The URL can be used to link to this page

1g Approval of MinutesFEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:0~ p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. and Councilman Peterson , CQI~q(~IL MEMBEI~ AB~F. Rr: Couucilma- Lundquist ~TAFF PRES~: Todd Gerhardt, Roger I~nutson, ~ustin Miller, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson, Lori Haak, Todd Hofftmn, and Steve Torell PIJ'BJH(~ PRF~ENT: Amanda Bennes Jessie Oran Dana Duce Melissa Gilman Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Ron & Denise Saatzer Dana Muller Deb Kind Jill Shipley Becky Olson 1440 Meadow Court 744 Ashley Drive 14304 County Road 43 Chanhassen Villager 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 9450 Foxford Road 8850 Sunset Trail 2351 Lukewood Drive 97 Cascade Circle PUBLIC ANNQUNCEMENT~: PRF-qENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD~ CHANHA,~EN REPRESENTATIVE TO THF. MINNETONKA COMMIyNITY EDI~(~ATIQN ~RVI~_.~ BOARD, ANN 0 0RN . Mayor Furlong: Ann, on behalf of the City Council and the City of Chanhassen, we'd like to present you the Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award. This is a recognition that's bestowed uixm individuals who have performed a minimum of 5 years of volunteer service on behalf of the Chanhassen community. Your 17 years of dedicated service as a Chanhassen representative for the Minnetonka Community Education and Services Advisory Board more than qualifies you as a deserving recipient for this award. Ann; thank you for your hard work and commi~t while working on behalf of all Chanhassen residents. Your contributions mad_e it possible for thousands of Chanhassen residents to access the varied programs offered by the Minnetonka Community Education Services. We are especially proud that you served as Board President and on it's executive board for several times over the years. We hope you enjoy your retirement from the board and look forward to your continued involvement in the community. Thank you. Ann Osborne: Good evening. The main thing I guess I would like to say is that I've loved serving the community of Chanhas~n. I think that the work done by Community Education and Services adds much to our community. The programs we have just.add a great deal and I'm very proud to have served the community in thi.~ way and hope to continue to support the activities in City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 the community. It's a wonderful community to support and Fve loved living in Chanhassen now over 30 years so it's special. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: The only other public announcement I have is to let people be aware that the, we are still acce~g applications for various commissions through the end of thig week. Through February 28 . I think them are openin~ on most, if not all the commissions. There are seats opening up so I would encourage people lxa'e and watching at home to considex getting involved on a commission level. The applications, you can access it through the web site. There are applications there, or at city hall, or if you're looking for more information, feel free to call city hall and you'll be directed to the approl~ate staff person that can give you more information about the various commissions. CONSENT AG~A: approve the following recommendations: Councilman Peterson moved, Comldlman Labatt seconded to consent agenda items Imr~unt to the City Mansger's a. Approval of Adaptive ~on Services Contract. c. Approval of F. anergency Repairs to Lift Station No. 24, F'de PW055X. d. Resolution #2003-24: Accept Utility Improvements for Knob Hill 2~ Addition, Proj~ 02-06. Resolution 4K2003-25: Accept Utility l ,mprovements for American Legion Site, Project 02-05. g, Approval of Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids, Lake Susan Regional Pond Reconstruction. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Executive Session 1VFmutes doted January 27, 2003 - City Council Executive Session Minutes dated February 10, 2003 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 10, 2003 - City Council Minutes dated February 10, 2003 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2003 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VI$ITQR PRESENTATIONS: Ron Saatzer: We're just, I guess we were advised to come up here and meet in front of the council members about, talking about our driveway addition that we tried to get granted before the Planning Commission. And talked to a council member and he said that I should, we should corae and present something to you today so I don't know exactly what it is that we need to present in front of you, unless you guys probably already know some of it so. Mayor Furlong: Well I think, I guess from a history standpoint, this was an item on our agenda last meeting. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Ron Saatzen Correct. Mayor Furlong: So I guess at this point one of the issues, well the issue was you brought it before the Planning Commission. As I un~ it they denied it and then the cotmeil moved to deny the action last meet as well so, I mean if there's some information that you'd like to share, since you weren't at that meeting. Ron Saatzer. Yeah, we were out of town and we, I don't think we got, when we were out of town we didn't get the letter in time so we formal out when we got back that we should just come and present some of the views so I don't know if I need to present my ease. My same circnm~ce that I presented in front of the Planning Commission and just tell you what we think or what we've decided. Denise Saatze~. Is it a pretty much a moot point at this point? Mayor Furlong: I guess what I would suggest is why don't you explain to us your situation and we'll see what, if anything can be done. Ron Saatzer. Okay. We have a, we moved in last May, not even a year ago and we had called and talked to somebody at the city about turning our driveway inw a little circular driveway and running it through the woods that were there. We're on a comer lot and somebody at the city had told me, and engineering depamnent or whatever that they can have two accesses so we ended up doing it. A landscaping friend of mine ended up going ahead and doing it and we just put a class V circular part in there. And then I came in front of, got a letter. Came in front of the city Planning Commission and showed them pictures and what we were trying to do and we just were basically cleaning up the residence and what we have around there. We didn't really have any discrepancies from any of the city, any of the neighbors, and did kind of do my due diligence. Looking around the neighborhood and found out that there's probably a good dozen people that have two entrances on their lots, whether it's going back to a pole barn or some kind of a shed or what have you so. Because we are on a comer lot, when we back out, at night it's very hard. There's a lot of long driveways back there, but going back, we're kind of, there's a, it's a slight hill there and in the winter ~ we have 4 children and in the winter time it's kind of hard to see people coming up and over the hill and coming down at us so it's a lot easier for us to just back out of our driveway and exit out this little circular parc Denise Saatzer. So I think what we basically did is, he made a phone call He got what he thought was the A-okay. We're new in the City of Chanhassea. Put this driveway, the regular exit comes in on Foxford Road. The new one comes out on Eastland Court Ron Saatzen Eastwood Court. Denise Saatzer: Eastwood Court, which there's about, I think there's 4 houses on Eastwood Court. It's a cul-de-sac. We thought what we were doing was okay. Somebody must have driven by and realized that we did this and said something and unbeknownst to us, I guess whether we weren't supposed to do it. We had already landscaped. Kind of done everything. It's safe. It's not, there's no shrubs. It's really not bothering anybody. The new outlet comes onto the cul-de-sac. And so now they're kind of telling us we need to pull it out. So we're just here to try to find out what the reasoning might be for that and if there's any possible way that we can keep it. It's a safety issue for our kids. We axe on a comer. When we do back out of our long driveway, traffic comes along the comer them. We were trying to avoid some of that. And City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 it looks really nice. We very upgraded you know the area without I think any detriment to anybody else so we just wanted to, you know, let you know that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. I think since the action was, or there was a motion taken to deny the variance at the last meeting, it would have to come up as a motion to reconsider I believe would be corre~ and tonight would be that time to do it. As far as the time on the agenda to, would that come under old business or unfinished business or can it come up under new business? Roger Knutson: I would think nnfinisbed business ff you wanted to bring it up there. Denise Saatzer:. We do have some photos if anybody's interested. I don't know what you saw before. We do have some photos and we could show you a little bit more what we did so anybody who wants to undemand, and see the safety issues or the reasoning behind it, tt~'re welcome to know or see the photos. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Maybe we can, if we go forward. Are there any, FI1 just given the situation, are there any questions quickly so. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to ask council a question. Could we, and would it make more sense. I recollect the way I voted the first time and I had all the information in front of me. And since you were out of town and so on, Fm wondering is it possible to put it on the next agenda or must we deal with it this evening? Fd like to m-visit the material or is that an inappropriau~ reque~ Roger Knutson: Procedurally if you wanted to do that, you could move to reconsider tonight, which anyone who voted in the prevailing side can do. Councilman Ayotte: So move to reconsider. Roger Knutson: And the move to table. Councilman Ayotte: And then move to table. Roger Knutson: To your next meeting, if that's what you want to do. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? Okay, thank you. What we'll do is we'll have an opportunity for a motion to reconsider under unfinished business and we'll see where it goes from there. Denise Saatzer: Thanks for your time. Ron Saatzer: Do we need to stick around for anything then for that? Mayor Furlong: You might want to stick around. Ron Saatzer: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any other visitor presentations this evening? Seeing none I'll close visitor presentations. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Sgt. lim Olson: Good evening and thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, welcome. Sgt Sim Olson: I provided the council with a copy of the shefiWs office area report for lanuary, as well as a citation listing for January. Were them any questions from eithea, one of those docmnents at all? Todd Gerhardt: Sergeant Olson, could you please just go through and explain the citation listing by beat and how that's broken out. Sgt Jim Olson: Sure. The beat, our areas are split up into different beat numbers for the entire county and the beat number for the City of Chanhassen is 0250. So any citations that were issued in the city of Chanhassen would have beat number 0250 on them. To the way that they are put down on paper is by local codes as far as where they figure on the list. The local codes are actually called MOC codes which are a federal way that they use to track crin~ statistics from a nationwide standpoint. And they are put down on a sheet here from a, the lowest number and then going up. Once you get to page number 7 and 8, you get into some local codes or MOC codes that also have letters in front of them, and again those go from A, with a number, and then a send from there. And those have more to do with a criminal rather thsn a petty middle--or crimes. Todd Gerhardt: So on page 8, that would be juvenile Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes, quite a few of those are juvenile that are on page 8, yes. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. And then page 1 through 5, or 6 are petty mi.~lemeanors? SgL Jim Olson: Most of those are petty misde~ors, that's correct. Todd Gerhardt: And then the last page is your. Sgt. Jim Olson: From looking at that, there are also some juvenile that were on page 8 also, and again that has to do with the MOC codes as far as where those crimes or offenses fall in with the MOC codes. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Sgt Jim Olson: Sure. Were there any other questions on that at all? Councilman Ayotte: Yes. In regards, how do you use the tool, the beat mtxn~? Do you find value in them, and that's not a leading questiom I want to know whether or not you feel they have worth. And if the answer is yes, why and if the answer is no, why. Sgt. Jim Olson: I certainly do go through those when I get them to find out ff there are any problem areas. We can also get that through our CIS or in-house where we can track how many calls that we've had at a particular residence or in a particular area as well. But I cem~y do go through these to see if there's any kind of a pattern or anything that I can pick out from them. City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: While you were doing that, you say you have another report to do that so the question is, are these beat reports, do you gauge the performance of your deputies with these? Is it a mechanism to see how they're doing? Is it a quality assunmce tool? What's your view? Sgt. Jim Olson: As far as gauging deputies, no. There are some other things that will allow me to do that better. From log sheets to, there's some other citation listings that come out that have the deputies listed as far as, what the deputies are doing from a citation standpoint, that I look at for thac So this does not help me from deputies standpoint to find out what the individual deputies... Councilman Ayotte: And as you see the performance activities going on for a city connection, does that get up to the city manager on how things are going or not going?' And if so, how often? Sgc Jim Olson: Todd and I have been talking about meeting once very couple weeks on that, yes. As of yet that has not been done as of yet but Todd and I talked last week about how to formulate that and sit down or a good time for that. Councilman Ayotte: So you'll be having a sit down with Todd in a week or so? Sgt. Jim Olson: We will be sitting down, yes. And we're still coming up with exactly how we're going to do that. .' Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you. Sgt, Jim Olson: Sure. Any other questions at all? Councilman Peterson: The only one that I have, I look at that beat list. I don't see any driving under the influence. Is that, which is a good thing to see but, if we haven't had any or is it just not listed in that? Sgt. ~im Olson: There were some DUFs or DWI's that are on it. If you go to page. Councilman Peterson: Just not enough to stand out, that's a good thing. Sgt. Jim Olson: Page number 7. There are a couple of DWI's that are on page 7. Towards the bottom two-thirds of the page. Councilman Ayotte: Juvenile alcohol? Sgt. Jim Olson: Pardon, I'm sorry. Councilman Peterson: The juvenile ones? Sgt. Jim Olson: No, above that there's a traWtc gross mi.~lemeanor, refuse, tn fact thea-e's two separate gross misdemeanor refusing's that are. Councilman Peterson: Oh that's what that is? Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Councilman Peterson: Thanks. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Sgt Jim Olson: Sum. Anything else at all from that that I can. Councilman Ayotte: You should be nervous. Councilnmn ~'s looking way too closely. Sgt. Jim Olson: He knows how to read these. Councilman Labatt: I look at it and look at the n~ of snowbird violations on there and I look at it as saying, those are deputies who are working in the middle of the night that are in the neighborhoods and quite frankly that's where they belong. And they're finding the people that are parking on the street in the middle of the night and I don't mind see snowbird tickets in that respect because they're patrolling the neighborhoods. Councilman Ayotte: I told you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Pardon7 Councilman Ayotte: I told you. Sgt Jim Olson: Thank you. I also put the, from the community service officer, his report in which is actually a year end report that he provided me with. Were there any questions from that at all? Councilman Ayotte: Is this good or bad? I mean where's the standard associated with this? I mean from a performance standpoint, is dealing with 230 some odd animals in 2001 and 263 in 2000, what, how do you measure this? Sgt. Jim Olson: I would have to go back and at this point I don't have those totals but I would want to go back and take a look at what has been done in previous years as far as what his performance is, and I have not done that. Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm not talking specifically about Jeff. I'm saying generally speaking, the categories that we had for a city this size, axe them any anomalies and just looking at ourselves, don't answer that question. We have to look at other places to find out whether or not there are anomalies, right? I guess that's what I'd like to know at some poinL You can't say tonight so I understand that but sometime, son~lace down the road I think that'd be a good thing to know. Sgt. Jim Olson: I can ceaainly do some checking with Chaska and see what kind of calls they get from an animal standpoint and so on that might relate. From the rest of the county, we really don't have anything to base against Chaska, or excuse me, against Chanhassen with so. Anything else from that report at all? Okay. I also wanted to go over a couple of things. We had a counterfeit bill at one of the area businesses, and I just, a counterfeit $20 bill and I just wanted to ask for the businesses, if they could make their employees aware of what they, that them is some counterfeit money flying around and if they do see anything to make sure they give the sheriff' s office a call fight away. And if they should get any kind of a vehicle description or description of a person or persons that are passing that, that would certainly be helpful. But we certainly don't want them to go out running after them at all, but if they could just give us a call, that would be helpful. I also want to do an update about the business burglary and theft that we had in the city. The Crime Prevention Specialist, Beth Hoiseth did put out a crime alert reference just to give some of the area businesses some tips and help on how they can help prevent this as well as cut their losses down. She did a nice job with that, and I think I did include a copy of that crime alert City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 in your packet with you also. Those cases are being looked ~ There's actually a metro wide task force that's looking at ~. There are some people that they have some information on that they are looking at, and that is currently under investigation. Any questions on any of that at all? Councilman Ayotte: How about the meat wagon situation? Sgt. Jim Olson: The meat wagon? Councilman Ayotte: There was a crime alert where a couple of guys we~ going around the neighborhood saying that they're selling meat and some break-in's in the neighborhoods. I just saw something on that. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. I didn't hear anything about the meat but we have had, from a county wide standpoint, we had 5 atteugned btn'glaries that occurred over the past few days. One of those did happen in the city of Chanhassen. Beth did put out a crime alert. Referenced a suspect vehicle that was seen at a couple of those and anybody with any kind of infommtion or if they should see anything that resembles this vehicle, give us a call. That also went out over the county wide crime alert network as well as Chanhassen. Councilman Ayotte: Is there a reason why we can't do that over Channel 8? Putting those crin~ alerts out on Channel 8. Justin Miller. It can be done. Todd Gerhardt: Was that in a residential area Jim? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes it was sir. Yes. That's a good idea. We cam talk to Beth about that. Start putting that out over Channel 8. Audience: What's the vehicle? Sgt. Jim Olson: It's a black Ford pick-up truck with no front license plate. Pre~ standard pick- up truck is the vehicle that we're looking at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sgt Jim Olson: I'm currently working on the 2003 work plan for the City of Chanhassen and will that ready for the, before the next work session so we can sit down and take a look at that and I will be talking to Todd Gerhardt a little bit on that previous to see if he has, what input he has and we've also sat down already and talked a little bit about that. Anything else for the sheriff's office or for myself at all? Okay. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. Mayor Furlong: Thanks Sergeant. Also this evening Chief Wolff from the tVtre Department Good evening. John Wolff: Good evening. I guess we're kind of getting into the 21't century. We submitted our first monthly report to the council and we'll be doing that on a monthly basis. Instead of just City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 going over that we're, you know just idnd of from a summary perspective which is typically what we do, off the cuff, do you have any questions about the report or anything for the fi~ department? Councilman Peterson: What's your current thought on the 800 megahertz radios? Are you happy with them? Are you not? John Wolff: Very pleased. Very pleased. Coverage was better than we thou0m We had heard sorre, you know about some bumps about the in-building coverage. We gave it a real good te~ It went online on the 14°', so a little over a week ago, and had a numlx~ of major incidents over that first weekend and really gave it a workout and it peff~ ~usly. It really exceeded our expectations. We actually coordinated discussions with a helicopter for a major autmn~e accident. We had police, 3 fire agencies and EMS at another incident so it really did work quite effectively. Todd Gerhardt: John, with your new members, your new candidates, how many of those, how did they find out about the opening? John Wolff: We do some door to door kind of recruiting, or direct mail recruiting. We also put a sign up on the marquee at the main station. Actually at both stations. I think the popularity, or at least the elevated awareness of the fire service since 9/11 has also increased applications. If you recall, last year was the first year in 5 years we did not have a recruit class, and we've steadily kind of needed to kind of refill our ranks, because of just turnover and so forldx And last year we were able to kind of side step that. But this year we're definitely in need of getting back to that so we're anticipating. I mean we have a good solid dozen applicafi~. We anticipate that we'll staff between 5 and 7 from that group in the hiring process. Todd Gerhardt: Thanks. Councilman Ayotte: Can I ask one more question? Mayor Furlong: You certainly may. Councilman Ayotte: Interoperability. Craig started off on it. We're doing fine, but as a matter of fact in this week's paper, in the weekly, one of the rags we get. Not the Villager. There was an article about interoperability and the problems we're having. I believe the City of Minne~:onka is still not in sync with the balance for the joint powers activities, is that true? John Wolff: There are certain jurisdictions in I-Iennepin County that have their own dispatching and radio systems. Eden Prairie for example. Minnetonka's anotlx,-r city. ~ are probably a half dozen cities in the west metro that operate off of kind of the old technology, the VHF technology and that's a combination of sort of their own goal setting. Their objectives around how they want to communicate and so forth, but ~ are ways to connect with them and like for example for this call that we had a couple of Sundays ago, we immediately set up the patch to go to our statewide fire, mutual aid channel which is a combination of the new technology with the old technology, and we set that up through dispatch because we did have a department that we' needed to potentially connect with on that. Councilman Ayotte: So it's a wrinkle, but it's not a problem for us. Would I be safe to say that? City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 John Wolff: I wouldn't even call it a wrinkle. There are procedures to get to the inteax)p~ability and they're quite simple. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Chief, could you speak to, there were some issues raised about fire depamm~t response time. Could you speak to that a little bit and by way of example ff necessary, comparison. 1ohn Wolff: Sure. It came to my attention that there was a question about our response to a fire on Sunday, the 16~. I believe it was just misinformation on the part of the complainant What we did is we pulled the dispawh tape and we did get a call for a major stmcUm~ fire on Frontier Trail, and we had units in service within the first minute. Units on the scene within 2 minutes. We actually had water on the fire within 6 minutes and the fire under control within 19 minutes. If you compare those kinds of, that sort of a response and performance, etc to for example we've just went on the Minneapolis Fire Department web site and went to their average statistics and our response actually exceeded their averages. When we congntre our average response time to the full time city departments, we're very much right on par with that. And it's, once again it's sort of a balance. It does depend where the call is. If the call's down in the southern part of the city. This call was a half mile from our station, and so we had all of our resources fight there, so that does play into it but I took a look at last year's data and the prior year's data just to try to get a sense for that, and for all of our emergency call.% we're averaging 4 minutes and 40 seconds from dispatch time to on scene time and that's, quite frankly anything better than 5 minutes is really exceptional. That would be a standard that you would set for a full time fire depamnent, and typically being on call or volunteer you're looking at the 7 to 8 minute range for averages. So we do have strong response and it has to be where we're getting our calls today but I do see as our city grows, and I think it's part of our future planning that we need to look at potentially some infrastructtLre in the south. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Very good, thank you. John Wolff: Certainly, my pleasure. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. PIJ'BL!C HEAR1NG: REQUF-qT FOR SUBD~ON OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VHJ~GE ON ~ PONDS 7TM ADDITION TO CREATE TWO LOTS, SENIOR HOU~RNG CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND PRF~BYTERIAN HQME~. Kate Aanenson: Just to show you where this is. Villages on the Pond. This is St. Hubert's Church. This is what we're talking about, the Presb~ Homes. This project is approximately 5.11 acres. It was given site plan approval by the City Council back in November of 2001. This is part of the PUD that was approved again by the City Council in 1995. This project in itself, again with site plan approval is requesting in order to do separate finan~g on each building, a lot split. A metes and bounds subdivision which is permitted by city code and does require a public hearing which we are having tonight. The pwject, the Building A and Building B. Building B has the 90 independent living units and Building A has the assisted, 71 assisted living with the 9,000 square feet of commercial underneath~ The subdivision itseff does not affect the site plan in any way, or the setting of the buildings. It's really just to provide for a me.c~ for independent financing of both buildings. With that, we are recommending approval of the 10 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 subdivision, the metes and bounds subdivision with the two conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Sir. Good evening. Bill Olscharm I'm Bill Olscham with Senior Housing Consmaetion and we are paztneaSng with Presbyterian Homes on this project. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions at all for the applicant? Alright, thank you. Thank you for being here this evening. This is a public hearing so we'll open it up for public comment at this time. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to discussion, council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: Seems reasonable. Mayor Furlong: Very good, any other? Mayor Furlong: Any other issues? Councilman Ayotte: Ditto. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Resolution g2003-26: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves a resolution approving the metes and bounds subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 7m Addition creating two lots based on the plans prepared by Sunde Land Surveying, LLC, dated February 5, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the approval of Villages on the Ponds 7~ Addition final plat and Site Plan g2001-13, approving Presbyterian Homes Senior Housing Campus. 2. The location of property lines as proposed does not adversely affect the allowable areas for the buildings proposed. If the location of the proimrty linc changes in any way, it could affect the allowable buildable areas. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 11 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Lori Haak: Mayor Furlong, council members. Fm here this evening to provide a little bac~und on the National Pollutant Discharge Elhnination System Phase H munici~ permit requirements and the city's permit application. Let's see if I can get my audio and visual to work here. There we go. There we go. The first question that may come to mind, like any other government program, there's plenty of acron~ in this one. The NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. And by way of background, it was in the 1970's that storm water was identified as a water quality problem. In the 1980's several studies were developed to draft storm water as a pollution problem. In the 1990's the federal government, primarily the EPA, developed the National PoHt~tsnt Discharge ~i~n~on System, Phase I storm water program. And this was intended to monitor and guide storm water management in primarily larger cities. Those over 100,000 in population, and on construction sites over 5 acres, as well as in industrial facilities. Phase II has restricted the scope of this, well actually it's in March...this regulation and all municipalities with MS4's, or municipal separate storm sewer systems, populations over 10,000 people are required to get Phase II MS4 permits. In addition there's construction site permitting process which is for all construction sites disturbing over an acre of surface. So as you can see the in~ of the limit from 5 acres to 1 acre will include a lot of additional construction site permits. In addition there is still the requirement for industrial permits for industrial operations. The application includes several components. The first is a notice of intent, which is basically a storm water permit application, and as a supplement to that, each municipality that's required to apply for a permit needs to develop a storm water pollution prevention program or a SWPPP. Another acronym for you. And thi.