The URL can be used to link to this page

1h Approval of MinuteslA. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 19, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Council members Labatt, Senn, Jansen. MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Engel STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, City Manager; Charles Folch, Public Works Director BEDDOR ENTRY MONUMENT: Councilman Senn gave a presentation indicating that Mr. Beddor is still interested in donating a lot at the intersection of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard to the City of Chanhassen for use as some public purpose, preferably one involving a green space- or public use. Councilman Senn indicated that Mr. Beddor has an interest in a right of review over what is put there in consultation with city staff. Following a discussion of what may go there, staff was instructed to check on a few things: 1. Buildability of the lot~is the lot currently a buildable lot? Special assessmentsmit is understood that there are special assessments against the property at the current time. If so, what is the outstanding balance of this assessment? If donated, what happens to this assessment? The City Manager is to communicate to the Community Development Department to begin putting together some alternatives for the use &this property, perhaps focusing on the establishment of a community bulletin bOard/signage integrated in an aesthetically tasteful way into a landscaped effort on the comer. PILLSBURY SEWER CHARGES: Mr. Jim Costello, agem for Pillsbury, was present at the work session and gave a brief description of the internal engineering Pillsbury has undertaken allowing the city to bill Pillsbury for actual sanitary sewer services consumed, not water consumed. City ordinance and MCES administrative guidelines both allow and candidly prefer this methodology for the building. The council discussed this briefly and this issue will appear on the July 26, 1999 council meeting on the consent agenda. PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION: City Manager, Scott Botcher, opened the discussion with a brief introduction and stated that the main purpose for this worksession item was to clarify and confirm what additional information or issues the Council would like to have addressed prior to making a decision on moving forward with an expansion project. Councilwoman Jansen stated that she would like to see a more specific and detailed analysis of the immediate and future space needs &the Public Works operations, i.e. more numbers, statistics, and directly tied correlations. Mayor'Mancino stated that she would like to have the space needs and proposed phasing plan developed based on the capital equipment replacement schedule. The Mayor also indicated a desire to obtain information on the lifecycle cost comparison of storing some equipment outside versus inside, if that type of information is available. The MaYor also stated that the overall cost JULY 19, 1999 L _ and plan for the expans'o should include the phone system and computer System upgrades- needed, along with information on the replacement an~ relocationpl.~n for ~e Lake'~nn.par ~.~ maintenance storage buildings (i.e. space needed, timing, and locaiion). Councilman Sen~n' ~'-- !,ndicated that it is his op,?on, thisissueboits dOwnto two-fundamental questions. The ~'W dow ' " ~" --- - ~- hat e want to do, and the second IS when do;wewant to do ~t. CouncfimanLabatt.~_o echoed a desire to see the space needs defined on moro specific growth projections_. City - 'i- Manager Botcher then closed by concluding that he was not certain theCity re_triced full ban~_;~ ~ for the buck with the consultant pre-design work which had been preparedby Amcon. Man~ Botcher also felt that staff could provide a report based on a rationale of needs-Usingthe vehi~ and equipment capital replacement schedule, etc.-rather ~anhiring a¢0nsulmntto l~erform th~: work. Public Works Director Folch expressed concern as to whether or not staff et;fortswou!~be perceived as being unbiased or impartia[inpreparing the desired update to the needs study,or[ whether it should be conducted by an OUtside independent consultant. TheCitY¢ouncil'd?d n~ foresee a problem with staff performing the work ~ndConcludedby directin City Man~ -'er - ~ Botcher. to work with staff, to prepare the update to_ the needs_pre' orr in.-.house ..... ' ' . _ · _. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEMBERSHIP: City Manager Botcher asked ifthe_c~iY- 'i -- council wanted to remain members of the NatiOnal League oI~Cities. TheannualmembershiP~_:~--- costs approximately$t,100. The consensus of council ~nemhers Was thatthe educational opportunities present at the National LeagueofCities may wellbehoove the city.to maintain membership in the National League of Cities. The City l(4anager indicated that he will have t~ bill coded and paid. ' ' -: - - -- ESTA LIa CmTEaIA eoasIx o Ta crr¥ * * Ea-aeVIEW: Bo!cher ~n?cated th.~t h~.e. wxsh.ed' ce. un.ti!.' t.o .est. abh.sh' c~ena~£or" ' .' '~ as!x _ _ _ ~ _ _er_ rewew consistent W~th discussions he het_dduring~interviews and wit~nbta.tiorrwithm,t~he employment agreement. City Manager-Botcher indicated that_he Msh~_d toha~eidenfffied3:W!~ wasgoing to be measured~how itwas goingt~o be meaSUred, arid when~t Was going to he' measured. The consensus of tM councalwas In agreement~with_that: T~that-~d,,Mr. Bob_ Benson of Sathe & Associates will be contacted work with-the c uneil to-helP en issues in the process to followat thesix~monthreviewmark. Mr: Bens6awas-r~eom Sathe & Associates was involvi~d inthe interVieW process andhas_a_go0'd -Chanhassen as well as the demandsofthe positton~ - - :~- - ' -:- POTENTIAL CANCELLATION OF THE AUGUST 2~°~woRK seSsION: The :- -- consensus °f the ur°up ~was t° cancel theAugust 2"d w°rksessi°"' - "-----~ MISCELLANEOUSITEMS: - - ~ ' -- - 1. Mayor Mancino requested that Dave MacGillivrary come toa worksession and-make. presentation regarding his CIP/DebtService calculations. ' _ - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JULY 19, 1999 PAGE 3 Staff will re-establish the bid list for the six services provided to the city that should be RFP'd. It was communicated to the manager that the council had established a process by which independent contractors/consultants each year would be subject to an RFP process. The City Manager indicated that he has never seen such a list and the Mayor indicated that such a written document may not exist and that the Manager may wish to re-establish this list and cycle for future communication and usage. Respectfully submitted, Scott A. Botcher City Manager g:\minutes\cc\wrksessicms99\7~ 19-99.doc CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Engel COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Anita Benson, Cindy Kirchoff, Bob Generous, Bob Zydowsky, Todd Gerhardt and Roger Knutson CONSENT AGENDA: a. Approve Change Order No. 1 to 1999 Sealcoat Project 99-2. Councilman Senn asked what the amount of the budget was that was approved for this project. The City Engineer stated that this project was still under budget. Approve Change Order No. 2 to West 78th Street (Lake Ann Park Entrance to CSAH 17) Proiect 95;21. Mayor Mancino asked if this request was "robbing Peter to pay Paul". The City Engineer Stated it wasn't intentionally doing that on this project. th c. Approve Revised Grading and Drainage plan for Springfield 5 Addition, Pro.iect No. 99-3. Councilwoman Jansen asked why this item had been placed on the Consent Agenda after Mr. Larry Klein had requested speaking on the subject. The City Engineer stated the item could be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. Mayor Mancino asked if the berm had been changed and the City Engineer stated that the berm was bigger than originally proposed and that the developer had been removing material from the berm of the last few days. Mayor Mancino asked why the berm had been so large. The City Engineer stated that the berm was actually a stockpile of material taken from the site and was larger than anticipated due to poor soil conditions and wanted to create a buffer between Highway 101 and future homes to be built in the subdivision. Mayor Mancino asked who would be responsible for the upkeep of the berm and was told that it would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Mayor Mancino asked if the City enforces weed control. Bob Zydowsky stated that the city only responds to complaints of noxious weeds such as thistles, purple loosestrife. Councilwoman Jansen asked about the seed mix required and if the City has a choice in the height of the berm. The City Engineer stated that the height was the issue before the council. Mayor Mancino asked if staff was comfortable with the 28 foot height for the berm and the City Engineer stated that she was comfortable with that proposal. Councilwoman Jansen asked how the berm impacted the adjoining property owned by the Finger's. The City Engineer stated that the Finger property was not shown on the map but that Dave Hempel had been meeting with the Finger's regarding drainage swales. Councilwoman Jansen then asked about the landscaping requirements and Bob Generous stated that the developer had exceeded the ordinance with their landscaping plan. CityCouneil work Session-., Mayor req~ theCity Council_ Councilwoman ~ansen~ - ' driveway, f. _ Project No. ~84, - · Councilman Senn asked for an UPdateon this -~ The Shorewood City Councilw°uld betaka~n~ction-on thi_s~it~~l~ht. No questions were asked on thisitem. 