Loading...
CC Minutes 1999 08 09CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel, Councilman Labatt and Councilwoman Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Anita Benson, and Cindy Kirchoff. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #99-67: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Stone Creek Drive Improvement Project 98- 15. c. Authorization to Purchase Skate Park Equipment. d. Approve Frigstad Encroachment Agreement as amended. e. 1998 Trail Easement Payment. f. Request for Temporary Beer & Wine License for Charity Ball on October 8, 1999 as amended, Edina Realty Foundation. g. Approval of Bills. h. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 19, 1999 - City Council Work session Minutes dated July 26, 1999. - City Council Minutes dated July 26, 1999 as amended. Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 1999 i. Approve Sign Plan for Minnesota Mini-Storage, Highway 5 and Park Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING POTENTIAL SALE OF LOTS 2 & 3~ BLOCK 1~ CROSSROADS PLAZA 3R~ ADDITION. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council. Under Minnesota State Statute the City Council must hold a public hearing when considering disposing of public property. The significant terms and conditions of the purchase agreement call for the sale of Lots 2 and 3 of Crossroads 3rd Addition for $9.50 a square foot. The site is approximately 80,175 square feet for a total purchase price of $761,664.40. The scheduled closing is November 1st of 1999. The property would be used for an 80 unit hotel with a construction price of $4.5 million. Real estate commission will be paid by the buyer and staff has included several economic status reports and I'd like to go through those at this time. The HRA purchased this property approximately 8 years ago at a $1.50 a square foot for a total purchase price of about $120,000. There was approximately $2.12 worth of assessments totaling $169,000. Giving it our grand total of $290,000 were our total price into the property. Miscellaneous expense was totaled at approximately $50,000. Total holding costs for the eight year period is $338,000. Revenue from the selling of this property would again total $761,000 through the sale of the property. Estimated taxes are approximately $150,000. Building permit fees would range in the fee of about $65,000. Sewer and water revenue on an annual basis is approximately $12,000. Total revenues are $988,000. Under that assumption we took into account revenues of taxes, building permits and utilities of $988 minus our holding costs with a net gain of $650,000. Under assumption number 2, minus all the miscellaneous expenses of revenue versus the holding cost, your total net gain would be $423,325. Based on the economic status reports staff would recommend approval of the attached purchase agreement minus the last sentence under Section 5.16 which reads, that the city delete, seller shall use it's best efforts to assist the buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions. Staff has concerns regarding one of the restrictions regarding building materials. I believe the City Council's going to be meeting in the next two weeks to discuss that matter. Until that meeting is completed I would ask that you eliminate that sentence until you have had a chance to review building materials for the downtown, Highway 5 corridor area. With that staff would ask that the City Council open it up for public comment. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Does Council have any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Okay, then this is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the City Council on this issue of selling land and making a profit. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Is there any discussion from any council members? Councilmember Senn. Councilman Senn: As far as the purchase agreement goes, you know from this point forward there's going to be a fair amount of...going into this from the city's part going forward and I really think we ought to have more than $15,000 as earnest money on a deal that's you know, almost $750,000. Your normal earnest money amount is considerably higher than that. Mayor Mancino: So what would your suggestion be and give us a little bit. Councilman Senn: You can do pretty much whatever you want but I mean you know minimally you kind of look at kind of like the 5 % you know to 10% range normally. In an earnest money deal so, especially where there's going to be an elongated period of time. Mayor Mancino: So at 5% you're saying right around $30 to $35,000 earnest money. Councilman Senn: Yeah. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Any discussion on that from other council members? Councilman Engel: I'd support it. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm okay with that if that's the standard that we've used in the past. I'm curious as to maybe where we came up with the $15,000. Todd Gerhardt: Staff came up with $15,000 thinking that would be our cost in reviewing this over the next 2 to 3 months. As the council has debate regarding building materials, I would not include that as part of Mr. Wright's cost in reviewing this purchase agreement. Basically our expense associated with this would be solely towards the purchasing of the property. Attorney's time, my time spent in reviewing that document. Any title matters that may come up. And they have already cut the check and it is escrowed. It's down at the title company so that was one of our, we were persistent in making sure that the check was down there before we presented it to council so. Mayor Mancino: That's helpful knowledge, thank you. Very much. Councilman Engel: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen, so you feel comfortable with the 15, okay. Councilman Senn: It's, well I mean just to understand it. I think it's pretty easy to walk away from a deal if a problem arises over $15,000. Mayor Mancino: But it will certainly cover our costs from what Mr. Gerhardt said. A motion please. Councilwoman Jansen: A motion approval with an amendment to 5.16 eliminating the last line. The seller shall use it's best efforts to assist buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: I'll second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the purchase agreement with H. Dan Wright for the sale of Lots 2 and 4, Crossroads 3rd Addition amended to delete the last line in Section 5.16 which reads, "Seller shall use its best efforts to assist Buyer in removing or otherwise amending these restrictions.". All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS A PART OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This subdivision was approved on July 26th. At that time there was two lots. Since it was given preliminary plat approval it has been subdivided into two lots. You need to, in order for the two lots to be accommodated we do need to vacate an easement. That easement is shown on the plat. Staff is recommending approval. No activity has taken place out here. They're just getting the final plat, City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 recording documents so there's nothing out there that's been significant except that they are starting to grade. So we are recommending approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions of staff from council members? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address the City Council on this vacation of utility and drainage easements? Okay, thank you. Seeing none, let's bring it back to council. Any discussion? Any comments? Then let us go for a motion. Councilman Labatt: i just take it, any city costs would be back, paid from by Eden Trace? Kate Aanenson: Cost for vacation? Yes. They pay a fee for the application, yes. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please. Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Councilman Labatt: i'll second. Resolution #99-68: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Vacation #99-5 for the utility and drainage easements over Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown in Attachment #1, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the easements proposed to be vacated. The vacation is contingent upon recording of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition's Plat and dedicating the necessary utility and drainage easements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER TRANSFER OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM TRIAX CABLEVISION TO MEDIACOM. Scott Botcher: In front of you you have a, you each have a couple packets. One is a smaller enclosure that came with the original packet. The second is something from, it's on Moss and Barnett letterhead. It's substantially thicker. That came later and should have been delivered under separate cover. As you are aware, you have in the past decided to hold and have held public hearings regarding a proposed transfer of the cable television franchise from Triax to Mediacom. We have taken note and enclosed in the public record comments from our citizens regarding Triax service and related issues. Tonight you are being asked to review the resolution that's enclosed in your packet, the smaller packet and to vote in favor of it. i'll go through briefly what's enclosed in the resolution. On page starting on page 2. It delineates the some of the things we've already been through. Indicates Triax is the lawful holder of the franchise. The guts of the resolution is if you turn to the very last page of the additional issues, it lists on there three issues that have been determined by staff and legal counsel to be critical to the city in the transfer of it's cable franchise agreement. Item number 1. There's still a question on the 84 cents PEG access fee issue. Mr. Gerhardt and myself and representatives of Triax met as recently as last week to try to reach an understanding on the City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 issue. Legal counsel for the city has yet to receive a substantial explanation as to the 84 cents issue, so therefore with the support of myself and Mr. Gerhardt we've recommended including the 84 cent issue in the resolution as something that must be addressed prior to this resolution and the transfer actually being effectuated. Item 2 is the system upgrade which you are all familiar with. We had a gentleman here at our public hearing who mentioned that and this makes this upgrade again a very explicit part of the franchise agreement transfer. Item 3 is something that we have talked about internally and I know we've talked about it maybe in passing here at the council level. One of the things that we have a desire to do is to provide as much public access to our citizens as possible in terms of what we do here. Either the Council, Planning Commission, EDA, whoever. We have had some difficulties in procuring what I consider to be adequate playback of our public meetings. My own experiences at it, it's a very inexpensive and very easy to provide the infrastructure to have actual live broadcasts from this facility during public meetings, if that's something the Council wants to do. If that's something the Council does not want to do, we still are in need, or still have the need to provide the infrastructure to have playback on our local system whenever we desire. It's not a lot of equipment but I think that the ability of Triax/Mediacom to provide us with this kind of feed is easy to do and is something that's an issue that we would like to raise so beyond that I assume that you've all had a chance to read the Moss and Barnett report. It was pretty thorough. The bottom line is that Mediacom appears to have a fairly good relationship with the community and they talk to the mayors of these different folks and they seem to have a response that's far better than perhaps other people get from theirs and so if you have any questions about the report, if you have any questions about the resolution, now's the time to ask. I guess in closing what we're asking to do is that the council approve this resolution with the understanding that the three issues mentioned in the Addendum will have to be dealt with prior to the transfer being effectuated. That's all I have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. When you say the three items have to be dealt with, one of the major concerns that I have is the upgrade that will happen by January 7, 2000. My concern is that we don't have a plan in front of us from Mediacom as to how they are going to, if this, well we don't have Triax either. When the representative from Triax came he said that they had not started the upgrade in Chanhassen. They were going to start sometime in August. Scott Botcher: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Has it been started do you know? Scott Botcher: No, in fact Anita we met with that gentleman a week ago? Or so. Who is the individual I guess who would actually coordinate the install and he was meeting with Anita and her staff to put together issues regarding permit fees and permitting and some of those types of technical engineering issues. I didn't hear any other change in terms of a finite date, unless you did during that meeting. Anita Benson: We did not establish a finite date. We did ask that they submit construction plans as soon as possible so we can accelerate the permit process. We have not seen those. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So my concerns are two fold. Number one is they haven't started it yet. They have in Waconia and the other cities in Carver. Secondly, looking at Mediacom, on page 41 of the attorney's report. Page 41, number 2. Specific financial data. Statement data analysis. The assets, working capital in the short term they don't have money to put towards upgrading our system. So there's nothing in this report that helps me feel that they're going to get it done, which they said they would, which Triax made the commitment to that Mediacom can even do it. There are no, they have not given us the City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 resources, the capital to show us that they can even do it so I'd like to get that from them. Number one, a plan schedule. And number two, some sort of financial analysis that they actually can do it. Councilman Senn: And to maybe piggy back on that if I could. In the financial analyst though, I mean go one step further. They haven't even showed us how they're going to finance the purchase. And they don't have sufficient assets to do it themselves so their step one isn't going to be finding financing to do the purchase and then the question is is after they secure financing to do the purchase, do they have the ability to go secure financing to do the improvements. Scott Botcher: We can add those as conditions. Councilman Senn: Now is that, so that's conditions meaning we don't approve this unless they can do that or what? Scott Botcher: Correct. These are all, it's like a conditional purchase agreement. You've got to meet all these issues. You've got to deal with all these issues to the satisfaction of you guys prior to the transfer actually going through. Councilman Senn: Okay. And did Brian ever look at the issue of what our options are one way or another if these conditions aren't met? Mayor Mancino: That's my question too. Scott Botcher: Brian and I have held some discussions in that regard. Councilman Senn: Could you have him outline those to us so we know what they are? Mayor Mancino: And to add a little bit more to that. When Brian had, or his attorneys had the interview with the 16 communities that Mediacom provides service for, those systems they said are generally 10 to over 25 years old. Let's see, 6 of the communities have systems that are over 20 years old. 13 of the communities have systems that are 15 years old. Have they had experience in upgrading systems? Because from what we read here from the interviews, I'm not, it doesn't give me much comfort that they have gone into a community and upgraded the system and know how to do it. I mean it's their business. I'm just wondering. Anita Benson: For what it's worth, the gentleman that Scott and I met with is a construction coordinator. He's been working in Wisconsin, Michigan in different states doing these type of upgrades is the way he presented himself. Mayor Mancino: And are the upgrades just for entertainment purposes only? The band width will just be for cable or are they going to be putting fiber optics in that are for commerce too? Anita Benson: I'd defer that question maybe to Scott. We haven't seen any plans. Scott Botcher: We talked a little bit about the whole issue of cable modems, if that's where you're going with the commerce. Mediacom, and the only information we have is based upon the verbal report of their representatives, because I don't recall it being in this report anywhere about cable modems. That that's City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 something they have done in other systems and they would like to do here. They did not have any time table for rolling out cable modems here. Councilman Senn: They're committed upgrade to us was fiber optics. Once you have fiber optics... Scott Botcher: That's correct. Councilman Senn: So I mean effectively yes they have committed to that. That was in at the time that we did the franchise agreement, they committed to the upgrade and the upgrade was fiber optics. Mayor Mancino: But I want to make sure that fiber optics is just the end user. Is not just for entertainment but it is for commerce also. Todd Gerhardt: It is. They want to hook up to the businesses. It's a six band, 750 megahertz system and it's dark fiber. That's the high speed fiber used for most internet services. And it will have a variety of different nodes which will not physically looping like you would a watermain system but will give capabilities where the entire community would not be out of cable unless a major fiber line is hit. And the telephony system you probably will not see for a couple of years. But they are working on that. That is the money in the system in the future. Mayor Mancino: Got it. Councilman Senn: Todd, in relationship to Brian's analysis if I could, would you, I mean he does his analysis kind of what our options are, but do you also have them in relationship to that analysis. Kind of give us an insight on his view of the structure that they're using and in fact if there is future you know actions or whatever that we need to take. Whether we can even get through that structure and get it anything one way or the other. Because they have a, I think they had about a 2 or 3 deep LLC set up. Scott Botcher: We've talked, and when Todd and I met with these folks we were pretty candid insofar as it's a very real possibility in cable that these guys will be here for a couple years and then be bought by a bigger fish. That's the nature of the beast. But we can get as much corporate information as you like. Is basically what you're asking, correct? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you know essentially this isn't a new thing. I mean this is something that's kind of been a series of promises over a long period of time. It'd be nice to see them deliver it for once. Rather than somebody just standing in here this December saying we can't, you know we need a couple more years or something like that. I'm not sure if somebody's in that position that the mood would be such to let them do it so I mean a little bit of it come back to what's our recourses and where do we go for those recourses and everything else. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions, discussion? Scott Botcher: Basically as I understand it then we will, the council would like to add. I can have it consolidated into one more additional issue which is a production of a financial analyst that Mediacom can perform the upgrade contemplated in additional issue number 2. And it's actually finance the purchase of the existing franchisee. Is that correct? And then as a secondary, just to report to the council, have the upgraded systems in the past, what are the options if these conditions are not met. And analysis of the corporate structure of Mediacom. Okay. City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And do we need to...will this go forward? Scott Botcher: No, you need to make a motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I please have a motion. Councilman Senn: How do we? Scott Botcher: You just move to approve the resolution as amended. Councilman Senn: And you've got all the notes then? Scott Botcher: Yep. Just what I just said is what we're going to do. Councilman Senn: Alright. Move approval of the resolution as amended. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Resolution/t99-69: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the resolution approving the transfer and assignment of the cable television franchise to Mediacom LLC, as amended by Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION~ KlM & JOHN WARNER~ 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE. Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you. On July 21st the Planning Commission approved a 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement for the construction of an addition based upon staff's recommendation. The applicant is appealing this decision. The original request was a 25 foot variance. The existing house is 5 feet from the rear lot line and the original proposal sought to construct a new addition at that existing setback. The present request however is for a 20 foot setback leaving a 20 foot setback variance, leaving a 10 foot setback. The applicant contends that the 19 foot setback approved by the Planning Commission would add to the cost of the addition because a gas line would have to be relocated and interior design modifications would have to be made on the proposed addition. The existing home maintains a 19 foot setback so staff believes that this is a good compromise between their request of the 20 foot setback variance and the required 30 foot setback. An addition can be constructed on the site with the parameters that the Planning Commission did approved on that July 21st meeting so staff does recommend denial of the 20 foot setback variance request, but approval of an 11 foot variance request. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here? And would you like to address the City Council. John Warner: My name is John Warner. I live at 6870 Nez Perce Drive. It is true we did ask and request for a 25 foot variance with a 5 foot setback. This was intended to put the new addition on the existing rear wall of the garage that's there. With their proposal of moving it up 19 feet, it means I have to completely City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 dismantle this garage and take it completely down. On the back of this, on the drawing here, at the back of the house here there's a concrete slab. Underneath that concrete slab there's a full foundation which is a portion of my basement. The walls in that area are bowing in on the house. If I were to excavate near there, take this back wall and run it even with the house, I'm afraid I'm going to end up collapsing that room. I will then incur the cost of either rebuilding it, putting it back to the way that it was, or tearing it out completely .... that side of the house as far as the support of the new addition wall and the existing wall of the house. If it's moved up I'm afraid that that's going to off center that which means I will have to put in more foundation and add to the cost of that to increase that structure in order to carry the load of that staircase. With those considerations in mind I would like the Council also to know that this house is a two bedroom home with a single bath. My wife and I just currently had a baby about 2 weeks ago and I do have two children from a previous marriage that do visit us occasionally and the house gets awful small when they're there and seeing as how they are teenagers, they sometimes don't appreciate having to sleep on the floor in the middle of the living room. And with that I would thank the council for their time and I would like them to take that into consideration. Mayor Mancino: Thank you John. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the council on this variance request here tonight? Okay, bring it back to council for discussion. Steve. Councilman Labatt: I went out and visited this site yesterday.., and we pretty much went through the entire packet here... The area, you know he talked about in the basement where he's afraid of the wall collapsing and having to move that rear wall forward to meet the back wall of the house. It's a simple give and take of 5 feet... He's going to do a heck of an improvement to that house and... Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Consistent as always. I find in favor of the homeowner. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: Like Steve I did visit the site and I guess what stood out for me, and Mr. Warner and I discussed this, was the issue of his having approached the neighbors to purchase the property on the back side of the house where that assumption had been that it had been his all along. The neighbors had been willing to sell that to him, but there was the issue of the cost involved in how many surveys would have to be accomplished. And Cindy and I exchanged e-mails today trying to arrive at whether or not that was the correct number. But let me pose the question to you now if I could again. The assumption that Mr. Warner is making is that we would require him to resurvey the lot prior to the addition. Survey his neighbor's lot and then update his survey. The second, it would be his second survey showing the addition, and I'm gathering from what you shared with me, we're more so looking at could he use his recent survey. Have that updated to show the additional 10 feet and then just have the legal description presented to the City as to how that changes the two lots. Cindy Kirchoff: So your question is whether he would have to resurvey the parcel with the additional land from the neighbor? City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I gather he'd have to at least do that one, correct? Cindy Kirchoff: Yes he would have to. In order to get a building permit he has to demonstrate that he can meet the setback. Councilwoman Jansen: And so that would just be one survey showing the additional 10 feet being added to the lot, whereas right now he's assuming he has three that he's facing. Cindy Kirchoff: Correct. He would only have to do a survey for his property. In order to do the administrative subdivision we would just need the legal descriptions for his property and the neighbor's property. Councilwoman Jansen: That's not expensive you say Mark? Councilman Senn: No. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because there was some confusion when the initial survey was done on the property because there are so many properties, or original lots that are encompassed within this one now. So it did get very expensive for him because I had asked him when I was out, why an estimate of $5,000. Well his initial one was. Mayor Mancino: That includes the land too. Councilwoman Jansen: There is that amount in there. And then his assumption was three surveys on top of that so we're looking, that was his. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I... Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was the assumption that was made that it would be that costly. It just seems to work if he owns that property behind him, to then be able to put the addition on and if we can eliminate that $5,000 from his concerns by maybe better documenting that it's one more survey. I think there's a misunderstanding I guess is what I'm getting at. That it's one more survey showing the 10 feet being added and redoing the legal description is the only requirement that the city would have for his being able to construct the addition. Correct Cindy? Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess in taking that into consideration, because there is such a distance between the two homes, and the buffer for the other home is built considerably back from Mr. Warner's property, it would seem that, and I don't know if we have to table this to enable him to explore that issue. I don't know that we'd want to necessarily approve this without the purchase. I guess I'm throwing it out as an option. That if that option wasn't explored to the extent that it could with the neighbor, maybe we need to more clarify to Mr. Warner what we would need from him to be able to go ahead with approving the addition on his lot with the additional 10 feet that he purchased. Roger Knutson: Mayor ifI could just ask one question for clarification. If he gets this 10 feet, does he need a variance? He still needs a variance? 10 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff: Yes. He won't meet the 30 foot setback. Mayor Mancino: But he will meet the variance that the Planning Commission has given if he gets the 10 feet? Cindy Kirchoff: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, there we go. Okay, got it. Are you finished? Councilwoman Jansen: That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Cindy as far as, I mean essentially what they need to do, I mean either way they're going to have to do a survey of the property to show the setbacks from the line. Correct? Whether they do or don't buy the 10 feet, they still have to do a survey. Cindy Kirchoff: Well, what he'll have to do if the variance would be approved tonight is he'll have to show some elevations on the survey that they had done. I'm not sure when this was dated last year. The one that was submitted in your packet. He'll have to make some changes on this and show the elevation changes with the addition. Councilman Senn: But don't they have to stake the lot line so you can. Cindy Kirchoff: Yeah, he'll have to show where the side yard setback is and the rear yard so we can note the setbacks. That the council would approve. Mayor Mancino: But regardless of any, but regardless if we grant a variance or not, he still has to do that. Councilman Senn: Correct. And essentially as far as the multiple lots or whatever going in to make up this building area essentially, that's something you can do administratively by just combining and doing a new legal, right? Cindy Kirchoff: An administrative subdivision can be done by staff, yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, so not real complicated. Okay. I would like to see us proceed on the basis that the homeowner acquire that additional property and negate the need for the, you say the elongated, or the larger variance. You know the variance being requested is not without issue. There is a neighbor who has stated they have an issue with it, which I think is always.., factor in granting variances. I would also agree essentially then it's a lot easier to look at as to something, as a logical reason to vary but here we do have a neighbor who objects to it, which I think requires us to try to find a little better way to make it work and you know basically looking at the site and how it's configured and what's on it and what's proposed, I mean it really is how would you say, intensifying the use on the property. And I think if that's going to be done, that's got to be done within reason rather than expense, the expense of the.., neighbors. Councilman Labatt: The only neighbor that objects is across the street. The adjoining neighbor is fine... The neighbor across the street that really is. 11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: But the neighbor across the street bought their house based on the rules that were in place and what existed across the street. So I mean it's a little hard to go back to them and say now that you know you bought your house based on those rules... And they seem to be okay with it if on the other basis so try to work to achieve that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I guess I would like to, I thought that the Planning Commission and planning staff did a good job, the 11 foot variance and I think with buying the property, which the owner, Mr. Warner, the owners to the property said that they would support and would sell you that extra 10 feet. I think that that is the way to go too. And I would like to see you upgrade your home. Make an extra two bedrooms and fit in well with the neighborhood. So may I have a motion? Councilwoman Jansen: See if this works. Denies the request for a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approve the variance request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions. Do we want to add a point 4, contingent upon the purchase of 10 feet of property to be added to the back of the lot? Or that would only be if he wanted to go the additional build? Councilman Senn: The variance you just authorized forces that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, so as stated. Roger Knutson: And that's based upon the findings set forth in the planning report and made by the Planning Commission? Councilwoman Jansen: Based upon the findings, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and those three conditions that are there. A second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council denies the request for a 20 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings set forth in the planning report and made by the Planning Commission, with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 12 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-8 TO INSTALL LIGHTING, AND PERMIT ON SALE LIQUOR SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH 212 AND TH 101, RRS GOLF. Mayor Mancino: We're not looking to adding a second tier tonight. Kate Aanenson: I'll give you some historical background for the wildlife refuge... This is Assumption Creek. Talked about putting in some lighting and the DNR... acquisition of that property. The property is 90 acres. It is in a flood plain. It does have periodic flooding, which is one of the issues that we brought down. It is guided A2 in the comprehensive plan. We left it A2 which allows residential. There are some other uses conditional and interim use. The golf use is an interim use. As you recall, approximately one year ago when this application came in there were several applications that needed to be reviewed in order to make this happen. One is review of the flood plain. Again, it's approximately 90 acres of, a small percentage of it is being used although it still is in the flood plain. The flood plain goes up to the, what is now being used as the club house. When we looked at this the areas that were shaded, we did have to give a wetland alteration permit. We did have to give a conditional for alteration which would be grading in the flood plain. We also had to give an interim use which the golf course is in this district. We also looked at site plan review. One of the things that they had asked for previously was our standards for miniature golf. One is that it was a daytime type use. The applicant at that time had requested that we amend the district. The interim use district to allow them to have lights and there was a lot of discussion on that. Even the council there was dissenting votes on the light issue. Again that filled in hours of operation because this business as it's set up is intended, or can be used year round. Staff had concerns about that. Just based on the fact that it is surrounded by a wildlife refuge. The city map, what I was trying to show there, does have linkages to the broader area. We do have trails down in that area. So our concern was that one, intensification in the flood plain. At this time, as the Mayor indicated, the applicant is not going forward with a second tier. There are some building code issues that need to be resolved but is still requesting the lights. Conditions of the other jurisdictions still remain the same. They would prefer to see it left in a natural area. While the lighting he has proposed, Mr. Helstrom has proposed is subdued, it may work again we just feel it is in conflict with the goals of the wildlife refuge so the staff position still remains that we would not support it, although the Planning Commission did support the lights. The other request is that when we, he wanted to have the club house retail shop, so we put conditions on that that if he not a restaurant type but it'd mostly be prepackaged food and the house has been fixed up nice and they are selling pop and popcorn and that sort of thing. But he would like to have alcohol. One of the conditions we put on there originally under the standards that no alcohol be served so he's asking for an amendment to that. So the two issues before you tonight are then to amend the standards to allow alcohol to be served and the other one would be to amend the interim use permit to allow, to give a variance to that to allow lights. And the Planning Commission did recommend, even though it be year round, that it be limited to 9:00 p.m. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and when you say alcohol it's 3.2 beer and that's it? Kate Aanenson: We didn't discuss it at this point. I'm not sure based on the location and the zoning district and the liquor license, how that would work. The condition was on there that there be no alcohol. Mayor Mancino: Well we'll find out. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant, Jeff do you want to come up. I mean I haven't voted yet but congratulations. What a nice addition and you've really done a lot of work in the last year. Wow. 13 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 JeffHelstrom: Thanks. It's been a wild year. A couple of years ago I never thought lights would be so important to me, but they area. Mayor Mancino: We're starting already, okay. Jeff Helstrom: I put together a petition here, so I just wanted to bring this out and let you take a look at it. It shows the community support for the lights. I guess you know a year ago I think all the council members know where I stand on this. We've discussed the issue. Lights are extremely important to this project. A year ago the Planning Commission approved the project I believe on a 6 to 1 vote. City Council did not approve the project. It went down by one vote but they did approve the project without the lights and it's just so important I think that I've had approval to move forward with this to give me the chance to succeed with this. And it's going to be really hard if people can't come down there at night and hit. I know that some of the council members have been down there to see the facility on a weekends and it's just packed. And people waiting for 45 minutes to get in and hit because if they work they can't come during the week and hit balls. So that's been really tough and not to mention the fact that if someone else were to open up in Shakopee and have lights, it just makes it that much harder for me to make money to put back in the project. And I think I've shown my diligence to go above and beyond really what the city requirements are to make this as nice a project as possible. And I think the people in the city of Chanhassen of love it. I think it's a great family thing. They bring their kids down. I've got a short course and a putting course. I think it's an excellent addition to what the city of Chanhassen has to offer but in order to make this thing really go it needs lights. So that came down to the issue of what were these lights going to be like? And I've got together a demo on that, that I think at least a few of the councilmembers have been able to see and it's a real moderate light system. It has glare louvers on all the lights. There's only eight lights and they really do focus just on the range area and that range area is very close to the intersection of 212 and 101 there so there's already street lights and it's not like it's out in the middle of the refuge. I feel like I've gone above and beyond to make it a very moderate light plan. Really enough to get me by and to get people out there in the evening and hit some balls... 