Loading...
1a Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson. Councilman Labatt was present for the first item and then left the meeting. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson and Todd Hoffman JOINT MEETNG WITH COMMISSIONS. Senior Commissioners Present: Dale Geving, Barbara Headla, Jean Mancini, Melvin Kurvers, and Thomas Faust Todd Gerhardt gave a recap of the meeting with himself, Mayor Furlong, Dale Geving and Tom Faust regarding remodeling of the old library space. They discussed naming of the space and how it will be used. There is a meeting scheduled on Thursday with the architect and Senior Commission members. The seniors want the front door as close to the parking lot as possible, and the need for a corridor so there's no interruption in activities that are taking place. It was asked that at least the plumbing for a second kitchen be considered for the new space, even if the appliances can't be purchased at this time. There was discussion over the restrictions on commercial kitchens. Councilman Peterson asked if the senior commission had discussed programming for the new space. Dale Geving stated the new space will be used daily and the old space will be used more sparingly. Mayor Furlong stated funding sources haven't been identified yet for the remodeling, so the additional time for planning will benefit everyone. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the commission's statement regarding having no control over life cycle housing. Dale Geving stated the Senior Commission never gets to see the plans for senior housing and would like to be included in the review process. Kate Aanenson explained how the Centennial Hills apartments was a city project but as a general rule the planning staff doesn't look at interior designs for buildings, but felt the Senior Commission would be valuable in being an advocate of life cycle housing. The commission had concerns that there are approximately 2,000 seniors in Chanhassen and maybe 500 participate in the senior center activities and how can the other seniors be reached. It was suggested asking the Chanhassen Villager to write an article or series of articles, possibly highlighting the tenth anniversary of the Senior Center, and the need to hold a celebration and open house. Park and Recreation Commissioners Present: Rod Franks, Jack Spizale, Tom Kelly, Amy O'Shea and Paula Atkins Councilman Lundquist stated he sensed the Park and Recreation Commission felt a loss of direction and floundering from the bullet points under what's working and what's not. Rod Franks stated there is a certain level of frustration, especially over the financial constraints of the department and not being able to meet the demands of the citizens and dealing with safety issues of playground equipment as an example. He stated the commission needed to develop strategies for funding replacement of equipment. Councilman Peterson asked to see the implications of spending money, and if this project gets done, what projects don't. Rod Franks stated he thought the 5 year CIP plan showed that. Todd Hoffman explained that the Park and Recreation City Council Joint Meeting with Commissions - September 15, 2003 Commission is being left out of the financial decisions. Rod Franks agreed that they felt they were being left out of the loop as far as financial decisions. Councilman Ayotte stated his concern was that the budget was 20% higher for Park and Recreation than for public safety, the total life cycle costs aren't identified and the need for revenue generation, Councilman Lundquist stated he was hearing a lot of "we" and "they" and how can the breakdown in communication be addressed. Maybe the commission shouldn't be just project oriented but spend time on other things. Rod Franks stated he also disliked the "we" and "they" which was due to two different bodies with different objectives. Todd Gerhardt stated the best way to work together is for the Park and Recreation Commission to lay out priorities and cost. Take inventory and attach life cycle of park components, and then lobby the City Council for what is priority. Amy O'Shea asked about paying for maintenance of trails. Mayor Furlong stated he thought the open house held at the park and rec meeting was a great idea. Jack Spizale asked about where in the process the City Council was with the new recreation center. Environmental Commissioners Present: Dotti Shay, Ron Olsen, and Marcus Zbinden Marcus Zbinden went over the Environmental Commission's list of accomplishments, and what programs are working and which one's aren't. Dotti Shay stated one thing they haven't done yet is establishing a farmers market in town. Todd Gerhardt stated the Chamber of Commerce was also looking at a farmers market and maybe the two groups can have discussions. Councilman Ayotte asked if the Environmental Commission was providing technical support for staff. They stated they haven't been asked but would help. Todd Gerhardt stated staff could use help in educating the public and backing up staff on environmental issues. Councilman Lundquist commended the Environmental Commission for their creativity and fiscal responsibility. Mayor Furlong stated the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is a great asset for the city and maybe the Environmental Commission could work with them. Ron Olsen talked about providing his expertise to such projects as the Market Street Station and carrying on the pedestrian friendly theme from the new library project. Councilman Peterson suggested he attend the Planning Commission meeting when it goes through the public hearing process and to call Chairman Uli Sacchet. Mayor Furlong stated we don't need walls built up between commissions, but the need to work together. Plannin~ Commissioners Present: Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle and Craig Claybaugh. Public Present: Debbie Lloyd and Janet Paulsen Mayor Furlong stated he valued the input and summary being provided with planning projects. Uli Sacchet asked for clarification on the level of detail the City Council was looking for from the Planning Commission. Councilman Peterson stated he liked the level of detail but was concerned with the length of the meetings. Bethany Tjornhom stated she didn't know how the last meeting could have been any shorter when you have numerous people from the public wishing to speak on issues. Uli Sacchet expressed concern with engineering's performance with the golf course issue. He also stated it's tricky on how to deal with people, on how much to listen and when to cut them off. Mayor Furlong stated the Planning Commission was serving the residents so they need to listen to them, but also need to run a meeting. He wanted people to feel they could speak at the Planning Commission because they often aren't given that opportunity at the City Council. Councilman Peterson suggested if a commissioner agrees with the comments from a previous commissioner, not to re-state the same opinion. Uli Sacchet stated there was concern with decisions made by the Planning Commission and then are overturned by the City Council and asked if Planning Commission could get an executive summary of why City Council voted City Council Joint Meeting with Commissions - September 15, 2003 differently. Councilman Peterson stated that was part of the Planning Commission liaison's job was to provide feedback on City Council discussion and decisions. Councilman Ayotte stated he liked the idea of having joint meetings on big projects, like the AUAR process and Market Street Station. Councilman Lundquist stated he relies on the executive summary first and then if there are issues of concern, he might glance through the conditions. He feels the Planning Commission does a good job of interpreting the code without politics. Todd Gerhardt informed the Planning Commission that he would be bringing in the downtown TIF district and explained the Planning Commission's role in reviewing that. Mayor Furlong adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Justin Miller and Bob Generous CITY CODE REVIEW, CHAPTER 18 AND REVIEW ORDINANCES AMENDMENT CHAPTERS 1-19. Kate Aanenson reviewed the city code update process the City Council has gone through to date and outlined the approval process with a public hearing to be held at the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong asked staff to provide an executive summary of the issues brought up by City Council, and how the issues were addressed prior to the public hearing process. Bob Generous went through the proposed amendments in Chapter 18. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the time line for items to get onto the Planning Commission agenda and if it was consistent with other cities. There was discussion around the 60 by 60 building pad requirement on plans, and changing it to 3,600 square feet or average minimum building area for specific house plans. Kate Aanenson explained the building pad requirement was to calculate tree loss. Councilman Peterson asked about the $500 penalty for tree loss and suggested adding the wording to say "up to $500 fine". Councilman Ayotte asked how drainage swales were enforced between the planning stage to final grading of site. There was discussion regarding sidewalks and where and when they should be required. Mayor Furlong asked staff to provide guidelines when sidewalks should be required for council review. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Justin Miller, Bob Generous, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Judy Siegel Ken Wencl Mildred & Wilbur Aydt Steve Lillehaug Jerry & Janet Paulsen Shelley Murphy 411 Highland Drive 8412 Great Plains Boulevard 515 Del Rio Drive Planning Commission 7305 Laredo Drive 6870 Redwing Lane PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City recommendations: seconded to Manager's bo Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 8, 2003 - City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 8, 2003 - City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 15, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 2, 2003 - Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 26, 2003 Approval of Extending a Previously Approved Variance to Encroachment and Bluff Setback Requirements, Scott Broin, 3840 Lone Cedar Lane. Resolution #2003-80: Amended Resolution 97-09 and Vacating a Sanitary Sewer Easement over Lot 13 and a Portion of Lots 14 and 16, Auditor's Subdivision No. 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. l(a). APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LIFTING OF NO PARKING ON LAKE LUCY ROAD. City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 Councilman Lundquist had concerns with the hours of operation requested by the Kendall's and if the sheriff's department had any comments. Teresa Burgess stated they were only concerned with the parking issue. Sergeant Jim Olson stated he and Teresa Burgess had visited the site and will be in contact with the Kendall's over the next couple weeks to discuss options. Resolution ~2003-81: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the temporary lifting of no parking on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Susan McAllister, 2930 West 78th Street asked the council to consider installing a traffic signal at the intersection of West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard. Connie Hargest, Center Point Energy, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis presented the City Council with a check in the amount of $2,160 from their community partnership grant program to purchase trees for the new City Center Park adjacent to the new library. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to accept a check in the amount of $2,160 from Center Point Energy to purchase trees in the new City Center Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson reviewed the sheriff's office area report, citation list, bi-monthly update and the crime alerts put out by Beth Hoiseth for the month of August. Councilman Ayotte asked the sheriff's office to provide an analysis of the trends and convictions from the citations being issued and suggested that the sheriff' s office work with the Villager to run articles regarding victims of identity theft. Chief John Wolff provided the monthly report for the Fire Department. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE, FRANKIE'S PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD, THOMAS O'MEARA (NEW OWNER). Justin Miller provided the staff report on this item and recommended approval of the liquor license. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. No one spoke at the public hearing and it was closed. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the request for an on-sale beer and wine license for Frankie's Chanhassen, Inc., dba Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor liability insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAHAYE ADDITION, 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ERNEST PIVAC: Ao VACATION OF A PORTIAON OF SANTA FE TRAIL. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT & PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 03-07. City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 Bob Generous provided the staff report on this item and the Planning Commission update. Mayor Furlong asked staff to address the issue of the width of the private street. Councilman Peterson clarified that the City Council will have a chance to address the width of the private street when the property is further subdivided. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing on the vacation of a portion of Santa Fe Trail. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive, handed out a copy of page 6 of the staff report in which they had highlighted issues pertaining to the width of the private street and if it met the 7 ton requirement and that variances would be required. Roger Knutson stated, in his opinion it would not need variances. Teresa Burgess reminded the council that the public hearing was pertaining to the street vacation. Resolution #2003-82: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Vacation #2003-1 for the partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown on the attachment, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way. The applicant shall dedicate a 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the sanitary sewer line. 3. Approval of the vacation is contingent upon approval of Subdivision #03-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision ~03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans dated received August 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas. If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street, the applicant and/or the contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route for review and approval prior to site grading. The new turnaround on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current city design standards with 28 foot wide pavement, B-618 curb and gutter and concrete driveway aprons. A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public sanitary sewer line in the vacated road area. Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a temporary easement. 6. Revise the grading plan as follows: ao Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the different line types, easements, silt fence, etc. Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans. Add tree preservation fencing around any and all trees to be saved. City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. d. Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways. Revise the utility plan as follows: Add a legend to the plan. Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains. Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways. The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated with the City. The proposed private street upgrades shall include a 20 foot wide pavement, built to a 7 ton design, and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street, the street width may be narrowed in this area. The developer shall provide inspection reports for the private street to the City. Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration. Since the street improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Building official conditions: ao Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. Fire Marshal conditions: An address monument sign shall be installed at the common driveway entrance where they split. Plans must be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Also, if the address numbers installed on the houses are not visible from the common driveway, additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrances. These requirements are pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy//29-1992. Copy enclosed. 4 City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 15. Storm water calculations should be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision maintains existing runoff rates and volumes. 16. Impervious surfaces should be minimized to the greatest extent possible due to the lack of storm water infrastructure. This includes the construction of Alternate A (Hammerhead Turnaround) instead of Alternate B (Complete Circle). 17. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback should be shown and labeled on the grading plan. 18. Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $5,176. 19. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. 20. Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot in the amount of $2,400. 21. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the construction plans and specifications for LaHaye Addition, Project No. 03-07 dated September 11, 2003, prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. and the development contract dated September 22, 2003 be approved conditioned upon the following: The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $54,109.00 and pay an administration fee of $9,517.00. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2004 RESIDENTIAL STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT No. 04-01. Public Present: Name Address Doug Rasmussen Kathy Blettner 415 Santa Fe Trail 509 Del Rio Drive City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 Mildred & Wilbur Aydt Fred Lambert David Hans Matt Johnson Jim & Marianne Moline Brian McCarthy David Miller Carroll Hanna Ron Mielke B. Clayton Julia Pims Roberta & Tom Brunberg Steve Rosas Gordy Nagel. Nancy Weibel Tom Lentz Nicole Renny Rich Engelhardt 515 Del Rio Drive 618 Santa Fe Circle 406 Santa Fe Circle 424 Santa Fe Circle 507 Del Rio Drive 513 Del Rio Drive 420 Santa Fe Circle 400 Santa Fe Trail 405 Santa Fe Trail 405 Santa Fe Circle 408 Santa Fe Circle 402 Santa Fe Circle 7520 Frontier Trail 514 Del Rio Drive 415 Santa Fe Circle 404 Santa Fe Circle 412 Santa Fe Trail Circle 403 Santa Fe Trail Teresa Burgess provided a brief discussion on pavement management and then discussed each neighborhood improvements specifically. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. The first neighborhood was Kiowa, Iroquois and Huron Drives. There was no one wishing to speak from this neighborhood. The next neighborhood was Santa Fe Trail and Del Rio Drive. Councilman Ayotte asked for clarification on the installation materials and the current condition of the watermain and sewer system in the area. David Miller, 420 Santa Fe Circle felt the $15,000 assessment was unfair given the current economic times and pending school referendums and additional taxes. He asked the City Council to look at the city picking up the expense like they did in the Chan Estates development. Mayor Furlong asked staff to finish with the staff report and then he would open up the public hearing to everybody in the area. He also asked staff to address the issue of the city picking up the sewer and water improvements for Chan Estates. Tom Brunberg, 402 Laramie Circle, or 402 Santa Fe Circle, commented on sidewalks and connection between neighborhoods, speed and the use of Santa Fe Trail as a cut through for traffic. Gordy Nagel, 514 Del Rio Drive asked for clarification on the proposal having 33 lots and the assessment being divided by 32. Nancy Weibel, 416 Santa Fe Circle read a letter from her neighbor at 414 Santa Fe Trail who was not able to be at the meeting stating her agreement for the need for street and utility improvements at a reasonable cost, but was not in favor of the installation of sidewalks. Tom Lentz, 404 Santa Fe Circle has lived in this neighborhood since 1968-69 and would like to see the streets and stormwater drainage problems addressed and fixed to current standards. Dave Hans, 406 Santa Fe Circle stated he agreed with Mr. Miller on the concern for the exorbitant amount of the assessment and did not favor the installation of sidewalks. Mel Gibbs, 405 Santa Fe Trail also had a concern for the kids in the neighborhood and felt there were other ways to control speed, i.e. speed bumps or more police patrolling rather than the installation of sidewalks. Matt Johnson, 424 Santa Fe Circle seconded what other people were saying and was concerned about losing trees in his front yard. As far as cost for the project, he was hoping it's open for future discussion. Vernelle Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle discussed the assessment amount and the city's practice of 60/40 assessment. Nicole Renny, 412 Santa Fe Trail Circle stated a sidewalk would be so close people could look right into her house and the financial hardship it would cause on her, her family and her neighbors. Rick Engelhardt, 403 Santa Fe Trail moved into his home a year ago and chose the neighborhood because it was old style with mature trees and homes and it is a big hit with the financial burden. Carroll Hanna, 400 Santa Fe Trail stated he is attempting to sell his house and has been informed by his realtor 6 City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 that he needs to put 1 1/2 times the amount of the pending assessment into escrow and believes it is a hardship and the City Council should reconsider this practice. Betty Jorgenson, 401 Santa Fe Trail is a comer lot so she had a question whether she would be assessed when Great Plains Boulevard is improved also. Cathy Blettner, 509 Del Rio Drive stated she's a single income household and couldn't afford to stay in her house if this assessment goes through. She also felt a 3 way stop sign would help with the traffic safety in the area more than installing sidewalks. Bonn Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle wanted to emphasize that the cost was too much and the city should look into options to fix the water problems with the pipes first. Mayor Furlong closed the public hearing and brought it back to the City Council for discussion. Council and staff discussed the different funding options available and how to reach a cost reduction in the project. Resolution #2003-083: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2004 Residential Street and Utility Improvement Project No. 04-01 including five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFCATIONS FOR THE 2004 MSA STREET IMPROFVEMENTS, PROJECT 04-02. Public Present: Name Address Jason Sprague Aaron Ditzler John M. Smith Ross & Mary Jo Kamerud Jack Thien SEH/2578 Aldine, Roseville SEH/10901 Red Circle Drive, Minnetonka 1072 Meadow Street, Cologne 413 Santa Fe Trail 7570 Canyon Curve Suite 200, Teresa Burgess presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. No one spoke at the public hearing and the public hearing was closed. Resolution #2003-84: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2004 MSA Street Improvements Project No. 04-02 including five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 2 LOTS ON 5.13 ACRES, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3 STORY 89-UNIT HOTEL ON 3.01 ACRES WITH VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE AND DESIGN STANDARDS; SE CORNER OF TH 5 AND CENTURY BOULEVARD; STEINER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., AND STEVE SLOWEY, HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS. Bob Generous presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Phillip Bloom, President of Steiner Construction Services was present representing the applicant. Steve Lillehaug was present representing the Planning Commission and provided the City Council with 7 City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 an update on the actions taken by the Planning Commission. He emphasized the Planning Commission's support of the entrance onto Century Boulevard being right-in/right-out. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat Subdivision #2003-13, shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendations and subject to the following conditions: The development of the individual lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the "wetland trail". The city shall compensate the developer full costs of trail construction plus a 10% design and construction management fee. Full trail fees shall be collected pursuant to city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition. If the trail alignment is within property not owned by the City, then the developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement centered on the trail alignment. Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility easement on the southwest comer of the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way, drainage and utility easement with the plat. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc. A private storm sewer easement against Lot 1 must be obtained from the owners and recorded before the building permit issuance. o The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water, and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $137,272.40. This remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance. o The proposed sanitary sewer and watermains in the main drive aisle will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. A minimum 35 foot wide public utility easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The end of the public sewer and watermain shall be at the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetland just south of the site. In addition, erosion control blankets will be required on the steep slopes on the site. The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots. As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed within a 40 foot wide private easement. A cross access easement must be obtained and recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports verifying that the driveway is built to a 9 ton design. The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard will be allowed; however, should the driveway cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owner, or if any of the following conditions are met, the property owner shall be assessed 100% of the costs incurred to correct the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen: ao Level of Service "F" at the intersection during peak AM and PM times. Level of Service "D" or below at the intersection during non peak times. Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection occur that indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the downstream storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm water infrastructure. Private easement for the shared storm sewer must be obtained and recorded against the lots before building permit issuance. Erosion Control Note//4 should include straw mulch (MnDot Type I mulch) application with seed for stabilization. Category 3 (straw or wood fiber) blanket should be applied following seeding in the proposed swale in the northeast corner of the site. The silt fence used should be heavy-duty machine sliced silt fence, metal T-posts with 4 to 6 foot spacing. Existing vegetation should be conserved as much as practicable while installing and during construction. The silt fence end in the southwest comer of the site should be angled up slope to inhibit water from flowing around the silt fence. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the parking lots. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T-posts City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 and 1" rock around silt fence material. After paving of parking lots, mulch socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. 22. Based on the proposed developed area of 5.13 acres, the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $51,772. 23. The owner/operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan g2003-8, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. and Lightowler Johnson Associates, Inc. dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/1/03 and revised 8/25/03 respectively, with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the stipulated. 2. The developer shall record the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition. The developer shall plant 13 overstory trees in and around the parking lot to meet minimum requirements. At least three grouping of overstory trees, with a minimum of three trees each, shall be located along the south curb line. The slope located along the southern and eastern property lines shall be left natural. The applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if necessary. 6. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city review and approval. Two landscape peninsulas shall be added, one in the northern parking lot and one in the southern parking lot. 8. The developer shall install site furnishing including benches, bicycle racks, and tables. The internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring pedestrians from the public trails on the west and south sides into the site. 10. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 11. Show the driveway dimensions on the site plan to read 26 feet in width and the access corner radius. 10 City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review before City Council approval. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance. On the grading plan: Add storm sewer schedule. Add silt fence around proposed storm sewer line from MH1 to the existing manhole. Revise the erosion control fence from Type II to Type III per city plate 5300. Show all proposed 2' contours. Show the pedestrian ramps at both sides of the access off Century Boulevard. Show all existing and proposed easements. Revise the flat elevation in the northeast portion of the parking lot. Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the north side of Lot 2. On the utility plan: o Show the public drainage and utility easement. Show the existing and proposed storm manholes rim elevations. Show the water and sanitary sewer services size, type and class. Relocate Sanitary MH3 to the property line between Lot I and Lot 2 where the public sewer line must end. All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary. Add all applicable City of Chanhassen latest detail plates. Show Century Boulevard existing street lights. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Concrete driveway apron, per city detail plate 5207 is required at the proposed access point to the site. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Five accessible parking spaces must be provided. Accessible guest rooms and accessibility to recreation features must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1341. 11 City Council Summary Minutes - September 22, 2003 25. The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 26. The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. A detailed plan review cannot be done until complete plans are provided. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves a sign variance to permit signage on the western building elevation based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman Ayotte reported on a meeting he held with the residents of Lake Susan Association. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 12 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Justin Miller, Bob Generous, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Judy Siegel Ken Wencl Mildred & Wilbur Aydt Steve Lillehaug Jerry & Janet Paulsen Shelley Murphy 411 Highland Drive 8412 Great Plains Boulevard 515 Del Rio Drive Planning Commission 7305 Laredo Drive 6870 Redwing Lane PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City recommendations: seconded to Manager's Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 8, 2003 - City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 8, 2003 - City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 15, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 2, 2003 - Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 26, 2003 Approval of Extending a Previously Approved Variance to Encroachment and Bluff Setback Requirements, Scott Broin, 3840 Lone Cedar Lane. Resolution ~2003-80: Amended Resolution 97-09 and Vacating a Sanitary Sewer Easement over Lot 13 and a Portion of Lots 14 and 16, Auditor's Subdivision No. 2. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. l(a). APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LIFTING OF NO PARKING ON LAKE LUCY ROAD. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my concern was more around, well two things. The hours of operation during week nights with the Kendall's put on quite a good show. However, at that time City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 of night my concern was that there would be some distractions in the neighborhood and as well, didn't see any comments in the staff report about, comments specifically from the sheriff's office to look and make sure that they were comfortable with everything that's out there and to see that they're comfortable with that. It's kind of in a bad spot on there. That they're in favor of that as well. Teresa Burgess: I apologize, I was next door with the neighborhood that's up for the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Two issues that were raised. One, the hours of operation requested on the application which Monday through Thursday and until 11:00 p.m., all times starting at dusk. Friday, Saturday and Sunday til midnight was the question. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Teresa Burgess: Under this application they are, we are only considering the temporary lifting of no parking. We lift the parking for the entire 7 days a week, 24 hours because otherwise it would require us to go out and cover the signs back up to be able to ticket. The other option would be to have special signs put up that would allow parking at other times. The operation would be governed by the existing ordinances in place and the noise ordinance requires a permit, which I believe has been issued, and Sergeant Olson can better answer the hours of operation of that permit. The light ordinance that is in place does not allow nuisance light after 11:00 p.m. so it would be determined whether it was nuisance or not would be whether they could continue to operate after 11:00. We are only concerned with parking this evening. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Sergeant Olson, any comments on the parking there along that particular intersection? Sgt. Jim Olson: This display has been going on for quite a few years. Teresa and I went out and took a look at it. Had some ideas to sit down and maybe go over with the Kendall's with, and I think that's something that we're going to be doing over the next 2 weeks, is sitting down with the Kendall's and talking about some other ideas. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Good enough. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion on the item? If not is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve item l(a). Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution g2003-81: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the temporary lifting of no parking on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 2 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Susan McAllister: Susan McAllister. My address is 2930 West 78th Street. I didn't realize I was going to be standing here but I do have an issue that has come to my mind quite often and that is the intersection of West 78m Street and Galpin Boulevard. I believe that definitely has to be a lit intersection. There's so many cars coming every possible way you can imagine. I mean sometimes there's like 6 or 8 cars doing different things at the same time and I don't know what can be done, but that's a real concern for me. Seeing that my last 3 years of my life have been nothing but car accidents, I just feel it needs some attention. And I don't know what you can do about it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well we can certainly ask staff to look into it. Come back with some suggestions on what can be done. Susan McAllister: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay? Thank you. Thank you, are there any other visitor presentations? We do have tonight with us Connie Hargest from Center Point Energy. Connie, if you'd like to come forward. Connie Hargest: Thank you Mayor Furlong, City Council members. My name is Connie Hargest and I don't know if the clerk needs the address. It's 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis. I'm here for one of the more fun things that I do as part of my job and that's to deliver a check to the city. This is a partnership grant. Community partnership grant program that we instituted this year. It's a pilot program and what we've asked is that all of the cities that we serve have the ability to apply for this particular grant. Todd Hoffman, in your parks department, your parks director, saw that we had this available and he applied for the grant and there are some trees evidently that are needed for your central park project and we have agreed to help you purchase some of those trees. We're very pleased tonight to be able to present this check to the City in the amount of $2,160. Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. From a formality standpoint, I understand we need a motion to accept the check. Is there such a motion? Councilman Lundquist: So moved. Mayor Furlong: And a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? I'll just say thank you very much as part of the discussion. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to accept a check in the amount of $2,160 from Center Point Energy to purchase trees in the new City Center Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: We're still on visitor presentations if there's anyone else that would like to come forward at this time, this would be their opportunity. Very good. With that we'll close visitor presentations and move on. City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening. With my packet I have included the office area report for the month of August. The citation list for the month of August. There was also an update that Beth Hoiseth put out and also a bi-monthly update that Beth put out. I'll go over the numbers briefly with the, in the area report for the month. Our total calls for service were up by 190 for the month. Year to date for the calls for service we're up by 1,366 also. We've had 8,186 calls for service this year already. For the month, the increase attributed to higher traffic details. Up from 22 to 48. Our traffic stops were up by 81. Citations were 230 for the month and that compares to 183 for last year, and just from a citation standpoint, we're already up over the total that were written all of last year. Last year we wrote 1,543 for the entire year and this year we're at 1,606 already through the month of August. Burglaries for the month were up by 8 compared to last year from 2 to 10, and burglaries unfortunately were also up for the year from 27 to 47. On the good side, damage to property was down for the month from 33 to 28. Theft was down for the month from 48 to 38, and motor assists were up from 19 to 52 and I don't have a real good reason for why those went up so much. ! don't know. More people's cars breaking down for the month there. I don't have a good handle on that. Any questions at all from the monthly number standpoint? Councilman Ayotte: Is there a way Sergeant Olson that now that we've been collecting data, and I know you have a year to date that shows the months, but some analysis. Can we have an outside set of eyes take a look and see what are the trends. Formulate recommendations to deal with the unknowns and to also in that report can we also get an idea of the success, you folks do the arresting but in terms of conviction so that we get an idea of the results of the arrests. So that's one question. Another question I have, we're seeing an awful lot of juvenile drinking. We know in Carver County that we have a big problem with not only underage drinking but driving while under the influence and I would really wonder if we could get some sort of analysis with respect to that chronic problem. Sgt. Jim Olson: What type of analysis are you thinking of sir? Let' s say the drinking problem. Councilman Ayotte: Cradle to grave. We have a number of arrests. There should be some number of convictions associated with that. The number of convictions that we get as a result of those numbers of arrests, good, bad and from there a recommendation of what can be done to deal with the issues so when we look at public safety we should not be looking at public safety simply from the standpoint of being able to do a lot of arrests. We ought to see how we can stop the problem and the problem has not been stopped as far as drinking goes in Carver County. Sgt. Jim Olson: No, it has not. Councilman Ayotte: So, what we want to do is figure out and analyze what the problem is and come to some resolution. How to fix the problem. Sgt. Jim Olson: Let me sit down with our records people and let me see what kind of reports I can run and then from there sit down and take a look at it. With any number of programs, I don't know if we're going to be able to fix or solve the juvenile drinking problem but let's take a look and see if we can reduce it and lower it somewhat. Councilman Ayotte: Have a target and see if we can shoot at the target and leave it. 4 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Sgt. Jim Olson: Let me, I'll see what I can come up with on that. And I'll get back to you next council session with that or do you want something before that? Maybe in my report for the next. Councilman Ayotte: I'd rather work to standard rather than time line so let's not hold you to a time line. Let's hold you to a standard. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. Okay, thank you sir. Any other questions at all from a numbers standpoint? No? Okay. One thing that we had 2 weekends ago, we had a problem with some thefts from vehicles that occurred around the city and most of those were, or happened through a window being smashed and valuables being stolen out of the car. These were vehicles that were in residential areas, where they would go to the people's houses, break a window and take things that were inside of the car. I would highly recommend for people to remove their valuables from their cars, even when it's parked in the driveway and that would help with a lot of this. People are missing everything from expensive camera systems to laptop computers, CD's and all these items were visible from outside of the car. If people can remove those valuables from inside the car, and I would also highly recommend if people even put their cars in the garage, if that's a possibility and that's an option. That would certainly help with a lot of that. Also, even with the windows being smashed into residential areas, and this being at night when people are home, we did not receive any phone calls at all with people hearing anything, and I know that this time, a lot of people are starting to close their windows and it's getting cool out at night. But if people hear anything I would encourage them to give us a call. Call 911. That's something that certainly is applicable for 911 and give us a call and we'll see what we can come up with with that but I highly encourage people to call 911 if they hear anything. Another thing that we had this past week was theft to mail from mailboxes where people going through mailboxes in a couple areas of the city. Some of that mail was actually even found in Eden Prairie. Along with the theft from vehicles, you know I would highly recommend that people not put their mail in their mailbox for the mailman to pick up. When people put mail in their mailboxes, they lift that little red flag up and tell the mailman that they've got mail there, and that's a target for other people also. Other people know that the mail's in the mailbox and that goes hand in hand with our identity theft problem that we've had. People take that mail and take the checks from the mail and they can get your checking account number, your bank routing number, name, driver's license, phone number, everything off of that check. There's software that's available that you can buy at a retail store to be able to make up their own checks and they have all that information available to them and all of a sudden they're writing checks, and until you get a bank statement or bank overdraft notices, you'll never know that this was done. So I'd encourage people to mail their mail in a post office mailbox or take it straight to the post office. This is something that we're certainly looking at. Also if you see somebody by a mailbox, neighbor's mailbox, your own mailbox or whatever, that you know is not the mailman, again give us a call and let us take a look at that and we would certainly appreciate that. Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth this past Friday had a Senior Safety Seminar that she did and she actually went over identity theft in that and talked about that with the seniors. Identity theft is certainly a problem not only locally, or statewide but even nationwide. Identity theft is a problem and it's something that law enforcement all over the country is trying to get a handle on so, but one thing that you can do is keep your mail out of your mailbox and mail it at a post office mailbox so. Anything else for the law enforcement, for sheriff s office at all? Councilman Ayotte: One more thing. I happen to talk to one of the victims of identity theft. This particular individual had thousands of dollars put at risk and had stated at one point willingness to share their story. I was wondering if it's at all possible that you could see whether or not that's doable and maybe work in concert with the Villager to get a little bit more personal attention to that. I know some of the victims may have a willingness to share their plights so that City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 we maybe we can get these folks to stop putting the flags up on the mailboxes. It's still a big problem. Sgt. Jim Olson: People don't realize the expense that they have to go through to try to, you know maybe the bank will pick up some of the charges if you file some of that, but there's still a huge expense in your credit history and there's so many things that get affected by this that I think that's a good idea. I'll talk to Melissa from the Villager about that. Anything else for us at all? Mayor Furlong: I don't think so. Thank you very much Sergeant. Appreciate all your efforts. Chief John Wolff: Mayor, council members. For the fire department, since last month, our staffing's at 42. We have 4 on leave. That leaves us 38 available. We anticipate a need to hire for the next fiscal year and we'll start some work to that effect to bring some new folks on for next year. Haven't done that in 3 years and that's typically an annual activity for us. We've kind of had a moratorium on that for expense reasons, but we're now getting to the point where I think we need to initiate that practice again. Through September 15th we're up 27 percent on call volume at 611. Last year we ended the year at 699. And this time last year at 481 so call activity is up. It's up relative to last year which was a down year but it's also up relative to any year. 10 percent higher than any prior year. Late October, we anticipate that the new radio tower that we're using our water tower for will be available for the 800 megahertz system which is the new radio system we have in the county. We anticipate that this will, while the system's working very well, this will have a positive impact on the efficiency of the system and our ability to use it deep inside some of our larger structures in town. So we're looking forward to that. It's been a good partnership between the City of Chanhassen, Carver County Communications and the Metro Radio Board in terms of kind of coming up with the resources to pull that one off, and everybody benefits. Not only Chanhassen but the rest of Carver County so there' s a real positive there. Fire Prevention Week is October 4th through 11t~. We'll culminate the week with open house on October 12th, which is a Sunday from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. and we have a whole host of events for that afternoon. A number of activities during the week will include visiting with a lot of the schools in town and targeting certain age groups for certain kinds of fire prevention, fire ed programs. Look forward to that every year. Get approximately 25 members from the department to volunteer their own personal time to teach the kids during the week so it's a real positive event for the city. Our training program this past month, we've done a lot of work with basic skills, fire fighting skills. Working with our extrication tools for car accidents. These are things that we do on an ongoing basis to just maintain skill level. We've also worked with hazardous materials training for our specialists and we've begun our WMD awareness training. We did a class on explosives and sort of identifying the kinds of destruction that you see from an explosive event, and also what to look for relative if you think you're in a situation where there might be an explosive that caused the fire or the damage to kind of keep an eye out for secondary devices, that sort of stuff so that's the kind of training that a lot of public safety organizations are taking advantage of. The government actually has grants and programs that they've put together and we applied for a grant and received some money to put this training on for our members and some of the area fire departments. Our citizen fund raiser will be shortly going out to all the residents. We put on a little raffle. There's a number of gifts and financial awards for people that win the raffle. They don't need to be present. We do the drawing on open house Sunday. Last year we used the money to purchase a new boat. A new rescue boat and motor and it was a real worth fund raiser. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $21,000 and we spent most of that on the boat. Part of that money was also spent on a thermal imaging device which allows the fire fighters to go inside a smoky environment so we anticipate continuing that program this year too. And then finally your packet includes some customer comment cards, survey data. We send these out to everybody that receives services from us and we probably see maybe 25 percent back. I think 6 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 this is the most recent sampling or quarter sampling for your, just for your viewing. What I want to implement next year is where we're going to start rolling this data up and tracking it so that we can maybe measure it relative to how the performance is going over time. I'll take any questions or comments from council. Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Chief. Councilman Peterson: In the surveys that you did get back, I couldn't see anything in there that was really negative, but do you see anything in there that you'd like to improve on from a general perspective? Chief John Wolff: The survey cards are interesting. I've been looking at them you know, over 5 years now and it occasionally will target something like gee, the attire of the individuals, because we asked that question. Question of response time, appearance of the personnel, professional mannerism, first aid skills, and follow through at the end. Occasionally you'll get a comment about appearance and because we're paid on call, we sometimes we're up at 3:00 in the morning. We don't have our hair all done up for the responders but, so I sort of take into consideration what time, and was it a day call. Was it a night call. Other things that we do keep an eye on though are response time, professional mannerism. If there's an issue, a pattern around professional mannerism or response time then we try to investigate that and just see if there's something we can do to maybe improve those areas. But if you have suggestions or thoughts around maybe other things that we could ask or should ask, we'd be open to that and we'd look forward to your input too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Chief, with regard to the number of calls. 25 percent higher you mentioned that it was low last year. Is it typically volatile from year to year? Chief John Wolff: No it's really not. It's been pretty consistent up until last year which we had a drop, and quite frankly we don't know why, but metro, actually statewide, even like Minneapolis fire went from 40,00 to like 32,000 calls and everybody's back up this year. Really gosh, we just really don't know why because it's one block of calls if you start striating them by type of call or what have you. So it's just the volume is up, which is typically this growing community has seen now since I've been on the department 18 years, it's gone up 5 to 10 to 15 percent a year with an average around 8 to 10 percent. And we are on that track. We're back on that track. We dropped off last year. Mayor Furlong: And that was my question. Even though it looks like a tremendous increase from one year to the next, we're back on the trend line. Chief John Wolff: Really back on the trend line and from a budget perspective we've been planning for in terms of, trying to put in the cost allocation next year. Not to try to trend it off of last year' s budget but really to trend it off of the trend line. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you. Any other questions? Very good, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE, FRANKIE'S PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD, THOMAS O'MEARA (NEW OWNER). City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Justin Miller: Mayor, Council. Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs is changing ownership and with that requires a renewal or a new application for a liquor license. There has been a background check on the new owner, Mr. Thomas O'Meara. The background check came back clean. Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet. We did not receive any negative comments. Staff is recommending approval and would recommend that you open up the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any question for staff at this time? If not we will open the public hearing. This is an opportunity for people to come forward and speak on this issue. And this is the public hearing for the on-sale beer and wine license for Frankie's of Chanhassen. If there's nobody that wants to come forward, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Bring it back. Is there any discussion on the matter? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion made. Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the request for an on-sale beer and wine license for Frankie's Chanhassen, Inc., dba Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor liability insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAHAYE ADDITION, 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ERNEST PIVAC: Co VACATION OF A PORTIAON OF SANTA FE TRAIL. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT & PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 03-07. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Council members. As you stated there's a public hearing required as part of this due to the vacation of a portion of Santa Fe Trail, It's a paper street in the community. Right now it ends just east of Great Plains Boulevard. It's a very steep slope from Great Plains Boulevard down to Frontier Trail so the city would never develop it. We are recommending approval of the vacation of the right-of-way and retention of a utility easement so that a sanitary sewer line can be run down the hill. Again we won't need that for a public right- of-way purposes and so we're vacating it. The second part of the request is a subdivision review, preliminary and final plat approval with a variance for a double fronting lot. This is a 1 ¥2, approximately 1 ¥2 acre site. Previously there was an existing house on the northern part of the property. That house has been demolished. That site was accessed via an existing private street which serves this property as well as one house in the back and another one over here. Previously the house in front was accessed off of this driveway, but they have eliminated that access point. The new lot is to the south of the existing, or the previously home site. It fronts on Santa Fe Trail, the vacated portion, and Frontier Trail. Again this is a very steep site so the city was trying to look at preventing removal of the trees and creating a steep driveway situation, so accessing off City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 of Great Plains Boulevard made a lot of sense. However, because it had two frontages it required a variance...frontage on one public street unless it's a collector or arterial. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the variance as well as approval of the development contract and plans and specifications for the utility improvement. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there questions for staff? The issue with the public, or excuse me the private street and it's width, that was a question raised I think at the Planning Commission as well as other times. Could you address that a little bit please. Bob Generous: Yes. The existing or the previous house site on that was, they access via an existing private street. They're not changing that condition. There will be one house on this property accessing it. The applicant has agreed to make some improvements to that but they don't really need that as part of the subdivision. For instance if they had come in just for a building permit to demolish the old house and build a new one there, there would be no requirement to upgrade that road. However we are trying to preserve everyone's rights and so we're making sure that the easements are all in place as part of this subdivision process. Additionally there's two oak trees at the beginning of that private street area, and that constrains the width of any pavement that may be in there and so we're saying let's keep that condition now and in the future someone re-subdivides at the end, then we'll re-look at that issue. But right now there's no real change because the new lot will access directly off of the public street. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that was a point of clarification. The new south lot will actually access off a public street as opposed to the private? Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Other questions? Councilman Peterson: So if the other lot does subdivide down the road, we'll have another opportunity to review the width of the road at that time? Bob Generous: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not this is a public hearing, and so at this point we'll open it up for public hearing. If people would like to come forward and raise issues to the council. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I handed out a copy of page 6 of the report and we highlighted a couple items there. The first item under the heading street says the applicant is proposing to upgrade the private street to meet current city standards. In fact the city is not requiring that they meet that 20 foot width of a private street because it does funnel down through those two trees. It's therefore about 12 feet wide right now, and we're suggesting that a variance, in fact would be required because they don't meet that 20 foot requirement and is there an implication that they aren't going to meet the 7 ton load requirement also on that private street where it funnels through there. So that was our suggestion that, realizing that they don't have to cut down those trees, it is in fact accessing 3 lots with the potential of the fourth before long and private streets are kind of a unique animal in the city here. Thank you. Councilman Peterson: So Jerry what do you recommend? Just variances is the only thing that you're recommending from your perspective? City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Jerry Paulsen: Well we suggested that a variance would have to be requested by the developer, yes. Because it doesn't meet the 20 foot, and perhaps not meet the 7 ton requirement either. Mayor Furlong: Is there, I guess a question would be, does this process require a variance application at this point? Roger Knutson: Mayor in my judgment it doesn't. You have an existing private street. If you were coming in for a new private street, and that would narrow it down to 12 feet yes you would. But this is an existing street. Just like I assume there are many, maybe I shouldn't, ! would assume there are many public streets out there that don't meet current standards. I assume that's the case, and when someone comes in for a building permit or something, we don't require them to redo their, we don't redo the public street. The same rules would apply here. Teresa Burgess: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify just so there's no confusion on the part of the public. The public hearing is regarding the street vacation and so I would encourage you to remind people if they have a comment on that, we do need that information. Mayor Furlong: Certainly, thank you. And I also realize that I omitted giving the applicant an opportunity to speak this evening, if that was a desire so we could certainly hear that at this time as well or. Ernest Pivec. Not necessary at this time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We'll try to organize our thoughts. So fight now we are, have a public hearing with regard to the vacation of the street. We slipped into a couple other issues as a part of the staff report but is there any other discussion with regard to the vacation issue, from a public hearing standpoint? This would be the opportunity to come forward. If there is none we'll close the public hearing with regard to the vacation issue. Probably address these one at a time would be appropriate from a motion standpoint. Is there any discussion at the council level with regard to the vacation of the Santa Fe Trail? If there's none, is there a motion to approve the, can we have a motion? What page are we on for that? Bob Generous: Page 11. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I move that the City Council approves the vacation of 2003-1 for the partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown in the drawing attached with conditions I through 3. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2003-82: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves Vacation #2003-1 for the partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown on the attachment, with the following conditions: 10 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way. The applicant shall dedicate a 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the sanitary sewer line. 3. Approval of the vacation is contingent upon approval of Subdivision//03-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: As long as we're talking about this issue, we'll move on to the next item which is the consideration of the preliminary and final plat. Is there an additional staff report at this time? Or did we slip into it earlier? Bob Generous: I slipped into it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any comments from the applicant at this time on the preliminary and final plat? Very good. And I think the issue that was raised during the public hearing spoke to this a little bit too so, any discussion from the council's standpoint? Councilman Peterson: I think Roger had a good perspective and I can't argue with that. Not that I would ever argue with Roger but. Councilman Lundquist: Or not in public. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Moving along then, if there is no other discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Ayotte: The city I think a motion for the City Council to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision//'03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans received August 29, 2003, subject to conditions 1 through 12. No, 23. Mayor Furlong: 23. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision ~03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans dated received August 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas. If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street, the applicant and/or the contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route for review and approval prior to site grading. 11 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 o ° o 10. 11. 12. The new turnaround on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current city design standards with 28 foot wide pavement, B-618 curb and gutter and concrete driveway aprons. A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public sanitary sewer line in the vacated road area. Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a temporary easement. Revise the grading plan as follows: Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the different line types, easements, silt fence, etc. Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans. Add tree preservation fencing around any and all trees to be saved. Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways. Revise the utility plan as follows: Add a legend to the plan. Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains. Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways. The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated with the City. The proposed private street upgrades shall include a 20 foot wide pavement, built to a 7 ton design, and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street, the street width may be narrowed in this area. The developer shall provide inspection reports for the private street to the City. Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration. Since the street improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 12 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 13. Building official conditions: Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 14. Fire Marshal conditions: An address monument sign shall be installed at the common driveway entrance where they split. Plans must be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Also, if the address numbers installed on the houses are not visible from the common driveway, additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrances. These requirements are pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 15. Storm water calculations should be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision maintains existing runoff rates and volumes. 16. Impervious surfaces should be minimized to the greatest extent possible due to the lack of storm water infrastructure. This includes the construction of Alternate A (Hammerhead Turnaround) instead of Alternate B (Complete Circle). 17. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback should be shown and labeled on the grading plan. 18. Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $5,176. 19, Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. 20. Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot in the amount of $2,400. 21. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Next item is the approval of the development contract and plans and specifications, Project 03-07 with the LaHaye Addition. Is there any additional staff report? Teresa Burgess: No, it's simply the agreement incorporating all of the previously discussed items. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on this? Hearing none is there a motion? 13 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve development contract and construction plans and specifications for LaHaye Addition, Project 03-07. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote, Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the construction plans and specifications for LaHaye Addition, Project No. 03-07 dated September 11, 2003, prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. and the development contract dated September 22, 2003 be approved conditioned upon the following: The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $54,109.00 and pay an administration fee of $9,517.00. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT No. 04-01. AUTHORIZE THE 2004 RESIDENTIAL Public Present: Name Address Doug Rasmussen Kathy Blettner Mildred & Wilbur Aydt Fred Lambert David Hans Matt Johnson Jim & Marianne Moline Brian McCarthy David Miller Carroll Hanna Ron Mielke B. Clayton Julia Pims Roberta & Tom Brunberg Steve Rosas Gordy Nagel. Nancy Weibel Tom Lentz Rich Engelhardt 415 Santa Fe Trail 509 Del Rio Drive 515 Del Rio Drive 618 Santa Fe Circle 406 Santa Fe Circle 424 Santa Fe Circle 507 Del Rio Drive 513 Del Rio Drive 420 Santa Fe Circle 400 Santa Fe Trail 405 Santa Fe Trail 405 Santa Fe Circle 408 Santa Fe Circle 402 Santa Fe Circle 7520 Frontier Trail 514 Del Rio Drive 416 Santa Fe Circle 404 Santa Fe Circle 403 Santa Fe Trail 14 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and council, I'll give a real brief discussion on pavement management and you can ask me questions if you have any. The City of Chanhassen has a computerized pavement management system which ranks and prioritizes all of the streets in the city for repairs and rehabilitation and what is called reconstruction. This neighborhood is proposed for reconstruction which includes replacement of sewer and water and full construction of new road. I have grouped the items, the sections of road into what are similar projects and I'd encourage the council to call each of those neighborhoods individually and I'll give a brief staff report on each of those neighborhoods. With council's permission the first section would be Kiowa, Iroquois and Huron. Those streets, as you see in this box right here, are proposed to receive sanitary sewer spot repairs. There are approximately 23 locations that will require us to dig down to the sanitary sewer and repair the joints, which includes relaying of those joints and then to patch that area. That will buy the city approximately 5 to 7 years until this section of road will need to be fully reconstructed. The reason we are able to do that and recommending it is because the streets as a whole is in fairly good condition. We have not had a significant number of watermain breaks and the street is holding up very well and has been recently overlayed. We will eventually need to do a full depth reconstruction but not at this time. The properties are not proposed to be assessed because the work that is being done is considered a maintenance issue and is not considered to improve the property values and therefore according to 429 is not assessable. If there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those, otherwise I'll move for the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions at this time for this section? Okay. Why don't we open up the public hearing and as recommended we'll address these in different segments. This would be the Kiowa, Iroquois and Huron Drives. If anyone is interested in coming forward, please state your name and address and address the council at this time. Seeing none, why don't we move on then with the next segment which is the Santa Trail and Del Rio. Teresa Burgess: Mayor and council. Santa Fe Trail and Del Rio. The city is recommending improvements to this section of Del Rio, if we could go to the map. This section of Del Rio Drive. This section that is further to the north was constructed later and is in much better condition then this piece right here, and this piece of Santa Fe Trail. This section of watermain and sanitary sewer was installed in Santa Fe Trail in 1967 and in Del Rio in 1969. Due to the condition of the pipe it is the city's recommendation that both sewer and watermain be replaced. In addition there is existing storm sewer. Existing storm sewer's inadequate for today's needs. It was adequate at the time it was installed, however due to intensification of development in the area and changes in standards, it no longer meets the needs of the city. And so improvements are necessary for that. The city, in keeping with the assessment practice as it is currently in place is proposing 40 percent assessment of the watermain and sanitary sewer, 40 percent of assessment for the existing replacement of storm sewer, new additional storm sewer in keeping with the assessment practice would be assessed 100 percent. In keeping with city standards there is no existing sidewalk in this area. City standards, if this was a new development would require a sidewalk. Staff has included it for the purposes of cost estimating. However, as we go through the design process we would ask the neighborhood to determine whether a sidewalk is appropriate or not. Sidewalk would be assessed 100 percent to the neighborhood. Finally the pavement in the area, the current pavement condition index for Santa Fe Trail is 56, and 70 for Del Rio Drive. The city typically recommends full depth reconstruction when we enter a level of 40 to 60 pavement condition index. However in this case, given the condition of the utilities, a full depth reconstruction is necessary to address that. If there's no questions I will sit down. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte. 15 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: With regard to the PVC, the introduction of PVC. On either side of the PVC, if we were to do this, is there going to be cast iron piping on either side of the PVC? Teresa Burgess: Yes there will. Councilman Ayotte: And that acidal material, does that cause a problem? Teresa Burgess: We have it in other locations in the city and have not experienced problems. Other cities have also done this and not had problems. There is a coupling at the location and it does have to be designed to accommodate the joining of the two types of pipes. Councilman Ayotte: So we do take measures for the diametric process and all that business, but is there any risk to do that? I'm sorry, thank you Craig. Any risk? Teresa Burgess: There's always risk. None that I could quantify. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, that's fair. In your view or in the consultant's view, the amount of degradation we're saying under the watermain, that we can anticipate that there is degradation. Do we have a sense as to how bad? Is there a way of gauging that? Has there been any validation to the study to gauge how bad off we are? Teresa Burgess: The study is actually based on our experience in the field. We paid Bonestroo to review the televised tapes of the sanitary sewer. We ran a small camera through there. And we also had them review the watermain breaks and talk with our utility crew about the watermain. Based on the experience of the water crew, the pipe is in significant trouble. It is experiencing degradation due to the acidic soils. It is eating the pipe literally. This project, we have had some watermain breaks in this area. Not a significant number. However it is our opinion that the watermain does need to be replaced due to experiencing in the two circles which we'll be talking about later. And that this is the same age and the same type of pipe. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Now, we talked about the clay having an adverse affect on the pipe, and we've had discussions about water in the past. Is the clay the prime problem or is the condition of our water? It's the clay. Phil Gravel: It's the clay. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Storm sewer. The catch basins. Is there anything that we could do with respect to accelerated preventive maintenance to help offset the need to deal with the catch basins? Teresa Burgess: There are not enough existing catch basins. Councilman Ayotte: So it's a question of putting more. Teresa Burgess: It's a question of quantity, but it's also a question of when this neighborhood was developed, the idea of pre-treatment before entering the lake was not an issue. Storm water was routinely dropped straight into wetlands and lakes, and that is no longer acceptable as a standard for storm water treatment. Councilman Ayotte: In regard to the street management program that we have, is this condition because we're looking at taking care of this issue, the worst that we have? 16 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Teresa Burgess: This is the best bang for the buck. It's not necessarily the worst street in town, but it's the best return on our dollar. Councilman Ayotte: Could you give me a little more. Teresa Burgess: We certainly have streets in town that are at a worst condition than these. If you were to drive in the Carver Beach neighborhood, I'm sure you could find one very quickly. Being the oldest neighborhood in town. However, those streets do not have the utility issues that these do. They also have other issues, including right-of-way issues that would make it economically difficult to address those streets, so in those cases it is better for us to continue to patch versus this one where we can correct the problem and you have people with a decent road and good watermain and reliable sanitary sewer. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. One last question. The numbers that you gave us is associated with this packet right here, this handout? Teresa Burgess: The assessments, yes. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Teresa Burgess: Those I believe, one of the council members had asked what the monthly impact would be to property owners, and that was the intent was to answer that question. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? At this time. Very good. This is a public hearing so residents or others that would like to speak on Santa Fe Trail, Del Rio please approach. Tom Brunberg: Tom Brunberg. I live at 402 Santa Fe Circle. Mayor Furlong: Sir. Tom. We're going to pick up Santa Fe Circle in a few minutes. Tom Brunberg: No, this is Santa Fe Trail. Mayor Furlong: Oh, you're on Santa Fe Trail? Tom Brunberg: I'm on this project. Mayor Furlong: Right, we're going to try to take it by streets. We're going to talk about the circles in just a minute and try to bring people up a little more orderly that way, if you could. Thank you. So if we could have residents on Santa Fe Trail and Del Rio that want to speak to it. You might be the next one up anyway. Apologize. I want to make sure we get everybody. Please come forward at this time please. David Miller: I'm on Santa Fe Circle but I want to give these gentlemen, let you know what we're figuring and it's not a happy sight, or a happy... Mayor Furlong: Sir, if you could state your name and address. 17 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 David Miller: David Miller, 420 Santa Fe Circle. These amortizations that we got printed up and the problem we have is, $15,000 to do this to be put to each homeowner in that area is an awful clunk on everybody at this time. It's not fair I don't think. Now maybe I'm you know speaking for myself but there's a lot of hard working people in our neighborhood. There's some elderly people. There's some people that have lost their jobs and have cut their jobs back, and this is even over an 8 year period is $207 a month. Over a 10 year period, it's $175 a month. And over 15 years it is $134 a month. Total each cost to each person at the end is $19,908 if you take on an 8 year term to pay this off, this sewer and water you want us to pay for. On a 10 year time it is a grand total of $21,109, and if you go 15 years, which I think a lot of these people in this area will probably be saved or will be moving or gone but they'll still, this will be responsible to their property, would be $24,291. Now in another subdivision earlier in Chanhassen's career, and I think before the council. Was it called Chan Hills? Teresa Burgess: Chan Estates. David Miller: Chan Estates, The sewer and water was paid for by the city. Wasn't assessed to the homeowners. This is steep gentlemen. Steep. I mean in your terms you can look at this, I mean this could be hardship. There's a bond issue coming for schools. There's other taxes coming. This could double everybody's taxes in this area. In a heartbeat. I mean double it. And I think at this time, I know we probably need this, but what is fair and what is really ramming it to the homeowners. There's 33, or 32 of us. And I'm not saying anything against the council but there's got to be, I think, there has to be some compassion with some of these people and we have to think maybe can we work it another way or can the city do what they did in Chan Estates and pay for the sewer and water and let us pay the other assessment or whatever it has to be. But if you look at this, it's shocking really to anybody right now, and I'm just, you know I'm unhappy with it, but I would like you gentlemen to take a long, hard look at this and maybe we can work something out. But right now it's a shock to everybody. Mayor FurLong: Okay, very good. Thank you. You know what I'll ask, since we've got 32 properties here and the differences, they're all proposed to be assessed by the same amount and the projects are, I mean we've got two cul-de-sac's off the road. Why don't you, if there's any more staff report with regard to the circles, let's do that and then we'll just open it up so that we can avoid some of the confusion here. I don't think they're that different. Teresa Burgess: Certainly. I think the only thing to clarify on the circles is, first of all the circles are in much worst condition. The two circles are both referred to as Santa Fe Circle, although on the plat it is referred to as Laramie and so you will notice it referred to as both in the staff report. We have tried to use both names so there's no confusion. One of the issues that was brought up as part of the feasibility study was the idea of putting in what's called a rain garden, which is a depressed area that would hold water for a short period of time and drain away. It does provide some treatment. There are some significant issues to a center of the island of the circle rain garden, specifically the fire department has expressed some concerns about their accessing the area. It would impact parking and also it is an issue for maintenance and who would maintain those and keep those up. They are in the feasibility study for further consideration. The city is proposing to pay for those 100 percent if they are installed, but until those questions are answered, the decision whether or not to put them in cannot be made. The other main issue that takes place in the circles is that the current PCI's in the circle, pavement condition index for the eastern circle is 52, and for the western circle is 40, so as you can see we're well within that 40 to 60 range for reconstruction of the circles. They also have significant watermain and sanitary sewer issues. Anyone who has been out there would not question that the streets are in need of repair and that the storm sewer work in these circles, if necessary. They're in one circle that is 18 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 much worst than the other. You'd have significant drainage issues that would be corrected by this project. So with that I'll answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If I can follow up with a question based on the previous gentleman. He indicated that for the Chan Estate project that the City picked up sewer and water, is that correct? On the sewer and water improvements. Teresa Burgess: Would you like me to address that right now? Mayor Furlong: Please, because the question was raised. Teresa Burgess: If the council would refer to their correspondence packet. There is a memo dated September 17th from myself to Todd Gerhardt. And if you look to the second page of that memo. Councilman Ayotte: How far back is it Teresa? Teresa Burgess: It's the first memo. So when you open it up you're going to see it right there. The second page it summarizes what was done on Chanhassen Estates and I apologize, storm drainage did also include pond work but there was water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and pavement reconstruction, and what was assessed to the neighborhood, you'll see it in the table there. Zero percent of water. Zero percent of sanitary sewer. 29.5 percent of the storm sewer and 35.9 percent of the street. There were also, what throws those numbers to be a little odd is that there was what was called a driveway credit given to some of these parcels and we were not able to determine from the records or from recollections of anyone that was on staff at the time that this project was done, what that driveway credit was intended for. We had some supposition but we could not come to a clear understanding. That adjusts those percentages to funny numbers that you see there. Also in that packet is that table that we had talked at the last work session of what other communities are doing with assessments, and you'll notice that many of those communities have chosen not to assess sewer and water. Some have, but the majority have chosen not to and have built it into their water and sewer rates. As long as we're on the issue, the numbers that the gentleman talked about, I believe those are using the 6.5 percent that we have used traditionally. Given what interest rates are doing, you'll see, you should have seen in front of you when you sat down a table. That was done this afternoon with what our financial consultant is recommending for assessment rates, percentages given an 8, 10 and a 12 year bond and so it is lower. It is still a substantial dollar amount but it is lower than what he discussed. Mayor Furlong: While we're looking at past projects and assessment policies. This project here of Chan Estates included improvements, repairs similar to what are being proposed for this neighborhood, is that correct? Teresa Burgess: Yes they were. Mayor Furlong: Have we had any other projects of similar, in terms of the replacement of utilities, storm water and streets since '957 Teresa Burgess: No. That was the last, in fact prior to the 2001 project that was the last project we had done, and that was because our assessment practice was 100 percent assessment. We implemented the 2001 practice to give staff direction. In '95 what was done, as it was proposed as 100 percent assessment and the neighborhood dealt directly with council to adjust those. To 19 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 negotiate those assessment rates before the project, or actually after the project was completed. So the council then had to come up with the money at the end of the project. Mayor Furlong: And so the current policy. Teresa Burgess: Practice. Mayor Furlong: Practice that you described earlier, we have not had a project similar to this with that practice in place? Teresa Burgess: No we have not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the only one in 2002 projects? Was there one or two projects that were included? Teresa Burgess: We did two projects in construction 2002. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And they were both subject to the same? Teresa Burgess: Those were both done under this assessment practice and they were both rehabilitation projects with mill and overlay, no utility work. No substantial utilities. Mayor Furlong: And Pheasant Hills was one. Which was the other? Teresa Burgess: The other was an MSA project on Audubon, Lake Drive East and West. Mayor Furlong: That's right .... this is the residential project which would be similar to Pheasant Hills, okay. Teresa Burgess: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time before we continue with the public hearing? With that, Tom please come back. Thank you for your patience. And be happy to listen to you. Tom Brunberg: I'll correct, I'm 402 Laramie Circle, but my post office address is Santa Fe Circle. I'm going to limit my comments to the sidewalk issue. And I'm sure others will talk about the cost. It is rather high. It's interesting for me to discover that the city has a practice of sidewalks and offers the opportunity if you may to our neighborhood, when the neighborhood didn't have sidewalks originally and presumably the lots weren't necessarily set back to allow for a sidewalk in the first place. I think a sidewalk offers the neighborhood an opportunity to create safety for our children. It offers an opportunity to clear the streets for safety officers. It offers an opportunity to clear the streets for fire. It makes it a better access. Unfortunately at the same time it may actually speed the street up and so as we have, if we have a new street, as proposed, it would certainly increase the amount of traffic. At this point in time Santa Fe Trail is used for a cut off from the neighborhoods that are north and westerly from us so that they don't have to go through all the city stop lights. They can, they don't have to go past the school district. They can come down Santa Fe Trail and angle up. Catch 78th Street and head out of town, so we're a little concerned about the traffic flow that will result from the new street. I don't know if the streets will be widened. I don't know what the sidewalk will be and I'm sympathetic to those homeowners that have a proposal for a sidewalk for fear that they will lose trees, shrubs, etc. So 20 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 as to how the sidewalk is place, how the street is placed is the street, I think the city has 5 feet or something on each side of the street. Do you shift the streets so you lose 2 V2 feet on each side to accommodate a 5 foot sidewalk or something like that.'? I raise those questions and so I find it interesting practice that council would propose sidewalks and allow an area, a neighborhood to make the decision for it would appear to me that it would fracture sidewalks in a neighborhood. If our neighborhood opposed this and another neighborhood nearby said yes, we'd have a sidewalk part way to Laramie Circle and we'd have a sidewalk, no sidewalk to Laramie Circle. I find that inconsistent with what maybe the city fathers really should have, and so it seems to me we should develop a consistent practice when we redevelop streets and water and sewer in the neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward as part of the public hearing? Gordy Nagel: My name's Gordy Nagel. I live at 514 Del Rio Drive and this is probably more of a question to staff than to anyone but when I looked at the proposal there were 33 lots and when I looked at the assessment it's divided by 32. I don't know what the difference is. Mayor Furlong: Who's the one? Teresa Burgess: I believe what you saw, did you look at the staff report on the web site? Gordy Nagel: Correct. Teresa Burgess: That was the draft and the assessment roll is based on the final draft. The consultant had included a parcel that did not have a driveway onto the project and city practice is to determine a parcel to be assessable if it's driveway or street address is onto the street that is being done. The parcel in question that is being left off of the assessment is on the comer of Del Rio and Santa Fe, and it's driveway comes onto the portion of Del Rio that is not being redone. They will be assessed when that piece of Del Rio is done in the future. Gordy Nagel: Okay, thank you. Nancy Weibel: Hi. My name is Nancy Weibel. I live at 416 Santa Fe Circle. First of all I would like to read a letter from my neighbor who is out of town, She lives on 414 Santa Fe Trail. She writes, I will be unable to attend the September 22, 2003 public meeting because I will be out of town. I have looked over the feasibility report and agree we need new water and sewer replacement, and new streets to be paved for at a reasonable price. However I am highly opposed to a sidewalk that will take up homeowner's property on Santa Fe Trail at an additional expense we cannot afford as our taxes keep going up every year. I live at 414 Santa Fe Trail. I am retired and a widow. At the present time I am able to live in my home and keep it up but with this new burden, many of my neighbors along with myself find this way out of line financially for our community. In other words, we simply can't afford it. I'd like the council to take into consideration these are bad economic times and if you put a practice in place, and I think that is what you are trying to do, is that you can't, there's such a difference in price from Chan View Estates and to this one. I think they have to take into consideration the cost. As far as for the sidewalks, like Tom said that there should be a practice for all the neighborhoods so it's uniform. The sidewalk we are paying for and I' m not so sure we need a sidewalk on one side of the street either. I think the way it is will probably slow traffic down more than by putting a sidewalk in, and I don't think the kids are going to go on the sidewalk you know, and I don't think the traffic is as heavy as, and I'm out there a lot and I don't think it's that heavy. I just think that we need to look at a way to keep the cost down on this. Thank you. 21 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Tom Lentz: My name's Tom Lentz. I'm at 404 Santa Fe Circle. I'm one of the two original homeowners that live in this neighborhood. So I've lived with the street and the conditions of water drainage since '68 when ! moved in. '69. '68. '69. And when the neighborhood was originally built, storm sewers weren't really required and the contractor put in a culvert that ran down into the gully and just drained into a natural stream that used to flow down behind our place. And so the whole neighborhood, even up to West 76th Street, comes down the hill and drains down in front of my house. Anytime there's a rain and I end up with a sandbar on the street and originally the culvert could not handle the water. If we had a heavy rain it was running between the houses and washing out our back yards. The city fixed that by putting two more culverts or catch basins, so ! have 3 catch basins right at my driveway. So I really support and have been waiting for a resolution to this problem and there are streets I think are a lot worst conditions than the city engineer even says they are. I think it's mostly, at least our cul-de-sac is mostly all patch over the years. The streets were laid on just basically graded clay. I don't think there's any foundation under them. They heave. They frost. They crack. They come into fix it and a year later they're all cracked up again. So I strongly support that we get this, get our streets finally fixed and fixed right, up to current standards, and it would be great. Now an overall thing though. One of the problems I have with this policy of trying to maintain infrastructure, not just in our neighborhood, in the whole city is the fact that it's got to be needed on old neighborhoods and then it tends to be a neighborhood that tends to be a financial hardship on a lot of folks that are in there. But I think the city has a little bit been negligent in maintaining the infrastructures on some of these neighborhoods. They wait until it's pretty much at a deplorable condition. Our watermain breaks probably once a year and it's in the winter time and then it's very costly. I can't imagine what it costs the city to repair that watermain. I think there's what, 8 breaks cited in the report. Teresa Burgess: There are 8 breaks, correct. Tom Lentz: Yeah. I can't imagine what the total bill of those 8 repairs have been over 10 years. And in my front yard, right on the edge of the curbing I have a green oasis. I believe the watermain's leaking. The rest of the lawns are brown. I've got a little green grass. Mayor Furlong: You haven't been watering on odd calendar days? Tom Lentz: It's only right at the edge of the street. ! don't know why. I told the city about it a couple years ago. I don't know if anything was done. So, but that's it. You know whatever the, somehow you've got to figure out how to do the assessments so you can make these reconstruction programs affordable. In the end we're all going through our, whether it's 60/40, 24/75, whatever it is or who pays what, in the end we're all going to pay for it as a city and a community as we go through and redo the city as time goes on. So that's all I've got to say. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Dave Hans: Hi. My name is Dave Hans. I live at 406 Santa Fe Circle. Right next to Mr. Lentz. I have a couple of issues I'd like to share with all of you. First of all I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Miller is saying as far as the exorbitant amount of assessment that we're being forced, and I do think that forced to pick up because I see kind of a combination pork barreling is not the word but it's the one that comes to mind when I see that we're being forced to take it all or none. When you're looking at streets, that can be optional, but when you're looking at sewer and water, that's a necessity. But yet both are being put in the same package. So I feel there's a little bit of manipulation going on there. Leveraging one issue to the detriment of the neighborhood in terms 22 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 of how much it's going to cost us. On another issue regarding the sidewalk. First of all I'd like to point out very clearly that the sidewalk is only 5 percent of the total cost. And everyone here has their own interest, and mine is for the safety of my daughter. Her name is Grace. She's 5 years old and right now she takes the bus to kindergarten every morning, but next year, for the next 6 years she'll be walking down Santa Fe Trail, over to Del Rio, and over to Laredo and if we follow through on this street, it will be on a street that has been new and improved, upgraded. Right now it kind of rolls and there's dips. Make that street flat and I can pretty much guess what that kind of effect is going to have on the traffic. It's going to increase the volume of traffic for reasons that Mr. Lentz pointed out is that we are a throughway but we are going to become every more so should the street be improved. But also the speed. There's going to be a number of kids in our neighborhood who are going to be walking down to the elementary school in the next few years, as there have been in the past. And we've managed in the past, but as I said, if we're going to upgrade that road, then I think we should look at the bigger picture. I guess what I'd like to say is that if we can accommodate a new and improved road, which is likely to result in higher volume and higher speed of traffic, then I think our priorities are truly misplaced if we can't accommodate the safety of our children. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Mel Gibbs: I'm Mel Gibbs, 405 Santa Fe Trail. I have a concern for the kids too in the neighborhood. I guess I feel that there are maybe some other ways to address that issue. Traffic control. I see people coming by my house speeding and I don't know what the solution could be. Maybe by just speed bumps aren't an option but maybe more police patrolling. Slow them down, but I would lose possibly 5-6 feet of my front yard. Maybe necessitate putting in a retaining wall. My neighbors would lose a couple beautiful maple trees. I would lose a tough birch. So I think you know I sympathize with the safety issue but I still think we can handle that in other ways. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Matt Johnson: Hi, I'm Matt Johnson on 424 Santa Fe Circle. I just wanted to come up and make sure that I second some of these people's opinions. I have a driveway, one of two that faces Santa Fe Trail. Understand the safety concerns as well but am concerned about my trees primarily in the front yard. They've been there much longer I hope than I have but that would certainly be a concern, and overall with regard to the cost involved in the project, I think what you're being asked here is really just to look and consider the alternatives as it comes to maintenance. Sharing the cost with the city or what not. I think I want to walk out of here making sure that this is not a done deal by any means but that it's open for future discussion and that's all I've got. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte: Who's this? Vernelle Clayton: You're in trouble now. You think I'm tough when it's not my own money. I'm Vemelle Clayton and I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle and gee, there were so many more of you that were talking. We had a pre-meeting at 6:30. I don't know what happened to your voices but I'll say what I'm going to say and I do encourage you to talk. These guys do want to hear from you so. First of all also I do want to thank particularly Teresa for making the room available so we could all get together earlier and also for the information that you shared with me so that I could share it with the rest of the folks so we could better understand this because obviously it's 23 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 kind of a shock. The $15,000 number is kind of a shock. And it's a little bit more than that. It's about, it amounts to 100 percent increase in our property taxes. And so I just would like to also reiterate what others have said to some extent and talk about the policy which I understand you like to call the practice and the precedence. The policy I think perhaps when it was put in place, the 40/60, it was not necessarily uppermost in everyone's minds that we'd be talking about applying it to a wholesale replacement of sewer and water and the streets. ! happen to have a project that followed a couple of occasions all the discussions about Lake Lucy Road so I heard more than frankly I wanted to about Lake Lucy Road, but it was really then the discussion really was about the road. It wasn't about the sewer and the water, so maybe it was, I'm not saying it was overlooked but I think there might be room for an opportunity to relook at the policy, particularly keeping in mind the precedence that has been set at Chan Estates where it was not assessed to the owners. I also would like to point out that because we'd like to get at, kind of a combination of ways that if you decide that the project should go forward and that's your call. If it should go forward, a variety of ways that maybe the cost and the burden to those of us that live there will not be quite so great. And at the same time setting a standard that will avoid you having rooms full like this every time you move down the street to all of our older streets to get them redone. I think that it's possible that the reference to new being assessed at 100 percent, at least in my mind when it was discussed earlier meant new infrastructure. I'm a developer for example. I come along. I divide my parcel into four lots and I'm assessed 100 percent, but it doesn't go to me. I pass it onto the land cost and the homeowners instead of having to pay for it over 8, 10, whatever number of years we decide here. Pay for it through their 30 year mortgages so it's palatable in those cases but in the shorter term, we're being asked to pay for something over precedence has been 8 years. That's only part of the life of the improvements that we're making, which is probably not quite an equitable situation. So it seems that anything new that is part of the reconstruction should also be at the standard if you concede to keep it at 46, at least it should be at the standard rate. That seems to follow, particularly with respect to curbs in my reading of it, relatively extensive survey that was done of other cities, and ! think it might be worthwhile if you really want to get into this, go back to them and ask the question a little bit differently because it seemed from my reading that many of them considered curbs, even though the question was asked separately, they considered curbs to be part of street construction. In that case then also of the 24 cities that responded, 4 didn't ask the question for one reason or another. 16 did not assess at all and 4 did, and I believe that they did not, those that did not assess, were not assessed for the curbs as well, but that's just a little more confusing. As for the dollar amount then, if they could be a policy which would guide this council and future councils where any dollar amount say over $5,000 would be amortized over a longer period of time to keep the monthly costs down. That might be an issue that could be adjusted for inflation. And using the 3 ideas that I just presented I did a calculation and I can share it, I think I might accidentally made enough copies so I can distribute it. I did calculate it, and this is based on, I know there's a difference of opinion to some extent with respect to the sidewalk but based on our discussion that we had earlier, it's probably about 80, well I don't want to say, but there's an awful lot of people that don't want sidewalks. So for this example I took out the sidewalk. I took out the sanitary sewer. I took out the watermain, and I then amortized it over, which leaves an amount then divided by the 32 landowners of $8,900 which is a whole lot of money too. And so I don't want you to think you know, I have talked to all these people and they're all willing to pay $8,900. I'm just trying to give you something that will help to understand how changes could make things different. So that would be $8,900 and then I did a schedule of 8, 10, and 15 years at 6 and 5 percent, and that would then range from the highest would be $116 a month over 8 years at 6 percent and the lowest would be $70 a month at 15 years at 5 percent so that's kind of the way it was scaled, and I'll give you a copy of this. And that still, $100 a month is still a 50 percent increase in property so it's kind of like, you know if something awful is going to happen to you, it's only half as bad, you're kind of happy. I don't know. I don't mean to be saying that so 24 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 anyhow, so obviously and more help would be welcome I guess and with that I will hand these out for you and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Vernelle. Nicole Renny: Nicole Renny, 412 Santa Fe Trail. Circle. My address is the road anyway. I've lived in my house for like 7 years and I moved in because it's a small, quaint neighborhood. No sidewalks. Less traffic because there weren't sidewalks. My front window is only 20 feet from the road so if you take 5 feet to put a sidewalk, you might as well put a bunch of chairs there and people can look right into our front window. On the other side though my neighbors who spoke, they'd have to cut down all their trees, put in retaining walls and so in a sense, and I know it would be our side of the road because there aren't any driveways on our side, so it's give and take. And ! know we can talk about the money and we all know the last two years have been difficult. Holy buckets, this is hard. Mayor Furlong: You're doing just fine. Nicole Renny: Got really supportive neighbors. But ! know a lot of my neighbors have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. Sorry. Mayor Furlong: Take your time. Nicole Renny: Okay. I mean our neighborhood's pretty close. We have a very good cul-de-sac and when I moved into my neighborhood, all my neighbors came in and welcomed me and I was really young because I was young and 24 years old when I bought my house. I live in a great community and our neighborhood but the financial burden is outstanding. A neighbor's been out of work for a year and he has 2 kids in college and I can't even imagine what $15,000 would do to him. Let alone my family, we own our own business and we've had to take out loans just to get through these last 2 years and then add another loan on top of that would be a hardship and we can't even move because of those costs will still get passed onto us once we sold our house so there's nowhere to go so if you want to move out of this, you still have that financial hardship for the next 15 years. The woman who's not here is my neighbor also who is widowed, and I'm a physical therapist and I want her to remain in her house because I know the pride that she feels in keeping in her house. If she has to move out to go into a senior community, that loses her quality of her life because she still can't maintain her house. I mean that's just the quality of life. Our roads are horrible. I call the city every single year to have them fix my road because we have a sprinkler system. The only one in my neighborhood and I'm very proud of it but every time I water I get a puddle in front of my house and then people go driving by and that excess water comes up into my yard. And every year I have to fix it. I go and market myself, saying this is where the puddle is and they never fix it, and the burden of that, that's where the breakdown comes down. We have a sump pump. It goes off every 13 minutes from April through June because there's a stream that goes underneath our house. You want to know why we have trouble. There's a spring underneath all of our houses. My neighbor's sump pump goes off all the time and it goes right down our circle, so the problem I think a lot of us are having a hard time understanding is the cost. Is reconstruction, therefore we have to pay for it but it's not our fault that we're on clay. And that the water drainage sucks and so therefore we have to pay for it. I think that's what a lot of us are struggling with is that we understand these changes have to be done, because we're having issues but we don't understand why it's getting put on us when we can't afford it. We have this beautiful new library and no offense, and there are a lot, my neighbors are school teachers and no offense to this, I would have rather had, not had a library and help pay for our road because I can't use the library because it's not open long enough hours 25 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 because we don't have the money to keep the library open long enough. But because you guys have the money, you make the hours shorter. We don't have that opportunity because it's our roads and our sewer system. So again I know I harping on and I apologize for crying but it's very emotional and ! think you're going to have a lot of angry people and hardship families if this goes ahead and we have to take the burden, if it does go down to $8,000. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Rick Engelhardt: My name is Rick Engelhardt. I live at 403 Santa Fe Trail. We just moved into the neighborhood a little over a year ago. We were living in Bloomington at the time and why we were looking for homes out here in the Chanhassen area, we looked around a lot in this area and we looked out in some of the newer complexes, the new developments. Then we happened to come across the home where we're living now and when we saw this home, this is where we knew we wanted to live. It's an old town style neighborhood. Mature trees. Mature homes. Mature streets. Like the neighbors say, one of the neighbors said, it's like going back to the 50's and that's what we really enjoyed and we've been embraced by this neighborhood and we love living here. And we don't want to move, and we're not going to move but to get hit $15,000, it's a pretty big hit in the pocket book. I'm looking at this assessment practice and I see it's broken down 60 percent city, 40 percent assessed to the neighborhood. It says 60 percent paid by the city. City's share may be MSA, which I'm not sure what that is. General fund TIF, federal or state grants. And then it says 40 percent assessed abutting property owners. Gee there's nothing underneath there to help us out. So it's a big economic burden. And with all due respect to my neighbor Dave and Tom, I'm not in favor of sidewalks. I really don't think that's going to do us any good. I think in a sense sidewalks can cause traffic to move a little bit quicker because they feel it is safer if they feel the kids are on the sidewalks and I'm not sure how many kids use sidewalks. And if you're looking in the winter time when the streets get plowed, where does the snow go? On the sidewalks. The sidewalks don't get plowed, the kids ain't going to use them anyway. So that's all I have to say, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Carroll Hanna: My name is Carroll Hanna. I live at 400 Santa Fe Trail. That's right when you come down Great Plains Boulevard you'll drive into my driveway if you don't take a left or right turn. But anyhow, Nicole, very fine remarks. I'm in the process of attempting to sell my house at this time and I've been informed by my realtor that when I sell it I have to put, if this is a pending proposition, I have to put 1 1/2 times the amount of the assessment into escrow and then afterwards, if it stays where it's at, in other words where it's proposed, I get my V2 times back. But I would then have to pay the $15,500, if it's left as it is. I'm gone. I have no use of that. I won't be able to use that property unless I drive down the street once in a while and say golly I wish I was back here or I'm glad I'm out of here, you know. So anyhow, but I do see that it's a hardship on a lot of people in the neighborhood, and I do believe that you should reconsider the practice. You say it isn't a policy. It's a practice, so it evidently is not you know in concrete but you can do the same that you did, or as the other council did, whoever did it, over in the Estates. And let the new road is required, then assess that but pay for the remainder of the project by the city. Okay? Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Betty Jorgenson: I'm Betty Jorgenson. I'm 401 Santa Fe Trail so I'm the comer lot so my concern in all of this is when it's all said and done and whether we get this bill or not, and get our sidewalks or don't get our sidewalks, when it gets done and then you're going to hit me on Great 26 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Plains. And I'm thinking that road's got to get done too so I'm just wondering, you know when this is all said and done, who's going to pay my kid's college because...you know I'll pay you, you pay me, okay .... I want to thank everyone who stood up and talked for us because in the meeting before hand we were encouraged to. I just agree to disagree with what was said and I think that's why more people aren't coming up so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess do you want to address the question about do corner lots get assessed twice? Teresa Burgess: The city has chosen not to assess comer lots twice. Some cities do, some don't. What we use for the determining factor is the side the driveway comes out so unless you have a double driveway on the two separate streets, you do not get assessed for both streets. Just the one your driveway's on. And I'm sure there's several people now contemplating taking that second driveway out right now. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Cathy Blettner: My name is Cathy Blettner. I live at 509 Del Rio Drive. It's right on the intersection of Santa Fe and Del Rio, and of course I was shocked to see the amount and I have a single income and I can't afford to stay in my house if I have to pay $200 more a month. As far as the sidewalks go, I'm opposed to those. I would probably lose at least 4 trees if it came down my side and as far as the safety issue goes, I've raised kids there and I have 7 grandchildren. 5 of them are old enough to be outside and spend a lot of time with me, and ! think the safety issue is the speed of the traffic. We have a stop sign at the end of Santa Fe, but as they come through on Del Rio on the curve, especially in the afternoon when the kids are coming home from school, the traffic comes through there so fast I think we could benefit in safety by a 3 way stop more than a sidewalk because the kids will be crossing back and forth and going to their destinations anyway. So I don't really feel we need the sidewalks and I appeal to you to do what you can to keep the cost down so we can stay in our homes. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Bonn Clayton: Bonn Clayton, Santa Fe Circle. 422. That's the west circle. I have heard many of the things that have been said here tonight. They really very well put comments and I just wanted to emphasize the message ! think that everybody's already been giving you, and that is that it's too much. Too costly. You can amortize it more. You can pay for the sewer and the water. You can pay for the whole thing, or we can do it a different way, but to me and I've been saying this that people for a couple weeks, it comes down to the water because it seems like there's an urgent problem in the water pipes. And that's kind of been causing this thing to be done right now. At least that's the way it looks to me. And I appreciate Bob's comments because if there's something to be done with the water pipes other than simply removing everything and doing the streets over and the sanitary, or both of the sewers, if there's some way of taking care of that water pipe and correcting a few of the sewers, maybe that would be a lot cheaper and maybe then the streets wouldn't have to be completely redone costing $8,000 for each of us. Maybe they could just be ground down a half an inch and built up another inch. I'm not an expert in this area so I don't know all the alternatives but I'd like to know more of the alternatives. Could there not be a way of simply getting something in there to change the ph balance around those pipes? Again, I'm not an expert but I think that something that should be looked into in that area. In those areas. Trying to solve the problems of the pipes, the water pipes. To maybe take the pressure off of this project now. Thank you. 27 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Teresa Burgess: Mr. Mayor, if I could just address that while we wait for the next individual. The purpose of a feasibility study is to look at exactly what he just brought up. Is there an alternative? What's the best way to do that? And Bonestroo is here tonight and can talk a little bit about what they considered on this so Phil. Phil Gravel: Thanks Teresa. As Teresa mentioned, as part of the review we did look at other alternatives for that area. As an example that's how the Huron-Iroquois area, the recommendation is just to do the spot repairs. On the Santa Fe area with the consensus being that the entire watermain is in an inrepairable state, the decision is that the only way to take care of that problem is to replace it all and when you get into replacing it all and the damage that would do to the street, then the next step is while reconstructing the street entirely is the next solution. If there was no utility problem, if the watermain was in fine shape and the sewer was in fine shape, we would still not recommend just a mill and overlay or something else. A temporary solution for that street surface. ! think someone mentioned earlier that there's just no base there for that street now so if that street's going to be improved, the reconstruction method is the most prudent thing at this time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council on this matter as part of the public hearing? No? Okay, last chance. We'll close the public hearing then and bring it back to council. I want to thank everybody that came up this evening and spoke. I realize full well how difficult that can be and so thank you very much because we do very much appreciate direct comments on issues such as this. We'll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: I think what we accomplished we wanted to with the public hearing. Certainly we heard that the legitimate passion that our residents face. A couple of them mentioned that they understand our challenge in that, whether the individual homeowners have to pay for it or the citizens at large, one of the two have to. I mean it's, we can't pull the money out of someplace we don't have and that has been historically the challenge that we as council people have faced is how to maintain, what's reasonable? Is how to maintain what's reasonable. Is $15,000 reasonable? Is $3,000 reasonable and that's, I haven't made a decision. I've heard some things tonight that certainly will make me think long and hard about how we should do it. Whether 60/40 is right. Whether or not that same ratio should be onto the sewer and water. I don't know. I can't tell you tonight. I know that what I'd like to do is to get that number smaller somehow and whether there are creative ways to get that done, I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But be assured that my drive and my passion is to figure out a way to creatively get that smaller too, but realizing that the $15,000 is a real number. We can't necessarily, and as our consultants have said, we can't really lower that number. Potentially with removing the sidewalk will help a little bit but the city still has to pay for that. So then the question again, the $64,000 question is, does the whole community pay for that neighborhood or do the individuals pay for that neighborhood and that's really the crux of it, that I think we're going to have to sort through in the coming weeks. It doesn't have to be tonight and hopefully you weren't expecting to get a decision tonight so. Other comments? Councilman Ayotte: Well I've got a couple. Mayor Furlong: You promised Bob, at the work session tonight you were done. Councilman Ayotte: Politician. I will not approve, I will not vote for this project. I'll vote against it and, but it's for different reasons. We have school referendum. We have library 28 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 referendum. We have a water treatment issue where we have to address distribution. Whether or not we're in compliance and capacity. So if you're concerned about your street, I want you to be concerned about your water. So that's my viewpoint. I think we have to get an aggregate impact on the residents so I'm worried about the collective impact, one. Two, I want to state that this council, you know I've had kind of an up and down seat here as a councilman with previous council and this council. This council has done everything it can to keep taxes down, or negligible, and all five us have worked very hard to that end. I feel real good about that particular outcome so when you say double the taxes, keep in mind that it would have been a lot worst if us didn't work towards that end so, but I do appreciate the comments that we have to take a look at the collective holistic impact of what we have to go out of pocket, because you really don't care if it's a tax or an assessment or a referendum, it's dollars out of pocket and I want to have a better feel before ! go forward with any other expenditure. So $15,000 is too much at either $200 a month or $135 a month. Because I don't know the other costs that are going to be hitting you in the pocket. Until I know those other costs I don't feel good about that. Saying that, I think the city engineer has done an outstanding job of life cycle management. We have to do that. We have to gradually address the replacement of our streets. We can't do it, if someone said that we neglected it before, infrastructure was neglected, I believe that. I think that's absolutely true. So we do not collectively focus on our life cycle management program, not simply for streets but for the entire infrastructure we're going to have a problem so this councilman wants to look at dealing with that particular issue. I think Vernelle Clayton, excellent point. Let's not look at an assessment across the board but we may have to look at wholesale replacement, vis a vis other mechanisms to adhere to an assessment program. That's my view anyways. Council does not propose a sidewalk. I don't know who said that but the council does not propose a sidewalk. This councilman, and I think there's a few others up here that might think along that line. We want to look at a criteria for the introduction of sidewalks, and talking towards public safety is an element of it, but it's not a total view of it so I think also we have to take a look at a criteria to figure out whether or not we have to introduce sidewalks. The last comment here that I want to make is, somebody said we're in economic hard times. If we were on the east coast we would be at war, okay. Let's put things in perspective. We are concerned about the money, the taxes and so forth, but we're not just in economic hard times. We're at war. So there's some other issues too that we have to face so with those comments I just want to re-state that I'm not comfortable with this package as it stands right now because I think we have to do a little bit more homework. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: My comments are going to be similar to the previous two council members. I would, as we talked at our work session I think a couple weeks ago, all of us were pretty uncomfortable with that $15,000 number. That was the number that we published because we felt like that was going to be the worst case scenario I guess, and but I seconded the opinions that that $15,000 number I think is much too high and we've got, we will find a way to bring that down. However, these projects do I believe need to get done for a lot of different reasons and among the responsibilities that we have up here as a council is also to provide that infrastructure for the residents now. So we need to get these done. We need to also find a way to get them done that it doesn't create such a hardship, so I would also second everyone's comments for everyone coming up and making your opinions known because that is the feedback that we need and anybody thinks that city politics doesn't affect your pocketbook, never had their streets redone I guess so. Anyway, we have a considerable challenge ahead of us to figure out what's fair and equitable in these and still get these projects done. 29 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Having read through the information, the feasibility study, listening to everyone this evening, and you know the issues that ! see. One with regard to just the scope of work and the need for the work. I guess I heard tonight and the residents were fairly consistent along with this staff and the consultant that this work needs to be done. It's got to be done. It isn't an issue of the streets are fine, why are you doing this now. It's quite the opposite. We had people here tonight asking, you know this should have been done a while ago. The issue that came up tonight at the public hearing that was open for discussion, was with regard to the sidewalks and I concur with Councilman Ayotte. We were discussing that earlier this evening as part of the code review. When should sidewalks, when is it appropriate for sidewalks to be in place and when are they not necessary? We haven't had that discussion yet. I think that's something here as, you know it's proposed as part of this project. Whether or not it goes forward or not, I think we need to determine that. The one thing I didn't hear mentioned that I picked up out of the packet, and it was mentioned tonight were the rain gardens in the cul-de-sacs. I think from a cost standpoint as well as, and probably more importantly here we heard a lot about public safety tonight. There's some concern with regard to the size of those. What they might be and whether there'd be sufficient access for fire equipment. So those are, but those are not major issues with regard to the scope of the project. The scope of the project includes replacement of the water and sewer lines, which people are saying needs to be done. To get down there, you know and I think the best thing that I heard tonight on whether that needed to be done was the fact that the city was originally looking to do that in that other area just south of this. The Iroquois, Huron roads and the consultant determined, no. That was not cost effective to have to do that at this time. That a repair could be done there most cost effectively than, because the situation was such that it could support that. This neighborhood's not the case. The big issue here is how do we pay for it? It's got to be paid for, as Councilman Peterson said. $15,000 is too much. We've got to find a way to get that down. That clearly becomes a burden so the question is how do we do that. I don't know that we have the information. We've had a lot of ideas thrown at us tonight which I think is very helpful. That's something that we're going to have to determine over the coming weeks on how we do that, but we can't not repair our roads and our sewer and our water lines because of the cost. Because the cost is not going to go down. My neighborhood, I live in the Pheasant Hills neighborhood. This was the neighborhood that was part of the mill and overlay last summer that was the project. We were assessed the 40 percent. The cost associated with that was about a factor of 10 less than what's being proposed here tonight. It was about $1,700-$1,800. That didn't involve the utilities and it didn't involve the sewer and it didn't involve the complete replacement of the street. It didn't involve the complete upgrade of the gutters. Neighborhood wasn't as old but it's, the work was still done and the cost was shared so I can fully, ! can appreciate, fully appreciate the situation of the residents here this evening. Being confronted with this letter and proposed assessment. ! think we need to find a way, I think we need to re-look at our practice on how we develop assessments, but I also think we need to move forward on these projects, continuing to delay or push them off a year. Unfortunately there's a capacity issue and if we miss a year of street projects, it's gone. My understanding is we don't have the capacity to double up the following year so we have to move forward when work needs to be done. The big question is how we're going to pay for it. And like so many things over the coming weeks and months as we work through the budget, that's going to be a question asked time and again, but clearly this is a, Councilman Ayotte mentioned, this is not a council that's looking to raise taxes and the cost of living in Chanhassen. Quite the contrary and I think we will do what we can, and as much as we can to do that. Where that's going to end up, I don't know. But it's got to be less in my opinion than the $15,000 proposed for the current practice. So I'm opening it up to the comments or questions. Councilman Ayotte: I had a question. 3O City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: With the water treatment discussions we've been having, and how we want to deal with the capacity issue, there was also some discussion on the distribution. Is it a stretch to address the water, the sewer and water here in that discussion in some of the ways we were talking about covering those costs for water treatment? Teresa Burgess: Certainly as we discussed rate increases for sewer and water to address potential improvements to the water system, what is being proposed this evening, even just our 60 percent share will have an impact on our sewer and water rates because our current rates do not take that into account. As I explained to council last council meeting during the work session, we will have to adjust our water rates to account for these improvements, but we need to do these projects and we're anticipating doing that rate study probably after most of the rest of the general fund budget has been discussed, so either late October or early November. Mayor Furlong: And for clarification, on the city share. We talk about the city kind of as one entity which the city is but in terms of source of funds, the street, the city's portion for the street generally comes from property taxes or perhaps other sources. Not in this neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods because of the types of streets, the more commercial streets, is that right? Teresa Burgess: This project is proposed to have it's city share come from actually three funds. One is the general fund, which is property taxes. One is the sewer and water utility fund to pay for sewer and water. Mayor Furlong: And that's not taxes. Teresa Burgess: That's not taxes. That's our utility rates. What you pay into for your usage. Mayor Furlong: Right, for water and sewer quarterly bills. Teresa Burgess: Right, and those were the ones that we're talking about needing to be adjusted. We are in the process of doing that rate study. And then the third fund that is being tapped for this project is the storm water utility fund and that, if you look at your utility bill, there is a flat fee on that every month for storm water improvements in the city and this is one of those places where we are proposing to use those funds. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Clarifying question? Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Councilman Lundquist: If we go forward with what staff is asking for requested action to hold a public hearing and authorize the preparation. What's the timeframe Teresa on the project? Is this a next spring-summer project? Teresa Burgess: Construction is proposed to be probably late May, early June. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And when do those, when do the assessments and all of that stuff have to all be worked out and taken care as part of that process? 31 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Teresa Burgess: There's a difference between have to and suggested. Staff strongly recommends that council make that determination before award of contract to the, for this project which would be May-June of next year. Because that way council knows how it's going to pay for this. Or at least has determined how much it has to come up with. Technically you do not have to decide the assessment rate until you get ready to certify it to the county, which would be by the end of 2004. But the problem with doing that is you may end up having to come up with money that you were not anticipating. Councilman Lundquist: So the shortest timeframe would be like March timeframe? Teresa Burgess: Correct. It would be a good time to have it decided by. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Teresa Burgess: And just for the property owners understanding, the property, if we certify it, it will go on their property taxes in January of 2005. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson: I would probably augment that a little bit by saying it's probably more prudent if we're able to make a decision pre-2004 budget so that's. Councilman Lundquist: Agreed. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't like, you know next week. Mayor Furlong: Roger question. When does a assessment, there was a comment made tonight about a pending assessment versus an actual, or versus I guess a non-pending assessment. How does that work? Roger Knutson: It's a very interesting question actually and I'll try to give you a simple answer but there really isn't one. The term is not statutorily defined. It varies from place to place as to what it means. Typically people consider an assessment pending as soon as you order the project. Some people would move that to as soon as they get notice of the public hearing that you're considering ordering the project but typically it's the date you ordered the project, which is if you ordered it tonight to proceed, if you were to vote yes, that would by most people's, would consider that a pending assessment as of tonight. Just so we're clear, and for everyone in the audience. This is really a two step process. This is the public improvement hearing. Subsequent to this there's a special assessment hearing. Audience: Are we notified? Roger Knutson: Definitely. Teresa Burgess: And that notice will not only include the date of the hearing but the exact amount of the assessment as proposed to the council at that time. Audience: When will that be done? Teresa Burgess: When that assessment hearing is set. Mayor Furlong: But didn't you say typically that's either at award of the bids or. 32 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Teresa Burgess: The city has traditionally, wait I shouldn't say traditionally. The city has since I have been here. Mayor Furlong: Practiced. Teresa Burgess: Done the assessment hearings prior to award of contract. However, the assessment hearing is set by the council. It's called by the council. They will decide when they are prepared to hold that. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just one last thing just so we're all clear on this. To order the project, to pass this motion requires 4 favorable votes. Councilman Lundquist: That's a super majority? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Ayotte: Then I'm going to need some more discussion. Councilman Peterson: Again Bob, this isn't about the assessment, it's about the project itself. Councilman Ayotte: I understand but the problem that I have is not knowing other pieces of information, because irrespective of what the assessment shows, what comes up, I'm still uncomfortable about not knowing about water treatment. I still have that problem. Mayor Furlong: And when you say water treatment, just for clarification. Councilman Ayotte: Well, we're going to be getting an action plan from Teresa and I'm not sure when but we had talked about that, and I'm not comfortable in knowing whether or not what we proposed for water treatment, what comes out of that action plan would have an impact on this and other activities in the city. I'm not certain of that. Can you talk to me towards that? If we had an action plan for water treatment, we have 3 issues of capacity, distribution, compliance. Is there a possibility that the way we deal with water treatment would have an effect on this plan? Teresa Burgess: No. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Teresa Burgess: This project is, the only impact on this project that water treatment would have is financial. How we pay for treatment, how we pay for this. We only have one checkbook. We have multiple funds but that's the only impact on this project. Councilman Ayotte: If we give an approval for this project, and we are unable to come to resolution with respect to the assessment, are we hog tied with the project? Teresa Burgess: No. All you will be out is the consultant fees. Councilman Peterson: Because all we're doing now tonight is plans and specs so it's. Councilman Ayotte: Can we when we do go forward with this thing, can we challenge whoever does the plans and specs to do in concert with that, the plans and specs, an aggressive cost reduction effort and seeing what can be done? 33 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Teresa Burgess: That is something that I expect of all my consultants as I work with them to bring that forward. Councilman Ayotte: But I'm saying with regard to maybe even fixing a target bogey for reduction. Teresa Burgess: It would be hard to set a target of a percentage or a dollar amount. I think really the intention is to think outside the box. To look for any alternative, any cost savings that can be brought to bear on this project, but when you set a target you may make technical compromises that you really shouldn't simply to meet the target. Councilman Ayotte: Can we include a target? Teresa Burgess: You have that option? I would recommend against it. Councilman Ayotte: Alright, because I would expect the contractor then to affix a risk associated with the target bogey. Could one do that? Phil Gravel: Construction contractor might. I don't think a design step would do that. Councilman Ayotte: Can we in conjunction with the design effort get input from potential contractors for a target bogey? Teresa Burgess: Roger, I think you need to answer that from a legal standpoint. Roger Knutson: I don't know that there's a legal answer to it. You can ask, you certainly can ask a potential contractor. You don't know who the contractor is but you can go out and talk to contractors. I'm not in the design business but. Phil Gravel: I think that'd be a doable thing. It's not uncommon for us to ask for the construction contractors to review design at a partial design step for their input and we do get cost saving advice at that time. In fact on this one I know one thing we're going to want to talk to people about is how to keep the temporary water service going during the construction so that's just one example of how we can get input on those things. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification Councilman Ayotte when you talk about cost reduction, are you talking about having the design engineer work with contractors to say you maybe design it this way but if you design it a different way we can reduce the cost? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: To work in a collaborative effort. Councilman Ayotte: A collaborative effort with the intent of trying to reduce the cost to a certain level that is more affordable than $15,000 freaking dollars. I'm just unbelievable. Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I'd have with regard to the cost estimates at this point, how would, is there a way to characterize them in terms of conservative, aggressive? 34 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Phil Gravel: Conservative. Mayor Furlong: Which, when you say conservative, does that mean that it's, there's a greater likelihood they would come in lower or higher? Teresa Burgess: If I could answer that real quick. If you would think of these assessment rolls, these preliminary assessment rolls like you do preliminary levy. It cannot go up but it can go down. And so as we prepare these we do try to be very conservative because if the project comes in higher than estimated, the city has to bear that additional cost and cannot increase those assessments unless we go back and start over again. Mayor Furlong: Is the search for potential cost reduction, cost reduction effort in terms of working with the construction contractors and such like that, is that part of the preparing the plans and specifications? I mean we've done in terms of the preliminary design, have we don't what is typically normal and can be done to come up with the best estimates at this point in time? Phil Gravel: For this point in time we've done the most accurate estimates we can. If you move onto the design phase, then I think you could have some more accurate information and do some of those things like work with staff and talk to other professionals about ways to reduce costs. Mayor Furlong: Anybody's thoughts. Councilman Peterson: I like the idea of citing what cost saving measures are potentially there or were undertaken as we get to the final specs. I'm not necessarily in agreement with Bob setting a target, but I would like to see graphically, or in some form of writing what were the aggressive steps that we did to reduce the potential costs. And I think Phil you're saying you can do that so. Councilman Ayotte: One other thing. If we could in tandem or in parallel with going forward with the plans and specs, is to work Bruce harder in coming up with a means of amortizing the cost over either a longer period of time or coming up with a creative means of improving the affordability. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I would agree. I think how it's funded is the issue that I heard tonight as of everyone's concern. Do we need to go forward with this? I also think I heard yes, we do. We need to go forward with the project. How are we going to fund it? I think we can be working both those paths at the same time, and as diligently as we're asking the designer and the contractor to reduce the total cost, obviously the less the total cost, the less it costs for residents in the city regardless of how that cost is allocated. But I see us working both those prongs at the same time. Teresa Burgess: And Mr. Mayor if I could, Bruce did discuss with me today that he and Todd Gerhardt had been doing some brainstorming last week on how these could be funded in the future and addressing those issues. And I believe you'll be hearing more as we go through the budget discussions as we talk about specifically the engineering budget in October. And you'll be hearing more as we move forward to see where council is willing to go. He had some unique ideas. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Is there any other discussion? 35 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: I know you don't like the idea of target bogey, or Craig doesn't but because of what Vernelle put together, I mean we have a reference that could be at least an identified target. Just as a start point. Certainly isn't a lock in but from my understanding she's the smartest person in the room so if we don't put a line out there, we don't have the ability to reach so I'm not saying it's just a target. Councilman Peterson: What Vernelle presented was a cost to homeowners. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the cost of the total project Bob so I think that Vernelle's number is irrelevant to the project cost. Councilman Ayotte: If we're going to get my vote, we're going to have somehow a target for the consultant to work towards and collectively they can take the $8,900 bucks and multiple it times some number to get the total but I want a target because I think if we have a target, we stretch. We get a reference point. Or if it isn't a target, give me something else and then you're going to talk me into voting but otherwise I'm not doing it. I want to have some mechanism to work towards a reduction in the cost of the package as the consultant goes forward. Some sort of line drawn. Councilman Lundquist: I would say you're going to get your reduction, as we heard from the conservative estimates now going forward. We should all expect that those costs are going to be in that range or lower. And it's awful early in the game to be telling them that they've got to reduce their estimates... Councilman Ayotte: I didn't say that. I said target. Would this be unreasonable to work towards? Did you see this? Teresa Burgess: I believe what Vernelle has is what I have in front of me also. The $8,900. That is assuming the city take on 100 percent of the cost of the sewer and water. That is not, that's cutting the project cost almost in half. To do that there is not a way to reduce the cost of doing the same type of project. You're talking about cutting the size of the project. Councilman Ayotte: Then what do we do about, how do we create a target? Somebody tell me how we create a target so that we have a mark in the sand to work towards? Roger Knutson: Mayor. You could more easily talk about a target for special assessments, and you could have a target there and say your target is, and I won't presume to say a number or special assessments is. Councilman Peterson: I don't think that's his point. Roger Knutson: Cost is a separate issue. Councilman Ayotte: I'm trying to get something for the consultant to work towards because to put parameters on it. Councilman Lundquist: Looking for a total project cost or what are you looking for? Councilman Ayotte: I'm looking for a mechanism to help the consultant realize that if it's going to be working towards a design that he has to consider a series of options to reduce cost. 36 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Councilman Peterson: What about the opportunity of not having a target but just listing, and making it part of the plans and specs, that they need to develop five different and distinct cost saving opportunities to be listed as part of the plans and specs? Councilman Ayotte: A series of options. Why don't we just make it more general, say series of options. I'd be comfortable with that. Councilman Peterson: Cost saving options. Mayor Furlong: Cost saving options. Councilman Ayotte: Alright, so that we see a number of ways to go then. Okay. Phil Gravel: ...decreasing the assessment part of that option? Councilman Ayotte: Decreasing assessments? Councilman Peterson: Two different discussions. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we're dealing with the project tonight so but I understand we heard a lot about the assessment so that is a concern up here for us as well. Indirectly. With that, is there additional discussion or somebody want to try a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd move that we approve the feasibility study and authorize the preparation of plans and specs for 2004 residential street and utility improvement project number 04-01 with the amendment to the, in addition we would like to see five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed to the vote. Resolution #2003-083: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2004 Residential Street and Utility Improvement Project No. 04-01 including five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFCATIONS FOR THE 2004 MSA STREET IMPROFVEMENTS, PROJECT 04-02. Public Present: Name Address Jason Sprague SEH/2578 Aldine, Roseville Aaron Ditzler SEH/10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka 37 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 John M. Smith Ross & Mary Jo Kamerud Jack Thien 1072 Meadow Street, Cologne 413 Santa Fe Trail 7570 Canyon Curve Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. I was just anxious to get onto this one. It's another project we're doing yet this year. This project is considered a rehabilitation project. Again an even briefer version of pavement management. Our pavement management system prioritizes the streets and it has chosen these as the MSA streets. We do municipal state aid, MSA project every 2 years. That's approximately how long it takes us to accrue the financial means to be able to do these projects. That money does come from the State and when you look at the assessment practice it does list MSA funds as an available funding source. This year we are proposing to do Market Boulevard, between State Highway 5 and West 78th Street. West 78th Street from Market Boulevard to where it turns up onto Highway 101 or Great Plains Boulevard. West 79th Street from Market Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard. West 79th Street and West 79th Street cul-de-sac are not currently MSA routes. We will be applying to MnDot to see if we can get those to be, this one is eligible. This one is not. To see if we can get this stretch of road onto the MSA system. If we can, then it's staff's opinion that this is an appropriate project. If we cannot, it is staff's opinion this project should be postponed a couple of years and be packaged with one of our residential street projects for financial reasons. We do not have enough in the budget in the coming year allocated for, including this without the MSA money. And then Great Plains Boulevard from Highway 5 to West 78th Street. The projects that are proposed are semi dissimilar and so I have grouped them by street. The first section is Market Boulevard. The existing surface is showing some deterioration and so the consultant has recommended that we mill the entire width and rebuild the crown and repave 1 V2 inches of asphalt back onto the existing. We will do crack repair throughout the entire area and any traffic signal loops which are at the intersections of Highway 5 and West 78th Street will need to be removed and replaced at the same time that this project is done because they will be damaged by the milling operations. That is similar to what is being done on Great Plains Boulevard and also West 78th Street. West 79th Street I would prefer to come back and give a separate staff report on that one because it is a little bit different. If there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing and given the uniqueness of West 79~ Street we'll go ahead and hear from people interested in commenting on Market Boulevard, between Highway 5 and West 78th, Great Plains Boulevard between Highway 5 and West 78th and West 78th between Market Boulevard and Great Plains. So at this point the public hearing is open, if anybody would like to come forward and comment. Okay, seeing none why don't we go onto West 79th Street. Staff report. Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor. West 79th Street, as I mentioned, is not on the MSA system and the consultant did look at it separately specifically for that reason. The section of road does have an area of failure that is in the area of where the existing culvert is, and it appears that the culvert has heaves possibly due to the placement of the culvert when it was originally installed. That area will need to be removed and reconstructed. Other than this area around the culvert section, the street is in very good condition. We are proposing to include it in this project for two reasons. One, that culvert needs to be replaced and will improve the street. And two, because by combining it with the surrounding area project we do have a cost saving of scale. There is the potential that we will delay this, as I said, if it is not eligible for MSA. We can't get that funding. We do not have enough in the budget to be able to do both this project and the residential street project and those are in obviously much more dire condition. If there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those. 38 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. One question with regard to the failure around the storm sewer, if we don't proceed with this road, what do we do with that? Do we just leave it or what is there a repair option? Teresa Burgess: Staff would continue to patch around it. We would live with the existing condition until the road is redone. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we would get the, this is the second of my one question. We'll get the approval of the, whether it would be included in the MSA, designated MSA road prior to awarding the contract? Teresa Burgess: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Those are my questions. Any other questions? Very good. We will continue the public hearing at this point. If anyone wishes to speak regarding West 79a~ Street, please come forward. Councilman Peterson: What a difference half a mile makes. Mayor Furlong: Very good. If there is nobody that wants to speak on this project. If there is anybody that wants to speak on this project please come forward. Otherwise we will close the public hearing. Final call. With that we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for comments. Discussion. Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend we move ahead with it with the same caveats we did with the prior plans and specs. Looking for five separate and distinct options to lower the dollar amount. Mayor Furlong: Other comments or discussion. Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: Sounds great. Councilman Lundquist: Agree. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, fully agree. We should be asking for those on all our projects but specifically when the dollars reach this amount so with that, if there's no other discussion, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Yeah I would move that we approve the feasibility study and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for 2004 MSA street improvement project number 04-02 with the additional caveat that we look for five separate and distinct options for saving dollars as we commence the project. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Second has been made. Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. 39 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Resolution $2003-84: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2004 MSA Street Improvements Project No. 04-02 including five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 2 LOTS ON 5.13 ACRES, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3 STORY 89-UNIT HOTEL ON 3.01 ACRES WITH VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE AND DESIGN STANDARDS; SE CORNER OF TH 5 AND CENTURY BOULEVARD; STEINER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., AND STEVE SLOWEY, HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. There's three parts to this review. The first part, the project is located at the southeast comer of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. It's within the Arboretum Business Park. The first part of this project involves a subdivision of a 5 acre parcel into 2 pieces. One's approximately 2 acres. The second is approximately 3 acres. Access for the property is off of Century Boulevard. Currently there's a full median opening. As part of the Planning Commission discussion they recommended that this median be closed and that a right-in/right-out be provided for this development. Staff believes that we should hold this development to the same standard that we did to the development to the west of Century Boulevard which includes the U.S. Bank, Kinder Care and the Helsene Building which is, if problems become apparent at the intersection, that the City has the ability to close it and assess the properties to any improvements to that. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision based on the conditions in the staff report with the modification on page 12 to go to the original recommended conditions of approval. The building itself, the applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 3 story brick Holiday Inn Express building. It's very attractive architecturally. However they do need a variance for the amount of window openings on their north elevation. Their standard practice is to have 23 percent window openings. They pushed it to get up to 35 percent but the city standard is that they have 50 percent ordinance. We believe based on the function of the building that it is appropriate to grant the variance from this requirement and are recommending approval of the site plan with the variance for the fenestration. Thirdly they're proposing that a variance for signage. Currently ordinance permits signage only on street frontages which is the north elevation of the building. They'd like to continue that treatment on the west elevation. They did request a variance from the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended approval and based on the criteria that they presented staff would concur with that recommendation. We're therefore recommending approval of the plans as submitted. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Bob, the variance, or the deviation in the windows. The other hotels that are in town, the other two hotels that we have, what, do you have any idea what their window coverage is? Bob Generous: No, I didn't make those calculations. I would believe that they don't meet the 50 percent though. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. No other questions. 40 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time? If there's none, is the applicant here or representative from the applicant? Would you like to address the council for any reason? Talk about this proposal. Phillip Bloom: Certainly. My name is Philip Bloom. I'm President of Steiner Construction Services and I'm also representing the owner. The owner lives in Yankton, South Dakota and couldn't be here this evening. And so I'm here representing him as well. The hope is to get council approval and the goal was to try and break ground yet either late fall or this winter for opening next summer. Some of the questions have been asked as far as the restaurant pad next door. Right now that's just starting a marketing effort right now. We don't know what's going there as of yet. Just have to wait and see in that regard. The only issue that really came up at the Planning Commission meeting was the turn lane from the median going in and there is a development agreement with U.S. Bank, the Helsene Center, and Kinder Care in that regard that that be open and that was a deal breaker for U.S. Bank a year ago if you recall when that got built. If that would have got closed off they would have passed and went somewhere else so if that did get closed off that would be a big deal to the developers on the west. There's also another bank looking at going in on the other side as well that will be here probably real soon in the next few months with that, and that's an issue with them as well. So other than that, we're excited about the project. It's very cool and anxious to get going on it. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Okay, very good, thank you. We do have a representative from the Planning Commission here. Commissioner Lillehaug. Would you like to address the council and summarize the Planning Commission's issues? Steve Lillehaug: My name is Steve Lillehaug. I live at 7571 Walnut Curve and I'm a Planning Commissioner. We were in general support of this application. The items that we did discuss was sidewalks, internal circulation but ! think we were comfortable with the direction the applicant and the staff was heading in that. As the applicant indicated, I think our one main point of focus was the full access issue on Century Boulevard. This has been in front of the City Council, I think this is probably the third time for that full access and the Planning Commission at previous times did recommend restricting that to a right-in and right-out only. And we hold true to that recommendation. And to elaborate on it a little, my personal opinion is that closing that access would be better to do it now rather than later. If it's warranted at this time, and our opinion is that it is strictly for safety issues. Current practices wouldn't allow a full access right at the beginning of a dual left turn lane. You see it around other cities. Eden Prairie has a few. They're not ideal and most cities would try to close them down if they weren't existing conditions. Take it, this is an existing condition but it's a new existing condition and so I think it was the Planning Commission's opinion as a whole that it's better to close these now rather than later. There was a traffic analysis done at the time U.S. Bank went in there. There's recommendations in the traffic analysis. A few of the recommendations weren't addressed properly that did discuss...implemented so a portion of the traffic analysis is addressed and then a portion isn't. So ! guess if you have any questions of me I'll be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Steve I don't know if this is for you or for staff with regard to the right-in/right- out. With regard to the existing property owners, U.S. Bank has been mentioned and others. How is their development agreement written? Was it written similar to the language that we saw in the packet under condition 12 that's been struck out? Bob Generous: That was approved as part of their subdivision. 41 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess maybe here's a question. Is the commission recommending that we close that meeting entirely or just for this property not allow, because there's a left turn allowed into this property and left turn allowed from northbound Century going into the other existing properties right now. Steve Lillehaug: I think holding true to the previous recommendations would be to allow both right-in/right-out only for each site. Mayor Furlong: For both sites so. Steve Lillehaug: Right, it would be closing the median. And then if I could play devil's advocate because I do want to make you aware. If this access were closed you'd have to realize that to get to the Holiday Inn Express it would be going down to the next intersection and taking a U-turn, so do keep that in mind. That's not an ideal situation either so if, in my mind it's a better situation then allowing a full access there. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Teresa Burgess: And if I could council, just to give you a little bit of history on how we ended up with this intersection. I would agree if this had not been forced upon us, that we probably would not have gone this way. Century Boulevard was nearly complete at the time that the developer approached us about the full access. We told the developer that if they could produce a, if they brought to us a traffic analysis by a qualified firm showing that the access would be an acceptable condition, we would allow it. They did that. We did not request them to update the study but there were many of the recommendations we could not implement without significant cost to both the city and the developer because the street had already been put in place. We did implement the changes that we were able to do. We did talk about it but never updated the study and in hind sight we probably should have. The condition that is in there, if you do not choose to close the median for this property, we really do need that condition because without it we cannot assess the cost of the closure because the way the assessment laws read we have to be able to show benefit to the properties and most people would claim that closing their full access is going to reduce their property value instead of increase. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff or follow-up questions at all. Councilman Lundquist: Teresa, it would seem to be maybe the thing to do, or an alternative would be left turn lanes there. Obviously with that median and everything in there, is there room as Century Boulevard is now to put two left turns lane or a common left turn, anything like that? Teresa Burgess: It's my opinion that it would be an unsafe condition to do it without moving the outside curbs. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions? If not we'll bring it to council for discussion and comment. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it's a well thought out project. I like it. Let's build it as fast as we can. With regard to the right-in/right-out, you know I can empathize and understand where the Planning Commission is coming from on the recommendation. However, right now we don't have a problem and I think that we, it may be, you know and unfortunately it may be years 42 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 before we do have a potential problem but we will have a problem the minute we put in that, when we block it. We are going to have the U-turn problem. So I would bias on the point of delaying our potential problem. Not saying that we're going to but safe to assume that we probably will sometime. Then let's address it then perhaps when we have a different solution or alternative. I don't know what that would be but I'd rather deal with that then than now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments or points of discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I would second Mr. Peterson's comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything Councilman Ayotte? No? I think it's a wonderful project. I think it's going to be a good asset to the city and it's something I'd like to be able to continue to service the rest of the new development that's going on out in that area and the residents in that area. With regard to the right-in/right-out, I fully appreciate the fact that if we don't follow the commission's recommendation right now we're perpetuating what is projected to be a problem. That being said, what I like about the language that was proposed by staff is two things. One, it provides if the property owner sees that it becomes a problem, there's that opportunity there to close it off. And two, the conditions by which the city would have the option to close it off as I understand it are quantifiable and given traffic conditions, numbers of accidents, those types of things. So it's not necessarily at the discretion of the city but if it becomes the problem that it's projected to be, the city would have the authority to do it. Property owners are on notice. I think the other factor is we have other existing property owners that have that same condition as proposed by staff. Deviating from that or changing that now when those conditions don't exist I think is a problem. In a sense we're kind of locked in here. We know that there's going to be a problem at some point in the future. The issue which was brought up is if you close it off you're creating a problem further down. U-turn. Then it's just a question of how the people avoid a U-turn. How do they physically get to these properties? So my thought is that while it's not a great situation to be in, continuing with the practice and the quantifiable condition is probably the best way to go at this point. So, but overall I think it's a great project and is going to be a good asset to the city as I mentioned so. With that I'll ask for any additional discussion or a motion if someone's so inclined. Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approve preliminary plat, Subdivision #2003-13 shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen dated received August 1, 2003 and dated 7/01/03 respectively based on the findings in the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations and subject to conditions 1 through 24 with the original staff recommended condition number 12. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat Subdivision #2003-13, shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendations and subject to the following conditions: 43 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 o o o o o 10. 11. The development of the individual lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the "wetland trail". The city shall compensate the developer full costs of trail construction plus a 10% design and construction management fee. Full trail fees shall be collected pursuant to city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum Business Park 6m Addition. If the trail alignment is within property not owned by the City, then the developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement centered on the trail alignment. Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility easement on the southwest comer of the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way, drainage and utility easement with the plat. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc. A private storm sewer easement against Lot I must be obtained from the owners and recorded before the building permit issuance. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water, and street improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $137,272.40. This remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance. The proposed sanitary sewer and watermains in the main drive aisle will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. A minimum 35 foot wide public utility easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The end of the public sewer and watermain shall be at the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetland just south of the site. In addition, erosion control blankets will be required on the steep slopes on the site. The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots. As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed within a 40 foot wide private easement. A cross access easement must be obtained and 44 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports verifying that the driveway is built to a 9 ton design. The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard will be allowed; however, should the driveway cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owner, or if any of the following conditions are met, the property owner shall be assessed 100% of the costs incurred to correct the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen: ao Level of Service "F" at the intersection during peak AM and PM times. Level of Service "D" or below at the intersection during non peak times. Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection occur that indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the downstream storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm water infrastructure. Private easement for the shared storm sewer must be obtained and recorded against the lots before building permit issuance. Erosion Control Note #4 should include straw mulch (MnDot Type I mulch) application with seed for stabilization. Category 3 (straw or wood fiber) blanket should be applied following seeding in the proposed swale in the northeast comer of the site. The silt fence used should be heavy-duty machine sliced silt fence, metal T-posts with 4 to 6 foot spacing. Existing vegetation should be conserved as much as practicable while installing and during construction. The silt fence end in the southwest comer of the site should be angled up slope to inhibit water from flowing around the silt fence. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the parking lots. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T-posts andl" rock around silt fence material. After paving of parking lots, mulch socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Based on the proposed developed area of 5.13 acres, the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $51,772. The owner/operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. 45 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there an additional motion? Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approves Site Plan//2003-8, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen and Lightowler Johnson Associates dated August Ist, received August 1st, dated 7/1 and revised 8/25 with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendations subject to conditions 1 through 26. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan ~2003-8, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. and Lightowler Johnson Associates, Inc. dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/1/03 and revised 8/25/03 respectively, with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the stipulated. 2. The developer shall record the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition. 3. The developer shall plant 13 overstory trees in and around the parking lot to meet minimum requirements. At least three grouping of overstory trees, with a minimum of three trees each, shall be located along the south curb line. The slope located along the southern and eastern property lines shall be left natural. The applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if necessary. 6. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city review and approval. Two landscape peninsulas shall be added, one in the northern parking lot and one in the southern parking lot. 8. The developer shall install site furnishing including benches, bicycle racks, and tables. 46 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring pedestrians from the public trails on the west and south sides into the site. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. Show the driveway dimensions on the site plan to read 26 feet in width and the access comer radius. Storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review before City Council approval. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance. On the grading plan: Add storm sewer schedule. Add silt fence around proposed storm sewer line from MH1 to the existing manhole. Revise the erosion control fence from Type II to Type III per city plate 5300. Show all proposed 2' contours. Show the pedestrian ramps at both sides of the access off Century Boulevard. Show all existing and proposed easements. Revise the flat elevation in the northeast portion of the parking lot. Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the north side of Lot 2. On the utility plan: o Show the public drainage and utility easement. Show the existing and proposed storm manholes rim elevations. Show the water and sanitary sewer services size, type and class. Relocate Sanitary MH3 to the property line between Lot I and Lot 2 where the public sewer line must end. All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary. Add all applicable City of Chanhassen latest detail plates. Show Century Boulevard existing street lights. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Concrete driveway apron, per city detail plate 5207 is required at the proposed access point to the site. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler system. 47 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 22. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 23. Five accessible parking spaces must be provided. 24. Accessible guest rooms and accessibility to recreation features must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1341. 25. The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 26. The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. A detailed plan review cannot be done until complete plans are provided. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approve a sign variance to permit signage on the western building elevation based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves a sign variance to permit signage on the western building elevation based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: With that we're completed with the new business items on our agenda so we'll move to council presentations. Councilman Ayotte: Just very, very quickly. I had a meeting with some of the residents at Lake Susan Association forward to our city planner, a white paper and the specifics on it and I would ask that that be made public to the other council so that we could possibly take a look forward to resolution to the Lake Susan problem. That's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other council presentations? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 48 City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003 Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 49 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Rich Slagle and Bruce Feik MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Lillehaug and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer; and Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Melissa Gilman 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR REZON1NG FROM BG, BUSINESS GENERAL TO CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; REPLAT OF LOTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MORE THAN ONE BUILDING ON A LOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 60,000 SO. FT. INCLUDING CINEMA EXPANSION, RETAIL AND OFFICES, AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, MARKET STREET STATION, LLP. Public Present: Name Address John D. Rice Bob Worthington Dan Engelsma Clayton Johnson Milo Thompson Gary F. Milne Rojek Mike Korsh Adam Arvidson Glenn Baird John Uban 551 West 78th Street Southwest Metro Transit 4210 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomberg Companies, Inc. Bentz/Thompson/Rietow Bentz/Thompson/Rietow 4210 West Old Shakopee Road DSU, Inc. 510 Pauly Drive DSU, Inc. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik stated he had concerns with the bus turning radius in the parking lot and the current parking situation in front of the dance studio. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification on the traffic study. Commissioner Slagle asked about the architectural transition from the cinema building to the adjoining addition. His biggest concern was the vehicle and pedestrian traffic patterns and if the applicant had explored the option of having the buses come through, pick up at the new shelter, Planning Commission Summary - September 16, 2003 and then just head along the road back to the south of the Dinner Theater. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the site plan, parking requirements, the landscape islands, lighting requirements, signage, monument and pylon, and the gas easements. Commissioner Slagle asked if the hotel had made any comments regarding lights and noise from this project. John Uban, the consulting planner for the applicant, provided a handout addressing issues in the staff report, and addressed concerns brought up by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant to explain the parking plan and the bank drive thru circulation. Commissioner Papke asked about the use of the turn around in the southwest comer. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on the timeline of the temporary nature of the site. Chairman Sacchet asked the applicant to clarify the number of parking spaces, the timeline of installing new stadium seating in the cinema, the landscaping plan architectural detailing, the up lighting on the cinema, and approval of the bus circulation by Southwest Metro Transit. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tjornhom stated she was in favor of the project, and particularly liked the architecture and the monument and directional signage. Commissioner Feik was not comfortable with the up lighting or the bus circulation on the site. He suggested reducing the number of parking spots in exchange for a different bus circulation route. One monument sign for the bank portion is more than adequate. Commissioner Papke stated he was impressed with the cooperation between the cinema, Bloomberg Companies and Kraus-Anderson and the cohesiveness of this project but expressed concern with the traffic circulation proposal. Commissioner Slagle stated he could not support the proposal due to the traffic circulation, but liked all other aspects of the plan. Chairman Sacchet addressed the points the applicant brought up in his presentation and asked about the time line if this proposal is tabled. Justin Miller informed the Planning Commission of the EDA's time line for the purchase agreement. Clayton Johnson with Bloomberg Companies and Market Street Partners provided a history of the project and expressed his view on tabling the item. Commissioner Feik suggested an alternative to the bus circulation in the parking lot with a variance on the number of parking spots to be considered with tabling. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table the Market Street Station proposal. All voted in favor, except Tjornhom who abstained and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 3.63 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BOULEVARD, BURLWOOD ADDITION, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Laurie &Jon Steckman David Smith Bob Martinka Mike Cuccia Kent Kelly Bob Christensen Larry & Kathy Kerber 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6645 Mulberry Circle East 6650 Powers Boulevard 6722 Powers Boulevard 6539 Gray Fox Curve 6648 Powers Boulevard 6420 Powers Boulevard Planning Commission Summary - September 16, 2003 Rich Rogatz Perry Ryan Kevin Grafft 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior 6726 Powers Boulevard Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners asked for clarification on the access, storm water, and tree requirement conditions. Rich Ragatz, 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis was present to represent the applicants, Larry and Kathy Kerber. He provided some background information on why the parcel was being developed in two phases. There's two main things to address with this plat, the safety concerns and providing the ability for the two lots in the southern end of the development to further subdivide in the future. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the tree canopy count. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the driveway alignment and the Martinka property. Rich Ragatz suggested changes to conditions 13 and 31 of the preliminary plat. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Jon Steckman, 1215 Lake Lucy Road asked for clarification on the size and location of the proposed storm water pond. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification of items in the staff report, i.e. road option E, the number of private streets, and the average lot size calculation. Kevin Grafft, 6726 Powers asked about closing off the drives to Lots 11, 12 and 13 and then made a comment about the developer and the Martinka's working together. There was discussion around whether or not this plat was already approved and a done deal by the City Council's action in 1995. Bob Martinka clarified his position on the easement and asked the Planning Commission to very thoughtfully read his memo, which is attached in the staff report. Larry Kerber got up to dispute the fact that Mr. Martinka did not know about the road plans when he purchased his property. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion the following motion was made. Feik moved, Siagle seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat request for Burlwood Addition at Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL ON 8 ACRES AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A FAMILY ACTIVITY CENTER AND TOWNHOMES ON 14 ACRES ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, JOHN PRYZMUS, SWINGS. Public Present: Name Address Marlene Bentz Lois Degler 7300 Galpin Boulevard 9111 Audubon Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners Feik and Slagle asked about the history of how this property became guided residential low density. Commissioner Papke asked about access to this site from the school. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on some points raised in the staff report regarding the use on this site. Tom Goodrum with Schoell and Madsen, 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota spoke on behalf of John Planning Commission Summary - September 16, 2003 Pryzmus, the property owner. Commissioner Papke asked the applicant to explain the number and size of the uses within the activity center. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After discussion the following motion was made. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Low Density to Commercial on the portion of land south of West 78th Street because it is consistent with the uses along the West 78th Street corridor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a family activity center, subject to the following conditions: The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. o The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. The Bluff Creek corridor primary and secondary zone boundaries will need to be determined and surveyed. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek Overlay district boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek have historically been included within the primary zone. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 6. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A minimum 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement will be required on all public utilities outside of the public right-of-way. All buildings must be outside any existing or proposed easements. Planning Commission Summary - September 16, 2003 10. Accept points to West 78th Street, a designated collector route, shall be limited to one access on both the north and south side of the street. The access location must be offset a minimum of 600 feet from Galpin Boulevard, and the north/south access shall be aligned in the same location. 11. A MnDot and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 12. The proposed access onto Galpin Boulevard will not be allowed in it's current location. The access will need to be offset a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection of West 78th Street. City approval of the access location will still be contingent upon MnDot and Carver County approval of the proposed access. 13. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 14. The applicant will be required to pay park donation fees pursuant to city ordinance. 15. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections from the site to adjacent trail and sidewalks. 16. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 10 feet) must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 17. The creek and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 18. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 19. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 20. Development will require a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 21. The applicant shall incorporate stepped back roof lines as presented in the renderings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Chairman Sacchet summarized that the Planning Commission was in favor of family fun center proposed south of West 78th Street but would like see more diligence with the portion proposed as medium density to the north in terms of delineating the Bluff Creek to see what really fits. Planning Commission Summary - September 16, 2003 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the Minutes of the Commission meeting dated September 2, 2003 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim Planning CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Rich Slagle and Bruce Feik MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Lillehaug and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer; and Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Melissa Gilman 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM BG, BUSINESS GENERAL TO CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; REPLAT OF LOTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MORE THAN ONE BUILDING ON A LOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 60,000 SQ. FT. INCLUDING CINEMA EXPANSION, RETAIL AND OFFICES, AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, MARKET STREET STATION, LLP. Public Present: Name Address John D. Rice Bob Worthington Dan Engelsma Clayton Johnson Milo Thompson Gary F. Milne Rojek Mike Korsh Adam Arvidson Glenn Baird John Uban 551 West 78th Street Southwest Metro Transit 4210 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomberg Companies, Inc. Bentz/Thompson/Rietow Bentz/Thompson/Rietow 4210 West Old Shakopee Road DSU, Inc. 510 Pauly Drive DSU, Inc. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: I just have a quick question Kate. Can you tell me on page 12, if that's the best photo if you will, or rendition. Where are the front doors? Aanenson: They're actually around the comer. Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: So they're on the east elevation? Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: So that would be then page 13 in the black and white. John Uban: On page 10. Slagle: 107 Okay. John Uban: On the cinema? Page 10 would show the entry. Aanenson: So it'd be on this side. So this is the new addition so it's moving south, so this is the new entrance. The current entrance would be this shaded. Can you focus that just a pinch? Slagle: So we'll have 3 sets of double doors in essence? Aanenson: Two. Sorry, here and here. Stagle: I'm sorry, do that again Kate. Aanenson: Here and here. Slagle: Not to the south, okay. Okay. Papke: So you enter through one of those side double doors. You walk up to the landing to the either, to the, it's hard to point out here. I'm just trying to make sure I understand how the stairs work here. So you either make, if you come in from the southeast you make kind of a right turn. You walk up the landing and then you make a hard, go up halfway and then you make... Aanenson: ...addition part right here and the shaded is existing. Tjornhom: Kate I have a question about the, row 17 seems to be where the handicap parking is. I'm on page 1 of the site plan. To me it seems like it's far away from the cinema doors. Why was it placed there instead of maybe row 18. Aanenson: That's something we can work with the applicant on. Tjornhom: Even 23. It just seems. Aanenson: It's for all those uses that are coming to the back of that building, but that's something, there's a requirement for that and we certainly can work with them on placement, even on, I'm not sure they're evening showing in front of the bank. But there are standards on that. But we can check on that. Kate Aanenson continued with the staff presentation. Papke: I have a question about the turnaround in the southwest corner. What is the plan for that? Does that stay? Does that get converted to parking? And if it stays, what's it's ultimate use? Aanenson: It will be converted to parking. This turnaround on the site? Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Papke: Right. Aanenson: Yes, that will stay and that will be parking on that. That's how it's being currently used. Papke: So the parking that's going to be created there, that's in the calculations right now? Aanenson: Correct. Papke: It wasn't clear from all the. Aanenson: Yes, it is included in all the parking. Kate Aanenson finished with the staff presentation. Sacchet: Alright, questions from staff. Do you want to start Bruce? Feik: I'll start. Kate first a couple housekeeping issues and a couple quick minor questions. On page 5, the paragraph which talked about the replat. The second to the last sentence, because this is not a subdivision, extraction fees are received. Is there a typo there? Aanenson: Are not received. Feik: Are not received, that's what I thought. Aanenson: Yeah, we only get extraction at a subdivision. Feik: Put a not in there. Another minor one, on page 16, which talks about the exterior walls. Page 16. Exterior walls. The bottom portion of that paragraph talks about pro-finished ornamental louvers. I'm assuming that's pre-finished? Aanenson: Pre-finished. Feik: That's in two places. No, I thought it'd be amateur finished. On some more substantive issues. Regarding the Southwest park and ride bus station, is it anticipated that that will be increased in size at all? Aanenson: No. Currently the lease with the city is 120 stalls. Feik: The shed portion. The shelter. Aanenson: No. No, it'd be the approximate same size it is now. You're talking about the little brick with the glass? Feik: Yep. Standing there every day. Stand outside of it every day actually. I have concerns regarding the bus turning radiuses, particularly when the buses go north from that facility and they make the west turn in front of the dance studio. There is tons of double parking in front of that dance studio. It's loaded, and both sides, they're double parking to drop primarily daughters off and pick up from dance. They're double parked in front of really both sides to the extent that Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 it's difficult sometimes to get a single car vehicle through there at 6:00 at night. How can we accommodate or how can we address that? Aanenson: I think that's a good question. I think that there are going to be some, that we need to work through some of those pedestrian conflicts and I think that might be onerous on the tenant to make sure that we identify where they need to be parking and picking up and providing that in a better manner. More safe manner. That goes back to our original point on the circulation. Feik: The problem up there, and my daughter used to dance there is how I know is the parking on that north portion is dominated in the evenings by people using the recreation facility. And literally you're parking 50, 60, 80, 100 feet away. In the wintertime when they're trying to run across the parking lots in their tights. And so it's a natural that people park at the curb as well as park and block the people who are. Aanenson: And they start right after school, 3:00ish. Feik: They do. So I was real concerned there. Also, on page 19 where we're talking about the vehicular use, landscape area. The requirement proposed, the difference between the 18,000 square feet and the approximately 50 percent of that as proposed. You have any additional concerns? Aanenson: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Feik: In the table where it's required 18,290 square feet of landscaping area and they're only proposing 9100 square feet. Aanenson: Yeah, that goes back to that planter islands that we were suggesting and they had some concerns with those. I think we can accommodate. One of the things that we're also looking at, and we've asked the applicant to look at it is there is additional right-of-way from the railroad tracks, and maybe working with some of that to help some of the circulation issues. I'm not sure we can get all that landscaping on there. Feik: Okay. Is it anticipated that the landscaping next to the railroad would be enhanced then? Aanenson: We could, yeah. Well I think part of what we want to do is improve the circulation in this area, and try to work. One of the things that they had talked about was vacating part of that. ! think there's some opportunity to look at some of that too and increase some of the parking efficiency in that area too. Feik: Okay. I think that's most of my questions for now, thank you. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: Kate, on page 5 under the rezoning section it talks about the traffic generation. And it just says that there was a study done and it was updated in '99. What does that study say? That the area can handle the anticipated generated growth of traffic? Aanenson: Yes. Because of the offset in hours, again the transit, most of that's morning and evening for that. Those cars are sitting there during that time and then that's freed up. There will be points of conflict as Commissioner Feik has pointed out that we need to look at that and try to maybe work a little bit closer with those tenants and Southwest Metro, looking at how that Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 circulates and we did point that out. We see that there's going to be some points of conflict and we don't want people running between buses and that sort of thing so I think that's something we need to take a little bit closer look at. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt. Papke: Just one point, more for the record than anything else. Regardless of our personal feelings about the Regardless of our personal feelings about the need for another bank in downtown Chanhassen, you know the property owners have the full use and rights to develop whatever business they wish there and we have no influence on that decision. Aanenson: Correct. A retail bank would be permitted under either zoning district, whether we change or not, that use could come forward. That's correct. Papke: Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Thanks, Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Rich. Slagle: Kate I have a few. Let me start with the architecture and just wanted to ask your opinion and ifI go to page, there we go, page 12. In staff's opinion is there a transition from what I'll call the Cinema building look to the restaurant that, do you feel at all that it's a little abrupt or, and I'm not an architect so, I'1t ask the same question. Aanenson: I think that's a very good question and I think what they tried to do, and if you look at, there's certain features that they tried to mimic throughout regarding shingles, this architectural feature, finial, is that what we're calling it? The roof top with the finial and the cupola. There's certain elements that repeat, maybe it's better shown on this reveal. And some of the relief patterns mimic, so while one's on a larger scale, there are kind of those same patterns are repeated on a smaller scale. And I think even if you look at the window break, that was part of what's now playing bills. Trying to get that window look to try to mimic. I think that was what we struggled with the most, and they struggled with the most, the architects and we did have several internal meetings trying to figure out how to do that. Slagle: Okay. Just curious as to your thoughts on that. I think more of a concern for me is again the traffic pattern, both in what I'll call vehicle and pedestrian. If I'm not mistaken, I think at our last meeting, our informal meeting, our work session, there was the dialogue about a pedestrian walkway along the north side of the railroad tracks. Because I see the sidewalk you reference, that would go along the north side of Pauly, but then it stops about where the movie theater entrance is, so I have a concern that if someone had a desire to walk further east, yeah they'd be sort of having to cut across the traffic. And then my thought is, although it sounds like there's some concern on the applicant's part, that I do believe that if you're on that sidewalk, whether it be on the north side of Pauly or south side, the desire to get to any of the buildings, you will again be walking right across parking spaces, inbetween cars and so my request would be, and I'll be anxious to hear why we wouldn't consider island somewhere in that vicinity of the cinema where one could walk across maybe a drive and then sidewalk and so forth. Especially given that the plan right now calls for the buses to come back again. And then that leads to my ! guess most important question in my opinion is, did we explore the option of having the buses come through, pick up at the new shelter, and then just head along the road back to the south of the Dinner Theater? I mean you could upgrade that little road. Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Aanenson: Right, that is an option. The other ultimate option is to come up, this will be Phase II, to come up. Slagle: To go through? Aanenson: Yeah, because currently if you were to come up to the current, you have to go back in front of the Timber Lounge to get back out. If you were to go straight north from the proposed location, there's actually a curb cut on West 78th. So there's better egress but that is an option. I'm not sure what the control is as far as getting across that other property. Slagle: But wouldn't the other property be owned by one of the two partners? Aanenson: It may be. Slagle: Okay. I mean because it just seems to me that if you could, and obviously from the point of we'll call it the existing building, which is on the bottom of your screen, I mean that's not going to be the most scenic route but if it's only for a year or whatever until Phase II or 3 happens, you would avoid all the issues of radius, turning, pedestrian safety and I mean to me it just seems like it would be really a nice little compromise. Aanenson: Yeah, and that's something ultimately we talk about long term too that we want to be able to connect those, Great Plains and Market Street. Slagle: Okay, so can I just ask why you're, I mean why it isn't part of the short term? If there is a reason. Maybe there's not. Aanenson: Well again, as part of the control of the separate parcel, I mean if that's something you want to explore, I'd be happy to advance that and work on that as a discussion point between now and when it went to City Council if that could be a possibility. I don't know what the concerns would be. Slagle: Fair to ask the applicant? Aanenson: Sure. Feik: Rich, if I might though. If one of these future phases which calls for that parking ramp and the additional residential to the east, that road would be in the way so we would still be dealing with a parking radius when the construction was going on with the new phase, potentially. Slagle: True, but I mean we deal with what I'll call construction projects daily. Feik: I know. I'm just. Slagle: Where they just sort of move a road or driveway or street 30 yards, 30 feet, whatever. Aanenson: Yeah, and there's some grade issues there as you come back up onto Great Plains. It drops down off of, as you're coming to the Dinner Theater. That road, that's the gravel road that's in place. You're dropping down to significant grades through there. Slagle: My last thought, I mean because that brings up a good point Kate. My anticipation just for fellow commissioners is that it would go from west to east. In other words the buses coming Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 from downtown or wherever would by 5, take a right on Market and then pull in so there, you wouldn't be coming east to west down the hill, so I just wanted you thoughts on that. Aanenson: Sure. Again, as Commissioner Feik had indicated too, there is a, and it's in there. Of course I'm not finding it, the long term phasing for this, which we talked about at that earlier meeting. That our goal ultimately is to get a park and ride ramp in this area, and there is requesting for funding in place for that as part of that housing component too. To put in this back area. Slagle: And my two cents would be that we could work that out 4-5 years, 6 years or whatever that may be. Sacchet: That's it Rich? Slagle: That's it. Sacchet: I've got a few questions too Kate. First of all that one storage shed is coming out from the start? Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: Now in terms of impervious surface we're within range within the 70 percent, is that what it is? Aanenson: There is no impervious surface in the CBD. Sacchet: In that district there is no restriction. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's good to know. Now that table of parking spaces on page 9 and 10. It doesn't seem like the numbers add up to me. It looks like the total needed for Phase I, if I add them all up it would be 446, not 406, for the day and 479 for the night, not 460. So I just want to point that out and maybe you can verify that. Aanenson: Yeah, I'll let John Uban go through that. It's, I had the same concern you did when I first read it but I'll let him walk through it. Sacchet: So there's a way to explain it? Okay, we'll ask the applicant about that. Then the other question I had about parking is it does not consider the Southwest Transit because that's all shared parking or, I mean is that also a question that the applicant should answer? Aanenson: No, what do you mean it doesn't consider it? Sacchet: Well I look at all the items on this list, you have the fitness center, the dance studio, the office, park and ride and so forth. Aanenson: It's on the bottom of page 9, the 120 parking. Sacchet: Okay, that's the Southwest Transit? 7 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Aanenson: Yeah, and if you add up what I showed in that shaded area, there is 120. Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. The cinema expansion. The text talks about converting the remaining traditional style seating across the areas to stadium seating. That is not shown in the plan. In the plan it's still the old style, right? The floor, not stadium. Aanenson: I think if you go to 11... Sacchet: So I could ask that from the applicant, maybe you can give us some insights when you come up. And also the time phase for the, the timeline for Phase I! at this point is probably more an applicant question. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of EIFS, which is so nicely called stucco finished exterior, there is like in other environments we have the restriction of how much EIFS. There's not a restriction here? Aanenson: Well that was the point I made at the beginning. When this came through in 1996 that was what was put on there. That was an old industrial building and that's how it's being used today. Sacchet: So the building is EIFS now? Aanenson: Pardon me? Sacchet: That building is EIFS, the whole thing? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes. And it was controversial at the time because of the high traffic area. Whether or not that would be durable or not but that's the part that was given. Sacchet: So they're not changing anything in that aspect? Aanenson: Yeah, it will have EIFS but it will look different. Right. But it's the same product, yeah. Sacchet: Okay. You touched on that segment that will be left painted block. They're proposing lines and landscape and stuff like that. Is that sufficient in staff's opinion? Aanenson: Well, it's a tough one because currently the bowling alley share a common wall. And part of what the...when they take that wall down the condition and how that, what that material is in place and how it's being treated so I guess their approach on that would be, because it's kind of an unknown, how they can treat it. What kind of applications they can put on it, that's what they would like to do is try...screen through landscaping then try to put something that may not work. Sacchet: Okay. On page 16 there is a statement about the exterior walls that in key areas there's cultured stone from basically the first floor, the whole height, the way I read that. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: But it says that further design development may result in stone reaching only the bottom part. Do we know what that depends upon or is that an applicant question? Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Aanenson: It depends on...and on the restaurant. Sacchet: Then on the color drawings it shows it the whole first floor. Well I think that's an applicant question, we'll ask the applicant about that. On page 18 there's a finding and the finding is blank. About a third down the page, just thought I'd point that out because that's probably not intentional. Now you touched on the islands being less than 10 feet needing irrigation tubes. That we recommend they make them 10 foot so they don't need. Aanenson: They're right at, yeah. So our recommendation is, and we've spoken to them about that, that they be irrigated. Sacchet: They'd be irrigated? Aanenson: Correct, with a drip line. Sacchet: So from reading the staff report I came away with the impression that staff thinks it would be better, like wider rather than put the ir tubes in. Aanenson: Jill's recommendation is it's always better to have them a little bit wider. That's currently how they're functioning. We think the enhancement to make them work better, the other option is to irrigate them and what we're recommending is, and that's what the applicant liked is the option too. Instead of making them wider is to irrigate them. Sacchet: And it's staff's opinion that that's okay or. Aanenson: Yes, that's an option. Yes. Sacchet: So it's not something we could say they should do one way or the other? Aanenson: You could make a recommendation. Sacchet: We could. Recommendation or condition, that's the question. Aanenson: The ordinance says, if they're less than 10 feet they have to be irrigated. So what i'm saying is that currently they're less than. Sacchet: Okay. Now the city, we have an ordinance against up cast lights don't we? Aanenson: Yes. They have to be shielded. It's a philosophical discussion. If this is the entertainment and we want a little bit more lively, a little bit loud. Attract people to what's going on them. It's not just at 6:00, 9:00 it's dead. So but how much is too much and is it, how far is that light casting and spilling out to other things. If we do have residential in the future, and we just don't understand how bright that is. Sacchet: So it's, the way I read this, staff is indicating that it might be a good idea to tone down this lighting a little bit. Aanenson: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: And the up-lighting would certainly be one thing. Are there other aspects? I mean is there the amount of neon, the runners? Aanenson: Right, and there are those on there right now, the chaser lights out them right now. What they're proposing is on, and again it's hard to see. The awning that's here, the chaser lights underneath. Sacchet: The whole stretch. Aanenson: Yeah. That I think is going to be screened enough by the other building that's in front. Again it kind of gets a little bit lively as you're getting out of your car, kind of that excitement kind of thing. That's not as loud as what's on top at 52 feet. A little bit different, but I don't think you're going to get as much spill off and that's how it's kind of right now and it's actually the cinema band is pretty high that's on the building right now with the chaser lights. Sacchet: So in terms of toning down the lighting a little bit, besides the up lights, what would staff recommend could be targeted to mellow it a bit? Aanenson: That's our recommendation, just that. These lights, there's lighting design standards underneath here, underneath that, is that correct? Underneath the lower, and then there's up lighting on the top. So that's what we're saying, we don't understand at 52 feet, how much is that casting? How far does that go off. Sacchet: Well we can have the applicant speak to that too. Now, I'm unclear, how many monument signs are there really? It seems like quite a collection of them. Aanenson: Well, there would be one, this one for the future restaurant then they have two on this, and we're saying for this retail building, because of the bank means they could have it on the wall similar to what we've done on some of the other that are either on the cupola or something like that. They have that opportunity. So our concern is, they wanted one for the bank and one for some of the retail and office to get cueing but that can be provided, you saw the awnings and some of that. There's a nice opportunity to get some of that. Again, if you're identified as part of Market Street Station, that's kind of your cueing right there. And there will be some directional signs, which are allowed, so if you put directional signs, plus the two monuments, it ends up to be quite a bit of signage and we think that's probably too much. Too much busyness going on with the taller sign too. Sacchet: Now talking about this pylon sign, or how you call it the tall one. How tall is it really because it says 20 feet in the variance text but in other places it talks about 22 or 23. Aanenson: It's 21' 10" on there. Sacchet: 21' t0" It's on the drawing. Aanenson: Correct. What staff is recommending is 20 feet. Sacchet: So we are cutting off almost 2 feet from it. Aanenson: Yes. And that's consistent with what we would allow if it was on the highway. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: And then final question. Center Point Minnegasco sent a letter about their existing gas mains going through that. Is that a resolved issue or? Aanenson: That's something that they'll have to work. There are existing utilities that also have to be relocated and that were pointed out in the engineering staff report. And that's something that indicate the easements will have to be moved and secured and when that part of it, the easement vacations, the new easements go forward to the City Council with that portion of it. Saam: To answer the gas question, it hasn't been resolved. I would assume that they would relocate it in probably the new sewer and water easement. That's pretty typical. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Matt. Yes Rich, another question? Slagle: Just one last one. Kate were there any issues, when you brought up the lighting it triggered a thought, were there any issues or comments made by the hotel as respect to those rooms facing the south with lights and noise? Aanenson: Another issue. No, they are concerned about their visibility. I did speak to one of the owners today. They're concerned about what's going to be seen on their side so we're working with them on that issue. Sacchet: Any other questions? You have a question Bethany? Bethany go ahead. Tjornhom: Yeah I just have one more question, looking at the design of the whole building. Is Southwest Metro, are they going to be building a new building or are they going to be maintaining the existing one? Aanenson: That little shelter? Tjornhom: Yeah. Aanenson: That will, I'm not sure you can move that but a similar looking one will be moved. Tjornhom: So then it will kind of be like what's being proposed here? Aanenson: Yeah, and that's part of why I'm saying with the cueing with the monument sign. We want people to know that it's still there. It's still functioning and to use it. It's an important element and it works with their design. It's a destination to get people into that core. Sacchet: Bruce, you've got another one? Feik: That will be available during construction as well? Aanenson: That's a good question. We need to ensure that that's happening, yes. That may be a condition that we make sure that that's operational. Sacchet: I have one more question Kate. On the loose sheet that was given us with our packet that shows the parking, like which parking is new and so forth. The parking in the area where that dinner theater shed is broken down, is not the padded in any way and it's not existing parking so that made me wonder if that part of the parking included with the first phase? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Aanenson: Yes...that is part of. Sacchet: That is part of what's going to happen. Aanenson: That's part of the 120, correct. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all the questions for staff. Thank you very much Kate. If the applicant wants to come forward and present your side of this, we'd like to hear from you. Please state your name and address for the record please. John Uban: Good evening. My name is John Uban. I'm the consulting planner helping both Kraus~Anderson and Bloomberg Companies, and the cinema of course is an applicant as well. This is a joint application. We're here primarily to answer your questions and, because Kate gave a very good overview of everything. So I think what we'll do is maybe, I'll hand this out which is just a quick response to a couple of the recommendations that's in the staff report and go through that, but I heard a number of other concerns that you had so I think we'll address those specifically. Sacchet: Excellent. Want to give us your papers, we'll pass them out here. We'll need one more here. We can share, it's okay. Thank you. Alright, you want to just touch on those a little bit? John Uban: Pardon? Sacchet: Do you want to just touch on those first a little bit? John Uban: Yes. Sacchet: Please go ahead. John Uban: Now first of all, there's the issue of the width of streets and certainly Pauly Avenue, which is the main street that goes along the railroad tracks, needs to be the widest street here. Getting 26 feet on that I think is quite doable. I think there might just be a couple places where technically it may not meet that. The other issue is the driving aisle within parking bays, which is your normal parking area. 26 feet is really kind of wide compared to the standard. It's usually 24 feet, which we have created, and that's good for perpendicular parking. We have one area through the interior that is sort of our interior pedestrian street, because that's where the sidewalk is on both sides. We don't want to narrow the sidewalk up unnecessarily. We would like to have that be a good pedestrian experience, but that is angled parking and that technically works the standards for that type of parking is a 22 foot wide driving aisle. And that's how it functions, so we will work with staff to resolve those dimensions but we will be asking for something less than 26 feet in parking areas, and it works perfectly fine. Throughout all of Minnesota, 24 feet is the general standard. We would also, it's just an issue of, maybe it's clarification with, on number 19 and the approaches to the site. We're trying not to re-build Pauly Street and the approaches and so forth so just to put in a little extra concrete here and there I think we'll just keep them the way they are, but we'll cooperate with the city engineering standards to make those work well. Emergency overflows. This is for drainage water in the parking lots. We have one area that, where we have between the two buildings, where we don't have much grade fall and we need to have less than a foot of separation. That's another engineering issue. It's a very small drainage area but we think we can work something out there. Sacchet: That's between which buildings? In there, okay. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 John Uban: What happens is, we don't want to then create an odd slope on the sidewalks or within the parking area to just create another couple of inches of depression to move water. So we just think that for a small drainage area that something less, maybe 8/10 of a foot might work just fine. The area around the mark, the front of the theater, which is our number 24. We need that to be open. Part of this design is to create a good viable entertainment district that's sort of buried into this site. It doesn't really have a public street frontage. It has a railroad track which is kind of grown up and shaggy looking. So part of this is the pylon sign that has some fun happening on it, and then the other part is having a fun fagade to this parking, or to the marquee and then we just don't want to put another set of islands in front of that unnecessarily. So that's why we've left that open. We've tried to meet everything everywhere else. Technically you are getting more landscaped area in this plan than you have today out there. So this is a pretty good improvement I believe. What we've tried to do, just to kind of explain the site plan a little bit, is to create a street facade and that's why the buildings really line up. We've changed the grade. If you go out there today it's kind of rolie polie and then the old bowling alley sits in there and that's all at a different elevation, and the hotel to the north is up even higher, and so we have this sloping terrain and we happen to have a lot of bad soils in there as well but we're trying to create this nice pedestrian fagade and so that has a lot to do with how we grade the site and assemble the buildings. So on this we're trying then to really make it look quite attractive. Let me quick go to the cinema lighting, number 29. We will work with city staff so it will work within their parameters and yet at the same time create something really fun. And number 30, the two monument signs. This is an issue that's quite important to us. We have combined a building, we're trying to create a main street or any street really, and usually you have a variety of buildings, kind of architecture, but they're all connected. So you know they're broken up into blocks. The detail on the office and this multi-purpose building has some of that same dynamic going on. Now we could have separated the bank as a separate building which is very typical suburban development, and had it's own sign, and then had the retail building and then perhaps a little office building. Three little buildings, each with their own monument signs, and instead we put them together in a unified street looking building. And it's because of that we really need another monument sign to help address the retail activity, and so we really find that the signage is an important component. So we hope you consider that. Bus circulation. Let me show you a drawing I have here which just helps a little explain that circulation. This is the plan that shows the easement. This is the existing theater. This is the Frontier Center. Dance studio and so forth. Here's the main Chanhassen Dinner Theater. Number one, there's over 100 new parking stalls This will change the dynamics of how people park in that area, and this is being added not at Phase II, and that's part of our chart on parking I think was misleading. It's really part of Phase I so it's being added right up front. And this line of course is the park and ride. The park and ride building and drop off right here. These dark bus little diagrams here show the buses, how they would circulate. The dashed lines show the turning radius and how they work within the parking lot so they work, they make the turns and it works within the parameters of the design of the bus and their requirements. This once again is a temporary situation. It's not permanent. It's only for a couple of years. Our future road will go to the north is really our most anticipated next improvement, because it allows us to create another little street facade and add retail along that street. So we anticipate that being really the best circulation for the buses, and with parking and the dance drop off, that starts to happen more intensely after 6:00 and really the buses stop running at about that time, so we'll work to make sure the schedules and the tenants kind of cooperate to make sure we don't create a problem there. But that is a temporary situation. The other thing is, we're going to encourage more people, especially for the dance studio and exercise people to park over here, and we think that's also a good place for pick-up and drop off and we can just reorganize how they use that parking. So this new 100 stalls of parking I think is really going to improve how everyone operates out there and for temporary time should not be a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 significant problem. I think then our last comment here was just that you have the plat in front of you. You didn't have that a few days ago and we apologize for that. But all of this we believe we can resolve with the city. The city staff and work out some of these details. We're really here then to answer any of your specific questions. We know there's perhaps some more about lighting but lighting has not settled down on the cinema yet. We're still designing and working that out, so we will be working with staff on that. The general architecture of the building, we've worked out with staff and we think works out quite well. Milo Thompson is here and is here to answer any of your questions about architecture specifically. Material, design, how the buildings work. We've really tried to create something that's really going to add to the city, to this area. We've organized these uses. You have to understand we're kind of, it's redevelopment so we have a lot of parameters that are very difficult to deal with and here it's elevations of adjacent buildings, the kind of configuration that's already been built and how to adapt to all of it. And so far things are working out and sometimes a little flexibility on the part of the city will be very much appreciated. So that ends our presentation except for any questions you might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Slagle: I have a few. First of all, can you address if you may, any thoughts as to the suggestion or the question regarding the buses going east behind what I will call the Dinner Theater, which on a number of days would just join another 20-30 buses that are there from special groups and clubs and so forth. John Uban: I do not have the topo for this whole area to show you, but you'll recall there's a steep rise that, this area around the back of the dinner theater is strongly sloping, to the point that I'm sure a bus will not want to go up it. So just paving the existing arrangement does not work. But if you start to grade it out, we get into significant walls to try and protect the existing parking that is at a plateau above, and so there's a lot of cost in trying to create a road back there that's only going to be torn up when we come to do the parking ramp. Why we chose a parking ramp in that specific location is it will have multiple levels that will then be terraced right into the site, so at the very top level can function with the theater. The lowest level will work for bus circulation and when this is completed, our bus circulation is going to go straight through. It will then be part of the ramp, the bus shelter, everything will be built into the ramp, very much like Eden Prairie is today. And that's really the kind of great thing about this plan is that we have these sequence of improvements that come about with the future funding opportunities that Southwest Metro's looking for, for that parking ramp. They get to over double the size of their facility and having that ramp tied in with the other commercial activity. But to try to do improvements today, and kind of waste all that money and not have a good solution, just isn't in the cards. If the city thinks it's a better solution and would like to help on this development, we are not asking for any financial assistance from the city but if this is very important to the city, that might be some way the city could contribute to this project. But I think the best solution, at least for right now is to get our road to the north opened up with Phase II, as soon as possible, which will happen after we get everything leased up and moving on page 1. Slagle: You know if I may. I think you have a wonderful project here but I have to respectfully disagree with the thought that going northward between the two buildings onto 78th, which is going to be a tight turning radius for a bus, which there's not a lot of buses today on that road, and then make your way eastbound to get to 5 or to get to 101, it seems to me to be going into the heart of our city with buses. Where if you really did go east, and I might disagree that the hill would be an enormous cost. I know you didn't use enormous but I think that that could be worked out, but I just want to know your thoughts, and you gave them. I don't know if I necessarily agree, but the thoughts of getting back to Commissioner Feik, of people dropping off 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 families and numerous kids that will be going to the cinema, I would think our number one goal, other than the ultimate redevelopment of this property would be safety, because you're going to have your attraction. The lights. The music. This is a destination center and you're suggesting that people, at those two facilities park to the east, which are number 13 and 19 on this page 1. I don't even see a sidewalk from those parking lots over to the current building. So I guess what I'm saying is, boy all and all I think you're on the right track but from a traffic flow, both pedestrian and automotive/bus, and then I'm going to lastly ask you a question about the southern what I'll call green spaces now, but I do know we did talk about it at our meeting that there would be some parking along the south side of Pauly, which I don't see. Why wouldn't you, if I can ask, why wouldn't you want to keep that southern part of this property in what I'm going to call a green space with trails and perhaps you would have some lighting and you would have vendors with stands or, and I just came from New York over the weekend and I mean Central Park is just a magnet for everything. So I'm just curious as to why you would want to fill that up with parking spots. John Uban: Central Park and the railroad that runs along here I don't think are comparable but. Slagle: Well let's talk green space that might be a little bit. John Uban: It is not an attractive green space along there, and the way it's operated. But if the city can get control of the right-of-way, then there are lots of possibilities, but we can't do anything more because we don't control the railroad. We've taken the parking off, we did at one time look at parking going to the south, but we don't control all that property. We have some of it, but not just enough 10 feet or something like that. Slagle: So you have 10 feet from the south of Pauly Drive and that would be the extent of your land. John Uban: That's the extent of it, yeah. To the railroad. The railroad is, the tracks are offset in the right-of-way so there's actually sort of surplus right-of-way on the north side of the track. So they don't technically shouldn't need quite as much up there, but we know that railroads operate quite slowly, and to resolve something as big, look at decision in years, not days or months or anything like that. So this is our best plan given the land that we do have control of. Slagle: Last question. With respect to the bank and the drive thru. Explain to me, if I'm a customer of this bank, how I would access the drive thru and where I will go once I'm done. John Uban: Sure. The main entrance to the drive thru comes off of Market Street, and there's signage here. Come in. Pull into the lanes specifically designed for the drive thru. It circulates around and underneath the canopy. Exit. Come out around through the parking lot and out this way back. Slagle: Any concerns about once someone is, I mean I think your entrance into the drive thru seems logical and easy. Are you a little concerned with traffic congestion and again pedestrians walking to a movie theater or restaurant and having bank drive thru traffic? John Uban: No. We have sidewalks there on both sides and it doesn't really cross anything of significance. So I'm not concerned about it. We clearly would have liked to have exited out onto Market Street, or Market Boulevard rather, and that just, we figured the city didn't want us to do that. So we had to bring it back through the general circulation of the parking lot. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Okay, that's all. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt. Any questions from the applicant? Papke: Yeah, just to reiterate on a, kind of following on one of Rich's comments and reiterating a question I had before. The turn around to the southwest corner there. So if I understand it correctly your goal here is to make the minimal changes to Pauly Drive. That's your objective here? John Uban: Yes. One thing that we're doing right now it just bumps into parking here so we're creating a road section through here so that Pauly, which we're proposing to rename to Market Street, would come up through here. Actually it will keep on going straight through but at least at this point to go north. Papke: It just seems like the turnaround that currently exists for the park and ride right down there, from which we're going to derive 21 spaces, is that correct? We're going to get 21 spaces out of that and it's going to kind of sit like a little island on there. Can you estimate how many people would actually use those 21 spaces and under what conditions? John Uban: We anticipate that it would all be employee parking. Papke: Employee parking. That would probably be the only people you could get to park there. John Uban: Oh yes exactly but you have to put them somewhere and we'd rather have them out there than sitting right in front of the store where they would always park because they're the first ones to the site. Now we would love to actually move Pauly Avenue to the south, but we don't think that that would create, it lines up with roads on the other side and at this point we don't anticipate city engineering allowing us to do that. So we're caught with that space and we might want to look at a little more efficient parking pattern but at least right now we're just trying to use what's there until a better idea comes along. We will have a pylon sign there, the one that you've looked, and that actually will probably pull it back a little bit more from the right-of-way to give it the kind of visibility. We found that there's a railroad sort of shack that sits right on Market Boulevard on the south side of the tracks, and at least where we have it now we think that shack kind of blocks the view so we're going to pull it back to the east a bit to get out of that. Papke: Did you examine any alternative uses for that space other than 21 parking spaces and a turn around? John Uban: If they still had Fotomarts and things like that, that might work but at least right now we don't see a market for that. Papke: So your answer is no. John Uban: Not at this point. Papke: Okay. That was my only question. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: I don't have any questions. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Yes please. Help me out a little bit with the timeline here. We're talking about temporary conditions with buses and what not. Help me out a little bit in, with your crystal ball, if this goes forward and moves through council, what is your timing of events? How do you see this developing and give me some idea how long temporary is temporary? John Uban: How much is temporary? Feik: Yeah. John Uban: Dan Engelsma is here from Kraus-Anderson. But let me start out and I'll let me correct me if I'm wrong, but what we'd like to do, the purchase of the property is scheduled for November from the city. And at that point the demolition of the bowling alley is the first thing to happen. And then trying to do the footings and some of the utility relocation, some of that can't happen during the winter so we'll pick up again in the spring, but we'd like to be open with this facility a year from now easily. Once that is opened, and it probably will take a year to get full tenancy, to get it filled so there's cashflow, and at that point Bloomberg Companies that owns the other piece where the road would go to the north, that is when we would take a look, is the market there to support the next building, which is about 24,000 square feet right next to the dance studio. And in that area that would redevelop and put the new one, when the market calls for that next building, and we hope that's in 1 to 2 years, that's when that will be built. Feik: Then address the restaurant pad on the north portion. How does that fit into that timing as well then? John Uban: It should happen within the next year. Almost at the same time. At least we're anticipating at this point. Feik: Okay. Those are my questions. Sacchet: I have a few questions as well. The calculations of the, or that's not really calculations. The adding up of the numbers of the parking spaces had me baffled. Because it's not a straight addition. I mean you add them up, you get a different total. John Uban: I apologize that I probably should have brought the new dinner theater south parking up so it's part of Phase I, but when you do calculate, it's probably a typo on the sheet that the numbers I don't think add up correctly. Sacchet: Yeah they don't, that's my point. John Uban: Yeah. Sacchet: So which one is correct, the totals or the small numbers, do you know? John Uban: I don't know because I haven't gone through all this to double check. Sacchet: So we certainly would want that straighten out before it goes to council. That would be good. And then I had the question about the cinema, converting into stadium seating which according to the text seems to be scheduled for before a lot of this development actually takes 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 place, but then the plans actually show it, what I think shows the old, the internal so I was just wondering how that fits together. John Uban: The theater, yeah. Sacchet: If you could address that, clear that up for me I appreciate it. Glenn Baird: Good evening, I'm Glenn Baird with the cinema. We have 4, verbally we have 8 stadiums or 8 theaters in our building right now. 4 of them are non-stadium and these 4 here are currently sloped floors and what we'd like to do is, we're targeting January to start. We're going to reduce the number of seats in here when we convert it to stadium so I don't have an exact number in front of me but we're going to be reducing the capacity of those 4 theaters which will help coincide with the parking needs. Sacchet: So you're making 3 out of those 4, is that correct? Glenn Baird: No. They're going to be 4 but for example, this particular theater has 209 seats in it. It's probably going to reduce to approximately 150. And each theater is a little different size and depending on exact layout, it will reduce seating and parking needs. Sacchet: So actually that answers my question because I was thinking you were actually changing the numbers in there but the layout stays the same. Glenn Baird: Yeah, the actual four walls remain the same. Sacchet: The walls stay the same, okay. Glenn Baird: Capacity will reduce. Sacchet: And that will happen before the big development actually takes place on the outside? Glenn Baird: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, that was my question about that one. In terms of the second phase for the cinema, is that tied into the second phase of the whole Market Station? Glenn Baird: We're trying to coordinate that with the construction of the restaurants and the major area out front there. Sacchet: Then I would think that it looks like the second phase for the cinema, there's going to be a challenge with the parking. I guess that will be addressed in the planning phase of that. Glenn Baird: Yes, you're talking about the potential for occupying the alleyway inbetween the two buildings right now? Sacchet: Exactly. Glenn Baird: Yeah, that's pretty much a question right now. It's something we'd like to plan for the future but I don't think we can, obviously with the number of spaces there now, I don't think we can accommodate any expansion until this overall development with the parking ramp, it all has to come together in order for us to come to the city and request expanding it. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Okay, thank you for answering that. Now with an architectural landscape question with that painted block that's going to be exposed on the west side of the cinema. The staff report says will be mitigated by landscaping. When ! looked at your landscaping plan I didn't really see particularly much happening in front of that wall so I wanted a little clarification about that please. On the west side there, yes. John Uban: We truly have not designed anything for that yet. Sacchet: So that's still to be determined? John Uban: That's still to be determined but we have some grade changes there, and we need to work with the cinema and how they're exit doors work into that space, but our initial plan was actually a metal grid, an arbor trellis on the side of the wall so we can get vines and some other things to grow out there, but we need to make sure that can work with the exiting of the theater. And we just haven't worked that out yet, but we do want to treat that space so it's attractive. Sacchet: And then another architectural question, I asked that of staff. The staff report says you have cultured stone. Actually the picture shows cultured stone the full first story in the key areas, like where there are entrances, but staff report makes a statement further design development may result in the stone only being on the low park. At least that's how I'm reading it. And I'd like a little clarification, what are the how come and what are the variables that would possibly make that be not going up and what's the framework? If you could touch on that I'd appreciate it. Milo Thompson: I'm Milo Thompson, architect. Sacchet: Welcome. Milo Thompson: This probably is the best drawing to put up here for that, if you could zoom in on that. Much of this really is rather flexible as you work out the details but as the project stands now we are proposing that the cultured stone would be brought to the top of the windows on the bank on three sides. And that on the entrance, not the entrance. This used to be an entrance tower but I think we've made a very nice improvement by moving the entrance to the office building on the back side. Making it also a front so we don't have a back side to this building. But as a feature for the retail that would occupy that, we are showing stone facing also up to the top of the window in this turret. We show on the, I can also address another question that had to do with the cinema while I'm here and with the same point. The cultured stone that we are proposing is one which simulates a split face so we develop a more refined look to the stone and here you can see on the office building it is used as base. We think that's a good technical detail because the hardy board material normally should not come down to the contact with rain or snow. So that would be continuous as a detail for the office building and elsewhere. Going back to the continuity of that material on the other part of the project, we have a low wall which defines an outdoor seating area, and also enhances the outdoor dining which is under this portico here. This is a covered portico. On the question of the abruptness of the building, one to the other. This probably exaggerates the difference of these buildings, which we consider an advantage here because the cinema truly should stand out. It's a very different kind of building. It's scale is different and there is a strong desire on the part of the owners to not have strict continuity with the others and make this a more unique building, thus the special emphasis on lighting, a little more glamour and animation. When you look at the ends of this building though, here's where you see the abruptness. If you look at it from the other side, this view I think shows the relationship better. Where you can see a screening wall or the screening parapet of the 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 cinema wraps around and becomes part of this building so there's a sloped roof here. It ends in a gabled form at the end making a kind of a special feature at the corner. You begin to see then an architectural compatibility is more grounds at that point. There is also the discussion of the stone differences. It's felt that we should keep the masonry basis to these buildings, and in this case however it should be more dressed and this is a more traditional cut stone look, though it is a cultured stone or pre-cast of some sort. And then finally the material on the restaurant kitchen part, there's a wing of the restaurant which, there was just mention about the west wall here and difficult, unresolved as yet detail of the grade changes here and we're working on that. But at this point these would be exits for the theaters and just behind this building we would have a service area for the kitchen areas and the waste, material in and waste out tucked around that comer as well as screened mechanical equipment. So this wing represents basically the back of the house, the kitchen part of the restaurant. And it too is thought to have the fa9ade of cultured stone. Gary Milne Rojek: My name is Gary Milne Rojek. I'm also with Bentz/Thompson/Rietow and Milo and I are partners. Just in a little further clarification of this issue of the hardy board siding and the cultured stone. One of the issues, it's purely an issue of development, or further development because there are certain ends of the building that end in a shed or more of a shed arrangement. For example, this is hard to see but for example on the retail and office end of the building, that ends in a motif that has that hardy plank siding with the cultured stone base low. On other portions such as the bank and the turret, we're showing those as the cultured stone. However we'd like to reserve the option as we develop this further and to be able to balance the entire building against that design. Sacchet: So you'd rather not be locked in at this point? Gary Milne Rojek: Correct. It's purely that that hasn't gone through it's last development. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question, thank you. Another quick question about toning down the lights from the cinema. Obviously that's, we've heard some comments that you'd rather not do that. Could you briefly address that in terms of how important is it to have all these chase lights and neon strips and up lights and do you see flexibility with that? Milo Thompson: The owner may want to comment too but I would just offer these observations. On the elevation, there's a strong protecting expression here in the canopy that permits drop off and waiting and containing interesting things of posters for coming attractions in these niches, and to make this more attractive and lively, we are showing decorative lighting at the leading edge of this that runs around this side and on the east. The lighting that we were showing included not only lighting mounted on this canopy, which shows in better detail right here, and in cross section here. These are the lights that will be mounted on top of the canopy and lighting the face of this building and the signage here. Now that particular light could be very easily controlled so there would be no spillover. I mean it's focused directly on the wall. And you can assure that it doesn't spill over into any areas seen from the outside. The additional light, and I think these were the lights staff was commenting on, lighting the top of the turret and in particular this finial, and again those lights can be shuttered down so there's very little light escaping the object that it lights. So it could be, this could be managed from a technical point of view that would take care of the objection. Now we don't feel that this probably is absolutely essential. It's nice to light a feature but if that's not desired in the city, it's probably not as important as other kinds of lighting, which in the spirit of classic and traditional cinemas, is a lot about light. And things that flash and animation and so, and located in the middle of the site as this is, there's real need to bring some festive look at me sort of lighting. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Last question, just to clarify when you presented first about the Southwest Metro you mentioned, and you actually have this written in your write up that's point number 31 that the bus circulation plan has been submitted to Southwest Metro. They have not yet responded? John Uban: It has been submitted to them. Bob Worthington is here from Southwest Metro and he could respond directly, but this has been submitted and I believe the Board has approved everything. Sacchet: Is that something that could be addressed from the Southwest Metro, without putting you on the spot? If you can, that would be very helpful. Bob Worthington: I'm Bob Worthington from Southwest Metro Transit and to answer your question directly, the commission at their meeting earlier did review the plan and recommended an approval for the concept as it was presented. There's still some fine tuning that has to be done in terms of the language of the easement, the easements, the number of parking stalls, the design of the shelter, etc, but those can be easily taken care of within the timeframe of the approval process here with the city. Sacchet: So basically Southwest Metro is in agreement with this layout? Bob Worthington: That's correct, we are. We are. Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. That's questions from the applicant. Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to open the public hearing, invite anybody who likes to comment about this proposal, come up and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Is there anybody who'd like to address this item? Seeing nobody, I'm closing the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Time for comments from the commission. Who would like to start? Do you want to start Bethany? Ladies first. AIright. Tjornhom: I'm sure we'll hear about the bus situation and everything from Rich so I'm just going to say that, when I got this copy of the site, I loved the architecture. I thought you really did a good job using the examples you gave us at the earlier meetings which each of you had taken with existing buildings in Chanhassen so I thought it was really nice. And I'm all for lights ! guess on the cinema and I'm for the monument signs telling people where it is. How to get there and what's there. It just makes sense because if I'm going to, I mean I have a hard time right now finding the cinema. It's not marked very well you know and so I just think it's a service to the community by showing people where to turn, what's there and what they can do so I guess that's my only comment that I am in support of the monument signs and the flashing lights. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce, want to take it from here? Feik: Sure. I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'll start with the up lighting. I'm not comfortable with lighting the top, the very top of the theater, particularly what I'm going to call, I don't know what the technical term. It looks like a weather vane. We've had other applications before this body before and we were pretty firm regarding up lighting and for that matter I would like to be consistent on that. As for the buses, I know Southwest Metro signed off on this but I'm really not comfortable. I'm not comfortable to the extent that I would give up parking in exchange, temporary parking in exchange for a different mode of getting the buses back out on a temporary basis. A variance. I would give up, and the applicant's really going to hate this, I 21 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 would give up the pad restaurant in it's entirety until, based upon the parking, until we could, if we needed to trade parking, until we could get Phase II. I really, really, really don't want the buses to go by the dance studio and back through the parking lot. I think that's really not what we should be doing. So I've got serious concerns on that. As for the monument signage, I think one monument sign for the bank portion is more than adequate. If they need to trade off signage, given the proximity of the pad restaurant to Market, I certainly think they could trade a monument sign for the pad restaurant. The pad restaurant could get rid of their monument and give it to the bank, trade it off, but I don't really see the need for four monument signs going down that stretch from, you know starting at the railroad track and ending at the back of the hotel. So I'm in strong disagreement on the reducing or sticking with the number of signage's, and obviously my big one is the buses. Quite frankly I don't think I can go with this proposal as drafted based upon the parking, without some serious changes here. That's it. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Feik: Though I like the project and I know we need to have something downtown. You know I know we need to get this resolved. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Want to jump in Kurt? Papke: Yeah. I've been very impressed by the cooperation, the cohesiveness of the plan here. I think the cooperation between the cinema and Bloomberg and Kraus-Anderson is fantastic to see something that's so, that fits so well together. I think the plan is overall very good. I don't really have any issues with the lighting. I think this is kind of a showplace situation here. It is a cinema. I don't really have any issues with that. The traffic situation is going to be a real sticking point here. We represent to some extent the residents of Chanhassen and let me try to put this as a very brief story. Imagine I'm 15 years younger and instead of taking my daughter off to college I ride Southwest Metro every day and I have a 3 year old daughter that goes to the dance studio. And today I park my car in a very easily accessed location to pick up the bus that gets right back on the highway and I'm good to go. No issues. And now in the new configuration, instead of very quickly getting in and out to my parking lot to grab the bus, now I have to drive all the way to the interior of the parking lot in order to park my car to take the bus out in the morning, and when I get dropped off in the evening, I see the bus. I get off the bus and I see the bus going around the circle here and practically running over my daughter and wife as they exit from the dance studio, okay. And I say, what was the City thinking when they did this? Okay. This makes no sense at all to me so I think there's going to be some real visceral reactions to the circulation proposal here. I mean it's just not drawings on a sheet of paper. These are human beings and little kids that are going to the dance studio so I think this is going to be a real sticking point for me. That's it. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Rich. Slagle: I won't touch too much on those topics other than to say that I believe that this proposal as it is in front of us, I cannot support due to the traffic. Architecturally I think it's fine. Mr. Thompson, thanks for clarifying my question on the difference between the cinema and the restaurant. I think conceptually it's great but I'm really in a sense questioning the thinking of this pattern because if this is a destination center, which to me means people. People would be at the forefront of this thinking as to how people move from their vehicles or sidewalks, and so I think in the combination of lack of sidewalks, I do think there needs to be more sidewalks. Not because I like sidewalks but I truly think from a safety issue, coupled with the fact that we are talking about having buses and a hundred and some odd cars every day, in the morning and the 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 afternoon, and I have to at least to the fellow commissioners question, I don't mean to question the intent of the point but 6:00 1 think was the time that someone said tends to wind down. Well that would tell me then that most people downtown are having to get off of work at 5:00. Welt I work in Coon Rapids and I make the drive typically leaving at 5:00-5:30, and traffic is still busy. Heading out to the southwest at 6:30-7:00. So I think I would probably move that time 7:00-7:30 before it quiets down which most of us are going to a movie at 7:00 because you've got to get to bed at 10:00 or whatever the case may be, so in the end of this, it's a wonderful project. We need it but I have to tell you either I would be supporting tabling it and asking the applicant really to come back with some additional ideas and concepts. I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to why we can't go eastbound for the bus, other than there's a hill. Almost asked Southwest Metro but it sounds like they've approved it. I hope they raised that concern in their meeting or at least an option. If they didn't maybe they should. But no, I think this is enough of a reason not to support it. Or table it in the sense of supporting it and hoping they come back with some. Feik: Mr. Chair? I think on this issue is I think we have to be fully aware of the nebulousness of the word temporary. Temporary could be 2 years. It could be a year. That would be wonderful. Temporary unfortunately in marketing conditions could be 5 years, and this could be a situation that is going to be, that we could live with for way too long. Slagle: Let me just add one last point to that. Commissioner Feik's point. This, I believe this application asks the city and it's residents to put up with, lack of a better term, this configuration of traffic pattern for the temporary time until market conditions allow you to go to Phase II. My question is why wouldn't we put it on at least one of the partners of this application to allow buses to go to the south of their property where again there's been many cases on a daily basis 20-30 buses there anyway. In the parking lot, and it would avoid all of the problems that we've brought up today. I guess I don't know why we wouldn't do that. Sacchet: Well I've got a few comments too, not to be repetitive. To address some of the points the applicant brought forth. I would ask to work with staff about the drive aisle width. It looks like they're intending to have the main road to the full width, but possibly a little more leeway between the parking. That'd be a work with staff situation. The lighting, I really don't think up lights is acceptable because that's how we treat everybody in the city, and I think those parapets and things that can be lighted from above with down lighting. I mean the only thing you would have a hard time lighting is the thing on the very tip, and I wonder if that could be internally lit if you want to light it. But that would be consistent with how we treat everybody else in the city. We're pretty clear about that. Drainage between the building, I think that's a work with staff situation. Mitigating, I think the extra landscaping, if you'd like to have less of those landscape islands in the parking lot, we can do something else maybe to mitigate that to balance the scale. So far that's mostly work with staff items. I don't think that would be reasons to table. The two monument signs, I think it's a large building. There's a lot of tenants in there so personally I could be convinced that it needs two of them. Also is that unresolved situation with the painted block on the kitchen side of the restaurant on the west side of the cinema. It's a work with staff thing. Cleaning up the parking numbers is definitely something that needs to be done before it goes to council. Now the big thing, and I'm torn whether this is a reason to table or whether this is something that we just want further study. What I'm hearing from fellow commissioners that the thing with the buses is enough reason to table. I could go either way on that one. It's definitely an issue and it, I really dislike the idea that we're kind of having this whole park and ride as an after thought. It's not the first thought, and I understand that. I mean you're setting up businesses here. You're creating a big business center, entertainment center and the park and ride is not lucrative from a financial viewpoint. However, from a city viewpoint, from a community standpoint it's extremely important and I certainly agree with staff that you want to make sure it's 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 properly marked on the site. Not just as an after thought there, and I would go as far as also looking at this circulation thing as it's more than an after thought. It's an oversight. I mean it's encouraging to hear from the Southwest Metro people that this seems acceptable. From a community standpoint it's not really acceptable to have these buses go right in front of the door of a dance studio. Right in front of the door of the cinema. And I think it would be imperative to find a better solution. Now my question is, is this a reason to table or not. That's the part I'm not totally clear about. I'm totally clear about that alternatives need to be studied, need to be looked at, and there must be a better solution. Feik: I'm prepared to deny or table. Sacchet: Deny or table, okay. Hang on. I would not think that this is a reason to deny, that's my personal opinion. I would be able to go along with a table though. What's the time line Kate on this application? Aanenson: You do have additional time. The review deadline date is 10/29. Sacchet: 10/29, and having heard from the applicant that you're looking at starting the activity in November, it would not really upset your time line if we take a little time so I think in that context I would be in favor of tabling. Are there any more comments from commission? Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: There's an agreement with performance, and maybe the assistant city manager wants to comment on that but there is a performance time line with the city as far as when to move this forward as part of their purchase agreement, and I don't have those dates in front of me and I need to clarify it with Justin. Sacchet: Would you want to address that Justin please. Miller: Good evening, Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager. When this proposal originally came to the City Council or to the EDA I should say, they were very specific in that they wanted to see very strict deadlines on this proposal. One of them is that the site plan approval would be gained by September 30th. There's a little bit of wiggle room in there because they did extend the 30 day clause. I'm not totally sure if those 30 days apply to this section of the purchase agreement, but there is some pretty strict time lines on this. Once it is sent to council for their approval, I believe the November timeframe was talked about for closing. There will be some time after City Council approval that there will need to be some things to get in order for closing, so obviously the sooner this is approved the better for the city and for the developer. Sacchet: When is the next Planning Commission meeting this could be addressed if we table Kate? Aanenson: Next one would be October 7th. Sacchet: October 7th. Then it would go to council like mid-October so that would definitely curtail a little bit. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Aanenson: Unless you wanted to hold a special meeting, which has been done before too. I guess the question needs to be asked too is, if I may, if the applicant has the ability and wants to take that time to work through that issue. Does that make sense? Sacchet: Can you repeat please? Aanenson: Part of your goal is to ask of them to come back and study it. I think maybe the question should be asked to them, does that make sense to ask them? Sacchet: Yeah, actually you wanted to say something and if you want to please address us, that's be good. We don't normally take comments at this stage of discussion but since it's a big, I support this project very much. I think we all expressed that we really like this project. We just have this bone here we're chewing on with this bus thing. Clayton Johnson: I'm Clayton Johnson. I represent Bloomberg Companies and Market Square Partners, the partnership and let me just give you a little history. This site, the park and ride easement is not on our land. It's on the city's land. The city solicited proposals for development on this site, which there have been four. All of which have failed. In our opinion, the reason they failed is the location of the park and ride. Since we own the land to the east we were the only ones that could come up with a solution of moving park and ride inside, off of that very prime comer that's going to generate a lot of tax revenue. But we have to operate within what we can control. In other words, we're not, we have leases on some of these properties that you would like to tear down in Phase I! and in phase 3, and we do too, but these are subject to leases that have to be, we have to work through that. And so the choice was, do we wait monnana until we can do this whole big project, all three phases which may be 7 or 8 years, or do we attack it in a phased mode, and that's what we came to the EDA with and they supported that. And honestly we've got the best, John Uban, I don't know who we can find that can do a better job of looking at the traffic patterns and so on. It may not be ideal in terms of the traffic pattern of the buses but I happen to say I'm hard pressed, unless these guys, I don't know what 2 weeks is going to do in terms of being able to give us those alternatives. We can't go through that road. We'd have to re-build that road. It involves going through land that's currently under lease to other people and major costs. We're coming to you with the only proposal, out of the four, that's so far gotten this far. And the city has all these parameters. Million one on the land. Park and ride. No city assistance. We've worked within all those parameters and done the best we can. And yes, the bus is going to go in front of the dance studio, and yes the dance studio, that's an issue right now. It's an issue right now because people don't want to park more than 5 feet from the door. We know that and that's just something, so I just don't know what 2 weeks is going to buy, and if John or Milo have any ideas, Dan, I'd be happy to address it but you know we're working within all of these parameters of cost and options and you know I don't think we can come with anything that's significantly different. The idea of removing the pad site for the second restaurant. The kills the deal. That kills the deal. We need the revenue from that pad site in order to pay the million 150. If the city wants to take a discount from the million 150, sure. Eliminate the pad site, sure. Sacchet: I appreciate your frankness. Clayton Johnson: Thank you. Sacchet: Bruce did you want to? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: Yes, I'd like to continue this discussion a little bit further. As the gentleman said, temporary could be 7 or 8 years. Sacchet: Yes. Clayton Johnson: Or it could be 3. Feik: Albeit. I guess I would be willing to, and we could get this done in 2 weeks, is I would be willing to entertain a variance on parking to re-configure the egress shall we say for the buses so that they come in. They make an immediate sort of U turn and come out that first aisle. Get rid of, I played with it a little bit while I was up there. You get rid of those 18 stalls or whatever is on the north side of one island and you've got to clip the comer. You've got to clip the comer so you're taking part of the 20 stalls on the south end of the aisle to get back out. Yeah, that works. Aanenson: Where are you talking about? Feik: Well, move your pencil down and you take that aisle there, the drive aisle going west. You take the first 18 stalls out on the north side. Aanenson: You mean these right here? Feik: Yep, the first 18 on the easterly portion of that drive aisle. That gives you the bus turn around. You drop 3, 4, 5 parking stalls on the south portion, westerly comer. Sacchet: A place to make a turn around is what he's saying? Feik: Yeah. Get the buses out of the, you know. And then we can restore those parking spaces at a later date. For 22, 23 parking stalls, I really don't want to sacrifice any kids. It ain't worth it. And I would much prefer to do a variance on parking then, and I think that's doable in 2 weeks. Sacchet: Question of Kate. If we would ask for a bus turn around in that comer, and that would take away parking spaces, as Commissioner Feik suggested we'd be willing to sacrifice for this, would that need a variance for one thing, beyond what's already in front of us? Aanenson: I believe so. Again we'd have to look at the overall mix. Sacchet: Because what I'm trying to determine is, is this something that could be clarified with going to council or is this something that should come back here? Aanenson: Well it was noticed with variances so you would just add that as an additional variance with your findings being the fact that it provides for better circulation and that's the reason you would support it, and if that was part of your motion, it could move forward. And with the direction that the staff work with the applicant and Southwest Metro to provide better circulation between now and the time it goes to council. So you wouldn't have to see it back. Sacchet: Because I mean, we hear a lot of dramatic pictures here and I think we need to balance that a little bit, I mean just for discussion amongst here now. I mean these buses are not going to be speeding around these corners. These buses are going to be doubly careful going around there. There could be speed bumps, there could be things. Mitigating factors but it's, I think we have to nevertheless in order to be fair, you have to be careful that we not over dramatize the aspect. I mean it's not ideal, these buses going in front of these stores, but on the other hand, it's not going 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 to be a like a street with traffic. I mean you'd expect any driver in a bus to be real careful in a situation like that. Kurt. Papke: What is the current bus traffic through there? How many buses per day are we talking about? Aanenson: I'm not sure if someone from Southwest Metro could say. Bob Worthington: ...unfortunately I'm not a part of the operations side of the organization so I couldn't give you a definite answer in terms of number of buses. We do have more than 10 that go through the peak hour pick up and delivery of passengers at this location. Feik: That's the peak time. Bob Worthington: That's about the best I can offer as an answer at this point. Sacchet: We're not talking buses by every couple minutes. I mean we're talking a bus usually maybe one an hour and during peak time maybe half hour or something like that. Feik: Well they've every 10-15 minutes in the evening and obviously the morning is fairly irrelevant. You know it's 6:00-7:00 in the morning. Not too many people are going to the movies. But you've got Saturdays and you've got Sundays and. Sacchet: Right, definitely. Feik: I mean I personally think, and I'm not the engineering and planning department here but, and ! would like to hear the applicant's comments regarding the ability to accommodate that kind of a turn around that I talked about. Could that work and is it, with the 22 stalls or temporary might be, or whatever it is, which might be as the gentleman said, 7 or 8 years. Aanenson: Just to be clear too on one issue and that's the fact that the parking easement that runs on the property that they have to accommodate is for 120 stalls. If you take those out, it just means reconfiguration of how many are assigned to Southwest Metro. Just to be clear. Feik: Correct. Or they just be, they're re-signed in another area. Aanenson: Exactly. Feik: Right. Sacchet: Would the applicant want to make a statement about the possibility of having an actual turn around area in that corner? The feasibility of it or the problematic aspect or how easy it is and so forth. John Uban: Yes, we would like to make a statement about that. Sacchet: Thought so. John Uban: Part of that area is already existing parking and islands that are landscaped and so forth and we have a general reluctance to kind of tear into that. We certainly could explore with Southwest Metro, if there's some other configuration of a turn around might work for them but 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 the thing is, I don't think at peak hours, I think this is, I don't have the specific information to tell you but I think there's a fear that you might have that is greater than reality. Realize that buses are everywhere and they tend to operate the most in fairly dense urban situations where you have a lot of pedestrians and they're basically there at the sidewalk and that is the condition under which they're designed to operate, and they have a very good pedestrian safety record. So I am not at all afraid of buses going around next to sidewalks where people are crossing and waiting. And I think that the frequency of it is very low when you think about the interface with the dance studio and so, I mean clearly we can bring you better information on how that would operate. We could explore some other turn around but I think it's going to be a significant expense that somehow has to get incorporated into this. That particular location is also, we're trying to make sure that we don't physically remove parking that the theater now uses. I mean that's another issue for us. And so that parking or turn around idea does physically remove parking that is now used by the theater. So that's an issue. My bottom line is, we could come back in 2 weeks and just share information but we really do need to move this forward to the council. If you'd like us to work with Southwest Metro and just bring you the facts and see what else can be done, we'd be happy to do that. Specifically 2 weeks from now, I understand it would be a meeting just for that and see if we could at least get more informed about what is really going on and what the fears might really be. And we'd be happy, we don't want you to be afraid of something that we're just not ready to give you lots of detailed data on tonight. We didn't think that was a significant issue at this point. Sacchet: Well, appreciate that. Thank you very much. Yes. Papke: We haven't talked much about the planned Phase II northern egress here, you know going straight north from the park and ride. Would there be any way we could use that to solve the problem? Is there any way to accelerate that particular piece? Just be able to get the path through a northern egress. John Uban: I don't have the detailed plans to show you but there's a significant amount of work to build that particular road. We even think there might be some, if you look at the back side of the theater, there's some pretty good utilities in there as well and that is another element we have to get, work with. Also, to really make it work well, I believe we have to adjust the sort of architecture of the side of the theater as well, so it isn't as simple as just kind of paving a road up there. And we certainly could explain that to you in more detail but it's not just, it's not as easy as it looks is the bottom line. Papke: The bottom line is that's not an option at this time I'm hearing. John Uban: Right. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. ! think we need to move ahead and we have quite a spread here of feelings how hard we want to press this bus issue. All the way from people I think denying or tabling to tabling or moving it through. If we deny it it goes to City Council with that recommendation. If we table it, then it has a 2 weeks wait. If we approve it go through with conditions, they can work with these recommendations and concerns we have before they go to council, so that's basically the 3 options. Is there any comment? Feik: I just have one more. With all due respect to the applicant, I'm looking at the as-built right now, and the number of islands that you're already modifying and changing, the cost issue to do this turn around really doesn't wash in my mind. We're removing potentially part of the south end of one island and you're already reconfiguring and probably starting over on this westerly 28 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 island of this other one so from a cost issue that one doesn't hold water in my mind. ! still feel very strongly about this. I'll leave it at that. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: My last comment is, I'm in support of everything about this project, including lighting, signage, you name it with the exception of this traffic pattern. And the traffic pattern is a big enough reason to table it or deny it. Sacchet: Well, anyone dare to attempt a motion here? Feik: I move we table it. Sacchet: We have a motion to table. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table the Market Street Station proposal. All voted in favor, except Tjornhom who abstained and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 0 to 1. Sacchet: Do you want to comment why you're abstaining? Tjornhom: I guess Southwest Metro came through and approved the route. They approved the whole scenario of the buses coming through and I don't know, I feel like there are buses that run through downtown Minneapolis on a continual basis and no one gets hit, but that's just my opinion. You know if I'm going to cross the street with my 3 year old, I'm going to look 2, 3, 4 times to make just no one hits us no matter where I am and so I just don't think it's an issue. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Looks like we see you back in 2 weeks, and again I want to emphasize that we do like your project. That we do support it but really the issue that we would like to look at is this traffic situation. To have an understanding, a grasp what the alternatives are. If there are none, there are none but it hasn't been studied and we'd like to see that. Okay. Thank you very much. Slagle: Point of reference? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead. Slagle: Can I ask staff if we can get from Southwest Metro their thoughts on what was submitted to Southwest Metro as far as the plan. Aanenson: Yes. We'll also get the number of buses that come through and yes. And just for clarification, that next meeting is October 7th. It's actually we have an extra week so it's 3 weeks. Sacchet: It's 3 weeks from now. Okay, we'll see you back in 3 weeks. Let's take a 5 minute break. We'll reconvene at 9:15 sharp. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 3.63 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BOULEVARD, BURLWOOD ADDITION, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Laurie &Jon Steckman David Smith Bob Martinka Mike Cuccia Kent Kelly Bob Christensen Larry & Kathy Kerber Rich Rogatz Perry Ryan Kevin Grafft 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6645 Mulberry Circle East 6650 Powers Boulevard 6722 Powers Boulevard 6539 Gray Fox Curve 6648 Powers Boulevard Powers Boulevard 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior 6726 Powers Boulevard Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Your last drawing you showed I think, is it Kohman and Infanger? A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Could subdivide their lots to additional properties... A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Okay. So basically if that was the case, if you go back to your Option B. If you went back to Option B or Option C, did those take into account the additional two homes or do they assume right now that Kohman and Infanger, if that's how you pronounce it. If not I apologize. It only looks like there's two lots that. Al-Jaff: Correct, and I don't know how viable this option is any more only because this parcel has been platted. Slagle: Okay. Okay, so. Al-Jaff: You have a neck lot or a flag lot here, and it does not allow for the subdivision of Kohman and Infanger's properties. Slagle: So it might be, for our purpose tonight, assume that they probably won't subdivide, or can't any further. Those two lots. A1-Jaff: Under scenario E, Option E, because that's what was adopted by the City Council, they will be able to. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Well, let me clarify. I mean the way I understand it from the staff report, this is history. Option E was adopted. Is basically where we're at. That's the foundation we're working from. The rest is just a story. I mean that doesn't have any bearing on our considerations here tonight, isn't that? AI-Jaff: That's correct. I just wanted to tell you how we got to this point. Sacchet: Right, and I think that's important for everybody. A1-Jaff: And from a policy standpoint, we've amended our ordinances. Private streets. Neck lots. All of these are variances. Sacchet: So with the Option E they have the possibility to subdivide those two lots that you've shown us? So that's not really a point for discussion is it? A1-Jaff: With Option E? Sacchet: Yes. A1-Jaff: Kohman, Infanger can subdivide. Sacchet: And that's what the current situation is. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: That will be 14 and 17. Okay. So my question is this, the Chair is obviously correct in that Option E is the only thing we're looking at. I just want to be clear. Al-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: The City Council approved this option that has in essence 4 private. Sacchet: We don't have any legal over that. Slagle: I understand. I'm just, I mean. A1-Jaff: Now remember, this was approved back in '95-96. And this is the basis that we were working off of, and this is the direction that we gave the applicant. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Did you have something too Bruce? Feik: Yes, Option E, I want to clarify something that I'm seeing here. On Option E the private lot which goes to the north which goes to Lake Lucy Road, on the plans I've got they show access onto Powers inbetween Lots 3 and 4. Does your plan show that as well? Saam: I could clarify that. That's not an access. It's meant as a partial hammerhead turn around. So it won't actually connect into the Powers Boulevard pavement. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: Okay, that was my question, thank you. Sacchet: Oh it doesn't connect? Saam: No, it's not proposed to. Sacchet: Okay. Well that's important to know. Saam: Just the turn around for the private street. Feik: That was my only question, thank you. Sacchet: Alright, you want to go on Sharmeen please. A1-Jaff: So as part of the Golden Glow Acres, we, Mr. Ravis dedicated the right-of-way for the bubble of the cul-de-sac right here. The intent was to facilitate the future construction of the street. If this street was built, this private street would then be closed off. Traffic would be redirected to the bubble of the cul-de-sac and then out to Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: Including that house between the cul-de-sac and Powers? Al-Jarl: That's the intent. Sacchet: So that house that's currently accessing to the east would then access to the west. AI-Jaff: Correct. This is what it would end up going. Sacchet: Alright. Just to clarify that. Thanks. Al-Jaff: And again, this was for safety reasons. Sacchet: And that was decided, that foundation that they're building from. AI-Jaff: There are conditions of approval on the Golden Glow Acres that reflect that basically if the cul-de-sac is built, that this would be closed off. Sacchet: And is it accurate to assume that when this discussion happened, the then residents of those parcels that we're actually looking at tonight, had their involvement, every possibility to be involved as much as they wanted in that decision, correct? A1-Jaff: Now, please bear in mind that the only people that remain from the original group are Mr. and Mrs. Infanger, Mr. Kohman, Mr. and Mrs. Kerber. Everyone else is new. Sacchet: Is new. But nevertheless, these agreements were a part of the public record that were made at that point. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Al-Jaff: And when this was happening, the only individual we were working with was Mr. Ravis who resided right here. Slagle: Is it true that he is, if I read right, he has sold that property? Al-Jaff: Yes. Long gone. Sacchet: Okay. Continue please. Sharmeen AI-Jaff continued with the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Who wants to start? Kurt, do you want to start? Papke: One clarification on the change to item 11, and the item 11 itself. What's the rationale for closing that during construction? Saam: It is a county road there, Powers Boulevard. They want to limit direct accesses off of a county road, so with the development of this, there's no need for that gravel driveway, so we want to just have a condition saying that with the development it's got to be closed. That's the only reasoning. Sacchet: Rich, no questions? Bethany? Tjornhom: Just for my own interest. What kind of outlet structure is needed to control the water discharged from the pond? What does that mean? Saam: It's basically a man hole with two different holes in it to let the water in, and they're at different elevations and those elevations control the normal water level of a pond. Basically where the water's going to be in the pond. And it's something with every development that we require as a standard item. Tjornhom: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Wetland. I did not see that these were being replaced at a 2:1 ratio. AI-Jaff: They are under, they have to, that's state law. Well if you look on page 18, condition number 1. When it says wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the number, that's what. Feik: And this would qualify for 2 to 17 Okay. That was my only question, thank you. Al-Jaff: I don't think Lori would let that one go by. Sacchet: Quick additional questions. Like we've seen there's a new letter here from the Martinka's. The Martinka's. I was just wondering with that temporary cul-de-sac being built, would the Martinka's also access that temporary cul-de-sac? Is that something that's been looked at? A1-Jaff: It's a public right-of-way. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: I would guess since the private, their existing private driveway is going to remain with this plan, they would access their site off of that. But they certainly have the right to go on the public right-of-way. However it wasn't going to be paved. There was not going to be a paved connection between the existing private driveway and the new public cul-de-sac. Do you follow that? Sacchet: Okay. So they could potentially keep their current access... Saam: Yes, that was the plan. That was the plan. Sacchet: ...pretty much parallel to the cul-de-sac, which yeah I mean they're in their rights for doing that. Couple of other engineering things Matt. Bethany touched on the water, storm water situation. It talks about the infrastructure downstream from the culvert being kind of lacking or not quite there enough, could you tell me a little bit more about that? Saam: I'm sorry, I didn't follow you. The infrastructure downstream from what? Sacchet: Yeah, presently there's an old public storm water infrastructure downstream from the culvert. I'd like to understand that a little more. Saam: Maybe I can clarify this showing you the overall area. Let's just zoom in on this. Maybe a little more Nann. Thank you. Here's the site, and there's proposed pond basically right there. Our nearest existing storm sewer is down here. Basically at the comer of that street. Mulberry Circle I believe it is. We have no storm sewer along Lake Lucy Road between that catch basin at the street and the Kerber property. So what we're proposing as a condition and what's in the staff report is to put that outlet control structure in the pond and basically pipe from the pond in our right-of-way down, and let them connect into that existing catch basin. Sacchet: Okay, that's good to know. Matt, it also talks about storm water from the temporary cul-de-sac. Where would that go? Is there an idea of what happens with that? Saam: That's something that we need to discuss more with their engineer, myself and Lori and...but yeah, it's basically the storm water coming off this temporary cul-de-sac. We don't see a need for them to build a big pond just for this little street at this time. Now when this all develops, and I think Lori added something in the staff report that we'll work with the developer and the existing property owners to look at a long term solution to the storm water. Sacchet: Okay. And then it talks about additional right-of-way might be needed on the north side for Lake Lucy. Does that have an impact at all at the current plat? With the lots. Does it accommodate this? Saam: A little bit but I think we've solved it. What I'm referring to is up here on Lake Lucy Road. As other sites to the west have developed, Lake Lucy Ridge, Ashling Meadows, some other ones that developed before you all were on the Planning Commission, we acquired additional right-of-way along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy's a collector road. By code we need 80 feet of right-of-way there so with development, if we're lacking in right-of-way, we obtain additional right-of-way as the properties develop. So what we're requesting, I believe there's about 33 feet of right-of-way there now. So if you cut the road in half, half of 80's 40 so we're requesting an additional about 7 feet so we'll have 40 feet of right-of-way there. And how that, the implication to the plat is that all these lots are pretty much at the minimum for width and everything so what 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 we're proposing to do is just slide this street down the 6 to 7 feet that we would need in order to gain the right-of-way here. The street would be just off set I mean by 5-6 feet from existing Shenandoah Circle. We believe we can live with that. It's not 30 feet or 100 feet. It's basically right across the street. Sacchet: So you would shift the whole thing south? Saam: Yes, that's what we'd propose to do. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: Let me just point out, that way the applicant wouldn't lose any lots. Sacchet: Okay. Otherwise it would have an impact. Saam: Potentially, yeah. Sacchet: Okay. The trees. The trees. The dear trees. That's a little fuzzy in this proposal. I mean if the staff report says some of the trees were counted actually are not really on the property, but then on the other hand it looks like it was re-calculated. Basically to come up with the number of how many trees need to be replaced, so staff is satisfied with that? AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: As a condition number 2, minimum of 3 overstory trees shall be required in front of each of these lots. These lots are not that huge. Is there enough room for a driveway and 3 trees? Without crowding them, we think there is? AI-Jaff: According to the city forester. Sacchet: According to the city forester, okay. Okay we addressed this one. I think that's my questions. Thank you very much. With that, would the applicant want to come forward and address us please. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say please. Rich Ragatz: Rich Ragatz, 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis. And I would like to start out again, I'm going to have to give a little history of things in a minute here but I've been working with Larry and Kathy Kerber on this 5.17 acres since April and I think before we get into the specifics of the development and why I think it's something that should be approved, I wanted to get into the history so you can understand why we're at this point on a relatively small site like this, doing two phases. So ! guess to start out with the history. I've been working with Sharmeen and Matt, as she said since April, and went in there and talked to them several times and had several different proposals that I brought forth and each time I was pretty much shot down because there's two main things that we have to do here. We have to, safety's a big issue and the second one is you have to allow the two people on the southern part of the development, the ability to subdivide in the future and you can't do, you can't have more than 4 lots off of a private drive so that's one of the big issues. And then the second is the safety concern. Rather have traffic coming off of a 31 foot improved public street versus a 20 foot private drive, so we tried to come up with some different options on that but it all came back to Option E and I think in the end that is the best thing for this area. So then starting out early on, in April and June I called all the adjacent property owners and just let them know that I was going to be the property owner 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 that's going to move forward and work with the Kerber's on development of this site, and left my name and number and if they had any questions or comments, to please feel free to call me. Then it moved onto July and I started to show some of the plans that we've come up with and I can start out with the first plan here. And this plan is the July 3rd plan. It shows right here. We're connecting with the existing cul-de-sac that was platted back in '96, and the 50 foot right-of-way and just a little portion of the property, there's a right-of-way and just a very, very small portion would be on Martinka's property. Sacchet: If I could ask you to go relatively quickly through the history, because we have another applicant and there are people here that would like to address that so, if you could mainly focus on the actual current proposal, I would appreciate that very much. Rich Ragatz: Oh, and not go into the history. Sacchet: Well you can touch on it but what I'm asking you is if you could just really summarize the history part please. Rich Ragatz: Okay. Okay, that's fine. SoiTy about that. We went through several different alternatives and I guess we went through the alternatives because we were trying to be, work with everybody so this would be a win/win situation for everybody but based on the '95-96 Option #E that was adopted by planning and council, the only way to move forward and develop this is to get the Martinka property to work with us and, met with him several times. We had a neighborhood meeting and showed him plans and tried to work with him and in the end I really never understood what he wanted, and I asked him several times and he never came up with anything and you know I have some time constraints. I'm working with the Kerber's, contractual obligations and we wanted to move forward with what we thought was the best plan and let planning and City Council take a look at it. So we went through a couple different renditions and in the end we think this proposal here that has the temporary cul-de-sac and doesn't impact anything in the easement is the way to go and I'm willing and would love to work with everybody to get this thing finally connected to the easement that was done in '96. So ! guess I was going to touch on some other things but I think I'll just get to the meat of the. Sacchet: If you would, I think that would be appreciated. Rich Ragatz: Alright. All the lots in the development are 15,000 square foot minimum lots. They all have at least 90 foot frontage and 134 feet deep or more. The average about 18,000 square feet. We're only asking for one variance for a private drive and that's mainly to save the mature trees. There's two oak grove, burl oaks on the site and several other mature trees on the western property boundary and if we were to put a cul-de-sac in that way, it would really destroy the trees and ruin the natural features of the site. So secondly, also looking at mitigating the wetland which is 5,963 square feet because it's a type I wetland. It's basically a muddy hole with reed canary grass and if we were to put homes in there, the people that live in the homes would probably mow that. Fertilize it. It wouldn't act or look like a wetland so it's probably best to move it off the site. So what I'm looking to do also is custom grade the site and I wanted to clarify that if we were to custom grade I think we could do a little more in terms of tree preservation for this. And we're looking to build the road as close to the easement as possible and eventually extend it if we could. And this would be the first addition and as a part of it, we'd be deeding Outlots A and B and the future road and right-of-way for the second addition, and I'd be delighted to move forward with the entire thing as soon as everybody else is willing to move forward on it too, and I thank you for your time and look forward to your feedback. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Question from the applicant. Commissioners. No questions from the applicant? One quick question. You mentioned the custom grade, is that part of the current application in front of us or is that a change to the current? The way you were talking. Al-Jaff: It is not. Right now it's mass graded. Sacchet: Okay. So you're proposing that rather than mass grading you'd rather do custom grading? Rich Ragatz: Yeah, custom grade it and then work with the city if we can save more trees then it's better for everybody. Sacchet: And apparently there was not a disagreement but a difference in counting of the trees, the canopy cover. Has that been resolved between staff and the applicant and you? Rich Ragatz: Yes it has. Sacchet: It has, okay. So you're basically concurring with the numbers that staff put into the staff report at this time? Rich Ragatz: I think, generally we are. Yeah. Sacchet: Well, okay. Well that's good enough for me. Okay, thank you very much. Slagle: Chair, I do have a couple. Sacchet: Commissioner Slagle go ahead. Slagle: If I may. Can I ask, you made reference on a couple times in your presentation of the Martinka's, if that's how you pronounce it. That you just couldn't work it out. Is there a simple explanation as to what you needed from them? Rich Ragatz: Well according to the '95-96 resolution that was adopted, the only way to connect to the cul-de-sac is to have some right-of-way and a portion of the road, a very minor portion on his property and since his property's affected by the development, he'd have to sign the development application. Slagle: So was that a small parcel of land, safe to say? Rich Ragatz: Yes. Sacchet: It's the little comer. Slagle: With the cul-de-sac. Sacchet: That little corner there, yeah. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question, pertaining to maybe the property you used to own, if I understand it. What I'll call the, how do you pronounce his name? Rich Ragatz: Egyhazi. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Yes. Under proposal E, we're working with, are they connecting, is their driveway on Powers, is that what it's going to be? A1-Jaff: There's an existing private street. Slagle: Correct. I just want to make sure I'm not getting confused here Sharmeen. That that is not going to be closed. Okay, but you made the comment future development, they will close that and they will have to go through the cul-de-sac. Al-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: ...from some folks that that maybe wasn't what was thought, so I want to make clear that they're going to go around their house, even though their house faces Powers. They're going to drive around the back end of their house. Saam: The whole point Commissioner Slagle with that one is to close that access to Powers. Slagle: ! understand but I just want to make sure that that property owner's fully. Saam: And I wasn't around when that was adopted, Sharmeen was, but from everything I've read and from what Sharmeen's brought me up to speed on that, that's been the intention all along. Slagle: You believe that that property owner knows that that will. Rich Ragatz: They're well aware of that, yeah. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce. Feik: One quick thing. In going forward the Martinka's will access Powers how? Rich Ragatz: Well they'll currently have the existing access. Feik: They have a current gravel road I believe. Rich Ragatz: Gravel road that goes through. Feik: And that will continue? Rich Ragatz: Well it will continue or they can use the new improved street and just have a gravel road from there. Feik: Okay, thank you. Al-Jarl: Our preference is to limit the number of access points onto Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: Could we ask, could the city ask them to use that temporary cul-de-sac? Saam: Sure, I guess we could but they have an existing easement off what will be Rich's... Sacchet: Whether it makes sense or not, yeah. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Yeah, I mean if they have rights to do it, then. But see with development our plan was to close that. Sacchet: I don't know whether the Martinka's are here tonight. Probably if they are I would like them to speak for themselves. We got the letter from them that sounds much more reconciliatory than what the staff report reflects so if they're here, I hope they talk. Rich Ragatz: Yeah I just want to add one thing. I mean part of the reason we're doing this temporary cul-de-sac is there is an easement for access and utilities and I was willing to bring the public street and have it connect to the Christensen and Martinka property, which would provide a public street which is over and above the current requirements of the easement, and also bring the utilities and stub them off at the property. But he thought, and he never said that he'd be in that instance willing to relinquish his rights in the easement so it didn't make sense for me to move forward if there's that possibility. It's too risky. Sacchet: So from your vantage point there has been sufficient discussion between you two? Rich Ragatz: Yeah. Sacchet: Alright. Rich Ragatz: Yeah, and I just wanted to clarify two things. In the preliminary plat that Sharmeen brought up. Number 13. Perry and I have talked to Matt about this and you had mentioned the last time that we talked that we could maybe, you were open to suggestions on other ways to maybe go about this if they made sense. Saam: Yep. Rich Ragatz: So okay, just want that. And then on page 17 of the same thing, number 30. No, 31 I'm sorry. Also wanted to add, it says a financial security must be supplied to the city. I wanted to add in there, for developer's pro rata share of cost. Feik: Isn't there typically a multiple on that? Saam: What do you mean a multiple? Feik: If you're doing a bond or if you're doing a letter of credit it would be. Sacchet: 1.2 or something like that. Saam: Oh, 110 percent. Yeah. Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, so it'd be 110 percent of the pro rata share. Saam: I think what he's trying to address is he just wants to pay his own fair share and he would just like that clarified in there. We're fine with that. Rich Ragatz: And that's, oh go ahead. 39 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Slagle: Point of clarification with Matt. On that 13 that we just talked about, you said you're open to suggestions. I'm assuming, and we just talked about the closest one. Saam: Yeah, how that came about, you can see they don't propose that on their plan. They kind of propose just out letting it into the neighboring property. Lori, the Water Resource Coordinator and myself sat down and came up with this proposal and I just communicated that to Rich's engineer, that this is what we've come up with. You know you're welcome to look at it but what you've proposed right now really doesn't work for us. So we're open to other suggestions but this is what we've come up with right now. So barring any other ones, I guess we'd like to go with this. Sacchet: So you don't see a really an alternative at this point but you're willing to entertain if an alternative is presented to you, but the original proposal, to just let it out on the neighbors property is not acceptable. Saam: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. So would a work with staff be sufficient then at that condition? Saam: Sure, work with staff on finding a resolution to the pond outlet or something like that. Slagle: I can see one that's more generic... Sacchet: Did you want to address another one? Rich Ragatz: No, those were the ones I wanted to address. Sacchet: Thank you very much. With that, this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward to address the Planning Commission on this item, please come forward now. State your name and address for the record and we listen to what you have to say. Anybody takers with this? This is your chance. Jon Steckman: Good evening. I'm Jon Steckman. I live on the property west at 1215 Lake Lucy. Sacchet: Would you want to point out which one it is, just for our orientation. Okay, excellent. Some beautiful trees there. Jon Steckman: Pardon me? Sacchet: Beautiful trees on your property. Jon Steckman: Most of them are on the Kerber property, but a few. The only question I have I guess, and that's more of a question. A couple questions. With the pond, I guess do we believe, and I did talk to Rich a number of times on the phone and worked out very well. But I guess with the pond, and the question maybe is to you, or over there, do we think that there will be water in that pond? I know I talked to, about that just in general. It's quite a huge pond that borders my property and just was interested in the possible depth of that pond. Where we thought that would be. Sacchet: Can you answer that Matt please? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Sure. Yes, the pond is intended to hold water. The plan shows a normal water level which is in generic terms where the water will usually be at of 995. The bottom of the pond is 990, so it'd be about 5 feet deep at it's deepest point. Jon Steckman: Yeah, and I was just wondering about, sometimes you see the ponds around and they're quite reedy and mossy so what we have, which is going to be to a couple people's back yards, I was just interested if that could flow into that potential, proposed storm sewer, or something related to that. So, and then I just wanted the clarification on that point number 13, since I was the property currently where that might out flow or where it was originally proposed but, and then if that storm sewer goes through, that would be in the easement, we could lose some trees related to that on my property so I was just concerned and wanted staff to know that I guess. Saam: Okay. I'll just mention, ifI can add to his. Sacchet: Go ahead. Saam: That the easement would be on the Kerber property. The pipe would be on the Kerber property. So our intention would be to limit the destruction I'll call it to things on your property. And I'll add just one more thing. The way they have this pond set up, in staff's view would be advantageous to your property if and when at some time you would develop. You would also have back yards which go toward the pond. The pond would be all set up for his drainage, that sort of thing so. Sacchet: So, but what you're saying Matt is that once your property develops, his development, that private street could actually use that as storm water pond as well? Is that what you're saying? Saam: Yes. So...basically right here so you can see what I'm saying. His property would be set up just like this one with a walkout's, whatever, looking at the pond to take care of the storm runoff. So I just want to point that out. It's good for future development also. Sacchet: For runoff, not necessarily for storm water from the other private street though. Saam: Well unless they put a catch basin in and piped it there. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Jon Steckman: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to address this item. This is your chance. Please come forward. Debbie Lloyd: Hi, Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'll try to keep it short but I've seen some things in the staff report that I'm questioning and I just caught the stuff tonight so please bear with me. First question is, even though council approved this back in 1995 for E as the option, because it was not developed, is not required, is that correct or not? Sacchet: It's my understanding that the council decision was for Option E and that we're building on top of that. Are you saying are we locked into it? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Debbie Lloyd: But because it wasn't, because it did not move ahead. Sacchet: Well some of it did. Like the cul-de-sac on the south is dedicated. Debbie Lloyd: So we are locked into Option E? Sacchet: Pretty much. A1-Jaff: I'm sure there are other alternatives. However, based upon the cul-de-sac, the right-of- way for the cul-de-sac and the alignment that we have, yes. You can say that. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I think the number of, I'm going to change my focus a little bit here. I think the number of accesses is not a positive thing. Two private streets is not a positive thing. Private streets, the maintenance of those streets is left up to the owner of the property. I believe a public street should serve this area. Not be served by two private streets and one public street. In terms of, let's see. On the preliminary plat, page 6. Average lot size. I had a question mark on, it's shown as 21,323 square feet. Actually the developer said the average is about 18,000 square feet in his statement so staff report is not correct there. Sacchet: Sharmeen, I think that number comes from your compliance table doesn't it? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And it looks to me like you added up the lots and then divided them by the number. So I didn't check the math but. Debbie Lloyd: What is Lot 1, Block 2 with 41,336 feet? Sacchet: That's the lot on the southeast corner, right? Debbie Lloyd: This is really poor, can you read it here? Rich Ragatz: I'm talking about the...but if you use all 7 lots, it does average to 22. Sacchet: That makes sense, okay. That resolves that question. Thank you for clarifying that. What else did you find Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: On page 9 under streets, the last point. The last line. The additional right-of-way needs to be platted. So if it isn't platted it affects the buildable area I believe. And I don't know if that's part of the calculation. Just a notation. Sacchet: Yes, it seems like that's not been worked out at this point Matt, is that accurate? Saam: Yes, however the lots will stay the same. Other than Lot 1, Block 2 would decrease by that 7 feet because we're essentially pushing everything south so the big one will lose a couple hundred square feet or whatever it is. A1-Jaff: They're platting the entire subdivision now. Sacchet: Okay, and as you pointed out you don't have an issue with the street being offset by a couple feet. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: No. Shenandoah is a sub-standard street so possibly in the future if that would get upgraded, we could...on center. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, one other thing I wanted to point out about the private streets for Lots 1 through 4. Because of having private streets there, actually there's a gain to the property owner of 10 feet, because now you're requiring 30 feet for a private street. Sacchet: Can you repeat that? I'm not sure ! got that. Debbie Lloyd: You're requiring 30 feet here of width. For a public street there would be a requirement of 50. Sacchet: Correct. That's one of the advantages of the private street. Debbie Lloyd: Right, so there's almost a full lot gained by putting in private streets. The calculation is around 10,000, if I calculated correctly, about 10,000 square feet. Sacchet: So the point being? That they would lose a lot if it were a public street? Debbie Lloyd: Correct. Sacchet: Did you also take into consideration that there are two private streets if they would go down the public street in the middle where all the big trees are, that actually the easement for the public street would be shared between the easterly and westerly lots. Is that accurate Matt? A1-Jaff: Yeah. Yes it is. Sacchet: Okay. Because I would think if you take that in consideration, then I'm not sure whether your point would really. Debbie Lloyd: Well there is a gain on each lot when you put in a private street. It's just a point. Sacchet: ...where would you go with that? Debbie Lloyd: It's just a point that you're gaining a buildable lot and granted it's a development that's been passed already but I do want to make that point because of the private street issue. On page 17, point 25. This does not mention that the driveway must be 20 feet wide. It says it's required for the private drive. That word should be private street so there's no confusion after all the code changes we went through. Sacchet: Okay, can you say this again so we're all on the same page? You're looking at number 25 on page 17 and what would you change? Debbie Lloyd: Point number 25. The driveway should be paved to 20 foot width. Saam: If I can add something to that, and the only reason we didn't add that is because they're already proposing it at 20 feet. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: So it's already there. Saam: It's already shown on the plan as 20 feet, yeah. Debbie Lloyd: But I would like to change the word from private drive to private street. Sacchet: Is that consistent with our language? Al-Jarl: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, good point Debbie. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: And apart from that, the only other point is meeting the variance requirements for private street, but again if this has been approved, I don't know if it's a moot point or not. But the variance study here did not go over point by point, let's see. Page 14. Variances. You have point 1 through 4 but you have a general finding. In the finding it is possible to serve this site through a public street so you need to work through all those variances I believe in order to sufficiently meet the variance. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. Am I correct by assuming that those considerations were made when this originally was chosen as Option E? Al-Jaff: Now please remember that back then it was not a variance. Sacchet: It was different, okay. A1-Jaff: We were operating under a different set of rules. Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing. Anybody else would like to come forward, this is your chance. State your name and address for the record please. Kevin Grafft: My name is Kevin Grafft. I live at 6726 Powers. Sacchet: Is that on the plat there? Kevin Grafft: Property 13. Sacchet: Property 13, thank you very much. Kevin Grafft: Just a couple quick and easy questions. Main question is probably, I'm not sure who to address this to. What was the main reason for closing down the private drive to homes 11, 12 and 137 Sacchet: Matt, do you want to address that please. Saam: Yes. One to limit direct accesses onto Powers Boulevard, a collector. High traveled street, and two, was approved that way under the Golden Glow development, which is that development to the south. The development contract for that site says that when this future cul- de-sac public street is put in, that private street will go away. Kevin Grafft: So once this addition's put on, that will close off the 3 homes down there? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Yes. Kevin Grafft: Because the one lady will still have, the old Ravis property will still have her access them? Saam: I'm not sure which one the old Ravis' is. Kevin Grafft: Number 18 there. Sacchet: Why don't you point it out on the plat there. Kevin Grafft: Right down here. Ravis' is right there. So you're going to shut these 3 homes and route them... Saam: Yeah, good point. That would come out here to the cul-de-sac. Kevin Grafft: Well then who's going to be responsible for maintenance of that road? Saam: When this gets built it will be a city street so we'll plow and maintain it and everything. This will remain a private street as it is now. Kevin Grafft: Okay. Then just one last quick question. This is kind of regards to Mr., is it Ragatz? Ragatz. As far as Mr. Bob Martinka's inability to be accessible. I have a letter here from his attorney that's talking to you saying that he is willing to talk. Sacchet: Yeah, I believe we have a copy of that letter as well. It's the letter from September 15th? Kevin Graft: I want to say it's July. Feik: He's got a letter from an attorney. This is from Martinka themselves. Sacchet: Oh, this is from Martinka's themselves, okay. Kevin Grafft: July 25th. So I was kind of confused by that. Feik: In reference in paragraph A of the Martinka letter. Reference to paragraph A. Sacchet: Alright. Kevin Graft: Because Bob's been kind of the spearhead in our area, kind of the bring us abreast and work hard as far as coming up with a solution for everybody so. Sacchet: So your point being that some additional... Kevin Grafft: It's kind of confusing why he's been contradicting this all night. Sacchet: Yeah, but the point you're making is that it would be good to have some additional discussion there? Is that basically what you're saying? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Kevin Grafft: Correct. Sacchet: I mean I don't want to put mouth in you, words in your mouth but. Kevin Graft: I mean it's been totally opposite so I'm kind of confused by that I guess. Sacchet: Yeah, July 25th. That's the letter that was actually in our staff report. Feik: Oh yes in the back. Sacchet: That's the one you're referring to, right? Kevin Graft: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Kevin Grafft: That's all I have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. It's getting late so I'm going to close it if nobody else stands up. Nobody else stand up? Are you sure Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: I'm really sorry because I know we're trying to keep these as short as possible. I just guess I'm like really confused. So if this was already approved, the subdivision was approved. Sacchet: That's my understanding. Debbie Lloyd: The purpose of this meeting then is to allow the variance? Sacchet: We're looking at the plat, we're looking at the variance and the plat. Two things. Plat and variance. Debbie Lloyd: But the plat was already approved. Feik: Conceptual. Al-Jaff: The Ravis plat. Golden Glow was approved. Sacchet: The Golden Glow plat. A1-Jaff: Which resulted in certain alignments, dedications put in place. Slagle: If I may. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Mr. Chair, and I want to get back to my thing from the beginning of this presentation, and ! appreciate you trying to keep us on track, but I still have a question and that's why I was trying to get more history of this options because is this indeed E, call it E, the only framework that we're allowed to work with, because I'll give you an example. We had the development on 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Powers, and I won't go into the details, that we called premature and I'm questioning why this wouldn't be somewhat premature as well. Sacchet: Can you say why? Slagle: I'm not sure why but I'm just asking. What I'm saying is, we had a developer, or applicant who wanted to develop their land and we as a commission voted that it was premature. And what I'm saying is we're sort of being instructed, and I don't want to put words in the staff's mouth but this was already approved by City Council. You have to work under this guideline. And I have yet to see anything from the meeting of '95 that showed that, so I'm taking you guys on your word that that's our framework. Sacchet: Well let me clarify that. I mean obviously the issue in front of us is not which one of those 4 or 5 options is appropriate. Slagle: I understand. Sacchet: The issue in front of us is, the option that was chosen by City Council and I assume the Planning Commission at the time, on that basis here's a plat. Does this plat work? Does this plat meet the regulations and ordinances of zoning. That's the question I see in front of us. Al-Jaff: And the Ravis plat was approved based upon Option E. Feik: Right, but this plat was not filed. This was a conceptual plat. It's just conceptual... It was not a filed plat. It wasn't a done deal. Slagle: Correct and that's what I'm trying...is we have the ability Mr. Chair I think, to look at this proposal and if you will question certain things and have the ability to do that without thinking that a previous City Council approved this. Sacchet: Okay, question to staff. Is that accurate? Do we have within our reach to go back and evaluate these options at this stage of the game? Slagle: Not what I'm asking. Sacchet: That's what I'm asking. I know that's not what you're asking but we might as well go all the way here. Saam: I'll give my opinion and I think what we, because this is what Rich talked about. Rich Ragatz the developer brought that up right from the beginning and what we've always said is, the council has the ability to change and say you know that council back in '95 didn't know what they were doing and just throw that out the window. I guess in my opinion we really don't. We have a development contract in place. We have platted right-of-way that we want to hook up, so we've already looked at the whole area. Gone through all the options. I think the plan's in place. We build off of that. Can we tweak this? Sure. Sacchet: I mean but basically staff's position is we don't want to reinvent the wheel in this particular case. Al-Jaff: Well we spent a good 6 months on the Ravis plat. Going through all of those options and 6 months might be an exaggeration. But it was quite. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Well I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision just by judging what we're going through here tonight with this. Al-Jaff: It wasn't...and our initial recommendation to the City Council was that this was a premature development for the Ravis. We said until Kerber is ready to develop, Ravis should not move forward, but. Slagle: And I guess what I'm, if I may, what I am suggesting is that with the absence of a couple of parties of this, who have properties in this already, let's just say design proposal. That's maybe the wrong word, I am wondering why we can't help that process along to reach an agreement to all parties to then have a solution that works for everybody versus leaving a couple folks out. That's really what I'm getting at. Al-Jaff: And in all honesty, if you look at this proposal, and we've spoken to Mr. Ragatz about this, one of the reasons he's calling it Phase I, Phase II is because with Phase I he's able to develop the entire property located to the northwest and then in the future when the remaining parties are all on the same page, they would be able to continue this cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Yes. Actually we're still having an open public hearing. Feik: I think I'm understanding you. Basically, I'm going to paraphrase what I heard and you tell me if I'm wrong. We're doing Phase ! until they can secure that triangular piece of dirt to access the Golden Glow Court. Al-Jaff: And Mr. Feik: That's the only thing that's holding this thing up as a two phase is to get that triangular piece of dirt. AI-Jaff: Correct, and Mr. Ragatz needs to work with Mr. Martinka to vacate, or. Sacchet: To come to an agreement. Simple. AI-Jaff: Come to an agreement. Sacchet: So we still have an open public hearing here. We have not heard from the Martinka's so I assume they're not here. Here's another person though who'd like to address us. Please come forward. Bob Martinka: Good evening and thank you. As I said in the opening statement of my memo to you. Sacchet: Name and address please. Bob Martinka: Oh I'm sorry. Bob Martinka... Sacchet: You are here. Welcome then. Bob Martinka: As I said in the opening statement in my memo I sincerely wish both the developer, Mr. Ragatz and the seller, Mr. and Mrs. Kerber you know every success in this 48 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 regardless of what the configuration is. Personally we got our little place back there in the woods and our lives will continue and we've got a large family and it fits us pretty well but, I kind of promised a couple folks that I would not be standing up here this evening and I'm here for one reason only, and that is to you know this is all on the record and I want it to be accurate. There's a couple of things that were said here tonight and I'm not suggesting that they were said you know with any intention to have it appear other than it really is. However, Mr. Ragatz said I have conducted neighborhood meetings. Mr. Grafft is here from the neighborhood. Mr. Smith is here from the neighborhood. Mr. Cuccia is here from the neighborhood. Bob Christensen is here from the neighborhood. There was never a neighborhood meeting until one evening late in the process I personally called Rich to join an informal group for coffee out in front of Mike's house and we chatted about a few things. The subject of easement I invite members of the commission to very thoughtfully read my memo. I made a number of overtures to bring the subject of easements on the table. Never, ever once did the developer approach me on the subject of easement. Never did we turn down or reject consideration of setting aside of the easement, and indeed I initiated procedures with my lien holder in case I was approached, which I never was approached. Ever on that subject. That needs to be set clear for the record because the Martinka residence, property is being, appearing to be used as a, you know as a reason why the development is being done in two stages. And may I just encourage you to look more carefully at what appears to be that little corner of property that has to be crossed. It's a 25 foot line and I invited staff to come out and look and take a walk. I also, at Sharmeen's recommendation, very well advised recommendation, you know mentioned to the developer out in the field, have an engineer's chalk line drawn so I could better see and understand what we're really talking about. Because what we were talking about was the proposal never discussed in advance. I discovered, you know I learned about it for the first time when i picked a copy up from Sharmeen's office, who by the way has been really very helpful and responsive and cooperative. That proposal put the right-of-way within 2 to 4 inches of the string of some of the oldest, tallest evergreens in Carver County, and threatened their survival. I went in to see a staff member in the planning council and he said well, yeah. Those trees would probably have to go. Well, they define the whole character of that property. Never discussed in advance so you know I think some of those things, had there been a little planning in advance, as I suggested in the last paragraph of that memo, and encourage you to look at it, who knows. We might have a win/win situation that Rich referred to there. Well, I don't want to belabor that point just that I think the record needs to be corrected, particularly on those points. I made perhaps a half a dozen initiatives on the subject of easement and never got a response. Sacchet: Appreciate your. Bob Martinka: The subject's never been brought up. Sacchet: Appreciate your sharing that with us. If I may ask you a question or two. Bob Martinka: You bet. Sacchet: I think you are accurate in that that road alignment would have significant impact onto the trees to your east. If by looking at the plat I think it's very evident that that roadway, going to the cul-de-sac of Golden Acres, Golden Glow, or what's it called? A1-Jaff: Golden Glow. Sacchet: Golden Glow Acres. Would have a significant impact on the trees. Not on your property but just across your property line to your east. And you expressed that would have a 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 significant impact on the character of your residence. Now from that I would be inclined to conclude that you do have a resistance for that roadway to go in, which I fully understand. Bob Martinka: I have resistance to making decisions and taking action without everybody with the best interest sitting down at a table and some advance information and the guidance and gradually moving towards a best mutual outcome that we can have and that opportunity has never been provided. Sacchet: Then I have another question of that. Were you aware of that road being planned when you acquired that property? Bob Martinka: No sir. Sacchet: Okay. Well that's part of the problem. Okay. Bob Martinka: You know that property is going to be developed at some point in time. They just ain't making land no more, especially in Carver County, and we're open and reasonably easy and trying to be okay folks to work with. That really has not been the process that's been used. The process that's been used you know, here's a plan. That's what we're going ahead with, or respond to it and I think if everyone were involved at the earlier stages of the process, everybody had a chance to listen, to express their thoughts, their concerns, their recommendations. Sacchet: Then part of what we're struggling with here tonight is that a lot of this planning took place what, 8 years ago. And most of the people here, actually almost all of us were not here. Bob Martinka: She gave you a short course in the background, yeah. Sacchet: Well I appreciate your coming to speak up. Thank you very much. Feik: Mr. Martinka, one question please. As a stakeholder, what would you have us do? Bob Martinka: I would have you structure a new look with this, as almost as though we were starting from the beginning because I think there are some options out there. You know Phase I, Phase II with Martinka's easement apparently being the, so. Sacchet: Sharmeen points out that you did submit a proposal from what you would encourage? Do you want to zoom in on that Nann? Yeah. A1-Jaff: This is the Martinka property. And the Christensen's are right here. What this calls for is a cul-de-sac that terminates in front of the Christensen property. A foot path, oh this is a private street. A foot path and then where the cul-de-sac bubble sits would be turned into a mini park area for the neighborhood. Sacchet: And the access of those properties to the south would stay the way it is? AI-Jaff: Correct, so they would not be able to further subdivide. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you for pointing that out Sharmeen. A1-Jaff: Sure. 50 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Bob Martinka: There's been an expression of non-interest by those two parties in developing their properties now. Obviously times change. Houses sell, etc but. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Thank you for stepping up, even though you apparently promised some people you wouldn't. We definitely wanted to hear from you. With that, unless somebody else wants to address the commission, yes. There is somebody else. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Larry Kerber: Larry Kerber, 6700, well ! own the property at 6700. I live at 6420 Powers, and the only comment I have is, I'd like to, I think I disagree with Mr. Martinka. He was well aware of this project and proposed turn around, everything when he bought the property. The person he bought it from Bob Peterson and I discussed it even when Martinka bought and I said, does he know. And Bob says oh yeah, I showed him Option E. Showed him everything. So maybe he just forgot or something. Sacchet: Based on information you have, let's not go there. I mean this is, but I appreciate yes. You made your statement, I appreciate that but I don't think we want to discuss that. That's not our scope here. Obviously we have some disconnects here and I wish people could work those out, but that's not our task here at Planning Commission. Al-Jaff: And if the Planning Commission would focus on the proposal that is before you today. Sacchet: Yeah and basically, anybody else want to address the Planning Commission here? This is still open public hearing. Last chance. I'm closing the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. And to emphasize Sharmeen's point, our task here is this proposal that's in front of us. Our task is to look at this. Does this meet the city regulations, ordinance, zoning and make a finding on that. Whether we agree with the staff. Whether it needs to be tweaked or where we go with this. That's basically the task that's in front of us as a Planning Commission. With that I would want some comments, and the group is pointing to you Rich. Feik: I'm just pointing at that end. Slagle: You know I'm not exactly sure what to say on this one to be frank with you. Actually I don't have anything to say right now. Sacchet: Okay, that's good enough. Anything more from you Kurt? Papke: It's clear there's been some breakdown in communications here, but I think the plan in front of us involves 7 lots and were there to be other alterations here, you know it doesn't sound like they would affect the 7 lots in question here. I think the developer should be given the right to proceed with what's on the table right at this time and have all these other considerations taken into account as we move forward with the rest of the development. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany, want to give it a stab? Tjornhom: You know I just agree with what happened at the other end of the table. I guess I agree with everything they said and I approve, or I think it is a good lot development and good luck. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Bethany. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: I'm in a quandary. I would be not nearly as resonant as I am if the easement that access the Martinka property out to Powers, that piece would go away and we would eliminate one more access onto Powers on a temporary basis. That would make me very comfortable with what's in front of us. I guess my question to you Matt is, we've got the proposed cul-de-sac which dead ends you know right off of the Powers coming in 100 feet or whatever it is, and then just to the south of that another, help me out, 30, 50, 60, 75 feet. Saam: That's about right. Feik: Is the gravel road to the Martinka, if I'm pronouncing it properly I hope, and then we go another 200-300 feet and we've got the private road that was ultimately to be abandoned if this could go in. I can live with the private road to the south. I would have liked to have seen some accommodations by the developer here to try to really encourage this abandonment of that one gravel road just south of the new road. Saam: Could I add two points? Feik: Please. Saam: To that for you Commissioner Feik. First of all staff is fully in support of getting rid of that gravel drive. Putting in the entire public street cul-de-sac. Having everybody come off that. We told Rich that. In fact his previously submitted plan showed that. However in discussions with him, that he told us, he wasn't able to, as you know, come to an agreement with Martinka and I think Christensen also has a stake in that easement. Without getting rid of the easement, which Martinka and Christensen have to sign off on, I don't think we can require that. We can't shut them off. Feik: I understand but now we've got a cul-de-sac that comes in 100 feet or so and then to the southwest comer of that cul-de-sac we've got a private road, which is going to skirt that cul-de- sac by about 4 feet. Sacchet: Or less. Feik: Or less. And then ultimately wander back out to Powers. Sacchet: It doesn't make sense. Feik: It doesn't make sense at all. Saam: I agree. If the residents would be willing to get rid of just even that far east portion and come off the cul-de-sac we would be in favor of that. The city. AI-Jaff: Mr. Ragatz has no control over this. Feik: I understand that. Sacchet: Yeah because Mr. Martinka is in his rights with having this easement. Anything else Bruce? Feik: No. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Alright, my turn. This is sticky, judging by how long it takes. I'm going to get real bad marks from the City Council by having such a late meeting again. Feik: We're not done. Sacchet: I know. Basically I agree with everything that's been said. I think the applicant is in his full rights to develop this. It's a proposal that's based on previous decision of City Council in terms of the private road. The wetland alteration is reasonable. Do I like it? Well, yeah I'm a tree guy and I'd like to see a little more consideration for trees, but that's not a reason to hold this up. But I do agree with Commissioner Feik. I think to have an additional access to Powers within 80 feet or less from another one existing is not acceptable and I think this would be reason to table it and ask the parties to discuss this. For the Martinka party, there are really 3 issues. One is the easement from the potential temporary cul-de-sac out to Powers. And I don't know whether legally we have a sound foundation to turn it down on that basis, but I certainly think we have a solid foundation to table this on this basis and asking the parties to work on this. Now the other two aspects that affect the Martinka property. One is that piece of property that would have to be taken for that roadway alignment, which I don't think is that big an issue. I think for the Martinka property the real issue is the road going in there and all these trees coming out, but that's a separate issue from the access onto Powers. I think it's reasonable to table it on that basis and ask that to be looked at and worked on and come back to us and we will take it from there, so that's where I'm at. Feik: I have one more quick question before we go any further. Sacchet: Go ahead. Feik: Matt, the lot block, Lot 2, Block 1 existing house, the large lot, how does that structure and how do they access when this is done to Powers? Saam: I believe they go through that gravel drive also, don't they? Rich Ragatz: Yes, it'd be the gravel drive. Saam: Yes, they also access that way. Sacchet: Through the same access as the Martinka. Saam: Yes. Sacchet: So that's a shared easement there, okay. Well yeah, good question Bruce. Any other aspects, otherwise I'd like to have a motion. Anybody dare to make a motion on this one? Bob Martinka: If you deny me I'll respect your decision but I would ask for 30 seconds. Sacchet: Okay, please come forward. We're late either way. 30 seconds go fast though. Bob Martinka: When I bought that property I was never aware of a development that would encroach on our property, nor that would jeopardize these massive evergreen trees. Of course I was aware of a cul-de-sac that borders our property and that a road someday would run through 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 there but I really, I need Larry to understand that and I need you to understand it because my veracity is kind on line. Sacchet: Appreciate, thank you. And it only took 30 seconds. I appreciate that particularly. Are we ready for a motion? Feik: I'1l move we table. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Slagle: I'll second. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat request for Burlwood Addition at Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: So we have 4 to 1. Anything you want to add? You made your position pretty clear. Papke: I think I made my comments pretty clear. Sacchet: Okay. So we see you guys in a couple weeks. 3 or more. And I think we had enough discussion on it that we know why we tabled this. I'm not going to go back into this further, and I would like to move onto our last item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL ON 8 ACRES AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A FAMILY ACTIVITY CENTER AND TOWNHOMES ON 14 ACRES ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, JOHN PRYZMUS, SWINGS. Public Present: Name Address Marlene Bentz Lois Degler 7300 Galpin Boulevard 9111 Audubon Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Feik: Sure, I'1t start. Bob, this was guided as residential. The piece that's on the east of Galpin that now is occupied by the Kwik Trip, how was that guided? Generous: It was guided for commercial, medium density residential or and parks and open space. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: Okay. How did, and were you part of the study that ultimately came up with the guiding of this. How were these two parcels differentiated from each other, particularly in light of the southern route for West 78th Street? Generous: I wasn't a participant in it but the city did not want to create commercial uses at every intersection, at every corner of every intersection and they decided that as you go west from Galpin you were going into a residential area. Feik: But we've got residential north of the Kwik Trip though as well, so the conditions are virtually identical, except this wasn't built. Generous: We had medium density to the north of the Kwik Trip. Walnut Grove, the townhouse project. Sacchet: That's medium density, yeah. Feik: And the Kwik Trip wasn't even buildable until the soil corrections were done with the extra materials from Highway 5, is that correct? The site was not buildable. Saam: They took out an interim use permit, a grading permit for like 50,000 cubic yards to be filled on that property. Feik: Right, right. Because that was significantly lower. I mean it wouldn't even have been able to be developed as commercial if left as the way it was. Saam: Probably not without the fill, no. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Any other questions? Feik: Is there any, I guess is there any compelling reason, I guess I'm having a hard time. What is the compelling reason not to rezone this? Generous: That's a legislative. It's a policy decision on the city's part. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Bethany. Tjornhom: Not right now. Sacchet: Not right now. Kurt. Papke: What is the access to this site from the school? One can envision you know a business of this nature, I mean this isn't a retail facility. This is something that's obviously catering to children so if I was a student at Bluff Creek Elementary, how would I access this site? Generous: You could cross under Highway 5 and under West 78th Street with the pedestrian underpass and then come up on the north side of West 78th Street and take that west across Galpin and then come across the street again, or you could cross at grade on Galpin. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Papke: So it would be reasonable to assume that there would be some amount of traffic, after school type traffic that might use this facility on a pedestrian or bicycle or skateboard basis or something. Generous: That would be the hope, yes. Sacchet: Point of clarification. There's sidewalk on both sides of Galpin? That's what 1 read from the plan. Saam: Yes, I believe there's trail on both sides of Galpin. West 78th however I believe there's only the trail on the north side. That is something though that could be added with, as you get into a site plan for this site, you know to add sidewalk. Sacchet: Go ahead Kurt. Papke: Okay, that was my only question. Thank you. Sacchet: Rich, your turn. Slagle: A couple questions. Bob, the parcel that is directly to the west of, let's call it the rec That's a bad word. The family whatever. Activity center. What is that? I mean I center or. know it' s. Generous: This started with right-of-way down here. This is... Slagle: I know but as you go westward, the parcel of land, you know follow. Sacchet: Let's say between the project and Highway 5. I think that's, let's stay between the frontage road and Highway 5. Generous: Yes, it's Arboretum Shopping Center. Slagle: Okay. And that is the, was that the Shell or the coffee? Generous: Yes, sure. Slagle: And the restaurant. What I'm getting at... Generous: Strip center, yeah. Slagle: And then Holiday Inn across the street. So, yeah that's on the south side. So then I go to Vasserman Ridge, if I'm not mistaken at least the first groupings of homes are twinhomes, is that correct? Generous: That's correct, yes. Slagle: So, we're suggesting, at least if I heard you right, that townhomes would not be acceptable in that area to the north of West 78th but twinhomes could be workable. Generous: Under their existing zoning ordinance, correct. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Because obviously tying that in with what's behind it. So my last question is, in that study that the City Council approved whatever year it was, at that point did they know that West 78th was going to flow the way it is? Generous: Yes, that was determined as part of that study was the alignment. Slagle: Okay. With that being said then, if I hear you right you're suggesting in that area, that this family activity center is currently proposed for, you would envision homes with a Kwik Trip on one side, Highway 5 on the other, or on another side. I mean within I'm going to say 40 yards. Generous: That was what the study came up with in the land use recommendations. Slagle: I just want to be clear about that. Okay. Sacchet: Alright, I've got a few questions too. Page 5 of the staff report. The city will encourage the development of the neighborhood services center where appropriate. The proposed development would not perform as a neighborhood service center but a community wide attraction. Are we saying we don't want a community wide attraction? Generous: At this intersection? That's what the Highway 5 study said, no we don't. Sacchet: Why? Generous: Traffic. We don't want to have every comer with commercial. Sacchet: Traffic, is there a better place then next to a freeway? I mean a highway or whatever we call Highway 5. Generous: Well no, that's where you want traffic to be. Sacchet: Yeah, I'm just asking. I'm not trying to pin you down Bob. The proposed development would reduce the potential number of dwelling units in the city. We're talking about how many units that we would lose? Generous: 15. Sacchet: 15, okay. Policy requires that the development scenario proposed for the property strive to preserve and enhance the Bluff Creek corridor. The current proposal does not adequately protect the Bluff Creek corridor. Besides doing a delineation study, what else? I mean can you give me a little bit of an idea of what we're shooting for. Generous: Well we'd probably have to find out where it is and meeting the setback. Doing the plantings, things like that. Sacchet: Sounds like a good idea. So design standards would need to be developed and all that. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Design standards would have to be in place for a concept PUD to be gone through? Generous: No for, that's the next step. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: That's the next step. Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. We're asking that the access from West 78th Street is 600 feet away from Galpin. But then we ask that the access on Galpin is only 300 feet away from 78th. It's an engineering question Matt. I just was wondering, the logic doesn't seem to add up quite right for me. I mean 78th is less busy than Galpin. It seems like if anything it should be the other way around. People want offset on the Galpin side than on the 78th side, right? Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: So is there a reason why it's this way? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: And the reason is? Saam: Galpin is a collector and the code says 600 feet or you line them up. However access to this parcel couldn't happen. There isn't 600 feet of separation. Sacchet: So it can't be done so. Saam: Yeah, I mean remember we are recommending that that not be allowed. However, ultimately it would be a county decision. MnDot would have input in there. We would probably defer to them. Feik: They would, if allowed they would probably say right-in/right-out. Saam: Well yeah, they're not going to open that median. That would be the only thing it could be, yeah. Sacchet: Now it seems like the crux of this whole matter in front of us is that, and it said at least 3-4 times, the proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation. If we would recommend approval to the land use map amendment, that would bring it into compliance, right? I mean that's basically. Generous: Well that's part of it. Those other, policy issues would still be in place but we could find... Sacchet: We can, okay. So really the question in front of us is, is this consistent with the comprehensive plan or not. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And based on the findings that you explained, this was guided as residential, even though it's between frontage road and highway, and on both sides however we have commercial. Okay. In terms of the concept PUD. What exactly is needed for a concept PUD? Can you help me out. 58 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Generous: Well general size of the development, layout of housing, number of dwelling units. Sacchet: Now does the layout have to be somewhat accurate or can it be so so? Generous: Well, it's only a concept. Usually they try to put everything in there at the concept stage and then you bring it down to what would work. Sacchet: Because we've had one concept PUD in front of us where I was really disappointed how so so it was. It was a very big one as I recall most of us were here. This one is at least as so so as that other one. Not to be derogatory but, so let me see. Do I have other questions? No, I think that's enough questions for now. Would the applicant want to tell us their view of what's in front of us here. We'd like you to come forward and state your name and address for the record and let us hear what you have to say. Tom Goodrum: Thanks Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tom Goodrum. I work with Schoell and Madsen representing John Pryzmus, the property owner. Address is 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota. It's 11:00 so I know it's running late and I'll try to be brief on this. Sacchet: Appreciate that. Tom Goodrum: Actually a former city planner myself so we had a policy in the city I worked at, that things should stop at 11:00 because decisions are kind of weary after that. Sacchet: Well our curfew starts at 10:30 isn't it, if I remember right, so we... Tom Goodrum: So I'm very aware of what's before you tonight but we do have a guide plan change. These things are important. They're big issues. As I said, I was a previous planner. I know zoning requirements and comp plan amendments. I also worked for the Met Council, take it the way you want it, but comp plans are a big deal for me and I take them seriously. And so in doing this plan I was very considerate and concerned and that is an appropriate use for this property. I appreciate the comments made by the Planning Commission before I came up here. It makes my presentation a lot easier if I could jump on those right before I jump into some of the more details of plans. I think you're right. It's a 1995 was when the City Council looked at this. That was 8 years ago. We had a previous discussion before here, 7 years ago that many of these decisions are made. Can they be changed? Of course they can be changed. There's a lot of time inbetween, a lot of things happen. Actually when you're looking as somebody else has mentioned, commercial on four corners. Is that something that we wanted and no, if we don't want commercial on four corners. To the south we have a rec center. We have residential to the south. We have commercial on one corner on that piece of property, so I don't see where there's a concern or an issue with that one part of it so I appreciate the person bringing that comment up. I used the connection with the school I think is also very important part. That's what the focus of this project is. It's the family center. It's one where it supports a neighborhood. It fits in well with the neighborhood. It fits in well with the rec center. There's two different activities going on out there. You have the ball fields, the soccer fields, the rink at the rec center. Here you have a different type of activity, but still family oriented. Indoor gold ranges, the BMX, the outdoor golf thing. It's something I saw, and as I looked at this is where they compliment each other. I have kids. They're all in sports. You bring a child over to the soccer game. The other two are bored stiff. Want something to do so you're trying to entertain them. This is a place to go with them .... back in 1995. We have to look at today's market and today's land uses. Other items that were brought forward was, the Bluff Creek requirements and if there's some, and I made a 59 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 note of this too in my prepared presentation and a lot of comments in the staff report on the Bluff Creek requirements. We had conversations with city staff, Lori Haak and other members of the staff on what those requirements are and we're very conscience and aware of how to, how our plan fits in those. The environmental issues on this site is a delineated wetland. That has been done. So we know the constraints and we're showing our setbacks and we're meeting those. That's a wetland in the northwest comer, and I represent that. The only other significant environmental issue is the Bluff Creek that runs north of the property. There's nothing on the property up to that north property line. It's pretty vacant. John planted some trees and that's the only trees on the property so talking to Lori, talking to staff, looking at the site, code requires a 40 foot setback from the primary zone. We have a sanitary easement running across that property line. That's 80 feet wide so at close we're getting 80 feet from Bluff Creek. Twice the size of the normal standards. There's no real reason to move the primary, secondary zone into the site. There's nothing there to protect. That zone and staff had agreed in conversations should be established around the tree line. 40 feet from there or 80 feet. So we are very conscience. We prepared for that. I know it's concept but we put a lot of effort into this concept because as Bob said, this is the first stage. If we don't get past this, it's dead in the water so this is important to us and it needs to be shown that we put some thought, we put some effort and we are concerned of staff's issues. So with that I'll briefly go over a couple of things that were said. This site was designed to be developed, with the developments occurring, and I'll just give you some quick thoughts on what's on our mind set going through the development process of this. That was, we are respective of what's happening around us. The site, with the activity center being in this corner, we purposely moved it as far, or as close to this intersection as possible. The reason we did that, because we see this as everybody else does, as a transition from the medium density and the school property. We have housing up in here. It's a transition piece from the highway. With the building, the activity moved to this comer, we have an outdoor golf area here. Outdoor golf area here. The parking moved, or this area. The building, and as you've seen before, it's a very attractive building and it was designed with an architect to meet the corridor architectural standards. So we have looked at that and so we hope to, and this is the representation of this is looking from the north to Galpin, 78th Street intersection, looking into that site so people driving down 78th Street to their residential homes, this is what they'll see, and we believe it's a good site to look at. It's very pleasing to the eye and it will be the same look along Highway 5 too. But by putting this to this corner, the second reason for doing that is that we're leaving this open space here. We wanted to preserve as much open space as possible to help with that transition. We know this is an issue. We have residential over here. We have an activity center over here. We wanted space. We want to provide for that. Allow for how the landscaping we desire to go into this piece to break that item up. Also there's a building, acts as a physical barrier. The property acts as a buffer, a transition period between the Highway 5 and the residential area. The building itself acts as a physical barrier. It's an attractive building. Tucking the outdoor, the only outdoor activity on this site is away from the residential facilities. There are some possibilities of batting cages and a skate park. Again, they'll be this side of the building. Those haven't been decided yet. So with the activities, the buildings screening those, everything else is inside. It's a completely enclosed activity center so the impact to this, the residential area is going to be minimal. And I'll step to the traffic issue that was brought up and why we're looking at these streets in a little bit. So to follow along with our thinking, we're moving up to the northern area for the residential area. Again transition. Always thinking transition. Townhomes of this size are similar in size and character as what you have at the Vasserman Ridge. Because of the lot issues, the size, the shape of the lot, we just couldn't work with the twinhomes on this property, and we also had a difficult time seeing these high end twinhomes sitting on a piece of property that you have commercial, medium or higher density in this comer. You have a lot of restrictions on the property with the sewer easement setback and the wetland, so again we have higher traffic on a collector street here, collector street here. It's a busy comer. We needed to make that 6O Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 transition of property. We just don't see the upper end townhomes that you see over here working on this corner. Because of the narrowness of the lot, the smaller row houses, the townhomes made a real nice transition so we're moving from transitioning again from building units over here with 4 to 6 units, building, moving down to 4 units, single story moving down to twinhomes and transition to twinhomes. It's something that we see as phasing and pleasant to the eye and it's an easy transition to make. Working with the road alignment. I did have a discussion with Matt early on the project, again trying to put our concept together and make them work. We were looking at 300 feet and another separation. That conversation's in the early stage. We didn't have any plans but it was said that 300 feet is an okay separation. Things must have changed when site plans came in front of the staff and they had another chance to look at it, but what we want to do again twice, to do with two rows. One, higher traffic with the townhomes, even though there's only 12 of them there with the activity center. Keep that traffic near the intersection. We're 300 feet away .... happening in this area. The people are not impacting the larger single family homes in this area over here. The second access, the three twin homes. It's separates a dividing line on the north property. It separates the twin homes that transition to the other twin homes. There's not a lot of traffic there. Having a second access we see, instead of having all the traffic stuck in this corner, to keep it closer to Galpin...their own private access. They'll keep the traffic movement easier. Less confusion with the townhomes and activity center, and also I want to get at something that was brought up. Sorry I'm talking fast but I know the lateness of the hour, but there are a lot of issues that need to be brought up. Again the separation question came up and someone on the commission brought that, why 300 or 600 here and 300 here and I also pointed that out when I went through the staff report because here, they're both collectors. They're both serve the same function. We have a 300 feet for this service road that's going to serve between these two. They're okay with 300 feet if the county approves it along this item, so there you have an approved 300 feet along the busier street in this area, and we're jumping to 600 feet for the less used traffic area. Again a little conflict in the report and again we probably need some clarification on why we need to do that. We think our plan is better served for this development and for this area. I'm skipping around here so I've got to take a look at my, but another item or area I wanted to touch on and that was the whole issue with the loss of single family homes in this area and what this does. The staff report points out that there's going to be 33 homes that they perceived to be on this site and with only 18 showing, we're down 15. Now 15's not a lot but staff had brought up that, several times in the report that it's something that should be a concern. Also in the report though it talks about the size requirements for lots and the single family home is 15,000 square feet. The twin homes, you have a minimum of 10,000 square feet. You do the math, it's 33 twin homes, that's 660,000 square feet of land that you need to meet those zoning requirements. We only have 610,000 square feet of total parcel so physically it's not possible and that doesn't count the streets that need to be placed and it doesn't count the setbacks or other zoning requirements. Not only talk fast but I draw fast too. Here what we're showing is low density residential, 15,000 square feet lots. Minimum 125 foot depth. This is what you could do on this site as a quick sketch. You've got 13 single family homes there. We're proposing 18. We're saying that our development's 18. Matches what could physically be done under low density residential. To go any higher than 13, 14, 15 lots is going to require a PUD concept plan. Same type of stuff we're looking at today but right now under current zoning, current guiding, you don't get 33. You get 18 and we're, or around 18 and we're proposing that same number so we are looking at not losing any density. Keeping the same amount of other density that was, that could be developed there under current code. Plus as Bob had noted in his report with the comp plan, he had several comments or notes from the comp plan. The tax base and the quality housing. We're keeping the same number of housing. We're bringing in a commercial tax base. We are hitting both of those standards as noted in the comprehensive plan. Several other items in the comprehensive plan, I won't touch on them but were also mentioned and I believe that you look at it the same way, we get two different answers. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 ...that's meeting all of those comp plan amendments so the quality of life, we don't see low density housing being equal or the same as other low density housing in the area, as noted in the, as...the comprehensive plan. The tax base one again. A couple other issues brought up in the staff report I just want to clarify or clear up. First I was a little discouraged when I read that they compared this to another part of the comp plan and it was referenced in here as comparing this to a neighborhood service center, and later in the plan it notes that commercial service center is a gas station or convenience store, that type of use, and activity center is more closely related to the recreational facility across the street. So I don't know where that designation came from. I hope that, we're not a gas station. Sacchet: We gather that. Tom Goodrum: Okay, so on the last one I'll touch on is a concern of future use. With the PUD and if it's commercial what happens if this sells and somebody else moves in. That's the beauty of the PUD and that's why we like it with this plan, because we know that's a concern. With the PUD, with the city approves it, they can make any stipulation they want with that PUD resolution. We adopt it as a PUD, the only uses on this property should be recreational facility, residential, institutional, office. Whatever you say you want. You have that ability so the issue or the concern of future land uses should be resolved with the PUD process. Again as other things, the comment on the staff report's comments, but I'm not going to go there. I think you get the idea. Sacchet: Appreciate that. Tom Goodrum: Thank you. That's in a nutshell.. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. Any questions from the applicant here to the north? Kurt. Papke: I have a question about the specific concept plan information that you provided. This is a 60,000 square foot facility. But you seem to have very ambitious goals for what you'll contain in that 60,000 square feet. You list an indoor miniature golf course, golf reality, batting cages, skate park, BMX, go carting, swimming pool, all these things to fit in this space would have to be pretty small or maybe I'm not doing my math right. Can you maybe give us just a little more color as to what the actual contents might be and the size of them? Or haven't you gotten that far in your planning stage yet? Tom Goodrum: I'll let John but we have looked at all those different items and John's the master mind with this and I'll let him speak. John Pryzmus: I can maybe help you out a little bit there. It's still in the concept phase but, oh my name is John Pryzmus and I live in Villard, Minnesota. As far as the two rings on the plan here. The inner ring is high walls. You need the high walls for the batting cages, the golf reality, the children's play area like say a McDonald's type thing. A double story indoor miniature golf course. Those things will be in the inside. The go cart track will be on the outer ring which will be a lower part and that's when you see the building you have all the windows, it's all glass around the whole building, and you'll see this lower area. You don't need the same height for go cart tracks, BMX racing, as you would say, and some of the things that we're going to do, we're going to change it out. Like in this wing coming in here, we could have an indoor skateboard park but we'd maybe only have it for 3 days a week, and we could raise it up because the ceiling's would be like 26 feet high. So I mean there's going to be a lot of engineering that's 62 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 going to go into this. The swimming area will be in the L-shaped area by the Highway 5. And that whole eastern wing will be more for the young children with birthday parties and that type of thing. There will be activity center for young adults, maybe 2 nights a week. You know I don't want it to be like a teen center per se, but a couple nights a week that might be fine. I'm not sure there's going to be a couple upscale outdoor miniature golf courses and possibly a netted, if we could screen it well enough, a golf practice area. Just indoors, I'm not going to be as big as Pat Ryan's golf reality, but we'll have 4 screens. I won't be as big as Grand Slam with batting cages, but we'll have 4 indoor, maybe 4 outdoor. You know I won't be a one issue thing, but the skateboard park, we could have maybe an outdoor one, maybe an indoor one. There's going to be some new innovative things that my customers have come up with. Possibly a human, a foosball court and they play it up at the church deal up by Brainerd. I have to go look at it but hire a consultant to do this. And I'm not sure, there's a lot of things that will change throughout this process but it's going to be for family fun, but geared to sports. It's not going to be like a health club type thing or that so. That just gives you, and I don't know exactly how it's all going to be working out. Sacchet: So you're still working out the details basically? John Pryzmus: Yeah, we'll work out all the details. This is just to get this approved if we, to not go any further but then I'll be spending a lot of time bringing in architects to design the golf courses and design the, all the different things we'll have to be very upscale. Tom Goodrum: Commissioner Papke, to address your question directly, the reason we're able to be this flexible and have these different options is because the building is going to be a multi- purpose, the walls be able to move, shift around so we're going to be able to do a lot of different things, at the same time or different times. That's why we are able to bring so many items to you as a potential on the site. Sacchet: Question from the applicant? Feik: No. Sacchet: Question from the applicant? Quick question from the applicant. Outdoor activities, just want to clarify. You mentioned all the open space to the northwest that is. Tom Goodrum: That's correct. Sacchet: That area would have outdoor activities? Tom Goodrum: No. Sacchet: Not at this point. So outdoor activities are really just on the other side? South and east. Tom Goodrum: We're looking for the outdoor activities...but we're keeping it down by the highway. Keeping that open space between... Sacchet: Just want to be clear about that. Okay. And just a comment about your assumption about the Bluff Creek. The fact that there is sewer in there doesn't give an indication where the Bluff Creek primary is. Unfortunately we do have city sewer in primary Bluff Creek, as far as I know in some places, so just a word of caution there. With that, this is a public hearing. Thank you very much for your presentation. This is a public hearing. I'd like to open the public 63 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 hearing. Anybody want to come forward and address this item, this is your turn. Please come forward. State your name and address and let us know what you have to say. And considering the late hour I'm not going to wait very long. Nobody stands up, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners. Comments from commissioners. Slagle: I have a quick question for staff. Sacchet: Go ahead. Stagle: Are we, and maybe the question is, are we able to hypothetically approve a land use change for what I'll call the property to the south side, and not approve the PUD for mixed development on the north? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Slagle: Sacchet: The answer is yes. I heard that. That's it. That's the only question I have. Only question? Slagle: Yep. Sacchet: Alright. Slagle: No. Well we're actually to comments. Do you want to add some cormnents? Sacchet: We're going to go down this line then. Give it a try, Kurt please. Papke: Okay. I'm not conceptually opposed to this. I think even though this is zoned residential at this point, I think that the use that's being proposed on the south piece of the property here, it makes some sense. ! mean if you look at what's surrounding it and the viability of putting in lower density residential in here, I think there's some logic to where things are going here so I'm not totally opposed to this. Sacchet: Alright, not totally opposed. Bethany. Tjornhom: I'm going to say what I wrote down I guess for my thoughts for this. It's getting late and ! don't want to ramble. Part of my decision is if I'm going to follow the city's comprehensive plan, which I guess as a planning commissioner I'm supposed to do? Sacchet: Well the question in front of us is, do we want to make an amendment to that. That's the big question. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Correct Bob? Generous: That's the number one issue. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Tjornhom: Okay. And so part of that then encompasses the protection of the Bluff Creek corridor. Now was that addressed enough to where everyone feels comfortable that yes, it would be protected and it would be okay, or is that still a question that's not answered? Sacchet: According to the staff report it's not sufficiently answered. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Correct Bob? Generous: Right. That, in moving forward that would be one of the primary things that we look at and further filling out the development. Tjornhom: And that's a big thing? Generous: Yes. Tjornhom: Okay. And then another thought of mine is, you know putting low density in a high traffic area, which it has become now. That doesn't make sense to me. I guess I love low density but I just don't see a nice low density development going in there, at least I wouldn't want to live there, on Highway 5. And then I guess one thing I have is what is best for the community? You know would this be well served by everybody in the community, so I don't have any comments. ! guess just questions I don't know how to answer. Sacchet: Well you made comments, thank you very much. Bruce. Feik: I look at this as an opportunity to really I think correct a zoning, an underlying zoning, particularly on the south side of West 78a~ Street. I've looked at this up West 78th one way and down the other and quite frankly Bob, I don't get it. I really don't get why this was zoned as it is and I think it was, I think in hindsight, not knowing what went into it, ! think it was an error and I look at this as an opportunity to correct that error. Sacchet: Anything about the concept PUD? Feik: Well generally I like everything on the plan. I understand it's rough. I understand that the applicant is reluctant to probably spend a great deal of money developing something if it's going to get shot right down. It doesn't make any sense for us to ask our residents to do that kind of stuff so I think at this point, it's cobbled together here a little bit in a way that I think I can get my arms around it and visualize it. I like the way it steps back. I like the scale of the road with the higher roof lines, you know interior to the space. I like it. Sacchet: Alright, thank you much. Slagle: I'll just add that, as witnessed by my question, I'm fairly comfortable with approving a land use change, if we're allowed to, on the southerly portion south of West 78~. I'm not in favor of the current proposal to the north, for a couple of reasons. Another thought that I would throw out for us to consider is, if this was to go forward and give underlying conceptual, is what would be the hours of a place like this. I think you've got to be concerned when you're talking batting cages and miniature golf and. Papke: Go cart tracks. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Go cart, well I think that's inside. But you never know, they could put a door and it goes outside. So anyway. Sacchet: Don't worry about it now, we're not there yet. Slagle: That's sort of what I'm thinking. So I would support southerly, not north. Sacchet: Alright. My comment. I'm in full favor of the land use amendment. I do not think that low residential makes any sense in this corner between a highway and two collector roads. I think it's a no brainer that part, really. I mean I can't figure out why anybody would want to make that low density, or residential for that matter. Any kind of residential. Even if it's high density. ! mean would you want to live there on that comer between two major roads on every side? Plus it's consistent. We have between a frontage road and between Highway 5 we have commercial on both sides, so ultimately I think that's a no brainer. I would however want to specify that this land use amendment applies to that part between West 78th and Highway 5 because that's where that takes place. Now, the other part, the concept PUD and I think, I appreciate your comment Bruce that for concept we can't really expect somebody to go way out and go through all the details and the investment and all that. As a concept ! support this, that there would be medium density to the north. However, I don't think it's cooked yet. I think that part is far from cooked. We don't even know where the Bluff Creek primary zone starts and the secondary is, and as I mentioned, where the sewer line is, that's absolutely no indication of that unfortunately. I wish it were. So that needs to be looked at. I mean that part needs to be worked at so I'm a little bit in a quandary in terms of the concept PUD. If the concept PUD just means that there is medium density or what we call that up to the north side of West 78th, ! would say I'm in full favor of it. If it means that it starts looking at in more detail in terms of how many accesses, whether it's four~plexes or duplexes, how close they are to Bluff Creek, I would say I wouldn't be able to support it at this point. So I don't know, whether you can help me out Bob. I mean I've been struggling with that concept PUD thing before. Generous: Right and the outcome of a concept PUD is you're supposed to provide the parameters for the person to go forward. So what are the issues they need to address or finalize to make it work for you. Sacchet: So if in your opinion the 20 points that you've put together as the alternative proposal, you didn't number them. It's 20. Does that sufficiently guide somebody to work on this as a concept PUD? Generous: Direction and if you have like the direction that you like the concept of stepping back the roof lines, that would be another item that we can incorporate as we develop design standards. Sacchet: Well and my answer with that, I would be able to support also the concept PUD frankly. So that's where I'm at. Any more comments? If not I'd like to get a motion. Yes, one more comment Kurt? Papke: There was some discussion before with the loss of residential property. You know I'm a reasonably new commissioner but on the other hand I've been around long enough to remember just a month or two ago we had the opposite concern with the property across from the Crosby Park development where there was a proposal to take something that was zoned residential and do commercial. So we can't say well we can't change anything both directions. There would be, this is definitely beneficial to the city tax base so I don't think there's any issue with that. 66 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Alright. Anybody want to try to make a motion here please. Feik: I'll try. Sacchet: Okay, give it a shot. Feik: Based upon what I'm hearing from the rest of the commissioners here, and I don't think this is exactly what the applicant was looking for but I think it might be a step in the right direction if that works for them. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use map amendment from residential to low density. Excuse me, from residential low density to commercial on the southerly portion. On the portion south of West 78t~ Street. Sacchet: A second? Papke: Second. Sacchet: Friendly amendment. We would add since the staff report really doesn't back up that recommendation, I would like to add something like because it's consistent with surrounding USES. Feik: A little more broad than that even. Consistent with uses along the West 78th corridor. Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable? Feik: It works for me. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: You know that other point about the error is good to put in there too. Feik: Oh, and sure. Comma. Sacchet: Well, I would caution about that one. Let's stay away from that. Feik: You can have that in your address to the City Council for me. Sacchet: I would stay away from that in the official wording. We have a motion, we have a second, we have a friendly amendment. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Low Density to Commercial on the portion of land south of West 78th Street because it is consistent with the uses along the West 78th Street corridor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Feik: I have a motion, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD, review for a mixed use development including a family activity center on the portion south of West 78th Street period. Slagle: Then how do you tie in the mixed use? Point of clarification. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: Well I think by, oh, oh, oh. It would not be a mixed use. So let me rephrase that. Let's strike mixed use. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept planned unit development PUD review for a family activity center on the portion south of West 78th Street. Slagle: We're going to be able to... Generous: Yes. Slagle: Second. Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? No? No conditions on it? Feik: Oh, excuse me. Yes, conditions as stated below. Except some of them are residential. Sacchet: Most of them are mixed use oriented, aren't they? Slagle: Can we table that part? Sacchet: Yes we can, but we have a motion. The motion would have to be withdrawn. Feik: Is that enough to go to council to give the applicant a clear signal so that he can move forward if he chooses to? Sacchet: Yeah, I think tabling wouldn't be bad idea. Slagle: Point of clarification. Isn't, if I may, isn't the intent of our motion that we just passed, to really address just the land use. I mean he could be bringing us whatever. Sacchet: It could be a bowling alley. Slagle: Yeah, exactly so I guess what I'm getting at is, we deal with the land use and then the applicant can further refine. Feik: So you want to table the PUD? Sacchet: With the hope that we get a little more frame around it from staff as well as from the applicant because staff basically worked very hard on the premise that the land use would be denied. The land amendment would be denied, so I think the reason to table could be to have staff work it from the other end. Feik: Do you mind if I ask the applicant if that would cause undue hardship or if you would like us to review that. Slagle: I don't think it matters. Sacchet: You could ask, as long as we get a real brief answer. Feik: Real brief. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Are you under time pressure John? Feik: Table the PUD portion. Approve the land use amendment portion to give you time to work out additional details on the family fun center so that we have something a little bit more to review. Tom Goodrum: We'd like to, I understand what you mean you need more information on the concept but we did want to move forward. We've already spent a lot of money on addressing the concept plan .... before the City Council to see if it's okay... Feik: Well we've got that already recommended. John Pryzmus: ...if we want to do something with the batting cage we could do that at a later date, is that what you're saying? Sacchet: Did you want to add something Matt? Saam: I was just going to add, you had said staff worded the staff report for denial. We did include conditions just in case you did so all those conditions kind of address what our concerns were. Sacchet: And I think they're well taken those, but he didn't include those in his motion. Feik: Well not yet, but I'm not maybe done. Maybe we have to include those. Sacchet: Maybe you could say those that apply. Feik: You know they work. They work. They're not specific to mixed use so far. Sacchet: Most of them apply. Feik: I generally would, let's include all of them unless you want to delete one or two specifically under a friendly amendment, I'm going to include all of them. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion with all these conditions. Do we have a second to the motion with all these conditions? Did we get a second yet to this? Slagle: I have a point of clarification. Sacchet: Clarification first. Slagle: Are you concerned at all about, even though it's a conceptual PUD that the northerly parcel, without, I shouldn't say. Feik: No. Slagle: You're not concerned about it? Feik: No because quite frankly that could develop independently with either this applicant. This applicant could sell it. It could go a variety of ways. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Would have to be subdivided. Feik: Could have to be subdivided. It's going to be platted and everything else, and then we've also got additional road issues which with potentially two accesses that have to get worked out. Sacchet: Can we on one piece of property have a PUD for one half the property? That is not the other part of it. Generous: You can and actually there's two properties here. When MnDot took that road they created two parcels. Sacchet: So it is two properties. We're fine then. Okay. Feik: It's a winner. Slagle: Second. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Everybody in favor. Oh, do we need to tweak anybody? Yes, I do have a tweak. In those conditions 1 through 20. There's a lot of would's and one should. They should be shall or will. Not should or would. Should or would is neither here nor there. Okay. Is that acceptable? Feik: That's acceptable and I think I have one more. With the applicant shall, l'm looking at the rendering you know, work to have a, how do I want to say it? You step back roof lines or something reasonably consistent with the rendering, as far as the. Sacchet: Yeah, this will come back. This is just concept. Feik: So that's it. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a family activity center, subject to the following conditions: The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. The Bluff Creek corridor primary and secondary zone boundaries will need to be determined and surveyed. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek Overlay district boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek have historically been included within the primary zone. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 3. o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A minimum 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement will be required on all public utilities outside of the public right-of-way. All buildings must be outside any existing or proposed easements. Accept points to West 78th Street, a designated collector route, shall be limited to one access on both the north and south side of the street. The access location must be offset a minimum of 600 feet from Galpin Boulevard, and the north/south access shall be aligned in the same location. A MnDot and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. The proposed access onto Galpin Boulevard will not be allowed in it's current location. The access will need to be offset a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection of West 78th Street. City approval of the access location will still be contingent upon MnDot and Carver County approval of the proposed access. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. The applicant will be required to pay park donation fees pursuant to city ordinance. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections from the site to adjacent trail and sidewalks. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 10 feet) must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. The creek and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 71 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 18. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78a~ Street. 19. The developer wilt need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 20. Development will require a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 21. The applicant shall incorporate stepped back roof lines as presented in the renderings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Comments for council. In summary we are in favor of this whole thing. We think it's a good concept. We'd like to. Feik: On the family fun center. Sacchet: The family fun center on the south of 78th Street. We'd like to see a little more diligence with the portion that is proposed as medium density or what's call to the north. In terms of delineating the Bluff Creek and see what really fits in every which way, but we are very clear on the south side. That it fits and it's a good use and we support it. Any additions to that? No additions to that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 2, 2003 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72