5% _- - No questionsAo were~a~'ed on-thivit~n. ~ ~:: -_ ~-__-~ ~ _ ~--~-,2._ ~ - ~ k. __provalofResoluflon~Aufli~rlzin~Cg~.~tytOA°° s,: :. : ; City Council Work Session - July 26, 1999 No questions were asked on this item. 1. Approve Resolution Authorizing Participation in Safe & Sober Grant. Mayor Mancino asked what the amount of the grant would be. Bob Zydowsky stated he didn't know the amount but it was based on shifts. Mayor Mancino asked if this program was making a difference for the city and Bob Zydowsky stated it was. e Approve Adoption of a Program for Development District No. 4 and Plan for Tax Increment Financing District 4-1. Todd Gerhardt passed out a handout with the payment schedule requested by Councilman Senn on paying the district off sooner. Mayor Mancino asked if the City Council could stipulate a four year plan. Todd Gerhardt stated that they could, but if the district was not paid off, they would have to come back for a request for an extension. o Appeal Decision of the Planning Commission for a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an open porch, 8028 Dakota Avenue, Don and Joyce White. No questions were asked on this item. Appeal Decision for a 5 foot front yard and 30 foot bluff setback variance approved for construction of a single family home for Pat and Judy Neuman, Lot 4~ Block 4, Chanhassen Vista, Jon and Laurie Clausen and John and Laura Podergois. Councilman Senn asked if the size of the proposed home was Comparable to the rest of the neighborhood and was told it was. Councilwoman Jansen asked for clarification between conservation easement and the bluff setback. Mayor Mancino asked if the deed would show the conservation easement. Cindy Kirchoff stated that because of the age of the plat recording, she would have to go down to the County offices to get that information but the surveyor would document the location of the conservation easement. Councilwoman Jansen stated that neighbors of this property had been warned previously by the city about doing work in the bluff area. e Request for an Amendment to the PUD for Arboretum Business Park to permit church assembly worship as an ancillary use in the development; Waiver of Second Reading of Code Amendment; Approve Interim Use Permit for New Life Christian Fellowship, Steiner Development. Mayor Mancino asked if churches were listed an Interim Uses in the PUD. Bob Generous stated that conditions could limit the size of a church. Councilman Senn asked if the city would be under any obligation to expand the use and Bob Generous stated that the church would have ask for an amendment to the Interim Use Permit. Councilman Senn asked if the City was 100% protected from this church asking for a tax exemption. Bob Generous stated that the church was not the underlying property owner and was only leasing the space, but that the city could limit this use to only this one building in the PUD with a 6% maximum. City Council Work Session - July 26, 1999 ge Eden Trace Corporation: Preliminary Plat approval to replat Lots 9 and 10, Block 1~ Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition into Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, and Outlots A and Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park; and Site Plan Review approval for a 20,195 square foot building and conditional use permit for a daycare facility to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8t Addition on property zoned IOP~ Industrial Office Park~ Scott & Associates. Mayor Mancino voiced concerned over the amount of work left to be done, i.e. landscaping, etc. Bob Generous stated this was only preliminary plat and that that work would be completed by final plat approval. 9. Law Enforcement Update, Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Fire Chief. No questions were asked on this item. Mayor Mancino adjourned the work session meeting at 6:25 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 4 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1999 MayOr Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Engel, Councilman Senn, and Councilwoman Jansen COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Cindy Kirchoff, Anita Benson, Bob Zydowsky, John Wolff, and Scott Botcher APPROVAL OF AGENDA:" Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Mancino: First of all are there any consent agenda items that council members would like pulled and to talk about' separately? Councilman Senn: Let's see, pull we're going to pull d and e. Mayor Mancino: Okay, you would like 'to pull d and e. Councilman Senn: And I think, didn't somebody want to speak on c? Mayor Mancino: Well I'm going to ask that in just one second, thank you. Okay, so we'll pull l(d) and (e) and pat that at the end of the consent agenda. Is there anyone here tonight that is here to sPeak on another item in the consent agenda and would like ii pulled? Could you just come forward and let us know which one on the consent agenda you would like pulled. And are you both in the same one? Okay, we'll find out. Larry Klein: I'm'Larry Klein. Live down near by the. Springfield Addition. And what I would like to get some answers on ~vhy they don't get that berm pulled down to what they originally stated. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so Mr. Klein. Excuse me. So Mr. Klein we will pull l(c) from the consent agenda and then at the end of, after we approve the consent agenda we'll come back and talk about that item and.let you come up in front of us. Thank you and give us your comments. Mark Nettesheim: Same item, different topic. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. So 1 (c) and (d) is pulled from the consent agenda. Councilman Senn: And e. C~ty Council MeeUng - July 26, 1999 _. Mayor Mancino: And e. l(c), (d) and (e). Then may I have a motion for the rest of the consent please. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel Seconded to approvethe followi0gConsent Agen~ items pursuant tothe City Manager'srecommendatlong _ a. Resolution #99-62: Approve Change Order No 1 to 1999 Sealcoat Project 9-2. ,. tit ' -- b. Resolution #99-63: Approve Change Order No. 2 to West 73 Street (Lake Ann ParkEntran~to CSAH 17), Project 95-21. f.Approve Joint Powers Agreement with City of Shorewoodfor I/I Drainage-Improvement_ Proj~t No. 98-2. - - g. Approval of Change to Pillsbury Sewer Charge Calculation. - _ h. Approvel3.15. Lions Club Liquor License for Region III Softball Tournament at Lake - ~ Ann_Park~A ~u~st- ~- i. Approval of Bills. j. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Minutes dated July 12, 1999 ' . -City CounCil Work Session. Minutes dated July 12, 1999 - - . Receive Commission Minutes: - -Planning C0mmissionMinutes dated'July 7, 1999 ~ ' · k. Resolution #99-64: Approval of Resolution AuthorizingC~ty to Appl[y for TIF Funds. 1. Resolution #99-fi5: Approve Resolution AuthorizingParticipation in S Allvotedinfa~orandthemotloncarrledunnnlmously.- ' - __~ _--~ C. APPROVE REVISED GRAIIINGANDItRAINAGE P_LANFORSIaRI~_- ~C~_ IE_LD ~u:.-~-. ~ i 5~ f ADDiTION~ PROJECT NO. t9~3. - - ~ _-- --- - _ Mayor Mancino' If you'd like to getupMr. Klein and t'll g[veyoua chance. - T-- Larry Klein: Yes. When they originallyeame:m withtheirdnidarplan; t~~idan 8~ to berr~ around the project Well to ~nelhis thing isway out of proportion andt,h_e,{:~e g~ way grades. I don t kno~ just exactly Whatthe gr~les are-but-I k~ow: lsurewouIdn't to_cut agrass on that slope that's there. ~ . Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do you have any other questions MnKlein, because I: il.get,those answere~fOt~ yot~ in just one minute. ' Larry Klein: Okay.. ' - 2 - City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Okay? Larry Klein: But to me, and I think it's going to amount to a lot of the erosion down into the drainage in the low area across from me. And from what they tell me, I haven't been down there for 3 weeks or 4 weeks but they said the culvert is getting filled up with sediment. Mayor Mancino: Okay. If you can wait just one second. Anita, can you answer some of this, the concerns? Anita Benson: Sure. Mayor Mancino, maybe I can make a suggestion. If the other gentleman would also like to speak on this issue and then I can address them all. All of the issues at once. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Good suggestion. Mark Nettesheim: I'm Mark Nettesheim, 9151 Great Plains Boulevard. I'm just south of the berm and north. Mayor Mancino: You're the first house? Mark Nettesheim: I'm the first house in the back. On the back, by the soccer fields and the park on my borders. And what we've had this spring is a numerous amount of runoff into our property that's basically pooling up into an abnormal runoff area and basically killing Mr. Finger's and my trees along one area of our property. Mayor Mancino: Not good. Mark Nettesheim: Not good. We met with some of the city people and we've walked the property together and I have a concern because this summer the, I know it's a temporary situation but it had broken through and drained into my property and you're right, all the runoff is red so we all know where it's coming from. And it's, well it's the mud. Mud red. And at the same time the soccer fields are draining that way and now the city parking lot, where instead of absorbing when it.was a field, it runs right into Mr. Finger's, which is our western border. Right in his property. So it's all converging there and pooling. And at some of the locations where it should run north and then into the culvert that goes under 101 into the lake. Because of some of the runoff from the berm, the feed area has increased because you have a lot of weeds there and the runoff and all the runoff has increased the depth so we now have more pooling of water. The city talked to us about how they were going to remedy this but I haven't seen it yet and I'm just here just to ensure that the talk comes into reality. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, if I could attempt to address some of the issues. To give you some background information. Originally when this property was preliminary platted with the Springfield development, the berm height was proposed at a 932 elevation. However when it was final platted, the berm was reduced significantly in size based on anticipated earthwork balance quantities. What is actually constructed out there today reflects excess soils encountered on the site due to some poor soils that were temporarily stockpiled on the site. Never intended to be permanent. What the developer is bringing before you tonight is a proposed final grading plan for the berm and what that elevation will be is 940 at it's highest point. So what it represents is a berm that's 8 foot higher than it was originally City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 shown on the preliminary plat. However, with the proposed berm, the existing berm out there now is 8 foot higher than what is proposed as a final before you tonight. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they're going to take 8 feet off of it. Anita Benson: Correct. Approximately 8 feet off what's existing out there today. Mayor Mancino: Is that at it's highest point or all the way down the berm? Because now I see it on the north side, you know it's shorter height and then it goes up. Anita Benson: That would be at the highest point. And I'll put some drawings up in a moment, but I'd like to address the proposed, or the anticipated erosion problems. Anticipated by Mr. Klein and yes, the berm has not been properly vegetated as it has been up to this point somewhat of a stockpile site. And with the final landscaping plan that has been presented by the developer, there will be the appropriate seeding and landscape trees planted which will prevent the erosion. So yes, it has been a problem up to this point and it will be addressed with the final seeding and sodding and erosion control blanket. We know how to stabilize slopes and I'm sure the developer will do a good job of that or will be letting them know that there's a problem. Regarding the runoff situation that has been raised. While the problem of runoff is not new for the Finger property or for the property owned by Mr. Nettesheim, there has always been a runoff problem. With the Springfield development, the' actual runoff has been decreased to their properties. However there were some problems with the pond construction where there was a blowout and yes, there was sediment washed onto their property. A temporary construction problem which the developer will address. But overall the Springfield development has reduced runoff to the properties. And also with the grading plan that they're proposing with the berm, they're proposing to create a more defined swale and do additional berming along the southerly property line to ensure that more runoff does not go onto that property. And if I could at this time I'll put up some drawings and kind of illustrate what I've been going over. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. And Anita, when will th}s all take place? I mean is this all going to take place in the next 60 days as far aS drainage pattern, making sure that that's been fixed and the berming, etc. Anita Benson: I guess, the developer is here tonight and I'll let them address their timing situation as soon as I'm done going over this. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Anita Benson: The Klein residence is located approximately in Section DD on the plan you have before you... The berm elevation, the berm starts approximately and a berm elevation right here at it's highest point is at an elevation of 940. And everyone to the south... And I know a concern of Mr. Klein has been what is he going to be looking at. Looking at this monstrous berm and what exactly will he see of the Springfield development... Mayor Mancino: Well I think he would be concerned if he was going to see a slope of weeds there versus landscape and something visually. Anita Benson: Correct, and up to this point that has been vegetated... You will be able to see the tops of the, the second levels of... second stories will be visible...and with that I'd ask the developer to... 4 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I have one more question. Between the private property, what they're going to berm, and we see this in front of us here. This triangulated piece with the slope. Between that and Highway 101, is that going to be grasses or what? Because there's a fair amount of property that's probably right-of-way. Will that be seeded too? Okay. And the city will maintain that? Anita Benson: Highway 101 is MnDOT right-of-way so anything in the right-of-way is... As far as the landscaping...on the berm itself, that will be... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Council members, questions? Councilman Senn: Clarification now. If I'm understanding what you all just went through then. Basically the berm that's there now is 8 foot higher than it's going to be. Anita Benson: If approval of this proposed plan. Councilman Senn: Right. And with approval of this proposed plan, the berm that will remain will be 8 feet higher yet than what was on the preliminary plat. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the developer here and can you come up and let us know timing. We want trees. Mike Pflaum: So do we. Before I answer the question of timing, I need to correct what I believe is a. Mayor Mancino: Peter, can you give you name. Mike Pflaum: Yeah, I think I will. I'm Mike Pflaum. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros. and I'm the person responsible for the berm. Over the past 3 or 4 days we have done the berm grading. We took 8 feet off the berm already. And I was just out looking at it this evening and the difficult thing about the berm, and the reason that it's disturbing to Mr. Klein, is that our property is 8 feet higher than his property to begin with. That means that the main level of his house is 8 feet below the main level of all the houses that are on that tier along Highway 101. So we're starting out with a deficit. He is 8 feet lower than the berm is on the inside. The berm is an important feature to the project. As I imagine everybody on the council knows, Highway 101 is going to be upgraded to four lanes along the entire frontage of Springfield. It's going to be four lanes divided. And that's going to be part of the improvements that occur when 212 comes through. We feel that it would be a great mistake on our part and unconscionable for us not to take measures to protect our homeowners from the traffic down Highway 101. The traffic on Highway 101 is anticipated to triple within 10 years. That having been said, the explanation for the condition of the berm is exactly what the city engineer said. It's been a storage area for material. The grading of that portion of the site occurred in the fall and there was time enough to build the berm up with the excess material but there was not time enough to dispose of it off site and we have been waiting for off site disposal. The present berm, I don't know if Mr. Klein looked at it carefully since he returned to town but it definitely is not the same berm that you saw when you left. Larry Klein: No it isn't but it still is a lot higher. You say there that I'm 8 feet lower than what's across the road? I farmed that land for crying out loud for all these years. You can't tell me that I don't know a little bit of height. I can look, my house didn't go up or down. Mayor Mancino: Okay, no discussion. Mr. Klein, just a minute. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mike Pflaum: At any rate, to answer your question about time tables for completion of the berm project. Once we have that thing set the way it should be set grade wise, we will immediately start planting trees and shrubs and we've already been through the landscaping plan with members of the staff and city. We want to get it put together too. Mayor Mancino: So you see by the end of the summer having it landscaped? Mike Pflaum: Yeah. Mayor Mancino: And to me that means I'll say September. Mike Pflaum: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Mike from council members? Okay, thank you Mike. Mike Pflaum: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments Anita that you have? Anita Benson: I have none to add. Other than staffdoes recommend approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark, if you wanted to come back up please. Mark Nettesheim: I have a question. One is, we talk about this heavy spring's runoff kind of created silt. My question is, is that going to be dredged out of the normal culverts and ditches that are now full of this silt from the berm and everything else? And I've seen them take tlqe berm down the last few days but the protective wall. A, are we finished with, is it a temporary holding ~tank still or lake or is it the permanent one? And is the berm that protects my land from the runoff, is that completed also or not? Anita Benson: I was out of town over the weekend and did not have a chance to visit the site today to see what degree that developer has completed the grading. As far as any silt that is washed into due to the development, obviously that's something that we will require the developer to clean out as a matter of that's just something we do. Mayor Mancino: And can you work with, we just put it in a condition that you work with Mark on making sure that the berm on those two sides of the property, on the south side, that the applicant and the homeowners work with you on that to make sure it's right? Anita Benson: Correct. We'll be doing that anyhow. Mayor Mancino: Good. Good. Bring this back to council. Any other discussion or any questions that council members have or want to discuss on this? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess one of the points I'm wondering about is considering that the original elevation that was given to us on the original plat was the 932. Would it be possible to bring the elevation down to that original, at Mr. Klein's end of the berm. Still leaving the other end and just give it that dip so he's lesser affected. The homes on the other side would still be buffered but we'd be back to what the original plat elevation was versus the 940. So back to the 932 versus the 940 at that point B. City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Other council members feel about that? I mean I don't, I mean I think the concern was not having it landscaped, etc. We haven't really ever had a height restriction on a berm, especially when they're trying to buffer from a subdivision that's going to have road traffic. Other discussion points? Councihnan Senn: I have a question ifI could for Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein, is your concern with the elevation of the berm or the general appearance of the berm as it sits now? Larry Klein: Well the elevation for one thing but I mean the appearance. Are they going to go to work and keep the weeds down all the way out to the highway? I mean I've got allergies and last year everything from my house to the south, nothing was done with it. Just a plain, I get sick enough but I mean if they can get a bunch of trees and that out there, fine. But I'd still like to see that elevation down a little more than what it is right now. Mayor Mancino: Well number one, yes they do have to take care of the weeding on their private property. And between that property that the association will own and the right-of-way then is MNDOT's, it's under their jurisdiction to do the weed control and mow it and maintain it. So we have to deal with MnDOT on that. Councilman Senn: Question ifI could for staff. Asfar as the landscaping plan goes for the berm, is that pretty much within our general or normal requirements? Bob Generous: Yes it is. Councihnan Senn: Okay, so you're not asking for any elevated or additional leve! of landscaping? Bob Generous: No. They are exceeding our standards actually. We have a buffer yard requirement and they go beyond that. Councilman Senn: How much? Bob Generous: I don't know the exact numbers. I haven't seen the final plan. I know they were providing additional trees on the north elevation. To start off they have, we have the original approved plan and they spread that out within the site and then they provided additional screening in some of the low points. Councilman Senn: Okay. Back to your question Mayor. Sorry it took so long to get to the answer. It seems to me that, I mean the developers basically are going to be, I'm going to say, saving a relatively small portion by not having tO cart the materials off the site or additionally treat off the site that's currently in the berm. Which they have to dispose of elsewhere. I'd really like to see some type of a condition put in here that assures that the landscaping materials as well as the quantity for the landscape materials and stuff really breaks that berm up and helps satisfy some of the concerns of Mr. Klein. I. understand the developers need to, or want I should say to have the buffering from the highway and stuff but I also appreciate Mr. Klein not wanting to, you know look at this big thing. And they certainly could be broken up by, you know by the landscaping and stuff so maybe there' s some middle ground there in terms of making sure that there's additional landscape materials put in place to assure that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have a question. Mr. Klein, have you been there since they've done some grading on it? City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Larry Klein: I just walked over there Saturday... Mayor Mancino: At that area, when I drove it today, it was you know kind of the lower elevation just going up. It wasn't at it's highest point right where your house is. Is that right? Larry Klein: Must be getting awful close to it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: The height elevation is very close to where it is at his end. Where his end is. Mayor Mancino: Well Mike, would you be willing to work with city staff and Mr. Klein and figure out some landscaping to undulate in that area and soften that berm in that northern area? Mike Pflaum: Sure... Mayor Mancino: Well if you could take the time and go over that with staff and Mr. Klein, that would be helpful. May I have a motion then. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of revised grading and drainage plans for Springfield 5th Addition with the addition that additional landscape materials be added as necessary to soften the buffer to the · satisfaction of city staff and Mr. Klein. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Mayor Mancino: And I'd just like to add, although I won't make it a condition, that city staff, city engineering staff also meet with Mark and go over the drainage and go over that, thank you. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the revised grading and drainage plans for Springfield 5th Addition prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated June 24, 1999 with the addition that additional landscape materials be added as necessary to soften the buffer to the satisfaction of city staff and Mr. Klein. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: The other two items that we have that we pulled from the consent agenda are 1 (d) and l(e) and let's take l(d). D. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 5*" ADDITION~ LUNDGREN BROS: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Senn: Okay, I would move final plat approval and I would move approval of development contract and construction plans and specifications with the following changes and/or amendments. Approve the development contract with the added stipulation that the approval is subject to a resolution on adding of SWMP fees and to what extent by city staff. And number two, to change your recommendation or recommendation of condition number 2 to add two trees on each lot in front yard. Mayor Mancino: Is there, I'm sorry I just want to make sure. So in the final plat approval for a condition of that approval on condition number 2, under the recommendation is that there will be two trees planted on each lot? City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councihnan Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand this. And under approving 2, the development contract, that it be subject to approvals of applicable fees, SWMP fees? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do we have a second for that? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve for The Woods at Longacres 5th Addition, the final plat amended to include in condition number 2 that there will be two trees planted the in the front yard of each lot; to approve the Development Contract subject to the applicable SWMP fees; and to approve the Construction Plans and Specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. E. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 6TM ADDITION, LUNDGREN BROS: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Councilman Senn: On 1 (e) I would move approval of the final plat to approve the development contract and construction plans and specifications with the same changes as noted on 5th Addition. And additional changes as requested by the developer in their July 26th letter endorsing, or recommended by staff for approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve for The Woods at Longacres 6m Addition the final plat amended to include in condition number 2 that there will be two trees planted the in the front yard of each lot; to approve the .Development Contract subject to the applicable SWMP fees; to approve the Construction Plans and Specifications; and to include the changes noted by the developer in their letter dated July 26, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mary Klingelhutz: Hi. My name is Mary Klingelhutz and I live at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and I'm a lifetime resident of Chanhassen and that's part of the reason I'm here tonight. So that I can possibly ensure that I can say that until my final days. Because I have an item of concern to many of the senior citizens in our community and that is that several weeks ago I was quite surprised when I found out how many senior citizens in our community are in need of assisted living facilities. And that came about partially by talking to the