3.2 is all I'm requesting is 3.2 beer. So come out. Hit some balls. Have a beer is really what we're looking at. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Councilmembers have any questions of Jeff? I have a couple. Big baby. I just saw one of your signatures so... So I just want to make sure I've got it right Jeff. You're requesting eight lights that have glare louvers on them that can be mounted on the roof of the. JeffHelstrom: Of the hitting structure. Mayor Mancino: Of the hitting structure. And would you feel comfortable? One of my concerns is that they actually go off at 9:00 at night. Meaning that you know you're going to have somebody that says oh I've got three more balls, come on can I keep open till 9:30. Can you put timers on these lights? JeffHelstrom: I have a timer already. Mayor Mancino: So will you put timers on the lights? JeffHelstrom: Yes. Yes. Mayor Mancino: On all eight lights? 14 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 JeffHelstrom: Yeah, and they'll shut off at 9:00. No if's, and's or but's. That will just be the way it is so I have no problem with that at all. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: I have one in regards to the lights. What is the wattage? JeffHelstrom: They're a 1500 watt. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Each? JeffHelstrom: Yeah. And it's deceptive in terms of how many watts you have because once again that light is focused on a certain area so they have glare louvers on the top and on the side so that light just isn't illuminating all over the place. The people who have come down and looked at the light can see. I did a video initially for city council and you could see where someone walked out of the edge of this light and they literally disappeared. Dark. And then you walk back in and it's light so it's really focused on the area right there. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And the other, just so I'm understanding this. The other approval that the Planning Commission made was a variance from the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer. That's what the request is, correct? Jeff Helstrom: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilman Senn: Just one quick question. That's what we already did for Bluff Creek, right? Mayor Mancino: I don't know. That was before me. Councilman Senn: Yeah, we did a special.., deal for Bluff Creek I thought on a beer license or something. Kate Aanenson: Not since I've been here. Councilman Senn: Well it's been in place for I mean, for quite a while so. Mayor Mancino: That's probably before you too then. Okay, thanks. Bring this back to council. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make any comment? Scott Botcher: Kate is it out of line, and I don't know what the policy is. Have we seen any photometric analysis of this thing? Kate Aanenson: Yes. He did provide that before when we went through. He invited the Planning Commission and City Council to, he did demonstrations. He did put the lights on the roof last year and we did fight the mosquitoes and go and look at it. And he's got that, I've got a detailed report on that. 15 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Scott Botcher: We don't have spillage at the lot line? Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay, bring this back to council. Discussion. Councilwoman Jansen: Actually a question for Kate. I'm recalling that we did a comparison of the wattage of these lights to the highway lights. Kate Aanenson: That discussion came up on the new lights. Councilwoman Jansen: Am I remember 250 is what's on the highway lights? Kate Aanenson: Right. And as Jeff indicated, there's more diffusion with those. They're spread out and these are the downcast. But you're right, there is different wattage. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, thank you. Scott Botcher: What happens to the light once it hits the grass? Mayor Mancino: What happens to light when it hits the grass? Scott Botcher: Well it can't be totally absorbed. Kate Aanenson: It's absorbed, yeah. Councilman Engel: Well it can't be totally absorbed, it'd be black. Kate Aanenson: I've got photos in here, I can dig those out real quick to show you. Councilman Engel: It tums green and reflects green. Scott Botcher: I mean there's the whole issue of ambient light. I just question on this site Kate, and I've been in support and I remain in support of the staff position on this one for whatever it's worth but, and I don't have any problem with the development. I've been down there but we're basically, we're approving or facilitating a commercial development, a nice one, in a swamp. I mean it's a swamp. Councilman Engel: Hey, now I'm not the only guy that's ever said that. Scott Botcher: And the question is what happens when we hit flood stage again? Councilman Engel: He fixes his problem. Scott Botcher: I just wonder, just raising the question. But there's got to be, I know it's focused down and all that, and I haven't seen the photometrics but what happens to the light once it hits the grass. It's either absorbed or... where does it go? Mayor Mancino: Well and I think Planning Commission, Matt brought it up in his discussion on what happens if it floods and. 16 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Well and I guess I picked on that point also and versus having that reaction of what do we care? We're not looking far enough out as to the effect that that's having on us. If we think if it's a zero effect to us individually as citizens, that's why the federal government stepped in Grand Forks and bought people out of the flood plain. Was because federal tax dollars were going to the clean-up and relief from those situations so when these things get wiped out, there is a monetary as well as an environmental impact from it and if we don't care about the environmental impact that we have going downstream, you can get into a whole other conversation on that one with the whole water quality issue, but I won't go there. More the focus that I think that Kate spoke to when she was asked by the Planning Commission about what do we care. I loved her reaction is, and I don't know if you want to speak to you know why we should care what happens down in the flood plain but the quote that I picked up on was it's using good judgment. It's good planning practice. Are we encouraging development where we shouldn't be encouraging development? Councilman Senn: Isn't that kind of a moot point though because it's already a development. Mayor Mancino: Well no, that has to do with the second one, the second tier more than anything else. Than lighting and 3.2. But we're not looking at that one tonight. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and the whole Fish and Wildlife and of course the DNR, they're the neighbors to this property and they did come out in the letter that they sent the second time through Kate I don't think made it into our packets but they again addressed the concern, major concern that they have with the lights and the fact that if we do continue to intensify the use on this piece of property as Kate was showing us on the map, it's not just on the edge of the refuge area. It's in the refuge area. It is still on future plans of the State as they expand their land purchases in that area, that this is still part of that whole consideration and they're relying on us in our joint partnership with what we're trying to accomplish down there, that we're going to be following pretty much the same comp plan guidelines as theirs. And that's that we're doing you know as little intensification down in that area as possible. Kate spoke to the fact that we did approach whoever it was for a grant. If it was the State for the grant. The DNR, to do a land purchase so it is significant. It's in the.., franchising and expansion and young entrepreneurs should. I mean there's other things on the horizon beyond just one success story. But when we put this on this property, it was with very specific restrictions and as Kate spoke to, they were known up front that this area would present a challenge for this sort of a business to expand down there into a flood plain. And I would anticipate that this is just one of the first of the requests that will come to councils in the future as this business is looking to continue to expand. Where do we finally draw the line? And at whatever point we do, there will have been some investment in this property. It's a matter of how much investment that ends up going in before the city goes back to implementing the goals that are in the Bluff Creek watershed plan, the comp plan, the zoning. What we're trying to accomplish with the whole land use down in that area. And it of course is in the property owner's best interest economically to keep coming back to us and asking for variances until we do finally say you know, no. We have to draw the line somewhere. And the lights, if we went back through all of the memos that came to the City from the DNR, from the Fish and Wildlife, from the review agencies, they all considered the lights to be not just an issue but a major issue. And realizing that we don't have the level of expertise to understand why technically lights would be a problem, that's why we have professionals that are being, their opinions are being sought on is this a problem? Isn't this a problem? We have staff recommending against it. Fish and Wildlife and DNR are recommending against it. There are reasons and you know unfortunately since it's outside of our realm to understand the impacts, we do have to rely on the professionals who are saying to us, you know stay with the guidelines. They're there for a reason. And we will be working with those organizations in the future as we continue to work with the refuge and DNR as far as any trail expansions that we choose to do. I was intrigued on the park map. We 17 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 do show future trails going down into that area. And unfortunately the lights do project in, when you think about it, everyone's discussing the lights as standing behind them. You can see them from the other side so you're looking back from well 101, the complex is very visible, especially in the winter without any of the tree coverage. And then the Shakopee side is where they have the trails that are used by everyone who uses this refuge area. It's very significant. And it's a growing popular sport, not as publicized as golf in Minnesota but the whole natural resources based activity is becoming more and more important. In fact I would suggest that it might be a good work session agenda item to bring the Fish and Wildlife and DNR in to have the conversation about these areas where we do overlap jurisdictionally, as to what their philosophies are. Their goals and objectives so that maybe we do understand them and the impact that we have on those areas. So it's a great project, and I am carrying on at length but I guess you know where I would come from from a business standpoint is that the future success of this business hinges on an elected body and opinions that can change you know every two years with an election so I don't know how stable a situation that is for a growing business because eventually there may be someone drawing the line in the sand to say nope. You know we've got plans for this area. We're going back to them, but I guess that's for future decision makers to deal with but I would definitely stay with the professional opinion of staff and the other organizations. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Scott Botcher: The only other one that I have, I'm sorry. If you look on Kate's report, this business does exist under an interim use permit and if you read the standards, and I'm just reading off Kate's report dated the 13th of July. Purpose and intent is to allow for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while a permanent location is under construction, and, and then there's another, there's a second part I guess. I'm unaware of any efforts on the part of the applicant to seek another permanent location and I guess that's sort of my question maybe to you Kate or to the applicant. That's one of the conditions of the interim use permit. It's sort of help you get off the ground and get going and from all accounts the business is doing pretty well. Where are we in terms of meeting the first condition of the interim use permit? Do you know Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well we discussed this when it came in before. This may be highest and best use for the property. It was agricultural practices. We looked at, we spent a lot of time when this came in before, looked at the agricultural practices and environmental issues and chemicals that were applied to the property. What that was doing. We did an analysis of that. I just again looked at the list of the A2 uses. Pretty much residential. There are some other conditional uses that are, you need to be, have a prime, principal use. So we examined this the first time. We said it would be difficult to put a timeframe on this based on the fact that this type of investment, that was one of the decisions I apprised the council of. That this type of investment that you're putting on the property is not going to be a 3 year, 5 year. It's not typical like when we looked at Swings and that was part of the issue that we discussed. Swings is more temporary in nature. That's the one up on Galpin and Highway 5. A lot different operation.., same place than here lends itself it a larger term. This area will never be brought in for urban services so it was more difficult when we examined that. Again that kind of goes back to say what's the level intensity and is he getting reasonable use of the property and that's where the staff came back and said, a driving range may be appropriate but does that mean it needs to be lit and needs to have the bunkers and that was our original position first time through. Scott Botcher: And the last one and then I'll be quiet. Is there any, and I see Steve's got a little bit of a report here that maybe I haven't seen. 18 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: That's the lighting issue I'm passing around. Scott Botcher: The kind of lighting, the sodium vapor. Is it the high, you know there's a couple different types that are out there. Some are more yellowish. Some are white. Kate Aanenson: Jeff may be able to answer that. Mayor Mancino: Jeff, do you want to answer that please. JeffHelstrom: Yes. They're normal lights. The main thing is the glare reduction. They're not yellow or anything. They're just typical lighting. Can I just make one comment on what Linda was saying? Something that I think that may be getting overlooked is that the structure that we've built here, other than basically the poles with the nets, is all out of the 100 year flood plain. There's a comer of the dugout that actually falls into that 100 year flood plain. The elevation of the.., hitting area has been raised like 7 feet from that 100 year elevation. So I am not intensifying anything in the flood plain. This is, everything that I've intensified is out of the 100 year flood plain. I just wanted to clarify that. Mayor Mancino: That's helpful, thank you. Councilman Labatt: Jeff, how many candle powers? Jeff Helstrom: They're like a half a candle out side of the... Kate Aanenson: Yep, that's going around. We've got photometrics here. JeffHelstrom: Under a half so. Councilman Labatt: The eight lights are going to be on the dugouts shining towards. Jeff Helstrom: ...basically down. Councilman Labatt: Turned down towards the ground so there will be no lights shining back toward the building up onto the bluffs? JeffHelstrom: No. No. And they've got glare reduction on the sides and they've got glare reduction on the top. So they just focus on the range area. I mean you'll be able to literally walk 15 feet out of the range and it's pretty dark. That's the kind of lighting you can have for that kind of an application. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then to change the subject here. The liquor license you're requesting is a 3.2 license? Jeff Helstrom: Right. Councilman Labatt: And that's 3.2 beer. JeffHelstrom: That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel. 19 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Engel: Well since it was brought up by Councilwoman Jansen regarding Grand Forks and the floods, I just feel as someone who was a student there for several years, spent a lot of time in Grand Forks and I'm a native North Dakotan, I'd like to respond to this because sometimes we make assumptions that things should be done a certain way and the assumption may be in error. Completely in error in the first place. And the assumption that the federal government, or any governing body is responsible to make whole people who have suffered losses because they built in the flood plain and were irresponsible enough not to buy flood insurance I believe is wrong. So it doesn't even enter into this debate or any other debate in my opinion. It's just, I'll be the first guy to support him 100% in all his endeavors to build and expand and make that a productive property but I'll also be the first guy to tell you Jeff, you don't have flood insurance and that thing floods, tough off buddy. So I just want to get that on. That's, I think it's a false premise to use the federal government as a out there. Councilman Labatt: Tough up? Councilman Engel: Tough off. Councilman Senn: Can I get a definition of that? Councilman Engel: Yeah, it means. Mayor Mancino: Am I getting old or what? Councilman Engel: That means get your wallet out buddy. Okay. But I want to also recap what I think the attitude was on the last council when we approved this thing because I was here for that and I know it might, I'm just going to recap and Mark can either confirm or deny and you as well Nancy. It was more or less a Missouri type of attitude. It was a show me. Show me what you've got. I don't think we really thought you'd do it. I don't think we thought you'd be successful. I'm paraphrasing. I'm reading what I saw happening that night and I thought boy, this is a kooky plan. It looks tough. I don't know if it will make it and they went far enough to let you try it and prove what you had without doing the lights and I know the assumption was if he came back, maybe we'd give the lights if it looked like you were going to make a go of it. That's the feeling I got that night. And I think you've shown a lot of commitment to it. I think he's made a heck of a use of that property. And I don't have any problem with the lights. I don't have any problem with the liquor permit. And I also don't have any problem with the second deck because I don't think that second deck is viewable from anywhere except the dead front, side of the building as you're traveling by on the highway. And if you did it, you'd have enough revenue to upgrade the decor on the side of the building and I think you'd make it even more attractive so I'm for it. Mayor Mancino: But you only get to vote on two tonight. Councilman Engel: Yep, I'm just reading you the rights right now. That's where I'm going to be so I'm telling you now. Mayor Mancino: And there were a few of us that had other concerns about the lights and that, okay. Councilman Engel: Yep, I have no concern with the lights. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilmember Senn. 20 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: I don't really have anything new to add over what's already been said. Mayor Mancino: I really don't either. Only that I would very support the variance for the city code to allow for the 3.2 beer and much like I voted before, more on principle with the wildlife refuge, I would like that to stay intact and would not vote for lights. But let's have a motion. In fact could we have two. Councilman Senn: I would move approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations to allow the request for lights and the amendment to city code, or the variance to city code to allow for the alcoholic beverages. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round, and to approve the variance to the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer. All voted in favor, except Mayor Mancino and Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: I am for the 3.2 beer and good luck and you have the majority that they're saying vote for the lights too. So there you go. And Jeff if you could, it isn't part of the conditions. If you could put timers on it'd be great. It'd be helpful. Okay, thank you. CSM CORPORATION, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD, SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER: A. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER (39.49 ACRES) INTO 5 LOTS; AND VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOUR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH THE FOLLOWING AREAS; BUILDING A--4C800 SQ. FT, BUILDING B--54,000 SQ. FT; BUILDING C--54,000 SQ. FT; BUILDING D--49,500 SQ. FT; PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2. C. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Back in March of 1998 the site plan was approved for a subdivision and site plan for three industrial buildings. The plans were abandoned and the subdivision was never recorded. This action tonight includes, the proposal includes three actions: site plan, subdivision and vacation of a drainage and utility easement. There will be four lots. Four buildings and the fifth is the actual existing DataServ building that is also being platted. The four warehouse are similar in design. We think this is an improvement over the one that was approved over a year ago in the fact that they're lower in profile. Smaller buildings and seem to have worked better in the transition area with the neighbors and the berm that's to the neighborhood to the south in Eden Prairie. The variance that was brought up was in the DataServ, the existing parking lot is close to Lake Drive. The new parking lot to accommodate that does meet the setback standards. They've also improved it by adding additional landscaping. When that parking lot was put in place we had different standards. Now they're putting more landscaping in and 21 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 improving that. It does meet both, or all five site plans meet the Highway 5 corridor standards. The loading docks have been put to the interior of the building, again screening those from the neighbors. The Planning Commission did ask questions regarding lighting to the rear and we believe that's been mitigated to make sure that there's no intrusion into the neighboring properties. I'm going to let the architect or the design, the people that are here representing the applicant to talk a little bit about the buildings themselves. There was some discussion, there are two types of buildings. A little bit of the mirroring image. They've got a color rendering so I'll let them go through and the material samples too. There was one change I need to clarify for you. That would be in the conditions of approval on page 15. Item number 19. Storm water management fee of $112,000 approximately. That has been reduced to $87,474.00. The reason for the reduction is that at the time of the, when we put the pond in to accommodate this development and the CSM development to the north, it was assumed the value of the pond. The actual cost was higher. Therefore they're being credited more so their contribution would be less. Councilman Labatt: What about the current amount? What's the amount? Kate Aanenson: What it should say is $87,474. Mayor Mancino: Instead of $112,000. Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah the construction cost was higher so. That'd be the one clarification. There's some, just some other minor ones that they have addressed. We didn't reflect those. Those are regarding parking lot setbacks. I have copies of that now. It's the 25 foot setback in the existing building but I'd gone through that so they are consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We had pointed out something that they needed to change. The only other issue was the sidewalk. Engineering requested that we do put a sidewalk along this side based on the amount of industrial buildings. We believe these buildings, they can be subdivided into multi tenant. We believe they'll probably be a little higher office type use and maybe the industrial type use. So we do want to have a sidewalk, even though there is one partially on the other side, for that continuity to allow people to work their way around. We see it similarly to what we have at Rosemount or some of their industrial buildings. Chan Business Center where even on your lunch hour you can get out. Mayor Mancino: So everybody can walk to McDonald's. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. But we felt that it's important, we are trying to encourage you know that in our industrial parks. We feel strongly about the sidewalks. The applicant requested that that be removed but again staff's position is that we keep that. Mayor Mancino: So you would add that to the site plan? Kate Aanenson: It is on there. Mayor Mancino: Which number is it? Do you know? Kate Aanenson: I'm looking. Mayor Mancino: Oh well, we can do that when. Kate Aanenson: He's got it. Number 14 under Subdivision. 22 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Oh good, thank you. Kate Aanenson: With that we are recommending approval with the subdivision, site plan and the vacation. The drainage easement over Lot 1. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Mancino: No I don't. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Dave Carlin: Yes I would, thank you. First of I'll introduce myself and then Project Consultant. I'm Dave Carlin. I'm Vice President of Development at CSM Corporation. I'm responsible for all the commercial development, including this project and also the Chanhassen East Business Center which are the six buildings contiguous and happy to report that those buildings have been a real success for us. We've got I think 4,000 square feet left in the westerly most office building and based on that success we negotiated with General Electric to purchase the land, formerly DataServ building. We're working on retenanting that building. Wang's going to be out of there in less than a year. We do have a tenant secured for Building A, which will be a major corporate headquarters. We'll hopefully make an announcement on that within the next week. They announced there's office warehouse buildings but you know we look at these as office tech buildings. There's great demand right now in the entire southwest corridor for a little more employee intensive, lower finish and in contrast to the previous proposal which was made by GE and Welsh, we think this is not only the right product for the market. We think it's a friendlier product in terms of the immediate neighborhood. We worked real hard with both staff and the adjacent neighborhood to make this as great a project as we can. And looking forward to getting started as soon as we can here in Chanhassen. Also introduce Paul Klein is a project architect at CSM that worked on the design of the project. And of course John Dietrich with RLK is the.., for the project. John Dietrich: Thank you David. John Dietrich, RLK-Kuusito. We've been fortunate enough to work with CSM Corporation on the development of the 39 acres, primarily the eastern portion of that 39 acres with the four buildings that are shown here on the site plan. The site plan today is a much improved one over the one that came in front of you a year and a half ago. The improvements really are on the architectural and the type of building that is in place there today. The issue of the landscape and the amount of buffering and the amount of density that was necessary for that project has been maintained in this project, even though in absence the project has become downscaled. The buildings are 23 feet in height versus 30 feet in height. The amount of truck facility space in the interior courtyard is greatly reduced. So the type of vehicles that can be in there for truck and distribution really are not there that were in that previous plan. And then lastly the type of building materials is the split face concrete block that is going to be very comparable to the buildings on the north side of East Lake Drive that will allow there to be a continuity between north and south along the entire east side of the city of Chanhassen. We did have neighborhood meetings with the residents in Eden Prairie and we have made a commitment to maintain that berm as it is today. We are most likely going to take the berm down for the amount of material that has been there. Mine that out and then rebuild the berm back up. The berm that exists out there today is 100% on the northerly property. It is not on the property of the private residence. So we will be putting that berm back and to a higher level than it is today. And then landscaping it with the plan that we have shown and replacing the plant materials that are up there today. In addition with the higher berm there will be more screening and the buildings that have, that are being proposed today are approximately 20 feet further north from the property line than the previously approved plan. In addition we've added landscaping to the south side of the existing DataServ-Wang building. We put landscaping on top of that berm and have a continuous berm along the entire south side of the existing building and south of this parking lot. Some of the major improvements are the parking lot will.., with trees and landscaping put in and the central 23 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 landscaped areas between the buildings 2 and 3. We feel, or excuse me, Lots 1 and 2. Buildings 2 and 3 will be again a much more main pedestrian and office quality environment. These are going to be office tech buildings as Mr. Carlin had mentioned and we anticipate that they will have a good place in the market as again Building A has a tenant that's ready to go. We are ready to break ground within a couple of weeks. We are looking to hold a pre-construction meeting, assuming we have your concurrence tonight on the subdivision on the site plan and also on the vacation of the easement. We have worked hard with the staff and with engineering to submit the appropriate civil documents that will allow this project to go forward. We are in favor and concur with all of the items that are in the staff report with the exception of one and that is the sidewalk. We do feel that we have a sidewalk that does exist along East Lake Drive. It does exist on the north side of the roadway. And that sidewalk extends all the way from Dell Road north all the way over to Great Plains Boulevard. If you look at East Lake Drive today, there is no sidewalk on the south side of East Lake Drive from Dell Road over to Great Plains Boulevard. We feel that the existing 6 foot sidewalk that is there on the north side will accommodate the walkers who are interested in walking to McDonald's which is on the north side of East Lake Drive, and that this is not a residential area but there is a facility for pedestrians to walk along East Lake Drive. Tie into Dell Road and once you get over to Dakota, you can go north. There are no sidewalks south into the neighborhood on Dakota. There is no sidewalks or trails or parks that is to the west of this development. And once you hit Great Plains Boulevard there are no sidewalks to the south. We feel the amount of soil work, earth work moving that needs to go into this project has put a very tight budget onto it. We have put that money into the landscaping and into the quality of the buildings that we feel really will make a wonderful statement here on the east side and we look for your concurrence on this plan approval without the sidewalks. Secondly we do want to promote the buildings that have been submitted as part of the project to date. You did receive small reduced copies in your packet and I feel that those drawings blended and do not really show the significant changes between Buildings A and B and C and D. Mayor Mancino: John, let me just ask before you go forward and Kate also. There, I'm assuming there is enough room between the berm on that north side and the right-of-way to put a sidewalk in. A trail in on the south side. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that there was room, because I know that there's a berm, a 4 foot tall berm. Councilman Senn: 3 foot. Mayor Mancino: 4 foot? Councilman Senn: 3 foot. Mayor Mancino: Oh. I'll have to look at that condition again. It's to kind of camouflage or help reduce the visualness of the parking lot, okay. John Dietrich: One of the conditions of approval does talk about no grading or landscaping within the public right-of-way and we've matched that grade. Mayor Mancino: And can you kind of for me highlight some of the points how this is different than some of the other buildings, etc, as far as use of materials, etc? 24 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 John Dietrich: In comparison Mayor with the previous approval or the buildings to the north? Mayor Mancino: Buildings to the north. John Dietrich: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Also in the grander scheme of the whole development. John Dietrich: Okay. I'll maybe have Paul help with some of the specifics of the architecture as we would talk these buildings in terms of the existing and then I'll jump back in. Paul Klein: Paul Klein. The buildings to the north, the ones existing along Highway 5, they use more brick than what we have here. We're using strictly rock face block. They use more of an orange brick. Orange rock face and then above it is iron stone. Here we're using, for Buildings A and B we're using a brown, it's called a Vienna Brown with an accent almond band with a green tinted glass. And then Buildings C and D we're using a tanner face block in here with that same almond band. We're also using a bronze tinted glass which hopefully helps differentiate the two buildings. Yes, the window patterns the same. But with this tenant that they've currently mentioned we're going to be possibly changing Building A's design to a more ribbon window with the green glazing. It's just, at this stage with the different tenants that are going to be entering in, we don't know how big so we use the 8 foot window and then a 4 foot section and it allows us to get any type of tenant. Anywhere from 5,000 to 60,000. And right now we have 46,000 going into Building A. Dave Carlin: I'll butt in just real quick ifI can. I mean in terms maybe of the overall market, you know CSM...a lot of the other developers are not putting in as much detail into the buildings. Tending towards precast materials so I say all and all this is definitely the upper echelon for this kind of product in the market place. Mayor Mancino: Okay Dave, just so you understand where I was coming from. I read the Planning Commission minutes and... (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Councilman Labatt: How are you going to do the break between Buildings D and C, would it be? Where you have the. John Dietrich: The parking lot basically will be sloping up at about 2 ½ to 3%. And then we have breaks. Excuse me, 2% in the parking and then we get grade breaks along the.., so there will be a plateau here, here and here. Each one of these parking areas is a... Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for John, or you're not done yet are you? John Dietrich: I was just going to say we're here to ask your support with the modifications of the sidewalk and with the architecture as we have submitted. Mayor Mancino: Any questions that council members have at this time? 25 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: Not of the applicant, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to address the council on this? Mike Rock: My name's Mike Rock. I live at 18832 Wynnfield in Eden Prairie. I just want to say that CSM and the architects worked real closely with the neighborhood group and they did come up with a much better design than what was previously approved a year and a half ago for the area and we'd just say that I don't particularly represent the whole group but the major feeling is that we're in favor of it. Mayor Mancino: Good. It's nice to know that. Somebody from Eden Prairie. Thank you for coming. Bring this back to council. Any discussion? Councilman Senn: Questions if I could. Mayor Mancino: Sure. Councilman Senn: Kate. Everything in the project was pretty good and there's one thing I keep coming back and struggling with and that's the parking. And I kept hearing the buildings tonight referred to as office tech buildings and anyway you cut it, all we've allowed for parking is 3 per 1,000 and as I drive by some of the places we've already done that and see cars already inundated and parked all over the streets. I really wonder if we're adequately treating that. I mean have we monitored leasing activities on the first phases? Are we sure that the.., staying within use requirements or use assumptions on the square footage as it relates back to the parking? Or are we ending up with higher square footage areas of office and more heavily personneled areas than warehouse? And at least if you go drive by some of the existing parks, you certainly get the impression that that's a great deal. So that's a real concern I have, especially with this particular use and it's location. Kate Aanenson: Current that issue comes up and the city does not require business licenses. The only catch we have on these is looking at the tenant mix. We do try to apprise the application when we believe there will be a situation problem. To get a better count. There are times when the leases that aren't.., but they're also going to have to monitor because that affects their leasing arrangements too. But the only thing we can do at this point is the policing of our streets and parking and... WE do try to review that again on the tenants. Mayor Mancino: But if we do see parking on the street where it shouldn't be, we can... Kate Aanenson: Sure, absolutely. Yep. Mayor Mancino: There is no parking on Lake Drive East is there? Councilman Senn: That's my concern. 