as a possible partial solution. The staff's suggesting the 25 mph speed limit, aggressive enforcement, as are the neighbors. The neighbors really feel strong about the stop signs. I felt strong about that ever since I've been on this council and it's been a continuing sore point to me. And the construction of the connection has always been in my mind been unwarranted, unnecessary and would do that neighborhood an additional 46 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 disservice and as far as I'm concerned it's time that we just put it to rest and say it's not going to happen rather than lolly gag around with this, having it sitting in no man's land so, in response to your questions that's it and call the question on the motion. Councilman Engel: And my second still stands. Scott Botcher: Just for clarification. And in fairness to you Councilmember Senn. Steve does have the ability to move an amendment and call for a vote on an amendment on his request to amend your motion, am I correct Roger? Acting Mayor Senn: Correct he can, yeah. Scott Botcher: Yeah absolutely. Just so you know that. Roger Knutson: He can amend it and then can second that amendment is voted on. Scott Botcher: And I guess a second comment is, I agree with what you said. I mean I think that if you're going to pop stop signs up, I agree with Anita. I mean I think that if you're going to do that, we can't be sitting around here just saying well isn't this cool. We'll put up stop signs. That will work. It doesn't work. We need to have a professional, we need to be professional about what we're doing up here. And with all respect to the neighbors, we need to be consistent in our application of what we're doing. I think that thirdly, I think any motion on the Nez Perce issue is doing a disservice perhaps to other neighborhoods in this city who may be interested in speaking to this issue and if we're going to address the Nez Perce issue, I would respectfully request that we advertise that we're going to do so. Because there are other citizens out there who may want to give input on this issue that may not be in agreement with the majority of those seated here this evening. Finally, my last question to the neighbors is, there are a number of, and Anita is aware of this and so is Kate. Traffic calming devices and techniques that have been used around the country. And I don't want an answer tonight because I know Mark wants to get going but if you have an interest in these devices, and working with the city on perhaps exploring these as alternatives, because they are alternatives that work to stop signs, drop me an e-mail. It may require some additional right-of- way depending on the traffic calming situation but it won't necessarily require plowing out a big stretch of the street, depending on what we do so if there's an interest in exploring that as an option, just drop me an e-mail. That's all I have. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so my motion. Scott Botcher: You need to make a motion if you want to make a motion. Roger Knutson: You can make a motion to amend. Councilman Labatt: I make a motion that we just amend Councilman Senn's motion to meet with the increase aggressive enforcement of the speed limit and hold off on double striping until what happens in the next 30 to 60 days. 45 days. That we not do anything with Nez Perce tonight and wait on that until Linda and I have a chance to read the information and the affected neighborhoods... Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second to that motion? 47 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: If I could ask a question. Did you keep the part in about eliminating the stop signs to your amendment? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. And then eliminate them for now. From a guy who enforces them, if you don't, if I can't enforce it. Councilwoman Jansen: I would second that amendment. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. And any additional discussion on that amendment? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to make an amendment to the motion made by Councilman Senn to begin aggressive enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View Road and to hold off on any action on installing stop signs, double yellow striping and any action on Nez Perce Drive extension. Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted against. The motion for an amendment failed with a tied vote of 2 to 2. Scott Botcher: Call the question on yours so now you're up. Acting Mayor Senn: So now we go back to the original motion which is, let's see here. All in favor of the original motion? Acting Mayor Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to begin aggressive enforcement of a 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View Road. Two, to install double yellow lines, no passing zone, stripe the entire length of Pleasant View. Number three, direct staff to install stop signs at Horseshoe and at Ridge/Fox Pass to help slow down traffic. And four, to not construct the Nez Perce Drive neighborhood connection to Peaceful Lane. Acting Mayor Senn and Councilman Engel voted in favor. Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen voted against. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Acting Mayor Senn: Motion fails there too. Councilwoman Jansen: I'd make a new motion that we accept staff recommendations to provide the aggressive enforcement of a 25 mph speed limit. And maybe make sure that we're following up on that and there's a report back as to the results. I think everyone's aware enough now but I wouldn't make that the motion. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second to it? Councilman Labatt: I will. Acting Mayor Senn: Any discussion on the motion? I just really have a hard time on the stop sign issue. I mean you know what we're talking about on the stop sign issue is, if you look at the rest of the world around us, it's hog wash. I've been sitting here for six years listening to why we can't lower neighborhood speed limits below 30 mph. Why we can't put up stop signs because people would like to see if they would help slow down traffic and stuff like that. Yet I do drive these areas and I'm sorry I'm wrong, there's five stop signs between 101 and let's see here, Dell Road now. And those were all put up because the city wanted to put them up and it was part of the effort to slow down and stop traffic from going through that 48 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 area because it was inconvenient. There's, I can, geez I could make a long list of places in Minnetonka where major roads are 25 mph or below and where there's stop signs in places where they aren't warranted because the council decided to put them in and to see if they could make a concentrated effort to see if they will reduce the traffic and reduce the traffic patterns. Making it less convenient for people to effectively use those routes, etc, and people will do that. People will take the routes of least resistance and I firmly believe that. Councilwoman Jansen: Are they state aid roadways? Acting Mayor Senn: Yes they are state aid roadways. Councilwoman Jansen: But you don't know that for a fact. Acting Mayor Senn: Yes I do know that for a fact. Councilman Labatt: What roads are they Mark? Councilwoman Jansen: Well and that's why we've asked Anita to check the other side of Pleasant View because we didn't know whether it is or not. So it would be significant to find that out because that's why we have been shown and told that they can't be enforced. Acting Mayor Senn: Give you wonderful example. Dell Road is a state aid roadway. There's a number of stop signs on it and none of them are warranted. So I mean. Scott Botcher: Maybe there's an opportunity here to cut a deal with the state to do it given the extenuating circumstances. I guess if we're going to do that and we can get the signs put up, that's great. I would rather do it that way thought than just throw them up and say, we're going to do it because we feel like it. Councilwoman Jansen: I mean they did lower the speed limit for us when we needed that lowered. Scott Botcher: And I don't think the State is necessarily a bunch of unreasonable heathens. I mean if we've got some difficulty there, maybe we ought to give it a run. Councilman Labatt: I'm not opposed to the stop sign. I just want to do it legally so we can, when we write a ticket for the stop sign, the guy has to pay the fine. He doesn't go into court and say well it's an illegally placed sign and his case is dismissed. It does us no good then. Where we don't give up any punishment on the violation. Let's do the analysis. Have our engineer take care of it and then go through the proper channels to get the signs put up there. Acting Mayor Senn: Steve, no analysis in the world's going to show you that stop signs are warranted on Pleasant View. It just isn't going to happen because you're not going to have the traffic counts that they talk about effectively to do that. I mean.., the number you said, the number that had to be achieved to warrant a stop sign. Anita Benson: A total of 12,000 cars through the intersection that's counting from all legs. Acting Mayor Senn: I mean impossible and come on. You tell me these other places I've recited and stuff have that kind of traffic volumes. They don't Steve and so it's just kind of a matter that either you 49 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 take the attitude that you're going to start using that as a traffic control and do something about it and see if it does some good, or you don't. Councilman Engel: I want to take a minute here. Acting Mayor Senn: I'm sorry, go ahead Mark. Councilman Engel: With all due respect to Anita, Steve, I know you guys are professionals at this. You know it. The numbers tell you what you know to be true over the long haul for the majority of situations where you examine these things. I'm a professional too. Facts and figures and statistics means something. In most instances. I also am familiar with this road and sometimes, I mean you can't just lead with what your head tells you and what the facts tell you. You've got to go with your gut and my gut tells me stop signs on this road will help. And I just want to point out, if they don't, it's not that big a loss. And I'd also like to point something else out. How many people know the laws in this state about sign placement? I wouldn't. If you gave me a ticket for running that stop sign three months from now, which is a possibility, I wouldn't know. I'd say gee, wow. Here's your $65.00. I won't do it again. And I'll wager to say that is the case for most of the people that we get ticketed for that. They don't know the difference. They won't know. And if they challenge it, more power to them. But I believe in my gut it will help. I also know in my gut that this connection to Peaceful Lane's only going to put more traffic on that road. You can't look at this thing any other way and think that that's a good thing. It's not a good thing. No matter how you slice it. We've got emergency access to those neighborhoods through the existing roads and correct me if I'm wrong, you may not have been here for it but the concern was access for emergency vehicles when they talked about that connection. And I just don't think it's that warranted. So I'm adamant about stating the position that the council does not favor that road connection and I don't think stop signs are a waste of time here. And I can go with or without the double yellow lines. It sounds like that thing can go either way with the group so I'm for the aggressive enforcement of the speed. I think everybody is. But I think a couple of well placed boulders on curves, it would remind people that ran over them once in a while, it wouldn't hurt and stop signs wouldn't hurt and you've just got to go with what you think sometimes. I know what your professional knowledge will tell you but I don't agree with it in this case. Councilman Labatt: ... what it comes down to is you just wouldn't enforce the illegal stop sign. And there's other cities that have them out there and we don't...that's what it's going to come down to so... I've been in law enforcement for 14 years and you know, I'm just telling you, if you're going to do it legally, do it legally so you can bang them on it. Scott Botcher: And Mark, I do have a problem with making a decision on Nez Perce without input from the rest of the community. I think that's doing them a disservice. For as much as you guys work hard to represent the constituents and all of them, I think you're selling yourself short. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so what do we have on the table at this point? Councilman Engel: Confusion. Acting Mayor Senn: Besides confusion. Do we have a motion on the table or don't we? Or are we just agreeing that we aren't going to pass any motions tonight? Councilwoman Jansen: Mine was for the aggressive enforcement. 5O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: And I seconded it... Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so we have a motion on the table to, would you like to say the motion again, or phrase the motion again? Councilwoman Jansen: I believe I worded it such that it was staff's recommendation for the point number 1. Providing the aggressive enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View Road between Powers and 101. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, with no direction on anything else? Well that doesn't really require a council motion anyway. Does it? I mean I think staff if anything figured that out tonight. Audience: Where is the teeth in that motion? What does aggressively mean? 20 hours a day? 1 hour a day? Councilwoman Jansen: I do think that that's something that staff works out as far as the specifics. I mean Mr. Botcher spoke to them needing to be able to, how did you word it? Sneak up on them. Scott Botcher: Well we've got to be sneaky about when we establish, what I call the speed trap there but the reality is that we've got 20,000 people out there to watch, not just the people who live on Pleasant View. So we're going to have to balance out the other needs in the community as well as that area, which we can make a focus of our emphasis. But there are times you may not see them there as well but I think given what we've done in the last two weeks, we can continue to do that. You know I don't see why we can't do that through the balance of the summer, into the fall and create immediately the perception that that is a dangerous place to speed. And that is ultimately the most effective methodology for dealing with this issue. Councilwoman Jansen: And then at some point we end up with follow-up conversation on what's been happening and the results and the effectiveness and. Scott Botcher: It may not. I think one of the issues that Steve brought up is the whole fact of, you know how much above the speed limit do we start writing citations? I mean we can easily instruct our officers, forget the warnings. You know I generally don't try to act as a police chief but we can give them some instructions. Forget the warnings. Pop them at 27, 28 and be done with it. I mean I think that goes a really long way to dealing with this issue and we don't have to mess around with the increased liability that we will take on if we place stop signs in an unwarranted position. We start sticking boulders and guard rails on the side of the street. We start destroying the neighborhood with placing this stuff. You know you're asking my gut feeling. That's my gut feeling. Acting Mayor Senn: I was just going to say, I do not oppose aggressive enforcement one way or the other. I mean I think it's, we need it. We need it badly. My fear is in supporting it in this motion, which is a motion which only does that and I've already heard implications down the line here effectively that you know, let's look at it for 3 months or whatever, 4 months or whatever. To me all that's going to happen is that's going to put off everything else for even consideration or as an issue because the attitude's going to be the council told us just to go aggressively enforce this and see what happens from there and I don't that's adequate and I don't think that that is a proper course of action for even the next 30 days on this issue. So, all in favor. 51 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel: Councilman Labatt: Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt: Wait a minute. Where are we here again? We're voting on the speed limit with. Aggression. And doing nothing on 2, 3 and 4. That's right. We're going to leave those open for consideration. I don't want you to think I'm against the Nez Perce thing Mark. I just want the chance to review the information. Councilman Engel: I know. I'm just going on my past experience. Councilman Labatt: I'm in favor of number 1 then. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to go along with staff's recommendation point number 1, provide aggressive enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor, except Acting Mayor Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THREE 3-STORY 54 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS (162 UNITS) ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-MIXED USE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101 AT MAIN STREET IN VILLAGES ON THE POND, CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THE SHELARD GROUP. Public Present: Name Address Bob Savard 8080 Brad Johnson 7425 James Amundson 8500 A1 & Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Shirley Robinson 8502 Marian & Walter Paulson 8528 Barbara Jacoby 8516 Bob Smithburg 8657 Jim Jacoby 8410 Gene Klein 8412 Wayne Holt... 8524 Marsh Drive Frontier Trail Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Chan Hills Drive North Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Bob Generous: The applicant is actually the Shelard Group. As you stated, this is a site plan review for a project. It's located on the northeast comer of Lake Susan. It acts as an entryway to the downtown area of the Chanhassen. To the south is Chanhassen Hills. A residential development. It's a little south of that project, and the Mission Hills, mixed density residential development. To the north is the downtown area. This project actually began in 1995 when the city had discussions with the developer and property owners 52 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 about developing their site. Initially they looked at providing multiple uses on the property but each one separately. The city worked with them to create a more a mixed and integrated mixed use development. Eventually in 1996 the city approved the preliminary PUD for Villages on the Ponds. This included a 100,000 square feet of institutional uses, up to 291,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, and up to 322 dwelling units. As part of that this site was designated for either 112 dwelling units and a 32,000 square foot office building located on the north part of the project, or they could get rid of the office and provide an additional 54 dwelling units for a total of 168 dwelling units that could be approved on this site. The city additionally fought to incorporate rental housing as a component of the Villages on the Pond. On the Ponds project. At least 50% of the housing must be rental housing. In the original review of this, the city also looked at and did an environmental assessment worksheet. This looked at the impacts of the project on natural resources, traffic, pollution, noise, various issues that could impact the neighborhood. The findings of that study were that no additional environmental review was required. One of the components of that was a traffic impact study. That study showed that this development provides, well actually back on traffic growth provides between 45 and 65% of the traffic growth in this area. It's not the development that's the majority traffic generator. Utilities are available to the site. The developer is proposing connection to the metropolitan interceptor which is located adjacent to the city trail runs around Lake Susan. Initially staff had recommended that this connection be jacked under Highway 5 but in... effort to move the project forward, we went to recommend that they be able to do their connection. The one issue that we had with that connection is that it go through a comer of the bluff impact zone, which is located on the southern portion of the site and that area was to be preserved as part of the view of only 1,000 square feet of canopy area, additional canopy area will be removed due to the utility extension and the applicant has agreed to replace that. As part of the overall plan, a storm water management plan for the site was developed and located south of the housing project is the main storm water pond for Villages on the Ponds. This will treat the storm water for the residential development as well as the Village core prior to discharge into Riley Creek. This is an integral component of the project and it was reviewed by the DNR and they were supportive of putting it there. Unfortunately it removes a lot of trees. As part of the planning commission review, the planning commission did recommend approval of this. However, they wanted to make sure that the landscaping plan adequately buffer the Lake Susan from this development and the Highway 101 corridor. We believe with the revisions to the plan that's required, based on the conditions of approval that we can get buffering done. The other issue was again traffic and we believe that while 101 is in a degraded state due to the overall growth of the community, it's not this specific development that's responsible for that. The final issue is about a beachlot. This proposal currently before us is not for any approval ofbeachlots. We're not even sure that if it was reviewed for a beachlot, that it can comply with the ordinance requirements, specifically the drainage and utility easements over the southern portion of the site. This development does comply with the setbacks and design standards established for Villages on the Ponds. With that, staff is recommending approval of the site plan based on the conditions in our report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of staff from council? Councilwoman Jansen: I actually have a couple. The first being going back to the two different sewer locations that have been discussed. If I understand correctly, the northerly original proposed location with the EAW for Villages to go under 101, is that, if I look at the recommendation, we're still jacking the water main under 101 at that location. So part of the original recommendation was that this would just be one other utility that would be jacked under 101. Correct? Dave Hempel: Councilwoman Jansen. In addition to the watermain that will be jacked underneath 101, storm sewer will also eventually be jacked underneath 101 to serve the core of Villages on the Pond. Right 53 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 now Villages has a temporary pond on the east side of 101 below St. Hubert's. Eventually that pond will be eliminated with the upgrade of Highway 101 and/or development of additional hard surface in the village core area which will necessitate the extension of that trunk storm sewer down below the apartment site where a regional pond has been designated and not yet constructed, but would be. Which is proposed to be constructed with the apartment. Councilwoman Jansen: And the storm sewer at this point would still be jacked under 101 at that northerly location, not the southerly location? Dave Hempel: Correct. Timing wise we were hoping to have upgrades of 101 at the same time that these utilities needed to be extended so they could be easily extended through 101 when it was being upgraded. Concurrently with the upgrade of 101. But the development's coming before the upgrade of 101 which necessitates the tunneling underneath 101. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So the way that the recommendation is worded currently, then the storm sewer and the water would be jacked under 101 at the northerly location. So why would we then move the other to the southern? Kate Aanenson: That was a request by the applicant. There's two alternatives to provide sewer. There is a cost that's involved. That was a request made, and it is a feasible alternative. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, but it does disturb more of the topography of the site, if we do move it to the southerly location. I'm hearing the amount but. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, so that was one question. And then the NURP ponds, the Pond #4 that's shown on the southern end at this point. As I was going through the EAW I did bring it back with me in case you need that. When I went through that it did show that pond but it was significantly smaller and I realize that we're doing.., mitigation in that area. Is that why that, why is that pond become so much larger? It's significantly larger than the original one that was within the EAW so I guess my question is, why has it grown so significantly? Originally it didn't impact the creek. Or the buffer in the creek. Dave Hempel: Based on my recall, I believe that sizing the pond to meet the water quality standards enlarged it. I don't recall the EAW... Kate Aanenson: I can address some of that. Originally they had proposed using tennis courts down there, using that for a phase. We never agreed to that .... as part of the tradeoff, there were areas that we wanted to preserve as natural. The storm water management plan always provided for this area.., for the creek and the lake as part of the, as this project developed and the final calculations were made. I believe Dave, correct me if I'm wrong but we talked about combining those ponds with 101 and we shifted one pond... I believe that's how it got enlarged and we moved the tennis courts that were originally set for that area. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So if I followed what you just said, would we in trying to leave some additional vegetation of the existing vegetation along the creek, would we be able to shift part of this pond, as you just said you brought it back over 101. Could that go back over to where we are only taking the space where that tennis courts were originally proposed? And sufficiently handle the storm water. Is that not a fair question to pop tonight? I'm sorry, I just looked at the EAW this weekend. 54 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Dave Hempel: Sure. Based on the storm water calculations, they determine a pond size. The exact configuration could be massaged but the surface area and the depth of the pond is a given. We have to have that size. So if they can massage the character of the meandering size of the pond to leave more vegetation along the creek, we can certainly look into that. One thing I just want to point out as well, only about 70% of the pond is being built at this time. The remaining pond will be built as 101 is upgraded and old 101 roadway bed is abandoned. That will mm also into a future ponding area. Councilwoman Jansen: So conceivably, if I follow what you just said then the pond as it expanded, it would expand to where the road is currently versus going any closer to the creek as it were to increase in size? Dave Hempel: That's correct. Councilwoman Jansen: So whatever we could preserve in this initial phase could conceivably manage to stay there with the expansion. Okay. And then again going to the EAW. It noted that for the total Villages on the Pond, that it's a proposal of the 266 residential units and then if they give up some of the office square footage, that adds an additional 56 so we're up to the 322 with 162 of them being in this apartment complex. Are we anticipating there will only be 160 residential over on the other side? I guess I didn't. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's where we anticipate the mix, vertical and horizontal mix on the other side and that would be in the... Councilwoman Jansen: So that wouldn't be over 1607 I mean at this point it wouldn't be going over that maximum because I'm looking, okay. It would still be the 322. Okay. The other part of the EAW, and I don't mean to keep going but I think these are some of the issues that are going to come up as maybe some of the questions are being asked by the residents. For the total Villages it was noting, well I'll just read it. A 15 acre, undeveloped area will remain in the southern end or the south end of the site around the lakes and the creek. And I realize we're talking about both sides when we're talking the 15 acres. Not just this one side. Noting that that will maintain some quality habitat for a variety of wildlife. It goes on to say that there would be 6 acres of existing tree coverage that would remain on this end of this property. So now when I'm looking in the report, we're showing a requirement of just a minimum of 2.65 acres of canopy cover. So if in the original EAW we were anticipating that, okay. Kate Aanenson: But not in this area. The PUD looked at it in a wholelistic sense. I think when this project came in, there was concern that in order to get the church and the school in, there would have to be a significant amount of grading. I think we all acquiesced that to make that happen we're going to concede on the grading. But what we said is there was, we wanted to do this project different than the traditional zoning. We wanted to give the church.., parking shared projects. The developer wanted some additional commercial and the city wanted additional residential.., and the players that were involved and what we said is we will preserve some acreage and what that... Rice Marsh piece. That was the.., some of those trees will come down with future development.., but there is a significant amount... Councilwoman Jansen: Do you, and I realize I'll be putting you on the spot tonight, would be able to get that number at some point as to what is south of St. Hubert's? Okay. 55 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: I can show you on this map. It shows up on there, but sure we can bring back. But there are areas that were preserved specifically for trees but we didn't...there would be tree loss on this site. The tree ordinance says, it doesn't say you can't remove trees but it does say if you exceed a certain amount, you will have to do a substantial amount of replacement. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. And when I quote the 2.65, that's what we're saying the minimum is. Kate Aanenson: You're not touching the bluff area, which is a no touch zone. They're outside the bluff area, right. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. But by the time they get done with the grading, we're down to less than an acre so what they're replacing is still going to be about an acre and a half of new plantings versus our having maintained more of the existing. I guess I just got the flavor from the EAW that we were attempting to preserve more than that. Or at least more than you can see and maybe... Kate Aanenson: ...whole PUD though. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. And I guess visually, not being able to really see the size of what's behind St. Hubert's. It doesn't give you that impression that we've preserved as much as obviously could be hidden behind the church. And I guess that just stuck out as I was reading through it. Those are all my questions for now for staff, thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot with some of those. I know I threw a lot of questions at you before the meetings and you were very helpful so thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Questions of staff, Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. A couple of citizens called me about impact of traffic generation... Kate Aanenson: Yes, it consistent with the Environmental Assessment. This did trigger that and when this original project came forward, the Environmental Assessment, that's what Councilwoman Jansen's referring to. It's consistent with the study that was done. Councilman Labatt: So...that's where they live. Kate Aanenson: There's more background traffic that this will be generating. Most trips from this will be heading north but the city continues to grow, traffic... 101 on the upgrade project. This project will also propose an underpass that... Councilman Labatt: And that's with this project or with the 1017 Kate Aanenson: With the underpass. Councilman Engel: It would come out on the northern or the southern connection? Kate Aanenson: It's down by the creek. Councilman Labatt: And that's slated for what year? Acting Mayor Senn: Unknown, how's that? 56 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Because the residents are going to want to know. The people who live over on Lake Susan. Acting Mayor Senn: We don't know. Councilman Labatt: So we don't know at this point. Kate Aanenson: It's a capital improvements but it's a ways out, correct. Mission Hills came in, same similar situation. It's just continuing. Councilman Labatt: So not to keep on that topic but what about signalizing?... I just hate to bring it up again but, after what we just went through but you know. Dave Hempel: Councilmember Labatt, maybe I can address that one a little bit. In the overall traffic study for Villages on the Pond, at some future point they estimated a signal would be warranted at the intersection of Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 101 with full development of Villages on the Ponds. We've asked the developer to go back and update a segment of the traffic study with this development before you tonight to look at any traffic mitigation measures that would be necessary having all three apartment buildings on the one lower site versus two and one on the north. And that will be done as a part of this overall development. We don't anticipate any major traffic mitigation measures being proposed other than the right turn lane, which they're recommending. Councilman Labatt: I had some of the same concerns Linda did... And then it was the impact on the bluff on the one portion of. Kate Aanenson: With the sewer, right. There are two options, as we indicated which was the original one on the EA to take it to 101. Or the other alternative is to tie into the interceptor... Councilman Labatt: Cost savings of how much to the developer? Dave Hempel: Approximately $12,000.00. Councilman Labatt: Impact on the bluff. Kate Aanenson: Right. Our recommendation in the report, as indicated in the report was to take it to 101. That's how...but we do want to apprise you of the fact that the applicant had asked for another option. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel, any questions? Councilman Engel: No questions. Comments I'll save for later when it's time. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. I have no additional questions at this time either. Let's see here. Before we go to the applicant, and I know there's a number of people here on this item tonight. I've heard from quite a number of people on this item before tonight. But I just want people to understand, and you may have already picked this up from some of the questions and answers is that the item before us tonight is a site plan review and a site plan review is basically in conformance with all zoning, density, use requirements, etc. There is no, I think this goes too far Roger but there's really no legal reason we can turn this site plan 57 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 review down one way or another. If you have objections or problems with this project there is another consideration going on that's occurring at the EDA and the council level at a later date concerning the subsidy relationship to this project and that is an area in which the city has considerably more influence and/or latitude in what they do or don't do. So just, I mean I hate to say after 4 ½ hours that I don't want to waste your time because we've been meeting for 4 ½ hours but essentially the site plan review process and as long as all the requirements and setbacks and all that sort of thing are being met, allows us very little latitude in terms of what we can do. So just want you to understand that before we go into it. With that I'd like to ask the applicant if he or she has any presentation and we'll go from there. Sheldon Wert: One comment I'd like to make, my name is Sheldon Wert. I represent myself. And I did want to make the comment relative to the comment that Mark made and that is that this site plan presentation and review is only part of the process that we need to go through and I don't want, you know that we've appeared before the EDA before and we have a talking range and I don't want anybody to think that's on the EDA, which includes all of you, that what's been talked about there so far is acceptable and that's why we're here to finish it up. We know we've got fish to fry at that meeting yet and we look forward to having the next meeting so I just want to tell you that. That this seems to be a bifurcated effort the way it's done in this city and we want to just give you that impression that we want this to be passed tonight, definitely, but we still have hurdles to overcome in terms of doing the project. Do you want to give them a little bit on the? Greg Hollenkamp: I've been advised to keep this pretty short. My name is Greg Hollenkamp with KKE Architects. What I'll do is I'll just walk you quickly through the site plan. Show the elevations. Show you some of the materials and then we'll open it up to any questions you have. The site plan's pretty straight forward. You can see we have three buildings. These are three story buildings over underground parking. The access is directly across from the access to Village on the Ponds. We sited the buildings in a way to contain the parking within the central area and then also to minimize the views to the lake. As an example Building Number C right here, we have a narrow view facing that lake. In addition, we do have a small recreation building that would be in the center here, with a swimming pool and I think I'll just go right to the elevations. The bluff area on this plan is located right in here. You see the trees here and the trees here. There's actually two sections of bluff. These lines indicate the setbacks from that bluff so we cannot do any construction or any grading work within that bluff area, so that's.., as a natural bluff around there. The exterior of the building was designed.., consistent with the theme for Village on the Ponds. More of a... essentially again the building is three stories of housing above an underground parking garage. The buildings are bermed into the hill as to reduce the... The building is broken up into a number of... bay windows and decks. Optional fireplace which would provide chimneys at the roof. The roof has a fairly steep pitch... The trails, what we're looking at is at the main entry, in these areas we have a fieldstone accent... Fieldstone accent and then the base of the building is a rock face block, an architectural block. The siding is a mix of, in these areas a vinyl siding. No maintenance siding and then we're added more of a cedar shingle look at the base of those... And then last time when we met with the planning commission, they wanted us to give you an idea of what this would look like from the lake. And what we have here. This is, if you were on the south side of the lake, if you were standing on the south side of the lake looking towards the buildings and if you took the section cut through that pond, that holding pond that you were talking about earlier, that pond is located right here. There's existing vegetation that would be kept between the pond and the lake. In addition, there will be new vegetation on this side buffering this from Highway 101. We did meet with the city forester and they've indicated that with the... You will see the buildings obviously. The top of the buildings. This tree canopy indicates about 40 foot tree canopy. We don't know exactly what.., but you will see the rooftops of the buildings. This was the building I was talking about with the lake. This is another section cut. This would be a cut that's taken essentially going 58 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 up the hill, right in front of that recreation building that you see on the site. So again you'll see the canopy and the trees and the rooftops there and... Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions from council for the applicant? Councilman Labatt: Are the third level of the apartments going to be vaulted ceilings inside? Greg Hollenkamp: We can put vaulted ceilings in... Councilman Labatt: I was just curious, the pitch of the roof. Greg Hollenkamp: There is enough roof to do that. It's not uncommon... Councilman Engel: Just curiosity, are you going to build this in phases or all three at once? Greg Hollenkamp: We'd build in one overall phase but one building... Acting Mayor Senn: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. If not we will, is there anybody else who'd like to be heard on the site plan review? I'll bring it up to council then. Oh, anybody. No, anybody. Jim Amundson: My name is Jim Amundson. I'm at 8500 Great Plains Boulevard. I wrote each of you a letter regarding this site and the two main concerns I have, I have nothing against the development itself but we're losing a lot of trees. And when I moved in there 6 years ago, I was told that would never be developed. Well, obviously that wasn't true. As I walked in tonight I look at a flag sitting on the flag pole that says Tree City USA. Now maybe we plant trees but we seem to be destroying a lot of them lately. And I think if the holding pond goes there, if we had 101 in, would we need a holding pond? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Jim Amundson: Even with 101 updated? We would need that for storm water runoff? Bob Generous: Plus additional. Jim Amundson: I just don't understand all these holding ponds. I mean we've got all of them around Village and now we're going to put it in, into that whole area in the south end, or the east end of the lake where if you look at that east end, and I invited anybody to come look at it. It's full of egrets, birds, and we're going to destroy that. Now I was going to bring my stuff with me to show you all the fancy stuff but I couldn't get a 40 foot tree in here. That's what we're destroying. I don't care, you can't replace 40 foot trees. You can put small trees and bushes in there but the sight line is still going to look at 101. On the east end of the lake. Sewer line, I asked for $12,000.00, make them go the other way with it. Why infringe on the bluff area? We're going to impact the trail. If you look in here they're going to be gravel for a while. Hard to Rollerblade over gravel. Lot of people... I just ask for you, nothing against the project but think of the impact of us on the lake and why we moved there and as city manager stated earlier with the Pleasant Hill people, they didn't want the curb thing put in because it's going to destroy trees and the beauty and that's why they live there. That's why I live there. It's for the beauty of that lake and this is going to impact it. I just ask for you to look at those considerations. 59 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else? Mary Klingelhutz: ... number of people on the lake and... Acting Mayor Senn: Mary, can you come up to the microphone. Mary Klingelhutz: My name is Mary Klingelhutz and I live on Lake Susan and I'd just like to tell you the concerns that we have as residents of this city and people who live on the lake. As concerned citizens of the city of Chanhassen, especially those in the Lake Susan area regarding the proposed apartment complex on the east shore of Lake Susan, these are our major concerns. The size, height and density of the proposed development on the shores of our lake. The possibility of better uses such as offices or senior facilities. We live on or near the lake and see the level of activity on the lake on a daily basis. Some of the issues discussed at the public hearing we feel merit special attention like safety, enforcement and appearance related. At this time the public boat launch is at the public park. This is a very active launch that all residents and everyone else who boats on the lake uses for access. A single launch allows for better and easier.., and also better control of the spread of the exotic plants such as milfoil. We recommend that no dock or beach on Lake Susan or for this development be approved. A strong precedent has been set that no new development on Lake Susan would have either dockage or a beachlot. Rosemount and Lake Susan Hills have donated land by the lake for a trail. We feel strongly that the issues related to the lakeshore trees between the existing path and Riley Creek should be preserved and those other trees up to 100 feet from the lake should also be preserved as a visual and sound buffer. Also other trees over 12 inches in diameter should be preserved. We strongly recommend and support the above listed reasons and other issues including the traffic hazards that this project will involve. And that's about it. But I really, I would just love to see if these have to go forward, that maybe one of them, one of the buildings could be designated for seniors if nothing else because there are so many seniors and we would just really need facilities for seniors and if that's something that you could maybe work in, a lot of us would sure appreciate it but you know, well thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks Mary. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is anybody else? Wayne Holtmeier: I'm Wayne Holtmeier. I live on 8524 Great Plains Boulevard. Just have a couple of issues and I think repeating what has been said already. I have no issue specifically with the apartment complex whatsoever and in fact I think especially as you start talking about TIF dollars and that's probably not the appropriate term for what the old HRA was but I think affordable housing, low income housing is certainly something that the city needs to look at and would strongly consider that even more if in fact this apartment complex does go in and would encourage you, if you're going to use city money, to think about that issue as it relates to the city of Chanhassen. As it relates to the apartment complex specifically, I guess I have probably four different concerns. Number one, I'd like to see that you minimize any kind of disruption of the existing tree canopy or shrub canopy in that particular area. I would agree as was said earlier, you can't replace existing trees with new trees and new growth. It just doesn't, that trade off from 6O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 my perspective just isn't there. I think the sight lines, the protection of the trails and the sight by others that are on the lake, I think it's important to maintain the existing canopy. That would mean that if you have a holding pond or whatever, I would prefer to have that on the other side of Highway 101. Not down by the lake. I question the affect on the outlet to the lake going to Rice Marsh and down further down into the other lakes in Chanhassen. Also, the sewer. I know that cost is certainly important as you develop these particular projects but if the sewer does have an affect on the tree canopy, my preference would be to jack it under 101 and take it to the east if that's, or to the north, whatever that appropriate direction is. I can't stress enough the importance of maintaining that canopy and the wildlife and such that it does maintain in that particular area. I also have concern, and I know that Bob has done the study relative to traffic and I have the utmost respect for Bob and the other city staff but I have a major concern about the traffic at Highway 101. I have concern about my family coming out and trying to get on 101 in the morning and in the evenings. There's a tremendous amount of traffic that goes on there. I can't quote the numbers of trips that occur on that road but there are a number of driveways, much like the Pleasant View area. That are hidden driveways. You have cars that are coming through there that are supposed to be going 40 mph. I don't have a good sense of what the actual speed is but I know I take my life in my hands whenever I try to get my mail out of my mailbox. And that's another area that I think from a traffic pattern that ought to be a concern for the city. The usage of the lake. I know that they mentioned that the dock or whatever the case might be is not an issue at this particular point in time. My concern is, there's only so many things that I can keep track of as a homeowner in the city of Chanhassen. If this is put off until sometime later, I'm not sure that I'm going to know that it's an issue or not and I'm not sure that I will have the opportunity to give input on that particular issue. I'd like to see that addressed, along with the full project. I have some serious concerns about the impact of additional boat traffic on the lake. There's a number of motor boats that get on from the park and also by residents and I have serious concern if you sit out there, and I'd invite you to come over some evening on a weekend and see the number of boats out there and the concern I have about safety on that particular lake. That is an issue and I have some concerns about what 162 unit apartment complex, what additional usage that would bring to the lake. The lake's everybody's. Everybody ought to be able to use it, whether you're a lakeowner, a homeowner on the lake or whatever, but at some point the usage goes beyond what is safe and I think the city needs to consider that at the same time. The last issue I have is just the process, and I alluded to that earlier. I think that the Lake Susan Homeowners Association or the people on the lake have been good neighbors. We've participated and given and had our input solicited relative to Rosemount. Relative to the Lake Susan Park. Lake Susan Hills. Chanhassen Hills and we've been solicited and given our opinion and have worked very closely with the city in the past to try to make, develop those developments successful and have, be successful in the city but yet have the least kind of impact on the lake so that the lake is available for all citizens of Chanhassen. In this particular situation and as I alluded to earlier, I wasn't even informed of this particular development that was occurring. For some reason, and I've indicated the city doesn't know I exist. I've lived here for 25 years, I don't get any information coming from the city and I've tried over the last couple years to try to get on the mailing list and for whatever reason the computer says I don't exist, and maybe I don't. Maybe for tax purposes that would be great. But we've been good citizens and we would like to have our input heard on these issues and all the other issues that I've talked about. Rosemount or Lake Susan Hills. Chanhassen Hills and whatever. We've been involved early in this process. We went to the Planning Commission meeting and there were comments made by planning commission members, this may be a surprise to you but we've known about this for a couple years. Well it was a surprise to us and I'm not sure as a resident of Chanhassen I ought to be surprised by a development that's going in next to my home that's been discussed for 2 or 3 years and we're supposed to organize our ideas and give our input into something that's well on it's way to being approved by the planning commission and the city council. So those are concerns about the process and for someone that doesn't have the time, and we don't have the time to look in the paper and see the issues. I know that city staff is very busy at the same time but there 61 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 needs to be a better process so that homeowners, as in the past, were able to get involved early in the planning processes for such a major project and I appreciate your time, thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else who'd like to be heard? Jim Jacoby: My name's Jim Jacoby, 8410 Great Plains Boulevard. I remember at the last meeting they talked about the parking for the facility and I didn't hear it mentioned today. That there's a city ordinance usually 2 per apartment building. But you're only requiring 1.7 for this particular development and I just, you know as you said, we can't do anything about anything else but I know with 101 there, I mean if you have to have any residents crossing from that apartment building across to use parking across the street or something, I think that would be very dangerous. So if there isn't sufficient parking on that site, that would be a real concern to me and I would think anybody there. I just want to reiterate what everyone else said. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thanks. Bob or Kate, do you? Bob Generous: There was, as part of their proposal reduction in the parking at 1.87 spaces per unit. Ordinance, the code said 2. What they've done with the one bedrooms is basically they're providing 1.7 per one bedroom unit and 2 per two bedroom unit. Kate Aanenson: You can...this project, trying not to overpark this project. We don't believe that it will be a problem... Councilman Labatt: What about for guests and all that? Kate Aanenson: They can go through that. They went through that, the architect can go through that with the, they went through that with the planning commission. That was addressed and they felt comfortable with what, they've got underground parking and then some of, similar to what we have in the senior center. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else who'd like to heard? A1 Klingelhutz: It'd be unusual if I didn't say something, wouldn't it? ... I thought some of the things that Wayne said were very appropriate to this project. I do have a lot of concern about the trees on the project. I'd like to reiterate that we aren't so much against the apartment complex but it's what it's going to do to the property it's setting on and we would sure like a little better buffer between the lake and the apartment building. A 50 foot building sticking up on a hill will sure stand out there like a sore thumb if you don't have some buffer between the lake and the buildings themselves. The holding pond, which the intended spot to put it right now will just destroy an enormous amount of mature trees and I think there should be a better place to put a holding pond than to take trees down with the Tree City of Chanhassen is supposed to be protecting as much as possible. One other issue that I'm a little bit concerned about, and we went, we just went through the same issue with Pleasant View Road. I don't know how many of you live on 101 but it's a road very similar to Pleasant View. It's got a lot of sharp curves and...that there's more sirens go down 101 from the police department than any other road in Chanhassen. And the main reason for that is they're so dog gone many accidents down there. Just this morning there was an accident in my driveway. Didn't know it was there but I was informed about it tonight and there's a lot of glass laying on the road 62 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 yet. Before the park trail was there, many of them went in the ditch. Well now the park trail kind of protects some of them. They finally get to stop before they enter the ditch because the ditch is only about that wide. And going from the other side, coming from the south going towards the north, I've seen several tracks across the trail going down into my field. So it's not an accident free road and the more traffic we're going to put on it, the more of those things are going to happen so I think we should take a close look at that. I think the three main issues from the people living on the lake and around the area are traffic, tree protection and the area where the holding pond is going to be. We've worked with the city on Lake Susan Hills. Lake Susan Hills has a public land along the lake, all the way along. It was demanded when development came in. The city agreed to it at that time. The residents along there have lived with it. They're going to be looking at this same project across the lake and if there's going to be a dock there, they're going to say hey, we would like to have a dock too. But I think a precedent has been set, especially Lake Susan Hills and Rosemount. When Rosemount came in, in order for them to get their development that they wanted, they had to stay above the tree line, which is 350 feet away from the lake in order to get the zoning they wanted. Some of these things I think the city can stand up for and give the people on Lake Susan and the surrounding area the protection that they'd like to have as far as their views are concerned. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Anybody else? If not, we'll bring it back up to council. Comments. Councilman Labatt: Kate, is there an alternative site for a holding pond or not? Kate Aanenson: This was identified, and this.., this site was always kind of identified as a pond holding... There's an ongoing battle, I've got staff people. I've got trees and wetland protection in my department and it's a trade off...We were aware of that when we went into this project. The Klingelhutz' are very much aware on working with St. Hubert's Church. We spent 2 years working on this EAW process. Getting the zoning in place. A lot of articles in the paper. We spent a lot of time going through all the issues and those of you that were on the council at the time remember the contention and the battles and there was a lot of hashing to where we are. We're certainly...We worked very hard with them and we had problems where we... We've had continued growth in 1994 Mr. Klingelhutz sold his property for the Mission. That added traffic and changed the complexity down there.., so we did spend a lot of time looking at this...And the beachlot issue I'll address too. To get a beachlot you have to have.., but to get that they have to have a dedicated lot. A beachlot which at a minimum you get one dock with three boats .... need 30,000 square feet and 200 feet of lake frontage...and at this point I'm not sure how they can do that. Councilman Labatt: They don't have it. Kate Aanenson: They don't have it. They'd have to... It was never our intent to give them a beachlot... Lake Susan beachlot that was put in place with Rosemount that acquisition of a trail was given.., buy that property. The rest of it... Unfortunately it's hard to cross 101. Councilman Labatt: And a couple other questions. On page 5, underneath grading. Staff has reviewed the proposed northerly building elevations and based on the proposed grades they appear acceptable with some modifications. What are the modifications? Dave Hempel: I believe some of those modifications were adjusting the building height in some of the areas to reduce the slope and the elevation of potential retaining walls in that north building. And on further review of that, what would have happened in having to raise the elevation of the building to steepen the 63 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 parking lot grades and also bring the building elevation up in the air. I don't think that section actually got updated. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we did update that. That was a question that Councilwoman Jansen... and we went through that.., change the building elevation... Councilman Labatt: So the modifications... Two paragraphs down the quality of earthwork involved in this project is unknown at this time. What's your rough estimate as far as... How many yards is a truck? 107 ... and then under the recommendations, I did not see any designation of handicap stalls. What's the ratio as far as the number of stalls? Kate Aanenson: I don't know.., building code. Councilman Labatt: ... our joint meeting we talked about senior citizen stalls. The biggest part of the... adequate number along side the handicap and the next designated stalls would be designated as handicap, or as senior citizens? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Labatt: That's all I have for right now. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I've only got four. Try to be brief here. Site plan looks good for the most part. I've got four issues of concern. One's come up already. Since I've got a vote, I'm going to throw my two cents worth in on it as well. That holding pond I would just as soon see it moved to the east side of the highway as well. And the reason is, I know we've done a lot of studies on it. The trees on the far, on the west side to me are a more acceptable alternative than to destroy them and put a holding pond that close to Lake Susan because visually in my opinion Rice Marsh Lake is not as appealing as Lake Susan. I wouldn't be as opposed to seeing a holding pond on that side of the highway. I'm not for a beachlot or a dock, and anyway I don't think they can get it anyway. I'd like to see a substantial buffer zone south of the existing single family homes and the complex that is designed. I'd like to see a maximum setback as possible while still allowing them to build. For the buildings to protect the vegetation and the sight lines so however you can do that. Those are the things I'm concerned about, based on all the calls, letters, e-mails. Kate Aanenson: I'll ask Dave if you have water go uphill. Councilman Engel: Say that again? Kate Aanenson: Water run uphill. Councilman Engel: Can you pull that stuff over to Rice Marsh? I thought you were trying to decide. Kate Aanenson: There's a wetland but there's also... I understand the issue. We all do. Councilman Engel: Is there any method at all to doing this? Solar generator in there. Yeah, a lift station. A lift station right across the highway... I got my chance to weigh in. I'm done. 64 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Councilperson Jansen. Any comments? Councilwoman Jansen: Any comments. I won't be quite so brief. Actually going back to what was originally stated as we started looking at this, and I'm coming back to what can the city do to address the site plan? What flexibility is there? Well from my understanding of why we do PUD's, the whole description is the PUD zone is used to allow for more flexibility design standards while creating a higher quality and a more sensitive proposal. So we do have something of a catch. You get into the site plan findings and it talks about number one, the consistency with the elements and objectives as the city's development guide, including the comp plan. Road mapping. Other plans which I think ties in with our whole strategic planning and protecting natural resources. And I guess before I go further, let me back up a step. I'm not opposed to the project and I have said that to anyone who's called or mentioned the project. It's an excellent project. It's the location of the project and what it does to this particular site that it would seem that if we exercise some of our policies here, we could better guide it to fit this lot, if this is where it's going to go. And again coming back to the whole comp plan and the conversations on our natural resources. Point three, maybe at some time in the future we need to go back and give it some numbers or some figures because this is the one that I keep coming to and thinking it should have better controls on how we're impacting this property. The preservation of the site in it's natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and deciding grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. And when I come to that and within this site grading, it's currently with the canopy cover of 94% and by the time we get done grading, it's at 11% canopy coverage. Realizing that we do require that they reforest it back up to 35%. We have to get back to the 35% so that will be all of the new canopy that goes in. But what can we do to guide this to help preserve the 24% that right now is just going to end up being new planting? So that's one of my issues that comes out of this paragraph. And then when you hear 80,000 yards of fill, how is that, how is that sensitive grading on a property? We're not going to have any of the natural topography of this site left. So we're not accomplishing number 3, and again I understand that what we've done is we've looked at this as a significant project. It would be an asset to the community. It has a lot of the concepts that we would like to bring into Chanhassen. This leads you to wonder if it's the right site. Point four to that is create a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. You go down to six and it's protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound, site buffers, preservation of views, light and air. And we're identifying that this is a significant trail so it's not that it's just the residents who live on the lake, it's a community asset. And that definitely is one of the things that's pointed to in our own comprehensive plan and the significance of these features to the entire community. From the comp plan, Chanhassen is fortunate to have a significant natural amenities in the forms of creek and river corridors. There's a significant creek corridor here. The corridors represent significant visual, environmental and recreational amenities to the community. Creek corridors create ideal locations for city trails which is exactly what we've done with this one. So you know, and to tree cover, from again the comp plan and I'm commending staff as I'm reading these. Realize it's our city staff that wrote these comp plans. I mean these are our policies and so what I'm coming back to with staff is how can we as a city council, as we're reviewing these, make sure that we're helping provide the guidelines to keep these developments within... Some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features to this day are the forested areas that exist within the community. These areas contribute to the open spaces and rural flavor of the community. They are important determinants of the city's image, health and livability and as such should be preserved. In addition to the aesthetic and social contributions, tree cover has economic benefits for the city as well. It is well documented that trees reduce air and noise pollution, storm water runoff, and the heat island affect, all of which affect the city's expenditures of energy and storm water retention. And I'll stop reading from the comp plan with, despite all measures employed, the city is still 65 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 losing tree covered residential, industrial and infrastructure NURP ponds development. Since trees do serve as an indicator to community health and image and has significant economic impacts, more commitment to their preservation is needed. So I'm acknowledging and I've got this disparity between what our policies say at the high level we're trying to accomplish, and how we don't have the mechanism in place to protect one of the last developable large properties on one of our major significant lakes. And that it is in the downtown corridor. I realize it's gotten late but I also pulled the Highway 5 corridor study and staff knows how significant this study too points to maintaining the natural features and the flavor of the city as you come down Highway 5. And how many of our residents are going to be coming into the Villages and what flavor would they get if we maintained more of this property compared to if we completely level it and lose all of the trees. It will look like another development. You'll never know what was there previously so if we have the mechanisms that would allow us within the PUD to leave more of the significant features on the lot, and 94% down to 11%, can we somehow maintain closer to that 35% of the mature vegetation. Kate Aanenson: Can I just answer that real quick? When we did the EA we did the whole 60 acres as a whole. You're looking at one parcel of that whole 60 acres. We looked at the whole... What was the significant features. What was selected was south of St. Hubert's, the knoll with the trees on it. That was selected as significant and believe me there was a lot of, Mark can attest to that. There was a lot of teeth gnashing .... number how much dirt went out with St. Hubert's. We agreed that this site would be altered. There was a lot of discussion. It wasn't.., we went through a lot of discussion. Two years of discussion. So when you say we're compromising, I understand where you're coming from that. We looked at this as an entire 64 acres for Villages on the Ponds. It was agreed at that point we would acquiesce.., zoning this piece of property, understanding that there'd be tree loss. But the compromise was we would preserve that area on the other side. So that's how it came about. It wasn't like every piece was to have... We saved a significant... St. Hubert's, and I don't have that quantity. I'd be happy to get that for you but... Councilwoman Jansen: Well and even to that point, when you look at the amount of tree coverage that was present on the original park of the Villages, a lot of that was leveled. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess and where I'm coming from from my earlier question is I would like to see that number as to what has been preserved on the other side of St. Hubert's so that we can see where we are to where our goal was on the preservation, because the EAW does refer to more tree maintenance. Or maintaining more of the natural habitat that's there now than you can see. And if that is a fact, and this is the more visible piece of property, shouldn't we be going back, if we can, no matter what that initial plan was? The PUD provides us the ability to have some flexibility here. If I'm not mistaken, it's high density but that's a range from. Kate Aanenson: It's a framework. He said this is going to be... Roger Knutson: Councilmember Senn. The City has a lot of discretion as Councilmember Jansen mentioned in putting together a PUD, but you've already exercised that discretion. The City approved the planned unit development in 1996. It was in that document you decided that this was the appropriate use of this property. That's where it went through the council at that time went through a checklist of what is right. How does the comprehensive plan work in this area? What do we want to preserve? What don't we want to preserve? All that discretion was exercised at that time. We're not here now, a proposal to amend the planned unit development. That's in place. The zoning and the appropriate uses have already been 66 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 established. We're here on frankly with very limited discretion on a site plan review to determine whether this site plan complies with the planned unit development under our ordinance requirements in place. The use and concept has already been decided. Councilwoman Jansen: Absolutely. I'm not questioning the use, but the actual site plan is very different from the original plan in the EAW, and that's what I'd like to revisit and see how this new site plan has come in compared to the original EAW because the buildings are, the footprints are larger. There's more soil excavation than was originally forecast because of the tiering. You know where are we at compared to what we were trying to accomplish on this lot? The NURP pond is larger than was originally shown. So there's more tree loss due to the pond. There's the issue of you know which part of the site do we bring the sewer into. Northern? Southern? It seems that if we could go back on this proposal, hearing the residents input as well, I mean they've got issues with this piece of property that are legitimate. Maybe we didn't consider then them but it seems like there are some variations between this site plan and the EAW. If we could just take a look at them and see if there's room for us to be able to negotiate this to save more of the natural feature of that property. Whether it's the change in the grading so we're removing less of it. It's less costly. I know we addressed that at the EDA meeting. That if you could cut the amount of fill that they were having to move from the site, it would be a terrific cost savings to them. Have we explored that further? Have we voiced as a community that that would be the route that we would like to explore is keeping more of the topography on this site? What are the other options? And then have we chased them? ... changing the original agreement with the development. Roger Knutson: I've not compared it against the EAW. More importantly, or as importantly, is what does the PUD say they can do and how does that compare with what they say with this. And staff has made their analysis. Obviously you can make your own. Councilwoman Jansen: Those were my key points. I mean if, I guess I would hope that we're not in such a hurry that we would be able to table this tonight. Go back with staff. Review those parts of the site plan. See what kind of flexibility and options that there are that we can work with. The NURP pond site. What we're doing with the sewer. Get the update on the traffic study, which has already been requested but you know let's move on it. so that we can address the safety issues, and back to the safety issues. I wondered again, it's a state road, correct? 101. There isn't a pedestrian, there isn't a sign to say, a warning of pedestrians as you approach the trail. Can we install those? So there's more warning that you've got? Dave Hempel: I believe there's an advance warning sign for the trail crossing is what it actually is. But if not we'll certainly check on that. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah, it just seemed like maybe it could be a little bit more prominent. I think it says trail crossing but I'm more so was thinking if we could almost make it more crosswalk like so that pedestrians can get across. I don't know if on a trail, can you say pedestrian. Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk? Does it? Maybe we can take a look at it and see if we can make something more visible. I know that was a real issue. But I guess that's the direction I'm going is to see if we can't table this and review some of the points that have come up as far as making this more sensitive to the site. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's see, my contacts have been in 18 hours. I'll be real brief. You know I think part of it is, Kate's been trying to say but it's my recollection on this and I don't know whether history's good or bad sometimes, but I mean the original Village on the Ponds concept didn't even include a church. And at the point that St. Hubert's came in and because the driving force behind this development and the PUD agreement, there were a lot of folks that turned out and said let's make this happen and let's get the 67 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 church in there and let's cut the deals we need to cut and do the things we need to do to make that all happen. And that's what we did. And effectively at that time, very early on in this project when a lot of this, a lot of these things were put in place but especially the PUD agreement which governs basically all of this and as I said when we started tonight, and as Roger reiterated, that because of that agreement and because of those trade-offs and everything else we did, we have very little leeway on this. But that's why I really don't think it makes a lot of sense to just delay for delay sake because the answers are going to remain the same. Those deals are in the agreement and you can't change them so. But beyond that I'll be quiet. Is there a motion that somebody's like to put on the table? Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Seeing no second, is there another motion? Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion to approve Site Plan #99-9 per staff recommendations and the addition of number 49 that.., parking stalls for senior citizens. Whatever is appropriate. Councilwoman Jansen: Would you accept a friendly amendment that we review the NURP pond location, where the sewer is going across? Councilman Labatt: On the south? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. So number 39 would go back to the original phrasing of 39. Acting Mayor Senn: What page is the original on? Councilwoman Jansen: It's not in our packet. Bob Generous: It doesn't show up. Acting Mayor Senn: Then would you please read the language into your motion? Kate Aanenson: We've got it here Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: Do you? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we'll get it for you. The one that was in the planning commission? Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. So number 39 would instead read, sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended from the proposed connection at Main Street and Highway 101. The sanitary sewer and water lines shall be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. Acting Mayor Senn: So that's different than relooking at it. You're saying that's the way it will be done? Kate Aanenson: Relooking at the NURP ponds is how I understood it. Councilwoman Jansen: And relook at the NURP pond location. Or configuration. Kate Aanenson: Sizing. 68 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Acting Mayor Senn: Is that friendly amendment acceptable to the? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, is there a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: I'll second. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the Ponds development on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition, each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units, plans prepared by KKE, dated 4/16/99, subject to the following conditions: The developer 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 J, Villages on the Ponds, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the apartment complex is to be built. A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the installation of signage. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public right-of- ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site construction. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are not directly visible from off site. 7. Development of a beachlot shall require separate Conditional Use Permit approval by the city. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant to city ordinance. An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 69 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 11. Submit radius mm dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit mm dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 12. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Because apparatus access roads are not accessible to within 150 feet of all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection features. a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system. b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved NFPA 13 system. c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor. d. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code. All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and approval. 13. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 14. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 15. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. 16. Regarding the existing buildings on site to be removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value. 17. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 18. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 19. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed. 20. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned. 7O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 21. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time. 22. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities. 23. The building owner and or designer should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 24. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation. 25. The number of overstory trees shall be increased to meet minimum reforestation requirements. 26. Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering. 27. Grading within the bluff and bluff setback areas shall be prohibited. The applicant shall redesign the site facilities and/or incorporate the use of retaining walls to eliminate grading into the bluff setback zone. 28. Utility improvements which lie outside of the public right-of-way for drainage and utility easements shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or successors. 29. The existing house and outbuildings on the property shall be razed within 30 days after final plat is recorded. In addition, the well and septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health/building codes. 30. The access point onto Trunk Highway 101 is subject to MnDOT approval. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for construction of the right-turn lanes and all work within Highway 101 right-of-way. 31. The applicant shall design and construct the public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 32. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any draintile found during construction. The applicant will comply with the city engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the draintile. 33. The applicant shall develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) to control erosion during construction. Additional Type I erosion control fencing will be required around the grading limits along Highway 101. Wood fiber blanket and/or sod shall be utilized at all slopes in excess of 3:1 and in the ditches along Highway 101. 71 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 34. The driveway access from Highway 101 to the site shall be a minimum of 36 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter with a left mm lane, shared through right mm drive aisle. The main driveway aisle width from the garage entrances to the parking lot shall be 28-feet wide, face-to-face. A 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of the driveway aisle from Highway 101 to the sidewalk proposed for Building A. 35. All private streets/parking lots shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Ordinance No. 20- 1118 which requires a minimum 26-foot wide driveway aisle built to 7-ton design. 36. The applicant shall update the traffic study prepared by SRF for Villages on the Ponds to take into consideration the additional apartment building gaining access at the intersection of Main Street and Highway 101 and install any necessary traffic mitigation measures recommended in the updated traffic study. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an interim trail connection around Lake Susan to the pedestrian crossing at Highway 101 during construction. This interim trail section may consist of a class V gravel surface. 38. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate trail easements which will be no longer utilized. In addition, the applicant shall rededicate to the City a new 20-foot wide trail easement centered upon the new trail alignment. 39. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended from the proposed connection at Main Street and Highway 101. The sanitary sewer and water lines shall be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. Staff will relook at the NURP pond location. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the trunk storm sewer from the proposed regional stormwater pond to the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant will be entitled to credits against the SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line in accordance the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 41. Plans shall be revised to incorporate an outlet control structure in the regional pond. The outlet control structure shall be located on the southwesterly comer of the pond to discharge into the creek versus Lake Susan. 42. The applicant shall re-evaluate the water needs due to the fact that a looped water system is not available. 