manager of Centennial Hill who told me that there were 30 people on the list to get into the Centennial Hill Senior Apartments. And then several of the residents that are there now said that at least 20 of the people that are in there right now belong in assisted living facilities. Three of the people told me that you know themselves and so that was quite a number. And besides my husband and I City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 have at least six relatives right now who are looking for assisted living facilities in other towns nearby and I think it's such a shame that they have to leave Chanhassen after they've lived here all their lives and go to another community nearby. But upon hearing that there is a group interested right now in buying a local church and possibly developing that into assisted living facility, I was really excited and hopeful. So several of my friends and myself decided to start a petition emphasizing the great need of this kind of facility to the council and encouraging the council members to take any action necessary to expedite this much needed facility. So as you know, most assisted living facilities are operated by church groups and we are very fortunate right now to have a church group that is interested in doing this with city approval. So I am presenting this brief petition signed by 214 Chanhassen seniors asking for your help in taking advantage of this rare opportunity to obtain this much needed facility in our city very soon. And the petition simply reads, it's just a couple sentences. As concerned senior citizens of Chanhassen, we feel there is a rapidly growing need for an assisted living facility in our city and we encourage the city to promote it. And it only took us two weeks to get 214 signatures and the response was terrific. And then we quit because we thought well, this served the purpose of documenting the real need that there is for this kind of facility. So we quit taking any more petitions but we could have kept on going and got a whole lot more. But anyway, is there any questions that you have of this? I'll give this petition to anybody like the City Manager or whoever. Mayor Mancino: We'll take it, thank you. Mary Klingelhutz: ...whatever you want to do with it but there definitely is a real need for this kind of facility and I think a lot of us will be using it. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Now do you hav'e to have an AARP card membership to be able to sign? Do you have to have an AARP membership to be able to sign? Thank you very much Mary. Anyone else wishing to address the council during visitor presentations? There must be, there's so many of you here. There's got to be a reason. Anyway, okay. We'll move forward. Again, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-1. Public Present: Name Address David H. Peterson ISD 112 Todd Gerhardt: Honorable Mayor and City Council. Under Minnesota Statutes the City Council must hold a public hearing when considering the development of a tax increment financing district and plan. Tonight staff would like to go through the proposed plan and then open it up for public comment. After that have the City Council close the public hearing and openly discuss the item amongst yourselves. And then if the council is in favor, approve the attached resolution. Attached, or .included in your report is the statement of objectives for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-1 and Development District No. 4. Under this plan you would be creating a tax increment district for the Eden Trace development park. Through this you would provide employment opportunities for the city of Chanhassen, improve the city's tax base, encourage development in the area, which has not developed to it's utilized full potential, and implement relevant portions of the city's comprehensive plan, including the construction of Lake Drive and the construction of Sunset Ridge parking lot. The estimated project cost are $1,456,100 for the 10 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 construction of the parking lots and roadway. Estimated administrative expenses are $143,900. At this time staff would ask the City Council to take citizen input. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the City Council on this issue, please come forward on the Tax Increment District 4-1. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to council for discussion or questions or comments. Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. Mayor Mancino: Any comments? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: No. Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. Scott Botcher: Todd if you would take a second. Are you yawning or are you going to speak? Mayor Mancino: It's only quarter after 7:00. I'm not yawning yet. Scott Botcher: One of the things we talked about was, as an objective that we're going to try to do as staff level and the applicant has been aware of this, is to get in and out of these tax increment districts as soon as possible. Be extremely conservative with their use. Would you explain a little bit about those discussions we had just, and I think there's an item in here, identified as Sheet #1 right before the resolution. Just take a minute or two and just maybe walk through that. Todd Gerhardt: Included just before the resolution adopting the development district program, staff has put together some tax increment projections, and I'd like to emphasize projections on that. I do not stand on these numbers. I do not know what the state will do or how quickly Eden Trace can develop this but Eden Trace has received five buildings already for site plan approval for this district. This is really unusual to have five buildings ready to go for an industrial park of this size. But based on that, the revenues and expenditures in these projections show that the district could be closed out in mid year 2004. And that would cover all costs associated for the roadway, the incentives given to the industrial park for their portion of the roadway and our administrative costs. In that you would see monies going back to the county, school district and to the city. Half of those revenues in 2004 going back to those jurisdictions. And if it is the council's wishes, you could modify the attached resolution stating that the district be decertified in the year 2004 after meeting these projected expenses and revenues. The Planning Commission has also reviewed this plan and did find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and the development of the city as a whole last Wednesday and passed the resolution stating such. We do have Dave Peterson from School District 112 here tonight. I don't know if he wants to address this at all. But I would also ask that if you could make a, your first motion would be to decertify two of the parcels out of the downtown redevelopment district and then we would recertify those in the new district. I did not write that in the resolution so, and those PID numbers are 25.1900350 and 25.1900360. Then put those would see the base value as those are today out of the redevelopment district into an economic development district which you would be creating tonight. 11 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilman Senn: Which two parcels are those Todd? Todd Gerhardt: That would be the larger 52 acres owned by Eden Trace that's in our downtown redevelopment district. The larger parcel that encompasses the entire industrial park. The other parcel is the city owned parcel that has roadway improvements and also the Lake Ann Interceptor which runs through it. That has some roadway assessments that are in the downtown district right at this point. Councilman Senn: What does that do to your projections on the downtown district? Todd Gerhardt: It will decrease revenues to the downtown district by, I believe right now they're paying approximately $25,000 a year in taxes on that vacant land. Do you know what you, you haven't seen the statement? I believe that's. Councilman Senn: Well that's current but what were you assuming in going forward on the package we looked at for resolving some of the problems in the downtown district? Todd Gerhardt: It will impact it. And where we would make that up is if with the hotel development that would occur on West 79th Street. The increment generated on that for the one year should make that solvent. The difference. Councilman Senn: I thought you had some development on that parcel already and projections going forward. Todd Gerhardt: No. Councilman Senn: You didn't? Todd Gerhardt: Not on that one. We had taken into account Houlihan's and the hotel on the south side of Highway 5. American Inn. Mayor Mancino: But of course that won't come on line for a couple years. Todd Gerhardt: Right. 2001. We will still collect increment in the downtown district to 2004. Councilman Senn: I would move decertification then of the parcels 25.1900350 and 360. Mayor Mancino: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to decertify Parcels 25.1900350 and 25.1900360 from the downtown district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: I would then move that we approve the resolution for Development District No. 4 with the added stipulation that the district be closed out and decertified in 2004. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. 