3 per 1,000, if you put office space and a good chunk of that space you're going to have a big time problem. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm sure you're concerned about it too so. Dave Carlin: ... Mayor Mancino: Oh, come up and say that on the record please. 26 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Dave Carlin: The point I was making is that there is truck courts that are not striped for vehicle parking and as you have a higher finish level, you have less of a need for a traditional truck court kind of thing so what tends to happen is those become striped for vehicles at the expense of the trucks that don't exist. This is quite a bit higher ratio than what we have in the first phase and I mean I can tell you from experience, most of the leases that get written these days, there are provisions within the least that stipulate exactly how many stalls we provide and where those stalls are and it's really hard to over sell your parking. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does that answer that kind of? Councilman Senn: Well I mean it partially answers it but I mean by doing the alterations on the truck stuff here, you know you're not going to pick up even oh... isn't going to add 1 more per 1,000 which still is going to leave you light on an office requirement which is normally what... I mean again we've got some real problems already in some existing areas and we're paying attention to it. Putting safeguards in place so we don't have, I mean the problem's going to come back to us. Not anybody else. Kate Aanenson: But again, their site plan does show a certain mix, office/industrial and that's the tenant finish and if it's all going office, we have to apprise them of the fact that they're going to be short parking. They're going to have to solve it. They are adding additional, with the existing DataServ, the additional parking is being put in with that building. Mayor Mancino: And Mark, what would probably be helpful is for you to let staff know of those places where you see where there's not adequate parking so that they can check on that and monitor that. So I think that would be helpful. Any other? Yes Dave. Dave Carlin: Just one more comment. Actually overall for the project we have 4.0 for parking so it's not 3.0. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess the only comment that I would make in regards to the sidewalk, and the issue of yeah or nay. I think that we've been fairly vocal as a city council as well as the planning commission about trying to provide alternative locations for people to be able to exercise or walk or just get out and about and I would have a tendency to want to support the planning commission's addition of that sidewalk to the site plan. Councilman Labatt: And that would extend along the south side of Lake Drive? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Councilman Senn: It's in the conditions. Councilwoman Jansen: It's in there, yep. Councilman Engel: What about the, does it extend past DataServ? I've got to remember. Is there one in front of DataServ now? 27 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Well this goes to DataServ. Past DataServ now and then it will stop there until the next development. Councilman Engel: That's what I'm asking. Is there one on the south side now? Mayor Mancino: No. It doesn't go all the way to, what is that Dakota? John Dietrich: There is no sidewalk on the south side of East Lake Drive at all between Great Plains and Dell Road. Councilman Senn: And this would go all the way down to the western edge of DataServ. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I didn't remember there being one but I like one. Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have one, a motion for the preliminary and final plat. Councilman Labatt: Motion to approve preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the preliminary plat dated June 4, 1999, and revised June 16th and the final plat dated received July 2 lSt.., staff` report. Correction on number 19, page 15 for the amount of the $87,474. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino: And again, just so the applicant knows that does include, and you want it to include 14 with the 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk? Councilman Labatt: Yep. No other... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the preliminary plat dated June 4, 1999, revised on June 16, 1999, and the final plat received July 21, 199, with the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 28 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 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. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. No bermmg or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. 10. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 11. Cross access and maintenance agreements with the city shall be prepared and recorded against Lots 1 and 2 for the city The City shall be included in the use for accessing the regional storm water pond. 12. The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to accommodate emergency vehicle access and meet City Ordinance 20-1101. 13. The developer shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lot 4 in the City of Eden Prairie. 14. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Lake Drive East. 15. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a 29 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 certificate of occupancy. The developer will be responsible for removing the sand deltas in the regional pond and repair the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site. 16. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide over the trunk storm sewer line. The width of the easement through Lots 1-4 needs to be increased to correspond to the depth of the storm sewer. A 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall also be dedicated along the northerly property line of Lot 5. 18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of all street lights along Lake Drive East impacted by this project. 19. The proposed Industrial development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a SWMP fee of $87,474. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: Now for site plan. Can I have a motion for Site Plan Review please. I'll make the motion that the City Council approves Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans (Sheets Al. 1-ECl.0) dated June 18, 1999 and Sheets C1-C13 dated received August 4, 1999, with the following conditions 1 through 26. Second please. Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans (Sheets Al.l-ECl.0) dated June 18, 1999 and Sheets C1-C13 dated received August 4, 1999, with the following conditions: If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs for Building A will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building B will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations. Building C will be permitted signs along the north and east and Building D will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. 30 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official conditions: a. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. b. Each building will require 6 accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. All rooftop and ground mounted equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Southwest Tech Center with Hennepin County. Increase berm height along the north property line to three feet. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. Increase plantings for Lake Drive E. buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements. Revise plant schedule to specify an average of 7 feet for evergreens. Increase parking lot island width to 10 feet or install aeration tubing in islands that are less than that. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. Fire Marshal conditions: 31 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. TT. Install and indicate on plans the location of the P.T.V. (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. TTT. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact number and location. IV. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. VI. Contact 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. 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 utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and inspections from the City. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any street lights in conflict with the proposed driveway access points along Lake Drive East. No bermmg or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Drive East or Dell Road. Landscape materials are discouraged within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. 32 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 22. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 23. Cross-access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded against all lots for the utilities and driveways. The City shall be included in the document for accessing the regional storm water pond on Lot 1. 24. Rock construction entrances shall be installed prior to grading and maintained until all disturbed areas are revegetated. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. 25. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. Sidewalks shall be extended from the building to Lake Drive East. 33. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: And the third motion is the vacation motion. I will move that the City Council approve Vacation #99-2 vacating the utility and drainage easements over Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen East Business Center subject to the following conditions 1 and 2. Is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Resolution/t99-70: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve Vacation/t99-2 vacating the utility and drainage easements over Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen East Business Center subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with legal description of the easements proposed to be vacated. 2. The vacation of the easements are contingent upon recording the final plat of Southwest Tech Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Kate Aanenson: There is one other issue and that's actually approval of the construction plan. Anita Benson: Development Contract and Construction Plans. Mayor Mancino: And 8(c). Thank you very much. Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, if I could make a suggestion with the development contract. Make the revision for the appropriate SWMP fees as was approved with the final plat. 33 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay. I would like to move that we approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications for Southwest Tech Center, Project 99-17 with the amended cost for $87,474. Everybody understand that? Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications for Southwest Tech Center dated July 26, 1999, prepared by RLK-Kuusito, Ltd and the development contract dated August 9, 1999 conditioned upon the following conditions: The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter or credit in the amount of $405,090 and pay an administration fee of $161,697.95. 2. The SWMP fee be revised to read $87,474.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR OFFICES A PERMITTED USES AND TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY; LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN COURT, 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, SECOND AND FINAL READING, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Cindy Kirchoff: On June 28th the City Council approved the first reading of the rezoning or amendment to the PUD to the Family of Christ Church site. As part of the approval the City Council directed staff to draft a development standards for the site. The standards are essentially the same as those found in the staff report from the last meeting. Basically the standards require any development to maintain the residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods in building and design materials. In conjunction with the development standards staff has prepared a definition of assisted living facility. It's currently not addressed or defined in the zoning ordinance and that is located in Attachment #2. Also, based upon the discussion that took place at a previous council meeting, staff has amended the definition of a church to include preschools, daycares, and cultural, social and educational programs as ancillary uses. This definition more accurately reflects the operation of a church. These definitions will be reviewed by the, and approved by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Staff does recommend approval of the PUD amendment and the land ues plan amendment to change the guiding from public.., to mixed use. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm going to stop for a minute and just clarify a few things so that I understand them. I don't know if anybody else has these questions but I was not here during some of this. Couple, few questions. There has been a first reading and there was a simple majority for rezoning. Okay. And the rezoning included some conditional uses as part of that rezoning and the conditional uses were assisted living facility, office, medium density residential, and institutional. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The church use as existing today as it is would be permitted. Any expansion would require a conditional use. 34 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we first have to say yes to the church the way it is today as permitted and then give really three conditional uses. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Because you have, you want to clear up the office and the medium density residential so it would be three conditional uses. Okay. And Roger for you. There are some design standards here, or development standards. And they are pretty general. I mean when I think of the design standards and how we approve the PUD contract for Villages on the Pond, it was that fact. These are fairly general. When a site plan comes in, or a conditional use to come in on this site, how much more specific can we get than these design standards? Over and above our existing ordinances. Does that make sense? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Good. Roger Knutson: At this point what you're doing is you are drafting legislation. You're creating policy. It's at this point that you have the most discretion to impose the standards which you think are appropriate. When you move on from the legislative, which you're doing now, to the next step which is quasi judicial, you're then applying the existing law to the facts and coming up with an answer. In the conditional use permit process you have reasonable discretion to impose reasonable conditions to take care of any negative impacts you feel associated with the uses that come forward. You don't lack, you lack the discretion then, you have some discretion then. You have a lot more discretion now. Mayor Mancino: But we will have some discretion over and above, okay. Roger Knutson: You'll have some limited discretion at the CUP process. You'll have some discretion. But you have more discretion today because you're acting in a legislative capacity. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: So does that mean we need to be as specific as we're going to get? Roger Knutson: You don't need to fill in all the details but if something in particular is extremely important to you. Councilwoman Jansen: Now's the time to do it. Okay. Roger Knutson: This would be an appropriate time to do it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from council members on that? What it all means and so tonight what we're looking at is to approve the final reading for rezoning and development standards and that takes a 4/5 vote, correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. 35 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And then does the comprehensive land use plan amendment take a 4/5 also? Both of them? Roger Knutson: That's correct. It's 2/3 but that's 4/5, correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: So since there is a 4/5 required before we even get to the guidelines, do we vote on the rezoning to confirm a 4/5 before we get down to the specifics or do we jump into the specifics? Roger Knutson: Well you have two things in front of you. You have the rezoning and a reguiding. Those are the two things and the standards you're talking about are part of the PUD. That's part of the planned unit development. Councilman Senn: As part of the zoning. Roger Knutson: Part of the zoning, correct. Mayor Mancino: So you do do the development standards as part of the rezoning? Roger Knutson: That is the rezoning. With the standards you'd be creating. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. One of the things that we had noted in the last meeting when we were discussing assisted living was to specifically word the motion as senior assisted living. So I did want to maybe make sure that we address that through the definitions that we're being very specific. At least within that guidance, even though we do note the age once we get into the definitions, it just seems to be better to state it right up front. That we're only considering the senior assisted living. Mayor Mancino: I don't know. I'm 51 and 55 is... senior. I think 55's okay. I don't think... Okay. Before we do that I just want to open this up for a little bit only because everybody has just gotten the conditions, the development standards. Kate Aanenson: We sent that out to everybody and we did send them out last week. The standards with a letter that it was on so they were mailed out. Mayor Mancino: They were mailed out so everybody has it. So let's take a few minutes here if anybody has any comments they'd like to make on some of these development standards. One person speaking for a group, that'd be great. We'll take maybe 15 minutes at most if anybody wants to speak. Councilman Engel: As long as everybody's aware of what these definitions are. It should be part of the record. Mayor Mancino: So Sue, do you have the definitions of the assisted living facility and the church, the attachments to? You've got the whole report? Sue McCarthy: Do I need to state who I am? Sue McCarthy, 8001 Hidden Court, Chanhassen. No, that wasn't sent out to us. The only thing that we received was Attachment # 1 and the City Council agenda. 