~ SWPPP is intended to address storm water quality and quantity. As a goal of this pollution prevention program is to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The storm water pollution prevention plan is required to address 6 components. The first is public education, which is certainly the largest part of this application. Each of the minimum control measmes is required to have an education component. The second is public involvement, and the way that this will impact the council is that you'll be holding a public hearing annually to receive public comment on our storm water pollution prevention plan, and the public will be encouraged to provide comment. How the City's doing on things that they believe would be app~op~iate to include in this plan. The third is illicit discharge and illicit discharge by the EPA is defined as anything that's not storm water, so it's things like solvents being disposed of down storm drains and things like that. The fourth component is construction site erosion control. We already have a pretty decent program in place for that so it will be in some cases just beefing up that program. The fifth minimum control measure is post construction storm water management, which is making sure infrastructure's functioning properly and just keeping up with other issues as they arise. And the sixth is good housekeeping where we take a look at our own storm water issues and address those. Things like street sweeping. It includes pond maintenance. Things like covering the salt/sand storage pile, which we've recently done, would all fall under that minimum control measu~. For each minimum control measure we have to identify best management practices, and those are things, practices that we put into place to protect storm water quality. It can be anything from training our municipal employees about salt/sand application, to distributing flyers to neighborhoods about storm water quality. Or storm drain stenciling and things like that. And then for best management practice we need to find measurable goals and time lines for implementation. We have 5 years to implement the pollution prevention program, and then assigning responsibility with city departments and we can cooperate with other entities. So we don't have to do this all alone. The silver lining in this cloud is that we can work with other municipalities and other agencies like the county and the state to meet these requirements. The reason that this is appearing before you this evening is because the deadline is rapidly 12 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 approaching. This application has to be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by March 10~ of this ),ear and we need to implement all of it's components by March, 2008. Each year by March 10~ we need to submit an annual report on our progress toward meeting those goals that we've set, and as I mentioned earlier there is an annual public meeting that's requiz~. For a program like this you can imagine that it's going to take quite a few reso~, and it's something that we've known that's coming down the pipe so to speak for quite some time. In addition to compliance, which is quite i .mportan~ with non-compliance being able to be fined up to $10,000 per day of non-compliance, we will, we are anticipating to i .reprove storm water quality, which is of course a benefit to Chanhaasen's many lakes. And we also hope to enhance our storm water related operations. Currently we only have a system for some of our operations as they're related to storm water and so we will be i .reproving those quite a bit. And certainly, as always, if you have questions you can contact me or if you'd like to read some of this for yourself, I know it's absolutely riveting, you can go to the PCA web site. They have more than enough information. But for this evening I ask you, staff is asking the council to approve the motion as presented in the staff report Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the staff? Councilman Ayotte: For illicit discharge, what's our intentions on how we're going to enfcan:e? And as a requisite to that, you state we have an annual meeting and education is extremely important. How are we going to go to the public for education and.sustain a level of knowledge, particularly where a lot of folks axe going to be concerned with regard to what is an illicit discharge? Loft Haak: Sure. The primary tool that staff intends to put into place is a hotline for reporting illicit discharge, and one of the things that we can do is make that information available on our web site. As staff is getting more and more accustomed to using the web site as a tool for referring individuals. People do use the web site and it's something that people refer to quite often and so we'll be using that. I haven't written it into the storm water pollution prevention program yet but I'm anticipating working with Justin to include some of these things on cable channel 8. In addition I anticipate putting some things in the Chanhassen connection, which in recent surveys in the community we found that the residents of Chanhassen do rely on for getting a lot of information about the city. And so those are the main channels that we intend to use to educate about illicit discharge. Councilman Ayotte: So let me play it back. So a neighbor will see somebody doing something wrong, and we will in some, we'll have some mechanism to teach folks what that illicit discharge issue is. And then that will go to who7 The CSO? Lori Haak: We will need to work out some procedures and that's part of the hotline establishment. Currently it would probably come to me and I would contact our legal advisors and we'd go through it in that direction. Councilman Ayotte: Well I think that's something that ought to be addressed. I mean ff we're going to sign this off, there should be procedurally something established relatively soon as to what's going to be the process for enforcement, I mean. Loft Haak: The one thing that is necessary to keep in mind as we go ahead with this is that we have 5 years to implement this plan. Councilman Ayotte: Oh, okay. 13 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Lori Haak: So we're signing up for a 5 year corn~tment. It's not this year we have to have everything that we've said we're going to do, we have to have done by March 10~. Councilman Ayotte: So not by Tuesday? Councilman Ayotte: Alright. Kate Aanenson: Let me just add something too. Loft's met with all different divisions within the City and has communicated to them what the goals are going to be. And as she's ~ this to all the different divisions she's communicated that we're all working together on this so some of the answers, it's going to go to different ~ts depending on who's responsible, just as we do it now. Mayor Furlong: On the best management practices, if I understood you there's a, we have to review this document annually, is that right? Loft Haak: Yes. Prior to the annual meeting I will prepare a summary of the activity that's taken place with regard to the pollution prevention program and you'll be able to see our time lines. How we've come to either meet or fail to meet those time lines that we've set up, and yes, it will be an annual review. Hopefully we'll have a lot of positive progress and in fact already we have a lot of these things implemented so in many cases it will be taking credit for what we have in place. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess that's part of my question with that annual review, does that give us an opportunity to review some of the best management practices and say either this one doesn't fit anymore, let's take it out or we need to bring something new in. Loft Haak: Exactly, that's the intent that the Pollution Control Agency has with these annual repons is that any municipality, if something doesn't fit or it's not working quite right and we've spelled out something, that is the time when we can make those changes and take those to the public and say, are these acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It is very comprehensive, the work that you've done. I mean I commend you for that because there's obviously a lot of work and effort that's gone into this. How would you describe the level of best management practices? I think I know the answer but ! want to ask anyway. Would you say that this is a bare minimum level or is this a maximtma level or something inbetween? Lori Haalc I think it's squarely inbetween, and that was our goal. It's the first time that this permit has been issued as a Phase H permit, and there are some things that are above what's required by the permit, but there are certainly some things that would take a lot of resources to go those extra steps so we're really trying to be true to what the City's pempecfive on natural resources and storm water has been, and meet the requirements of the permit but exceed those where it's pracfica~ and that's a real key element to this because you don't want to over commit on a federal permit application. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, because I was noticing what I'm si~ing here later so I guess I want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up to fail and, because that doesn't do anybody any good so. 14 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I can ask Loft a question~ How much of this would you say from a percentage standpoint are we already doing or have been doing in the past I think '7-8 years since we've had the storm water management utility fee in place? Loft Haak: Well I think in a lot of cases it's things that we've done once already that we need to update, for example one of the things would be a storm water, or excuse me. A storm sewer map of the system and we already have one of those in place. We did that in 1993 and '94 as a part of the storm water management plato However we will need to update that We just haven't kept up with a lot of things so in many areas I would say we have 75 percent of the smicun~ in place. In a lot of cases it's just keeping records of it and enhancing in some areas. So we do have a good start and we're far better off than a lot of communities a little bit further out that are getting kind of caught by this unaware. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff7 Again, very good job. This is very comprehensive. Yeah, very good. We'll bring it back to council for discussiom Them has been a request that a motion to be made authorizing the mayor to sign this so that it can be submitted by the March 10m deadline so is there any other discussion from the council? If not, is the~ a motion as requested? Councilman Labatt: I move approval. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll call the question- Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the City's NPDES Phase H MS4 General Permit application as compiled by staff and submit the application and all required materials to the Minnesota PoHulion Control Agency by March 10, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimon~ly with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. This will be the time on the agenda under unfinished business. Councilman Ayotte: We've got another one, 5. Mayor Furlong: We're going to 4(a). Councilman Ayotte: Oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Nope, that's okay. 4(a), we're going to at this time provide an opportunity for a motion to reconsider the denial of the Saatzer variance appeal from our last meeting. Councilman Peterson: Motion to reconsider. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Property motion, is there a second? It could be made by anybody. Councilman Ayotte: Could I ask a point of clarifi~on? 15 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: I'll second it and then we can go. Discussion on the motion. Or point of clarification. Councilman Ayotte: What I'd like to know is, do we go ahead and vote this in first and then so move for table? Roger Knutson: That's correcc Mayor Furlong: If I'm correct, thig is just a motion made by the council to reconsider our prior, our action at a prior meeting. Is it discussable or not? Roger Knutson: The motion to reconsider is discussable on ma~rs to the merits of the main motion, but as to the merits of reconsidering. Mayor Furlong: Of reconsidering, okay. Roger Knutson: If the motion passes, then the moment it passes you're back to the point just before you voted on that motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So is there any discussion on the nwwits of the motion to reconsider? If there's none we'll call the question. Councilman Peterson moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to reconsider the appeal to the variance request for Ron and Denise Saatzer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: So we now have that motion for the appeal before the council. Is there any discussion or motions? Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second7 Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table has been made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council table action on the variance request for Ron and Denise Saatzer. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Roger Knutson: Mayor, do you want to specify a time? Is that your next meeting as we'll want to notify the folks who are here prior to 2 weeks ago. Mayor Furlong: What I would ask is that the applicant meet with staff and work out a time that's convenient for everybody to be at the meeting and then we'll bring it up at that time. If that's okay with you and Mr. Gerhardt7 Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We'll be in contact. 16 City Council Meeting -February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Todd Cmflmrdt: Just to let you know, our next meeting is March 10~. REOUF.$T FQR REI.II~'.lr FRQM ~ CITY'S REQI, JIREME~NT TO REPLACE A FAII.ING SEFrIC SYSTEM, OUINN ROAD, NIKKI EDWARDS. Steve Torell: Mayor, me~ of the City Council. The applicant, Nicole Edwards resides at 8905 Quinn Road, is requesting an extension to delay the replacement of a failing individual sewage treatment system, better known as an ISTS, for connection to the city sewer system until such time as Highway 312 is ~. The site is located north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. The specific location is that home right there, at the end of Quinn Road. The ISTS system on the property was determin~ to be failing in Dece~ of 1999. The system is failing because there is less than 2 feet of vertical separation between the bottom of the treatment system and saturated soil. City ordinance requires that a system determined to be failing because of separation issue has to be replaced within 3 yeats from the date of the compliance mpotx. The city has sent the property owners required notification and notified them that the system would have to be replaced by December of 2002. This is the second time that a failing septic system on Quinn Road has beeu discussed before the council. In 2002, or excuse me 2001, Quinu Road Improvement Project Number 01432 looked at the extension of sanitary sewer, street and watermain for the properties on Quinn Road in response to a request for sanitary sewer service due to a failing septic system at 8955 Quinn Road, which is right there. With the exception of the petitioning party, all the affected property owners expressed opposition to the installation of the sewer, street and watermain improvements at au estimated cost of approximately $109,000. To address the petitioners need for sauitary sewer service, staff recommended and the city extended sanitary sewer to a po~on of Quinn Road to serve that home. The project was completed in October of 2001, and utility service is now approximately 700 feet from the subject property at the end of Quinn Road at 8905. City sewer service could be extended to all the honr~ on Quinn Road at this time. The residents were opposed in 2001 because of the cost of the project However, the continuing failure of septic systems points to the need for extension of sewer service to this area. The ISTS system at 8925 Quinn Road, which is fight on the beud right there, was recently determined to be raj{lng so now 3 of the 5 homes ou Qninn Road now have failing septic systems. One could assume that the other 2 would be determined to be failing as well if they were subject to a compliance inspection. To odd,uss the provisions of City Code Section 19- 76 which deals with the request for relief for a variance to the requirements of the section. The failing sewage treatment system is not unique to the property in that we replace failing sewage treatment systems every year in Chanhassen. An acceptable site was found for replacing a system on that property in 1998. The granting of this extension to replace the system is contrary to the public interest. The fact that the failure was uot designated au eminent public health risk does not mean that it's uot polluting the environment. Soil borings done indicated that saturated soil is found 18 inches below grade, meaning that the botxom of the existing trenches are in seasonally satm'ated soil. The City has not yet received permission from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to decrease separation requirements. This approval is given on a case by case basis. The City would have to include the less restrictive requirements in the ordinance and have it approved by the MPCA prior to adoption. It is not in the City's best imerest to have thi.