12 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Any discussion? I think that that's a very good, deliberate purpose that we're writing down or getting it on the books. We're moving it forward that way. Making that statement. So I would just like to be in support of that. Scott Botcher: Or all expenses have to be met, not just 2004. That was your motion, right? Councilman Senn: My motion was 2004. If there's additional expenses, my preference would be that you come back and ask at that time. Councihnan Engel: And extend it. Councilman Senn: Let's have a target that we keep. Mayor Mancino: Okay. A motion's been made. Seconded. There's been discussion. Resolution #99-66: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the resolution adopting a Development District Program for Development District #4 and Tax Increment District No. 4-1 with the stipulation that the district be closed out and decertified in 2004, and providing financial assistance only in means of special assessment write down. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING coMMISsION FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH~ 8028 DAKOTA AVENUE, DON AND JOYCE WHITE. · Public Present: Name Address Don & Joyce White Paul & Sharon Punt 8028 Dakota Avenue 8014 Dakota Avenue Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you Mayor Mancino and City Council. This item was reviewed bY the Planning Commission on July 7th. The vote was 4 to 2 to approve the variance. However, ordinance requires a 75% affirmative vote so the variance was not approved with that vote. The applicant is appealing this decision. The proposed porch is to be 8 feet in depth on the north elevation of the house and 4 feet in depth on the east elevation of the house. The zoning ordinance permits porches to encroach 3 feet into a required setback. The applicant can't construct a 4 ½ foot porch on the north elevation 0fthe home without a variance. Part of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting in which this item was reviewed was an ordinance amendment to allow porches to encroach into a required setback further than the ordinance allowed 3 feet. And at the last Planning Commission agenda the item was tabled. We were to have it reviewed on July 21 st and because two of the members were missing, absent from the meeting. It will be on the August 4th Planning Commission agenda. Although staff does believe the porch addition is attractive, a hardship is not present and staff does not recommend approval. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Now let's make sure we've got this right as a council. My question to you is, I just want to make sure that we have this right because we have two appeals tonight. We need a super majority, no. A regular simple majority to change it. 13 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: From what the Planning Commission did. Good. Okay, so we don't need ~ or whatever. Roger Knutson: Three people. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay, is the applicant here? Councilman Senn: As far as this item goes now, and I read the Planning Commission stuff but there wasn't, you didn't receive any correspondence or letters or anything like that that any of the neighbors are in opposition to it. Cindy Kirchoff: No I did not. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Councilman Senn: I hate to save them some time but I'll move approval. Mayor Mancino: They're here. Let them speak. Councilman Senn: They'd probably rather have you move approval. Don White: My name is Don White, and this is my wife Joyce. And we've lived at home at 8028 Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen for the last 20 years. On July 7th, as was said earlier, our reqUest for a variance to build an open front porch was denied by the Planning Commission. Since then, with the encouragement and support of many of our neighbors, we've taken the following actions. We wrote a letter of appeal to the City Council. That letter is included in your packet of information and we hope that you've all had an opportunity to read it. The letter also includes the text of our presentation to the Planning Commission. We wrote another letter to each of you individually and asked you to visit our neighborhood and to talk with us. We know that some of you have done this and we want you to know how much we appreciate that. We distributed copies of our letters to many of our neighbors and some of our neighbors have been able to join us tonight. We think that the information that we have provided is complete and accurate. Nevertheless I'd like to emphasize the significant points that we've made. We're asking for an additional 5 feet beyond the 3 feet that open porches are allowed to protrude into the setback. With the additional 5 feet we can build an open porch that is approximately 8 feet deep. Four of the six Planning Commission members voted in favor of granting our variance. They were very many favorable comments made by the commissioners. The argument of two members who voted against our porch seemed to be if we allow this variance, where do we draw the line? While our immediate neighbors also have a 30 foot setback requirement, the neighboring development with even more expensive homes has a 25 foot setback and the houses can be 5 feet closer to the street. In addition the streets are wider there so houses have less front yards than we have, even if we had the front porch we're asking for. Despite our lot being considered substandard by 1999 guidelines, we have more open front yard than most of our neighbors. The staff report does say "that a porch is a community builder and will enhance the appearance of the home and the neighborhood". We couldn't agree more, and I think that this is what our request is about. The new porch would be built only as an open, unenclosed porch and would protrude from the house to approximately where the concrete walk is today. The porch would 14 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 be...to the edge of the walk and that's how far the porch would protrude from the house. This photo also shows the entrance of our home today. When neighbors stop by, we sit in the swing or on the concrete stoop. What we would like is to offer them a roof and a chair to sit in. We think that it will make a big difference to our home and the neighborhood. If you agree, please vote tO grant us this variance. Please vote to improve the community. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Are there any neighbors here tonight that are not for the open porch? So all of you, nobody's raised up their hands. Okay, thank you. I think we'll bring this back to council and deal with it quickly. Councilman Senn: Motion's on the floor. Mayor Mancino: What is the motion? Councilman Senn: To approve the variance. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you want to approve the variance 99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an open porch addition. Correct? Councilman Senn: To summarize, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mandino: Any other discussion? I don't really have anything I want to discuss but ! do want to make a statement and that is that I am, as far as policy statement goes, very much in favor of especially older homes, and I have one that's 10 years older than this. A rambler. That those in our neighborhoods and in our older neighborhoods in the city, that we do look at them differently. We do look at the adding of front porches, etc as adding to the community. As adding to the neighborhood. And I think one of the e-mails said it very well. The way I was thinking is that it's just wonderful at night to see neighbors walking and sitting on their porches. It gives us a sense of who's around us and our neighbors. It helps us keep it safe and sound and we know that this person's going to be out on their front porch and we can stop by and say hello so I think it's a wonderful addition and I am very much in support of it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Variance Request #99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition of an open porch. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPEAL DECISION FOR A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD AND 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR PAT AND JUDY NEUMAN, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, CHANHASSEN VISTA, JON AND LAURIE CLAUSEN AND JOHN AND LAURA PODERGOIS. Public Present: Name Address Jon & Laurie Clauson 751 Chippewa Circle 15 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Laura & John P. Podergois Louis M. Gagliardi Dennis Karstensen Mavis & Hans Skalle David Segal Pat & Judy Neuman 720 Chippewa Circle 7480 Chippewa Trail 7482 Saratoga Drive 780 Santa Vera 11900 Wayzata Blvd, #208, Minnetonka 1654 Portland Avenue, St. Paul Cindy Kirchoff: Madam Mayor and City Council. I would first like to give an overview of the proposal and then have, if I could, have the City Attorney address the reasonable use issue. Firstly, this item was approved by the Planning Commission on the July 7th agenda with five conditions. Two neighbors have appealed the decision. The Chanhassen Vista development was platted in 1986 as a single family development. The subject addition has 33 lots within the First Addition in that development. The subject site is a lot of record. The grading plan did indicate that a single family home was to be placed on the lot and that it could be a buildable lot. The subdivision was platted prior to the city wide bluff protection ordinance amendment, which was approved in 1994. This required