36 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And pardon? Kate Aanenson: They didn't get the definitions. Sue McCarthy: ... so I don't know if you want to hear my questions or comments. Councilman Labatt: Do you want to read the definitions first? Sue McCarthy: Let me sit down. Mayor Mancino: And then you can come up. Anybody else like to come up? Councilman Senn: Can we maybe just discuss some of the definitions ourselves first? Before we create confusion on top of confusion maybe? Mayor Mancino: No I'm not sure, I just thought it was the definition and letting somebody react. Councilman Senn: But you're talking about. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. What we'll do for those people that are here, we'll have a discussion first so somebody keep their ear out for our discussion on these definitions also. Sorry that you did not get t them. Okay, Councilman Senn. You had some questions about definition. Councilman Senn: Well not so much questions about definitions but. Mayor Mancino: Concerns. Councilman Senn: You know it seems to me we should discuss the definitions and put them in a light that people have something to comment on rather than opening what's here, which none of us may even be in agreement with. So that seems to me we ought to try to frame first what we're talking about and to go from there. Mayor Mancino: Go ahead and start. Councilman Senn: As far as, let's see here. was to be senior and to be clarified as senior. the one I've generally seen is 55 so I mean unless there's something more specific, 55's probably a better protection than senior, correct? Roger Knutson: Yeah, there are various definitions of senior housing. 55 is probably as common as any I've seen. It's 60 and I don't know what the majority is. Between 55 and 60. Councilman Senn: But the age definition is a more fine definition than the word senior by far. Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilman Senn: So defining at 55 would probably be far better. Conditional uses. The assisted living, as Linda mentioned I don't know if there is a legal definition for that. But I mean 37 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Roger Knutson: 55 as specific senior doesn't, senior means to me someone over. Councilman Senn: Well I'm just saying picking an age let's say. Let's say picking an age. Mayor Mancino: Well you could call it both. You could call it senior assisted living and then you have residents shall be 55 years or older. Councilwoman Jansen: And the point I was going to Councilman Senn is on Attachment #2 where we do have the definitions and it does just say assisted living facility, there is no age even listed in there. So that's more where my concern was that it should really read senior assisted. Councilman Senn: Right, and that's where I was coming to. What I wanted to do was do it in light of the best way to do it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, gotcha. Okay. Councilman Senn: Which means I think it ought to be changed to be senior you know assisted living but to define it by an age. If55's that age, that's fine. Let's use it at 55. Kate Aanenson: I don't mean to, but just for clarification. Because this is a PUD. The way it was drafted is that we left the definition broad. We're amending the definition for the code city wide. If we put in this conditional use in this specific PUD 55 and older. Just so you understand why there's a difference. The definition applies in the city code in the entire city. Definition of assisted living and what went somewhere else. That's why we left it open. In this PUD we specifically said it's 55 or older. Councilman Senn: But we've also specifically defined this as senior assisted living. Kate Aanenson: In the conditional use of this PUD. But the definition is inclusive of this. Councilman Senn: Okay. So you're talking about two difference levels of definition. Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is fine tuning that definition. Right. Councilman Senn: Fine tune within this, okay. So in the CUP we fine tune. Mayor Mancino: Let's just talk about CUP. Councilman Senn: CUP would be senior, senior is 55 or older. Okay. I'm really uncomfortable with the maximum of 60 units. The area of units shall be limited to the following blah, blah, blah. I'm sorry. I think we're out of water. It's not our area. It's not our field. We're not a regulatory agency in that area. I really think that should be defined or policed by the regulatory agencies.., our criteria or our cap there should be in terms of an overall density on the site. And the one I guess I'd like to use as a standard or at least throw out on the table is given the church square footage and the expanded use of the church office max pretty much is 25,000 square feet. So I'd like to throw 25,000 square feet out as a maximum amount of square footage. You know building square footage on the property. And then again leave it up to those agencies to decide how many units should be able to go within 25,000 square feet or whatever. So you're not intensifying the use in the site beyond what it could now be basically. Okay. On the institutional one there, you know again I don't know since we're going through the exercise again there, it just seemed like 38 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 maybe we should stick to a maximum of 25,000 so there's no question later as to can we push the envelope or can't we push the envelope. As far as the medium density and office use, the limitation on the office space is 15,000 square feet. The medium density residential, not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre I thought was a little high. I still don't mind the residential transition to a very small office building on the road side but I think more important.., term residential strip is dealt with and I thought it was simply too high for that and thought it should be pared back to more in the 4 to 6 range or whatever but I mean really open for discussion on that. And last but not least, the other really big key point that I thought we could really resolve up front is the setback. I mean we've always been pretty darn consistent when you have one zone different than another butting up to each other and really kind of making that 50 feet sacred. As green space and stuff and I think we really ought to stick to that and require 50 foot green strip, or green space between the uses, rather than allowing parking or other you know ancillary uses to protrude into that area. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying under street, under setbacks D, parameter lot lines. Office and institutional is 50 and you would go 50 to the medium density residential, and that includes parking? Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So it would not be 30. Councilman Senn: What I'm saying, as far as the area butting the existing residential is 50 feet for anything from this area. Regardless of what the use is. Mayor Mancino: And that includes parking lot. Councilman Senn: Those were just. Mayor Mancino: Anything with building height? Councilman Senn: The building, well building height to me becomes a limitation of what we just fine under the 25,000 square feet. At least as far as the church use goes and as far as the assisted living goes, okay. It's been defined so to me there was not an issue any more of number of stories or whatever. Councilman Engel: I'm not sure I'm with you on that. You need a 25,000 square foot pad that could be 50 above with two levels if you doubled it effectively or 25 period? 12 ½... Councilman Senn: 25,000 square feet is the same intensity of use that's allowed on the site now under it's current use. Councilman Engel: How do we relate square footage to building heights in other developments? Scott Botcher: I'm not sure how you've done it here but I understand what Mark's saying. It's a fact of construction. Am I correct? Councilman Senn: Yeah, correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay? So there would not, but you would still have a maximum building height? Councilwoman Jansen: Of 40 feet? 39 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: Well, you really don't need one but I mean overall city code still governs that I mean one way or the other. I mean what we put in here can only further. Mayor Mancino: It's a PUD though. Scott Botcher: You don't give it up. Councilman Senn: We don't give it up if we don't mention it, right? (A tape change occurred at this point in the discussion.) Sue McCarthy: ... Minnesota State law said that 80% of the residents must be age 55 or older, which means if you think about that the reverse of that, that's 20% don't have to be. So what are the restrictions on those 20% people that they're not 55? Are they drug rehab? Are they going to be low income? What type of people are going to fit into those smaller units as defined here based on how it is defined today? When you define senior, think about what you mean by senior. If it's 60 then it goes on to say within the law, at least based on what my husband's research was, is that when you define it to be residents 62 years or older, that means 100% of those people who reside there must meet those particular age restrictions. Just something to think about. If you do put it at that lower age, which would affect more people, you're going to have those other 20% housing of what are you going to do with it and I don't know if you can put a restriction on those additional 20% or not. Just something to think about in your. Mayor Mancino: Roger, can we put a restriction to be more restrictive? We can. Roger Knutson: Yeah. Sue McCarthy: It can be a whole 100%? Mayor Mancino: It can be a whole 100%. Roger Knutson: This says 100%. Sue McCarthy: Even though the law itself says 80% is 55 and the 20% can be something else. You all can say. Councilman Engel: We can go higher in a PUD. Roger Knutson: If it qualifies for senior housing, we can have tighter qualifications. Sue McCarthy: Okay, so that's addressed then. It will be 100% are 55 and older. Mayor Mancino: And I think you'd want people 55 and older. Roger Knutson: I'm just going to point out you might want to consider someone living, a married couple or unmarried couple, one being over 55 and one being under. That's the normal exception. You wouldn't have to have that but right now it's 55. 40 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: So again, we would make it 100%. Sue McCarthy: Okay. Is there any definition as to the type of medical facilities that are going to be offered? On whether they are going to be, I believe it's Class A license or type of licensing that they are going to have. Is it going to be just hospital? Contracted medical care that's open just for that facility? Is it going to be contracted care that's open for multiple facilities? Is it going to be? Mayor Mancino: Got it. Roger Knutson: The use is assisted living facility. Anything that's there, whether it's a cafeteria, or whether it's a health care provider, will have to be in support of the assisted living facility. It has to be accessory to that use. They couldn't have a clinic open to the public there because this is in support of that facility. Mayor Mancino: Not according to the conditions we would put on it Sue. Sue McCarthy; You can put those conditions on it? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Sue McCarthy: Okay. Just the fact that assisted living is such a vague entity today that they haven't gotten a new licensing in place. I believe it's supposed to come out this month in August. That's why I'm concerned as to what type of medical care because there is no specific until this August licensing. Mayor Mancino: And we can put in here that anything that's on the premises has to just support this facility and cannot go nationwide, global, whatever. Sue McCarthy: Whatever, okay. Also I'm concerned about the maximum square footage that Councilman Senn mentioned. It should be the 25,000 feet I think that's been discussed. I'm also concerned about the minimum/maximum unit size. I also did not see Attachment #2 until just now so I think we're a little bit more clearly defining what that would be. Councilman Senn: What square footage are you concerned about? I said 25,000 square feet max. Sue McCarthy: That's the total. And then also I'm concerned about the individual units. You have studios down at 350. Two bedrooms up to 885. Is that the minimum for a two bedroom or is there going to be? Kate Aanenson: I thought that got wiped out. Sue McCarthy: Well let's talk about that a minute. Because if you do eliminate it totally, does that mean what we have found in talking to people is that if you make the total square footage so small, they turn into nursing home rooms or people can't rent them out. For example a facility in Minnetonka found out that their minimum square footage was about 250 square feet. No one wanted to rent them. They were just too small to even live so what they ended up doing was turning them over to like office use and so forth. So I'm concerned that we have something in there. I don't want to be too restrictive and I now that 25,000 square feet is important but I also don't want nursing home rooms to come in so just to think about. You may not say that it's important to have, but think in terms of how are you going to be able to rent these out 41 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 and what type of square footage and what type of folks do you want living in them? It's going to be their home. You know do you want them to have a 250 square foot to get the most revenue out or do you want them to be in a 350 or 400, etc. I also did not see in here, and maybe I just missed it, the adaptive reuse of the building. The church building. I don't know. I read through this real quickly a couple times and I didn't see it so I just thought that was one of our uses was that we needed to make sure that the church building did have an adaptive reuse. I'm concerned about the height requirement. I believe that the 40 feet or the two story should be included. I think that is important. Not just the fact that it is 25,000 square feet. It is what we have to look at. I agree with the discussion on the fact that the medium density is very high. I was also under the impression that the 4 to 6 units would be a better use of the facility. Of the land. And one thing that I'm seeing all along and I don't see listed is market feasibility. Do we really need assisted living? Do we really need to have medium density housing and office put next to us? Do we need to have an extended church? And so I'd like to see, it would be great to see some wording that a market feasibility study be done by an independent entity before the site plan goes through. Before an actual developer comes in to make sure that it is really needed and that you're not...the land. This is 18 months out I believe and at that point there may be other facilities in town that are better suited or in surrounding towns and there may not be the need for these and I want to make sure that there is some feasibility put into that. That we're not just building or approving it for spot zoning but there truly is a need within Chanhassen for these particular units. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Just so you know Sue, we did get a petition from 200 plus seniors that we do need assisted living. That was in our packet tonight too so I just wanted you to know that. Okay, Jim. Jim Sulerud: Hi. I'm Jim Sulerud with Family of Christ Lutheran Church. Previously our congregation agreed with the staff report and on the, at the last meeting of the council where we were before you. And there was an approval with one dissenting vote for the rezoning and heading towards this second reading. The recommendation at that time included the city's successful determination that for what are the best land uses that are appropriate to this site and the determination that the process was procedurally correct. That is tonight before you. You do not have a recommendation that departs from the city's standards, policies or procedures. Tonight the congregation again concurs with the staff report. The details have been gone through at your direction andwe're pleasedto supportthe staff recommendation. Our congregation has accepted limitation after one another in order to move forward. We like to say we've compromised and compromised but we've backed down and backed down. We even now in this current proposal accept prior restrictions on what will be future church expansion, either by us or by someone else. That's a backing away from probably where we were before. And as you pointed out Mayor, there were 200 residents, more than 200 residents that supported the assisted living. Earlier tonight you heard about the ongoing need for more office space as well as in some of the documentation that you've received, the need for office space has been illustrated. It's not that we haven't been at this long enough. We've been at this quite a while. It's now time to affirmatively move on. As you drive by Bluff Creek on Highway 5 and it looks out, you can now see a spot dug out for the foundation of our new church. The hole's dug. The parking lot's graded. While the average resident may be here for under 10 years, the congregational institutions are here for hundreds of years, and you have examples of that and the institution of our church will be here well beyond all of us. The time has come to put these considerations, the time we've put into these considerations has been appropriate but it's been expensive. It's been expensive in terms of your time and in terms of our time and certainly the neighbors have invested their considerable efforts as well. We've all been moving towards one thing. That is a solution. What works for the community. Not what works for the private interest of the church. Not what works for the private interest of the neighbors, but what's a good community solution? We started out on that basis some time ago and we've been, the congregation has been in good faith moving in that direction. Since your last recommendation to the staff, we have 42 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 participated in that timeframe of putting together and being respectful of the staff and they're putting together these recommendations. We're supporting those recommendations. Not that they would have been what we arrived at. They certainly is, you've heard they're not what the neighbors, what the one neighbor would have arrived at or two neighbors, but we respect the decision, the process that's happened to arrive at these. If we are to enter into a further delineation of those, I think it's appropriate that we again involve the whole community of discussion because the move towards 25,000 square feet of quite changed uses from church use as a ballpark applying that same parameter to the assisted living, we're talking about apples and oranges. We ought to have a fruitful discussion with you on that. We think the staff discussion has been, or the staff input on that is appropriate towards your solution. I've lived in this community for 25 years and my family and I over the years, these years have woven ourselves into the fabric of this community and we like you are people who build the value and the strength of this community. Each of our 1,000 congregation members are a part of that building of the strength and fabric of this community and we are creating the next Chanhassen Centennial quilt. We're ready to move forward. We think the staff recommendation is right on without regard and being respectful Councilman Senn to your concerns, we think that the staff has put in plenty of time on this. We've put in plenty of time. We think we're right on on these recommendations. If we don't have, if we depart from these or we don't have, if we have some further limitation, it's incumbent upon the congregation to keep at this. It isn't just well thank you and we're gone. It's going to be time and effort on into the future and we'll do that. Do that diligently and respectfully but we ask that you respectfully consider the letter of the recommendations that have been put down by the staff. Thanks. We have some further more technical input if we want to get into those discussions and departures from the recommendations. We have people here who are professional in the assisted living area and in the office area. I mean in the residential area as to what is really a solution. If we get backed into a situation where we have non-solutions, in other words non-sales, we don't have a church that's standing up ready to buy. You don't see a congregation here saying here we are with the money. If we don't have that situation, we've got to keep at this. We've appreciated your efforts in the past to work with us towards a solution and we think the staff's been right on the last two times. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Jim. Well philosophically, let me speak for a few minutes because I haven't spoken at all on this. Being on the Planning Commission for four years, my philosophy and one that I've certainly given to you and the Pastor has been that Chanhassen does a wonderful job of planning. We're proactive and we've got a comprehensive plan. We've got a great planning department. And we have our master plan. People come in, whether it's businesses. Whether it's residents. Whoever comes in and makes an investment in our community, they come in and they check at City Hall and they say hey, what's going to go around me. Do I want to live here? Do I not want to live here? Do I want to live in a different subdivision? You know what does the City have planned and we in good faith as planners, as council members, want to be real upfront with everyone and show them what we're planning for our community. So I have often said sure, if I think things should be changed, there are reasons to change things but it's going to take a lot to convince me to do that. Because I am so much in support of our comprehensive planning. And the thought and the time that we put forward for it. So for me this particular rezoning, it's important for me to see and to know that, I mean usually when we rezone we have someone with a site plan that comes forward and shows us what they want to put there. Whether it was a car dealership where we worked for a year and a half with Villages on the Ponds to do that rezoning. So we've put a lot of time and effort into it and we want everybody to know and we want to listen to all the parties and we also want to put some good parameters around it so that we know what's going to happen, and again so that those people who are coming in our community know that. And I just think that that's the most important thing we do. And that we communicate it. So Jim just kind of to answer the design standards. I think that they do need, I agree with Councilman Senn. I think that they do need some good 43 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 parameters so we understand how it would be rezoned. How it affects an established neighborhood that has been there for years, and how it will also help the church in having some supportive, different zoning options for your selling. And I think that we owe it to both sides so those are my thoughts on that. With that, let's go back to the rezoning and the design standards. Councilman Senn has talked about it. Councilman Labatt. Do you want to add? And please talk a little bit about, and then you will be able to respond. To what Councilman Senn said about putting some of those square footage on, etc. Jim Sulerud: I didn't mean to say by this, while I'm whole heartedly in support of the staff recommendations to the letter, I don't mean to put you in a bind to say well it's all or nothing. Black or white. You know. We don't want to hear from you. I think this has been a process of interchange and communication back and forth and if we need that time, you know this may not be the forum to do that. We're certainly, I mean as I said before, we're in this for the long term. And however best we can inform you of our needs and we can respond to your needs, that's what we're here for and that's what we've been endeavoring to do. Maybe we haven't hit the accident of this evening to do that so it's not a pressure thing and you wouldn't take it as that anyway so. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for that clarification. Councilman Labatt: Just start out with the, I'll kind of back track here. I agree with the setbacks that Mark has proposed. Mayor Mancino: You can't start on the second page. Councilman Labatt: Yes I am. And the, I always thought. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we're on page 2. Councilman Labatt: I thought 8 was always a little much to put in right there and 4 to 6 might be a better, or would be a better mix quite frankly. To get into the height restrictions and the square footage, I'm very supportive of the senior assisted living. I read the petition from the seniors and I think there's a big need for it. But I just wonder if limiting it to 25,000 square feet is going to make that building so small and obsolete that nobody's going to come there. In looking at the plans here on Attachment #2, in the space allocation analysis for assisted living, pretty much spells it out. I mean if you put a 25,000 square foot building and you plop down a second level onto it, what would that give you for a total height? Kate Aanenson: The current church building's about 21 so I'm assuming that they might need 26. Councilman Engel: Say that again Kate. Kate Aanenson: You could stay under 30 certainly. Make it two stories and keep it at 30 but I don't, the current church is 21. Councilman Engel: Maybe add 9 feet to do a two story. Conceptually. Mayor Mancino: The current church is 21,000 square feet with one story. Kate Aanenson: Right, but it's got the pitch and the. 44 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Labatt: Right. And the church with all their expansions maxed out is going to be 25,000 square feet. If I heard Mark right. Cindy Kirchoff: That was the original intent. Councilman Labatt: So, as I look at it in this analysis here providing all the resident areas, office administration, assisted living. Granted I mean you know I don't know whether we're 60 units, that's pretty well maxed. Mayor Mancino: In Centennial Hill right now there are 65 units and that takes up 50,000 square feet. And that, 65 units at Centennial Hill and that takes up 50,000 square feet and that is three story and four story in areas or is that just three story? Centennial Hill. Kate Aanenson: Cindy Kirchoff: It's actually 80,000 square feet. Yeah, it's 80,000 square feet. Mayor Mancino: Oh I'm sorry, 80,000 square feet. Thank you. Councilman Engel: And how many stories? Mayor Mancino: 3 ½. Councilman Senn: 3 ½. Councilman Labatt: That includes a garage underneath. Kate Aanenson: Cindy Kirchoff: Mayor Mancino: Underground parking. That's 44 feet in height. So 3 ½ stories, 65 units. Just wait a minute. First of all let's talk and then we will. Councilman Labatt: So that's one of my concerns is by saying well senior assisted living can only be 25,000 square feet, that might net you out only 15 to 22 units. I don't know. Which is one of my concerns. In the conditions here under the square footage size, I agree with Mrs. McCarthy. That I think we need something in here. Some sort of parameter. You know a 350 square feet unit we're going to build here because we don't want to have these people living in closets. And with the, and I know there's a deviation here from the State's allocation analysis, Attachment #3. For a studio to be 452 square feet, and that was penciled in here at 350 and the question popped up as who made that deviation and all the rationale for it? That's all I have for right now. I'll wait. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Mark. Councilman Engel: My history is, I don't find too many areas where there's gray when it times to make decisions. I tend to find black and whites all the time but some gray area in this one I will admit. I think there is a middle ground we can find that keeps both sides relatively happy. The one concern I have with what's been mentioned so far is the same as Steve has. I think the 25,000 square feet might make it just 45 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 too unfeasible for any of these options and I'm not sure. I'd like to see it more based on rather than the square footage there, the height of the building that you see from those back yards. If you could limit the heights and whether there's one or two there, I don't know. I wouldn't matter to me if it was my property. What would bother me is if all of a sudden I had one here and now I've got one twice as big. That would bother me so I would like to see us focus more on the sight line and the height rather than the square footage covered. And I guess it's a little redundant to what Steve's saying but I want to point out really my only concern. The other thing, I am in support of the 4 to 6 units in the residential. That seems reasonable there and the setbacks. I'm fine with that as well. I'm really concerned about putting a square footage limit. I don't know that there might be no way to do it. I don't know with the site plan. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess just in general I'm uncomfortable approving changes as significant as these without a site plan, and I know everyone's pretty well echoed it. But I'm continuing to be concerned that we're potentially approving something under guidelines that it's really going to surprise us when it comes in and it fits the guidelines and it wasn't at all what we thought it was going to be. With that said, to Mark's points and what everybody's been commenting on, I'm again in favor of having this site at least develop out to what was anticipated, and it was the 25,000 square feet of the maximum church expansion. So if that then means that assisted living can't be built on this particular site, it leads me to believe that again we're doing the cart before the horse routine. We don't even know if this is feasible on this site. We haven't done a feasibility study. No one has come in and said it fits within the 25,000 square feet so what have we accomplished if we approve that within the rezoning? And I guess that's what strikes me. I want to keep it to the 25,000 square feet but I am hearing that we could be making it impossible to build an assisted living facility there. It sounds like there are issues where we do need to maybe address more of the specifics. One of the things that Sue McCarthy mentioned, that anything that is on the property would be supporting this facility. Not being used externally. You know I go back and forth between the 55 and the 62 but making sure that we have specifically said it's 100% senior. That we're not allowing any latitude outside of that other than maybe a husband or wife. However you term that. And definitely what Councilman Senn spoke to as far as the medium density residential. Having that be more the 4 to 6, and I don't know if we need to be more specific than saying 4 to 6. I'm fine with a range on that. And as far as the height of the building, again we're back to what was anticipated on that site and I don't really want to go beyond that. And I really appreciated Councilman Senn saying same as what is there now. That is what would be compatible with what is being anticipated, and I know one of the things that keeps being mentioned is reaching a compromise and I certainly can appreciate the position that the church is in and I am not being, or I'm trying not to appear insensitive to that. I realize what the situation is but when you put yourself up at the Council table and you're charged with what is in the best interest of the entire community. Whether we have compelling reasons to be changing the comp plan, I have trouble addressing what we have in front of us and saying that this is giving us compelling reasons to make these changes and compelling reasons to be changing a comp plan. I can appreciate that there is a hardship here and the church is in a difficult position. But we're venturing out and we're setting up development standards that apply to an unknown at this point. And I don't feel like there's enough control. It just, it doesn't feel like there's enough control over something as complicated as assisted living. And all the variables that have been shared with us as to what that encompasses. But you know those thoughts said, you know and adding to that, making sure that we're specifically saying that we're looking for the adaptive re-use of the building. Can it be read into this that somebody could wipe the building out and start over if we haven't said that it's a re-use of the building. Because aren't we saying that the church building would still stand? That they would actually be re, there would be re-use of that building? 46 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Brad Johnson: ...taken the time to go to an architect to lay this out...They do that. I mean that's their company's business. We're just trying to sell the property. We can sell the property as a 60 unit assisted living. We can sell the property... The church isn't going to relocate for a year and a half so it's difficult to have a full design in here, you know somebody willing to put the money up front to design a facility. We felt comfortable as Jim said with the design. We thought we provided the information that's necessary... I don't know what your standard coverage in a commercial-residential, 70%? 65% impervious surface. Remember assisted living probably needs at the most 40 parking spots. You know these people don't drive. So that's just, you know we think we're comfortable we can do this. Now to answer the question about design. Okay, because I know you're not used to zoning things in a neighborhood like this. IfI could figure out how to just go and design the assisted living and put it in there, that's about a $25,000 cost. Here's your assisted living. Is that what you're looking for or $25,000 worth of... Mayor Mancino: No. No. Here's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for personally, and anyone else can step up. Taking 60 units. Brad Johnson: Here's 60 units. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. Impervious surface of 65%. Just a minute. Setbacks of 50 from that east side. 50 from the south side. Parking. Brad Johnson: The parking, now what's our setback. Mayor Mancino: Just a minute Brad. To have staff draw us up to show what that, how big that is. What is that. For us to see. I don't know if that's 50 feet setbacks, etc so taking the actual measurements of some of the things that we're talking about and putting it on a piece of paper and showing us what kind of footprint that would be, etc, one would be very helpful for me. I don't know if that would help other. Councilman Engel: I was just doing some math here on the assumptions of 43,000... 85,000 square feet is 65% of that lot. Mayor Mancino: So Brad we're just going one step a little further so we can see it visually so that these aren't just numbers in our head. That we can actually see something. So do a drawing and also have the setbacks. Brad Johnson: ... Mayor Mancino: Maybe, maybe not. Brad Johnson: That means that you look at all your... These are all at about 35 feet... We don't have the architects here because these plans have been sitting around City Hall now for three months. The question is is, we could do all that. I don't know how you make an ordinance like that, and maybe the solution only is, I'm looking for an alternate solution. That it's a conditional use subject to site plan approval. That's what we're talking about, isn't it? Yeah. Mayor Mancino: We want to get some broad design standards up front so. 47 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Brad Johnson: When you say design standards, are you saying. Mayor Mancino: Development standards just like we have here. Brad Johnson: ... before the zoning. Materials? ... look of the building's going to be like? I mean I'm just asking the questions because I'm trying to figure out the solution here. Mayor Mancino: Brad where we're going for is the development standards we want to add to them. Make them more specific, okay? That's what we've all talked about. Brad Johnson: That's always a two way discussion, right? The developer and the staff. Mayor Mancino: And the City Council, yes. Brad Johnson: I don't know if you're qualified to do that kind of stuff. I'm not. Mayor Mancino: We're giving direction on how we would like to see them change to staff. Brad Johnson: And then we have to get input from. Mayor Mancino: Staff will meet with you. Brad Johnson: My only concern on this, I'd love to sell it as a church or get that part done. We haven't done it. The thing is marketable as you've seen here with minor modifications.., so if you add development standards to make it impossible to build it, that's why you always have to have somebody around looking at costs. Second thing is for your own information.., so I don't know how we accomplish that tonight. What we'd like to see, and I think what Jim was saying is, the staff, we work out those. You guys read them prior to the meeting, like two weeks in advance and then we don't have to go through this discussion. Mayor Mancino: We need to give guidance to our staff about what we will and won't pass as a legislative body. Brad Johnson: I understand. Mayor Mancino: So that's what we're here for. Brad Johnson: Okay. I thought the staff made the recommendation. Mayor Mancino: They do make recommendations and it's for us to say yeah or nay and if we would like them changed. Brad Johnson: So I would suggest then you table this issue. Mayor Mancino: Going back to the development standards, what I would like to see and I would like other council members to add to this is number one, that we give some guidelines to staff on some development standards that you would put down that we would like changed or maybe added to so that we have a better feeling and comfort zone for a rezoning. And of those number one would be the assisted living facility. Let's talk about each one of them. Take them at a time. Number one. With the setbacks, with the 48 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 impervious surface, with the 60 units, a visual of what that looks like. It's a box. Nothing architecturally done. You know with the 50 foot setbacks and not the 30, but the 50 foot setbacks, what that looks like. Councilman Engel: ... of that drawing for lack of any other specific plan? Mayor Mancino: Pardon? Councilman Engel: Do you want to focus them towards that drawing since we lack any other specific plan? Mayor Mancino: Sure, you can use that. Councilman Engel: Use it as a baseline. Mayor Mancino: Use that as a baseline. And anyone else if you have suggestions as we go along. Secondly on, and then show us a comparison if we did do a 25 square foot, limit it to 25 square feet. How many units could go in it? What that looks like. Councilman Engel: You mean 25,000 square feet for the building? Mayor Mancino: 25,000 square feet. Councilman Labatt: One unit? Councilwoman Jansen: One person. Mayor Mancino: Can you get 20 units to 22 units? Institutional. Again whether there should be a limit as far as square footage on that one. What that should be. Office. Professional and business office, non retail activity. Development shall be limited to 15,000 square feet of office space. Must be developed in conjunction with medium density residential. I think that we would like to see with the medium density residential more the 4 to 6. And again with the 50 foot setbacks, and just for the record and again I have said this from the very, very beginning of this project when I met with the applicant. I have not been in favor of office use on this particular lot. On this particular plot of land. I think that the street, the Lake Drive East is the buffer that segregates the residential and the residential feel on the south side from the more commercial feel on the north side. So, but if other councilmembers would like to see that. And I think the residential medium density that the council would like to see what 4 to 6 dwelling units would look like on that Kate, again with the 50 foot setbacks. And also the building height limited to the 40 feet. Any other? The only other concern that I heard that would need to be under senior assisted living that I think all council members agree with is that we do limit the medical or any of the on site facilities. Kate Aanenson: We came up with a definition on that which we'll work on. Something to the effect that any use has to be ancillary. What language we came up with. Any ancillary uses shall be directly related to the assisted living and it's.., people that are living there. Tenants or residents or something like that. And again in that definition we try to clarify things that are commonly associated with that type of facility. Kind of limiting that. Concerns about those uses or narrowing or broadening that definition. Whether it's from the council or the residents. Or the applicant. We'd like to hear those and then we can modify that definition. 