The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 1999 07 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Engel, Councilman Senn, and Councilwoman Jansen COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Cindy Kirchoff, Anita Benson, Bob Zydowsky, John Wolff, and Scott Botcher APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Mancino: First of all are there any consent agenda items that council members would like pulled and to talk about separately? Councilman Senn: Let's see, pull we're going to pull d and e. Mayor Mancino: Okay, you would like to pull d and e. Councilman Senn: And I think, didn't somebody want to speak on c? Mayor Mancino: Well I'm going to ask that in just one second, thank you. Okay, so we'll pull l(d) and (e) and put that at the end of the consent agenda. Is there anyone here tonight that is here to speak on another item in the consent agenda and would like it pulled? Could you just come forward and let us know which one on the consent agenda you would like pulled. And are you both in the same one? Okay, we'll find out. Larry Klein: I'm Larry Klein. Live down near by the Springfield Addition. And what I would like to get some answers on why they don't get that berm pulled down to what they originally stated. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so Mr. Klein. Excuse me. So Mr. Klein we will pull l(c) from the consent agenda and then at the end of, after we approve the consent agenda we'll come back and talk about that item and let you come up in front of us. Thank you and give us your comments. Mark Nettesheim: Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn: Same item, different topic. Okay, good. So l(c) and (d) is pulled from the consent agenda. And e. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And e. l(c), (d) and (e). Then may I have a motion for the rest of the consent agenda please. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution/t99-62: Approve Change Order No. 1 to 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2. b. Resolution/t99-63: Approve Change Order No. 2 to West 78th Street (Lake Ann Park Entrance to CSAH 17), Project 95-21. f. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with City of Shorewood for I/I Drainage Improvement Project No. 98-2. g. Approval of Change to Pillsbury Sewer Charge Calculation. h. Approve Lions Club Liquor License for Region III Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park, August 13-15. i. Approval of Bills. j. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Minutes dated July 12, 1999 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 12, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 1999 k. Resolution/t99-64: Approval of Resolution Authorizing City to Apply for TIF Funds. 1. Resolution/t99-65: Approve Resolution Authorizing Participation in Safe & Sober Grant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. APPROVE REVISED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FOR SPRINGFIELD 5TM ADDITION~ PROJECT NO. 99-3. Mayor Mancino: If you'd like to get up Mr. Klein and I'll give you a chance. Larry Klein: Yes. When they originally came in with their initial plan, they had said an 8 to 10 foot high berm around the project. Well to me this thing is way out of proportion and they've got way too steep a grades. I don't know just exactly what the grades are but I know I sure wouldn't want to run any tractor to cut a grass on that slope that's there. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do you have any other questions Mr. Klein, because I'll get those answered for you in just one minute. Larry Klein: Okay. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay? Larry Klein: But to me, and I think it's going to amount to a lot of the erosion down into the drainage in the low area across from me. And from what they tell me, I haven't been down there for 3 weeks or 4 weeks but they said the culvert is getting filled up with sediment. Mayor Mancino: Okay. If you can wait just one second. Anita, can you answer some of this, the concems ? Anita Benson: Sure. Mayor Mancino, maybe I can make a suggestion. If the other gentleman would also like to speak on this issue and then I can address them all. All of the issues at once. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Good suggestion. Mark Nettesheim: I'm Mark Nettesheim, 9151 Great Plains Boulevard. I'm just south of the berm and north. Mayor Mancino: You're the first house? Mark Nettesheim: I'm the first house in the back. On the back, by the soccer fields and the park on my borders. And what we've had this spring is a numerous amount of runoff into our property that's basically pooling up into an abnormal runoff area and basically killing Mr. Finger's and my trees along one area of our property. Mayor Mancino: Not good. Mark Nettesheim: Not good. We met with some of the city people and we've walked the property together and I have a concern because this summer the, I know it's a temporary situation but it had broken through and drained into my property and you're right, all the runoff is red so we all know where it's coming from. And it's, well it's the mud. Mud red. And at the same time the soccer fields are draining that way and now the city parking lot, where instead of absorbing when it was a field, it runs right into Mr. Finger's, which is our western border. Right in his property. So it's all converging there and pooling. And at some of the locations where it should run north and then into the culvert that goes under 101 into the lake. Because of some of the runoff from the berm, the feed area has increased because you have a lot of weeds there and the runoff and all the runoff has increased the depth so we now have more pooling of water. The city talked to us about how they were going to remedy this but I haven't seen it yet and I'm just here just to ensure that the talk comes into reality. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, if I could attempt to address some of the issues. To give you some background information. Originally when this property was preliminary platted with the Springfield development, the berm height was proposed at a 932 elevation. However when it was final platted, the berm was reduced significantly in size based on anticipated earthwork balance quantities. What is actually constructed out there today reflects excess soils encountered on the site due to some poor soils that were temporarily stockpiled on the site. Never intended to be permanent. What the developer is bringing before you tonight is a proposed final grading plan for the berm and what that elevation will be is 940 at it's City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 highest point. So what it represents is a berm that's 8 foot higher than it was originally shown on the preliminary plat. However, with the proposed berm, the existing berm out there now is 8 foot higher than what is proposed as a final before you tonight. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they're going to take 8 feet off of it. Anita Benson: Correct. Approximately 8 feet off what's existing out there today. Mayor Mancino: Is that at it's highest point or all the way down the berm? Because now I see it on the north side, you know it's shorter height and then it goes up. Anita Benson: That would be at the highest point. And I'll put some drawings up in a moment, but I'd like to address the proposed, or the anticipated erosion problems. Anticipated by Mr. Klein and yes, the berm has not been properly vegetated as it has been up to this point somewhat of a stockpile site. And with the final landscaping plan that has been presented by the developer, there will be the appropriate seeding and landscape trees planted which will prevent the erosion. So yes, it has been a problem up to this point and it will be addressed with the final seeding and sodding and erosion control blanket. We know how to stabilize slopes and I'm sure the developer will do a good job of that or will be letting them know that there's a problem. Regarding the runoff situation that has been raised. While the problem of runoff is not new for the Finger property or for the property owned by Mr. Nettesheim, there has always been a runoff problem. With the Springfield development, the actual runoff has been decreased to their properties. However there were some problems with the pond construction where there was a blowout and yes, there was sediment washed onto their property. A temporary construction problem which the developer will address. But overall the Springfield development has reduced runoff to the properties. And also with the grading plan that they're proposing with the berm, they're proposing to create a more defined swale and do additional berming along the southerly property line to ensure that more runoff does not go onto that property. And if I could at this time I'll put up some drawings and kind of illustrate what I've been going over. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. And Anita, when will this all take place? I mean is this all going to take place in the next 60 days as far as drainage pattern, making sure that that's been fixed and the berming, etc. Anita Benson: I guess, the developer is here tonight and I'll let them address their timing situation as soon as I'm done going over this. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anita Benson: The Klein residence is located approximately in Section DD on the plan you have before you... The berm elevation, the berm starts approximately and a berm elevation right here at it's highest point is at an elevation of 940. And everyone to the south... And I know a concern of Mr. Klein has been what is he going to be looking at. Looking at this monstrous berm and what exactly will he see of the Springfield development... Mayor Mancino: Well I think he would be concerned if he was going to see a slope of weeds there versus landscape and something visually. Anita Benson: Correct, and up to this point that has been vegetated... You will be able to see the tops of the, the second levels of... second stories will be visible.., and with that I'd ask the developer to... City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I have one more question. Between the private property, what they're going to berm, and we see this in front of us here. This triangulated piece with the slope. Between that and Highway 101, is that going to be grasses or what? Because there's a fair amount of property that's probably right-of-way. Will that be seeded too? Okay. And the city will maintain that? Anita Benson: Highway 101 is MnDOT right-of-way so anything in the right-of-way is... As far as the landscaping.., on the berm itself, that will be... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Council members, questions? Councilman Senn: Clarification now. If I'm understanding what you all just went through then. Basically the berm that's there now is 8 foot higher than it's going to be. Anita Benson: If approval of this proposed plan. Councilman Senn: Right. And with approval of this proposed plan, the berm that will remain will be 8 feet higher yet than what was on the preliminary plat. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the developer here and can you come up and let us know timing. We want trees. Mike Pflaum: So do we. Before I answer the question of timing, I need to correct what I believe is a. Mayor Mancino: Peter, can you give you name. Mike Pflaum: Yeah, I think I will. I'm Mike Pflaum. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros. and I'm the person responsible for the berm. Over the past 3 or 4 days we have done the berm grading. We took 8 feet off the berm already. And I was just out looking at it this evening and the difficult thing about the berm, and the reason that it's disturbing to Mr. Klein, is that our property is 8 feet higher than his property to begin with. That means that the main level of his house is 8 feet below the main level of all the houses that are on that tier along Highway 101. So we're starting out with a deficit. He is 8 feet lower than the berm is on the inside. The berm is an important feature to the project. As I imagine everybody on the council knows, Highway 101 is going to be upgraded to four lanes along the entire frontage of Springfield. It's going to be four lanes divided. And that's going to be part of the improvements that occur when 212 comes through. We feel that it would be a great mistake on our part and unconscionable for us not to take measures to protect our homeowners from the traffic down Highway 101. The traffic on Highway 101 is anticipated to triple within 10 years. That having been said, the explanation for the condition of the berm is exactly what the city engineer said. It's been a storage area for material. The grading of that portion of the site occurred in the fall and there was time enough to build the berm up with the excess material but there was not time enough to dispose of it off site and we have been waiting for off site disposal. The present berm, I don't know if Mr. Klein looked at it carefully since he returned to town but it definitely is not the same berm that you saw when you left. Larry Klein: No it isn't but it still is a lot higher. You say there that I'm 8 feet lower than what's across the road? I farmed that land for crying out loud for all these years. You can't tell me that I don't know a little bit of height. I can look, my house didn't go up or down. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay, no discussion. Mr. Klein, just a minute. Mike Pflaum: At any rate, to answer your question about time tables for completion of the berm project. Once we have that thing set the way it should be set grade wise, we will immediately start planting trees and shrubs and we've already been through the landscaping plan with members of the staff and city. We want to get it put together too. Mayor Mancino: So you see by the end of the summer having it landscaped? Mike Pflaum: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: And to me that means I'll say September. Mike Pflaum: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Mike from council members? Okay, thank you Mike. Mike Pflaum: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments Anita that you have? Anita Benson: I have none to add. Other than staff does recommend approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark, if you wanted to come back up please. Mark Nettesheim: I have a question. One is, we talk about this heavy spring's runoff kind of created silt. My question is, is that going to be dredged out of the normal culverts and ditches that are now full of this silt from the berm and everything else? And I've seen them take the berm down the last few days but the protective wall. A, are we finished with, is it a temporary holding tank still or lake or is it the permanent one? And is the berm that protects my land from the runoff, is that completed also or not? Anita Benson: I was out of town over the weekend and did not have a chance to visit the site today to see what degree that developer has completed the grading. As far as any silt that is washed into due to the development, obviously that's something that we will require the developer to clean out as a matter of that's just something we do. Mayor Mancino: And can you work with, we just put it in a condition that you work with Mark on making sure that the berm on those two sides of the property, on the south side, that the applicant and the homeowners work with you on that to make sure it's right? Anita Benson: Correct. We'll be doing that anyhow. Mayor Mancino: Good. Good. Bring this back to council. Any other discussion or any questions that council members have or want to discuss on this? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess one of the points I'm wondering about is considering that the original elevation that was given to us on the original plat was the 932. Would it be possible to bring the elevation down to that original, at Mr. Klein's end of the berm. Still leaving the other end and just give it that dip so City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 he's lesser affected. The homes on the other side would still be buffered but we'd be back to what the original plat elevation was versus the 940. So back to the 932 versus the 940 at that point B. Mayor Mancino: Other council members feel about that? I mean I don't, I mean I think the concern was not having it landscaped, etc. We haven't really ever had a height restriction on a berm, especially when they're trying to buffer from a subdivision that's going to have road traffic. Other discussion points? Councilman Senn: I have a question if I could for Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein, is your concern with the elevation of the berm or the general appearance of the berm as it sits now? Larry Klein: Well the elevation for one thing but I mean the appearance. Are they going to go to work and keep the weeds down all the way out to the highway? I mean I've got allergies and last year everything from my house to the south, nothing was done with it. Just a plain, I get sick enough but I mean if they can get a bunch of trees and that out there, fine. But I'd still like to see that elevation down a little more than what it is right now. Mayor Mancino: Well number one, yes they do have to take care of the weeding on their private property. And between that property that the association will own and the right-of-way then is MNDOT's, it's under their jurisdiction to do the weed control and mow it and maintain it. So we have to deal with MnDOT on that. Councilman Senn: Question if I could for staff. As far as the landscaping plan goes for the berm, is that pretty much within our general or normal requirements? Bob Generous: Yes it is. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're not asking for any elevated or additional level of landscaping? Bob Generous: No. They are exceeding our standards actually. We have a buffer yard requirement and they go beyond that. Councilman Senn: How much? Bob Generous: I don't know the exact numbers. I haven't seen the final plan. I know they were providing additional trees on the north elevation. To start off they have, we have the original approved plan and they spread that out within the site and then they provided additional screening in some of the low points. Councilman Senn: Okay. Back to your question Mayor. Sorry it took so long to get to the answer. It seems to me that, I mean the developers basically are going to be, I'm going to say, saving a relatively small portion by not having to cart the materials off the site or additionally treat off the site that's currently in the berm. Which they have to dispose of elsewhere. I'd really like to see some type of a condition put in here that assures that the landscaping materials as well as the quantity for the landscape materials and stuff really breaks that berm up and helps satisfy some of the concerns of Mr. Klein. I understand the developers need to, or want I should say to have the buffering from the highway and stuff but I also appreciate Mr. Klein not wanting to, you know look at this big thing. And they certainly could be broken up by, you know by the landscaping and stuff so maybe there's some middle ground there in terms of making sure that there's additional landscape materials put in place to assure that. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have a question. Mr. Klein, have you been there since they've done some grading on it? Larry Klein: I just walked over there Saturday... Mayor Mancino: At that area, when I drove it today, it was you know kind of the lower elevation just going up. It wasn't at it's highest point right where your house is. Is that right? Larry Klein: Must be getting awful close to it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: The height elevation is very close to where it is at his end. Where his end is. Mayor Mancino: Well Mike, would you be willing to work with city staff and Mr. Klein and figure out some landscaping to undulate in that area and soften that berm in that northern area? Mike Pflaum: Sure... Mayor Mancino: Well if you could take the time and go over that with staff and Mr. Klein, that would be helpful. May I have a motion then. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of revised grading and drainage plans for Springfield 5th Addition with the addition that additional landscape materials be added as necessary to soften the buffer to the satisfaction of city staff and Mr. Klein. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Mayor Mancino: And I'd just like to add, although I won't make it a condition, that city staff, city engineering staff also meet with Mark and go over the drainage and go over that, thank you. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the revised grading and drainage plans for Springfield 5th Addition prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated June 24, 1999 with the addition that additional landscape materials be added as necessary to soften the buffer to the satisfaction of city staff and Mr. Klein. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: The other two items that we have that we pulled from the consent agenda are l(d) and 1 (e) and let's take 1 (d). D. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 5m ADDITION~ LUNDGREN BROS: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Senn: Okay, I would move final plat approval and I would move approval of development contract and construction plans and specifications with the following changes and/or amendments. Approve the development contract with the added stipulation that the approval is subject to a resolution on adding of SWMP fees and to what extent by city staff. And number two, to change your recommendation or recommendation of condition number 2 to add two trees on each lot in front yard. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Is there, I'm sorry I just want to make sure. So in the final plat approval for a condition of that approval on condition number 2, under the recommendation is that there will be two trees planted on each lot? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand this. And under approving 2, the development contract, that it be subject to approvals of applicable fees, SWMP fees? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do we have a second for that? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve for The Woods at Longacres 5th Addition, the final plat amended to include in condition number 2 that there will be two trees planted the in the front yard of each lot; to approve the Development Contract subject to the applicable SWMP fees; and to approve the Construction Plans and Specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. E. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 6TM ADDITION, LUNDGREN BROS: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Senn: On l(e) I would move approval of the final plat to approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications with the same changes as noted on 5th Addition. And additional changes as requested by the developer in their July 26th letter endorsing, or recommended by staff for approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve for The Woods at Longacres 6th Addition the final plat amended to include in condition number 2 that there will be two trees planted the in the front yard of each lot; to approve the Development Contract subject to the applicable SWMP fees; to approve the Construction Plans and Specifications; and to include the changes noted by the developer in their letter dated July 26, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mary Klingelhutz: Hi. My name is Mary Klingelhutz and I live at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and I'm a lifetime resident of Chanhassen and that's part of the reason I'm here tonight. So that I can possibly ensure that I can say that until my final days. Because I have an item of concern to many of the senior citizens in our community and that is that several weeks ago I was quite surprised when I found out how many senior City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 citizens in our community are in need of assisted living facilities. And that came about partially by talking to the manager of Centennial Hill who told me that there were 30 people on the list to get into the Centennial Hill Senior Apartments. And then several of the residents that are there now said that at least 20 of the people that are in there right now belong in assisted living facilities. Three of the people told me that you know themselves and so that was quite a number. And besides my husband and I have at least six relatives right now who are looking for assisted living facilities in other towns nearby and I think it's such a shame that they have to leave Chanhassen after they've lived here all their lives and go to another community nearby. But upon hearing that there is a group interested right now in buying a local church and possibly developing that into assisted living facility, I was really excited and hopeful. So several of my friends and myself decided to start a petition emphasizing the great need of this kind of facility to the council and encouraging the council members to take any action necessary to expedite this much needed facility. So as you know, most assisted living facilities are operated by church groups and we are very fortunate right now to have a church group that is interested in doing this with city approval. So I am presenting this brief petition signed by 214 Chanhassen seniors asking for your help in taking advantage of this rare opportunity to obtain this much needed facility in our city very soon. And the petition simply reads, it's just a couple sentences. As concerned senior citizens of Chanhassen, we feel there is a rapidly growing need for an assisted living facility in our city and we encourage the city to promote it. And it only took us two weeks to get 214 signatures and the response was terrific. And then we quit because we thought well, this served the purpose of documenting the real need that there is for this kind of facility. So we quit taking any more petitions but we could have kept on going and got a whole lot more. But anyway, is there any questions that you have of this? I'll give this petition to anybody like the City Manager or whoever. Mayor Mancino: We'll take it, thank you. Mary Klingelhutz: ... whatever you want to do with it but there definitely is a real need for this kind of facility and I think a lot of us will be using it. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Now do you have to have an AARP card membership to be able to sign? Do you have to have an AARP membership to be able to sign? Thank you very much Mary. Anyone else wishing to address the council during visitor presentations? There must be, there's so many of you here. There's got to be a reason. Anyway, okay. We'll move forward. Again, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-1. Public Present: Name Address David H. Peterson 1SD 112 Todd Gerhardt: Honorable Mayor and City Council. Under Minnesota Statutes the City Council must hold a public hearing when considering the development of a tax increment financing district and plan. Tonight staff would like to go through the proposed plan and then open it up for public comment. After that have the City Council close the public hearing and openly discuss the item amongst yourselves. And then if the council is in favor, approve the attached resolution. Attached, or included in your report is the 10 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 statement of objectives for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-1 and Development District No. 4. Under this plan you would be creating a tax increment district for the Eden Trace development park. Through this you would provide employment opportunities for the city of Chanhassen, improve the city's tax base, encourage development in the area, which has not developed to it's utilized full potential, and implement relevant portions of the city's comprehensive plan, including the construction of Lake Drive and the construction of Sunset Ridge parking lot. The estimated project cost are $1,456,100 for the construction of the parking lots and roadway. Estimated administrative expenses are $143,900. At this time staff would ask the City Council to take citizen input. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the City Council on this issue, please come forward on the Tax Increment District 4-1. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to council for discussion or questions or comments. Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Mayor Mancino: Any comments? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: No. Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. Scott Botcher: Todd if you would take a second. Are you yawning or are you going to speak? Mayor Mancino: It's only quarter after 7:00. I'm not yawning yet. Scott Botcher: One of the things we talked about was, as an objective that we're going to try to do as staff level and the applicant has been aware of this, is to get in and out of these tax increment districts as soon as possible. Be extremely conservative with their use. Would you explain a little bit about those discussions we had just, and I think there's an item in here, identified as Sheet #1 right before the resolution. Just take a minute or two and just maybe walk through that. Todd Gerhardt: Included just before the resolution adopting the development district program, staff has put together some tax increment projections, and I'd like to emphasize projections on that. I do not stand on these numbers. I do not know what the state will do or how quickly Eden Trace can develop this but Eden Trace has received five buildings already for site plan approval for this district. This is really unusual to have five buildings ready to go for an industrial park of this size. But based on that, the revenues and expenditures in these projections show that the district could be closed out in mid year 2004. And that would cover all costs associated for the roadway, the incentives given to the industrial park for their portion of the roadway and our administrative costs. In that you would see monies going back to the county, school district and to the city. Half of those revenues in 2004 going back to those jurisdictions. And if it is the council's wishes, you could modify the attached resolution stating that the district be decertified in the year 2004 after meeting these projected expenses and revenues. The Planning Commission has also reviewed this plan and did find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and the development of the city as a whole last Wednesday and passed the resolution stating such. We do have Dave Peterson from School 11 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 District 112 here tonight. I don't know if he wants to address this at all. But I would also ask that if you could make a, your first motion would be to decertify two of the parcels out of the downtown redevelopment district and then we would recertify those in the new district. I did not write that in the resolution so, and those PID numbers are 25.1900350 and 25.1900360. Then put those would see the base value as those are today out of the redevelopment district into an economic development district which you would be creating tonight. Councilman Senn: Which two parcels are those Todd? Todd Gerhardt: That would be the larger 52 acres owned by Eden Trace that's in our downtown redevelopment district. The larger parcel that encompasses the entire industrial park. The other parcel is the city owned parcel that has roadway improvements and also the Lake Ann Interceptor which runs through it. That has some roadway assessments that are in the downtown district right at this point. Councilman Senn: What does that do to your projections on the downtown district? Todd Gerhardt: It will decrease revenues to the downtown district by, I believe right now they're paying approximately $25,000 a year in taxes on that vacant land. Do you know what you, you haven't seen the statement? I believe that's. Councilman Senn: Well that's current but what were you assuming in going forward on the package we looked at for resolving some of the problems in the downtown district? Todd Gerhardt: It will impact it. would occur on West 79th Street. solvent. The difference. And where we would make that up is if with the hotel development that The increment generated on that for the one year should make that Councilman Senn: I thought you had some development on that parcel already and projections going forward. Todd Gerhardt: No. Councilman Senn: You didn't? Todd Gerhardt: Not on that one. We had taken into account Houlihan's and the hotel on the south side of Highway 5. American Inn. Mayor Mancino: But of course that won't come on line for a couple years. Todd Gerhardt: Right. 