~ less restrictive requirement, and therefore we have not takeu this action. This provision does not apply in this case in that there is effectively no vertical sepan~on betweeu the system bottom and satuntted soil at this time. The construction of I-~ghway 312 in and of itserf does not lead to the redevelopment of this area and has nothing to do with the extension of utilities to this arem Utilities are extend_~l_ through a petition process or by private development. When the house at 8955 Quinn Road was determined to have a failing system, the owner petitioued and received 17 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 service to his property. Therefore staff recomn~nds that relief from the require'merits of City Code Sections 19-71 and 19-73 delaying the replacement of a failing indi~dnsl sewage ~t system, or the extension of utilities services be de~ed and the council pass a motion requiring the property owner to petition the City within 30 days to extend utility service to this site and then connect to the sanitary sewer system or replace the failing individual sewage ~ system, either of which must be completed by July 1~t of 2003. Are there any questions? Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff'? Councilman Labatt: Steve, you mentioned that right now the sewer line is already extended up 700 feet already of Quinn Road? Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Can you just show me on that aerial shot ~, how far it already goes up. Steve Torell: Well, right up to this house fight there. Came up from Lyman Boulevard, as I understand Teresa. Right to this house right here. Councilman Labatt: Okay. That second lot there had a failing system. Steve Torell: Correct. Teresa Burgess: Correct, and they came to the City in 2001 and petitioned the City to extend sewer to their property. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then is there a house on the comer just south of that then? Steve Torell: Yes. That's the one that was recently determined to be failing also. They're in the process of... Councilman Labatt: And the comer lot north of the. Steve Torell: Northwest? Councilman Labatt: No. The comer lot just north of that second. Steve Torell: Right here? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Steve Torell: That is a failing one also. Councilman Labatt: That is a failing one, along with the one on the end. Edwards proper~ on the end. Steve Torell: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So is that more than 3 that are failing? 18 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Steve Torell: No. There's 3. The one that had sewer service extended. The one on the comer. The one on the comer and the one on the end at this time. The first one does have service extended to it. Councilman Labatt: Okay. But that had a failing system at one point. Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And then the second one north of that, how many previous to the sewer line going up were failing? Steve Tomll: There's 5 homes on Qninn Road. Thea~'s 5 homes that did not have city ~rvices. 3 of those 5 have a failing system- One has had services ex~ended to it because it had a failing system, so there's 2 there right now that are failin~ that do not have services to the ~. Councilman Labatt: And there's 2 other ones that we don't know about yet. Steve Torell: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And what's the cause to get those inspected? How do we get that inspected to see if they're ail failing? Steve Torell: City ordinance requires that ff a home is sold a compliance inspection has to be done on the septic system- And those results have to be forwarded to the City. That's how we're notified if there's a failing system. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So until such time. Steve Torell: Correct. Or they would put on an addition or increase the size of the home. Add bedrooms. That also drives a compliance inspection, but it's definitely the sale of the home. Mayor Furlong: Are there any other questi~? Point of clarification. In the report that we received, the background indicated that the, in December of '99 this system was failing becsn~ there was less than 2 feet of vertical separation. Did I hear you correctly that now there's no vertical separation so that it's getting worst? Is that, or did I misunderstand? Steve Torell: It's a little bit confusing. The way the MPCA determines a system to be failing if there's less than 2 feet of vertical separation from the bottom of saturated soil. That means that it's still failing if~'s 0 separation. If it's less than 2 feet it's failing, the degree of which isn't really addressed. New systems are required to be, have 3 feet of separation and any system built after 1996 must maintain that 3 feet be allowed. The less restrictive requirement for homes built prior to 1996. So what I did was I went back and looked at the soil boring records from the design for a replacement system which indicated saturated soil is 18 inches. The bottom of the trench is at least 18 inches deep, so there's no dry soil to treat the sewage effluent at this time. But that in itself does not make it eminent threat to public health. The only thing that would make it an eminent threat would be if it was surfacing or some other, adjacent to shoreland or some situation like that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Mrs. Edwards? Yes. 19 City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Nicole Edwards: We've had no evidence of ~. We pumhased this home in August of 2001 so we're kind of the new kid on the block so to speaL At the time we purchased the home it was presented to us in a manner that this variance, that the home was trader a variance for the septic system. There was not realtor involved in this transaction so at that time when they said, the current homeowner said that this variance would probably just be continued, I took that for word spoken. So we can~ in at the tail end of these other residents that had already requested city septic and realized that our neighbors aren't interested in that. Now inbetween my request for this relief at this time, now this other home has come up as failing also. I guess one thing I wanted to clarify is even though consmaction of a highway doesn't affect when you get city sewer and water, the development of that area will inevitably come in the next few years because of the construction of that highway. That whole field there, that area is zoned for residential structures so at that time the 4 of us that remain on that road that have our own septic systems would be hooking up to city sewer and water at that point in time because inevitably it would just develop the whole area. And to me it makes sense to allow that along with that point in time just becamse of city planning. How the streets are going to work out and all that. That type of thing. So I guess that's just kind of where we're at. We aren't seeping sewage. I definitely don't want to be seeping sewage. I have two small children so, and we enjoy the city and it's a beautiful place so we, I guess our request isn't to negate the or, we want to comply with the city requirements but we're just asking to do so at a later date, if that would work best for the neighborhood. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions that council has for the applicant? If not, okay. Councilman Labatt: So if I understand this right, the previous owner disclosed this failing septic system in an inaccurate way. Nicole Edwards: I don't know that he was trying to be dece~. I just think that to his knowledge, see what happened with this home is, in 1999 it was, it came up that it was failing. At that point in ~ the Starts owned the property. By the time they received the letter that it needed to be replaced, Mr. Hoffman owned the property. He lived there for 1 year and then we purchased the property from him. So I don't think there was any deceit I think in the midgt that he received the letter that the system needed to be replaced, I think that was his un--ding of it. That this variance would continue. It seeaned logical I guess at the time and based on what was happening in the course of events with this other system up the road. Mayor Furlong: I guess a point of clarification. When you're talking about other development around the area which would then bring in the city water and sewage, is the other development, you're under the assumption, am I hearing you correctly, that the 5 homes there on Quinn Road would remain. It's the area around that would be developing, or are you talking about development? Nicole Edwards: Correct. Currently what there is around us is 10 acres of open field, and then just beyond that open field is the dip area where the proposed highway of 371 so, and it's my understanding from Mr. Torell that the city's plan for that area would be residential homes. Mayor Furlong: Is there any time frame that you're aware of with development of that 10 acres? If I may from a time frame. Kate Aanenson: The two are unrelated events. Actually when 212 comes in there will be a bemx They will never get access so they're two independent. Access to sewer and water is available City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 right now. It will always come up Quinn Road, so 312 has nothing, development has nothing to do with this project. This development can occur today if the project was petitioned. Teresa Burgess: And Mr. Mayor if I could also interject. I was going to give this update under administrative but, MnDot has announced that they have halted the design portion of 312. That project is currently scheduled for 2012. That's still 10 years away. 9 years away and as it stands right now they have told their contractor not to do any more work until future notice. Kate Aanenson: But again I'll go back to my point, just to make sure you're clear. They're two independent. Mayor Furlong: Right. And I guess the question, as I would raise the issue of the 10 acres that was available for development. I'm looking if the~'s any timeframe that we're aware of with regard to development of those 10 acres. Kate Aanenson: Whenever the property owner petitions that they're ready to subdivide. It's in the MUSA so it's an individual ~ owner's request. Mayor Furlong: And we're not aware of anything at this time from a timing fran~ there? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Just the one petition that we had before. Councilman Labatt: Kate if I understand you then conectly, in 6 months if that 10 acres were to develop around her property, the sewer to service her lot would still come up Quinn Road. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well the way we envision subdividing this property. The Klingelhutz, which is the largest property. If you go over further the~'s North Bay over this way. Todd Gerhardt: The one in the staff report is pretty good. Kate Aanenson: Anyway, what we envisioned is that this property...to the Klingelhutz proimrW. That this would fie across, if that makes sense. This is the large... That's also guided low density. So we'd be connecting this property. Tying that back across to there are houses on ~ large lots. The back portion of those lots could subdivide but in looking at that, and then tying a road, if you look at the Klingelhutz ~, starting with this back, the Springfield...loop stme~ back around through and that could happen at Mr. Klingelhutz on and off the last 10 years bas looked at plats. They've gone away, but that ~y is available. It's inside the MUSA are~ If somex~ne were to come in today to petition a project, we'd rake it through the subdivision process. Whether a developer did those individual here, without an assessment project or would petition the engineering department for an assessment project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilman Peterson: Just a point of clarification. Is your intent when you said to wait til it's developed, is your intent just to delay the dollars going out of your pocket or do you assume it's going to get cheaper as development does incur? 21 City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Nicole Edwards: Typically construction never gets cheaper, that's for sure. I guess my. petition, or my request comes based on the fact that I did think personal budget wise that this would occur later. As far as us making our home in Chanhassen, we plan to live in that home for a very long time. We aren't looking to ~p that house at all. We're enjoying the area and so we definitely want to stay here. And as far as, I lost my train of thought, I'm sorry. Our intention would be at some point to hook up to city sewer and water. That would be our intention. Councilman Peterson: So fight now you're basically just simply asking us to delay for finandal reasons is really the reason. Nicole Edwards: Correct, and also based on my neighbors and their feelings. Too, being the new kid on the block I guess I didn't want to be made the pawn because it's got to get down to me, it's got to come past them. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreci~ your coming. Bring it back to council for discu~om Councilman Labatt: The age of these septic systems on Quinn Road. Are they all within a couple years of each other? 10 years? Steve Torell: Probably. I'm no sure of the exactly age. I would say 20 to 30 years. Most of the systems that were put in that long ago probably not put in correctly in that they were put in as a trench syster~ We see very few trench systems installed here because of the high water table. They're all mound systems which meatus the Ixeattn~nt area is built above the ground. The majority of it because of the high water table. Councilman Ayotte: May I ask questions? Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Ayotte: How much risk is there to the City for an outside agency to can~ issue for the City? Steve Torell: Regarding what? To delay it? Kate Aanenson: PCA you're talking about? Steve Torell: The MPCA directs that the City have a program in place to replace failing septic systems in a f'oced amount of time. For a system like this with a separation issue doesn't define that amount of time. For a system that's ~ned to be an eminent health threat, surfacing, it has to be replaced within 10 months. They do mandate that. For a system of thig type, we just have to have a set period of time, our time is 3 years. I believe the county's is the same. This ordinance was adopted in 1999. Prior to that time it was 10 months for a separation issue. Immediately for an eminent health threat. Councilman Ayotte: So we do not have an eminent health threat. Steve Torell: Not to my, not at this time. City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Councilman Ayotte: We do not anticipate causing risk to the City by having an outside agency fine us or find that we are outside the pammet~s of an ordinance? Steve Torell: I can't really answer that. Fve been attempting to contact the MPCA to ask them that question. If our ordinance fight now reads that a failing system has to be replaced within 3 years. Can we extend that time without their approval? Fm not sum of that. Councilman Ayotte: See my worry is not knowing that particular detail. If we're not having an adverse environmental i ,mpact, that's fine. But if we were to have an outside agency cause us a problem, that would concern me. I would like to find out more from them before I would go out. That would be my desire. I'm just thinking out loud. Steve Torell: I would think that we are having an adverse environmental i ,mpact in that we're not treating the sewage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: Exactly, and I think that's the point in question. What you're kind of inferring Bob is potentially waiting til something bad does seriously happen and then address it. Councilman Ayotte: No, no. My question was, is there a risk so if we have a risk from the standpoint that we could have some sort of c~t~.