a 30 foot setback from the' top or the toe ora bluff, and the elevation change on this site dictates that it maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The bluff setback and the 25 foot front yard setback required as part of the PUD, does limit the buildable area of the site to around 750 square feet and does create the hardship for the applicant. Without a variance the applicant cannot make a reasonable use of the site. The applicant wishes to construct a single family home on the site and the home extends 5 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback and 16 feet into the bluff. The aerial photos indicate that five of the homes that abut Kerber Pond Park in this particular addition of Chanhassen Vista do extend into the bluff. Not only into the bluff setback but also into the bluff. The conservation easement is a separate issue from the bluff setback. This conservation easement was approved as part of the overall PUD for Chanhassen Vista and intends to protect the value of Kerber Pond Park and the slope that surrounds it. A conservation easement is present on this site. It is approximately 120 feet of the western portion of Lot 4, BloCk 4 and the home cannot extend into this easement. Staff has prepared a sixth condition to ensure that the home does not encroach into this easement. That is to require the applicant to show the conservation easement on the survey when it is submitted as part of the building permit application. Staff does believe that this home ~is compatible and comparable in size to the surrounding homes and does feel comfortable with the proposal. Furthermore, the encroachment into the bluff will not deviate from existing neighborhood standards. Staff recommends approval of both variance requests with the six conditions in the staff report. Thank you and I'd like to turn it over to the City Attorney if I could. Roger Knutson: ...we've gone over this issue in other circumstances but just to remind you as you probably already know. When regulations go too far it constitutes a taking of the property. The constitution requires compensation. Generally speak when the property owner is deprived of all reasonable use of their property, that constitutes a taking. The only step to overriding concerns or more than concerns, overriding problems that would be created, such as overriding solution to problems of very substantial problems...public safety or public health, that could occasionally overcome that but as a general rule...involves reasonable use of the property, be prepared to buy the property from them. Mayor Mancino: What if you, some reasonable use of their property? Roger Knutson: Reasonable use is, it depends on how you define some. Mayor Mancino: Taking your all in taking and going to some. 16 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Roger Knutson: ...In other words, if you have, you don't have the right to build a 100,000 square foot house in a property that will only accommodate a 10,000 square foot house. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Roger? Councilwoman Jansen: If I may. Realizing that there is the preliminary grading plan that staff has included in the report. It is noting within that original PUD and those approvals that the home butted up against the what, the 998 contour line allowing for a single family home to be built on the property. And I gather within the Minutes that was all discussed as to it not making, it does make it a buildable lot. Can we, does it hold them to the original agreement if we do make that 998 contour line the limit of the buildable area? Roger Knutson: When you approved the plat, you don't, what you're required to do is show where you can build the house on the lot. You have to make sure you don't approve an unbuildable lot. Generally you're not, even when...that footprint. That's just to show you can do it. Councilwoman Jansen: So in that that did demonstrate that this was a buildable lot. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: If we stayed with that original proposal, we would not be constituting a taking. Correct? We'd be nullifying the bluff setback. The 30 feet. Roger Knutson: It didn't exist when this lot was approved. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. So it would leave them with the original buildable space that was agreed upon when... Mayor Mancino: But what I'm hearing Roger say is something different. When the original lot was deemed buildable in a PUD contract, that original lot, the only thing that you couldn't do on that original lot was you couldn't go into the conservation easement. And you had to have the setbacks on the sides and on the front. The 25 foot front and probably 10 foot sides. That's it. I mean there was no bluff ordinance or anything else. You couldn't go into the conservation easement but you could put that house anywhere within that configuration. There's nothing, even though it's drawn to show you can put a house a certain place, there was nothing in the original PUD contract that said that you had to put it at the 998. It just had to not be in the conservation easement. Now if the conservation easement is 998 or 985, then that would limit it. But going with a drawing, I mean all developers bring in their preliminary and final plats, you know they show where the building can go and we've even gotten to the point where we want to see if a deck can fit on it, on this lot. But that doesn't mean they can't come back at final platting time and put the house and do it a little differently or anything. Roger Knutson: It's typical when you bring ina plat, you know where a house, building pad. At the time of plat approval. If someone comes in and doesn't use that building pad but uses some other building pad that's in the setbacks, you'd never even see it because that's not a restriction. It's just an attempt to show that you can in fact build a house on this, in this lot. Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess that's what was leading me to ask the question. Because if it is buildable up to that point, but we've been don't encroach into the bluff line, we're. 17 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Conservation easement. Councilwoman Jansen: Well. Mayor Mancino: I'm just going back to the original PUD. Councilwoman Jansen: ...staked out currently is the 998 that was originally shown as the buildable distance on the lot. So I guess where I'm going is if we stay with that, we're still protecting the bluff line and the lot is still a buildable lot. We're not constituting a taking but we're not encroaching into the bluff, which at this point really only affects the porch and the deck. Roger Knutson: Maybe Cynthia can answer that but it would have been a remarkable coincidence it would seem to me that that would have taken place because there was no bluff ordinance so any reference to a certain line couldn't have been reference to a bluff ordinance that didn't exist. I don't know why there is a reference to that line. Cindy Kirchoff: If I could show a copy of the grading plan that was submitted as a part of the development. This is the lot in question right here. And this shaded line right here, in the legend is denoted or noted as a scenic easement. A scenic easement is beyond the 990 contour which is right here. So it is not the top of the bluff. They didn't have a bluff setback then. What they were trying to ensure was that the slope was preserved for the preservation of Kerber Pond Park. Councilwoman Jansen: And Cindy I guess, and I don't know if this is what you've xeroxed for us into our packet. Within the packet you show the 997.5 as the back side. Is that what that is showing? Cindy Kirchoff: In the circle here, it's 997.5. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So just coincidentally that is what ~ve're saying the bluff line is? Cindy Kirchoff: That's not, well staff doesn't believe that's where the bluff line is. Scott Botcher: ...it's simply establishing where the conservation easement is... Cindy Kirchoff: The conservation easement was approved at the time of the PUD. They weren't referencing a bluff. It's a separate issue than a bluff setback. The bluff setback pertains to all properties in Chanhassen that have a greater than 30% slope. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. Cindy Kirchoff: The conservation easement only intends to protect Kerber Pond Park and the slope that surrounds it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this issue? You're welcome to. Just one second please. Are you the applicant? Would you like to go first or would you like to wait until they have? Come forward then .... could you state your name and address please. Pat Neuman: ...with the surveys and a number of other things. We're over $1,000. When we talk about. Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address please? Thank you, for the record. 