43. If material is imported or exported from the site, the applicant will need to provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 44. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, MPCA and MnDOT. 45. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer and pond calculations for post- and pre-development conditions. The calculations shall be for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond shall 72 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 be designed in accordance with the Villages on the Ponds storm drainage plan (NURP standards). 46. The applicant shall redesign the parking lot per staff's alternate parking lot plan dated May 12, 1999. 47. Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 48. Shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with respect to congestion and traffic hazards. 49. Staff shall reviewing the parking plan to make accommodations for senior citizen parking. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3to 1. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 14 FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FT. LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DECK/PORCH; LOT 42, SHORE ACRES; BOB AND BRINN WITT. Public Present: Name Address Fred Potthoff 9231 J. F. Jessup 6350 Brinn & Bob Witt 8572 Joy Smith 9243 Steven Williams 9391 Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Minnewashta Woods Cardiff Lane, Eden Prairie Lake Riley Blvd. Kiowa Trail Lake Riley Blvd. Cindy Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and denied at the June 16th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. In January of this year the applicant was granted variances from the minimum lot size requirement, minimum lot width and RSF district. Minimum lot width for a lake access for a dock. Staff supported all of these variances so the applicant could make reasonable use of the land. In addition the applicant was granted a 10 foot front yard setback variance, a 3 foot western side yard setback variance, and a 4 foot lakeshore setback. Staff did not support these variances. After a survey was completed for the site it was determined that the desired home footprint does not fit within the setbacks permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore the applicant is requesting an additional 10 feet, thus a 14 foot variance to accommodate a screen porch and deck. Staff believes the applicant can make a reasonable use of the site with the variances granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and also makes comment that there is buildable area to the east of the proposed garage that is under utilized. The problem is the home footprint, not the setbacks that were permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore staff recommends denial. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of staff from council at this point? 73 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: If I could, a late question came up actually from a phone call from the residents as to the actual drainage from this property. Has this gone through the engineering department to take a look at the whole drainage issue from the lot to the circle and to the lake. I think we lost Dave didn't we? Cindy Kirchoff: The survey does show the drainage direction and maybe Anita might want to comment on this. If you want to. Anita Benson: Not having specifically looked at the survey, we do review it when it comes in for a building permit application so if you approve the variances, we'll be reviewing it with the normal building permit. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, great. Thanks. Councilman Labatt: Are the arrows on this mean the flow? On this map. Anita Benson: Correct. They should indicate flow. Councilwoman Jansen: Does it? Acting Mayor Senn: Cynthia, you had referenced the buildable area to the east of the garage. Am I getting my directions right there? Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Acting Mayor Senn: Help me out there. My understanding was that however if you use the buildable area to the east of the garage, and take it back so you don't need the variance on the lake, you exceed the hard surface area coverage. Now they're in a different kind of variance so I mean either way, it's kind of like you have a variance here or you have a variance there. Cindy Kirchoff: What staff is saying is that they have buildable area that they're not utilizing. There's a 20 foot by 20 foot area that is under utilized that could be used for buildable area for living space to push that up to the, closer to the street and they could have a deck that met the 71 foot setback on the lakeshore. Acting Mayor Senn: But we're not saying different things, but what I'm trying to get at and understand is, if you make the adjustments to do that, I mean you've got an 800 square foot floorplate which isn't a real large first floor, or main floor floorplate. Yes, I mean I understand that doesn't include the decks and the garage and stuff but if you eliminate, if you slide everything forward and eliminate the deck variance. My understanding was that then caused, you know an exceed on the 25% hard surface coverage. Is that correct or not correct? Cindy Kirchoff: They would have to design the homeprint to maintain the 25% impervious surface. Acting Mayor Senn: Which means they could not even maintain 800 square feet on the first floor is what you're saying? Cindy Kirchoff: I don't know that for a fact. They would just have to redesign the footprint of the home so they met all of the setbacks that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved back in January. 74 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, other questions from council? If not, is the applicant here? Would you like to say something? Bob Witt: Bob Witt. I live at 8572 Cardiff Lane in Eden Prairie. We are the applicants for the lot at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'll kind of clarify again a little bit about what we're asking for. And it was in the plan that we were asking for 10 feet, but in fact we're asking for 6 feet. The original plan had, it looked like this and this of course is the footprint of the plan so showing the first level of the home. And when we submitted this plan we had an extra 4 feet of wood deck that was going over, that would have taken us to the 61 feet. Now we have since adjusted that and are not asking for 10 feet. We're asking for 6 feet on the plan and so we've taken that, and you can see that we've taken that off of the deck and screened in porch which gives us 10 foot by 10 foot screened in porch and 10 foot by 10 foot deck. And that's what we're asking for, just to kind of clarify that. We did have, after the last meeting that we had, we did go to our architect and have him do some work. And first of all I wanted to thank all of you for coming out and looking and all of your time. I really appreciate that. We did go back to our architect and have him look at building to the east side of the facility and one of the hardest issues for us was keeping within that 25% impervious surface on the lot. It was very difficult to get a garage that you could park a car in and still maintain a reasonable sized home where you could actually put furniture. When we did go back to him and we said we needed to look at the potential of building out into this, and this is the east side next to the garage, into that area. He said once he went into there he said well, what happens Bob when we shrink everything up and move things up into this area and then also move up into this area to maintain that 71 feet, we go past the 25% impervious surface and yet I can't, he said I can't shrink the garage any more otherwise we'll end up leaving you with no place to park your car because right now we're sitting at 17 feet of area within the garage of where you can park a car without running into the stairs that go up into the main level. So we're at a big of a dilemma there. When we did try to shorten, he did try to shorten it up, he said we ended up with somewhere in the neighborhood of a 6 foot kitchen which makes it extremely difficult to build with that. So that was kind of our issue there. We did take a look at it and had him spend some time on doing that. One of our biggest issues here has been Jim Jessup who's the landowner, was given an approval and this was dated actually, hold on a second. Let me get you this here so, maybe you can give these to them. But this, I guess there's been some confusion. I guess it's my confusion maybe. This looks like it's dated 3/28/91 and I guess this variance was maybe given in 1989 or something like that. I'm not sure but there's several places on here that say 1991. I don't know if that means anything or not. It doesn't to me unless it does to you. But in the variances that he was given on this facility, he was given 68 feet from the lake, and 16 feet from the road. And his impervious surface coverage on this lot was 36%. We again are maintaining the 25% impervious surface. We are asking for 17 feet from the street, which happens to be the same exact amount of space that we have within the garage to park. Now we understand that that's not a lot of space and there's been some discussion that you know a Suburban's not going to be able to park in this driveway. And that's a fact. It won't be able to park in this driveway. It won't fit. But it also won't fit in the garage. So a Suburban owner isn't going to own this property at any time unless of course he doesn't want to park his vehicle anywhere near this. It's just that small of a facility and that's what we had to do. My wife's car and my car both are 15 foot cars. We measured some vans, some mini vans. You know pretty standard things that most, a lot of people are driving today. SUV's and those types of things. And they're anywhere from 15 feet to 16 feet is what we've found as normal footage for those so they would, and in both cases they would fit in the garage and they would also fit in the driveway. Let's see. Brinn Witt: ... 75 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Bob Witt: Right. As we've gone up, we kind of took a tape measurer and kind of measured off some of the other driveways going up the street and found some at 18 and one, the Olson's is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 16 feet. And as you go up the, well I mean you've looked, you've all seen Lake Riley Boulevard. It's a variable potpourri of variances. I mean everything in there has needed a variance at one time or another almost. But again the garage and the driveway we believe is going to fit our cars fine and the majority of cars that would purchase a facility like this. The back variance. We're looking for probably to move the facility you know 3 feet to each end, which would leave us with 68 feet in the back and that's what Jim Jessup was approved for. Now the home itself, the footprint of the home, the foundation will be at 78 feet so that's as close as the lake as the actual house will be. The only thing that will be encroaching will be the wood deck and the porch, of which will be on stilts so there will be area there for water to flow into those areas and then however the drainage will be set up. However it's going to need to be set up by the city engineer. One of the questions I guess I had heard is that somebody was concerned about the look and the foundation of the actual block work that was going to be in the back. What we have, and I think I might have a picture of this somewhere in here. This is a look at the front of the house. And as you look at the back of the house, right at first we had had this slotted for siding along the back of the home, but what we're planning on doing is continuing the fieldstone, or cultured stone across the back to kind of blend in with the front of the house as well too because the, on a lake like this I think actually the back of the house in most cases is actually the front. On a facility like this and we want to make it look as cottagey and as nice as we can make it look. Right? We have done some, we did take these last few days, actually the last 3 days, 2 days, 3 days, we've been out at the facility kind of talking to neighbors to try to get their opinion on what we've done. We've shown them our plan. We've talked to them about what we're doing and what we're planning for this lot and just asking them what they think of it because they're the ones that are going to have to live with us in that area and live with this home in that area. And we went around with a petition and it's in the packets that we just handed to you there. And I'll let Brinn go with that but they'll written some letters to us and just about everybody that we had talked to, some felt were indifferent to whether we did it or not. They said they just didn't, it didn't really concern them so they didn't really care if we did it or we didn't do it. It wasn't really any concern to them. But a lot did sign the petition and that was, and I'll let Brinn go over that. Brinn Witt: Two of the people that had signed the petition that live along Lake Riley Boulevard that you don't have in the packet is, one is Scott Johnson at 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen and he's a developer with Acron Development. And he wrote a letter to the Honorable City Council members. And this letter is to express my support for the proposed home and variance request for Brinn and Bob Witt. I've examined their proposal and feel that granting the request would have no measurable negative impact to either the environment or to the neighborhood. To deny the request would only result in a less desirable home being built on the lot and less tax income to the city, neither of which is positive for the neighborhood or the taxpayers. Granting the request would not exceed conditions for many of the existing homes in the immediate area. Please approve the variance request. Thank you. Sincerely, Scott Johnson. The other one that had signed a petition that you see in your package there is Alan Dirks and he's at 9203 Lake Riley Boulevard and his additional comments were, there are numerous variations to the setbacks in the neighborhood. These variances appear well in line with others that have taken place. Bob Witt: Those are ones that you haven't seen yet. They're not in the packet that... Councilman Labatt: We did get some. Acting Mayor Senn: We have them. We have like Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Dirk's. 76 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Bob Witt: Oh you do, okay... Acting Mayor Senn: We have him too. Brinn Witt: I'm just going to go through a couple of the variance request petitions of neighbors that had signed it that, neighbors that might not be here at today's meeting. They're probably at home sleeping. Where we all should be. Judy Potthoff at 9231Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. And her letter of support is attached to that as well. Mr. Fred Potthoff is here and he has.., in support of. Joy Smith is here and wrote additional comments in support of the variance and she is here this evening. Mark and Pam Mortenson at 9381 Kiowa Trail. I believe they're at home sleeping right now. Mr. Helbert Smith at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. He's probably watching MASH or something. Beth Ytzen, 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. Ron Ytzen, 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. Bruce... at 9411 Kiowa Trail. Renee Williams at 9291 Kiowa Trail. Gordon and Casey Alexander express their support at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. Scott Johnson, which who's letter I just read to you. Signed the variance request petition. So all these people have seen the front, back side, exactly what we're showing you as well on here. I think I've gone through all of them there but I just would like the council to know that my husband and I have been married for 14 years. We don't have any children. We are, we've spent over 30-35 years up in the Boundary Waters. We pack in. Pack out. We're nature lovers and we sail in the Apostle Islands. Ski in the mountains. We go on long walks. Pick up trash and garbage that we see along the way. Wherever we are. Wherever we go. And we just ask if you would consider our request. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions? Councilman Engel: None. Councilwoman Jansen: No. Councilman Labatt: No. Brinn Witt: I would like to pass out, I'm sorry. I would like to pass out some documentation of the Lake Riley Boulevard, up and down the street of, pictures and addresses of variances that are meeting what we are asking. Or you know along those lines. Councilman Labatt: Are those the same ones you showed us as we came out? Brinn Witt: There's quite a few here. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who wants to be heard on this? Come on up. Fred Potthoff: I'm Fred Potthoff at 9231 Lake Riley Boulevard and I'd just like to say that our neighborhood has always been a non-conforming neighborhood and I would like to see the proposed home built because there was already a home there once upon a time in the past. And looking at the plans, I feel that the variances requested are reasonable. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Steve Williams: My name is Steve Williams. I live at 9291 Kiowa Trail. And I wonder why I'm sitting here tonight at 11:30 on an issue like this, but I'm a passionate person when it comes to, when I see laws 77 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 passed by cities to really make neighborhoods look nice, and I think those laws as we've learned from our prior mistakes, they develop into, there's something behind each of those laws. But I also think, in a situation like this where there's a neighborhood like this, where there's a lot like this, it scary to see these laws be used to prevent what I would consider a nice couple, and even taking the personal side out of this issue. Just seeing a house being built on this lot. I'm glad Brinn didn't read my letter, because I want to read it with a little bit of my passion behind it. And you guys all have it in your packet. I just think shame on all of us if we can't grant this simple request to allow a house, instead of a tree fort on this unusually small but buildable lot. We need to come together as a neighborhood and a government to help all individuals build their dreams. And I remember the first day I bought our lot on Lake Riley and overlooking and dreaming about the house that was going to be built on that lot. And I, when they asked me to, for their support, I have a passion to have other people feel the exact same way I felt when I bought that lot and I want to see them build on that lot and this.., simple request. It's a small and it's a tiny lot. And what it needs, I'm going to keep on reading here. I fear laws that are passed for this very reason. Laws become too rigid in cases where common sense becomes secondary and power to enforce becomes primary. I've looked at Bob and Brinn's request. These requests are very consistent with what has been granted in the past. You look up and down Lake Riley Boulevard. They're not breaking any ground here. New ground. There's houses within 40 feet of the lakeshore property. All they're asking for is 68 feet. This house on this dead end street will affect no one and will be in better compliance with current rules and most houses on that street, in my opinion. You guys can probably see.., come to that same conclusion. Where is the sanity? Please let common sense rule and be a people's positive influence. Grant them the simple request and let them build a house. That's simply all I have to say is, it's a small lot. All they want to do is build a deck. Now I'm also a neighbor so I'm here sitting here taking a chance of alienated myself with, I think there's some people here that are concerned, and rightfully so of this house being built on this lot. And... I kick myself for not really meeting them sooner. But the first, and Bob and Brinn can attest to this. The first question I asked Bob and Brinn was, is the deck that you want to build on the back of your house going to affect the sight lines of Don and Kitty Sitter. And they said, no. They won't see it. And Don and Kitty have also, or at least Don has agreed that they won't see the deck and so me and my libertarian views, if they can't see it and they cannot, and they're not affected by this deck on the back of their house, by all means I want them to have a deck on the back of their house. It's 800 square feet. I know what 800 square feet of living space is. It's tiny, and to make them go to 700 or 600 really makes a difference and that's why I termed my letter, allow this tree fort to become a house because it really, as Bob put it, it really becomes a tree fort and who wants...tree fort. I don't think anybody does. It's a buildable lot and I hope you guys see the wisdom behind being flexible. Having government being a little bit flexible when it needs to be, and especially if there's precedence in this neighborhood, to grant such that you approve of this law, thank you. Or this plan. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else here who'd like to be heard on this? First one there wins. Peter Pemrick: Peter Pemrick, 9251 Kiowa Trail. I live next door to Don Sitter to the west. I'm also a business owner in Chanhassen so I've got a lot invested in this community. I've lived here for 21 years. Don has lived by me almost that whole time. And so we've got a lot of feelings for each other. And the discussions the Witt's had early here, there seems to be an awful lot of problem involved with shifting things around when the lot is so small and I guess I'm on record from one of the meetings previous, that I think the lot is too small to be built on to begin with. And for other reasons, of drainage and everything, this lot is not a very good lot and probably shouldn't be built on. That's been my feelings all along. No disrespect to these folks but. And the other things that have been brought out is by moving the house closer 78 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 to the lake, it affects the environment and I'm sure the planning commission took that into consideration when they voted 5 to 1 against approving these additional variances. I think right now they already have six approved, and they want two more and I guess I can't understand why they didn't bring those up from the beginning. So I want to go on record as, they want to build their house the way it's been approved, why not do that and be happy with that and forget these other two. Because they affect both the traffic on Lake Riley Boulevard and also affect the environment. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else? Joy Smith: I'm Joy Smith. I live at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard and I've been on Lake Riley for 20 years. And there isn't a house on Lake Riley Boulevard that hasn't had variances and it seems that with this particular lot, which is a problem one, but the drainage is better than it used to be since the work has been done with the surface water. And I really would like to see the lot approved for a home. It's been sitting there full of weeds for a long time and we'd like to see something nice for our neighbors. Thanks. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Don Sitter: I'll try and make this short. I'm Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm the adjoining property owner to the west. We would like to see a home here built also. We're sick and tired of the weeds that have been there for a long time but back in January we did support the granting of the six variances. They have the variances that they need to build their house and we'd like them to get on with the building. The additional request in your packet is for a 14 foot towards the lake. There's been no hardship established to justify this request and approving it would put considerable impervious surface towards the lake, which is an environmental concern. Your question Councilman Senn of square footage. There is no reason why we can't take the square footage off the front of this house and put it in the east side. That does not change the impervious surface so there's no reason we can't keep this within the 25% and stay within the variances that have already been granted. There was evidently an error somewhere in the surveys or the architects but that's immaterial. They still have this additional space with the boundaries of the current variances to get everything they want in the home and I think all they need to do is adjust their plans and we can have this thing done. The petitions that you've seen are for a different request. They want 3 feet more to the lake and 3 feet more towards the road. They've already been granted 10 feet to get closer to the road. If they get the additional 3 feet, that makes it 17 feet. And as the Witt's have said, well they don't have a vehicle longer than 17 feet. This is not an issue with the Witt's. It's not a personal issue at all. It's whether that's right for the property and whether we're going to have a problem with that in the neighborhood, and they're going to sell their home some day and somebody might move in with a longer vehicle and that is a very, very small turn around and that is going to present a problem. One of the commissioners spoke very strongly against any driveways less than 20 feet, and I'd echo that opinion. They also want to be 4 feet closer to the lake. Actually they've been granted 4 feet. They wanted 3 more and they brought up the variances in '89. The variances that were granted in '89 also had a condition on them that there would never be an enclosure nor any roofs, which keeps it out of the impervious surface situation. They're asking for a three season porch or an enclosed deck, which has a roof, which is impervious surface so this is not the same variances that were granted back in '89. And we've also learned a great deal of how to protect our lakes in the last 10 years so what was granted 10 years ago and never built I believe is immaterial for today's discussion. The issue is not whether they're nice folks. We've gotten along good up until the I guess the Planning Commission meeting here. What's at hand is, if this is the right house for this lot. It is a tiny substandard lot. We believe they've already been granted enough 79 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 variances to build a nice home. We would like to see a nice home. In conclusion. City staff has recommended denial of this request. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny this request. I would expect City Council to need a very strong and compelling reason to overturn these recommendations and so far I've not seen any such justification. So I would ask you to please deny these additional requests and let's move on with the project. Thank you for your time. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks. I'm James Jessup. I own the lot currently. Had those original variances that were granted back in '89. The lot, the home that was planned at that point in time, I think the city's calculator had about a 35 or 36 coverage of the lot. This is a much, much smaller home. I had a 12 or 1,300 square foot main floor and a 20 x 20 or 21 x 22 garage planned for this site. It was approved and we started construction for this site. The Witt's have come to you with a very minimal sized home. Without a deck, if you look around the lake, there's not a home on the lake that doesn't have a deck. It drives the lake. It's very consistent with the neighborhood. The Sitter's have an enclosed deck. Three season porch. It's very common. It's very, very common. And so when you think about trying to live on a main floor of 800 square feet, and then shrinking it further to accommodate the need for a deck that was overlooked by accident, you really don't end up with a home that's very consistent for the neighborhood. You need a larger home on that site. And that's why the City Council back in '89 granted those variances. The situation was prior to that there was a single story home on that site that had a garage that encroached on the Sitter's property. That was removed in the process of being the new home constructed. For that reason it made a lot of sense. There were some great trade off's made about getting rid of an encroached situation for a garage that improved the site. And so for 10 years this property sat with weeds on it, which is not a good situation. But because, and most of you don't date back far enough to know that this was a contaminated site. We were digging footings for the site, and maybe you've read, seen it. That things just went astray on October the 13th of '89, which was a Friday .... and it took a long time, there were a lot of issues with the clean-up. Those issues are now behind us and it's now time to move on. And so I would ask you as a citizen of Chanhassen, as a business owner here in Chanhassen, to approve these variances for a reasonable home. They're not asking for a lot. They're not asking for anything that should have already been built there. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Anybody else? Brinn Witt: ... letter that is in the package that you guys have in front of you... Back in January we supported the granting of enough variances. Six in total. And my feeling on this is that the lot requires variances. Let's get the job done. Let's grant the variances that are needed to build a house on that lot. To deem the lot actually buildable for a residential home. All the other issues on there was self created hardship and not wanting to make further design modifications. Goodness gracious. We've worked hard at this. Over nine months. Trying to make this all work out. The other issue here in this letter, what was granted 10 years ago to someone else with five extensions and never built is immaterial for this decision. That's wrong. The lot has never changed and neither have any of the city variance requirements. These are just a few things from the letter that.., deserved to have comment on. Acting Mayor Senn: I'll bring it back up to council. Comments? Councilperson Jansen. And I'm going to ask people to be brief because we're getting dangerously close to our 12:00 blow up hour so. Council policy says we adjourn at 12:00. Councilwoman Jansen: This one's, it's a tough one. It doesn't seem like it should be if all we're talking about, as a few people have alluded to, is just simply putting a deck on a lake home and if the only variance we're talking about is putting a deck on. I can hear what the neighbors are saying who are cognizant of the 8O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 other six variances that are already approved for this property. But if we're going to build on this lot, it's going to have variances and I keep coming back to okay, what are we trying to accomplish? If through our ordinances what we're trying to accomplish is a real focus on the lake quality and the runoff and the water issues, because this is towards the lake. That's what the 75 foot setback is for. If there are other things that we can do as we're granting maybe a 6 foot deck variance out into that 75. If we can put a condition in here per where staff has noted lakeshore setbacks. The city has been working with lakeshore owners throughout the city encouraging landscape plans that are "lake friendly" and stressing the importance of the lake impact zone. If within the variance we were to put the condition that the applicant and landscaper, and/or landscaper, works with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for water quality buffers. We're on the other side protecting that water quality by protecting some of that runoff. And the other issue that I keep hearing from the neighbors is that there's a tremendous amount of drainage that crosses this property period. If that's going to continue, what else can we in fact do to help buffer that flow as it's going down directly into Riley? Whether it's the plantings or how we're affecting the rest of that drainage issue. And Anita had said, staff had said that this will be coming into the engineering department as they're going for the building permit so I'm assuming you're looking at the drainage and addressing those issues that the neighbors have expressed. Anita Benson: Correct, and if I could add. Much of the drainage issue was addressed when we reconstructed Lyman Boulevard and did the watermain installation on Lake Riley Boulevard. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that's all I asked. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I look at this lot, and I was originally thinking about buying it and I would have come with a heck of a lot bigger plan than this one. I've just got more kids and I figured it wouldn't fit so when I looked at it and I've walked out on that property before so when I looked at your plan the other day, I'd be willing to wager if you sat back at your home, anybody around that place, sat on your deck or your roof or wherever you pick your perspective from and stuck a stake in the ground and said here's where the deck's proposed and took it and moved it and had you close your eyes and move it and here's where it's supposed to be, now you'd have a hard time telling the difference where the stake was. From your point of view. It's not a material difference. I'll wager there's not a lot on that road that doesn't have some sort of variance. And in my opinion property owners rights prevail on issues like this. If you went and looked at every single lot on that lot, and I mean every single one of them that's around that lake and you ask yourself whether a porch or a deck on this little piece is going to make a difference. I had a hard time buying that one. I'd approve it. Councilman Labatt: I concur with Ms. Jansen's comments on the landscaping. Spent an hour or so with Bob and Brinn out there and deck, it's not the actual building foundation that's encroaching. Footings. I don't have a problem approving it. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, could we have a motion please. Councilman Engel: Move approval of the request for the 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home with screened porch, deck based upon findings present in the staff report. 81 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if it'd be considered a friendly amendment but didn't they change that to where they're asking for a 6 foot variance, not a, a 6 foot variance not a 14. A 6 foot versus a 14. Councilman Engel: The staff report says 14. What are we doing? Councilwoman Jansen: But they got up and changed it. Councilman Labatt: They changed it to 6. Councilwoman Jansen: That's what they said, I'm sorry. Councilman Engel: That's fine. I'm punch drunk now. I'm too busy reading. Okay, 6. I accept. Councilwoman Jansen: With the landscape condition. Working with staff. That the applicant work. Cindy Kirchoff: Are you just approving the lakeshore variance or is this the front yard also? Councilwoman Jansen: That might be a better way to word it. Councilman Engel: Do we need to break these two up and delineate them to make them clear? Acting Mayor Senn: Steve, your 68 feet from the lake, then you are going to be what, a 7 foot variance from the lake? Councilman Labatt: Right, 7 foot. Acting Mayor Senn: okay, so we have a 7 foot variance from the lake. And from the street, if you're at 17 feet, you are asking for a 3 foot variance from the front, correct? Councilman Labatt: 3. Councilwoman Jansen: From the existing. Councilman Engel: Hang on. Let's keep this clear. We're talking a 7 and a 3? Acting Mayor Senn: I want to make sure us and staff are understanding this together. Councilman Engel: Is that what you're understanding Kate? Cindy Kirchoff: So they'll be requesting a 13 foot variance from the front yard setback. Councilwoman Jansen: Because they already have a 10. Cindy Kirchoff: Yeah, they already have a 10. Councilman Engel: Okay .... so you're asking for a total of 13. From the original 30. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Have we got that straight then? Do you want to restate the motion? 82 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel: Yeah, maybe I should just do that. Be ready to amend here. Lord knows it won't come out right. City Council approves the request for a 7 foot variance on the lake side. 13 foot variance from the 30 foot setback on the street side. And I'll leave it at that. Councilwoman Jansen: With a friendly amendment of the condition for the applicant and/or landscaper to work with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for a water quality buffer. Councilman Engel: So noted. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, accepted? Councilman Engel: Yes. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second to that? Councilman Labatt: I'll second it. Acting Mayor Senn: Discussion? Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement and a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck with the condition that the applicant and/or landscaper work with staff to install proper lakeshore plantings for a water quality buffer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott Botcher: Say Mark? We also have those two you pulled off consent. Acting Mayor Senn: I understand. Folks if you could please. I would appreciate if you have stuff to do, go outside and do it because we're really trying to get done here. Okay? Thanks. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. 1999 SKATE PARK~ CITY MANAGER. Acting Mayor Senn: Skate park is just an administrative deal. So there's really nothing to be done on that. B. HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. Acting Mayor Senn: Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant deal is also just administrative, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I just want to make one clarification and that this is our program agreement that we are anticipating... $60,000.00 allocation. We were hoping...to let you know this spring and they did raise it up to 75. More than likely we're going to be in the consolidated pool because we don't be over that.., so we'll be competing with the other communities in Hennepin County for that dollar amount. 83 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and the Executive Session is here cancelled for two weeks. And coming back to. Kate Aanenson: We need to vote on the resolution that was attached... Acting Mayor Senn: Can we have a motion to approve the resolution please. Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to approve resolution. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution/t99-56: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the resolution to authorize execution of a joint cooperation agreement stating that the City of Chanhassen will participate in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in Hennepin County for the years 2000-2002. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONTINUED: A. AWARD OF BID FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 98-2. Public Present: Name Address Robert Roy Bob Ayotte Dave & Sandy Butler 6201 Near Mountain Blvd. 6213 Cascade Pass 6209 Cascade Pass Acting Mayor Senn: Bob, you pulled that. I guess why don't you start and we'll go from there. Bob Ayotte: Thank you Councilman Senn. Bob Ayotte, 6213 Cascade Pass. I'm going to try to make this one quick. And I'm a little punchy too so please forgive me. We're against assessment of any taxes against the residents who would be having the drainage program that Anita is setting up. Anita did a nice write up. There's one point missing and I would ask that maybe Anita could address it and reinforce the position. When our area was developed, most of the areas, and I can validate the drawings that I reviewed, and I work for public works so I know what I'm talking about. The swales were missing so there was none authorized deviation when the city authorized Lundgren Bros to build in the Chanhassen area. Therefore runoff was always an issue and was exacerbated by the lack of swales not introduced as a result of the initial development of the area. So on that one point in itself we have to... and Anita's program will in fact resolve those runoff issues and they were not our fault. Number two. This will, we should not be assessed taxes simply because this will deter, reduce the operational expense of maintaining streets. Anita's program with the introduction of improved runoff will improve the, or reduce the operational expense of taking care of the streets. Right now in the winter time with runoff, we have ice bergs on our roads. And that's largely due to the fact that... We were told that no assessments would be made. We were told that 84 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 on what, three separate occasions Anita? Two or three. Something like that when we were having discussions with Phil and Bill. Or is it Phil and Phil? Anita Benson: Correct. This project was programmed to be funded through the Surface Water Management Program. Acting Mayor Senn: Point of clarification. There are no assessments attached to this, correct? Anita Benson: No there are not. Bob Ayotte: So what we're asking for is, if in fact the program's approved, that people who would be experiencing this project would not be in any way charged back. We know that there was a point of discussion that that might occur and we want to make sure it's avoided. Acting Mayor Senn: There's nothing in the recommendation on that as far as I know. Anita Benson: No, that has never been proposed with this project. Bob Ayotte: So can we can go on record as indicating that there will not be any assessments against people who participate in the program? Acting Mayor Senn: There's no reason to go on record for it. We'll simply act on the item. If that's it, we can go on and do that. Bob Ayotte: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a motion to approve award of bids. Robert Roy: Excuse me. Acting Mayor Senn: Oh I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't realize there was somebody else. Robert Roy: Robert Roy of 6201 Near Mountain Boulevard. I live on the border between Chanhassen and Shorewood. My property line divides, it's the county line and I'm in zone 4 on your map. And when we've been talking about these plans over the past two years we were going to include my two neighbors to the north in Shorewood. Is that still an option within this? I was told that by the city planner at two separate meetings here. And by the Mayor herself. Acting Mayor Senn: I'll kick that one to the staff because I didn't know we were allowed to go in and do work in Shorewood but you guys tell me. Roger? Robert Roy: I just want to make that clear because I'm doing this, I have no water problems. My neighbors to the north in Shorewood do. And my two or three neighbors to the south in Chanhassen do. And I'm doing this as part of a complete package if you will for drainage. And I said I will not, I don't want my driveway and yard dug up for the sake of the water from Shorewood is still going to run down in front of my house and create what I think is a public hazard because there's algae and everything that grows in it and is very slippery. I've seen children fall. Just to drain their water you know. That water's still going to be still draining past my house into Chanhassen's storm sewer three houses down. 85 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Anita Benson: I need to review the approved plans on that. I can't answer that question for you tonight but I can give you a call and let you know. Robert Roy: Well, how about if it's not in there? Can I opt out of it? Acting Mayor Senn: Why would you, if you're on the end of the run and we can't construct into Shorewood, why would we be constructing on your property if you don't have a water problem? Robert Roy: I don't know. I don't know what the plans are. That's what I'm asking .... be informed of that. as far as, I don't know why I was told on two separate occasions at two meetings here that Shorewood. They said I think Shorewood. Acting Mayor Senn: That really surprises me because I think to do that would probably require some kind of council action but. Robert Roy: That's why I'm bringing this up. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, I think it only makes sense from your standpoint that if we're not constructing in Shorewood and you're the north piece and you're in fact split and you don't have water problems, I don't know why we would enter onto your property to do anything. But staff will follow up on that and we'll make sure of that okay. Robert Roy: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay and what I'm hearing you say is if we are for some reason going to go into Shorewood to construct, those people needs are. Robert Roy: ... I don't know who was contacted my neighbors in Shorewood but they are under the belief that that's going to happen. I don't if it's been a contact from Chanhassen or whom. Acting Mayor Senn: Well Scott, Roger, Anita, somebody better follow up on that I guess. We'll try to see what's going on. Okay? Robert Roy: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks for calling it to our attention. Anybody else? Is there a motion to approve the award of bid? For infiltration and inflow drainage improvements. Councilman Labatt: So moved. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the award of bid for Infiltration/Inflow Drainage Improvement Project 98-2. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 86 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 E. LYNMORE ADDITION~ DAVE MOORE. 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVE; AND SECOND READING OF A CITY CODE AMENDMENT REZONING THE PROPERTY. 2) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS~ PROJECT 99-10. Steve Slutner: I'm Steve Slutner. Tech Design Engineer representing Mr. Moore on his behalf. Just a couple quick things and I will keep it brief. We appreciate Councilmember Jansen coming out to the site. A couple things that have changed that we just wanted to bring to your attention. First of all Lots 7 and 8, at this part of the site. There used to be Lot 7-8 in an outlot. The outlot sat where my pencil this way towards Galpin Boulevard. What we've decided to do... Outlot B and...that into Lot 7 and 8 so we just wanted to bring that to your attention. We've talked to staff on that. Bob has been the one reviewing this process. Kate Aanenson: ... we hadn't seen this before. Steve Slutner: No, we've talked to Bob. Let's see, we talked to Bob today and said that this was probably a minor issue that didn't really need to necessarily have full review. We didn't want to come in on consent agenda with these changes. Secondly, original Outlot A started at the pencil. Came this way. Through a lot of discussions that have been had back and forth, I think through extended periods we came in asking for dedication of Outlot A as shown from the pencil line over. According to city code we were looking for fair market value. We offered to have the site appraised by the city. Come out and look at fair market value. That part of what used to be Outlot A is 2.2 acres...basically over 33% dedication. In lieu of the dedication, the city was willing to give up park fees for that dedication. We have since talked today again with Mr. Generous of the planning department. He talked to, and I'm sorry I don't have last name. He talked to Todd, the Parks Director. What we are now proposing is that Outlot A, which will consist of a little over 10% of the land and would be immediately adjacent to the park that's already in place, that we would dedicate that. We would dedicate that in lieu of the park fees of $8,400.00. The rest of the land would be attached to Lots 5, 4 and 5 as shown in the plat here. This line at this point is the primary zone for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. That line from, from that line back we would have conservancy district. We would put restrictive covenants on that so that there wouldn't be anything that would be allowed back there. Mr. Moore's concern was that if we stuck with Outlot A as shown here, there's pretty much we've been told that there wouldn't be a lot of improvements done to that area. Yet the concern is if you tell Lots 4 and 5 that, they can't control that and if in the future somebody wants to do some improvements back there, we think it's very nice the way it is in it's natural state. So we took a walk back there and you can see there's a lot of natural trees. Very nice area... If we attach that to these two lots and put a restrictive covenants and conservancy easements on it, then we can pretty much rest assured that nothing will be able to be done as far as improvements to the area so that's the request we're coming in with. We see these quite honestly as very minor changes at this point. We've eliminated an outlot and we've eliminated a potential issue of future with.., here and we meet the dedication requirements over here. ...taken off the consent agenda and with 30 seconds I'll be quiet. Scott Botcher: So we don't even have a drawing with these modifications that you called Bob about today? Kate Aanenson: No. Again it doesn't reflect the requirements of the primary zone which. 87 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Scott Botcher: We've got to look at this Kate. Kate Aanenson: Well we would, that's what we're saying. We would recommend you table this to give us a chance to write a report on it. Acting Mayor Senn: ... issues and you haven't really had a chance to look at it. Kate Aanenson: Well our position is that, that they dedicate. We certainly are capable of protecting the property that we own. City park...that's not an issue. We're not worried about...but we did agree, based on the primary... Now they want to go back and.., and the other lot I haven't seen yet so I would recommend.., chance to do an analysis of that. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, can I have a motion to table please. Councilman Engel: Motion to table. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table action on the Lynmore Subdivision to give staff a chance to review the changes recommended by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott Botcher: The Executive Session will reappear in two weeks. Acting Mayor Senn adjourned the City Council meeting at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 88