~a'ophic event at any point in time, that's a different issue. That's not what you said. I asked if there was environmental risk, and that's not the answer I got. Now if there is potential for a catastrophic event, then that's another issue. Kate Aanenson: Can I ask, or just reframe that a little bit? We also know there's another failing system on this street that we've just been made aware of so it's not just this. Tbem's another and I think that's why Steve pointed out in his report, there's two solutions. We're not saying they have to subdivide, but there is another solution and there is another septic site on the property. So we're not forcing anybody to subdivide, so we've given them two alternatives. Petition or provide another individual septic system that meets standards. Mayor Furlong: And I think from a claxification too, I heard you ask two questions. One was an intimate health risk and the other was an environmental risk. And what I'm hearing, if it's correct, is that there may not be an intimate health risk, but there is likely an environmental risk because of this lack of separation with I assume ground water. Saturated soil. Steve Torelh Right. Mayor Furlong: So there is environment, maybe not health at this point. Councilman Peterson: And I think it's i ,rnlmaant to note we put those statutes in place to give us a margin of error so that we don't wake up one morning and it starts percolating to the surface when we do have a health risk so, I mean that's part of the driving force. My thoughts are pretty you know simple. I can empathi?r with the applicant but I just don't see any reason that they were aware that there was an issue and unfommately it's part of the property that crosses the property and I think we have to follow our guidelines and I would support staff in their recommendation of giving the applicant an alternative. Either to connect or replace. Mayor Furlong: Comments? City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 Councilman Labatt: I feel the same with Craig. I mean I think there's, I wish there was a way we could inspect those 2 other lots to see if all 5 but I suppose we can't do that without consent So I would support staff's recommendation her~ There's two alternatives to the homeowner that are feasible. Mayor Furlong: I would concur. There are two alternatives. There's a choice. The biggest discomfort I have with the proposal is the lack of a timeframe with regard to something causing it to happen, and the lack of the applicant's control fc~ creating that. From a time~ for the development and such so I would concur with the previous statements. Is there any other discussion at this point? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to deny. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Point of clarification. Deny with the two caveats included in the packet? Councilman Peterson: That's ~ve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And as you seconded? Councilman Labatt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Roger Knutson: Can I make one more caveat? Mayor Furlong: Sure. Roger Knutson: And it's based upon the findings in the staff report which you adopt as your own written findings, is that correct? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other co~ on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council deny the applicant relief from the requirements of Section 19-71 and 19-73 of the Chanbas~n City Code delaying the replacement of the Individual Septic Treatment System (ISTS) or the extension of utility services, and direct the applicant to perform either of the following: 1. The property owner sball petition the city within thirty (30) days to extend utility service to the site and then connect to the sanitary sewer system; or The property owner shall replace the failing ISTS by July 1, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Meeting -Febnmry 24, 2003 I(B). APPROVAL QF NO PARKING RESOLUTION FOR WELLS. IJlrr STATIOI~, Mayor Furlong: Mr. Paulsen, would you like to raise some commits or address the council on this issue? Jerry Paulsen: lerry Paulsen again. Our question was, what is involved with this as far as restricting parking in relevance to the easement that the City would have to a lift station for example? We hadn't seen this issue come up at a Planning Commission meeting and I guess we're unfamiliar with what is buried in this so. Mayor Furlong: Cneatt. If you want to wait fight there maybe I could refer to staff and you could respond to the questions. Teresa Burgess: The reason it hasn't come up at a Planning Commission is because it is a Cxalncil decision. It's not a zoning issue. Currently parking is not allowed at lift stations. It is not allowed at wells, lift stations, tank reservoirs, vacamt lots that are owned by the City. The reason being that it's a safety issue. It's a security issue. We've had problems in the past with vandalisrm We've also had issues with access to those facilities. The current policy when we have a problem at one of those sites with someone parking inappropriately is we call a tow truck to have that vehicle removed. That is time consuming, costly and also a much larger hassle for the property owner than, for the vehicle owner than it needs to be. This resolution was actually brought to us, or recommended to us by the sheriff's depammmc This would allow the sheriff's department to issue a' ticket instead of having a vehicle towed. Now the intention is, and has always been, we try to track down a ~ owner. For instance I believe you live near Lift Station 1. If we were to have somebody continually parking say a boat or an RV out there so we could not access the lift station, and blocking our access, we would try to find out who owned that vehicle. Have them remove it. Explain to them why. If they refused, then we would have the vehicle ticketed and eventually if necessary it would be towed, but the intention is just to give the deputies another tool. They would prefer to issue a ticket than for us to have the vehicles towed. Jerry Paulsen: And they can't do that right now you're saying? That's the change. Teresa Burgess: Right now we have to have the vehicle towed. We cannot ticket. So this allows us to use ticketing as an alternative tool, and it allows the deputies to be involved, which quit~ often does make a difference if a deputy asks someone to move a vehicle versus a city employee. Jerry Paulsen: That sounded reasonable I guess so. It's in regard to the easement I assume. Teresa Burgess: A city employee could park down there and eat lunch ff it was reasonable compared to what their job duties were. A city employee driving down to a lift station to park for lunch, no. If they were working on that lift station or it was their next job duty afire' lunch, then it would be reasonable. But for someone to drive down there, eat lunch and leave, that would not. be acceptable for a city employee to do that. That would be a personnel issue. It would not be related to this, but it would be something that would not be acceptable. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, the current ordinance. Jerry Paulsen: The easement is what you're talking about though... Teresa Burgess: Right, it would be the easement that the lift station sits on. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The current ordinance only allows the deputies to ticket cars that are on streets or in the parl~ It doesn't talk about easements or public owned ~ like lift stations or wells so that's why the deputies have asked Teresa to help them with the ticketing enforcement to modify the current ordinance to allow lift stations or public property. Jerry Paulsen: It widens their authority a little bit then, instead of the city being responsible I guess. Teresa Burgess: It gives them an ~_d_ditional tool Right now a city employee goes and tracks that person down and says please move your vehicle. It doesn't have the weight of a deputy doing it. We get much better response when a deputy says please move your vehicle and we don't have to have it towed and that's a huge problem. The most coonnon problem we're having is a different lift station where people park there to go hunting. It's near an area where a property owner allows hunting, and we have that vehicle towed. They come back from hunting and the vehicle's gone. They assume it's been stolen. By being able to issue a ticket we'll get the same message across, don't park here, but we don't have somebody reporting a vehicle swlen. Jerry Paulsen: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Paulsen. I guess the other thing too that, in addition to just the obstruction of a vehicle parked in front of a well or a lift station that I view is security purposes and that we don't want vehicles parked by our wells, especially in this time. Teresa Burgess: Correct, and I would like to point out, I did miss putting down the water reservoirs on this resolution so if we could amend it, I will get it re-typed for signature, but if we could amend that resolution to include the state~nt of water reservoirs. Todd Gerhardt: Teresa do you want to add safety and security to that resolution too? Teresa Burgess: That is in the resolution. Todd Gerhardt: Oh it is? Okay. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: As, with the recommended addition of water wells? Any further discussion? Resolution g2(g13-27: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the No Parking Resolution for wefts, lift stations, water reservoirs and other miscellaneous dty lots. All voted In favor and the motion carried nnRnimously with a vote of4to O. COUNCIL P~ATIONS, None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS; Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have is for the public out there, we are having a public ~, or not a public hearing. An EDA meeting tomorrow night to consider redevelopment proposaLs City Council Meeting- February 24, 2003 for the bowling alley property so we would invite any public that may be interested to see how this property is redeveloped to al~-ad. It's 7:00 in the council chambers here. Mayor Furlong: It's here? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We were able to move it out of the court yard into here. Park and Rec Commission will be meeting in the court yard at 7:30. Mayor Furlong: It will be a little cold in the court yard won't it? Todd Gerhardt: We'll warm it up for tben~ Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other items? Teresa Burgess: As previously stated we have received written notice from MnDot that they are putting the contract for 312 on hold. Their statement was that they are doing this so they can re- evaluate where they are and also to re-evaluate the contracting process that was used in this one. Apparently this is something that is coming out of Govenlor Pawlenty's reorganization of MnDot and also in looking at the way that MnDot has been hiring consultants in the past. And we have, I will keep the council informed when they m-issue that project and get it staxted back up. Councilman Labatt: How does this affect Klein's money he obtained for this roadway out between Cologne and? Teresa Burgess: We've asked that question and I haven't gotten an answer back that makes Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to figure out why money would be earnucrked or budgeted or put aside for that area going, it's got to occur here in Chan before it gets out there. Why wouldn't that money be. Todd Gerhardt: I think, isn't the Cologne improvements more for safety irr~. rovements? Teresa Burgess: I believe so but I haven't heaxd that clearly from MnDoL The issues that we have right here is they're not sure how they want to design this project. There have been sevenfl revisions to the staff approved layout in the last few months that have been put forward by the consultant and it's unclear what exactly they're going to do with this road. There's been alignment changes vertically, adjusting the alignment. There's been proposals on e 'hminating, combining, adding intersections and interchanges, and with all of that going on MnDot chose to take a step back and m-evaluate whe~ they're going with this project. Mayor Furlong: Is the sense you're getting, is this a short term stop and look at it7 Is it a short term sensation or is it a for the year? Teresa Burgess: When I asked that question she talked for about 10 minutr~s and I never did figure out what she was saying. The letter is, and I can get the council a copy of it. It doesn't ever come out and say how long is the stoppage. Mayor Furlong: So we don't know. Teresa Burgess: We don't know. City Council Meeting - February 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Teresa and I will be attending a meeting in St. Paul this Thursday regarding 312 with key legislators, and I believe flx~'s anothex meeting with key legislators on Friday out here in Chaska so before our next meeting we should have some answers to those questions. Councilman Labatt: Do you know how fin' along they are on purchasing right-of-way? Teresa Burgess: I believe they have made offers and have right-of-way in Chanhassen pretty much fled up. We will be having at our next council meeting Lisa Friese from MnDot will be here to talk about the Highway 41 crossing, and I have given her a heads up that she should anticipate and be prepared to discuss 312 as well. Mayor Furlong: Go~. And I know Mr. Ger~ I'll be jo'ming you and Teresa on Thursday in St. Paul, and I think Councilman Petcrson will be with the Southwest Transpoxtation Coalition on Friday. So we'll have elected representatives there as well. Okay. Any other questions or items under administrative presentations? None? Are there any questions on the correspondence or correspondence discussion items from council? If not, is there a motion to adjourn. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at S'.35 p.m. and Councilman Peterson COI, JNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist ~TAFF PRF~ENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller. Kate Aancnson. Todd Hoffman, Teresa Burgess. Matt Saam. Bruce DeJong. and John Wolff Jim Proesser from F~hlers and Associates was present to discuss the Key l:rmancial Strategies process. The council went through the action plan itean by item and discussed if there were any additional items that needed to be included. Mayor Purlong asked for claHfi~ons on expanding e-city hall services, identify options for replacing 2007 Environmental Fund, and icle~ and fund future staffing requirement to match growth. Identifying options for replacing the 2007 Environmental Fund was moved up to a projected start date of 2004. The Council discussed the assessment policy to address the pavement management and consider increasing assessed portions and interest rate. It was decided that that item should be reviewed annually. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on identifying funding sources for park pavement maintenance, and asked why that didn't come out of the park dedication fees. Identifying funding sour~ for sewer and water infiasmlcture replacement was changed to a projected start date of 2003. Jim Proesser asked that the council me~ funnel any comments or changes through Justin 1Wfller by the end of the week. B. A~,SF-.qSMENT~ FOR 2003 PAyEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT. Teresa Burgess passed out a handout entitled Cost/Benefit Analysis for Pavement Management and discussed costs comparisons to new construction down to a thin overlay, and life cycle cost comparisons. She explained the process staff uses to establish which streets are chosen for maintenance. Councilman Peterson asked staff to prepare a syllabus of what is discussed at the public open houses. Councilman Ayotte suggested publicizing the open house dates on the public access channel 8. Mayor Furlong asked if the city could notify neighborhoods that are projected to have street projects down 3 to 5 years out. He also asked staff to explain why streets that had been proposed for maintenance last year and were subsequently removed, why those streets were not on the list for this year. The City Council reeessed the work session at 7:00 p.m. The work session was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. C. ~TRATF_~IC PLAN. Justin Miller passed out a draft of the strategic plan highlighting changes and deletions previously discussed by council. The contract with the Carver County Sheriff's Depaxtment was discussed, and whether the city should be proactive in their review of that or wait to respond to Sheriff Olson's proposal for changes. It was stated that the Carver County Board is also reviewing the City Council Work Session - February 24, 2003 business of providing law enforcement to dries on a contractual basis. Mayor Furlong asked how the strategic plan related to the Key Financial ~gies. Justin Miller ~ the strategic plan would be incorporated into the Key Financial Strategies. Councilman Petemc~ asked if items on the plan needed to be prioritized fiuther to begin work on certain items. Mayor Furlong asked staff to set up a time table to begin making progress on these items, and then re-evaluate where they are at the end of the year. The work session meeting wns ndjonrned nt 9:15 p~n. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMLqSION RF~ULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2003 Chairwoman Blaekowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMI~ERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve Lillehaug, Uli Sacchet and Craig Claybaugh ,MEMBER~ ABSENT: Bruce Feik, LtLAnn Sidney, and Rich Slagle ~TAFF PRF~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Devel~ Director, Sharmeen A1Jaff, Senior Planner, Bob Generons, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PI, JBLIC PRE~ENT: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd JeffBorns Jason Boldenow Ed & Janet King Jeff King 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7199 Frontier Trail 6890 Lotus Trail 7252 Gordon Drive 767 Carver Beach Road PIJ'BLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FQR FRONT, LQT AREA AND HARD SURFA~E COVERAGE VARIANCF~ FOR THE CQN~TRUL'I'ION OF A SINGLE FAMll.~ ItF-SIDENCE QN PROPERTY ZQNED RSF~ RF~OE_N'I'IAL SINGLE FAMII~Y~ LOCA _TED AT 767 ~ARVER BEACH RQAD~ JEFFREY KING. Sharmeen M-Jaff and Matt Santo presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of either S~ or Matt? Clayhaugh: Question. Sharmeen, has the reversal of the plan that you're ptcgosing here been discussed with the applicant? Al4aff: We initially talked about it when the applicant first submitted the application. One of the first things that we discussed was if you ~p flop the house, you will be able to reduce the front yard setbaclc And there are issues on the, one of the applicant's concerns, and maybe he should address this issue in more detail, was a privacy issue for both his neighbors as well as himself. Blackowialc That'd be a good question for the applicant I think. Claybaugh: I'm more after the city's perspective on it. If there's any down side on the city's analysis for reversing that plan with respect to the reversal causing s_cl_d_ifional hardship or how it affects the applicant beyond the privacy issues. AI-Jaff: I'm not aware of any other. You would have to remove the existing driveway. Push it over to the. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Claybaugh: It was my understanding though that was going to be removed as a part of the proposed plan as is. Am I correct? AMaff: My under'standing was the driveway was going to remain. left King: It would be either way...but it would be in a similar spot. Claybaugh: That's all th~ questions I have for staff. Blackowiak: Alright. Steve. Lillehaug: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, Fve got a quick question or two. You mentioned that maple that is to the east. There's also an oak right in front of the house, about the sam~ size. About a 24 inch oak Is the plan to maintain that or, if you don't know maybe it's a question for the applicant- I don't think, and I wonder whether it gets affected by one plan versus the other. left King: Do you want to see a picture? I've got a picture. Blackowiak: You know what, we'll. Sacchet: We'll have you up in a few minutes. Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll ask that when you come on up and you can have the microphone. Sacchet: Hopefully being considered so far. Okay, well I'll ask that question of the applicant then when you come up. Another question that I'm curious whether you know the answer. Maybe it's also an applicant questiom When you flip flopped the floorplan, put the garage to the east side, would you envision the driveway to be to the east or to the north? A1-Jaff: I was envisioning it to the east and that was based upon a discussion that Matt and I had. Jeff King: It says north on the board... AI-Jaff: I think it says. Saam: Southerly site line. AI-Jaff: North of the southerly property line. Saam: Which would be easc Coming out to the east. Sacchet: Coming out to the east because it also can come out to the north, couldn't it? Saam: Not if it was, well maybe we should touch on that. Let me go up to the. One of the, well the proposed condition is driveway for the new house must stay within 10 feet of the southerly, which would be right here, sorry. Right here. Southerly side lot line to provide maximum sight distance for motorists on Carver Beach Road. That's one thing that I didn't mention. If you do Planning Commission Meeting - Felxuary 18, 2003 go out there, we want to try to get this driveway to hug one of these lot lines to provide the maximum sight distance for people coming around this corner. We don't want, as you were maybe alluding to Commissioner Sacchet, the driveway coming out to the nofli~ People would kind of come around that comer and then nm fight into it so that's why we want to get it to hug one of these lot lines to provide the maximmn distance for motorists to see oncoming traffic. Sacchet: Thank you. That is a good answer. Blackowialc Okay. Is that it7 Okay, I don't have any questions at this time. Now would the applicant like to msite a presentation? ff so, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jeff King: Hello. My name is Jeff King. I live at 767 Carver Beach Road. I've been a resident for ll years. Well in 2 weeks I'llbe-aresident 11 years. I'd liketo stay at thi s location but the house was built in the mid-50's and it was built as a cottage. I have a 1 car garage, 1 bathroon~ Remodeling, it would be so extensive that I believe it's basically cheaper to rebuild. Right now my main problem is that my house is 57, or my lot is 57 percent the standard of a minimum lot. So right now between, I'm kind of, I have a problem that I'm short to begin with and that curve that you saw creates problems with the front setbacks and the side setbacks. So right now my house, even as it is, you couldn't build my house because it doesn't meet minimum standards. You couldn't build a 2 bedroom, 1 car garage house in Chanhassen so, and right now I'm over the limit of hard surface, which that's my problem right now and that's why I have to ask for variances. I'd like to ~_ddress some of the safety issues because I've been .thinking about that a lot too. Right now Carver Beach Road at my turn, it's roughly 23 feet wide and the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. So if you ever have 2 cars passing on my curve, both going 30 miles per hour, no one can blink because either one car's going to hit the other car or one car's going to be off the road. I mean it's extremely fast for that curve. Right now on the other side of that curve it's a steep bluff going down to the lake. I believe it's considered a bluff. I think it's more than, Sharmeen is it 30 degrees? Al4aff: Yeah, and I'll be passing out a phoW. Blackowiak: 10 percent, I mean yeah. If you blinked on that curve you'd be down in the neighbor's bedroom or something. Jeff King: And our neighborhood has requested speed bumps and things in the past because really the speed limit should be a minimum 25 if not 20 going through there. My concern is there's no, you really, well you safely can't park. There's no on street parking because the road is so narrow. It's only 23 feet wide. I would like to have a longer driveway so when I have guests come over, it kind of comes back to that sight line thing again. Can I have the overhead? I drive a pickup truck and that's that square right here is the same size as my pickup truck. As you can see it's still encroaches the 30 feet, but if you put the driveway down here, I mean it's even going to make it worst. There's a 5 foot drop from one comer to the next so you know a lot of the neighbors have their cars out. In fact the Carlson's'who live in the, they live on this comer lot, they actually, they don't use their garage. They always park, it's not on the street but it's, they always park right there so if my driveway comes out there, I'm right where they always park their car constantly. Blackowiak: Excuse me. Could you point out, just on that picture where they normally park. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Jeff King: They park fight here, well that's the edge of ~4r garage though. Right about here is where they usually parle They've got, it's class V gravel. It's about as wide as a ear and they always park 1 or 2 cars right there. I would really prefer to come out this side, for sight lines, and because I could have a longer driveway so when I have 2 or 3 people over, they're closer to the house. The other factor I've, all my utilities come in from this side over here. Gas, electric, sewer and water right now. I have a utility pole and everything comes in on that side. Otheawise I'd have to mn all my utilities, sewer, water. I don't know what the invert elevation of my plumbing is. I haven't done enough reseam:h to know but since utilities come in that side, I'd rather have the house on that side. The house right now, I'd like to have the garage on the other side because if you look at the sight lines of my neighbors, it kind of ~ a buffer having the garage there. And that's the way the current house is right now too. Right now thi~ is all woods on that curve and it's a pretty view and I'd prefer, I look at the trees than my car. You were inquiring about a tree. They call thi~ an oak tree, It's actually a maple tree. Right now it's, the bark is starting to peel off. It's not a bad tree, but it's not a good tree. It's leaning about, I'm guessing somewhere between 5 to 8 degrees towards the house. Every time there's a rain storm and a wind storm I get nervous because if it falls over, it goes directly across my bedroom- It's a nice tree and I'd like to save it but in all reality it's not, it's not a great tree and it's not a very strong tree. Is there any questions you have of me on this? Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, Matt I'd like to ask you one quick question. Just quick do some math here for us and then I'll come to you on this. Can you sort of estimate driveway lengths on both the, hugging the southerly side lot line and hugging the westerly side lot line. Can you give me an estimated driveway length on both of those7 And you don't have to give it me right this second but. Saarm So just so I clarify. The driveway... Blackowiak: It would be the staff option, yeah. Saarn: And what the applicant's proposing. Blackowiak: Yeah. I'd like to know what both of those lengths would be. Okay, that's my kind of question for in a moment or two. But let's now, for applicant queXdons. Craig, I think you had a couple that maybe you wanted to ask the applicant Claybaugh: Ac_really I didn't have any new questions. I have comments so. Blackowiak: Okay, well we'll wait for that. Okay. Lillehaug: I do have some questions. Gtxxt evening Mr. King. And my questions would be, you've indicated that you're really not too agreeable on staff's layout of how they ~p flopped the garage and house, is that a safe assumption7 Jeff King: That is safe. I mean Sharmeen mentioned it earlier. I got my packet with the staff report on last Friday so I really haven't had a chance to talk to her about it because I think you were closed yesterday. Lillehaug: Okay. You indicated the utilities are placed at the south, southe~t comer of the property. Do you see any significant impacts of putting your house on one side or the other? I mean other than maybe a small increase in cost due to the length. Planning Conunission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Jeff King: Like I said, I don't know the invert elevation dictates for plumbing how far it can go. I don't know how deep the sewer is at my house. I mean I could find out. I didn't have time to call Gophers State and site everything and check it but it's possible to do everything. Obviously electricity and water is no problem- The sewer'd be the only one I'm not positive on. Lillehaug: So legitimately there may not be any restrictions of the placement of the house due to the underground utilities? It's just more of a convenience than probably a cost reduction. Okay. Jeff King: Yeah, and the current house is that way fight now. Lillehaug: And then one other question I have here is, you, in the drawings I see, they're pretty vague but there's an 8 foot wide length between the house and the garage. This kind of comes into play on the whole house pad, garage pad size. Could you kind of explain what this 8 foot wide length would actually be. Jeff King: What he's referring to is right here between the garage. Actually the garage doors will be on this side. But between the garage and the house there's a bathroom and actually that'd be a stairs. It's kind of a wet area. The house that I'm currently imerested in building was the 1999 Life House. It's kind of has a cottage look. It's kind of a modified A-frame. Around me I've got about 6 lot homes and a lot of rustic looking homes and I'm trying to figure something that will fit in the area. The neighbors next to me have a 2 story and the neighbors next to me have a split entry and the people with the log home kind of kitty comer, they have a 2 story also so I'm trying to get something that will fit in and that's just an architectural you know, part of the house to break up the front. Lillehaug: So that is part of the footprint of the house? Jeff King: It is, yeah. Lillehaug: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes, two questions, and I'm still unclear about the trees. There are 2 trees. One of the oak by the front of the house and the other one's the maple further east. Jeff King: Correct. Sacchet: Now, you were commenting about the oak or the maple when you were expressing that it was... Jeff King: It's labeled an oak but it's a maple. Since I've moved in I've planted 2 more maple trees that are probably 4 inch diameter now. So I have, I've known that the, I'm trying to make accommodations for the tree I'll have to take out. Sacchet: One is labeled and one is labeled oak. I'm still not sure which one you're talking about Jeff King: The one that's labeled oak would have to come out. Sacchet: The one that's labeled oak would have to come out. That would, and that's the one that's leaning? Planning Commission Meeting - Pebruary 18, 2003 Jeff King: It's leaning and it's heaving at my driveway right now and the bark is falling off of it. Sacchet: Okay. And the other one that's labeled maple, which you say is an oak. Jeff King: No, that is a maple. Sacchet: That is a maple? Jeff King: That would stay. Sacchet: That would stay, okay. Okay. Just to be clear about that. Okay. So. Jeff King: The other reason I'd like to have the driveway on the side I do is because on that southern lot line, that is a row of oak trees and if I put in a driveway, that's going to cause a lot of stress on those trees. It's, they didn't label it on my plan but there's about, approximately 5 to 6 oak trees at least 17 inches or more in diameter along there~ Sacchet: Just across the lot line? Jeff King: Yeah. Obviously whoever built my lot took all the trees out right to the lot line. Sacchet: Okay. But it could be done. It could be done with the flipped footprint. It's just it's not your preferred solution. Jeff King: Well the orientation, the windows of the house and everything like that, I'd probably have to find a new plan and come back to the city with a new plan. I can't imagine having all my windows look at the neighbors house. That wouldn't make any sense to me. Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Blaekowiak: Okay, thank you. I have just a couple questions. Number one, it looks like at some point in time there was a deck on the house you're living in right now, mad I don't see any plans for a deck on your new home. Is that something you're considering or I mean, that also plays into hard surface coverage. Jeff King: If I did something it would be a patio and it would be something that would be brick or something. It wouldn't be considered hard surface. I don't believe, I would do something. Blackowialc It is. Jeff King: Okay. Blackowiak: Sorry. Jeff King: No I wouldn't, the house actually has a porch on the front of it and I would see myseff using the porch more than I would. Blackowiak: A deck per se. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Serf King: It's all shade ~. You wouldn't be sitting out and sunning yourseff right there. The tree canopy is really... Blackowiak: No, just as I drove by I just noticed that there was a lmder on the house so I mean there was a deck there at one point in time. Jeff King: The deck was so rotted I took it out 2 years ago. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. That's my questiom Matt, before we, does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. I'm going to open this up for a public hearing in just a moment. Matt, can you give me those lengths on the driveway? Saam: Yeah. Now these are approximate on a scale but they're probably within a foot or two. The applicant's proposal where the garage is on the west side, that driveway length from the garage out to the street would be approximately 55 feet. And what staff is reconm~n~ with the driveway coming out to the east side, that driveway's approximat_v, ly 57 feet. Sacchet: Is longer? Saam: A couple feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, it doesn't sound fight. I was thinking that the east should be significantly shorter. That's why I wanted to kind of get a feel for that. And I don't know, it might just be an optical illusion but Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we comparing the original driveway versus the new or the two options? Al4aff: A couple of things going on. What I did was, I scanned these, the original survey and on a very primitive program if you will, I basically changed the layout Also there are two different scales between what the applicant's. Saam: This one's a 30 scale I believe. Yeah, I guess I assume the width, the total width of the house would be the same whether the garage was on the west side or the east side. The width is going to be the san~ so you ~ the width of the lot, and then from the setback on the west side over to the street, you just subtract the width of the lot and then you get. I can show it up on. Blackowiak: Yeah, you know what, that would be helpful because as I looked at the survey, I just, it looked different to me. Claybaugh: We want to check your work_ Saam: That's fine. Blackowiak: Well we just want to make sure we know what we're talking about here. Jeff King: ...it's fairly flat. That edge elevation...on the other side is more of a hill. Blackowiak: But it goes down towards the road. Serf King: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting -February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: So it would be like draining and getting sun and those are not necessarily bad things in this climate. Jeff King: It's all oak trees fight there. Saam: Okay so just, his proposal with the driveway coming up out this way, measming from the edge of the garage out to the street, you have approximately 56 feet 55-56 feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Saam: Now, well. Hold on a second. Let me just, the width of the house is going to remain the same. That's 63 feet so you go from the setback line, which is the farthest that the house can be pushed to the west, out to the street That's about 120-121 feet. Subtract off the 63. You have 57, 58 feet left. So as I said, they're approxirrmtely the same. Blackowiak: It's an optical illusion. It looks so differont~ But we're trusting you on this one. Thanks. Right, this item is open for a public hearing so ff anybody would ~ to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jeff Borns: Jeff Bores. I'm at 7199 Frontier Trail and Jeff's been a neighbor of mine for years and I understand what he's trying to do with the home and observing the lake. What I had noticed, if I could get this overheaut. The road tunas this direct and from a safety standpoint, from what I understand, the elevation of the home is considerably higher than the edge of the road. And with the consideration of the driveway and the parldng conditions and if you see what's going on with the neighborhood, I can see where coming out with a driveway in, with the elevation, with ice and that sort of thing, you know I just question the safety issue with this elevation and actually if a car is coming in this direction, you'd have to take an awfifl lot of momentum to actually, really create any problems in regards to the home or what have you so. I guess I'd like to see Jeff stay in the neighborhood and I know what he's trying to accomplish with his views, but as far as the whole thing fitting into what's happening with the homes next door and that sort of thing, from what I understand of the neighbors and that, I think thig is probably the preferable plan. I know I would like to keep him as a neighbor and you know I would like to have the same considerations for safety and that but I don't know if you folks have taken a look at that elevation there but sliding out the driveway into the traffic situation just doesn't seem like an option. If you look at the demographics of the lot, and you walk the property for some time, this really does seem like the logical application. And to me it's just a bea~ addition to the neighborhood so that's my only comment. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else be interested in saying anything tonight? Jeff King: I just have one comment. Blackowiak: You know, if you'd like to come on up to the microphone. That way we can get it on the record. Thanks. Jeff King: I guess I just don't understand the math because from my proposal to the city's proposal, how can we have a difference of 28 percent to 33.45 percent ff the driveway' s the same length. I just don't, I don't understand this. Blackowiak: Good question. Planning Commission Meeting - Febnu~ 18, 2003 JeffKing: It's new math but. Blackowiak: Let's, yeah. Good question. No, I unders~ and maybe S~ and Matt, we can kind of hash through this one more time bec__ause that's why I was asking about driveway length difference because if there's a hard surface difference, that means the driveway's shorter on one side or the other and I was, what I was trying to get at by going through those numbers was parking. In other words, does it make sense~ Are we going to be able to really get another full car in or is that not even an issue on the southern versus the westerly driveways. That's kind of what prompted my question. As I look at it, it seems that the southerly, I don't know if you guys will agree with me or not, it seems that the southerly driveway is shorter than the westerly. That would account for the difference in the hard surface coverage. Matt just told us it was a little bit longer and I'm thinking we've got a scale problem or what's, help us out here please. Saam: No. Just as you look at it though, depending on where you are on the curve. Depending on where you are on this curve and you're measuring back to the driveway. I mean if you're up here and measure back to the house, obviously that distance is shorter than is you measure down here where I was at. So it's all subjective. To me they're approximstely the same. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, if we could just look, I mean let's look at the, as I look at it, the upper left comer of the garage as is, that to the 185 mark that you have up on the slxe~ That distance, let's call that distance number 1 looks shorter to me than, let's go to the lower right corner of the house to the street. Distance number 1 looks shorter to me than what I would call distance number 2. Saam: Right here. Blackowiak: Yes. From there to the street. And ff you're assuming that the area that the house covers is going to be the same, which we've made that assumption, isn't distance 2. The southerly distance shorter than distance 1. Saam: And this is your distance 2 where my pen is? Blackowiak: There to the street, correcc Can you give me that distance? Saam: 62 feet. Blackowiak: Why does it look so much shorter? Lillehaug: I concur. I mean I measured it and I scaled it. Blackowiak: You got the same thing? Lillehaug: ...same as he, yes. Blackowialc Okay. I guess it's just an optical illusion them Okay, then I'll go back to Sharmeen question. Where do we get the hard surface coverage discrepancy between flip flopping the proposals? AI-Jaff: One of the things that I did was pushed the garage so it's at the 10 feet to reduce the front yard setback variance. Planning Commission Meeting -February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, so that accounts for part of the hard surf~ coverage because it's corning out of the front yard setback. Got it, okay. That makes sense to me now. AI-Jaff: I should have e~-plained that... Blackowiak: Okay. No, that's... Sacchet: I don't follow it yet to be honest. Blackowiak: Okay Sharmeen, let's let S~ get up there and explain to everybody so we can all understand. All get on the sam~ page where we're at hem. Al-~Iaff: One of the things that I did was rather than, I'm hoping that this shows. Okay. One of the things I did was I pushed the garage so it was parallel to the southerly ~ line and maintains the 10 foot setback. This in mm reduced the encroachngnt into the fi~nt yard setback. As you push this back to maintain the side yard setbacks, the 10 feet side yard setback, you increase the length of this driveway. That's where you come up with the difference. Blackowialc Okay, talk to me about hard surfa~ coverage. So that has to do with the setback. Front yard setback. AI-Jaff: You increase the length of the driveway from, Matt may I borrow your scale.. Blackowiak: I'm sony to be doing this S~ but I just want to make sum I'm understanding where you're coming from here. AI-Jaff: It's approximately 10 by, the driveway I believe is 20. 10 by 20 so that's 200. Blackowiak: So that's going to figure into your hard surface coverage fight them. AI-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. AI-Jaff: Versus if you move it in this direction. So now. Saam: You're going to the property line though Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: And I should be at the street? Saam: Yeah. For the full length of the driveway. That's what I measured. AI-Jaff: Okay. So now it's at 7 feet. Well then it's how I measured both. Blackowiak: Okay. Then can you give us. A1-Jaff: 70 versus 50. I'm sony, less. I need to do this one more time. I apologize. Clayhaugh: Point of clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. 10 Planning Commission Meeting -Febrm~ 18, 2003 Claybaugh: Sharmeen, what we're actually comparing is the proposed survey submitmd by the applicant, which would be thc 55 feel AI-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. Here's the alternative plan so there isn't, in my mind it's not necessary to take that westerly measurement. That's not part of what he's proposing. Blackowiak: No. I'm asking, I asked for that Just for my own head. I mean I want to figure out parking. We're talldng parking issues. We're talking safety. I kind of want to know. A1-Jaff: But hard surface is measured on the site its~ff. Blackowiak: Yeah, but I'm also looking at driveway length too. I'm thinking parking. You know it's. AI-Jaff: You should have enough length for the parking. That shouldn't become an issue. Blackowiak: No, but I'm just saying if he's having guests over, you know is it going to be significantly less parking doing the southerly versus westerly, that was kind of my question. You know if there's no parking on Carver Beach Road, which makes sense, what are the options and how do we accommodate this. Al4aff: There will be room for 2 cars within the front yard, on the driveway. Blackowiak: Like 2, 2 by 2, so 4 cars? Blackowiak: Plus parking in the garage, okay. AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: That's reasonable. Thank you. Does anybody have any other quesdons of staff? Public hearing' s still open. Last chance if anyone wants to comment. Jeff King: I have one more, two more comments. Blackowiak: Sure. Jeff King: I want to re-address Steve's question about redoing the utilities if the driveway's there. I'm going to have to redo all my site utilities. I don't think they'll let me have all my sewer and water under a driveway so everything will have to be moved over and re-tapped into the street. Second of all I could also square up my. The reason I cocked it a little bit was just an architectural thing to try to blend the house into the un'ri. I mean it can be put on, mine can be put on, my proposal can be squared up also. I think it gains you somewhere around 4 inches on the encroachn~nt. You know, I think it just looks better if it was kind of faced the curve a little bit so, but it will be a financial, a more substantia~ financial impact to redo all the utilities. The site utilities because the, I don't think they're going to let me nm sewer, water gas and all that under a driveway. 11 Planning Commission Meeting -F~bnmry 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Daredo Drive. Just a comment. I think the issue of the coverage is a critical one here because it's shoreland, and I realize he's exceeding it to a certain degree. I think it'd be helpful just from the standpoint of me picking up this report, if they had a matrix showing the coverage of the house, the garage and the driveway and where the driveway was located. It was difficult for me to see how much coverage thea~ was or where the driveway was a single driveway, a double driveway or something. Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. I think we've got a few options floating around tonight so, part of the issue. One more comment? Jeff King: I'm not on the water. I know anything in that neighborhood ends up in Lotus Lake but I'm not on the shoreline. And that whole bluff down below me is all trees. There's no development. I don't think it's, any of that is developable land. In fact the neighbors next to me are on an unbuildable lot that they built on since Fve been there so I know you know things have changed. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. At this point Fm going to close the public hearing. It's time for comments. Steve would you like to start? Lillehaug: Sure. Let me start with an easy comment. I don't have a problem with the sm'face coverage area. We're talking a few percentage differences depending on which option we're looking at. I don't have a problem with that. I guess the point I want to draw further attention to, and it's a single point that I have a problem with is the sight line distance. The ideal case, this is the ideal case why the city has a 30 foot setback on a front yard property, is to maintain a sight line in this particular case. 26 feet seems reasonable. However this option, it doesn't appear that this is an option that's acceptable to you. I would support the 26 feet. I don't support a 20 foot. That seems, you're i ~mpeding the setback by 10 feet and that's too much in this case. The sight distance is imp~t in this case because it is a safety issue. And around thi,~ curve to maintain as much safety as possible I think it's very i ~mportant, and without increasing it in this case, because right now your house does not encroach into that setback. Therefore I think this is one particular point that we need to maintain and withhold and that we cannot encroach uImo because if we do encroach upon it, it's going to increase negative impacts to safety and I'm not willing to go forward with that. There are other obstacles such as trees and bushes in the sight line also. By further putting a house in that sight line it kind of increases the safety obstacles two fold because you're really impacting that sight line to provide absolutely almost no sight line because there's trees, bushes and then you're moving that house in that area also. So I think that this option would really be a potential detriment and I don't support it. And I really do want to reiterate again that a 30 foot setback is ideal. One other comment I guess or question I'd like to make is, can we break this variance up? Blackowiak: We can do anything, sure. What would you suggest? Cave me a suggestion. Lillehaug: Well there's two variances... Blackowialc Do you want 3 separate? Lillehaug: ...hard surface coverage and then one for the fxont yard setback. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Then I would also, I don't want to throw other options out ffan~ but I would be more in support of impeding the rear yard or side yard sexlmck than anything with the front yard setback at this point. Blackowiak: Alright. So then your suggestion would be to break this into two motions. Number one, for the front yard setback- Number two, for the hard surface coverage. Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, with the goal of what? Lillehaug: With the goal of what? Well, I guess there really wouldn't be a goal that would probably be acceptable to the applicant if they weren't both approved. Blackowiak: But just sort of what the direction that if you were going to go into a setback, you'd prefer it more to the back than into the front? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: Yes. For the variance it's not a question in my mind that the applicamt needs a variance. I think that goes without consi~on. It comes down to a question, typically in all these cases, the degree or the extent of the variance. And as Commissioner Lillehaug stated, it needs to be looked at in relative terms. But my fellow commissioner, I don't struggle necessarily with the percentages on the hard surface coverage. It's a consideration, absolutely but my primary concern is the public safety associated with the sight lines. The variance that you're asking for on that is a 33 percent variance. 10 feet doesn't necessarily sound like a lot. 33 percent does, in my mind. And as such, with respect to possibly splitting the motions, I would be in favor of that, but with respect to the 33 percent variance on the setback, I could not support that. ' Blackowiak: Alright. Uli. Sacchet: Well I agree with the comment that it's definitely a variance in order. I mean the applicant needs a variance in this particular case a variance is necessary, by all means. However, when we have a change of a non-conforming situation what we look at is the non-conformance increased, is it very much increased or is it decxvased. Ideally from the city's point of view we like to see the non-conformance decrease. On that basis I first thought that the staff proposal was very good because it made an effort to balance the different aspe~ of non-conformance. Getting the side yard setbacks respected, which before were a little bit encroached upon. Get front, well I don't know whether you call that front yard. It's the side yard towards the street or the front yard setback. Maintain that as much as possible. It's a safety concern. I think that's very significant. It's a second aspect that needs to be looked aL I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the fact, I feel this hasn't had enough thne to be discussed and thought through from the applicant's side for one thing. It's my understanding from the applicant's comments that you just got this alternative proposal on Friday. And then on top of that seems to be, I think it would be really helpful in order to pin this down to make clear decision, to be very clear in terms of how are these calculations made for the hard cover surface coverage. Even though that is secondary. That got a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 little muddled here in the discussion. That was tmfommate so I person~y, and I don't know whether that's fair to the applicant, I would want to give this more time to really bring it a little bit more into sync with what the situation is. What can be done. I don't think this has been cooked enough so therefore I would want to gropose we table this. Blackowiak: Thank you. I don't know if I agree we need to table this. I agree that there's some room for improvement and some more fine tuning, but I think that within the parameters that staff has set, in terms of the setback from the road at 26 feet for a maximm~ No, ~ That'd be a minimum setback That's kind of my starting point. I really think the sight lines are important like my fellow commissioners have agreed. Those I think are things that we need to, those sight lines are things that we have to preserve, especially in this area beca~ it's a tough area to build. The variance, you need a variance to build. We don't want you to leave Chanhassen. That's not our intent here. We're just trying to make it the best possible layout for this piece of property, and you don't have a lot of ~ to work with. I mean it's tough and the design you have is gorgeous. That'd be a great addition to the neighlxWnood. I certainly agree with that. We just have to figure out how we can maintain the sight lines. I think the parking issue is huge. I mean I want to make sure that if you're going to do a house, that you're going to be able to have people over and be able to have them park on your driveway. I mean you have to take that into consideration. I like Steve's thoughts about maybe changing a little bit on the side yard setbacks and the west and the south. We could even look at preserving what's existing. In other words not increasing what's increasing by tweaking it a little bit, shifting the house ever so slightly. I mean I think we've got some options here so I don't think we need to necessarily table this. I think I would feel comfortable moving forward with staff's proposal. Setting those 26 feet, 28 percent, setting those numbers and then having staff work with the applicant to fine tune the project because I think we can do it. I think we can do it. I think it can be done within the numbers that we have and so I would certainly vote for going ahead with this proposal and moving it along this evening. So since Steve wanted to split these motions into two, I will let him make the motion this evening. Lillehaug: I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve a variance request to allow, well I'm not sure if I can make a motion really because I don't have specific percenta~. So let me withdraw my motion. AI-Jaff: How...for you. Lillehaug: Say again. AI-Jaff: Do you want me to split the motion for you? Lillehaug: Well the problem I'm having is I don't have a certain percentage for hard surface coverage. Blackowiak: Or not to exceed? Or maybe we give a little. I mean I don't, split the difference between the existing and the applicant or you know, give him a little more room to work as long as you maintain the front setback. Because I think that we've all agreed that that is, in our minds, one of the most important. Lillehaug: Well then let me ask a question here. The existing hard surface coverage is 29.5 percent. Do we need to approve, do we need a variance to approve an existing condition? To maintain that... 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Blackowiak: I think we do. I think yeah, we still need a variance because it doesn't meet current standards. The goal is to not to increase the non-conformity. So if we went with 29.5, that would be within our. Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves a variance request for a 29.5 percent, which is the existing hard surface coverage area. That would be it~ Blackowiak: Okay. And do you want to do a separate one for the setback? Is that what you're looking for? Or do you just want to put them all together? It's up to you. Lillehaug: I guess I would like to keep them separate. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. So we'll, the~'s been a motion. Is thexe a second? Sacchet: I second that. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request 02003-2 to allow 29,q% hard surface coverage for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on plans dated January 3, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimonnly with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: A second motion please. Lillehaug: I guess I don't think I have a second motion. Blackowiak: Well we need to do something. The staff's proposal is at 26 feeC So you're comfortable with that, which would give you sight lines of 100 and, no. 200 feet, is that correct Matt? So the 26 foot setback would give you 200 foot sight lines. Lillehaug: Okay. I make a motion that we approve a variance request to allow a maximum of a 26 foot yard setback. Sacchet: Minimurr~ Lillehaug: Minimum? Minimun~ Okay. AI-Jaff: Would you also eliminate condition number 8 please. Lillehaug: Yep, eliminate condition nnmher 5 and eliminate condition number 8. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, we'll do that. Lillehaug: Boy I struggled through that, sorry. Blackowiak: That's okay. So that would be a 26 foot front yard setback, correct? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Clarification. Condition number 4 stays as is? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 Al-laff: Matt? Condition number 4 stays as is? Samm Are you asking? Lillehaug: I would like to withdraw condition number 4 also. Sacchet: I wondered about that. Blaekowiak: So the applieant work with staff to sight the driveway as to maint~ appropriate distances? LiHehaug: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. We'll sort of redo number 4. Sacchet: Mean not saying work with staff, you just take it off? Blackowiak: No. Put condition number 4, Fm saying that they will work with staff to. Sacchet: Will work with staff. Blackowiak: In an effort to maximize sight distances. I think that's what we've all been saying is that safety's important on this road so, let's let them work with them and. Lillehaug: Before approving this and before I finalize my motion, cam I ask a question on this? Okay say the applicant goes ahead and wants to go to this 26 foot point. Does he, ff he was within the setback of the side and rear yard, would he have to come in front of this board again to get approval for those variances? If there was one required because existing conditions, I mean they don't meet. Blackowiak: Oh you mean so if he was, oh if he encroached into. Lillehaug: If he encroached into the side and rear, he would have to come in front of this board again for a variance. Would this be an appropriate time to table this so he doesn't have to redo this? That's why I'm kind of leaning towards... AIJaff: There is one issue with tabling. We're rnnning into a deadline, unless the applicant. March 4th we nm into the 60 day deadline to process this application. We're going to need additional time. Blackowiak: Do you have a comment for us Kate? Is that why you're coming up here? Aanenson: You didn't notice for any other ~_d~ditional variances so you can't grant them at this time. They were not noticed. Legally you have to notice those. We can ask for additional 60 days for additional information. He doesn't have to, you can signify that you need additional information. Therefore we get the additional 60 days. Blackowiak: Okay. Or else we can just go ahead and grant this evening, what's been request~ and should plans change or should something else ha~ then we can just come back and, so that's certainly up to you. You're making the motion. 16 Planning Commission Meeting -February 18, 2003 Lillehaug: I maintain my motion with the deletions. Blackowialc Okay, there's been a motion regarding the 26 foot front yard setback. I think we need to vote first. So I have the motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Yes, I can second thaL Without 4, 5 and 8. With 4 stating will work with staff to maximize sight distances. Blackowiak: Okay. Friendly amendment? Claybaugh: Friendly amendment would pertain to the orientation of the smacmre on the lot as it sits right now. The way the motion is proposed, it calls for a 26 foot ~ setback, but doesn't address the square footage that goes beyond the 30 feet. So the house changed with respect to the orientation on the lot, you could have substantially more square footage. Blackowiak: It's already been ~ in the hard surface coverage figure. I think we're okay with that. I mean you wouldn't be adding anything that isn't already there. Al4aff: And you can just reference. Blackowiak: The staff's layout. Al4aff: StaWs proposal. Staff's layout Claybaugh: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe you just want to make that amendment.. Just reference staff's proposal. Claybaugh: Is that sufficient? Blackowiak: Okay. Do you accept that? Lillehaug: Yes. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request g2003-2 to allow a 26 foot front yard setback, co~t with staff's proposal, for the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot of record as shown on the plans dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: . Show all the existing utilities adjacent to the lot, i.e. sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermaim 2. Show all proposed and existing conto~ lines along with the proposed house elevations. 3. Show the proposed house with elevations, driveway, sidewalk: etc. . The applicant will work with staff to maximize Mght distances for motorists on Carver Beach Road when siting the new house on the lot. 5. Deleted. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2003 . . . The applicant shall flip the home as shown in staff's layout The home shall maintain a 26 foot front yard setback. Deleted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: So what happens next? A1-Jaff: It's been approved. Blackowiak: Mr. King, please talk to Sharmeen. In a nutshell. Just hammer it out. I really ~ it's a great looking house. I think you can work something out, and I'd hate to have you see, I rream we'd love to see you again but you probably don't want to see us again so work it out and build a nice house. It will be a nice i ,mprovement to the neighborhood. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 21, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commi~don meeting at 8:0~ p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Chairman Franks called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m. MEMBER~ pRESENT: Rod Franks, Tom Kelly, Amy O'Shea, Jack Spizale, Patila Atkins, and Glen Stolar. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRF~ENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Todd Hoffman added Item 6.c. pertaining to the answering of questions posed by the City Council concerning the operation of the Park and Recreation Commission. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRF~ENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kelly moved, Spizale seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2003 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. MODIFICATION TO SKATE PARK PLAN. Following a staff report and Commissioner discussion, Commissioner Stolar moved to direct staff to close the north access to the skate park, and open a west access to the skate park. Further that staff be directed to investigate the viability of purchasing new "tier two" type equipment and charging for access to the park. REVIEW 2003 LAKE ANN BEACH LIFEGUARD CONTRACT~ MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND SERVICF_3. Following a staff report and Commissioner discussion, Commissioner O'Shea moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Lake Ann Park Beach Lifeguard contract with Minnetonka Community Education and Services in the mount of $27,555 for the 2003 summer beach season. ADOPTION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMIe, SION BYLAWS Commissioners recommended some minor modifications to the by-laws. These amendments will be included in the copy of the by-laws to be forwarded to the City Council. Staff reports concerning the 2003 Easter Egg Candy Hunt, Daddy Daughter Date Night and February Festival were presented. Commission members discussed these events and made a variety of suggestions for furore events. ADMINISTRATIVE PA~[ET. Rod Franks was appointed to serve on the 2005 MUSA area study group. The Commission selected March 25t~ as the date to conduct Commission applicant interviews. (Upon checking the City Council interview schedule it was determined that this date would not work, the Council is interviewing on the 24th). If more than five applications are received the Commission will conduct interviews on March 11. If fewer than five applications are received the applicants will all be interviewed solely by the City Council. The Commission prepared responses to questions posed by the City Council for discussion at a future work session. Stolar moved, O'Shea seconded to adjourn the meetin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.