2001. We will still collect increment in the downtown district to 2004. Councilman Senn: I would move decertification then of the parcels 25.1900350 and 360. Mayor Mancino: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to decertify Parcels 25.1900350 and 25.1900360 from the downtown district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 12 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilman Senn: I would then move that we approve the resolution for Development District No. 4 with the added stipulation that the district be closed out and decertified in 2004. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino: Any discussion? I think that that's a very good, deliberate purpose that we're writing down or getting it on the books. We're moving it forward that way. Making that statement. So I would just like to be in support of that. Scott Botcher: Or all expenses have to be met, not just 2004. That was your motion, right? Councilman Senn: My motion was 2004. If there's additional expenses, my preference would be that you come back and ask at that time. Councilman Engel: And extend it. Councilman Senn: Let's have a target that we keep. Mayor Mancino: Okay. A motion's been made. Seconded. There's been discussion. Resolution #99-66: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the resolution adopting a Development District Program for Development District #4 and Tax Increment District No. 4-1 with the stipulation that the district be closed out and decertified in 2004, and providing financial assistance only in means of special assessment write down. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH~ 8028 DAKOTA AVENUE~ DON AND JOYCE WHITE. Public Present: Name Address Don & Joyce White Paul & Sharon Punt 8028 Dakota Avenue 8014 Dakota Avenue Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you Mayor Mancino and City Council. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 7th. The vote was 4 to 2 to approve the variance. However, ordinance requires a 75% affirmative vote so the variance was not approved with that vote. The applicant is appealing this decision. The proposed porch is to be 8 feet in depth on the north elevation of the house and 4 feet in depth on the east elevation of the house. The zoning ordinance permits porches to encroach 3 feet into a required setback. The applicant can't construct a 4 ½ foot porch on the north elevation of the home without a variance. Part of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting in which this item was reviewed was an ordinance amendment to allow porches to encroach into a required setback further than the ordinance allowed 3 feet. And at the last Planning Commission agenda the item was tabled. We were to have it 13 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 reviewed on July 21st and because two of the members were missing, absent from the meeting. It will be on the August 4th Planning Commission agenda. Although staff does believe the porch addition is attractive, a hardship is not present and staff does not recommend approval. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now let's make sure we've got this right as a council. My question to you is, I just want to make sure that we have this right because we have two appeals tonight. We need a super majority, no. A regular simple majority to change it. Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: From what the Planning Commission did. Good. Okay, so we don't need ~ or whatever. Roger Knutson: Three people. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay, is the applicant here? Councilman Senn: As far as this item goes now, and I read the Planning Commission stuff but there wasn't, you didn't receive any correspondence or letters or anything like that that any of the neighbors are in opposition to it. Cindy Kirchoff: No I did not. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Councilman Senn: I hate to save them some time but I'll move approval. Mayor Mancino: They're here. Let them speak. Councilman Senn: They'd probably rather have you move approval. Don White: My name is Don White, and this is my wife Joyce. And we've lived at home at 8028 Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen for the last 20 years. On July 7th, as was said earlier, our request for a variance to build an open front porch was denied by the Planning Commission. Since then, with the encouragement and support of many of our neighbors, we've taken the following actions. We wrote a letter of appeal to the City Council. That letter is included in your packet of information and we hope that you've all had an opportunity to read it. The letter also includes the text of our presentation to the Planning Commission. We wrote another letter to each of you individually and asked you to visit our neighborhood and to talk with us. We know that some of you have done this and we want you to know how much we appreciate that. We distributed copies of our letters to many of our neighbors and some of our neighbors have been able to join us tonight. We think that the information that we have provided is complete and accurate. Nevertheless I'd like to emphasize the significant points that we've made. We're asking for an additional 5 feet beyond the 3 feet that open porches are allowed to protrude into the setback. With the additional 5 feet we can build an open porch that is approximately 8 feet deep. Four of the six Planning Commission members voted in favor of granting our variance. They were very many favorable comments made by the commissioners. The argument of two members who voted against our porch seemed to be if we allow this 14 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 variance, where do we draw the line? While our immediate neighbors also have a 30 foot setback requirement, the neighboring development with even more expensive homes has a 25 foot setback and the houses can be 5 feet closer to the street. In addition the streets are wider there so houses have less front yards than we have, even if we had the front porch we're asking for. Despite our lot being considered substandard by 1999 guidelines, we have more open front yard than most of our neighbors. The staff report does say ~that a porch is a community builder and will enhance the appearance of the home and the neighborhood". We couldn't agree more, and I think that this is what our request is about. The new porch would be built only as an open, unenclosed porch and would protrude from the house to approximately where the concrete walk is today. The porch would be...to the edge of the walk and that's how far the porch would protrude from the house. This photo also shows the entrance of our home today. When neighbors stop by, we sit in the swing or on the concrete stoop. What we would like is to offer them a roof and a chair to sit in. We think that it will make a big difference to our home and the neighborhood. If you agree, please vote to grant us this variance. Please vote to improve the community. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Are there any neighbors here tonight that are not for the open porch? So all of you, nobody's raised up their hands. Okay, thank you. I think we'll bring this back to council and deal with it quickly. Councilman Senn: Motion's on the floor. Mayor Mancino: What is the motion? Councilman Senn: To approve the variance. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you want to approve the variance 99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an open porch addition. Correct? Councilman Senn: To summarize, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion? I don't really have anything I want to discuss but I do want to make a statement and that is that I am, as far as policy statement goes, very much in favor of especially older homes, and I have one that's 10 years older than this. A rambler. That those in our neighborhoods and in our older neighborhoods in the city, that we do look at them differently. We do look at the adding of front porches, etc as adding to the community. As adding to the neighborhood. And I think one of the e- mails said it very well. The way I was thinking is that it's just wonderful at night to see neighbors walking and sitting on their porches. It gives us a sense of who's around us and our neighbors. It helps us keep it safe and sound and we know that this person's going to be out on their front porch and we can stop by and say hello so I think it's a wonderful addition and I am very much in support of it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Variance Request #99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition of an open porch. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 15 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 APPEAL DECISION FOR A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD AND 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR PAT AND JUDY NEUMAN~ LOT 4~ BLOCK 4~ CHANHASSEN VISTA~ JON AND LAURIE CLAUSEN AND JOHN AND LAURA PODERGOIS. Public Present: Name Address Jon & Laurie Clauson Laura & John P. Podergois Louis M. Gagliardi Dennis Karstensen Mavis & Hans Skalle David Segal Pat & Judy Neuman 751 Chippewa Circle 720 Chippewa Circle 7480 Chippewa Trail 7482 Saratoga Drive 780 Santa Vera 11900 Wayzata Blvd, #208, Minnetonka 1654 Portland Avenue, St. Paul Cindy Kirchoff: Madam Mayor and City Council. I would first like to give an overview of the proposal and then have, if I could, have the City Attorney address the reasonable use issue. Firstly, this item was approved by the Planning Commission on the July 7th agenda with five conditions. Two neighbors have appealed the decision. The Chanhassen Vista development was platted in 1986 as a single family development. The subject addition has 33 lots within the First Addition in that development. The subject site is a lot of record. The grading plan did indicate that a single family home was to be placed on the lot and that it could be a buildable lot. The subdivision was platted prior to the city wide bluff protection ordinance amendment, which was approved in 1994. This required a 30 foot setback from the top or the toe of a bluff, and the elevation change on this site dictates that it maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The bluff setback and the 25 foot front yard setback required as part of the PUD, does limit the buildable area of the site to around 750 square feet and does create the hardship for the applicant. Without a variance the applicant cannot make a reasonable use of the site. The applicant wishes to construct a single family home on the site and the home extends 5 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback and 16 feet into the bluff. The aerial photos indicate that five of the homes that abut Kerber Pond Park in this particular addition of Chanhassen Vista do extend into the bluff. Not only into the bluff setback but also into the bluff. The conservation easement is a separate issue from the bluff setback. This conservation easement was approved as part of the overall PUD for Chanhassen Vista and intends to protect the value of Kerber Pond Park and the slope that surrounds it. A conservation easement is present on this site. It is approximately 120 feet of the western portion of Lot 4, Block 4 and the home cannot extend into this easement. Staff has prepared a sixth condition to ensure that the home does not encroach into this easement. That is to require the applicant to show the conservation easement on the survey when it is submitted as part of the building permit application. Staff does believe that this home is compatible and comparable in size to the surrounding homes and does feel comfortable with the proposal. Furthermore, the encroachment into the bluff will not deviate from existing neighborhood standards. Staff recommends approval of both variance requests with the six conditions in the staff report. Thank you and I'd like to turn it over to the City Attorney ifI could. Roger Knutson: ... we've gone over this issue in other circumstances but just to remind you as you probably already know. When regulations go too far it constitutes a taking of the property. The constitution requires compensation. Generally speak when the property owner is deprived of all reasonable use of their property, that constitutes a taking. The only step to overriding concerns or more than 16 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 concerns, overriding problems that would be created, such as overriding solution to problems of very substantial problems.., public safety or public health, that could occasionally overcome that but as a general rule.., involves reasonable use of the property, be prepared to buy the property from them. Mayor Mancino: What if you, some reasonable use of their property? Roger Knutson: Reasonable use is, it depends on how you define some. Mayor Mancino: Taking your all in taking and going to some. Roger Knutson: ... In other words, if you have, you don't have the right to build a 100,000 square foot house in a property that will only accommodate a 10,000 square foot house. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Roger? Councilwoman Jansen: If I may. Realizing that there is the preliminary grading plan that staff has included in the report. It is noting within that original PUD and those approvals that the home butted up against the what, the 998 contour line allowing for a single family home to be built on the property. And I gather within the Minutes that was all discussed as to it not making, it does make it a buildable lot. Can we, does it hold them to the original agreement if we do make that 998 contour line the limit of the buildable area? Roger Knutson: When you approved the plat, you don't, what you're required to do is show where you can build the house on the lot. You have to make sure you don't approve an unbuildable lot. Generally you're not, even when...that footprint. That's just to show you can do it. Councilwoman Jansen: So in that that did demonstrate that this was a buildable lot. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: If we stayed with that original proposal, we would not be constituting a taking. Correct? We'd be nullifying the bluff setback. The 30 feet. Roger Knutson: It didn't exist when this lot was approved. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. So it would leave them with the original buildable space that was agreed upon when... Mayor Mancino: But what I'm hearing Roger say is something different. When the original lot was deemed buildable in a PUD contract, that original lot, the only thing that you couldn't do on that original lot was you couldn't go into the conservation easement. And you had to have the setbacks on the sides and on the front. The 25 foot front and probably 10 foot sides. That's it. I mean there was no bluff ordinance or anything else. You couldn't go into the conservation easement but you could put that house anywhere within that configuration. There's nothing, even though it's drawn to show you can put a house a certain place, there was nothing in the original PUD contract that said that you had to put it at the 998. It just had to not be in the conservation easement. Now if the conservation easement is 998 or 985, then that would limit it. But going with a drawing, I mean all developers bring in their preliminary and final plats, you know they show where the building can go and we've even gotten to the point where we want to see if a 17 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 deck can fit on it, on this lot. But that doesn't mean they can't come back at final platting time and put the house and do it a little differently or anything. Roger Knutson: It's typical when you bring in a plat, you know where a house, building pad. At the time of plat approval. If someone comes in and doesn't use that building pad but uses some other building pad that's in the setbacks, you'd never even see it because that's not a restriction. It's just an attempt to show that you can in fact build a house on this, in this lot. Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess that's what was leading me to ask the question. Because if it is buildable up to that point, but we've been don't encroach into the bluff line, we're. Mayor Mancino: Conservation easement. Councilwoman Jansen: Well. Mayor Mancino: I'm just going back to the original PUD. Councilwoman Jansen: ... staked out currently is the 998 that was originally shown as the buildable distance on the lot. So I guess where I'm going is if we stay with that, we're still protecting the bluff line and the lot is still a buildable lot. We're not constituting a taking but we're not encroaching into the bluff, which at this point really only affects the porch and the deck. Roger Knutson: Maybe Cynthia can answer that but it would have been a remarkable coincidence it would seem to me that that would have taken place because there was no bluff ordinance so any reference to a certain line couldn't have been reference to a bluff ordinance that didn't exist. I don't know why there is a reference to that line. Cindy Kirchoff: IfI could show a copy of the grading plan that was submitted as a part of the development. This is the lot in question right here. And this shaded line right here, in the legend is denoted or noted as a scenic easement. A scenic easement is beyond the 990 contour which is right here. So it is not the top of the bluff. They didn't have a bluff setback then. What they were trying to ensure was that the slope was preserved for the preservation of Kerber Pond Park. Councilwoman Jansen: And Cindy I guess, and I don't know if this is what you've xeroxed for us into our packet. Within the packet you show the 997.5 as the back side. Is that what that is showing? Cindy Kirchoff: In the circle here, it's 997.5. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So just coincidentally that is what we're saying the bluff line is? Cindy Kirchoff: That's not, well staff doesn't believe that's where the bluff line is. Scott Botcher: ... it's simply establishing where the conservation easement is... Cindy Kirchoff: The conservation easement was approved at the time of the PUD. They weren't referencing a bluff. It's a separate issue than a bluff setback. The bluff setback pertains to all properties in Chanhassen that have a greater than 30% slope. 18 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Right. Cindy Kirchoff: The conservation easement only intends to protect Kerber Pond Park and the slope that surrounds it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this issue? You're welcome to. Just one second please. Are you the applicant? Would you like to go first or would you like to wait until they have? Come forward then .... could you state your name and address please. Pat Neuman: ... with the surveys and a number of other things. We're over $1,000. When we talk about. Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address please? Thank you, for the record. Pat Neuman: ...that you have from July 7th. I did, I'll just repeat what's in there. Pat Neuman. We've lived in St. Paul for 20 years. During that time I worked in St. Paul and the last 4 to 5 years the office moved to Chanhassen so I'm having to commute. We have two daughters. The house that we've selected to build is a house with a two car garage as opposed to some of the other houses that have 3 car garages. My daughters are entering, one daughter's in college right now. The other one's going into college this year. So that's kind of what I mentioned before. Then I also was given an opportunity to speak at the previous meeting and I had some comments and I'd kind of like to expand on some of that. First I'd like to address some of this. I'm not sure that everyone understands that the only part of the house that we're talking about going over the designated bluff basically is the porch and a lower deck. So we're not talking about a house that's going to be built over the bluff line. There might be two very small pieces which Cindy did a great job in putting the report together and identifying. That's what we're talking about in the front and then in the back it's sort of wrap around porch that goes back to a dining area which you can see the lower drawing here. The thing, you know, I recognize that there's no back yard. There's a side yard and basically a front yard. But really all that I'm interested in at this point... But in view of the fact that there is no back yard to play on, there's a number of things in the neighborhood...to play on, so I think even once we do decide eventually to move out of the house... I think it will still be an attractive house to the neighborhood. The lower deck, I asked Cindy later on... if we could add a lower deck because I wanted to do something like have a grill to allow you know.., and I wouldn't want to be putting out a grill out on the front of the house. So that's basically... The other things that I've done in addition to what Cindy's done, but I think she's got a lot more in the report than what she actually presented here but I calculated the square footage for the foundation at about 1550 feet of his house and compared it to the other houses from the aerial photographs and I came up with basically it's quite a bit smaller than a majority of the houses in the area. I won't go through the figures here because they are just rough estimates but that was the limitation that we have is that you know, is to have a smaller foundation. And as a result then we went with a two story design you know to give us the additional square footage. Well and that we feel is necessary. Especially with nowadays people you know wanting more room in their house and who knows with the daughters. You know you always like to have your company come over and have a place to stay so I don't think we want to limit ourselves to a very small house for this lot. Because they'll probably have families soon or later also. Yesterday we went over to the Landscape Arboretum. It was maybe not the best day to go over there but every Sunday they have a program on prairie restoration basically. They have, I don't know if any of you have been over there but it's quite impressive. If you walk through the field of prairie plants and wildflowers and the person that gave the tour to us, there were the only two of us at the beginning and then another couple joined us later from Lake Elmo but, who are trying to establish a prairie in their back yard. And the reason I'm interested in that is, one of the reasons is that prairie plants do protect slope because their roots are very deep and they also resist drought. And so it's certainly 19 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 advantageous to have natural prairie on a slope to protect from erosion. Right now in looking at what we have in Kerber Pond, I don't see anything basically from what I saw over at the Arboretum. I mean it's still a beautiful area, and I enjoy the area and view of the neighborhood but if you were going to attempt to call that a natural prairie, I don't think it would meet the criteria because of the species that are there are mostly invasive. There's a lot of thistle and I don't really, I'm just learning this now because I'm just sort of getting into it but if one were to try for a natural prairie, it would take years and years to build a fully developed. That's about all I had. Basically we're just looking for a typical house I think nowadays on a land that would have, a piece of land that would have a nice view. Mayor Mancino: Okay, just one second Pat. Any questions council members have? Okay, thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to address the council? Laurie Clausen: Good evening Mayor Mancino and council members. I'm Laurie Clausen and I have resided at 751 Chippewa Circle, which is the lot adjacent to the property in question, for the past seven years. As you're aware, my husband Jon and I are in opposition to the granting of any variances on the adjacent property. After consulting with numerous experts in areas of zoning, real estate litigation and city government, we feel that we have very valid arguments to support the opposition. I'll share these points with you now. Due to the fact that our voices were not picked up on the July 7th Planning Commission Minutes, you'll find a copy of my points as well as the Podergois' comments in the handout I'll hand out to you. Our areas of dispute are the following. The first is the 5 foot front yard setback variance reduced to 20 feet from curb. Our rationale is that a 5 foot front yard variance was already granted on this parcel... held July 21, 1986 with the current owner Mr. David Segal... This decision to increase the front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet already. Granting of the original 5 foot variance was a... discussed topic at this time. From the 7-21-86 City Council Minutes quote, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the usual 30 foot front yard setback down to 25 feet, unquote. This setback is not needed on either Lot 3 or 5, the adjacent properties, to have adequate buildable area. In addition, at the time of this development the minimum width in this development at the front setback was 80 feet .... again from the 7-21-86 City Council Minutes. The average, quote, the average lot width overall would be in excess of 90 feet at the setback line with a minimum at 80 feet, unquote. Quote, we don't want to set a precedence that we think 25 foot setbacks are wonderful, unquote .... on 7/23 of this year the lawful property width would be the following. 86 feet wide at the 30 foot setback, which was the original development requirement. 80 feet wide at the 25 foot setback, which is the current requirement with the 1986 granted 5 foot variance. 74 foot wide at the 20 foot setback, which is a proposed requirement. If this 5 foot setback is granted, this property would not have been an acceptable PUD at time of platting. Because the width of this property is a 20 foot setback at 74 feet, the property on this one issue will be granted three variances. The original 5 foot setback granted in 1986 to reduce the setback from 30 feet to 25 to minimize the encroachment into the bluff. An additional request for 5 feet to reduce the setback from 25 feet to 20, which is requested at this time. And the reduction of the minimum lot width that...it back from 80 feet to 74. This has not been officially requested but it would be granted with this additional 5 foot variance. We have consulted an attorney and he agrees that the additional 5 feet in front is excessive and not necessary for reasonable use of this property. This is in actuality a 10 foot variance from your originally required 30 feet, and a reduction of the required lot width. A setback from 80 feet to 74. Our second area of dispute is the 16 feet of property encroaching into the bluff conservation area. Our rational, we dispute the contour line where the conservation easement is presently in regards to the bluff. The staff report has a conservation easement starting at contour line 985. We have obtained copies of the City Council meeting of the final plat approved dated July 21, 1986 where the conservation easement is stated to be at the 952 to the top of the slope. This discussion of the conservation easement was mentioned numerous times in the City Council Minutes. And this plan was created in conjunction with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, it's in 20 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 the Minutes of the City Council meeting quote, it's their recommendation was that the City establish a conservation easement from the 952 to the top of the slope, end quote. The information provided by city staff.., top of the slope as interpreted today to be the bluff line. The bluff line and the proposed plat development shows the contour line 998. We found no city council documentation that lists the conservation easement line at 985. The original.., and I think it said, approach but did not encroach into the bluff. We feel that the conservation easement does go to the 998 contour line, bluff line. And this would mean the proposed development would have both foundation, which staff opposed in the staff report, and deck encroaches 16 feet into the conservation easement. In addition, at that time the city stated this is a strict conservation easement... The easement approach as seen by the Park and Recreation Board and by staff, as being an economical way of providing.., city's goals and the neighborhood's goals to bring a nature park into this area, unquote. These development plans were approved by the City Council. Councilwoman Swenson moved, and Mayor Hamilton seconded at the July 21, 1986 City Council meeting with the current owner, Mr. David Segal, President. As you can see from the overlay...the property can be obtained and has been shown in the 1986 development plans without an additional 5 foot front setback, and with that.., conservation easement. And in addition.., owner was in attendance at these meetings and agreed to the following. On the June 25, 1986 Planning Committee Minutes, quote. The proposed easement area, it appears that the buildable portion of Lot 4 will be tight. With the 25 foot setback, there will remain 45 feet ofbuildable area. We wanted to point that out to the commission, but it still can be built on. But it will be very tight at this particular location, end quote. In conclusion. A reasonable use of property can be obtained at this site. It may not be the original design submitted.., but a hardship to build can not be granted with every proposal. Regarding a 16 foot deck does not qualify... The original house design proposed in 1986 would work at this site without the front setback variance or the bluff conservation encroachment. We do feel that this request is self created because it's due to a specific house plan. Mr. David Segal, the current owner was in attendance at the 1986 meeting requiring a 25 foot setback and variance for conservation easement from the 952 contour line to the top of the slope. He agreed that 45 feet ofbuildable area was acceptable and reasonable use of this property. We do believe that with the creativity of architects.., the buildability of house design, a more suitable plan could have been found. It appears that no request... If these variances are granted, it will affect our enjoyment of our property and our property values. In addition, if these easements are granted, you are opening a Pandora's Box allowing a precedence to be set in the neighborhood for requests to... bluff conservation area. I thank you for your consideration. Appreciate your attention. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Laura Podergois: Good evening. I'm a little taller. My name is Laura Podergois. My husband John and our two daughters live at 720 Chippewa Circle which is the home located to the north of the lot in discussion this evening. We have lived in this home since we built it in 1987 and have chosen to remain there in lieu of a location.., greater percentages of lots. I just wanted to touch on a few more areas of concern about the decisions to be made in regards to the adjacent property. As I mentioned at the July 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, my husband attempted to control some aggressive thistles that were invading our yard at the edge of our lawn at the top of the slope of the bluff line, as it is called today. We were sent a politely written letter that removal, destruction or retardation of vegetation is not allowed. In order to put the two comers of foundation in the ground and a 16 foot deck attachment, removal and destruction of the vegetation will certainly occur. Since the City notified us for action occurring at the top of the bluff, it certainly enforces the easement. However in the drawing 990 contour line, it was the city council in place in 1986 made from the 952 contour line to the top of the slope a condition of approval, we believe the plat inaccurately reflects the end of the conservation easement. We believe that a legal definition of the top of the slope at this location needs to be found and clarified before a truly informed 21 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 decision on the buildable area of this lot should or can be made. One of our next concerns is about staff recommendations being made based on the aerial photograph of the development. We have seen no such photo in our packet. The only piece of information we have seen is a roughly hand sketched drawing known as Attachment A, which we've included in what we gave you tonight. We argue the accuracy of such a drawing. If you look at the panoramic photos, which I'll pass out. If you look at the panoramic photos we took from the path along Kerber Boulevard, neither.., foundation or decks hanging out or encroach into or past the bluff line. The rough drawing shows it quite differently. We have brought our own satellite photo of the development captured off the internet from the U.S. Geological Survey and we feel it gives a much different idea of the encroachment along this bluff line. As you look at the photo, please be sure to differentiate between shadows of structures and the actual structure itself. Perhaps in this instance the plat map would be a better source of information. Decisions as critical as this should not be made from a... sketch that is not to scale and inaccurate. We understand the need to allow a variance from the 30 foot bluff setback. However, we wonder if it is a requirement or in the best interest of erosion control and bluff preservation to grant the whole 30 feet and beyond in order to make this a buildable lot. There are always choices available. There were choices in 1986 and there still remains choices that do not so heavily impact this bluff. As you may have noticed on the plat map, this lot also has an emergency overflow easement on the south side. Erosion control is a very important concern with this lot and the slope. The Neuman's are asking for a deck so that they may enjoy the view. I believe they're asking for front row seats regardless of the negative impact to the bluff, wildlife and people that live nearby. The council members in 1986 gave great thought to the conservation of this bluff and it's surrounding area. Many hours were spent again in 1994 working to preserve the bluff. We certainly have spent numerous hours and resources trying to do what we also feel is best for the area. As a matter of fact without our vigorous pursuit of information, much of the information you have tonight would not have been brought forth. We love where we live and try to respect what the people did 13 years ago and again 5 years ago to take care of this sensitive piece of land. I again want to touch on the point about the minimum width and the requested variance from the 25 foot setback point. I would like to remind you that this is already a change established in 1986 from the required 30 foot setback. When the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the variances on July 7th, it was not told that the width of the proposed setback of 20 feet would be only 74 feet. The requirement is for 80 feet at the setback. That is a loss of 6 feet across the lot and 3 feet on either side. Now to you this may seem as though we are splitting hairs, but again it does not meet conditions of approval and who in the neighborhood such as this would like.., between their bay window and a neighbor's garage. The 25 foot setback was not granted easily and with much concern and discussion on preserving the slope. It seems that many of these conditions of approval are being ignored in order to push through approval of this plan. I believe the information presented at the July 7th Planning Commission meeting was not complete enough to make a recommendation on at that time. And I believe that tonight action on this cannot be given to unanswered questions. This discussion should be tabled and sent back to the Planning Commission or city staff for further work or table and returned to the City Council agenda with complete information at a later date. Our questions remaining before this meeting were, what is the legal definition of the bluff at this particular location? If this lot was approved with a variance of 5 feet in 1986 and considered buildable as is, is it correct to add another 5 feet raising the total change to 10 feet from what the original requirement? Does this meet the minimum width requirement at the 20 feet setback? Is there any other plan that could impact this bluff less? Several of you have viewed this lot and see that it looks much different in person than on paper. No commissioner mentioned having looked at that lot before the meeting. One even followed us out of the meeting at recess and admitted he normally visits the site in question and he regretted not going at this time. He encouraged us to pursue our concerns. Our hope is that a solution can be found that is in the best interest of the land, the bluff and all surrounding it. When or if the Neuman's become our neighbors, we welcome them and we hope that they enjoy our neighborhood as we do. We're just asking that what is best for this location is 22 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 given serious consideration. Thank you for your time and serious contemplation of this very important matter. Mayor Mancino: If you can limit it to a few minutes. Dennis Karstensen: I'll keep it short. They've covered many things already. I'm Dennis Karstensen and I'm... remember, I'm in the older division that was existing before the Chan Vista was developed and so part of the easements, I was heavily involved with that and we organized our whole community at that point to get the easements in place to save the park. So my concern is to look at this variance consideration here as how it's going to affect the parkland and what precedence it's going to be setting for the future. When the plat was first put together, the development was first put out, there was going to be a 10 foot border for the park around the lake. That's where it started. And so now we have the conservation easements around the site, which are great. Since then I guess even at that point all the buildings were on the top of the land. There's nothing on the Chanhassen Ponds Park side that is built into the bluffs at all. I'm not sure about the side where these people live. I don't see that that closely but where I am, on the south side of the Kerber Pond Park and north side, there's nobody building to the bluffs. With the easements there's been quite a bit of infringements in that area. I've been working with Jill Sinclair. She put out a letter on November 17th essentially addressing some of the cutting down of trees. Just general vandalism. Another letter went out from Todd Hoffman this time on March 30th to protect the area and at that time Jill Sinclair did visit as well which was just last year, to make sure that people realize that the easements were there. So there is concern in the neighborhood for the park and maintain it. Keep the bluff lines as high as we can. That's what our goal is. And what was there... I also talked with one city council member that was part of that and when he did the original planning, he never envisioned building down below the bluff line either. I talked to him last night. We are relative friends. Not close friends. We're acquaintances as well. And so he was kind of surprised that we're building down beyond the bluff line at this point too. So... Again the main thing here, I think you're setting a wrong precedence by going onto the bluff. If you're going to do this for this person, anybody along the whole park can do this as well and that's my concern. Look at a bigger picture if you would please. Just starting a bad precedence and keep it up high...like to see. It's a nice area. Kids from schools go down there for field trips and the like so it's used heavily by the neighbors as well. Very nice area. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. David Segal: My name is David Segal and I'm with Enterprise Properties. I'm the original developer. I do not own the property today. There's a letter over here from the current owner stating the history of the property over the last 14 years and what his intentions were with the property. And he has entered into a purchase agreement with Judy and Pat Neuman at this point and does want to sell it to them in hopes that he'll be able to do that. In terms of a request for the front setback to the 5 foot variance from that currently. That was at the city staff's request. They wanted to minimize, and all of us want to minimize the impact to the bluff and so that's why that 5 foot setback request was made. The house could be built without it, but it would go back into the bluff area further. In terms of the vegetation and everything sort of defining what the conservation easement is. That's all related to your new city code regarding the bluffs and everything. There's a section in here removal or alteration of vegetation in terms of the bluff impact zone and that's what that's referring to. A conservation easement is clearly defined on the plat. It was recorded and approved by the city back in 1986. And you know it is down the hill, you know I'm not sure 23 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 how many feet but the house clearly does not impact that at all. Thank you and we hope that you'll support the approval. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Bringing this back to council. That I'd like to ask staff. Conservation easement. There's no question when this PUD was platted, ;86-87, I guess it's '86. That everyone was very, very concerned about the conservation easement and I have a copy of the conservation easement, etc. And all the properties, are there any other lots left in this subdivision? Left to buy. No, okay. This is it. This is the last, okay. The conservation easement was put on the plat that was recorded at the County office with the deed, etc. Do we have a copy of that? Can we get a copy of it? Cindy Kirchoff: I don't have a copy of it right now but I can get a copy of it. I did contact the Recorder's office today and their computer system only goes back to 1988 so I would have to physically go down to the Carver County offices and get the copy. Mayor Mancino: I think that. Cindy Kirchoff: ...the easement over the phone is what I'm saying. Mayor Mancino: I think that that would be helpful for me to know exactly where that conservation easement is on this property. It will show the whole plat of the subdivision so we can kind of see where it is everywhere here. Cindy Kirchoff: I do have a copy of the plat with the conservation easement noted. The document you're looking for is the legal description indicating it's such and such feet from such and such area. I'd like to show a copy of the plat. Mayor Mancino: So you want to make sure that the legal description and the plat come together? Cindy Kirchoff: Essentially what it will say is 120 feet from this point east, thence north whatever this distance is. It will be a written document. It won't be a plat like this. I did measure the distance here. This is 120 feet from the property line that abuts Kerber Pond Park here to this point right here. According to that calculation the house that is proposed will not encroach into that conservation easement, nor can it. Mayor Mancino: And we can have the surveyor make sure of that and have that done professionally, etc. And that was at the time of the platting, at the time of this PUD, that was, I want to say back yard. That was the line for every other lot that abutted the pond. Correct? Cindy Kirchoff: All the distances are different. It's a line drawn to protect the park essentially, and it's different on every lot. Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming where that line is, is the description of 952 to the top of the slope, that's where the top of the slope was. Cindy Kirchoff: Actually the 952 is somewhere down here. It's not on the subject property. Mayor Mancino: Okay, but the 952 is, as you look at the 952, stand at the 952 and go up to that property, that's where the conservation easement. Right? 24 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff: Essentially. Mayor Mancino: So it shows, it actually shows the top of where the conservation easement is on that? Cindy Kirchoff: On this document right here, on the conservation easement document it will be a written description. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we want to make sure of both of those. And again that was what every other lot in this subdivision had to follow. Cindy Kirchoff: In the first addition, correct. And those lots that abutted or abut Kerber Pond Park had to, had conservation easements present on the site. Mayor Mancino: Did any of the lots have, I'm going through some rational thinking here. Did any of the lots that were developed have the bluff ordinance in, was that passed when any other lot, anybody else built their house in this subdivision? Cindy Kirchoff: According to the building permit records, most of these houses were built in 1987. And the bluff ordinance in southern Chanhassen wasn't approved until 1991 so it was quite a few years after that. And it would apply to this property in 1994 because that's when the bluff protection ordinance was adopted city wide. Mayor Mancino: So '91 was when it was kind of south of Pioneer, Hesse Farms, etc. In '94 was when it applied city wide. So no other building site that you know of right now had to obey by the bluff ordinance. Okay. Any other questions? Scott Botcher: I think it's just a legal question. We can talk about this until we're blue in the face and the house, no disrespect, that doesn't.., can build a house. Has reasonable use of their property on a 740. I can't make it any simpler than that. Now I know that my personal opinion is, I tend to disagree a little bit with the report. I find it to be a self created hardship. Personally. I think that Roger and I have been talking about this over here. I think, and again the homeowners, they've got a plan they'd like to build and they'd like to put it on this lot. That's not a hardship. Mayor Mancino: Hold on. Wait until he's done. Just a second. Scott Botcher: So I think the idea that that's really been the.., of the request tonight. Do you believe that they can build a house on... which is what planning staff has identified in the findings as... Mayor Mancino: But that's going by a new ordinance that was passed, am I right Cindy? Is that. Scott Botcher: But the new ordinance, and Roger and I talked about the whole issue of contract zoning. New ordinance and if I misinterpreted and the new ordinance does have application to this. So that's where that number came from in the finding number (a). If you find that, if you agree that 740 square feet is not a reasonable area upon which to build a home, then the variance you can find may not be. To me that's really the issue. I mean the neighbor's house, the neighbors houses are older. That's not the issue. Mayor Mancino: Well in that PUD, the smallest minimum lot that they were okay with was 12,000 square feet and the average, or the median lot size was 14,000 square feet. Now they said abutting the pond they 25 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 wanted 15,000 square feet for the lot size. So Don, or I'm sorry, Pat. Please come forward to the podium and then we'll just bring it back to council and go forward. Pat Neuman: I just took note of the.., referred to as a self imposed hardship here. Because basically what we're talking about, what I've been listening to half the night is that porches are a good idea and you're trying to make the neighborhood look nice, and all we're talking about is adding an 8 foot wrap around porch on the existing house and an additional extension of 8 feet so that you can put a grill. We're not talking about building the foundation of the house on a bluff. We're talking about an 8 foot porch which I've heard here and at the previous meeting indicated that porches are a good idea. So I don't quite understand why this was referred to as a self imposed hardship. The other thing that I'd like to comment is a comment that was made by one of the.., somehow I came up with something that they didn't have but basically all I did, I also have the U.S.G.S. satellite image. Because I work in the scientific area so, but this is a photo that I got from the city before I really got into this, and you know and looking at the property and before I made the offer to purchase. And this is available to anybody that goes down to the city. Here. They'll, if you pay $5.00... This is just a print and they've got a big sheet that was basically put together in 1990. But it's interesting, well I did some playing around and I just cut out the size of our house and foundation and laid it on there next to the adjacent houses to get an idea of really was creating a difficult visual problem. I grew up in St. Paul. As you know lot sizes aren't very large. In fact one of the problems with, that we have today is that the lot sizes are so large and it's creating a great deal of urban sprawl and whatever. These lots certainly aren't that big but I mean if you go to some of these other places where the lots that are.., other people in farmland and wildlife areas. And so I'm not a strong advocate of large yards. And I can get by without a yard. Not a yard. I like a yard but I don't need to have a lawn. As Cindy brought up in her report. If I can follow, and you can see, of these original houses that were put together here, this house here is clearly on the bluff. I mean she's at the contour line that you're looking at. You're overlaying on an image and almost the entire house is on the bluff. Probably around 1980. I mean you can go and pick other houses where they've got pieces of their house on the bluff. We're not talking about me coming in here and destroying the area that's natural. I mean you know, and I suppose I could tell you well if you really feel that bad about having a porch and a lower deck on a bluff, you know I supposed I could say well maybe we can get by without that and then we wouldn't have that. But is that what we really want? Is that really going to create a big problem over there? And I don't think it's going to set a precedence because this is the last house where you're going to need to argue about setbacks. Well not setbacks but easements and so forth so, I'm sorry. Maybe I've reacted a little strong to the self imposed hardship comment but I really didn't appreciate that. Mayor Mancino: Alright, thank you. Scott Botcher: That's alright, I still believe it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll bring it back to council now for discussion. Councilman Engel. Comments? Questions? Councilman Engel: I've been pretty consistent in issues like this since I got this council chair and that is that when we have disagreements like this, I come down in favor of the property owners. When there is a dispute, as there has been several while I've sat here. I've seen some of them solved in creative ways. One of the easiest ones is if you don't like the plan they're developing, buy the property. Split it and add it to your own lot. I've seen that done. Barring you wanting to do that, this is a property that is buildable legally. There's some conditions involved here that I would say there are some violations based on existing properties. Same guidelines so I generally come down in favor of property owners in situations like this. 26 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: So you would go for going ahead with the variances? Councilman Engel: Yes... demonstrably severe damage being done to neighbors. This is no different from any other request that I've approved. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Based on what Roger said, I think what's being proposed is a reasonable use of the property. At the same time I sympathize with the neighbors but I also remember a situation going back several years now where we had a very similar situation to this. Everybody wanted press it to the wall. The ultimate result was a plan that appeared before us with a three story house. A small floor plate. Which is perfectly legal on this parcel. Mayor Mancino: ...go more vertical. Councilman Senn: Right. You have a 40 foot height limitation on size. And looking at that neighborhood, I just recall that situation because again this is a very similar situation to that. That type of a solution which is, the board's kind of ultimately where it ends up because we all know that as far as floor plates go and square footage in homes go and land values in Chanhassen, get real. There's going to be a decent amount of square footage there. That's just the reality of the situation. Before I'm set to go vertically, horizontally I think that is not good policy. Not good, or not a good avenue for that property. The solution that's before us is a reasonable one. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm going to come at this from a little different direction, and maybe that's what the original agreement and expectations were of what would happen on this piece of property. And realizing that in just simply nullifying the 30 foot bluff setback we have a buildable lot. In fact we have this house on this lot. We then go, and right within the recommendation and the proposal it's noting the 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback. Beyond that we're being asked for an additional 16 foot variance in order to accommodate the extension of the patio into the bluff. Well maybe that's what I'm reacting to as possibly an unreasonable expectation under the guidelines of what the neighbors were expecting would be happening on this property and what the landowner knows of the topography. If you build this house, you can accommodate a patio as is on the south side of the house without encroaching into the bluff. So you have your patio. You have your outside space. It's a wrap around patio on the first level. So they've got their house. It's reasonable. It protects the rights and expectations of our existing property owners. When I hear that you know we're protecting the rights of the property owners. Well what about the existing owners? And there's a good compromise position here. I understand and appreciate people wanting outdoor decks. But if that can be accommodated and we hear over and over again from staff, if there's buildable area on another location of the house, that's considered more reasonable than granting a variance into a setback. That's just common practice as we're doing our findings. Now I'm hearing Mr. Botcher and Mr. Knutson saying that under finding number A, the buildable area to be 747 square feet. That's if we were to enforce the 30 foot bluff setback, correct? Scott Botcher: That's our understanding. Councilwoman Jansen: If we enforced it. So if we grant the 30 foot variance, only the 30 foot variance, we conceivably make it a buildable lot. It goes beyond the 747 at that point, correct? If it's accommodating this footprint of this house. Okay. 27 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Isn't a little bit of the foundation into the bluff just a little bit? Cindy Kirchoff: Just two small comers. Mayor Mancino: Say a little bit, are we talking about 2 or 3, 5 feet? I mean. Cindy Kirchoff: I can certainly measure it right now. Mayor Mancino: I just want to understand that there will be a little bit of the foundation still into the bluff. Not the bluff setback. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. The entire house would be in the setback. Yes, absolutely understood. Absolutely understood. And that's where I'm saying if we go back to what's being proposed, which is 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback, all we would be eliminating under the recommendation. Mayor Mancino: Would be the extension of the deck. Councilwoman Jansen: We're eliminating this. And what I'm saying is that we grant the variance for the 30 feet so it brings the buildable area out to this line and all we're then not granting. Mayor Mancino: Is the extension of the deck. Councilwoman Jansen: ... 16 out into this area. So what we're being asked for is a 30 foot plus a 16 foot. If we grant the 30 foot, you have a buildable area for a home. And that's what we're being shown here. Mayor Mancino: Cindy with that question, just going, forgetting the setback. The bluff setback and going to where the bluff line is. You get the home and the porch that wraps around. Cindy Kirchoff: The rear part of the wrap around porch will be eliminated as well the lower deck. Mayor Mancino: The whole lower deck nothing. Cindy Kirchoff: The whole lower deck, yep. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and depending on the size of the comer of the house, I'm not trying to be a real stick in the mud about it. I mean the comer of the house isn't as much the issue for me. It's that we're granting an additional 8 or an additional 16 beyond voiding the 30. And that certainly is reasonable and that is where the other homes in the neighborhood are built to. It puts the footprint of this home where it was originally shown on the grading plan. However it works out, it works out identically that way and in the survey it does show the bluff line at the 998. So we accomplish the buildable area, which ifI understand what we're trying to accomplish here tonight, is making sure that we're not doing a taking. That we're being reasonable and giving the homeowner a buildable area for a single family home. We do that by granting the 30 foot variance. And all we're eliminating is condition 3 of the recommendation which allows then for the additional 16 feet encroachment out into the bluff. And if drove Kerber and looked back at the side of this hill as to where that additional 16 feet would have this home sticking out, it's going to hang out so much farther than any of the surrounding homes as you look back towards this 28 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 park. It's going to be out by itself. If you build the home with just that 30 foot variance, it's at least more in line with the existing homes. It's not sticking out that additional distance. And like the surrounding homes, they have their patios and their decks on a side. So you have the use of your side yards for your grill or your outside enjoyment. You still have space because there is space on the south side of the house and the lot. Mayor Mancino: That would also have a 20 foot variance to the front. Councilwoman Jansen: And that's the kicker. I go back and forth on that. I mean we heard staff say earlier tonight that that complicates parking. But we have allowed for the 20 foot setback in order to protect tree preservation, slopes. Mayor Mancino: Slopes. We encouraged them. Councilwoman Jansen: What are we trying to accomplish? I don't know. I'm hoping that the neighbors would feel okay about that. If we're at least staying at that just the 30 foot variance. 30 seems reasonable. 46 seems extreme. 30's buildable. Mayor Mancino: I'll give a few of my comments. Number one, I just want to make sure and thank you for adding Cindy the conservation easement, 6. Because I just want to make sure that there is nothing that's building any part of it, the house or the deck or anything is in part of the conservation easement. We can just make sure that all the legal definitions are set for that. Secondly, I go back and forth about the bluff ordinance because this obviously wrote it and I think it's important. Like subdivisions and the houses that are going to go in there to be on an equal level playing field. As long as everyone abides by the conservation easement, that's my big consideration. So I'm taking into consideration what Councilwoman Jansen said and I'll take just a minute to process that but one of the things I wanted to... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. Councilwoman Jansen made a motion to approve the staff recommendation amending condition 3 deleting the phrase, ~more than 16 feet". There was no second to the motion.) Councilwoman Jansen: ... where the comer of the house would be. Cindy Kirchoff: It's approximately 3 feet. Councilwoman Jansen: Just 3 feet? Cindy Kirchoff: That's my best guess. Councilman Engel: I think this is doable based on staff recommendations. Mayor Mancino: But I don't want that deck to go out. Councilman Senn: Let's see here, I'll try a motion because I think it's the only one we're going to pass tonight. I would move approval of the staff recommendation. I suppose what the motion should do is the motion should be for denial of the appeal. Approve staff recommendation with the exception of the lower deck protruding beyond the line of the upper deck. 29 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilman Engel: Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Grading still shall not take place 10 feet beyond. That's in there already. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted, into the deck. Into the bluff. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded approve Variance/t99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. The home shall be rotated to the south as shown on the plans prepared by staff to minimize the area of the foundation that encroaches into the bluff. 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation of the home into the bluff. 3. The lower deck cannot encroach more than the upper deck. 4. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 5. The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. 6. The conservation easement shall be shown on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3to 1. Mayor Mancino: And your findings for the nay. Do we have to do that on a variance Roger? Roger Knutson: When you approve something... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, so a variance is granted a little different than the variance that was granted at the Planning Commission. The lower deck will not able to be built and Cindy you will make sure that the plat and the legal description of the conservation easement, otherwise nothing will go into the conservation easement, correct? Cindy Kirchoff: You have my word. Mayor Mancino: thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming tonight. RQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO PERMIT CHURCH ASSEMBLY WORSHIP AS AN ANCILLARY USE IN THE 30 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 DEVELOPMENT; WAIVER OF SECOND READING OF CODE AMENDMENT; APPROVE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR NEW LIFE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP; STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Mancino: And Roger we can't waive that second reading, right? Because we need 4/5. Roger Knutson: You have four people. Councilman Senn: You can do it. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. So if we all vote for it, yeah. Got it. Staff report please. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. Steiner Development requested that the PUD design standards be amended for this development to permit a church facility within one of their buildings. New Life Christian Fellowship. In doing that staff tried to draft some standards or criteria for approval of a church facility in the development as an interim use so that there'd be some sense that they'd be causing the church to have to move out. We contacted various church organizations to see what a viable congregation is and they seem to agree on the number of 200 adult members made them viable and able to go out and get their own facility. So we did incorporate that as one of the criteria when they reach that threshold their interim use would have to go. We did draft this so that 6% of any one building, any building within the development could be a church facility so for each building, technically each building could have 6% of their space. The specific request is for 44,000 square feet of the Steiner Building II which is located north of Water Tower Place and west of Coulter Boulevard. Churches are permitted as interim uses in all industrial and commercial districts within the city and as conditional uses in all residential districts. We believe that this was not out of line for them but we wanted to limit the amount of institutional uses within this project so that's where the 6% came up. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the PUD standards and also the approval of the interim use. The specific interim use permit for the New Life Christian Fellowship. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Mancino: Questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Would you like to address the council? Fred Richter: I'll introduce myself. Fred Richter with Steiner Development and Don Finger, the Pastor of New Christian Fellowship is also here. I think this matter was brought here once before. We've been to the Planning Commission and been talked through and we appreciate the staff's support on this. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Fred. Councilman Senn: I would move approval with the exception on one change on page 5 and that being the church shall not occupy more than 6% of this one building. Striking the word any. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Does that clearly state that it can't occupy 6% of other buildings? Do we have to specifically state it that way? Councilman Senn: That's what I said. Councilman Engel: I want to make sure that's clear. I'll second that. 31 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the amendment to PUD #92-6, Arboretum Business Park to permit a church as an interim use within the Arboretum Business Park development. The following criteria shall apply to churches as interim uses: Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of Steiner Development Building II. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Roger Knutson: Do you want to waive second reading? Councilman Senn: I'll move to waive second reading of the ordinance. Mayor Mancino: Second to that motion? Councilman Engel: I second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to waive second reading of ordinance amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Bob Generous: The interim use permit. Councilman Senn: Motion to approve interim use permit. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the interim use permit for New Life Christian Fellowship for an office and church assembly in 4,400 square foot tenant space on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2na Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. The church must vacate the building prior to exceeding 200 adult members. 2. The church facility is limited to 4,400 square feet of the building area. 3. The church shall submit to the city annually the number of adult members in it's congregation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, 32 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 AND OUTLOTS A AND B, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 20,195 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is a three part application. The preliminary plat is rather straight forward. There were two lots on the most easterly end of this development. The applicant is replatting those to create three lots into outlots, with one of the outlots being the right-of-way for the public street. The only issue that we had in that was that they develop one of the lots, Lot 2 does not have sufficient frontage and that they revise the plat for final platting to have 60 feet of frontage at the cul-de-sac. The site plan review is for a 20,195 square foot office warehouse building with a portion of it scheduled to be occupied by a daycare facility. This development, initially when they came in, staff was a little concerned that they were repeating the site plans for another building and so we wanted something a little bit different. The applicant has provided that through the use, introduction of additional entrance features. We believe this makes it a little easier to identify the separate building and it is an improvement. In addition they've added accents to match the building materials. This is a block face building so it's all block material. Darker reddish brown on the bottom and then a lighter color towards the top. It has multi tiered canopies at the front with the lower extension area. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report with the deletion of condition number 15, which is the added architectural details that we believe they provided with their revised submittal. And finally the conditional use permit would allow the use of part of this structure for a daycare facility. We believe locating a daycare building, or facility in an employment area is a good benefit for the community and we're recommending approval of that. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Questions for Bob at this point. Councilwoman Jansen: I just had one. And I don't know how typically we handle the sidewalks within the development. Realizing that there's a sidewalk that goes all the way around the building. There's one that goes around the cul-de-sac and down the exterior road if you would. The entrance road. Bob Generous: Lake Drive. Councilwoman Jansen: But the driveway actually going into this complex I gather does not have a sidewalk? Bob Generous: Not currently and that's one of the conditions that staff has incorporated. It would be. Councilwoman Jansen: So did I just miss it? You've got it in here that we'd be adding one on the actual driveway? Bob Generous: It would be along Street A is what they call it in the plans, since we don't have the final name yet. 33 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So it would go the rest of the distance up that driveway and they just need to crosswalk across. Bob Generous: Yeah, what we'd do is create then a pedestrian ramp on both sides. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, great. That was it. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Scott Botcher: The only thing I have is that I have received a number of comments from folks whose kids attend the existing daycare my understanding that's going to move over there. I'm prejudice because one of my kids goes there. God willing he'll graduate. But there's a strong...I think to have it in the business park area. It's a nice benefit and it helps attract business to Chan. Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion and I guess we'll do three different motions but I'll need one for the subdivision, for the site plan review... Councilman Senn: Why can't we just move approval of the subdivision, the site plan review and conditional use permit. Mayor Mancino: Good, that's fine. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #99-9 for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999, with the following conditions: The final plat shall revise the cul-de-sac street design to include a 30-foot radius at the point where the street connects to the cul-de-sac on the southwesterly comer of the cul-de-sac. The developer shall submit street names to the Public Safety for review and approval. The final street name shall be listed on the final plat and construction documents. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All side slopes in excess of 3 to 1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets after site grading is completed. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street shall be constructed in accordance with the city's urban industrial street section. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 ~design of parking stalls and drive aisles. 34 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100- year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right of way. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Street and utility improvements located within the public street right-of-way upon completion will become City maintained and owned. Individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County may be used for an security escrow. Driveway access points to the lots shall be limited to the interior street system and not Lake Drive West. Access to Lots 1,2 and 3, Bk. 1 shall be reviewed by the city on an individual basis as site plans are submitted. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 35 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The developer shall petition the City to vacate the drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, prior to recording the final plat. The developer shall be responsible for adjustments to existing infrastructure impacted by site improvements. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The applicant shall submit a boulevard tree landscape plan for city approval. The plan shall list location, species and size of materials. The lot frontage for lot 2 shall be increased to a minimum of 60 feet. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.- c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. A sidewalk shall be extended along A Street. Fire Inspector conditions: a. All the post indicator valves going into the building must have tamper protection. 36 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Please refer to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policies for site and building requirements for plans to be issued to the Building Department." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan Review #99-14 for a daycare/office/warehouse building as shown on the site plan received June 4, 1999, subject to the following conditions: Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans shall be submitted to staff for review and approval by to the City Council consideration of the site plan. The applicant shall work with staff in revising westerly curb radii at the driveway entrance to accommodate fire apparatus vehicles Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require building permits through the City's Building Department. The proposed driveway access shall incorporate an industrial driveway apron and pedestrian ramps on the plans in accordance with City detail plate 5207 The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee the boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 11. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. 37 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 12. Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final plat approval of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition. 13. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for any adjustments to the existing sanitary sewer manholes that are impacted with development of the site. 15. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The applicant shall provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. 16. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping surrounding the parking lot. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. 17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 18. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: a. Increase plantings for buffer yard area in order to meet ordinance requirements. b. Increase parking lot trees by nine in order to meet ordinance requirements. c. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that shows shrub quantities, sod or seed limits, landscaping for the daycare play area, and details of the landscaped areas and paving near the building. 19. Building Official conditions: The daycare facility must be separated from an adjoining office, warehouse or manufacturing use by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation. The building owner and or their representative meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 20. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): a. Regarding the note referencing all trash and recycling to be inside the building it must be in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #20-1991. (Copy enclosed.) b. Submit utility plans for review and approval. c. 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. d. Submit radius mm dimensions to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 9002.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. e. On the north side of the building provide approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for options available. 38 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. (Copy enclosed.) g. 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #99-2 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. 