49 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other conditions? Revised development standards. Scott Botcher: Kate I assume we have the technical ability to do that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. What we were thinking about doing is just show a buildable area based on impervious surface and parking ratios. Kind of a core area so... Mayor Mancino: Did you take also into note the transition that's already there between residential and commercial is R-4 which are the twin homes? And they have those on Erie. That abut at the eastern side of Erie. Those first 4 or 5 are twin homes, and I think that that is a good way the transition and that has been used very well from the beginning. Kate Aanenson: Sure, we'll show the buildable area and the residential and then the different products that can go on, and our ordinance doesn't.., whatever the market is at that time but you certainly could... Councilman Senn: Based on what I thought you were asking for, I think was just contradicted by what Scott asked and Kate responded. Scott Botcher: No, I don't think so. Councilman Senn: Well, I thought you were asking for something to come back and show us the mass of a 50,000 square feet building on that site. Kate Aanenson: We can do that. Show the buildable area and what it would look like. How big to get 60 units. How many stories it would need to be to fit within that building envelope. Councilman Senn: The mass. You'll show us the mass of the building. So you'll show us a drawing basically that will show us from the different angles and sides what you will view a 50,000 square feet building on that site, is that right? Kate Aanenson: I'll show you footprints. I'm not going to show you an architectural. Councilman Senn: That's the contradiction right there, and you know I think what we need to get, or at least maybe you don't but I need to get comfortable with a 50,000 square feet building on that site. Because that's what you're talking about if you want... Mayor Mancino: Because the mass is very different in the neighborhood, yeah. Councilman Senn: Well you're talking 60 units. You're coming back to that and 60 units right there in black and white, we had it before tonight means a 50,000 square feet building on that site abutting that neighborhood. In my mind I can visualize that very easy. But that's my business. Okay, and that's going to be a big monolith of a building sitting next to that residential neighborhood. Councilman Engel: I'd like to propose something different rather than focusing on a monolithic building. How about we stick with the, not stick with, consider the existing requirements of the 65% impervious surface on that site with say the existing height requirements of 26 feet and see if that can suffice for the options rather than going to specifics on all these things. 65% of the surface, what are your options at those height limits? And open it up a little bit. 50 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Kate Aanenson: We can certainly show you different renderings of different buildings. We're not architects. We can do that. I mean you can have them do a photo composite based on what they've got there. I'm not sure again. Councilman Engel: I say a lot of it's going to be conjecture. But if we try 65% of the space, we're already on record as saying that's... Scott Botcher: What does it look like? Councilman Engel: Let's see what we've got for options and if you keep that height restriction in, what can we do? Brad Johnson: You get the flat roof. Councilman Engel: I don't know Brad. I don't know. I'm not a designer. I mean if you want to start going down the specifics lane, I think that's where we're getting in trouble. Everybody's butting in. Councilman Labatt: That bottom picture there, is that the assisted living you proposed? Brad Johnson: That's a 60,000 square feet. Councilman Labatt: 60,000? Brad Johnson: Yeah. This is the proposal... 65% impervious surface and 50 feet setbacks all around. Mayor Mancino: And it uses adaptive re-use. Brad Johnson: One of the key elements here is what can I do with the adaptive re-use? Okay. We said well the church fits nicely as an office. As a church and potentially is a core for assisted living. That's where this came from.., so I was just saying that was the idea. Mayor Mancino: So we can use that. Brad Johnson: Yeah. Now we can have her work with the guy that did this. It doesn't take long for these guys to do it... so we could reset this and either come back with an actual design for these units... Councilman Labatt: Why don't you base it off of 4 to 6 per acre. Brad Johnson: Let's what I said... Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's what we'd like to see and see if we can see some massing. Brad Johnson: ...three stories will look different. We want to keep it low so they wouldn't see it. Councilman Labatt: What is that, how many stories in the bottom rendering? Brad Johnson: Two. 51 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Engel: Which is within limits. Brad Johnson: I think this is pretty, you know if you had flat roofs... Councilman Engel: We might want pitch, I don't know. Brad Johnson: 10, 12 feet per floor minimum. Okay... Councilman Engel: Do we need a motion? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Mayor before you make a motion, maybe perhaps you could ask the applicant if he'd grant us an extension of time in which to complete our review of his application. Jim Sulerud: Is the same as asking for tabling or is that just for an extension? Roger Knutson: We're asking you to grant an extension of time in which the city can complete their review so they can table it. Otherwise they would have to act tonight. Jim Sulerud: Our request is for that extension of time and we would be pleased to work with staff with your input towards a solution. Roger Knutson: Can we have a time on that? 60 days. 30 days. How long do we reasonably need? Mayor Mancino: Let's ask staff. Let's try to do it in 30 days. Kate Aanenson: 30 days is fine. Mayor Mancino: 30 days okay with you Jim? Jim Sulerud: 30 days. Otherwise we're back on and then okay. Brad Johnson: If you could write down what everybody said and then we can give it to an architect and have him lay out. Kate Aanenson: You've got it. Councilman Engel: I think they've been taking dubious notes here. Roger Knutson: You've got it verbatim. Sue McCarthy: ... Mayor Mancino: Let's get it all out because this is it. 52 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Sue McCarthy: We've talked about 60 units and when you calculate space for 25,000 square feet and you try to calculate 60 units, that's not really what we should be thinking of totally. We also need to make sure that when we talk about total square footage, we also take into account common areas. So while 60 units fitting into 25,000 square feet, it should be 60 units plus. Councilman Senn: Nobody has proposed that. Sue McCarthy: Wait a minute. I'm hearing. That's why I wanted to make sure. Councilman Labatt: If you put 25,000 square feet, we're not going to put 60 units in there. There's no way to do it. Sue McCarthy: But what I heard you all say you want to put together a footprint with 65% impervious and how many. Mayor Mancino: It includes everything. Sue McCarthy: And that includes the common areas...25 to 40%. I did not hear that. That's why I wanted to clarify that. Mayor Mancino: Good. I'm glad you asked. I have no problem with that. But the footprint Sue will include everything that would go into a senior assisted care facility. Everything. All the bathrooms. Everything. Please include. Steve Nomess: Hi, I'm Steve Nomess. My day job is I work in the health care field and I manage a program called Friendship Village of Bloomington and maybe I can give clarity regarding some of the things stated this evening. And I think some of the things we're working on is the unknown. Assisted living is designed as a non regulated industry to create flexibility for a developer to put in what the consumer wishes. Current health care designs today, if you're in a... skilled nursing home, there are set regulations. There are statutes out and furthermore there's a moratorium so you cannot build additional skilled nursing beds. The industry today is talking about the housing Maja organization moved forward an act called Housing with Service. The primary core of that is you develop a relationship with the residents. As any other business would do as you develop what services you're going to provide and there's a contractual relationship. There is no government regarding what square footage. It's market driven so a developer coming in would put something that is market focused. I manage an independent living and to give you an example, my grandmother who lives there and she's in our studio and she's in a place that's 436 square feet which includes a kitchenette, a bedroom and that is a market nitch that certain people wish to have. And as we work through these things I would somewhat be careful of managing what has to be in there. What's common space because you're getting into an area that the consumer needs to be driving that and we know what the consumers out there so we can assist staff but really I think the core issue is the density on the property is what we're talking about. One of the things, just the 25,000 square feet or the 21,000 square feet was a preliminary plan that was put out and it's driven by parking. How large a sanctuary it's going to be is how many people will sit in it and how many teachers are going to be. There wasn't much detail to that except that was a number that was picked out picking how big the sanctuary would be one day so we're in support of going back and looking at it. We're in support of developing some options. One other thing. The home care rule regulations which are quoted, assisted living provider, if they're going to provide more services than just food and shelter and housing and recreation and if they're going to bring in any medical care, they license with a home care provider and what's happening, these are 53 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 really home care rules. And it's a Class A license here. If you're providing home care. So either a provider would subcontract with either Fairview or Methodist to come in and provide additional services. The impetus is to get people living longer, independent in these types of settings. What's being discussed is that providers can do a modified home care agreement in which the service is only to that population and it makes it easier so what we're avoiding is the rules and regulations of charting and having someone come in and do the surveying so it's a modified agreement which does not extend, making the program community based. It's to that primary market group and those are the rules that are being reviewed and so just a little clarity on that. Any questions? Mayor Mancino: No. I have a father in law and we're going through looking for assisted living facility right now. Two bedrooms. Do you want to make a motion? Councilman Engel: Move to table. Mayor Mancino: Second that. Any questions from staff or anyone else on clarification? Councilman Engel moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to table the the second and final reading for a request for an amendment to the Hidden Valley PUD to allow church facilities, assisted living facility or office as permitted uses, and to incorporate specific design parameters for future development of Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: So guess what everyone, we get to see you and you get to see us yet again. The process goes on and thank you all for coming tonight. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Scott Botcher: Okay, let's roll. I'm sorry, a couple things. One, I did respond to Mr. Finger. The gentleman who talked about the lighting and the siren and the berming at Bandimere Park. Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Scott Botcher: Okay. I did send him a complete packet because I gave the grading plan. I gave him the landscape plan. There's some misunderstanding on his part. I explained to him that if he wishes to have the sirens moved, he needs to make that request of the city. I think Todd you said we're talking about two grand to move that siren. Mayor Mancino: $1,400. Scott Botcher: Something like that. Yeah to move the siren and I said if you wish to have the council consider that, he needed to make that request. He has not yet done so but we need to get a response to him. I got a letter in the mail today, and I don't know Nancy, you may have gotten this as well. On the Youth Commission. At some point District 112 is requesting the City of Chanhassen to appoint one adult member to a District 112 Youth Commission for a two year term. So if there's anything I need to do for that, you guys all need to give me some direction. Mayor Mancino: Well I want to know who represents our community as a youth on that youth commission. 54 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Senn: Well there's been an adult... Mayor Mancino: Well if there needs to be, could you find that out? Scott Botcher: I'll have to ask. Mayor Mancino: I don't think we have a youth, let alone an adult. Can I go back to your first one, only because Mr. Klein came also that night and asked about the berm and he was, he has not been contacted. And part of our recommendation was that he and staff and Lundgren figure out the berm. So if you could call Mr. Klein and follow up on that, appreciate it. Scott Botcher: Yep. Mayor Mancino: I talked to him on Sunday I think it was to ask to do a follow-up. Scott Botcher: We saw him outside the other day too didn't we Todd. Over by his place... What else do we have? And I don't know if you guys needs to approve this or not. I don't think so but I want to make sure that it's on the record that the Chamber of Commerce has asked that I become an exofficio member of their Board of Directors and I have accepted that. If you guys have a problem with that, then tell me and I can play basketball on Wednesday instead of go to the meeting. That's all I got. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION: Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions on Admin Section? Councilman Senn: On Carver County HRA issue. With the purchasing of the houses and stuff. Once Carver County identifies a site, could we please set up a process to notify people within the area what the site is so they know it's going there. And if there's comment, have an avenue for comment. Rather than have them come in after the fact and say gee you fooled us on this one guys. Scott Botcher: Now they, and Todd correct me if I'm wrong. We had a couple of phone conversations with this guy and this letter is actually the second, because we had the same concern as to we don't know where you're going. The neighbors don't know where you're going. He does run a public notice and that's published in the legal newspapers in whatever community they're going into. Did he say because I don't remember Todd honestly if he mailed notices to neighbors or not. We can ask them to do that. Mayor Mancino: The letter to the editor only, it was very general. It didn't say where and so if you found the Carver County HRA was going to buy 20 homes, you wouldn't know where in Chanhassen. Councilman Senn: Especially when it said single family condos and townhomes. Scott Botcher: Yeah, they ran a public notice and then they ran that letter to the editor. Those are the two efforts to communicate on their part. Councilman Senn: We really need to kind of break it down more and notify the immediate areas and let people know. 55 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1999 Councilman Engel: I had a question on that. Regardless of what they come in and say, what power does this council have to affect Carver County HRA? Scott Botcher: From my understanding little or none. Councilman Engel: That's what I'm afraid. I know I'm wanting that...the impression that hey, we don't like our taxes. You guys can knock them down. We all know that doesn't work. I want them to know we're under the same limitations when we let them know about this. Councilman Senn: Well you have to go from two standpoints. One is yeah, I mean if you technically go at it, they can do whatever they want and they don't have to talk to us. Councilman Engel: Yep. Councilman Senn: Technically. Okay, but at the same time they are also on record when they started this program out, and many of you weren't even on the council at the time, they came in and stated up front that they won't do anything in Chanhassen without our approving it. Okay, you know the whole deal was they came in and asked us number one.., a couple years ago when Julie Frick and that other person came in and they set out. We met out at the public works building. Councilman Engel: I remember it. Councilman Senn: And they said very deliberately that here's kind of what we had in mind for a show and the program. What we want to do. We said we had some issues and concerns on it and they said fine but you'll get to approve anything before we do it. Scott Botcher: I will, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll send them a letter saying that this council... Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 56