Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC Minutes 1996 08 12
City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Tom Scott, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Dave Hempel, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr and John Rask APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with an addition by Councilman Berquist of a discussion regarding Oak Ponds under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #96-67: Accept Public Improvements in Forest Meadows, Project 95-18. b. Final Plat Approval, Rook Place, Michael Lynch. c. Resolution #96-68: Approve Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force for 1997. City Council Minutes dated July 22, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 24, 1996 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 23, 1996 g. Annual Review; Use of Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route as a Snowmobile Trail. h. Resolution #96-69: Approve Election Judges and Their Rate of Pay for the Primary Election. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Mark, you can take (I) and we'll carry (d) and (e) to item number 9(a). I. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS, PARK REFERENDUM TASK FORCE. Mayor Chmiel: We have several people in the audience and I've been made aware of the fact that they would like to address that. Councilman Senn: On (I), basically (I), if I'm understanding the agreement correctly...basically if this process is undertaken and they go out to obtain the parcels and if those parcels cannot be picked up for less than the appraised value, then one of two things will happen. One is, the City will have the right to pick up the options which means we will then pay 3% of the fee plus all costs, or if there isn't a margin which effectively that situation creates, there isn't a margin day, the TPL will be back in to ask the City to enter a professional services agreement to accomplish the same thing. Neither of those things were clear in the agreement and I don't have a big problem with the agreement as it sits but I think Council should understand that out of all probability, one of those two situations will be the situation we end up in at the end of this thing. Because I mean the City itself isn't going to City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 have discussions with some of those landowners and I don't think we're dealing with landowners who, I'm going to say not knowledgeable parties so from that standpoint I think they will effectively one way or the other through the options agreement.., or through a special request coming back and effectively converting this to a professional services contract. Mayor Chmiel: Is there someone that can address that from the task force Todd? Councilman Senn: Well to answer your question Steve, I'm not really advocating a language change because, as I understood it, especially from Todd... today, if either of those things happen, they have to come back to the Council for action. Okay. But I'm just saying that when you read the agreement here, you kind of get the impression that you know, that those are kind of like worse case scenarios and, well one is a worse case scenario. The other one isn't even addressed but you kind of get the feeling that this is just going to happen and it's going to happen expense free and there's going to be this differential and it's going to make everybody happy but I think there needs to be more understanding to the fact that that's probably not the real world and that it's going to be one of the two that I mentioned is probably.., and will come back to us at that time for help. Correct me if I'm wrong. Councilman Berquist: Those of us on the task force realize that we're not dealing with anyone that is naive regarding the values of their property. Councilman Senn: Yeah but I mean, you're effectively entering a professional services contractor to deal with it... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone from the, would like to address this. Todd do you know? Anyone else? As far as the entirety of the project is concerned. Just for those people here who probably may or may not be aware of that park referendum in itself. Just a slight overview. Todd Hoffman: Sure, we have Alison Blackowiak, who is Co-Chair and Nancy Mancino, the Co-Chair of the task force... Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Just a brief one as to what is. Nancy Mancino: I am Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. Alison Blackowiak: And I'm Alison Blackowiak at 8116 Erie Circle. Nancy Mancino: Now what was the question? Mayor Chmiel: Just a slight overview as to what the project is and what we're looking for. In probably about a 5 minute or 8 minute dissertation. Nancy Mancino: Well hopefully we did that in our memorandum to you. That we have been talking to TPL for quite a while and trying to negotiate with them a contract...to us as a task force and also ...all of us sat down with Roger and have gone through reiterations... If TPL does not exercise the option, in the event that TPL has an option on the property, determines not to exercise it, TPL shall notify Chanhassen...the obligations that TPL and Chanhassen... TPL, at the request of Chanhassen. So it has to be at the request of the City Council, shall assign such option to Chanhassen...take on that option. If you decide not to, you do not owe them anything. Does that answer your question? Councilman Senn: Oh yeah, I got it answered. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what I should have clarified a little bit more, just a brief overview as to what we're looking for within the entirety of this project and going out and acquiring this parklands and such. The reason I say that is, there probably are some new people who just recently moved in town and where a couple that are here only a month or so and what I'd like to do is to just for a few of those, and those who are not aware, just to make them aware of this. Alison Blackowiak: Last year the City Council and Park and Rec Commission got together and decided that there may be for some parkland in the city of Chanhassen and decided to form a task force to look at that proposition. At that time the Task Force was formed and charged with basically going out and trying to decide if that was something Chanhassen needed. If we needed additional open space, parkland, trails and if so, what kind of response the citizenry of Chanhassen had. Over the past year we've looked at various properties and have tried to City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 as a task force identify the properties that we felt would be not only available potentially to purchase but also would fit in with the types of recreation and open space issues that the City would be facing. We have located some properties that we're interested in and throughout this time we've been talking with people from Trust for Public Land. They are an organization that would be willing to help us acquire some of these properties and you decided that.., the trust program could help us in acquiring these properties and said do some of the leg work to bring purchase options to the City of Chanhassen. So at this time we hopefully outlined our process and...information about the Trust for Public Land and we hope that with their assistance we'll be able to identify and secure options on the properties that we feel as a task force would be in the best interest of Chanhassen. Chanhassen acquiring for future parkland, open space and trails. Nancy Mancino: And I would just like to add to that. One of the reasons why we're doing that at this time is that most of the land in Chanhassen, or as we all know who have been around to see how much of it is being developed and so we wanted to have the fore sight and... City Council now before the land becomes more expensive and comes into the MUSA line. And our...to put forth a referendum to everyone here in Chanhassen and the task force is deciding, or the City Council is deciding whether we should go ahead and put in money to acquire these sites... hopefully everybody in Chanhassen will have the opportunity to vote on this referendum to show whether it's.., for our city and whether we want to keep it. So that's what we're here for and we would very much like you to... Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. That was a very good overview. Is there a motion for item 1(I). Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agreement with the Trust for Public Lands. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Darlene Huseth: Good evening. My name is Darlene Huseth, 7332 Frontier Trail. My concern is taxes. I have been to the County Commissioners with my letter and I am going to go to the School Board next week with concerns much the same for the whole county. And of course I do live in Chanhassen and of course I'm bringing it to this Council. We would like to voice our great concern over recent property tax increase in Chanhassen and in communities across the State and the Nation. This disturbing trend is one that should be curbed for the sake of all, but especially for the sake of our young families. As a retired couple on a fixed income trying to make ends meet at best is difficult. After the last four years our property tax bill has increased 74%. That is we now pay nearly twice the monthly tax statement than our entire house payment was during the term of our mortgage. We are not opposed to paying our fair share and we are not opposed to investing in the education of children, even though our children have long been out of the school system. But we are opposed to the seemingly unchecked manner in which the tax dollars are raised and spent. In and of themselves, schools, park and improvements are more than appropriate uses of the tax dollars as they do improve the quality of life for all of us. We in Chanhassen have good schools, safe neighborhoods, and many career opportunities. Accordingly many desire to make their homes here and the growth has been phenomenal since we moved here in 1965. But it does not take a math genius to calculate that new homes and industries also generate a broader tax base. It is this increased tax base that should support the increase burden on the city, county and construction structure. In business or in household budgets, when cash in does not exceed cash out, it is a clear indication of poor management and/or too rapid growth. That business or that household do not have the option of going to their clients or to their boss demanding more money for the same services simply because they like to spend more than they have. Local government needs to be accountable to this principle.., succumb the same fate as the Federal government has. So deeply in debt they may never recover. There are many ways to curb expenses but here are examples of just two. First of all waste represents a fine opportunity to reduce spending within many areas of government. As a public school employee of 20 years, I can attest to the many wasted resources spent on the state-of-the-art facilities, technologies and programs that do not help the education of the child. Secondly, privatization offers an excellent means through which cities around the nation can successfully turn reducing expenses and increasing efficiency in departments such as trash removal, City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 road maintenance and snow removal. We employ you to consider this point on your next vote on yet another bond issue or tax increase. Young parents need more time at home, not more time at the office trying to earn the overtime needed to pay for one more tax. Let's use more efficiency from funds available from our growing tax base and our existing tax base. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. I just might add that from the city's standpoint, in the last 8 years that I'm aware of, the City in itself is the one who gets the smallest piece of the pie and keeping your roads, the snow removal, maintenance upkeep and everything else. In 5 years we had given reductions, out of the 8. Anywhere from 5 to 10 percent for each of those given years. We remain with our taxes the same level that we did the year before. One year we did have to raise taxes, that's because of the cuts that were done by the State of Minnesota and that one year was 2/10th's of 1%. So I'm hopeful that the City has been operating in the positions that you're asking to continue in and that we have most diligently watched the dollars and the costs associated with it. As we all sit up here, except our attorney, we're all those same kind of taxes and we're all not too happy with them either. There isn't too much that we can do about it. More specifically since a lot of those things are done through the County in raising and assessing and enforcing, the City doesn't have anything to do with that but I don't disagree with you at all. I think there should be some areas that something should stop at some given time and hopefully it should start soon. So appreciate that. The next item that we have on our agenda is a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL & BAR, 550 WEST 79TM STREET. Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Is someone here from Applebee's to present their request? Would you please come forward and state your name. Catherine Liebman: Catherine Liebman and I have Naomi Nelson here as well. She'll be the General Manager. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. And is there any concerns that you have in regard to the issuance of the liquor license, other than the fact that you'd really like to have one. Catherine Liebman: No sir. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, alright. Thank you. I just wanted to see who was represented here by Applebee's. Catherin Liebman: Thank you. And we'll see you at our VIP party... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Can I have a staff report on this please? Don Ashworth: Yes Mr. Mayor. Application has been made. The notices were sent out to all property owners within 500 feet. Public Safety Department did review the application and the background of each of the individuals making the application. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for an on-sale intoxicating license for the new Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurant at 550 West 79th Street. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the request for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the new Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurant at 550 West 79th Street contingent upon receipt of the license fee. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW OF LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE CHANHASSEN BOWL. City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Don Ashworth: The City Council acted to approve the liquor license for the Chanhassen Bowl back in May, but with the condition that the item come back to the City Council wanting to ensure that in fact the applicant did pay first half taxes and then they wish to see progress being made on other back taxes. Staff was unsure as to what the Council was looking for as far as additional progress on back taxes. Again they did pay first half. Typically a license is for a one year period of time and again your action in May was to have that for basically a three month period of time and then return to the City Council so the item is being returned. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant have anything further that he'd like to discuss. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail, representing Mr. Dahlin in the absence of his attorney, as the developer of the project... Basically I think we reported to the HRA that we are making progress on the problem that's been created because of the tax.., primarily anticipated that we'd have financing in place for the entertainment center. As a part of that process we had.., current time. That has been delayed due to one of the tenant's process of getting their financing. We metwithMr. Ashworth and Todd and also visited, abriefvisit together...we're in the process now of saying well maybe, since or the idea is why don't we just bridge this current time and pay off the taxes bringing the title clean and we're in the process of doing that. We have a couple of interested bankers that are interested in doing it. Today's process is that we must at this time prepare an operating statement and some performance for Filly's, assuming that nothing ever else happened to the entertainment complex. We didn't build. We didn't move Pauly's over there. The banks want to know...establishment will be able to pay off a loan of about $450,000.00... Mr. Dahlin has agreed to personally guarntee the debt that the, and his financial statement would support it. The problem we have is we just don't have the necessary paperwork in place. We're working on that and we anticipate either later this week or the first part of next week we'll have that. The HRA asked us to keep them up to speed.., so I'd say we're working on that process. That would not involve the City whatsoever in paying of the taxes and then we can progress on with the rest of the development so we're trying to take care of... Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: The only one I was going to mention, regarding follow-up on negotiations with Mr. Dahlin's attorney was going to get back to us and inform us on a daily basis as to what is happening, or as quickly or as much as he knew at that particular time. Has he followed through with that, and I didn't have a chance to talk to Todd on this. Brad Johnson: We have talked to Todd. I'm not sure, he's on vacation...but we did... Right now we're missing the performa on the bowling center by itself. We never had anticipated something... Mayor Chmiel: And I'd like to at least have the Council made aware of this so we know where this is really at. Good. Is there any discussion by Council? Councilman Senn: I do. First Don, I'd like to just clarify the motion that we made and... Which extended the renewal of the liquor license for a period of three months on the condition that he pay his May 15th property taxes, and he come back in a 3 month period and show progress for paying back taxes. You know kind of draw kind of a period there even though there isn't one. And be able to demonstrate some ability to finish paying offthe back taxes within the next 3 months should another 3 month extension be granted. And to date no payment has been made on back taxes. Councilman Berquist: The only one that's been made is May '96. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Berquist: There is $115,000.00 sitting in a bank. Councilman Senn: I don't know. Where is it? Councilman Berquist: That's what I've been told anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We can probably get back to that and see. Steve, go ahead. Councilman Berquist: Mr. Dahlin is not here and his. Brad Johnson: Yes he is. City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Oh he is here, okay. First half '96 was paid. And there's currently $115,000.00 sitting in one of the local banks in town that was going to be assigned by a letter of credit to the City of Chanhassen. Brad Johnson: Not correct. Councilman Berquist: Not correct? Brad Johnson: No. We said what we would do is, the City of Chanhassen pay the taxes to the HRA. We would assign part interest in it. They did not do that and I don't know if it's the right thing for them to do. He left the cash in the bank for the following reasons. You have to look at Mr. Dahlin as like a bank himself. He repossesed the property. He's invested a half million dollars so he could.., over the years. He didn't want to own the building. What we were going to do is use the letter of credit, or the cash that we have in reserve, to pledge against the payment of mortgage we're trying to raise. The $450,000.00 and the reason we're doing that is that because, Filly's and the bowling does not necessarily have the worlds greatest history of operation, historically. Andwe don't have the performance so we said to the bank, what happens if we pledge for real estate, or $450,000.00. That's worth about a million two to a million eight. What happens if we pledge Mr. Dahlin's personal net worth? What happens if we pledge against the performance of the $115,000.00 that you have in your hands... We're using that as sort of leverage to make sure that we can balance that against any shortfalls that may exist at Filly's. And they're offereing it. The banks, in order to make a loan today, have to see that there's an operating payment and so we need that money for now.., for a couple months of negotiations recommend that we do do something with the next half taxes. We're just hoping to use that as an additional collateral...our proposal is, to provide a personal guarantee Our proposal is to provide a letter of credit of $115,000.00 to pay the first mortgage of about a million two to a million eight as collateral for the loan and we think we can get the loan done. The reason we don't have it done to date is quite honestly... Councilman Berquist: Did I understand you right to say that there is no performa available on the bowling center? Brad Johnson: There will be one on the bowling center available in about 2 weeks. Councilman Berquist: So then the question regarding the revenue that's generated by this liquor license is unanswerable? Brad Johnson: No, that's not the question. The question is it profitable? Is it a profitable enterprise from the bank's point of view... Councilman Berquist: Can you answer the question, how much revenue is generated by the liquor license? Brad Johnson: ...about half a million dollars. Councilman Berquist: Just the liquor license aspect of it is, the bowling center including the on-sale? I'm sorry, the on-sale portion is half a million dollars and... Okay. So 50% of your revenue is from there? Alright. Brad Johnson: It's Mr. Dahlin's opinion that it won't be able to... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and that was my question Brad. I mean I'm having a hard time divorcing what we do tonight with what may happen in a few weeks. It was my understanding that bank financing was somewhat questionable and that it may come back to what the City would be asked to float the loan and that's... Brad Johnson: I can't speak, I think it's a financable transaction. I think if we keep it all lined up like that. I think because of the way banks will allow.., and because of it's history. Remember Mr. Dahlin foreclosed on this loan. The reason he has possession of it is he is the bank. Okay. So now he's got the first bank has foreclosed on it. This was years ago. Another banker foreclosed on it. So Mr. Dahlin pays it all off. That's not a real good trend to come in with. To a bank. So we're trying to structure it as such that it would be half the plan...arrange the financing for the whole entertainment complex to include the tax payoff as a part of that transaction. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But that.., stuff done? City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Brad Johnson: Well I think.., all these players over there. Everybody seems to be working towards the direction of getting it done and this, you know. Now they're trying to, and I think the solution is...we're suggesting. We need a little bit of time to accomplish that. We have two applications out right now. Possibly three. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you think. Brad Johnson: They also asked for an appraisal and the appraisal will be done in about a week, week in a half. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you think we'll have all our answers in a couple weeks? Brad Johnson: We can keep you posted. We are getting an appraisal and we are doing all those kinds of things that the bank requires. And the key element is the appraisal and the financial performance. And Mr. Dahlin has the financial part of it... Any other questions?... Councilman Berquist: I'd sure like to have a, well go ahead Mark. Councilman Senn: I understand I guess the need to keep the money somewhat loose as it deals with the financing terms but you know the back taxes are what, $450,000.00 is it? And so the $115 we're talking about is less than 25% of the amount that's due. It seems to me a good way for us to proceed would be to go ahead and grant an extension for another three months but make it contingent upon the $115,000.00 being put in a letter of credit to the City saying that only drawable by the City is the taxes aren't paid in the next 90 days. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you're saying they get the $115... ? Councilman Senn: They have it. It allows them to take the $115 to get the loan. And if they get the loan, they pay the back taxes, which means the $115 stays loose. But should we end up at the end of the three months again with absolutely no progress, then the $115,000.00 comes to the City as payment of less one quarter of the taxes and this goes forward or whatever. But you know, it at least protects our position as it relates to... grant time extensions with absolutely no proof of performance. And that seems a reasonable say to do it. It does not tie money up and it allows him to accomplish what he wants, yet puts us in a secure position. To at least get the $115. Brad Johnson: I think we have to stop and think that this money is not the bowling alley's money. It's Mr. Dahlin's personal money. And I think he has to think about...that's where we are...give us a couple weeks and we'll be able to answer that question. Mayor Chmiel: Well we can also be granting in conjunction with what you're saying, except without the total amount of dollars that would be involved. Is rather than going with the additional 3 months, 15th of October is when taxes are basically due. We could have our meeting in the second Monday of the month to determine what has transpired. Councilman Senn: My concern with that Don is if we give another 3 month extension, we're going to be there and you're going to have second half taxes due and now you're got $465,000.00 already due and if this comes back to us 3 months with no progress or no financing, that $465 is then going to become what, what's the annual Don? What's the annual tax payment for that? Don Ashworth: I believe they're right around $85,000.00. Dan Dahlin: $88,000.00. Councilman Senn: So it becomes approximately $550,000.00 then at that point we're in the hole on back taxes. What I'm saying is, if we give that time, we ought to have $115,000.00 worth of security to guarantee that we at least get that much at that point in time for granting those time extensions. That's all I'm saying. And if he does his financing, gee that works out great. He's got his money free and pays the back taxes and we're all set. Brad Johnson: Without checking both with Mr. Dahlin's attorney and Mr. Dahlin, I can't comment on that.., if it has no liquor license, there is no bowling alley. If there is no bowling alley, there is...just give us two weeks to give you a better answer than we do right now. Councilman Berquist: It's discussable then? Brad Johnson: Huh? City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: His idea is discussable? Brad Johnson: Yeah. I think there are things, we're just trying to work our way through... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well instead of working with unanswered questions, why don't we just grant a month extension. Let's talk about it. If you do in fact think you're going to have things in place, let's just talk about it then. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. That was going to be the other part of it as well. Councilman Senn: So you're going to grant another month's extension with no commitment for any payment whatsoever in the next month? Councilwoman Dockendorf: They don't have, they're working on it. I mean they really are. Councilman Senn: I know they're working on it but. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, it's on a month. Mayor Chmiel: Well even if we cut that month to two weeks, as Brad indicated, we would know that by our next Council meeting. Councilman Mason: Well let's give him some cushion. I agree with Colleen. I think the month is a good compromise. And then they'll have time to discuss this other option amongst themselves and see what shakes out. Brad Johnson: The reason I can't answer... Councilman Senn: Well has Mr. Dahlin talked about it? I mean he and I and his attorney talked about that idea a month ago. Brad Johnson: His attorney is absent today...we're working on it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: That would be my motion to extend the liquor license for Chanhassen Bowl for one month, or two meetings shall we say? Two Council meetings. Councilman Mason: Whichever comes first. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Whichever comes first. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to extend the liquor license for the Chanhassen Bowl for two City Council meetings to discuss it at that time. All vcoted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.57 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST; LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND ADJACENT TO MELODY HILL ROAD, MELODY HILLS, SPRINGBROOK CORPORATION. City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a very simple, straight forward subdivision. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 4.57 acres into 10 single family lots. The property is currently zoned residential single family. It is located east of Highway 41 and Chaska Road, south of Melody Hill Road and north of Minnetonka Middle School West. The average lot size is 16,180 square feet. The resulting gross density is 2.1 units per acre. All the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with exception of one lot. That is Lot 8. This parcel has frontage of 85 feet. The ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. We believe this can be easily corrected. They just need to shift a few lines and we'll work with the applicant on it. The access to the project will be via a newly constructed cul-de-sac which will extend southwest of existing Melody Hill. There are trees distributed throughout the site with a natural line along the north and south side of the property. Due to grading, a large number of those trees will be removed. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard variance to push the homes closer to the cul-de-sac at Lots 8, 9 and 10 and save the trees located south of those parcels. Staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to place the homes 20 feet from the front property line. This way we can protect more trees. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Something that you wish to say. Howard Kyllo: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'm Howard Kyllo with Springbrook Corporation. This is our first time developing in Chanhassen and I wanted to say our appreciative we are of the help that we've gotten from the staff, specifically Sharmin A1-Jaff, Kate Aanenson, Dave Hempel, Bob Generous have been very helpful in helping us resolve our issues at the staff level. We have very little else to add. I'm basically here to answer questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions at this time? Councilman Berquist: I don't have any questions. I have some, I mean it's an absolutely gorgeous homestead now and progress is oft times bittersweet. It's difficult to imagine that site developed. That's the only comment I've got. Councilwoman Dockendorf: the middle of the cul-de-sac. softening our position? Well those were my exact thoughts. I did have one question though. The island in This is more for Dave. I thought the Fire Marshal didn't approve of those. Are we Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We've been working with Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal and actually went out and took a fire truck out into the cul-de-sacs and tested them. They are able to maneuver a fire vehicle with the center islands as long as there are certain dimensions that have to be followed... Howard Kyllo: This is a 150 foot cul-de-sac rather than the standard 120 which creates a larger radius...maintains the street width around. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah, how does that affect, I mean that obviously puts more concrete out there. Is that taking any more trees than a regular 120 or 1307 Howard Kyllo: No. The house is sitting right... If we try to, originally we wanted to have a village green sort of subdivision that would be in character of the old neighborhoods there. That wasn't practical. This is the closest we could come to having a nice, a little oversized island and an oversized cul-de-sac. It also helped the frontages of the lots so they can now squeeze down to the minimum of... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I have no further questions. I just echo what Steve said. Howard Kyllo: We're going to do our best to maintain the character of the site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well it's difficult to do with 10 lots on 4 ½ acres but I appreciate it. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Mason: No questions. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: David. Looking at the plans I didn't really see anything as far as storm sewer goes. So where is retention or where is all the water going to go? Dave Hempel: The plans do propose a storm sewer line at the back of the cul-de-sac.., approximately half of the front yard... Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're saying the one going straight out, that line going out towards TH 417 Dave Hempel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright, in the plat it wasn't...storm sewer, okay. So that's going to run from the cul- de-sac out? So everything's basically going to drain to the ditch on TH 417 Dave Hempel: A little bit less than half the site will drain there. Councilman Senn: And where will the other half drain to? Dave Hempel: ...percentage, probably 10% or 15% will drain out via...to Melody Hill Road. Right now the property sheet drains in a northerly and westerly direction... State Highway 41. Councilman Senn: Okay, and TH 41 can handle that volume? The additional volume. Dave Hempel: We believe it can. We'll have drainage calculations to verify that. Just to add, there is a downstream storm water retention pond that was constructed as a part of the TH 7 and TH 41 shopping center. It eventually ends up there. Councilman Senn: Okay. That's what I was wondering. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay? I don't have any questions either. Councilman Berquist: I'd move approval of preliminary plat to subdivide, oh I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular time? If seeing none, I'd take that motion. Councilman Berquist: Should I make it again? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman I)ockendorf seconded to approves the preliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision #96-4) for 10 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback on Lots 8, 9, and 10, as shown in plans received June 14, 1996 with the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation conditions: 10 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 a. Applicant to install tree preservation fencing at grading limits prior to any grading or construction activities. Installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk. b. Applicant must submit tree removal plan for the development as a condition of approval. c. Applicant will be required to preserve any trees not scheduled for removal. Trees removed in excess will be replaced at a rate of 2 times the diameter. d. A landscape buffer plan along highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval. The landscape buffer plantings are in addition to the replacement planting of 24 trees. e. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. 2. Building Official conditions: a. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. Fire Marshal Conditions: A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. the street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable tv, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City ordinance 9-1. b. Install one additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Melody Hill Road and the new planned road. c. Submit street name to Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 4. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances. 5. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a permit. 8. The frontage on Lot 8 shall be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements of 90 feet lot frontage. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be 11 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 installed around the downstream side of the construction limits. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 12. The proposed single family residential development of 4.50 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,600 and a water quantity fee of $8,910. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 13. Lots 2 through 10 should be mass graded prior to utility installation. Lot 1 may be custom graded when the building permit has been obtained through the City. 14. The applicant shall consider installing retaining walls in the rear of Lots 8, 9, and 10 in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss. 15. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate demolition permits for removal of the existing house. Sewer and water services shall be abandoned and disconnected the right-of-way line at Melody Hill Road. The dwelling shall be removed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. 16. Staff and the applicant shall evaluate the location of the proposed storm sewer line between Lots 4 and 5 to see if this is the most feasible location. A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated o the final plat and centered over the storm sewer line. 17. Prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for staff review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. As-built construction drawings will be required upon completion of the utility and street improvements. 18. The cul-de-sac island shall be reviewed by City staff to ensure a proper turning radius for Public Safety vehicles and the cul-de-sac reduced accordingly. 19. All lots with the exception of Lot 1 shall access the interior proposed street. No direct access will be permitted from State Highway No. 41 or Chaska Road. Lot 1 shall access from Melody Hill Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD, A 4 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD, A 5 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, JAMES JASIN. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Mr. Jasin is requesting a variance to construct a year round home on the lot which measures approximately 5,600 square feet. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 130 feet long. The property contains an existing 22 x 37 foot one story home. On July 22nd of 1996 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance request to Mr. Jim Jasin. By a 12 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 unanimous vote the Board voted to deny the variance request as submitted by the applicant. This matter was tabled during three previous meetings to give the applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans. The Board had indicated that they would consider approval of the variances if the applicant reduced the width of the house. As proposed the applicant is requesting a 6 foot variance on one of the side lot lines. A 4 foot on the other. The Board indicated that they would consider approval of a house which would be basically 26 feet wide and would have side yard setbacks of 7 feet on both of the side lot lines. The applicant has revised his plans since originally submitted. The plans move the house back to provide a 44 foot setback from the lake. The applicant's reduced the amount of impervious surface by reducing the length of the home and he also has reduced the length of the home to provide a 30 foot setback from the road. The overall height of the structure was also reduced by approximately 5 feet. However really the sticking point on this has been the side setbacks. As the Board had indicated that they would like to see a minimum of 7 feet. Staff had recommended approval based on the applicant's plans subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. One of those being that it was to be a lookout as opposed to a walkout as it was originally shown. And then the storm water being directed towards the street via rain gutters. Under the recommendation section of the staff report I also provided the recommendation as approved by the Board of Adjustments. Just to quickly go over. This is what is currently being proposed by the applicant. It's, actually this is level here so it'd be 44 feet and then 10 feet would be shaved offthe back by that 30 foot setback. As shown here. With that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions, Steve? Councilman Berquist: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: John, you've managed to confuse me, which I'll agree is not difficult. Where are we tonight? Are we looking at C in our packet? John Rask: Correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the applicant is willing, or wants to go with this one? John Rask: Yes. The applicant has accepted those revisions. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And that is what staff is recommending, however Board of Adjustments did not agree with that recommendation? John Rask: Yes, correct. They denied the application as submitted. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That was my question. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: No. No questions. Maybe a clarification for Colleen if I could Don. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: The Board of Adjustments I think offered to effectively pass on all the variances except the side yard and we made a specific request on the side yard... If the applicant would have conformed to that, I think we would have approved it. 13 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I don't have any questions. Is the applicant here this evening? Please come forward and indicate. Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin. My address is 3870 Maple Shores Drive. I'm here to answer any questions. Hope you'll approve the staff's recommendation. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, are there any questions from Council? Councilman Berquist: You're stuck on a 30 foot wide? Jim Jasin: My architect said, based on the style home that I have, that I would be well advised to stick with the 30 feet if I could. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's with a three car garage? Jim Jasin: Yes. And the house with two rooms on the lake side rather than one room. It's 13 feet per room facing the lake and that gets kind of squashed. This way you've got 14 feet and 16 feet. You've got a 14 feet per, adding a kitchen area and 16 feet for... If you go 26 feet, it gets... Councilman Berquist: So is adjustments and appeals advocating 26 or 28? John Rask: 26. Councilman Berquist: 26. Okay. Jim Jasin: We're asking for 30 feet. Councilman Berquist: Well I tell you. I went out there today and as you know, when those were all built they were kept to the northeast of the lot line so there was some side yard, and now you're in essence asking to maintain that narrow width of land on both sides of the structure. Jim Jasin: I can move it and go 5 and 5. That's fine. That's not a problem. I'm willing to place the house wherever you want it. And as I said, the square footage of the house is about 300 square feet. It's just the height. We made it a lookout rather than a walkout. Councilman Berquist: So you're not intending to re-use any of the foundation wall? You're going to push it all in. Jim Jasin: No, the way the house was built Steve is that it's an old cabin, maybe 70 to 75 years old. So it had some kind of a foundation but when they wanted a basement, they went in and dug it by hand or something... There's other variances in the neighborhood. There's a 8 foot variance where they're 2 foot from the property line. Councilman Berquist: There are? Jim Jasin: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Well I went through that list and I didn't see any that were 2 foot. Jim Jasin: The 8 foot side yard variance. Right there, the first one. Councilman Berquist: 36187 Jim Jasin: 93-6... It's only one side. 14 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: Well I know but you've got to get both sides if you're going to talk about granting them on the sides. Jim Jasin: The one that's closest is...was 40 feet here, 50 feet there on a 30 foot wide lot. 30 foot wide house. Mayor Chmiel: Which one is it Jim that has the three car garage down from you, going to the south? Councilman Berquist: The one right next to you. That's 3507. 3707. Mayor Chmiel: We looked at that last time. Jim Jasin: Now if I keep it to a lookout rather than a walkout, that will bring this up and I also brought the roof down. Councilman Berquist: I still have a hard time with the proximity of the house to the other houses. Mayor Chmiel: One of the major concerns I think I had at that time was the fact that if that were to be extended and the fire portion was part of my major concern with those roof tops so close together. And I guess that was still some of my concerns and I thought possibly that you may come back with something a little bit different with your floorplan as far as your width was concerned and narrow that down. But I don't see any changes within that. Jim Jasin: No the width... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I understand that. Councilman Berquist: It is for me too. Councilman Senn: It's also.., cover the lot. Councilman Mason: For me the issue is certainly not the quality of the house because I think it's clear, whatever you put up there will be a very nice home. I think that's understood. I have trouble with granting the side variances. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess my concerns go beyond that. I mean we're looking at a hard surface coverage that's still 51% and I think you know, Red Cedar Point is cottages and I know it's turning into year round family homes and you're certainly entitled to a reasonable use in building a home on that property. It's just your home that you desire may not fit on these lots. These lots are small. Jim Jasin: That's why I kept reducing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and I understand that. Jim Jasin: I've had five homes on the lake, or several of them because of changes in lifestyle and we wanted to stay on the lake but the taxes got...and we're trying to build a smaller home to reduce our tax base so we can stay there through retirement. I know that's not your issue but it's my issue. Mayor Chmiel: No, we understand those issues too. At least I do. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And some of our concern is, I mean there's quite a number of variances out there already and there are still I would say many homeowners who are in the beginning stages of thinking about doing what you're doing right now and we have to be concerned about setting a precedent. Jim Jasin: Well we want to compromise... 15 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we're looking for... How much, what's the height of the structure right now? You said you pulled the roof down. If we do a lookout. Jim Jasin: IfI do a lookout it's, you know a lookout on the lower level. A full story and then a second story with a 6:12 pitch, which the architect...about a 10:12 or 12:12... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what's the overall height? What size rooms do you have? Jim Jasin: Well they're 9 foot ceilings. So 18 plus 5 feet. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you willing to wiggle on the 9 foot ceilings? Jim Jasin: I'll take the roof down for you. Or maybe 9 foot ceilings on the first floor and 8 foot on the second. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I think we need to work on where we are now. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I have no questions but the other members of the Board of Adjustments I think felt very strongly about their position on this one and asked me to relate that. They're a pretty...group of people... I think part of it here was, you know when you see a lot and there's four variances being requested on one lot, it ought to tell you something about what's happening. And you know I think they looked at it hard and decided that there were three ways to give and if they gave all four, it was just going to... I think there's a real concern for other lots out there which are probably very quickly going to be in a similar situation, especially if this one is granted. Maybe some people should look at combining lots rather than trying to overcrowd them. You really have to go I guess drive it to get the flavor of it, but you know basically if you allow this to happen out there, you may as well just go out and build a high, high wall at the road and then...because that's going to be your view effectively. You're just going to shut off any through view at all with all those tiny lots out there. Now that's nobody's fault but that's still what you've got going. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, you looked like you wanted to say something. Councilman Berquist: Well, I understand where Mark's coming from. I understand where Jim's coming from. I mean I can appreciate your inkling that it's still a doable thing at 28 foot...but now we've got a 2 foot architectural difference and 2 feet in your architect's mind might be an appreciable amount of footage. 2 feet in my mind, on that lot, is too close. I mean it's just too close. And all the precedence that we open up a can of worms. The gentleman to the west of you, throw the codes out through the window because they're not going to mean anything at Red Cedar Point. I just don't think that's a wise position to set ourselves in. I've got a question for staff. Ifa variance is granted, does it follow the lot or does an applicant have to make application? In other words, if someone like Mr. Jasin were to come in and say he wants the variance and then be granted the variance and choose not to opt for construction. Does that variance follow the lot when it's sold? John Rask: Yes. Up until one year. We have a provision in our ordinance that says if no action has been taken in a year, the variance lapses. Expires. 16 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Alright, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I know that we've had neighbors from that particular area. If there's something new that you'd like to add to your previous statements, we'd be happy to hear those. If they're pretty much yet the same as what you've indicated, we do have records on this so. Any other questions? Anyone? Thanks. Is there anybody that has something more to add to it? Okay. We'll bring it back to Council. Steve. Councilman Berquist: Well I've pretty much said what I need to say. I'd be happy to get this thing over and done with and at least give you some direction, if he chooses to take it in granting the variances as outlined by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, but I don't think it's in our best interest to go beyond that. Mayor Chmiel: Agree. Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, whenever I look at an appeal, I look to the Board and they pretty strongly have said that they feel this is the most we should go. In fact I would go even further to talk about the overall height of the structure and if you would be willing Mr. Jasin, to reduce those ceiling heights and bring the roof down, I think that would be even better. But I guess at this point I support the Board's ruling. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: As do I. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't have to say anything. I've already voted. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I know that some of the other homes that you built on the lake were pointed out to me. You've done an excellent job and nice looking homes but to make that, even at 28 feet wide, I still have a problem. And 26 may be a given problem for you but for me it still is and my major concerns are, as Colleen has mentioned before and we've talked about this previously and that a precedent is going to be set and it's going to raise all kind of fun things for the City. I guess I really would like to see a given exchange or something new coming on that particular lot, but as it stands right now, I feel I just can't go along with that 28 even. Jim Jasin: How about if we go to 26 and make it a walkout so we have glass down below? Mayor Chmiel: Mark, what was the last discussion? John Rask: The issues associated with the walkout involved the amount of grading that would be necessary to accommodate that type of structure. Our concerns being, one drainage to the adjacent properties but also that ifthe oak trees that are between the existing cottage and the lake, lowering the grade there would essentially require those to be removed. Councilman Senn: I think that consideration was thrown out real early on. In fact I think it was the meeting you were at, that I wasn't at. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, yes. That's what I was trying to remember. Okay. Councilman Mason: Good try. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If there's no other changes that can be done, other than those that you've indicated, then I'm going to call for a motion, unless you feel you can't handle that, what the Board of Adjustments and Appeals has basically established. Jim Jasin: ...the Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended the 26 foot wide and a lookout. 17 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: I'll move the recommendation of the Board of Adjustments. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council approve a seven (7) foot side yard variance from the northeast lot line, a six (6) foot side yard variance from the southwest lot line, thirty- one (31) foot lakeshore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty-five (25) percent, for the construction of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed home shall be a lookout as opposed to a walkout style home. 2. Submit a grading and erosion control plan consistent with city ordinances at the time of building permit application. 3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct storm water towards the street and away from the adjacent residences. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TO ALLOW A BOAT LIFT ON THE BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES BEACHLOT LOCATED AT OUTLOT 1, BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES, MARY JO MOORE. Public Present: Name Address Paula Roettger Chanhassen John Weber Chanhassen Mary Jo Moore Chanhassen John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Mary Jo Moore is appealing the decision of the Planning Department to allow a boat lift on the Boyer's Sterling Estates beachlot. This is also an appeal of the Board of Adjustments decision. The Board held a public hearing on July 22nd to consider this appeal. By a unanimous vote the Board affirmed staff's decision. The Board concluded that a boat lift may be used on the Boyer's Sterling Estates beachlot and that boat lifts are not regulated by the beachlot ordinance and that boat lifts are not regulated by the beachlot ordinance. Just to give you a brief background on this. In '93 the City Council approved the non-conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling Homeowners Association for the recreational beachlot. The permit allowed two boats docked overnight at one dock 50 feet in length with an extension if it met the dock setback. In May of this year city staff was informed that the Homeowners Association was going to place a boat lift on the property. Staff informed both the compliantant and the association that a boat lift would be allowed on the property. Staffbased their decision on the fact that we believed that it was never the intent of the ordinance to reguate how boats were to be moored. The beachlot and the non-conforming use permit associated with these beachlots simply meant to limit the number of boats on the dock and the size and the length of the dock. We never got into how that boat would actually be attached or docked. When we went through and we inventoried beachlots in 1993, we didn't inventory boat lifts. This wasn't anything that even came up, either at the Planning Commission or City Council meetings. So therefore we have no records of which beachlots have boat lifts and if you've ever been out to a beachlot, there's a fair majority of them that do have boat lifts. We did not consider this an intensification of the use because there will be no additional boats stored. The boat lift as placed meets all other city requirements as far as setback and therefore we feel we made a correct interpretation of the code and of the 18 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 beachlot, or the non-conforming permit. We are therefore recommending that the Council approve of our decision and find that we did correctly interpret the ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John. Are there any questions of Council? Okay. Hearing none, is the applicant here this evening? And if so, I think we have the Minutes of everything that was contained. If there's something that you would like to add to your previous statement, we'd be more than happy to listen. Mary Jo Moore: My name is Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm appealing to the Council the recent decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals which I believe is erroneous, unfair and an offense to taxpayers in this community. The Board's decision and eventual, the Board's discussion and eventual decision appeared to be based primarily on what impact it's decision would have on other recreational beachlots and not on the issue at hand. Although...there is obviously.., other appeals that would need to be addressed. City staff's report states that in Section 6-1, which contains the City's definition of mooring, does not apply to beachlots, only to riparian lots. The definition I have of riparian is of, on or pertaining to the bank of a natural course of water. A riparian owner is one who only...bounded by, fronting upon, abutting or adjacent, contiguous to... Please explain to me why Section 6 does not apply to beachlots. Is the...beachlot...by anything? No. It is privately owned by all the citizens of Sterling Estates. It is on the bank of a natural course of water. Section 6 address homeowners association, however it does not define riparian lot. It also contains restrictions on operations of boats and motorcrafl. Does this mean that the owners of boats stopped at a beachlot do not have to comply with watercraft restrictions? ... further the ordinance on non-conforming beachlots does not contain a definition of mooring, whereby the City Code does. Therefore if there's a question, which there obviously is outside...board, then the definition should be drawn from the Chanhassen City Code, which is apropos to all lakeshore owners. Outlot owners and... This outlot has been in violation of all requirements of their permit from the very beginning. Even after the recent Board of Appeals meeting where a vehicle access was discussed at length... The City has continued to look at it... This residential, although not recorded association, was allowed an extension of four months to file a non-conforming permit. The reason, n°t'"this latestvi°lati°n andintensificati°n °fthe use °fthis °utl°tby m°°ring °f watercraft... If there is an error on... which will cause additional problems to the planning department or even this Council, this should not be consideration in determining what is written in the code.., numerous violations of the permit... At the very minimum I request that as elected representatives of the citizens, you enforce the permit.., as an intensification and not in conformance with the permit. Enforce the no vehicle access by insisting upon barriers across the entry to this property and require that the dock parts, tires, etc. be removed from this property. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know at the Board of Appeals there was some concerns by other people who were of course for this. Is there anyone here this evening that wishes to address that? And please watch your head on that TV set. Thank you. John Weber: My name is John Weber. I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive in Chanhassen. I live directly across from the outlot. I keep my boat at the outlot. I think a strong argument could be made that a boat lift is a safer means for securing a boat, mooring a boat next to a dock. Both from the standpoint of safety of the boat and the people boarding and unboarding the boat.., lakeshore property owners the availability to use a boat lift on their dock and not to allow an outlot owner or an outlot user access to a boat lift, I think would be a double standard. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John. Anyone else? Okay, if not. We'll bring this back to Council. Okay, Steve. Councilman Berquist: I don't consider a boat lift to be an intensification of the use. On the contrary, I consider a boat lift to be the other side of the concentration of use. Bringing the boat up out of the water is better for the lake. It's safer, like the gentleman said. I do not look at it as an intensification of use. I do, in going out to the property I do have some concerns that Mrs. Moore brings up regarding the neatness with which the area is kept. Her side of the fence is very meticulous. The other area is unkept. I did see dock parts. I did see pipes. I did not see any tires, and I looked over the park property fairly carefully. I cannot speak for the traffic on the site. I did not see any traffic while I was out there. I'm not inclined to require removal of the boat lift but I am inclined to require enforcement of the covenants of the beachlot. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. 19 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think the heart of the matter probably is the violations. Although I appreciate your concerns but I think, and I haven't spoken with you Ms. Moore but I think perhaps the issue really is the mess and the boat lift will only increase the mess. Nonetheless I don't think a boat lift will intensify the use. Have we been out there? Are there violations? Have we cited any? John Rask: Yeah, I don't know, if you consider. I did send them a letter last year requesting that they remove any unused dock parts from the beachlot and they had done that and there a few there now. I don't know if we specifically addressed that. If you don't use a section, if you have to remove it. They did last year when asked. I think some years maybe you don't go out as far, depending on the lake level. I don't know but it does get stored there over the winter and I think that's always been the intent to allow that to happen. They probably do need to get a sign up. I know there was one at one time. I don't know if it was removed by the homeowners association or if it was taken by somebody else but that would need to happen. Otherwise I find that, I think everything else they're in compliance with the permit. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Weber, perhaps you could answer the question. I mean do you have in your covenants who's responsible for that beachlot. Who takes care of it? What's the homeowners association? John Weber: We don't have anything in writing but myself and.., last year there was an additional dock stored on the property and when... This year we've always had an L section offthe dock and we didn't put the L section on this year. That's what's stored on the property now. We'd be more than happy to sell that L section...it is in the course of the permit. Mary Jo... didn't like the L section on there and so... so we took that off. We also moved the outlot as far away, or the dock as far away from her property as we could this year next to the other neighbor's section and we asked the neighbor's permission...and it was fine with her. As far as the dock section that's stored on there now, we...but I don't think Mary Jo wants us to put that on... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I didn't get a chance to go out and look at the property. John Weber: One other thing. As far as vehicles. First of all I think if we install a sign. We talked last year about...the Council decided not to do that. I know that there was... As far as vehicle, there is no vehicles that go up and down. From time to time somebody might, somebody we don't know and we'll call the police but there isn't any... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, perhaps you could ask your neighbor to ask what she would like to see there. As far as the boat lift, I guess I agree. It's not an intensification of use. Councilman Mason: The trouble with being third in line is I don't have much new to say. If it's messy, it should be cleaned up. I think that's just common sense but I don't see the boat lift as an intensification. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: Nothing new to add. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't either other than the fact that I did go out there and I looked at it. There are just a couple pieces of the dock which indicated that there is an L... I believe that the way it is being done is the best way to do it. With leaving that boat lift in place because I think it's a case of necessity. Because it's a little hard to handle. Plus the fact that trying to tie your boat directly to the existing dock creates a given problem as well. With all the boats out there and all the wakes that comes from that, it can cause some given problems for the person who owns that if they want to keeps it in the condition he expects to see it in, as I often do. So I guess I'm not in a position to make any changes with that. I think if probably the maintenance is kept on the grass and there isn't too much of that with the pieces from the existing dock. I don't know why that should have to be removed because that's part of it. If they feel that they can't store it on that property, then maybe it's best to put it out into the lake and with that I guess I'll conclude my. Mary Jo Moore: Excuse me...being moved because of the dock setback though. 20 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 John Weber: Mary Jo I guess...it meets the setbacks. Mayor Chmiel: That was my understanding. So with that, if there's any other discussion. Councilman Berquist: Who does maintain it? Who mows it? John Weber: Ted mows it and I take care of the boats. Councilman Berquist: Does it serve as an access point for snowmobiles in the winter time then? John Weber: No... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would move that we uphold staff's interpretation of the city code, but add a further note that we direct the Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association to bring the lot into compliance if there are any violations within two weeks of the date of tonight's meeting and I don't know who would be responsible for going out and checking that. John? Not necessarily moving the dock sections. I would request that the homeowners association ask Ms. Moore what she would like to be done with that. Whether she wants it on or off and let's make sure that the dock section L is in compliance with what we decided last year. I don't remember. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that City Council finds that city staff made a correct interpretation of the City Code and the non-conforming use permit for Boyer's Sterling Estates Beachlot when allowing a boat lift to remain adjacent to the dock. More specifically, the Board finds the following: 1. The intent of the non-conforming beachlot permit was to limit the number of boats, size of the dock, location of dock, swimming beaches, and use of the shoreland, and not to set specific standards on how boats were to be moored or the size or type of boat. 2. Staff did not inventory boat lifts at the time of permit application, nor did the Planning Commission or City Council request this information. Therefore, no record exists on the number or location ofboatlifts on any beachlot within the City. 3. The Board does not consider the boat lift to be an intensification of the use because no additional boats will be moored or docked on the beachlot. 4. The 40 feet of lake frontage appears to have sufficient area for a boat lift while maintaining the 10 foot setback from the extended lot lines. The City Council also order Boyer's Sterling Estates Homeowners Association to bring the lot into compliance with all the conditions outlined in the non-conforming use permit #93-3 within two (2) weeks from the date of this meeting. If the Homeowners Association fails to comply with this order, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for consideration and possible revocation of the permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL KENNEL~ COMMERCIAL STABLE~ TWO BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE LOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL AND STABLE; A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A METAL BUILDING AND A PYLON SIGN IN A BF~ FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT; LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 212/169 AND TH 101; PAWS~ CLAWS AND HOOVES PET BOARDING~ NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD. 21 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Before you are three applications consisting of a variance, a conditional use permit and a site plan review for a commercial kennel and stable facility. The site is currently zoned fringe business. It is located north of and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway 101. Access to the site will be gained via Highway 101. Commercial kennels and stables are conditional uses in the BF district. Also whenever two principle structures are located on a single parcel, that is also permitted as a conditional use. Staff has prepared findings for both the commercial kennels, commercial stables and locating the two buildings on a single site and we have also prepared conditions of approval for the conditional use. The variance request, the first one consists of using corregated metal as the main material for the exterior of the building and what you see on the board right here is the corregated metal that the applicant is requesting to use. There are two schemes that they have prepared and I believe they will go through the architectural materials that they intend to use on the building in a minute. They are undecided as to what color scheme they intend to go with. The Planning Commission discussed the use of metal in detail. They voted to deny the variance for using corregated metal. The reason for that was, should this building appear on a site located on Highway 5, they would never approve. The City would never approve it. They have also heard on several occasions that the City has a different set of standards for that portion of the City and they decided to deny the variance. Staff suggested to the applicant that maybe they would incorporate the brick trimming along the south side of the building. Or maybe include some shutters on the windows of the stables just to give it some more architectural interest but that would have to be approved by the City Council. Parking for this site, we don't have any parking standards for commercial stables or commercial kennels. The closest we could get to that was warehouse buildings and vet clinics. Staff calculated 36 parking stalls would be needed. However, because this is a use that we have no experience with at this point, we suggested the applicants show us proof of parking and provide 11 parking spaces. If there is a need in the future, then we would require the applicants to provide the additional parking spaces. One issue that came up this afternoon. I received a phone call from Carver Carver Soil Conservation and they had met with the applicant on site and they were discussing a feedlot permit. Part of the conversation dealt with disposal of feces and the applicant had stated that as far as the horse manure goes, they intended to spread it on site. Now our concern is more with the odor with the residential areas to the north and west of the site and we would recommend that a condition be added to the conditional use permit specifically condition number 12 on page 28 of the staff report. And the language that would be added, right at the beginning of the sentence would read, all animal feces shall be disposed of off site. The second variance that the applicant had applied for was for a pylon sign. Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry Sharmin. You said item 127 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Page 28. Condition number 12. Right at the beginning we would add, all animal feces shall be disposed of off site. Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The second variance deals with a pylon sign. Only monument signs are allowed in the BF district. This site is on a highway and the topography is what causes the hardship. Basically we have the right-of- way, the site slopes in and then up as we go further north. It would be very difficult to see a monument sign on that site. We are recommending approval of a pylon sign. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to approve the sign package after the applicant supplies us with it. With that we're recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report and be happy to answer any questions you might have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Sharmin. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Any questions for Sharmin? Councilman Senn: In terms of the signage, in terms of the pylon sign. The pylon sign then is in lieu of any building signage or the monument sign? I wasn't clear. 22 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, there would be two signs. The first one would be on Highway 212, which would be the monument. Which would be the pylon sign. The second one would be at the entrance off of TH 101, a monument. That would be a monument sign. So they would have two signs. Councilman Senn: And no building signs? Sharmin A1-Jaff: There isn't any building signage proposed by the applicant. Councilman Berquist: They've currently got a metal building sitting down adjacent to, or pretty close to that site. SharminA1-Jaff: Correct. Sorenson's. Councilman Berquist: Sorenson's building, that flies in the fact of what we're asking them to do. On the other hand, that was built prior to the standards being implemented. Kate Aanenson: Can I address that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Go ahead. Kate Aanenson: Some of the issues that the Planning Commission had were...based on, because this area is in a different edge of the city. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, could you move that microphone. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Intended to create maybe materials that we would consider appropriate for downtown. As you know Halla Nursery put the same type of metal pre-fab building up and the Sorenson building, which was intended to be a cold storage building, which is some quasi-retail use in it. The position that the staff took is that we agreed that it's not in keeping with it but we felt because the use itself was rural in character. I mean it's for horses, animals, cats, that use itself is rural, we felt that we could live with that type of materials. Because that would be appropriate for a barn type. Certainly the Planning Commission had concern that we're continuing to add those type of, and where do you draw the line. That was the concern that the staff also struggled with. Councilman Mason: So where do you draw that line then? Kate Aanenson: Well that's something that the Sharmin had worked with the applicants on trying to, and they've got some samples here of their materials but maybe adding additional shutters. Something else to enhance the architecture of the building so it doesn't appear such as a shed type. Councilman Berquist: From a noise point of view, what type of construction is advantageous? Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's supposed to be concrete walls that are supposed to be sound proof. That's our understanding. Councilman Berquist: Other structures in the metro area that are designed to perform the same function are built with? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Concrete block. Kate Aanenson: Cut faced block, sure. Brick. Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available to make their presentation on this proposal? 23 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee...we've been working with the city a long time to find an useful use for this property...professional company and in 1988 we were given a conditional use permit. We delayed building... We held off. Asked for an extension... 1994 when we asked the city to allow us an interim use to store trash containers on the property... One of the reasons we had looked at metal buildings though was for the usage we're having.., also for sanitary reasons.., and a good portion of the building will not be seen. As a matter of fact... So a portion that you won't see... I guess I'd like to show a picture here. On the kennel portion, the horses are right here. This is the front right here...and lots of windows at the front entry...private windows for the cats. The outdoor runs are 12 foot deep so the building, the metal material on the building is going to be 12 foot... This is the side that faces TH 212. The stable down here also faces TH 212. What we've done is we've... What we've got here is going to be the... We don't have the windows in there because it'd obviously be very distracting for horses trying to train. So we don't want windows in there... Then we have windows along here... We've tried to make it look real classy. But on the other hand... I do have some pictures that I think will show you. These are Lester buildings.., and what this is is...just down the road from here. Very nice area and.., so maintenance. Every building needs maintenance but we thought this would be...for animals. And then I also have a picture, another stable that is... My second issue is with the driveway width. As you can see by the site plan, we have to go quite a ways onto our property and at the last meeting, or at the Planning Commission, they wanted a 24 foot wide road as a standard. We feel as a standard for a road in a subdivision... 20 foot road in there and we thought that was too wide in the first place and I guess what we wanted... We are going to be storing horse trailers... We are going to stable their horses... We are not going to be storing their trailers besides. And if the City has a concern about having trailers sitting outside on the site, I might suggest that you may put something in prohibiting long term trailer parking so you won't have to worry. As far as the, oh and then also. There was reference to a turn around that needs to be improved by the stable inspector. I would assume that the turn around.., as they explained. Because of our property.., along TH 212, you won't ever see it so we needed a pylon sign. We had suggested 24 square feet... They had suggested to me that especially being on TH 212 I not have a real busy sign for that reason. Because the people are driving and you don't want to distract them too much but you want them to still know you're there. What I would request is that I be allowed a...sign not to exceed 64 feet. Square feet. I doubt I will need it that big but I don't... I'd also like to request the wetland delineation. If it was required. At present we're about... I just found out about the delineation as far as...but he felt horse waste, because of it's nutrients were much better... So I think that's pretty much it unless you have some questions. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Councilman Berquist: No, Mike goes first. Councilman Mason: Well I knew I was getting in deep when I took this job but...this is a whole new deal. You certainly raise some compelling reasons for the, wait a minute. I need to back track. I've overwhelmed here. Are we doing questions now or are we just kind of shooting the breeze on how we're going to do this? Mayor Chmiel: You can ask questions. You can do. Councilman Mason: I guess at this point, Nancy. Right, Nancy. I don't have any questions of you. You've given some very compelling reasons for why you think things should be where they are and of course our task now is to figure out where all this fits with the Planning Commission and you and the staff and we'll see what happens but I appreciate how well prepared you are. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll go. Is that alright Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any questions for Nancy. We'll see this again? Sharmin A1-Jaff: The only thing you might see is the sign plan when it comes back. 24 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't have any issues with the conditional use. I don't have any issues with more than one principle building on the lot. I think you need the pylon. I think we need to discuss 64 square feet however. The metal siding, I can appreciate the argument for the precedent it may set. However, everybody knows we're not going to see it from Highway 212. And I think you do have a compelling argument for why you want that siding. Particularly on the side where you do have the dog runs. I would like to see some more interest on your stable. Maybe some more.., or somewhat kind of architectural detail to compensate for the.., of the metal structure. To give a little more interest. But I'm inclined to allow them the metal siding. I think we need to have more information about what to do with the horse hooey. Nancy Lee: Could I make a suggestion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Nancy Lee: Because...PCA, what I'd like to do is ask the City to just allow me to do wha the State laws are. That way you know I'm abiding by laws. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, my concern is that we do have some neighborhoods to your north and east so since I don't know what the State laws are, I hate to leave that out there. What is staff's opinion on the... ? Dave Hempel: I believe our code states for a one way street, it should be 20 feet wide. 20 foot width we use to provide in driveways to serve up to four homes in a residential area. In commercial areas, business areas, a minimum I believe is 26 for a drive aisle. There may be some instances where we've gone down to 24. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So at 24 we're kind of sitting inbetween? Nancy Lee: You do have...but this drive aisles... Councilwoman Dockendorf: What do you suggest? Nancy Lee: What I suggest is, it's a driveway to a horse stable. It's very limited use. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're not talking about the driveway as the entrance? Nancy Lee: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're just talking about the ancillary. Nancy Lee: ...then it will be Class V as... The only people going to visit the stables are the people who ride horses there. It's not going to be... Councilwoman Dockendorf: What is staff's opinion on the 64 foot, square feet of pylon signage? Which is more than double. Sharmin A1-Jaff: It is more than double. I guess we weren't prepared for such an increase in the size. Kate Aanenson: We only granted the flexibility on the pylon sign based on the fact that it is, has a larger draw based on the fact that there isn't this type of facility in the area so I guess we felt that based on the fact that it has limited visibility, that maybe in order to find it from TH 212 and then obviously the monument sign on TH 101 gets you into the site.., trying to get down to the driveway so we felt it may be appropriate, based on that type of draw. Similar to what we did on Highway 5. If you had direct frontage on Highway 5, we would allow that so we felt, but I think that might be out of character with what we're trying to do down there. 25 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess, I certainly agree with the need for a pylon sign. The variance for that but perhaps one such as large as that is going a little too far. Someone else talk. Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on the wetland issue? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Kate Aanenson: We felt strongly, that is a natural wetland. We are concerned about when that gets delineated that it may impact the building. That would be the only circumstance that you would see this back again besides the sign permit. But we do have limited natural wetlands in the area. Certainly this type of use has impacts. Again when we brought this conditional use to you, it is on a slope. It does have some natural features to it. It's always been a sensitive site but we were concerned about that we give some use to the property and we felt that this type of use kind of fit the character of the area, although we are concerned with the natural features there. Especially in line with what we've done with the Bluff Creek so we would strongly recommend that you keep that condition about having the wetland delineated. We certainly understand the cost and I think we've been flexible on how we've worked with the two buildings on the lot and our approach to this whole site. Councilman Senn: Can we ask questions? Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilman Senn: Sharmin, help me out. Trailer parking... I guess I'm not understanding where you guys aren't in sync on the trailer parking issue. You're saying they've allowed for trailer parking. Nancy Lee: Well it was a new issue brought up by the person who handles stables. Sharmin A1-Jaff: The stable inspector. Nancy Lee: ...that she has requested additional parking... Councilman Senn: She's requested additional trailer parking you mean? Nancy Lee: Horse trailers and cars, yeah. Councilman Senn: But you said, I'm talking about the issue now of storage of trailers. Nancy Lee: I think that was... I think that was one of her concerns...parking so the trailers can be stored there and my response was, they are not going to store their trailers... Kate Aanenson: The issue being, if you board your horses you're going to leave your trailer there. When you come back to pick up your horse. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. So we are allowing? Mayor Chmiel: No. Kate Aanenson: No. Sharmin A1-Jaff: What we, in the staff report we recommended the applicant add parking for the horse trailer. Councilman Senn: Correct, to park. But I don't know how you got storage now. What are we saying about the storage? 26 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Kate Aanenson: Okay. Carol Dunsmore, who reviews the stable permits, felt like because people are boarding horses, that they may also leave their trailers there and she felt there wasn't sufficient area for people to leave trailers, if that's what they were doing. Councilman Senn: Okay. So you were allowing storage. She's saying you need more. Kate Aanenson: No. No. It wasn't accommodated. What she, we hadn't caught it. That's something, that's kind of your baliwick and she caught that as an issue and there's certainly ways that can be addressed. One, you just say there can be no storage of trailers. That's one way. Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're in sync then is what I'm saying. Kate Aanenson: She's saying there's not going to be any. Councilman Senn: And as long as there's a condition no storage of trailers overnight or whatever, you're all set? Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. That's where I was having trouble. No storage of trailers. Okay. Where else have we approved metal buildings since the ordinance changed? No? Okay. The buildings you're talking about, at least as I see them there, are effectively architecturally engineered buildings? Nancy Lee: Yes they are. Councilman Senn: So there's no footings or foundations or anything? Nancy Lee: There's footings.., of the building. Councilman Senn: But footings, just simple to anchor the tie downs for tying the columns together, correct? Nancy Lee: But they are like being closer... Councilman Senn: Yeah, I understand. What you tie the cables together would run across to tie your support columns together. Nancy Lee: I leave that up to the engineers. To be quite honest, I'm not sure. Councilman Senn: They're anchors effectively. Okay. Well you're using architecturally engineered buildings? Then you're basically putting in anchors with cables are extended underground to anchor the infrastructure together. There are no footings in the foundation? Nancy Lee: No. No standard footings. Councilman Senn: Okay. What, I guess maybe this is a question more for Sharmin again. This is a pick-up...on the regional trail that this is going to abutting. I mean that's already a problem on that trail. Is this going to compound that and how do we police that? If people board their horses here, I assume they're going to be riding them on the regional trail all the time. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Horses are not permitted on the trail at all. Councilman Senn: They aren't at all? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. 27 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: Okay. How's the manure get there now? Silly question, right? On the hours. I saw that the Planning Commission had changed the hours from 9:00 to 6:00. I'm just curious, what was the discussion there? I mean I like the idea from 9:00 to 6:00 but I mean this close to the residential area there... 9:00 is not going to be any help to families trying to put young kids to bed. You know where 8:00 might be or something. I'm just trying to say, what was the discussion or what was the basis for drawing the line at 9:00? Sharmin A1-Jaff: They just felt that 10:00 is too late. And they wanted an hour earlier of when the dogs. That was the only reason. It was more of avoiding nuisances at night. Barking. Nancy Lee: Can I say something about this too? ...but you can't see his house so as far as us being... That was ideal so... Councilman Senn: Well I mean, you're on the hill there and up above there's a lot of residences and the noise travels up. It's not going to be simply muffled because... Okay. That was it for questions. I don't know if you're ready for comments. Do you want comments yet? Mayor Chmiel: Well, we'll go into comments in a little bit. I guess I have some concern, only some concern regarding the sound from the dogs and barking and how it's going to affect that particular area. The neighborhood. The odor is the other thing. I have a cabin that's about 5 ½ miles from a 500 dairy herd. I'm fortunate if the wind is in the right direction where it doesn't affect me but there are some days that 5 miles doesn't seem to be far enough away. Are you going to, and I couldn't stop it either. But is there any way that you can assure us of this? That those. Nancy Lee: As far as the noise factor goes, in the kennels. Inside of the kennels what we have is about a four foot cement divider between each kennel. It's really' " and the exteri°r walls °f the kennel'"d°g h°use will g° in and out. The way we have the front doors and everything, the dogs aren't going to be seeing each other. Typically when you have dogs seeing each other, you get a lot of barking... That way you avoid... Typically dog kennels...is when people are driving in. You can see by our driveway they're not going to drive by the kennels... If we have some dogs here... We don't foresee at this point there should be... The reason we don't have cement dividers all the way up to the ceiling is because it doesn't provide the proper ventilation... They need the proper ventilation. Odor. The dog and cat feces can again be burned in the crematory or be disposed of through... The horse manure, I guess I don't know what I do because I don't have an honest answer...because I was just informed of this change... By composting it properly, it should keep the odor down. It's not going to just... If odor becomes a problem, I guess it's something I need to address because if odor is a problem I...lose business so it's not something I'm going to let just happen. I consider myself a good business person and I want to watch what's happening... Mayor Chmiel: Alright. And the last question I had, would you be acceptable to having veternarians coming in from their respective areas with dead carcasses and burning those at all? Nancy Lee: Yeah. Seeing as I have a crematory facility, yes. One of the things that started this whole thing is that Carver County and Scott County do not have a humane society...a real dire need in this area. They don't have kennels either... That's one of the reasons...back portion stalls that could be used as drop off so if the police get some... I guess we're open. There's a lot of opportunities available that we can provide. So I guess if that becomes a need, then we're open to it unless it's a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, now I'll start. Being you wanted to start Mark, go ahead. Councilman Berquist: Excuse me. Just because I didn't want to start on questions, didn't mean I didn't have any. I've just got a few quick ones that have not been answered. The site, the report indicates that you've got space for 35 horses but I don't see anything about dogs and cats. How many spaces have you got for dogs? I don't care about cats. Nancy Lee: I think it's... 106. 28 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: How many? 106 dogs. Woof. Okay. Nancy Lee: It's not a small facility. Councilman Berquist: I mean obviously you're a good business person. You've checked out other kennels in the metro area, and again I go back to the question I asked Sharmin. How were they constructed? Did you find any that were constructed by Lester or any other metal building manufacturer? Nancy Lee: Well... so I checked around and to be quite honest, most of the kennels you're going to find are one or two stalls at your vets in small cages or something... Councilman Berquist: Hennepin County has one located in Golden Valley, which I realize is a little bit...yes, which is a little bit much more populated than what you're proposing here. To the best of recollection, that thing is concrete block. Nancy Lee: There's one in Burnsville and there is one in a strip mall... Councilman Berquist: Okay. We've already talked about the Humane Society's need for that. To build in Chanhassen. We pick up dogs here you're going to propose to go to Shakopee, Chanhassen, Chaska and serve as the holding facility for lost or abandoned animals. Nancy Lee: ... Councilman Berquist: Did anybody, we've talked about the neighbors up on the hill. We've got the motel, which is a viable business sitting down there on the site. They're legitimate. They're there. They exist. Nancy Lee: We're quite a ways from them... Councilman Berquist: Are you? Nancy Lee: ...there's a creek inbetween us and a bunch of trees and again, we're not... Councilman Berquist: How much distance between you and that creek? 600 feet? Nancy Lee: We're going to be about 200 feet from the nearest location and the other locations... Councilman Berquist: If we choose not to strike item 17 and you don't have any budgetary numbers for concrete or... block versus. Nancy Lee: ...all the numbers turn out to be... Councilman Berquist: Even if we use cut block. Well I've got a lot of notes on this thing but the thing that I typed out prior to coming to tonight's meeting is, my main concern is noise, not looks and that's still my main concern. I know there's not a lot of stuff around there. There are structures and people and that concerns me. Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Before we go back into this, is there anyone here wishing to address this issue at this time? Any adjacent neighbors? Okay, thanks. Okay, let's go back into it. Mark, you wanted to start before. Councilman Senn: Let's see if I can hit them all here. I hopefully kept them all straight here. The site plan review, I guess I don't have any problem with the site plan review. I agree with staff as it relates to the setback from the wetland. I agree with the staff as it relates to the driveway. Having operated a large storage facility, I can tell you that unless you have 24 feet, you are not going to get two trucks pulling trailers to meet and have sufficient 29 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 room, unless you do have 24 feet because most of those trailers have effectively 10 foot outside to outside you know, so there's another 20. You're going to be rubbing, even to try to get past each other so. From that standpoint I agree with point 4. The, let's see here. As far as the metal building goes. I mean I thought a lot about it and I just honestly can't see it. I can't see it because of the noise concerns and I also can't see it simply because if we approve a metal building here, it seems to me that we have no legitimate basis any longer to draw the line between concrete and metal structures, which we have at least not as far as I know to date.., since the ordinance changes. Architecturally engineered buildings are nice buildings. They can be made to look very nice so to me this is not an aesthetic issue. To me it is an issue of construction. Type of building. It's impact on the area that it's constructed and how it's constructed and it just is not the same type of construction and is not the type of construction that's...for the long term. The, let's see here. I still have concerns about the odor thing. I guess I'm not sure what the solution is. I would not favor the spreading of the horse manure. My preference would be some sort of off site removal. In fact my preference would be some sort of required storage on site similar to what we require restaurants to do. Send it to sealed storage which is picked by fairly regularly because I think a lot of things here could present probably a good number of problems to the area. And likewise the hours issue, from a noise standpoint. The more I thought about that, I'd really like to see that go back on the docket to 8:00. And stuff because I don't think it'd be much use to the young families around there if it's 9:00. And that's with 106 dogs, I mean it scares me. I mean you've got some, what do you say, isolation there but again, sound's going to travel real well up there. I guess I'm reminded of that every day when I ride down that regional trail and what I hear coming up from 212 sometimes is enough that it can be deafening and it comes...real nice. Let's see here. I like the concept with the no trailer storage. I understand the operator's statement that they aren't going to have it but we don't always control who the operator is. I'd hate to see this turn into a storage place, because that's not what it's supposed to be. So I guess I like the idea of not allowing it. Let's see here. What have I missed. I think that's all the issues that came up. Did I miss anything? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you're pretty close. Councilman Senn: That's my feelings. Councilman Mason: I agree with the wetlands. That has to be delineated. It's a natural area and we just, we can't play around with that. I see that as a real strong issue. In terms of the noise thing. We do have noise ordinances in place. Whereas I share Mark's concern, I don't know the difference between 8 and 9. I guess I can go either way on that. I've changed my mind three times on the aluminum thing. That's a real tough one. You know it's right. It's out of the way. You aren't going to see it. But then Mark does raise a very compelling point on that that I guess I'd like some more discussion on with Council. And this manure management stuff, I don't know geez. I mean that's a, I guess on the feces thing, sorry but I'm thinking of all kinds of jokes that aren't appropriate here. So my apologies for that. I think that issue maybe needs to be tabled until some people can do some more research on it. But I guess I want to hear what the rest of Council feels about the aluminum. I mean it's, I see this as a need in the community. But it's looking to me like some more work needs to be done. I don't have trouble with the site plan review. I don't have trouble with the conditional use permit. I'm okay with the pylon, although holy cow. 64 square feet seems a little big but I would guess something can be worked out with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll try to be succinct. The wetland delineation, absolutely. I agree that we're going to need a fairly wide street out to the kennel, even if it is Class V. We'll see the site plan for the sign, so we can deal with it then, although I think we're going to have to compromise somewhere. Between that. I continue to support the metal structure. I don't have any problem with that. My two dogs go to bed at 8:00 and get up at 7:00 so I think that's reasonable. Instead of 9:00 to 7:00. Let's see, what else do we have? I think I'd agree with Mike that we need to at least table the animal waste issue until we get some better information. If we can somehow make use of the horse manure, great but spreading it on site, boy. You've got to prove to me that's not going to smell. No trailer storage, I don't think that's an issue. I guess that's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve. 30 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Okay. Wetland I don't have any problem with. The 20 foot roadway that's in dispute. 24 versus 20 foot roadway that's in dispute. That is the road that goes from the kennel area to the stables, is that correct? And the adjoining topography to that roadway is very hilly? Very flat? ...retaining walled? What? So in other words, if two vehicles pass on that, in fact that roadway that we're discussing is 20 foot and two vehicles come upon each other. Are they going over a retaining wall? Are they going into a gravel area? Kate Aanenson: It's a slope. I mean it's a slope and you've got the wetlands that drop off. It is sloped. Councilman Berquist: But conceivable two could pass on the shoulder of the road as it were? Sharmin A1-Jaff: If it's a horse trailer, it might be a little difficult. Dave? Dave Hempel: We've already compromised on the curbing issue...with the 24 from 26. From a public safety standpoint. Councilman Berquist: ...this is a stable. Dave Hempel: If it burns, it burns. I guess 24 is what we're recommending for two vehicles with trailers. Councilman Berquist: Okay. I'm not particularly in favor of the metal building. I'd like to see it go to block. I don't know what that does to the applicant's financial performa. Probably screws it up royally. To talk about the waste just one more time. 35 horses. How much waste does a 35 horse produce? Councilman Mason: Let's see, how much wood could a woodchuck. Nancy Lee: We built this for 24 horses and we're planning on...22 stables. Councilman Berquist: So 22 horses in a day, what? A pick-up truck, what? I'm just, I'm curious. I'm just trying to get a handle on how much. Nancy Lee: ...hay that the horses eat. It's not like dog waste. It's a livery and hay. Councilman Berquist: Do you mix it with the fodder that goes in the stable or? Nancy Lee: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Or whatever. I'm not use... Nancy Lee: ...proper things. Proper mix. Patrick Blood: Plus you till it into the land through land management like.., off a pasture area. While the horses are in one portion of the property, you are managing the other portion. Councilman Berquist: However, 13 acres doesn't give you that much area to manage, does it? I mean is that significant enough to allow you to work it in that fashion? Patrick Blood: Yes. Depending on how many horses you put out at a time. It's all in scheduling. Moving the horses around. Councilman Berquist: We're talking about the waste aspect of it. Whether they're out or not. Oh, I see. Patrick Blood: ... divide off the property and put the horses in one side while you're tilling in the horse manure on the other side and replanting. And then while all... 31 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Kate. Councilman Senn: You also have significant slope. Mayor Chmiel: Kate has. Kate Aanenson: The concern that the staff has, and I think we can address it and try to solve the problem right here is that we believe that should be trucked off site. If they demonstrate to the staff that it can be accomplished meeting any concern that Carver County would have, PCA, we'd be willing to look at this. But right now, again this is a very environmental sensitive site. We're trying to work with something that we think works in there. We're concerned about the wetland. If they're going to start putting into the site and taking out the vegetation, working manure in, we'd have a lot of concern with that. Part of the issue with this, that we're trying to maintain some of that natural vegetation so that would be an issue. Councilman Berquist: They also.., on it. Kate Aanenson: As far as? Councilman Berquist: Waste. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure. Carol's comments. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Just basically how they were going to dispose of it. Kate Aanenson: Just raised it as an issue... So we think that if you say that, it should be taken off site. If they can work through some other remedy that satisfies the staff, we'd be certainly willing to look at that. But we are concerned about taking all the vegetation off to be spreading that around. Councilman Berquist: Well we may be arguing over something that's moot anyway insofar as it's. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Susan Markert: My name is Susan Markert and I did not plan to come up and talk about...and it is better to compost. Number one, you'll have a breakdown quicker. You won't have the smell that will linger when you have it in piles. It will just, to have a manure pile, like you would a restaurant waste pile, is absolutely not the way to go because that's where the smell comes in. Also there might be a problem more of the urine instead of... They used to do this years ago and you know people nowadays have such tunnel vision. When somebody says feces and natural you know manure to fertilize something, people put their noses up around here. I mean people did this for hundreds of years and I'm just really appalled the way people are acting about this. This is a natural thing. It's the most healthy thing you can put in the ground. It's natural. It comes out of the horse naturally. The horse eats natural greenery. It's not eating meat or anything like that, like a dog. A dog and cat, I mean that's a whole different thing. But what I'm saying is that it's a natural way of taking it in a horse and disposing of it in a natural way. It would come out the same way so what I'm saying is it would be naturally broken down into the ground to be able to compost it into the ground would be the way to go, instead of piling it up and hauling it someplace else. Who's going to, you know where are you going to put it? But the cat and dog, I can see that. It's the horse manure that I, it's.., and that's the way you do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. I just had a little joke on the side. Councilman Berquist: Why don't you tell it. Mayor Chmiel: As I said to Steve. I says two can live as cheaply as one if one is a horse and the other is a bird. But anyway, getting back to things at hand. I guess I can't add anything more than what has been said already. So I would like to go back and either get a vote on a decision, and I think everybody knows about where they're at. Or 32 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 any additional information that you'd like to provide. And that lighting Sharmin, that's all going to be down lighting in the event that that does go in with proper spacing so it doesn't illuminate everything. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, where are you at with the building material? Mayor Chmiel: I have some concern with that building material. The only reason I say that is there's some concerns with the dogs and I know that when we lived in one city, the city didn't like us very well because my dog liked the hydrant and that ruined the paint, on a constant basis. Whether they're using poor paint or whatever but that, I get a little concerned with that siding even though they say it's guaranteed for the paint for 20 years. Another thing too is that, even though there are some existing buildings there that are, if you remember quite a few years, a couple years, three years ago, four years ago. People who live within that particular area has wanted us to do something with that particular corridor making it more appealing than what it is. They were saying we were making requirements as far as buildings being built in adjacent to Highway 5. And I think there probably is some truth to that. But I have to admit it's not a bad looking building but are we going to establish a precedent in that particular area. So. Councilwoman Dockendorf: May I go to a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Try a motion, yeah. Go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, let me make a couple adjustments to what we have starting on page 23. Let's keep condition number 6, which requires the 24 foot wide on the Class V out to the stable. I don't know where the wetland delineation is mentioned in here. I don't know what condition number that is but I want to maintain that. I would delete condition number 17, however replace it. If it is to be a metal structure as shown here, that it have additional architectural detailing on some of the broad sides that are fairly plain. I trust staff would work on that. Change to condition, under the conditional use permit, #96-3. Number 2(e). The hours for the dogs and cats to be housed indoors from 8:00 until 7:00 p.m. Excuse me, 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. When we get to condition 12. That should read, all animal waste must be disposed off site, unless the applicant can show that the horse manure can be disposed of or re-tilled on site and you may want to do a combination of some disposed off site and some on site, depending on how much can be spread around without taking away from the natural topography or tearing up too much vegetation. I think we need something in here about how, if it is to be disposed of off site, how it will be contained. If it is going to be a weekly pick-up, how will that be contained during that week so the smell doesn't go up and I don't know what kind of structure that would require. Condition number 13. I think that does not allow for trailer storage but we do need some additional parking spaces at least for the horse trailers. The turn around, I think if it's sufficient for the Fire Marshall, it should be sufficient for the Stable Inspector. I think that's it. Councilman Mason: How about the signage? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Signage we'll see that sign plan at a further time. I do support the pylon sign. Councilman Mason: Do you want to give them any direction on size? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be willing to bend on the 24 square foot but nowhere near 64. So I guess that's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I will second it. 33 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: I have a hard time. I can't support it with the metal building. I know that may very well make or break the project. I guess that remains to be seen but I simply can't support it with a metal building. I'd love to be able to, given the fact that it's a kennel but where it is and the noise concern makes it impractical for me to choose to. Councilman Senn: I likewise can't support the metal building. The only suggestion I guess I would offer, which I really don't like forwarding because that's not my idea of how it should be resolved but if the majority of the Council otherwise decides they want to build on it with a metal building, my suggestion would be that you get considerable consideration for it and maybe get some things that public safety would want in terms of some slots held for our use and a whole bunch of other things like that, which I don't think have even been addressed in this thing at least so far. But again, I don't think that's adequate justification to do the metal. I'm just offering it as an idea but again, if the majority wants to go the other way. Make it worth some while I guess. If you're going to do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The motion is on the floor with a second. Covering the conditions as such for the requirements of the BF, Business District Fringe. As well as covering the conditional use permit for this. Let me just ask one more question. On 212 Dave, how are we going to have accessibility to this location and what kind of left hand turns are we going to be able to make from there? Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor. Access to this site will be from Highway 101. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly? Dave Hempel: Solely. Mayor Chmiel: Do we cover that quick or go over that quick at all? Dave Hempel: It was raised slope from 212 up to the building...very significant elevation change. I don't know if the driveway access would even be permitted on 212. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then how are you going to have your access in there? Are you going to have a right hand turn and how are you going to make a left hand turn with that hill being where it's at? And the numbers of cars that are located on that particular road. More specifically at the hours of business that they're going to be going through and the congestion of vehicles on that road. Dave Hempel: Upon review of the plan there are no proposal for auxiliary turn lanes nor I don't know given the terrain.., expanding the lane...very significant project. The roadway is under MnDot jurisdiction. Mayor Chmiel: Right now. Dave Hempel: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess that would be some of my concerns. How we're going to really direct that in and that is a down grade during the winter. It's going to be a real given problem so. Okay. With that, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approves Site Plan Review 96-8 for the construction of an 8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot commercial kennel with a variance to allow a pylon sign in a BF, Fringe Business District, as shown in plans dated June 14, 1996, with the following conditions: 34 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 1. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. Type 3 erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Type 1 shall be installed on the remainder of the site. Additional silt fence or rock filter dikes shall be constructed at the culvert inlets. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. 4. Storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify culverts are sized correctly. 5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, MnDOT, and the Chanhassen Building Department. The access drive shall intersect Trunk Highway 101 at a 90° angle. All drive aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 24-feet wide. The curb shall be a rolled bituminous and the drive aisles shall be constructed to a 7-ton design up to the kennel. The gravel portion past the kennel shall also be constructed to a 7 ton design and inspected periodically. The maximum grade for the drive aisles shall be 10%. 7. The waste water holding tank and/or proposed drainage swale shall be relocated to avoid potential contamination of the stormwater runoff. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type 1 erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type 3 erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 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. 10. The applicant shall provide a storm water runoff plan that does not drain directly to the wetland. A water quality pond to pretreat stormwater shall be constructed adjacent to the wetland outside the street right-of-way. The pond shall be designed in accordance with "NURP" standards. Detailed pond calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 11. The applicant shall retain a professional wetland delineator to determine the wetland edge and, if necessary, adjust the development accordingly. 12. Building Official Conditions: 13. Install holding tanks(s) to directly receive wastewater and toilet room waste, with tanks sized and monitored in a manner approved by the City. 14. Obtain a feedlot permit from Carver County. 15. Provide covered, containerized onsite storage for animal waste in a manner approved by the City. 35 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 16. Provide copies of solid waste disposal contract(s) to the City. Contract(s) must provide for continuous disposal of all solid animal waste generated. 17. Fire Marshal Conditions: 18. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Pursuant to UFC Section 10.204 ©. Submit radius turns for the west driveway on the stable. 19. Fire lanes signage in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991 shall be installed on the service road starting at the west end of the kennel to the east end of the stable. This is to assure that fire apparatus will have access in the event of a fire. 20. Driving surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface as to provide all weather driving capabilities pursuant to UFC Section 10-204. (b) Submit road design to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Submit radius turns from the driveway off State Hwy. 101. 21. Comply with Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 regarding premise identification. Additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Number size and location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 22. Timing of insulation on fire protection including fire apparatus access roads for fire protection, is required to be installed. Such access road shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to UFC Section 10-502. 23. The applicant must install tree protection fencing at the grading limits near any existing trees. Fencing must be installed at the time of the silt fence installation. 24. A complete sign plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 25. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 38 parking spaces. The City has the right to require the applicant to provide these additional spaces if staff determines that additional spaces are needed. All parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as required in the site plan ordinance. 26. If it is to be a metal structure as shown here, that it have additional architectural detailing on some of the broad sides that are fairly plain. 27. Five trailer parking spaces and six vehicle parking spaces shall be provided by the Commercial Stable. The applicant shall show proof of parking for seven horse trailer spaces and six vehicle parking spaces for a total of 12 horse trailer parking spaces and 12 vehicle parking spaces. Should the need arise for the additional spaces, the applicant will be required to provide them. Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers attached to them shall be provided. The turnaround shall be approved by the Stable Inspector. All parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as required in the site plan ordinance. Screening shall be provided in the form of vegetation and berming. The City Council also approves of Conditional Use Permit 96-3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fringe Business District, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal building on a single lot; as shown on plans dated received June 14, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III. 2. The following criteria relates to commercial kennels for dogs and cats: 3. Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. 36 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 4. The proposed chain link fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be sturdy to keep dogs confined. 5. Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well. The applicant is showing a waste water holding tank located 180 feet from a well location however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such information must be provided. 6. All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 7. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). 8. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is not present at the subject property. 9. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. 10. Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. 11. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: 12. 13. Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. 14. Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain, and snow. 15. If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. 16. Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable condition. 17. The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. 18. Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and disease hazards. 19. Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. 20. The following criteria relates to commercial stables for horses: 21. Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres and for three horses shall be two acres, and additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional horse. The site has an area of 13.16 acres allowing a maximum number of 35 horses. 22. The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electrical fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within. 23. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects. 24. Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to the pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste storage is required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To prevent run off from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect it from rain and snow, and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area. 25. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet from any well. 26. All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 27. 37 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 28. All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 50 feet from public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater. 29. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code. 30. Both commercial kennel and stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. 31. Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. 32. The applicant is showing light fixtures shielded under the roof canopy. All light must meet ordinance requirements. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 1/: foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. 33. No outdoor speakers are allowed. 34. The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such as Lower Minnesota Water Shed, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc. 35. Only animal carcasses are permitted to be cremated. A temperature monitor must be attached to the crematory. The City may require testing of the ashes. 36. All animal waste must be disposed off site, unless the applicant can show that the horse manure can be disposed of or re-tilled on site, or do a combination of some disposed off site and some on site, depending on how much can be spread around without taking away from the natural topography or tearing up too much vegetation. Also showing how the waste will be contained waiting for disposal. 37. Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of parking for the remaining seven spaces for a total of 12 horse trailer parking spaces. Should the need arise for the additional spaces, the applicant will be required to provide them. Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers attached to them shall be provided. The turnaround shall be approved by the Stable Inspector. All parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as required in the site plan ordinance. 38. The applicant shall show the location of hay storage. 39. The applicant shall show the area where horses will be allowed to graze and exercise outdoors. The current trail located north of the site does not allow any horses. The applicant shall meet with the City's Stable Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit to provide answers and comply with the three previous conditions (13, 14, and 15) outlined above." Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Mason voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to $. Mayor Chmiel: So that means right now that there's nothing going. Has there been any considerations on that, on something other than the metal building? As far as construction. Nancy Lee: No. It's financially impossible... Mayor Chmiel: Do you have the cost differences between the Lester as opposed to? 38 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Nancy Lee: When we originally started doing this, yes. And the cost...that's one of the reasons we went to the metal building because...very costly... What we've done with the buildings is, they're large but what we're trying to accomplish is really large spaces for the animals instead of two little kennels in a warehouse. To me I wouldn't leave my dog.., so that's the reason it's so large. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As it stands right now it's a 3 to 2 vote which denies your particular project. So thank you. Okay, we'll move along. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well excuse me Mr. Mayor. Could we approve it and perhaps they could re-look at it and at least they would have approval of the building? Or the permitted use if they could use another siding? At least that would give them the option of looking at it again. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I was trying to get to. See if there was another way of doing it. Nancy Lee: What we've got is inside we've got a lot of cement work.., cement inside, then we have insulation and then we have metal siding. But if we just went with cement, there isn't any insulation for the animals. As far as... right next door and then a final parcel of property is a mini-storage. Mike Sorenson's...nursery. There's a brand new stable down on 212, a personal stable.., and that was just recently put up so it was real surprising to us to find out that metal buildings weren't allowed. I think we're the last parcel down there to... Councilman Senn: Don? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Could I make a suggestion? Mayor Chmiel: I'm listening. Councilman Senn: How about if we refer this back to staffto look at two different things. One would be the possibility of the kennel building, and more or less the building that's not barn or stable be constructed of concrete materials and the building which is going to be used purely as the barn or stable for the horses be constructed of metal on some kind of a basis that it's you know, effectively we're treating it like a barn. That type of a use versus you know the business operation of the kennel. And secondly, in doing so, maybe also involve Public Safety as it might for to some tie in's that might help us in terms of a justification of possibly creating a special exception to that metal building for purposes such as, you know maybe the City is getting some consideration for it like six kennel stalls for city brought in dogs, I don't know. I defer to Scott on that. I think Scott should come up with those ideas or whatever but in relationship to the way we have to deal with getting rid of animals and that sort of thing. So I think there are some things that can be worked in that we can specifically attach as conditions which you know if this comes at us again, we've got something to hang our hat on that's says here, we allowed this barn for this reason. (a), it's just for boarding horses. It doesn't relate to the other functions and (b), here's the conditions we attached to it. The City got to board... I don't know. It seems to me that's putting more behind this and not just simply opening the door on our ordinance effectively to metal buildings. So just an idea. Tom Scott: Mr. Mayor, as I understand the motion that was voted on was to approve it with the variance allowing the metal building. That motion has been defeated. Council could entertain a motion to I guess continue the matter to the next meeting. Have staff review further the issue of the building and the additional conditions and have it come back at the next Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Well being that the majority has defeated the issue and it was brought up by one of those members, I would be amenable to that. Councilman Senn: Does that idea have merit? I mean again, I don't want to spin anybody's wheels. I mean if this idea doesn't have merit, let's not do it. But if people think it does, let's give it a shot. 39 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Mason: Why don't you call a motion. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's my motion to that extent. Kate Aanenson: Can I get clarification on, since the motion was denied, doesn't someone that voted, made the motion in the affirmative have to make a recommendation to reconsider that to send it back? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Correct, which is what I just did. Kate Aanenson: Okay. That was Colleen and Mike that made a motion. It's Colleen or Mike that has to make... Tom Scott: ... one of the people voting in favor. Councilman Senn: No, on the prevailing side I thought. Prevailing side is the nay's. Tom Scott: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So motion's on the floor? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: With a second. I'll second that. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding for additional review with staff and the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT ON 66.12 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BEWTEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES: RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW). COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR UP TO 307,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDINGS, 100,000 SQ. FT. OF INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS, AND 322 DWELLING UNITS; REZONING FROM lOP AND RSF TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 13 LOTS AND 30UTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-0WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLAND SON SITE; VACATION OF RIGHT- OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FINDINGS; AND INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT REVIEW. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This project is located south of Highway 5 between Great Plains Boulevard and Market Boulevard. I'd like to first of all tell you a little bit about the process. About how this project came before you and how to proceed from here. In 1995 the City granted conceptual approval for a mixed use development on this site. At that time the City provided some guidelines for the developer and staff and direction for the developer to proceed with the project. Currently we're going through preliminary project approval. At this stage we establish the parameters for the development to move forward. The next stage would be for this project to come in for final plat approval. At that stage the rezoning would take place. The construction 40 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 documents would be reviewed and the plans approved by the city and the development contract entered between the developer and the city. The final stage would be that individual site plans would come in for the lots and the City would approve those site plans. I did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a little, some revisions to the staff report that were left out when I was up there. On page 19, it's regarding reallocation of uses within the district. The whole time we were developing this we were of the understanding that we would be able to transfer the square footages within the development subject to the total parameters, or total building square footage so we just want to spell that out within the design standards for the project. On page 19 we added a specification that made the species be incorporated into the site landscaping whenever approved. This is whenever possible. This was in response to one of the EAW comments that the City received from the Department of Natural Resources. On page 23, under signage. We had discussed at the Planning Commission provisions for wall signage for, or monument signage for the church/school. You know like the bulletin board. We forgot to include that langauge so I added that on page 23. Under the conditions of approval on page 48. Number 27. The Metropolitan Council wanted us to add that they do have some approval, permitting approval on this and so to fulfill the EAW comment, we added that language. On page 47, or page 50. Condition number 47. The Planning Commission had some concerns about the duration of the project and the approvals that were granted and so the City Attorney suggested some language and item number 48 was the requiring of Phase II, historical analysis in response to the environmental assessment worksheet comments. So those are the revisions that I've provided to you tonight and that I submitted to the applicant earlier this morning. The land use amendments on the site are from office and institutional and the majority of the site had low density residential in the southern portion and medium density in the south pocket and the east, and medium density and office in a pocket on the west. Basically the western side will remain residential and office but it will be in the higher density than the current plan. They're proposing a mixed use development that would mix the commercial, add commercial as one of the land uses and reallocate the institutional to the southeast corner of the site so staff is in support of that land use map amendment. If the City approves this, we then submit it to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. Another part of the request is rezoning from IOP, Industrial Office Park and single family residential to PUD, planned unit development for a mixed use development including commercial, office, residential and institutional uses. The subdivision of this property is into 13 lots. Outlot A represents Main Street, Lake Drive and the... This development will be using primarily a private street system with only the extreme northeastern corner of the site being dedicated to public...Highway 101 corridor. Outlot B on the south part of the site is where Rice Marsh Lake is currently located and that would remain open space within this development. Outlot C on the southwest corner of the site is the area adjacent to Lake Susan and it's where Riley Creek comes through the property and that too will remain open space .... some of the recommendations that we have in the staff report. The final plat will have some small reconfiguration of the lot lines for Lots 1 and 3 in the northwest corner of the site. Part of the subdivision, the northern 2/3 of the site will be mass graded and they have tried to maintain as much as possible some of the topographic changes on the site. While the current topography has approximately an 80 foot elevation change, they will maintain approximately a 60 foot elevation change when the project is completed. As I had mentioned before, the streets in the development will be private except for the access from Great Plains Boulevard into Grandview Boulevard. Tree preservation on the site will be mainly in the southern portion of the property, along the steep slopes adjacent to Lake Susan and near Rice Marsh Lake. Smaller pockets of preservation will be located in the northeast corner of the site and along the eastern property line. The Parks and Recreation Commission met on July 23, 1996. They recommended that the project be approved with the location of the soccer field south, on the south side of the site of Lot 11. In exchange for the approval, the City's looking at some type of agreement between the City and St. Hubert's for joint use of those facilities. In addition the development will be required to pay park and trail fees per city ordinance. The development currently has 8 wetlands on site. As part of this application we are requesting a wetland alteration permit to fill and excavate wetlands on the site. Of the 8, 3 of the wetlands will be impacted. The northern most one is the one known as the Village Pond. That was one of the areas of question and contention as part of the Planning Commission review. Actually what the final design of that wetland would be. The developer is looking at an open pooled area and staff is pushing that we preserve more of the natural area. More of the existing wetland. To that end the applicant has provided a rendering of how possibly the northwest corner of the site could be reconfigured to preserve additional wetland in the area. And also to pull the building in closer proximity to the village pond. Staffbelieves they're moving in the right direction and will be working with them as part of the sequencing of the wetland permit to see if they can preserve additional wetlands on the site. Utilities will be provided throughout the development. In addition, the applicant will be providing utility service for the Grandview neighborhood over on the east side of the project. The northern half of 41 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 it will be serviced to Grandview Road which will be dedicated right-of-way and the southern part would be... extension of the sewer