3. Show type of fence and landscaping for the outdoor play area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE, CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FIRE CHIEF. Councilman Senn: One thing I wanted to bring up under Council presentations. Just wait and do that after Admin? Mayor Mancino: Sure. Scott Botcher: One of the things that I'm going to try to do and I think I mentioned this to you and I know the Mayor has broached this with me in the past is to have on once a month, probably the last meeting of every month, that's what we're shooting for, have a representative of the fire department and the public safety departments here to make a brief presentation to the council. But obviously there are issues that you all are concerned about. You hear from constituents. Included in your packet is his/our both of course from the public safety department and the fire department. The fine department ones are in the administration section. Public safety one is a separate. So they'll be here about once a month. Mayor Mancino: Great. Wonderful. We'll do a dance and sing. Bob Zydowsky: I really don't have anything specific other than what I will try to do each month is to give you, as I call, a law enforcement update realizing there's not a lot of important headline news agenda here but just to kind of give you a heads up on some of the more important things that we're doing. Burglaries or calls that may attract news type things. Some of the programs we're doing and then also with that, Beth Hoiseth, our Crime Prevention Specialist will attach along with that some of the activities that she's doing. July's been a busy month for us as far as those type of safety education type contacts. Last week we, in conjunction with the Park and Rec Department, did our annual totlot safety program in conjunction with the fire department and Carver County and Chan Public Safety and we probably gave a talk to anywhere between 300 and 400 kids that week. And what it involves, we go out to the different area parks and it's two parks each day. And it was usually Mark or Greg that did a segment on fire department. They get to 39 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 spray the hose and that sort of thing and then Deputy Mike Douglas and I did a segment on police. And we'd go over some of the gear that I carry and the differences between the brown and the blue and so that was real fun. The 4th of July events of course were very well attended. Excellent, no problems whatsoever. So if you have anything specific, I'm happy to answer that. Scott Botcher: Tell us about Pleasant View Road. Bob Zydowsky: Pleasant View Road. We've had the radar trailer out several times. I've been up there and I think I've gotten more offers for cookies and coffee in the last two or three weeks than I've had in 12 years but I try to make it up there 2 or 3 times a day and write 2 or 3 or 4 tickets a day. And the Sheriff's office is busy with that too. Realizing it's not the only problem spot in this city but we're putting our efforts towards that. The feedback I've been getting, people coming out of their driveways or I stopped and spoke with a fellow. I said do you mind if I use your driveway to set up a little speed enforcement and he said oh, by all means. I'll go get the coffee. No problem. So I mean they're very appreciative. Joggers, bikers that go by stop and then we'll talk so it's been a good program. And we'll continue that. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: One of the, I just have. Councilman Senn: Oh wait, I wanted to ask him where this rampant problem with the drugs.., heard of it before so I was kind of curious to hear about it. Stated by Mr. Ayotte. Bob Zydowsky: I guess I'm unaware of that too. Councilman Senn: So it's not only me that's unaware of it? Bob Zydowsky: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, good. Mayor Mancino: Bob, looking at the Carver County Sheriff's Department Area Report. From year to date, it looks like, it says total criminal, we're at 910 this year of assault and burglary, drug violation and all that. Last year we were at 1288 so are we doing better law enforcement? Is the economy good? I mean you know. Bob Zydowsky: Well, it's funny you ask that. I was kind of going through some of the stats and the big ones that I saw. Mayor Mancino: Traffic stops. Bob Zydowsky: Well traffic stops and the, it's not a problem but with the addition of the computers and the cars, officers are doing less of calling out their traffic stops versus just entering it into the computer. So therefore it's a little bit different. It's not considered a stat at that point. So that's why there's such a drastic change there. And then also on miscellaneous criminal, those stats have gone down, which is good. I mean those are the things, the little things that happen. 40 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And I see where theft has too. I thought that was great. Right, right. So the numbers are down but that's good. You know overall. It's actually good police work I think. Councilman Senn: The other one I had a specific question about was also the rampant problem that was referenced by Mr. Ayotte dealing to vandalism yet you're showing that our vandalism numbers are down. Bob Zydowsky: Right, overall vandalism numbers are down. They have had in the Near Mountain area, North Lotus Park, we've had I don't want to say several incidents but a few more than normal incidents of vandalism up there. Houses being egged. Lawns being trashed by cars. Cell phones being taken out of cars. Officer Holden with the Sheriff's office stopped a vehicle in North Lotus Park last week driving through the soccer nets and their excuse was they were trying to avoid a raccoon. Well... you know areas that have never had problems seem like they're going on so. Mayor Mancino: And again it sounds like kids and teenagers. Bob Zydowsky: Exactly. Exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. John Wolff: Thanks Bob. Madam Mayor and council members. Appreciate the opportunity to give you a brief report on the fire department. I don't know if you have a copy of the handout in front of you. If you don't, I can certainly give you one. I've got a number of items. I was just going to give you kind of a quick overview on and then if there are any questions or if you want to give feedback, maybe back to the city manager. If there are issues you'd like us to maybe more specifically cover at a future meeting, we can certainly do that. I thought I'd just give you an update on where we are. From a staffing perspective, we're at 46. 33 active. 5 are probationary members. They are coming up to their one year mark which would make them active members if they pass that mark. We have 3 on leave of absence which is fairly typical and we have 5 recruits. We're seeing about 10 to 15% turnover over the past 2 or 3 years so we try to manage that through the recruiting process and the probationary training process. But we're real comfortable with staffing and we're real comfortable with some successful recruiting efforts we've had over the past couple of years. Mayor Mancino: Great. John Wolff: Calls year to date are 8% below 1998 levels and '98 was a little bit of a spike off of '97 but '99 data is below both '97 and '96. We think that this is driven by the CO alarms were, came out in '96 and '97 and we got, we had a lot of activity in that area and for example an average of about 60 calls a year and we anticipate we'll get less than 20 this year based on year to date data. And then the storm season last year we saw a lot of calls out of that and we're seeing a typical or normal season for storms this year. So on a year to date basis we're 8% below which from a budgetary perspective means that we shouldn't have any trouble with meeting payroll and payroll is probably the biggest driver in our operational budget. Operational areas otherwise and capital costs are on budget year to date. We expect them to hold budget through the year. Just a quick view of what we have or will purchase this year that are in budget. We've got the replacement of our light rescue vehicle. That's our front line truck. It manages, it probably is out on 50% of our calls. It's a 1984 vehicle. It's literally falling apart at the seams. It's going into the shop tomorrow to have a couple of cabinets welded so the timing is good. We were definitely in desperate need of that new vehicle and happy to have that coming on line. 41 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Will we be, John will you be selling the old one? John Wolff: Pardon me? Mayor Mancino: Will we be selling the old one? John Wolff: My understanding is it's not going to stay in the fleet and that Harold will probably try to find a market for it. It's in rough condition now. I don't think the city will have any use for it, although that remains to be seen. The fire department is going to turn it over to the vehicle maintenance area. Our second installment of the, I'm sorry this would be the first installment this year is the $15,000 towards the new radio system the County's going to in 2002. The County's going to 800 megahertz from the current VHF channels and it's about 100, a little over $100,000 to retrofit the fire department radios and so I think council set up an installment program which will be a six year program and so our first installment comes towards that this year. We've purchased some surplus airtank bottles. We're purchasing a power generator for our substation on the west end. In the event of a power failure of Y2K blackouts, what have you, we'll have a way to get the doors open and to operate radios and so forth. And we're also just going through some hose replacement on some of our front line vehicles. We have developed a proposed 15 capital plan for rolling stock facilities and equipment and that's been submitted to the City Manager. We also have submitted our fiscal year 2000 budget. Of note. We're changing the paradiamond, the fire service. When we were a small town and our 45 members, we could page everybody out for every call and that's how we kind of insured coverage. What we've learned is that with 800 calls a year, we're burning out of fire fighters so we're experimenting with some shifts now. We used to have a shift that split our group in half to respond to medicals. Now we've gone to a shift which splits it into quarters. One is a territorial shift and the others are more of a calendar shift. And some benefits to us is that, I think it will hopefully help us maintain people and minimize burnout. Another opportunity is that we'll be able to shift payroll dollars maybe into some areas where that, that are needed in terms of some long term capital expenditures which we can go into detail in our part of our capital plan. The County has developed some new protocols together with the fire departments and the paramedic services which will enhance the use of available resources to respond to medical emergencies. I think we all take for granted because we watch TV that if there's an emergency at home you can call 911 and someone will help you with that emergency. They'll not only get people coming but they'll actually help you manage that emergency by maybe explaining some first aid things you can do. People expect that. Actually today in Carver County that service is not provided and that's an enhancement that's going to be added shortly. The end of this summer. Which will be a benefit to the constituents and they'll be working closely with the paramedic services to actually deliver that service. In addition to that we're going to be looking at triaging 911 calls to determine, like for example in the city of Chanhassen we have Bob's group on duty. We have generally two sheriffs office deputies on duty and you know is it always necessary to page out the fire department for maybe a less severe or less urgent medical emergency? Today's protocols are that everybody gets paged out. A more contemporary protocol takes a look at the resources available. Are they actually in town? Are they actually not on call? And then based on that, determine if you need to, you know which resources are most appropriate. So that technology is widely used in the inner ring suburbs and the major cities across this country and we are now studying that and hope to roll it out fourth quarter in the city of Chanhassen. Which also has some exciting opportunities, not only from a service delivery capability but also from a fire department management perspective. As I mentioned before, we're getting up to 800 projected to be over 1,000 calls if we continue on the current trends. That's payroll issue. It's also a burnout issue for volunteer members so we're looking. We're excited about these new capabilities that the county's rolling out and looking forward to implementing them and we'll keep you folks posted. Everybody talks about Y2K. The fire department also has to be aware of how Y2K impacts our equipment 42 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 and our technology and a lot of our equipment now has technology built into it. Computer bits and so forth. Computer chips, etc. We have done a complete review of our systems and our equipment and everything's compliant. We will be participating in the county wide plan which, a big concern the county has and I know you've been briefed on this is basically telephones not being accessible because people will be calling because it's such a big day. And so the fire stations will be open on the evening before the year 2000, New Year's Eve and also the following day. In anticipation of communication problems. So people will be actually instructed through PR and mass media to go to their local fire station if they can't get through 911. So we will be staffing those stations. And as a final note, we're beginning to work on our web site which we hope will both have a PR image, and a way for people to communicate and to learn about fire safety and so forth but also we hope it will be a tool coming in. It's our very spread out and unique work force so it's a way to communicate with management and our fellow fire fighters. So that's our quick report. We'd be happy to go into detail if you want us to on any of these projects that we're working on and appreciate the opportunity to chat. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. John Wolff: Questions for the fire department? Mayor Mancino: This weekend, are you going to open up a fire hydrant so we can all get in the water? Not unless we need it. Scott Botcher: ... Bob I see on a more regular basis but with an agenda and such to start dealing with issues so. Thank you guys. Mayor Mancino: Questions? Councilwoman Jansen: No, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it very much. Scott Botcher: And just for what it's worth. I did attend a Highway 212 meeting on Friday morning. I had the office put my notes together on it. When I do that I'll type them up for you. I've got to be clear what you want to say and what's public and what's not public. It was a very productive meeting. Councilwoman Jansen: Is the 212 coalition still meeting? Scott Botcher: Well if it's the coalition that I've been going to their meetings. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting and the recording of the remainder of the meeting did not get picked up on tape.) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Senn asked that the procedure for the Economic Development Authority meeting on Thursday, July 29th be clarified to the residents in attendance at that meeting. That the EDA would not be discussing site plan items, but financial assistance. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:20 p.m. 43 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 44