line up to the eastern property line south of the proposed school expansion area. Water service will be provided north of the church/school to the eastern property line. The heart of this proposal is the Planned Unit Development. Within the planned unit development the design parameters for the future phasing of the project are being made. The master concept plan mixes development both vertically and horizontally. We're looking to have upper story apartments above office and retail space. This is a pedestrian oriented facility with extensive pedestrian connections between both internally to this project and externally to this project. We're also providing the transit element at the core of the village plaza area. The City has been awarded a grant from the Metropolitan Council to facilitate the installation of that improvement and subject to the final project approval and acceptance of the grant... We will be cooperating with Southwest Metro and the developer in providing this facility. The heart of this project is the square footages for the development. As I said, it is a commercial office, institutional and residential development. They've established the parameters for development and as those sites come through, we'll be keeping tabs on that development. We've also delineated the uses that are being proposed, that will be permitted within this development. The uses that are listed provide a representative example of what we believe the uses should be of this project. However we rely on the standard industrial classifications to determine whether or not a proposed use that we did not think of is consistent or similar to those uses. As far as the residential component, we're looking at providing a 50/50 split between ownership housing and rental housing. The list amount and as part of the negotiation process we would like to incorporate affordable units based on the Metropolitan Council's standards. At this time we're looking at a 50/50 split in the affordable for the ownership and a 65/35 split for the rental with the 35% being affordable. These are the guidelines that we adopted as a part of our Livable Communities. The design standards also establish setbacks and buffer yards for the development of building heights. Urban design and material requirements. Signage standards. In addition we're looking at this as a unified shopping office development and so we'd have a unified parking requirement that provides a little bit of benefit and reduces the amount of impervious area. For the residential component the required parking will all be underground. The visitor parking would be through shed facilities with office and retail uses above ground in the western portion of the site. Part of the approval was, we required an environmental assessment worksheet. This looks at the environmental impacts of the proposed development and requires that these impacts be mitigated. The issues that came out in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet were the wetlands and storm water treatment and filling and mitigation on the site. Tree coverage and tree removal. Traffic concerns and the archeological site. We are, based on our review and the comments that we received, we're recommending that no further EIS be required of this project and that a negative declaration or further review be approved by the City. On page 6 of the staff report we looked at the issues that staff in reviewing this project. Of these we believe we are moving in the right direction with resolving this to the City's satisfaction and we believe that prior to final plat approval we should have them all straighten out. As I showed you on their sketch plan for redesigning the northwest part of the site, we believe this is moving in the right direction. Pedestrian circulation is being improved throughout the development and as each individual site plan comes in, we'll be assured that there is continuous circulation that is being provided. The City has submitted the project, the environmental assessment worksheet in the project to SRF for review and they're providing us comments on the geometrics that would be required to be done as part of this project in the roadway design. Turn lanes, signalization, whatever. Mayor Chmiel: And is that it? Bob Generous: That's it. Staff is recommending approval of the project and the adoption of the negative declaration as a resolution. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I represent the Ward family...two of the Ward's are here. Don and Bill and a younger one I guess. In addition to that we have representatives from BRW, St. Hubert's Church, ourselves, and the architectural firm of Mika Milo Architecture to answer questions. Because it is relatively late, what we'd like to do is go through a summary of what the project is from our point of view briefly and then try to answer some of your questions. Most of the people here will be available to answer questions that you may have so we'll give you an overview and try to... One question that did come up earlier, which quite honestly we had not thought about, was how we would phase the road system here to keep Great Plains open to service the Total Mart. We hadn't thought about it so much. Obviously the owner of Total Mart, and his way of 42 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 thinking about it, we propose that we'd probably use the standard, city standards for road process, which I think is...trying to figure out how to keep them all in business while you're doing it. We don't have a plan to that effect at the present time. We anticipate that we can do one... So with that I'd like to have Mika Milo, who is the architect for the project go through quickly what we're up to and give you some more visual presentation. Mika Milo: My name's Mika Milo. I live at 16332...Eden Prairie. I'm the principle... We have been working almost a year on the project with other professionals...that are also here present... So together with the owners and with the neighbors we have been working on...we came up with this concept that we have been working for almost a year on that and it's certainly too late now but I'd like to go into...but we are going to just mention a couple things. A couple key architect...and then be available to you tell us what you want us to talk about. So I'll be very brief about information. As we started to work on the project...architecturally as Bob Generous has explained... going from school, to church, and so on. You wouldn't have...that is going along with the neo-traditional type of development...just a little bit more horizontally.., here we are talking a horizontal and vertical mix of use. As you allow.., preserving those natural features of the site as well. Allow them that density... In working on that mix of uses, vertical and horizontal mix of uses, we also have decided that we would like to create definitely a strongly oriented, really a pedestrian oriented development where the car is almost a second...where pedestrian is the key over the car so we created the street. We have.., that will be multi-functional. That will have commercial use on the first floor and the upper floor.., and the parking will be mainly behind the building.., and also the residential parking is... underground so that it's not mixing up with the commercial... Along with that we also have... implemented in a number of street carving techniques where we reducing the truck traffic and slowing down and allowing that to be the remainder of pedestrian oriented street.., especially here in Chanhassen, a year or so... main street can be completed.., and used as pedestrian... We also have provided for a transit stop...village square where.., also be available to people who walk. Everything is in walking distance. If they go to... We also have planned in the development to allow for the preservation of natural features. The... goes from Highway 5 over to down about 60-70 feet down to the lakes. Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake and so we have also.., and we have done extensive studies of the tree preservation.., create a considerable amount of storm ponds in the wetlands that are especially facing Highway 5 and also TH tat. Along TH tat. Basically the village is really on the ponds. As you go, especially on TH tat and Highway, you really see almost the water...We have also one of the goals we set is to... Traditional village...for this development. We would like in purpose to create a...traditional small town feeling of early American towns.., century towns that.., instead of another urban sprawl. We have integrated more uses to form the street, to form the public space, and this is... so that is we are creating a township. We are not creating a spread °f the is°lated'' 'buildings with parking surr°unding with a sea °f cars' The...side of the plan, also the very schematic kind of elevation concept of what kind of elevation for the buildings might look like. Nor did we design any specific buildings. We are just showing this picture only to show kind of character of architecture that we feel would work well with this type of development. Neo-traditional development. That reflect a scale...variation of the design and north... We would be upgrading design standards.., design standards as opposed to in addition to plans...to provide for some safety net that things will predictably develop in the future. It will not be that we do one thing and then who knows what the next store is going to be. We are talking here about fairly regulated development where you invest to do something and know what is that will happen here in that neighborhood. That will be built. What kind of building and what kind of uses. With that I can just explain that just basic structure of that village and I will... Here is TH tat and here is TH 5 and the main spine of the village is created by that pedestrian road, pedestrian oriented main street. And that is connecting the church plaza, the.., and the pier point that is facing... Almost in a cross motion here we are...East Lake Drive and close to TH tat. Connect through to Great Plains Boulevard and...pedestrian bridge to TH 5. In the area that is facing TH 5, we call promenade, is on one side of the buildings with 2-3 story buildings with commercial and apartments above. They are facing and surrounding the forum. The main...facing here at Highway 5. The pond is meant to be more of a manicured pond than a reflective pool. More... any questions on that but what I'm saying is a full easement is being.., also a substantial amount of wetlands which we are trying to... and further south here are more hillside and wooded area and that we are leaning to... On the west side of TH ta t, that area is connected to the main street and the East Lake Drive, but it is not that much in... It is just possibly suggesting that.., including engineering and environmental issues. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve. 43 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: I've been watching this thing grow fairly closely. I don't suspect that I have any real questions that haven't been asked by the Planning Commission of the staff. I'm not any smarter than those folks. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'd hate to have anyone take the impression that this is the first time we've seen this because it certainly isn't. I just have a couple detail questions. You dealt with the parking. The architecture. Are you tying in any of your standards to the current downtown? For instance the light boxes or. Mika Milo: I'm sorry... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure. Are you tying in any of your architectural features to our current downtown such as any street furniture or lighting fixtures? Mika Milo: Yes we are. That is what you see happening in Chanhassen downtown is very significant to us and these features that we are developing are going to be incorporated. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So pitched roofs and. Mika Milo: ...we actually would like to strengthen this development... Councilwoman Dockendorf: The phasing, you're talking about the 4 to 5 years build out. Does that sound reasonable for now? Mika Milo: Probably. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you're ready to go with probably the school. The church and school. Mika Milo: Yeah. The school and the motel site on the corner...but we believe that the church and the motel site will be the first to develop. Councilwoman Dockendorf: How much money have you received from the Met Council for transit uses? Bob Generous: $190,000.00. Mika Milo: That of course again bus stops where we have the bus shelters to protect the public hear from the rain and the... However they are still working development plans... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you see it as a park and ride or a kiss and ride or a walk and ride? Kate Aanenson: It's really, it's transit enhancements is really what it is. I mean it's street furniture. There's a lot of different components to it. Bob Generous: Not a park and ride. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. It's not a park and ride. Bob Generous: More like the smaller buses would come into there and would drop people off. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So Dial-a-Ride services.., okay. And I would hope that you've taken that consideration for St. Hubert's as well. There's quite a bit. Kate Aanenson: The city's administrative sure will. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Boy, that's it for questions. 44 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Kate Aanenson: Can I address one other question that you had as far as development standards. Probably the most time we spent as far as, besides the subdivision and just the technical and environmental issues, was the development standards and I know I spoke to Mark earlier today on some of that but that's really where, and the Planning Commission also spent, and that's where we talk about the permitted uses and all of the design aspects and that's probably where it's the most gnashing of teeth through that whole area. But because there's so many issues, when this comes back for final plat, we've asked that they try to put the architectural standards in a booklet form because it's hard for us to, this is strictly representation now. What we're concerned about is franchising. One of the things that we felt, what is the City getting in for this. That's always been the issue that the staff has. Are we getting something unique? Certainly we're getting some different type housing and different type look and it's an infill PUD, which is different in itself but also are we getting something unique that's an enhancement, kind of that linkage, similar linkage to downtown and we believe that we're getting it based on the standards here. What we are concerned about is that these standards are adhered to. We want to make sure that they're articulated in an easy to understand form so, when you see this for final plat, we'll have a booklet in place too so you can understand the architectural standards and those will be pulled into the PUD itself but right now they start on page 16. They start off with permitted uses and the intent. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Kate I know that the goals for the housing, we put a requirement that they have to have rental in there. They have to have rental and that's part of the PUD agreement and you're going to strive for, what did you say, a 65/35 split on that? Bob Generous: Yeah. 35 would be the percent that would be affordable. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And then for the owner occupied. Audience: We can't hear very clear. Bob Generous: 35% would be affordable for rental and we're trying for a 50/50 split. Councilwoman Dockendorf: On the owner occupied. Bob Generous: On the owner occupied. Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Michael. Councilman Mason: Kiss and ride? Councilwoman Dockendorf: You drop offyour spouse and you go inside. Councilman Mason: Oh! Okay, alright. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's one ofthe features of Southwest Metro, didn't you know that? Councilman Mason: I'm not on that commission, I didn't know what that meant. It's late. I'm sorry. First manure management to kiss and ride. Well. We've been following this for a long time and things are going to come up. This is preliminary. I agree with Steve, and I think Colleen's questions were pretty brief and to the point. I continue to be impressed with all the people and all the time and all the energy that's been spent on this project and I'm looking forward to it. There will be some comments I'm sure later but I don't have any questions right now. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't know. I think it's fair to say I've had hundreds of questions as this thing's gone along. I think the Planning Commission did a super job. I think it answered most of them... I think I've spent a lot of 45 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 time asking Kate more questions that you're probably getting sick of but that's...but I think as far as tonight goes, I think everything's.., and preliminarily looks good. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I really don't have any questions. I do like what I see. I think it can add, be an enhancement for the community so I guess I'll just drop it right there. Is there anyone who has any concerns in regards to this specific proposal? Yes sir. Would you please come up to the podium and state your name and your address. Pat Hallisee: I'm Pat Hallisee, 6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnestonka, 55343. I'm a partner in Blue Circle Investment Company. We're the people that own the Total Mart strip mall. I also want to be as brief as I possibly can tonight to spare you any extra time. However, I do want to take enough time to explain our position to you fully, and our concerns. They're rooted in long history. 10 years of history. Going back to the time that we started planning our development. And I know that there are some people here in this room that have heard our concerns in the past. From those of you who have not, I won't take this time to reiterate them. At the time we were planning our development, we made our plans at the direction of the City and MnDot around the widening and the expanded Highway 101 going south along the corridor of Great Plains Boulevard. In other words, in it's former location. We had to have some expenditures that we had to make in order to accommodate the widening of the planned expansion of that roadway in that very location. Then along came a couple years and we built our property and we made some concessions within the least to a tenant based on some assurances that we received from city staff at that time, that if certain things happened, they could leave their place of business. We expressed them and we sent them a lease provision to the Council at that time. At the time the road was relocated, I guess I want to point out that it was a very controversial issue and the Council at that time developed a criteria to score the three different proposals that were in front of them at that time and according to their own proposal that they developed, they developed their own scoring criteria. The proposal that scored the highest was to take TH 101 and expand it in it's current location. However they chose to move it anyway. At that time it was our understanding that as a concession to us and in an effort to try and maintain our commercial viability, that the link between Highway 5, going down Great Plains Boulevard, with the traffic on TH 101 to the south, would not be destroyed until such point in time as Lake Drive East, and some other connector in the development, were in place. In other words, we were concerned about losing the traffic. The ability of cars from the south to get to us and we were led to believe that that would not be destroyed until we had something in it's place. Something to compensate for it. We were also led to believe at the point in time that we developed our property that Lake Drive East would be extended through from Great Plains Boulevard to the west, eventually to connect up over to County Road 17 I believe it is. In an effort it was to serve as a frontage road. In an effort to help divert traffic off Highway 5 and to give a service road so that the traffic within the city could use that as a convenient way of getting from one end of the city to the other without using Highway 5. In an effort to try and get the traffic off Highway 5. I now see Lake Drive East as being something totally different than that. By their own admission Lake Drive East is going to be a very pedestrian oriented roadway. The whole system is going to be very pedestrian oriented, both internally and externally if I hear the quote correct. Mr. Johnson eluded this evening to our concern. He expressed our concern and he said that perhaps the way to work with it is somehow through a normal street planning process. I'm very, very concerned about that because just this evening, before this meeting, Mr. Johnson and another representative from Lotus Realty told us that it is impossible to go ahead with this development and build the Hubert's portion of it while still leaving us some kind of a connection to traffic from the south. My concern, although much has changed and we want to see development. It's certainly not the kind of development that we envisioned. It's not the kind of a roadway that we envisioned. My concern is that please don't kill the patient with the cure. We're struggling. We're trying to hold our development together. Don't take away what little traffic remains before we have something to replace it as an economic viability for it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Vernelle Clayton: My name is Vernelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle in Chanhassen. My role is two fold... We all agreed to be brief and one of the things that's been...is to kind of play clean up man and go through the conditions. We've done that a couple of times now. Gone over it with staff and we don't have any questions on any of the conditions. This... really satisfactory answer for Mr. Hallisee this evening. We, he described, he called in... and Bob told him that tonight would be the time to come rather than 46 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 then because this is when we're talking about the overall plat. I got a hold of him this afternoon and... I talked with him earlier. He did say, I'm the other person at Lotus Realty that he talked, or referred to. He did say that there is an area here where, you can't see it... Thank you. And thank you all for all of your time on this... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, I would like to bring this back to Council for the discussion and consideration. As you mentioned before, this is just going to be a resolution and finding comments on the EAW and also the comprehensive land use plan amendment. Along with that, I think I'm starting to lose my voice but that's okay. Is there any other discussion by Council? Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, dealing with the EAW versus the EIS. I guess I'll start out with the wrong question. What's the price tag on the EIS? Bob Generous: I have no amount. Councilwoman Dockendorf: You have no guess? Vernelle, go ahead. Vernelle Clayton: I'm not sure the issue entirely is price. We worked very hard to stay under the limit so we wouldn't have to...time table. It would take essentially as long as a year to get that done and...ground this fall... It fits because.., and the project works under that so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well there are, I mean I have a lot of concerns with you know, 44% of impervious surface and 75% of the trees being removed and a lot of grading but you know, according to the definitions we do fit under that threshhold. It doesn't mean we don't have to keep an eye towards some of these scary issues. I guess I'm willing to defend the need. The lack of need for completing an EIS. Getting to the whole site, I'd like to start out with the macro and hopefully minimize the micro. The comprehensive land use amendment. There isn't that much change from what it was originally zoned for. I mean we're adding some residential and some additional commercial and I found the whole discussion, the percentage of what we have in the city now and what Carver County has as a whole very useful. In fact we could have used some of this information in our strategic planning session a couple of weeks ago. It would have answered some questions. So we're adding what I guess is an estimated 3% more commercial, which I think is appropriate in a growing city. My biggest concern was the creation of a new downtown. Detracting it from the current one. I think if we do indeed incorporate some of the design elements that we have in our current downtown, we can achieve an enhancement to our current downtown. And I think that we are pretty much max'd out in any future expansion to the current level. I think you do need to jump the highway. And I think this project really maintains our downtown as our central focus of our community. In terms of the PUD, I think there is obviously justification for it. Although I don't necessarily agree with the preservation of site characteristics is really occuring. With the amount of grading that we have. So that's kind of questionable. I'm not sure it would be any better or worse under straight zoning. However it does have, achieve a very efficient use of land and we are getting some additional rental and some affordable units in here which our city is in dire need of. And it's a very high quality project which is how I'd like to finish up. As I said, this is not the first, second, third, fourth or fifth time we've seen this before and I'm extremely pleased with the process that we've gone through. We've certainly been educated in neo-traditional housing. New urbanism. However you'd like to call it. This started out with a real German idea and it's gotten a lot of substance. This certainly isn't the final product. I mean we've got site plans. Individual site plans to go through but in terms of putting a lot of substance around an initial concept, this is very good. I publicly commend the Planning Commission and city staff. It's been a huge undertaking and as I said, we're not done yet. And I'd like to say a word about Lotus Realty. The developer. A project of this magnitude is really scary. It's scary for Council. It's scary for the City because it's going to define what we look like in the future. It's scary and it also of course is very exciting. One thing that does mitigate the fear is the fact that we're dealing with a developer and people who live in this city. They work in this city. They've done high quality projects in this city. And that makes me very comfortable and I really thank Vernelle and Brad for their work they've put into this and their consultants that they've brought in. I thank you for the dedication. And certainly to the Planning Commission and staff who has put in numerous hours on that. I guess that's the extent of my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 47 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Mason: It's been said. Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Mark. Councilman Senn: It's pretty late. I don't have a whole lot to add. I just want to make one comment and that was about, I'm really pleased with the way the Planning Commission and the staff handled the additional retail, which was a main concern of mine in relationship to downtown. Especially with the way they put the caps on the size. No big box users, etc so it came out really well. Mayor Chmiel: Good. I'm going to just put a ditto on that and move from there. Is there any other discussion by Council? If hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I would move on the, recommend City Council approve resolution declaring no need for an EIS for Villages on the Ponds mixed use development project. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #96-70: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve a Resolution Declaring No Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Villages on the Ponds Mixed Use Development Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Mason: I will also move, do I need to read the whole thing? Mayor Chmiel: Or you could have, contained within the staff report. Councilman Mason: Okay, well we did 8(a) so 8(b). I'll move approval of Villages, preliminary approval of Villages on the Ponds Project on 66.12 acres as stated in the staff report, and including, he it's late. Including whatever's in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded the City Council grants preliminary approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant will be required to provide 208 trees as reforestation plantings. Trees are to be from the city's Approved Tree List. All future site plans for the Villages on the Pond development will use the conceptual landscaping plan as a guide for numbers of placement of landscape plants including trees and shrubs. No individual uses will be allowed to provide less landscaping for the site than what has been included on the master landscaping plan. 48 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 3. Applicant shall provide a landscaped walkway between individual sites along Highway 5 to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping if the building are not moved to the foreground of their parking lots. 4. Minimum tree removal will be allowed for the tennis courts to the west of Highway 101. No clearings will be allowed for parking spaces. 5. The development shall comply with the development design standards included in the staff report and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Grading shall be prohibited in the area between the bluff areas adjacent to Lake Susan. 7. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 foot intervals and fire hydrants shall be located at major intersections. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are known and how buildings are positioned on property. 8. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 9. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing. 10. The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992 will be used as basic criteria for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project, numbering on more than one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional signage. 12. Final grading plan shall incorporate the following changes: 13. Provide compatible site grades for the future upgrade of Grandview Road through Lots 8 and 10, Block 1. 14. Delete tennis courts. 15. Relocate NURP Basin No. 4 westerly outside of existing Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. Consider consolidation of NURP Basin No. 3 with NURP Basin No. 4 and oversize NURP Basin No. 4 to accommodate future stormwater runoff south of the development. 16. Adjust grading limits on Lot 2, Block 2 to avoid tree loss. 17. Phases of grading the development shall be shown. 18. Incorporate fencing with the construction of the 12-foot high retaining wall on Lot 10, Block 1. 19. Rerouting of Riley Creek shall be developed and approved by the DNR. 20. Revise grades along Trunk Highway 101 for a future trail underneath Trunk Highway 101. 21. All NURP basins shall be constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 inch at the normal water level for the first 1-foot of depth or 4:1 side slopes overall. 49 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 22. Add high water levels to all NURP basins and wetlands. 23. No berming allowed in any public right-of-way. 24. Maintain 7½ feet of cover over City's watermain along Trunk Highway 101. 25. Include lot lines, lot numbers, block numbers, and storm sewers with structure numbers. 26. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon clarification of the issues relating to the vacation of Great Plains Boulevard and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. 27. The lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to ponds and wetland shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 28. The City shall assume maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities and wetlands two years after completion of the site improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over ponding areas and wetlands. The easements shall encompass the storm ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or its successors. 29. The proposed 8-inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of proposed St. Hubert's Church shall be extended along the secondary access road to the east property line. In addition, sanitary and storm sewer and water service shall be extended to the east property line of the plat through the northerly access road to Grandview Road via Lake Drive and sanitary sewer shall be extended south of the school to the east property line. 30. All sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building services shall be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. As-built construction plans will be required before the City accepts the utilities. 31. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat is recorded and the appropriate demolition permits will be required through the City's Building Department. Existing wells and/septic systems on the site shall be abandoned per State health codes and City ordinance. 32. The final plat shall dedicate right-of-way for future Grandview Road over the easterly 17 feet of Lots 8 and 10, Block 1 paralleling existing Grandview Road. 33. All access points on to Trunk Highway 101 are subject to MnDOT and city approval. 34. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year and 100-year storm events along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post-runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 35. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $159,206.00 and a water quality fee of $267,323.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant' s SWMP fees for oversizing of the ponding facilities and oversizing of trunk storm sewer after review of the final construction plans and drainage/ponding calculations. The SWMP fees are payable at time of final plat. 36. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private and public streets. The applicant and City staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans. 50 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 37. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 38. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. 39. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents. 40. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNK Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT, Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services, and Carver County Highway Department. 41. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 42. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion control fence on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized on all slopes in excess of 3:1. 43. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 44. The applicant reduce the impacts to Wetland 2000, create a larger on site mitigation area and present a sequencing plan showing reduced impact to affected wetlands. 45. City staff and the applicant shall investigate the origin of Wetland 6000 to determine if this area can be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. 46. Buffer strips shall be provided around Wetland 5000. The buffer strips shall be 10 to 30 feet in width with an average width of 20 feet. 47. The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36-feet wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which accesses Grandview Road within the plat shall be constructed to 31-feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac with a 25-foot radius shall be constructed at the end of the public street for Grandview Road. All private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum 26-foot wide drive aisles and built to 7-ton design. 48. Depending on the phasing of the project, Trunk Highway 101 may need to be upgraded to four lanes, as well as, mm lanes and traffic signals. This will be further evaluated contingent upon the outcome of the traffic study being reviewed by SRF. The applicant shall incorporate the necessary traffic improvements as recommended by SRF accordingly. Should the traffic signals not be required with the initial phase of development, the applicant will be required to escrow with the City their fair share of the cost for future installation. Security shall be a means of a letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. All Trunk Highway 101 improvements shall meet State Aid standards. The applicants responsibility for the traffic signals along Trunk Highway 101 shall be 37% of the total cost. A cost sharing agreement between the applicant and City shall be drafted for the installation of any traffic signals. 49. The applicant shall provide cross-access easements and maintenance agreements for use of the private streets. Cross- access easements should also qualify the secondary access road for public use to Grandview Road. 51 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 50. The applicant shall also convey to the City a trail easement over Lot 9, Block 1 and Outlots B and C once the trail aligmnent has been approved and constructed. 51. The applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way with the initial phase of development in conjunction with an agreement by the city for the vacation of TH 101. 52. The application be approved as presented with certain conditions regarding parks and recreation: a. The south Rice Marsh Lake Trail connection be identified on the plan. b. If the trail along TH 101 south of Rosemount is disturbed during construction, an replacement be coordinated with the applicant. c. There be a joint agreement for future use of the soccer field between the community Hubert's Church. d. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance. agreement for and St. 53. Unless setbacks can be maintained for existing TH 101, development of Block 2 is contingent upon the upgrade of State Hwy. 101. 54. The developer shall create a schematic booklet depicting development design standards and definitions. 55. The developer shall create and maintain an Architectural and Landscape Review Committee to review and approve development and building plans for buildings within the Villages on the Ponds. 56. The Developer shall work with the city to accomplish City goals for housing including the provision of "affordable housing." 57. The developer and future site users shall be required to incorporate streel/plaza furniture, planting boxes, public art, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. within the development and on individual site plans. 58. The applicant shall prepare a detail plan for the design of the wetland alterations. 59. The applicant shall provide specific landscaping plan for wetland 2000 and along TH 5. 60. For two years following final approval of the development, no changes in official controls of the city shall affect the development. 61. A Phase II historical analysis shall be performed on potential archaeological sites as delineated in the EAW." All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY~ CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BOULEVARD; REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOME UNITS~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY~ TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION~ TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address 52 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Barry Cohen Chanhassen Yvonne LaPerotiere Chanhassen Marcia Klodek 2491 Bridle Creek Trail Melinda & Kent Hallrah 2450 Bridle Creek Trail Dona Lee 2451 Bridle Creek Trail Kathryn & Jim Liddell 2550 Bridle Creek Trail Monica & Dave Kilber 2470 Bridle Creek Trail Robert & JoAnn Schwartz 2507 Bridle Creek Trail Jim & Mary Stasson 2461 Bridle Creek Trail Paul Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Steve & Nancy Cavanaugh 2441 Bridle Creek Trail Mike Minear 2421 Bridle Creek Trail Rodney & Janice Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail Jeanne, Krista & Nathan Lindberg 2480 Bridle Creek Trail Debra & Michael Mullins 2547 Bridle Creek Trail B.J. Ward 2551 Bridke Creek Trail Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. Last year this property came before the City with a proposal for a single family development. At that time staff recommended denial of the land use amendment to permit a single family development because the City has an abundance of vacant low density guided land and so we didn't believe that it was worth giving up the industrial office land base. Land base but we did give the developer an opportunity to come back with a compromise on their proposal for the development of this site. They were not interested in doing that and withdrew their application. This year John Allen came in, who's an industrial developer and he brought with him Town & Country Homes, which presented a proposal for a mixed townhouse, office/industrial development. Before they even came in to the City, staff work extensively on them trying to create a balance between the land uses and to incorporate the topographic and vegetative features on the site to create a nice transition on the project. So the original plan is the one that I have before you. They located dwellings in the northeast corner of the site adjacent ot the Trotters Ridge development. One of the reasons staff was pushing for the extension of the office industrial on the western part of this site is that there's a large office industrial park located in Chaska in that area and we'd like to have the two industrial parks back up to each other. However, the City was concerned about providing a transition from the low density residential development and Trotters Ridge into the office industrial park. And so we thought that this project could do that and meet the planning standards of the transitioning uses from a low density to medium density to office or commercial use. After the first Planning Commission hearing, the applicant, and meetings with the neighboring property owners, the applicant brought a revised proposal that eliminated the housing in the northeast corner of the site so that you didn't have the backs of the houses in the closest proximity to the Trotters Ridge development. And then they did do some other shifting within the project to create, reduce the visual impact. They also agreed to provide extensive landscaping along the northern part of this project. Staff does believe that this project meets some of the goals that the City has in regard to providing housing opportunities within the community, while at the same time maintaining some of our tax base. However it is the basic issue revolving around this project is, is it appropriate to reguide this property and rezone it from office/industrial to the medium density residential. And that's one of the issues that the City Council will have to resolve. Staffbelieves this is an appropriate use of the property and we did recommend approval of the project as submitted. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions by Council? Councilman Berquist: We're still on 140 units, as proposed tonight? Bob Generous: That's the last thing I reviewed, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, we'll have the developer present his proposal as to where he's at right now. 53 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Bob Smith: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Bob Smith with Town & County Homes. In light of the hour and to conserve time, Mr. Generous has done a very good job. I'm going to jump right into some architecture.., seen before you. The plan here is the front of one of the townhomes that we have in Burnsville. You can see across the front here we have brick with two cars and one car so we're looking at vinyl siding. The shutters in here. I'm going to try to be very brief with this because of the hour. When you turn the corner here and the entrance door here also have brick enhancements as well as carried through the full windows to let light into the homes very well and architectural details. And rear elevation as seen actually from the site. The presentation on here is... One of the things illustrated on this particular photograph is that our units, our townhomes in the purest sense, it has a front to rear entrance so they're not backed up to each other...patios that walk out... It's a very delicate site and very controversial situation that we've been in. We've had three different neighborhood meetings and we've listened to the neighbors and this is a one and two car townhome. Many of the issues are issues that we've heard from the neighborhood meetings is they didn't want to see the one and two car, feeling that it didn't provide enough parking spaces. The affordability range... These homes here are averaging about 1,100 square feet. And 1,400 square feet. And we've taken consideration. We've listened to the neighborhood through neighborhood meetings and come up with some ideas for new layouts. As Mr. Generous had said, one of the other subsequent plans has shown that along Trotters Ridge that we eliminated some buildings...that the neighborhood said they preferred looking at the ends or their fronts. At a subsequent meeting they said they didn't like to look at the.., sixplex building that this shows. We completely retooled. Town & Country has a lot of different plans and we completely retooled and came up with a different set of architecture for this. Looking at all two car facility garages of front and end units. We have the entrances that would come in to a courtyard type. These townhomes are a little bit larger. We're looking at townhomes, let me get my exactly numbers out here. At about 1,282 square feet to about 1,675 so we're up a couple notches in size, rather than the flats and two stories. These are all two story. Along with this you're looking at two different types of site plans. Taking into consideration some of the things that the neighborhood had talked about. If I can take the overhead here and show some of those so everyone can take a look at them. This plan depicts 136 townhomes. We've taken the loop and changed the industrial site. Rather than having, as this plan reflects, a site along the west side and a site along the Lyman Boulevard site, we've increased the size from almost 12 acres in this particular building and concept shows about 207,000 square feet. Mr. Allen has told me that this is a much more attractive type site and location for a corporate center. Mr. Allen would be the builder of the industrial site. The residential area here looks at, rather than a six unit, an eight unit. This is a six and four unit buildings and six unit buildings so we've cut down the density. We've cut down the mass and the size of the buildings and put two car garages depicted in this graphic. This has a full looped street with a cul-de-sac up on the northeast corner, as well as a cul-de-sac in the center of the development. I'll speak from here for a moment. One of the issues was wetlands and there's a small wetland in here on the other plan that was filled. This particular plan does not fill this wetland. In fact it saves it. Saving trees in through this area, as well as through this area with the wetland not being touched here or being touched here. We further took into consideration the neighbors. This once again has four unit homes. Four homes to buildings all along in here so it's smaller. Four in here. When we get down in here we're getting into the larger buildings. We have four along here. Another consideration was the people of Stone Creek. This completely eliminates the homes along here as the street is tipped up farther. Once again this has 136 homes on this. Further considering the environment. On alternative plans we...two car townhome. The development scarnio that's shown here. This comes into the same location as the previous one. We put a two car and we put a small pod, what I'll call a small driveway turn around. The cul-de-sac comes up to here once again. It loops around, all the way around once again and enters at this point. This saves even more of the trees. The wetland is even more protected in here, as well as there's more trees saved in through here in this whole center area. Once again this depicts the concept of about 207,000 square feet of industrial. From this plan we're looking at really three different plans. We're looking at the one and two car garage. We're looking at the 136 car, hold two car and 126 two car. We really have three different plans looking at it with two different types of architecture. It's a very sensitive site and we wanted to listen to the neighbors and try to respond to the neighbors in a sensitive way with these plans and we're looking for direction from you as City Council on which way to go for different types of units. At this time I'm just going to turn it over if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any questions? Steve. 54 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: No, not at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I think we all had the opportunity to meet individual with the developers. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: More I guess just for clarification. I hadn't previously seen... Now you referenced density in terms of dropping density. I assume what you're doing is dropping density from the individual building units. Your overall density is effectively remaining about the same. Bob Smith: We're about 4 ½ to over 5 units per acre on the overall development. We have reduced some of the density and the plan that is on the overhead here, we have reduced density. By doing that, we've saved a considerable amount of trees in this area. This plan represents about a 4.6 units per acre. The other plan represents about 4.8 units per acre. We've got about a 12 acre industrial site in this area here. In one contiguous site, which is a pretty good usable site. Usable building. One of the things that I would like to point out is that once again the square footages have increased on these. The affordability range has obviously changed. You're looking at these units are a little more expensive now. About 60% of these homes would fall within what's termed the affordable range as set by the Met Council at $126.5. The rest of those would be above that. If you look at the subsequent years, that may change. You would probably be able to bring more into that affordable range. This plan here has merit that it's virtually 100% in the affordable. The other two plans is about 60% in the affordable range. Councilman Berquist: So if you're looking at, with that 136 unit plan, 60% of them are $126.5 is your ceiling. What's your top end marketing range? Bob Smith: The top price tag of those would be around the high 30's. Excuse me, high $130's. From the cost standpoint.., a number of those that are really above the affordable range. Councilman Berquist: What's your base price. Bob Smith: On this we're looking at the low 100's. Where on this we're looking at about 85 to 115. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Did you talk Bob with your marketing people at all regarding widening the mix? Bob Smith: We have looked at that and because it is a small project, we would almost have to have a single kind of a unit. A one and two car, or a two car because it is such a small project. We wouldn't be able to put two different types of produts in this development. It would be a 40 acre or 60 acre, something like that. Because of the size we would have been able to take different products but this one being with the one-half product. Councilman Berquist: And that's a marketing constraint or a construction constraint? Bob Smith: Both. Marketing as far as...very expensive and from the construction standpoint, looking at the different products and the different types of materials or different types of construction, and a one and two car versus two car, the plans are considerably different. Councilman Berquist: Okay. 55 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Alright, thanks. Since time is fleeting and everybody has to go to work tomorrow, I'd like to, for those of you who would like to make comments, and I know most of you already have. And also with all the letters that we've received, we know exactly where you're coming from. And if there is something other than the fact from what you have indicated previously, I would like to have no more than two minutes per person and I'll have the stop watch going. Is there anyone who would like to bring any additional information forward? LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I hope I can bring forth some new concepts. At least I thought about this project and about...the plans. One of my greatest concerns I have with the proposed development is the density. The number of townhouse units. We were talking about perhaps seeing 20 or more of... This would only detract from.., surrounding neighborhoods .... on the north side of the properties near Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. In my opinion having these two types of developments in such close proximity...traffic noise and congestion. Besides the density issue I just want to highlight the fact that these types of buildings that we've been shown really are in fact cookie cutter type of structures. There is no variety that we saw in the proposal prior to this one... This type of product would not blend in to the surrounding neighborhoods and would only detract from the sense of the area. I believe because of this there is no compelling reason to change the land use plan because the development does not meet it. Also in looking at the...proposed Town & Country Homes development as it stands, and this 140 units, there is no...industrial site. This further burdens the tax payers of Chanhassen and the reduces the attractiveness of the proposal strictly on this basis. Again... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to Council and discuss. Steve, is there anything more that you'd like to add? Councilman Berquist: Anything more I'd like to add. Well, when we met with the Trotters Ridge owners I pretty much laid my cards on the table and said that my idea of attractive affordable housing is done in a blend of other types of housing so that from the outside the units are virtually indistinquishable from each other. I'm not in favor of a 140 units or 136 units, 60% of which would be at $126.5 or less. 40% of which would be at $140 to $126.5. If we're going to change the comp plan, there has to be something a little bit more. There has to be a better reason than simply approving this type of a project. So and that's exactly what we talked about on Tuesday. And given that, that's where I'm still at. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'm trying to weed through all the issues andjust think ofwhat really brought us here tonight. And I think it goes back to, it was zoned IOP. Or guided for that and last year, for whatever reason we had a single family development proposed which made us aware of the transitional issues. And typically when you have a single family homes, the transitional use is medium density to higher density to office industrial. And this seemed abrupt so we thought, with the single family homes to the industrial. So we though, let's compromise. Let's look at some residential and industrial on the same site. And that's exactly what Council asked for and that's exactly what we're looking at tonight. However, I think we've lost that original purpose. I think we've learned, and just in the short course of a year, that, and we're seeing in other areas of the city. We're seeing a lot of building going on in the last year, that office/industrial is not a bad transition from single family housing. And I guess I would agree with Steve insofar as, if we're going to have a comprehensive land use amendment, we need some compelling reasons. Now we never intended this site to be affordable housing. We haven't designated where and which throughout the city to put that. It just so happens that when you get higher densities, sometimes you do get more affordable rates. But I think even that concession we're losing some of that because although the units may start out with a base price, the developer of meeting the threshold of $126 and lower, the developer has said the individual home owners usually tacks on $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 additional amenities so although we may be hitting the Met Council's goals, we're still not creating true affordable housing for people who work in our community. So I think the, we've taken a really circuitous route to find out that perhaps industrial is the best use for this piece of land and I guess that's where I'm sitting tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mike. 56 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Mason: Well I had the misfortune, or fortune of not being at the last meeting that this all came up on so you people get to listen for oh, 10 or 15 minutes. No, no, no, no. Just a joke... Okay, 2 minutes. I also met with Trotters Ridge people and I made the comment that I've been at these meetings before and felt like I was a part of a witch hunt and I was quick to add, I did not feel that way and, there, and I thank you people for that again. We had, I thought a very nice meeting and I certainly made no promises and I think they wanted some but they also understood where I was coming from. Going through all the Minutes on this, the Planning Commission felt, unanimously felt that this should not be changed. That it should be IOP. I've been a strong proponent for affordable housing in this city and I continue to be. I also like to think that I'm proactive on things as opposed to reactive, and I'm going to try and tie those two together because if I say I'm against affordable housing here, that makes me sound reactive. I'm sorry Mike, is your last name Mullins? Okay. One of the gentlemen from Trotters Ridge, Mike Mullins, said well you know, he agrees with the concept of affordable housing. Do we have any kind of comprehensive plan for that in the city? And it certainly, I'm getting the feeling, now that Met Council has our feet awfully close to the fire, if not in it, that we're just jumping on everything we possibly can. And I do think, and I agreed with Mike, that we need, we do need to take a look at this on a city wide basis. And my personal feeling is, if we approve this tonight, we're not doing that. Which I now flies in the face of me who says I'm for affordable housing. I am and we need it and we need more of it. We've had discussions about diversity in this community and how people that work here can't afford to live here, and that certainly continues to happen. So we do need it. I guess I'm a little disappointed in this last 126 unit plan because that essentially made absolutely nobody happy because the whole concept of affordable housing I think has kind of gone out of the window with that. The long and the short of it here is, I'm not ready to make, to approve a land use amendment on this at this point with what I see before me. I also at some point, and I know I talked with the Planning Commission Chair on this, about maybe we need to get Council and Planning Commission and staff together and maybe we do need to look at the Comp Plan and maybe we do need to re-open some issues and find out where there are some strategic places where this can happen. With that in mind, this spot may still end up to be that but not tonight. For me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. I don't know. All I can do is react to the proposal that's in front of us. Mike mentioned that the Planning Commission thought this should stay IOP. I think we've all met with the neighbors. I think the neighbors have been very concerned about how this develops or the area haven't been too enamored with any of the plans. To be honest with you, I kind of came tonight expecting to see something kind of different because I heard everybody talking about a new plan. I haven't seen a new plan. I wasn't even contacted about it but you know, to me there really hasn't been much change at all in this plan. I felt 140 units was too much density and I think 136 units or whatever it was...is still too much density. For that site. I think Steve put it very nicely when he said he really can't see any real compelling reason to a guide plan amendment for the project in front of us. And again that's all we can react to. When affordable housing has beena big issue around here, which it has been. I think we all agree that we need it. I think we've all agreed that if we do it, it's going to need to be interspersed. I think we've all agreed in discussing effectively what has been put in front of us by the Met Council as far as standards or relatively I'm going to say, nice goals but generally unachievable. But again, you can have goals that are unachievable. And I think the main thing we need to do on affordable housing is you know, unless a specific circumstance really lends itself to us, I think we need to stick with kind of the original approach and that is to keep it interspersed. I guess as we did with the Rottlund project. Now granted it, we haven't had a lot of time to see how that all works but I think we've got to kind of take it slow and easy and than just proceed... I'm not sure that the neighborhood's going to be real happy about an all industrial project next to them either. But at this point that's really hard to speak to because again we don't have something in front of us and I guess that's another time and we'll have to see what else comes in...but in relationship to what's here tonight, I just can't see enough reasons to go ahead and do it so I would not support changing the guide. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'm not going to take too much time because I think everybody has said pretty much as to what my feelings are. Affordable housing, no question in my mind, we need it within the city. Whether this is the right location, I sort of question that. And I guess I see, establishing a precedent by going through and changing from where we're at to, from industrial back to the concept of what we're looking at. I see this probably happening again, and as most people have indicated, they have some concerns with taxes. As one woman who did mention that fact this evening. Has some real concerns as well, and I think the more industrial kinds of uses that we can have within the city, is probably the best for the city. And I always try to come up with 57 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 that same kind of judgment in making anything what I said in this position. So with that, I guess I would entertain a motion. Before I even mention, before I even go beyond that. I'd also like to say that I think we, as a Council should sit down with Planning and really come up with a conclusion as to how and where we can do this. Staff I think is coming back to us with some things that they like but I think it's our duty to say, let's sit down. Let's come up with some conclusions. So with that I will then, Colleen. You wanted to say something. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I would move that we deny the land use amendment. Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council deny Land Use Map Amendment #96-1B from Office/Industrial to Residential Medium density for the northerly 22.6 acres for Town & Country Homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Tom Scott: ... second motion directing staff to prepare Findings... Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that had a recognition for it. To move for denial... I see. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that I direct staff to prepare Findings, etc, etc. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for denial for Land Use Map Amendment #96-1B. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA; (D). CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TOBACCO SALES~ FIRST READING. Councilman Senn: Yeah on (d), in fact I've already talked to Scott on this and he is in agreement. My concern on this is that we're talking about this use going in effectively right across the street from the Middle School. I think it behooves us to effectively put additional language in here so as to require each person purchasing tobacco products to be effectively ID'd. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think our existing ordinance indicates that as well as keeping all the products unavailable on the outside of the counter. To have those all contained on the inside. Councilman Senn: But as I understand this, and again maybe I'm wrong now but this is changing that. This is making them available, you know not across the counter. They're saying they're going to keep minors out, people not of age out of the store. What we're talking about is basically putting some teeth in it which effectively allows them you know to card anybody under question who even walks into the store and also allows us to test them. To make sure that it's being done, and it is getting done because again we're being asked here to depart from what our current ordinance allows and it allows us to effectively turn around and put some staff conditions on it. And I think in this case we could. I've been through this time and time again and I don't know how you're supposed to sit there and rely on somebody who may be you know, 20 or 21 years old or something herself to sit there and determine who's 17 and who's 18. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you want everyone carded? Everyone carded who walks in the store. Councilman Senn: It's their responsibility effectively, which means if they have any question, they darn well better. 58 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Dockendorf: But that's how the current law reads. Mayor Chmiel: That's the way it is now. Councilman Senn: Not a requirement. Mayor Chmiel: Well it is. Sure it is. Councilman Senn: Over the counter. Mayor Chmiel: Over the counter. Councilman Senn: Okay, but this is again now to enter the store. They're saying they're making the stuff accessibility without going over the counter. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But they're syaing they're not going to allow anyone to come in the store. Councilman Senn: Our ordinance does not say they can not allow anybody into the store. That's what I'm trying to say, okay. So this puts a provision in which says they cannot, and they must card. Basically taking your counter and moving it out to your front door. Councilman Berquist: What did Scott say? Councilman Senn: He's in agreement with it he said. Mayor Chmiel: In other words, having something indicated on the door, if you're not 18, you're not permitted in this. Councilman Senn: And put the monkey so to speak on their back to enforce it so. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but, I know of many, not many but I know of a few kids who can go through and are 16 and have an 18 year old on their license. Councilman Senn: Well I mean Don, I'll be honest with you, I don't even like the idea of this use going in that close proximity to the school. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's another concern I have, yeah. Councilman Senn: But I mean if that's something we can't stop, okay, then all I'm trying to say is, I think we ought to really make it clear that we're going to check it and we ought to have the teeth in it that allows us to send people in to check it. Mayor Chmiel: In a sort we have that ability for us right now in utilitizing the Drug Task Force as we have. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but we're muddying the water here effectively now. Taking the control out of the counter and effectively having goods effectively open without a containment point. Councilman Berquist: Have you got some verbiage to finish your thought? Councilman Senn: Well mine was basically, I've talked to Scott about it. I'd just soon have his draft it and have it make sense and make sure that it covers what we need to cover but. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's deal with it on the second reading. 59 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Berquist: I don't have a problem. Mayor Chmiel: I guess with this being the first reading...look at that before that and then come up with a conclusion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they can talk to the applicant and see. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Applicant: I am the operational manager for Smokers Haven. Everything that you have voiced right now is our number one priority. I have two locations right now. We have one in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota and North St. Paul, Minnesota. I work very, very closely in my training of all my employees, who by the way are 18 years or older. I kind of slide with the older to get away from the peer pressure. We use the, we card ID kits... We post the age of 18 years all over the store. When they enter our store, I tell them... You card them. That is all we do. We don't fall back on gas sales or pop sales. We are here to provide a service to adults. We welcome, like you were saying, the under aged sting operations. Weare taught...police department and North St. Paul Police Department. If we even hear of any children out there that are getting products from possibly an adult who sells it then to minors...we do make reports on them. We try to stay... On the other hand there is a wave happening. Retail stores are thinking of getting out of selling tobacco products. Target as of September 1st is no longer going to sell them. What they're trying to do is push it back into the hands of this is it. If you're not an adult, we're not going to expose you to any type of tobbaco product. It's one place where we're hoping to see the kids no longer exposed at all. Even in North St. Paul we are close to the high school and they have tried. They have come in with Boy's Club of America, their little yellow tabs. They belong to the Boy's Club. My social security card. I'm very, very proud of the training we have done. We have it posted. If it isn't a Minnesota State ID, no go. No picture... If a group of kids come into the store and you say do you have an ID. You always get one who says well I do but the rest don't. They don't like it very much when we tell them they have to leave. They don't like it when we won't even sell to the 18 year old to therefore pass on to...and I'll tell you what, we have been doing this January and I wanted to perfect our stores rather than become a chain and just open all over. I feel very confident in the fact that we would be open to any city codes or ordinances that you would care to pass. So I just wanted you to know that we're here to work with you. Not against you. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay. Did we make a decision on this one? Did we vote? Councilman Berquist: No. It was sort of decided to handle it the second reading. That's fine by me. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well we would have to approve the first reading of the city code amendment. Is there a motion? Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the first reading of the city code amending tobacco ordinance with Public Safety Director Harr to insert some language that adds some teeth to it as per Councilman Senn's recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of the City Code Amendment concerning tobacco sales directing the Public Safety Director to add stronger language to the amendment when it comes back for final reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF BILLS. Mayor Chmiel: How about the bill one Mark? Do you have specific ones in there? 60 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Councilman Senn: Yeah I've got a number of them so I don't know if you want to deal with them tonight or not. Mayor Chmiel: No, I want to get the approval of the balance of what we have. Maybe those that you have as bills and the respective items, maybe we have it looked at that and Don can review those. Don Ashworth: I have a list that Mark had questions about. I did up responses on those. Were there specific ones left over? Or did you take that same list and make lines through those that are. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I can do that. Pam was doing some additional information. Let's see here. These are all in the 86 one Don... Page 2 and 3, the Barton-Aschman one .... additional information on. Page 4. The BRW, Chanhassen Ice Arena one. Let's see here. Page 12. The Hartley Associates one. And the page 25. The...ofthe internet charges or whatever. Those are the ones I want. Need additional information on or talk about. Councilman Berquist: Those are all America On Line Chat Line. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Senn: So other than those. Mayor Chmiel: Can we have the approval of the balance? Councilman Senn: The only other thing I had was the one item in here pertaining to the payment of our 24% under the Bor-Son contract. I would like Council to I think take a strong position that we make every effort to recover those funds. Councilwoman Dockendorf: How? I mean if you have a decision. Councilman Senn: No. I mean basically if you go back through all the correspondence, I mean there's a number of different issues that are raised about who did what or didn't do what and who's responsible for what. It appears that everything kind of focuses back to the architect and I think that a definite effort should be made to reclaim those funds from the architect and/or errors in admissions or whatever type of thing and I think we ought to make a conscience decision to do that rather than to just simply take this 24% and say we're going to pay it because it was in the debt... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like to see a cost benefit analysis by the attorney as to whether that's worth it. Councilman Senn: Well then fine. Pull that one until then too. That's fine, if you want to wait on that one. Don Ashworth: I believe the check has already been issued to the School District. Mayor Chmiel: What's our other recourse other than the fact of what he said? Don Ashworth: Well the school district is still diligently meeting and talking with HGA. The primary problem we have is, we're not a part of that contract. I mean it's a contract entered into between the School District and HGA. We're kind of riding the coat tails on whatever they can recoup. But I think that you're looking at a recoup of somewhere between $35,000.00 and at the very most, $100 with probably School District being happy at this point in time if they could get $50 to $75. And those are, none of those figures came from the School District so those are Don Ashworth's analysis of basically things that have been said. That I guess I believe where it logically might go. Councilman Senn: I mean it's your choice. I mean I don't care. I mean somebody else can make the motion. You can guys can pass it and I'm going to vote against it. That as a no unless that's in there. If you want to hold this and. 61 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Well the check has already been issued to the school district. Councilman Senn: Well I understand that. If that's the case, I guess why are we questioning any payables and why are we approving them tonight? Don Ashworth: Well I think in most cases, except for things like electric bills, things that you know you have to pay, the check hasn't gone out yet. In this particular instance, my memorandum from the last Council meeting tried to alert you to the fact that the School District's going to be over here. They're going to be over here very quickly. They're going to be looking for this amount of money. If we're not going to pay them, we should talk about it at the last meeting. We really didn't do that. I mean nobody. Councilman Berquist: Oh yeah we did. Councilman Senn: But we didn't say let's go pay it. Councilman Berquist: Well yeah, we pretty much did. We said a deal's a deal and the judgment is a judgment and the window for protesting is past. The arbitrator has sent back his notes that says no explanation is necessary. You're not getting one. Councilman Senn: We also agreed that we have avenues to pursue. Councilman Berquist: We agreed that HGA is owed monies by the District. That's what we agreed to. Now it's in the District's court as to how they handle it. Councilman Senn: And the District's interest may not the same as our interest. We talked about that in relationship to Roger. I think Roger responded and said that's probably true and that we might look at our own, how would I say, representing ourselves in relationship to that to make sure that our interest is considered rather than just the School District's interest. Councilman Berquist: And how was that to be accomplished? Councilman Senn: Well again, I mean it was kind of an open ended conversation that was never resolved. I mean it came up under advisory. No action was being requested one way or the other. I'm saying that if the action here is to approve this and pay it, I guess what I'd like to do is see an action attached to it that says we're going to pursue getting it back. Councilman Berquist: Which will constitute a really, simply staying on the School Board, School Administration and in touch with what's going on regarding.., reduce the contract by or what have you? Councilman Senn: I think Steve, that's a lot of it but at the same time I think I'd look to our attorneys to make that evaluation and make sure that they feel that we're being adequately you know, I'm going to say, you know represented as it relates to that or some other representation coming back from them. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? May I suggest that the City Council act to approve the payment. Direct staffto insure that the Council is notified as to where the School District is currently standing with the negotiations with HGA. With the knowledge that when that report is distributed back to City Council, Council will have the ability to say okay. We think the School District used good enough judgment in terms of settling or we want to pursue it further. Mayor Chmiel: Sounds good. Councilman Mason: I'll move that. 62 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the bills as amended by Councilman Senn and directing staff to notify City Council on the School District's negotiations with HGA. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: The last thing that we have is Steve on Oak Ponds. We're going to hold off on item 10(a). Don Ashworth: That can wait. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. You're on. Oak Ponds. Councilman Berquist: We've received a lot of correspondence from folks that happen to live in the Oak Ponds development lamenting the service that they have received from their General Contractor and the problems have been many and varied. I'd like to know what our, what course of action we have in getting them corrected. What course of action is being pursued in getting them co rrected and how those problems can best be addressed. Does this City Council have any power whatsoever over a project that is done, closed, signed off on and paying taxes? Mayor Chmiel: As Colleen mentioned before, we sat down with those folks from that development and they had quite a bit of documentation and it appears as though Mr. Johnson, hopefully is going to come forward and correct some of the situations. If he doesn't, then there are other recourses that we can go through to try to assist those people. Councilman Berquist: Such as? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well it's, I think we all realize that he's made a living out of...people and what we basically, we can go in there and find out what code violations, and there appears to be some code violations. It's not going to work with just individual citations because I mean he'll go down and get slapped on the wirst. What we're trying to do is build a case for their civil suit. They are extremely organized and they have a good lawyer and what all we can really do is support their civil case with our documentation. Councilman Berquist: Are we talking about rampant problems throughout the entire? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Extreme problems. Awful. Just terrible. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's ridiculous. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you know, to some extent they had a reputation. I wasn't aware of it but obviously city staff seemed to be, and from what I understand from Public Safety and Steve Kirchman, they tried to police it as much as possible but they can't be out on the job site 24 hours a day watching how people pound in nails so they go out there and inspect it and say fix this. They would see them fix it but the next unit down they'd do the same thing. The same problem. They wouldn't keep their fixes consistent. And there's not a way that you can you know, inspect everything to the nth degree, although I wish we could have done a better job in that respect. Councilman Berquist: What kind of time frame are we looking at? Mayor Chmiel: As quickly as possible. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I think they were going to, Steve was going to work with their structural engineer, the consultant that they have hired and within a couple of weeks type up all the code violations. Give 63 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1996 him you know a week's response time, which they expect nothing will be done, and then the civil action starts. They're working up against a deadline in terms of the one year or two year I think it is. Warranty on the structure so they need to get their suit in the courts. Councilman Senn: Well I think you know, collectively I think we should, staff should, we should also I think put some pressure on Brad to make sure that Brad does some follow up with his builder... Mayor Chmiel: I've had discussions with him already and he says he's talked with him and has requested that he do something. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that may be more effective than the other stuffthat we can do but I think he needs to be told that he's going to be held accountable for it. Councilman Berquist: Brad would be held accountable for it? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think he should be. It's his builder/developer he brought in. I don't think he should just be able to... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that. Is there a motion for adjournment? Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 64