18 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Pat Neuman: ...that you have from July 7t~. I did, I'I1 just repeat what's in there. Pat Neuman. We've lived in St. Paul for 20 years. During that time I worked in St. Paul and the last 4 to 5 years the office moved to Chanhassen so I'm having to commute. We have two daughters. The house that we've selected to build is a house with a two car garage as opposed to some of the other houses that have 3 car garages. My daughters are entering, one daughter's in college right now. The other one's going into college this year. So that's kind of what I mentioned before. Then I also was given an opportunity to speak at the previous meeting and I had some comments and I'd kind of like to expand on some of that. First I'd like to address some of this. I'm not sure that everyone understands that the only part of the house that we're talking about going over the designated bluff basically is the porch and a lower deck. So we're not talking about a house that's going to be built over the bluff line. There might be two very small pieces which Cindy did a great job in putting the report together and identifying. That's what we're talking about in the front and then in the back it's sort of wrap around porch that goes back to a dining area which you can see the lower drawing here. The thing, you know, I recognize that there's no back yard. There's a side yard and basically a front yard. But really all that I'm interested in at this point... But in view of the fact that there is no back yard to play on, there's a number of things in the neighborhood...to play on, so I think even once we do decide eventually to move out of the house... I think it will still be an attractive house to the neighborhood. The lower deck, I asked Cindy later on...if we could add a lower deck because I wanted to do something like have a grill to allow you know...and I wouldn't want to be putting out a grill out on the front of the house. So that's basically... The other things that I've done in addition to what Cindy's done, but ! think she's got a lot more in the report than what she actually presented here but I calculated the square footage for the foundation at about 1550 feet of his house and compared it to the other houses from the aerial photographs and I came up with basically it's quite a bit smaller than a majority of the houses in the area. I won't go through the figures here because they are just rough estimates but that was the limitation that We have is that you know, is to have a smaller foundation. And as a result then we went with a two story design you know to giye us the additional square footage. Well and that we feel is necessary. Especially with nowadays people you know wanting more room in their house and who knows with the daughters. You know you always like to have your company come over and have a place tO stay so I don't think we want to limit ourselves to a very small house for this lot. Because they'll probably have families soon or later also. Yesterday we went over to the Landscape Arboretum. It was maybe not the best day to go over there but every Sunday they have a program on prairie restoration basically. They have, I don't know if any of you have been over there but it's quite impressive. If you walk through the field of prairie plants and wildflowers and the person that gave the tour to us, there were the only two of us at the beginning and then another couple joined us later from Lake Elmo but, who are trying to establish a prairie in their back yard. And the reason I'm interested in that is, one of the reasons is that prairie plants do protect slope because their roots are very deep and they also resist drought. And so it's certainly advantageous to have natural prairie on a slope to protect from erosion. Right now in looking at what we have in Kerber Pond, I don't see anything basically from what I saw over at the Arboretum. I mean it's still a beautiful area, and I enjoy the area and view of the neighborhood but if you were going to attempt to call that a natural prairie, I don't think it would meet the criteria because of the species that are there are mostly invasive. There's a lot of thistle and I don't really, I'm just learning this now because I'm just sort of getting into it but if one were to try for a natural prairie, it would take years and years to build a fully developed. That's about all I had. Basically we're just looking for a typical house I think nowadays on a land that would have, a piece of land that would have a nice view. Mayor Mancino: Okay, just one second Pat. Any questions council members have.9 Okay, thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to address the council.9 ¸19 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Laurie Clauscn: Good evening Mayor Mancino and council members. I'm Laurie Clausen and I have resided at 751 Chippewa Circle, which is the lot adjacent to the property in question, for the past seven years. As you're aware, my husband Jon and I are in opposition to the granting of any variances on the adjacent property. After consulting with numerous experts in areas of zoning, real estate litigation and city government, we feel that we have very valid arguments to support the opposition. I'll share these points with you now. Due to the fact that our voices were not picked up on the July 7th Planning Commission Minutes, you'll find a copy of my points as well as the Podergois' comments in the handout I'll hand out to you. Our areas of dispute are the following. The first is the 5 foot front yard setback variance reduced to 20 feet from curb. Our rationale is that a 5 foot front yard variance was already granted on this parcel.., held July 21, 1986 with the current owner Mr. David Segal... This decision to increase the front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet already. Granting of the original 5 foot variance was a...discussed topic at this time. From the 7-21-86 City Council Minutes quote, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the usual 30 foot front yard setback down to 25 feet, unquote. This setback is not needed on either Lot 3 or 5, the adjacent properties, to have adequate buildable area. In addition, at the time of this development the minimum width in this development at the front setback was 80 feet. ...again from the 7-21-86 City Council Minutes. The average, quote, the average lot width overall would be in excess of 90 feet at the setback line with a minimum at 80 feet, unquote. Quote, we don't want to set a precedence that we think 25 foot setbacks are wonderful, unquote .... on 7/23 of this year the lawful property width would be the following. 86 feet wide at the 30 foot setback, which was the original development requirement. 80 feet wide at the 25 foot setback, which is the current requirement with the 1986 granted 5 foot variance. 74 foot wide at the 20 foot setback, which is a proposed requirement. If this 5 foot setback is granted, this property would not have been an acceptable PUD at time of platting. Because the width of this property is a 20 foot setback at 74 feet, the property on this one issue will be granted three variances. The original 5 foot setback granted in 1986 to reduce the setback from 30 feet to 25 to minimize the encroachment into the bluff. An additional request for 5 feet to reduce the setback from 25 feet to 20, which is requested at this time. And the reduction of the minimum lot width that...it back from 80 feet to 74. This has not been officially requested but it would be granted withthis additional 5 foot variance. We have consulted an attorney and he agrees that the additional 5 feet in front is excessive and not necessary for reasonable use of this property. This is in actuality a 10 foot variance from your originally required 30 feet, and a reduction of the required lot width. A setback from 80 feet to 74. Our second area of dispute is the 16 feet of property encroaching into the bluff conservation area. Our rational, we dispute the contour line where the conservation easement is presently in regards to the bluff. The staff report has a conservation easement starting at contour line 985. We have obtained copies of the City Council meeting of the final plat approved dated July 21, 1986 where the conservation easement is stated to be at the 952 to the top of the slope. This discussion of the conservation easement was mentioned numerous times in the City Council Minutes. And this plan was created in conjunction with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, it's in the Minutes of the City Council meeting quote, it's their recommendation was that the City establish a conservation easement from the 952 to the top of the slope, end quote. The information provided by city staff...top of the slope as interpreted today to be the bluff line. The bluff line and the proposed plat development shows the contour line 998. We found no city council documentation that lists the conservation easement line at 985. The original...and I think it said, approach but did not encroach into the bluff. We feel that the conServation easement does go to the 998 contour line, bluff line. And this would mean the proposed development would have both foundation, which staff opposed in the staff report, and deck encroaches 16 feet into the conservation easement. In addition, at that time the city stated this is a strict conservation easement... The easement approach as seen by the Park and Recreation Board and by staff, as being an economical way of ' providing...city's goals and the neighborhood's goals to bring a nature park into this area, unquote. These development plans were approved by the City Council. Councilwoman Swenson moved, and Mayor Hamilton seconded at the July 21, 1986 City Council meeting with the current owner, Mr. David 20 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Segal, President. As you can see from the overlay...the property can be obtained and has been shown in the 1986 development plans without an additional 5 foot front setback, and with that...conservation easement. And in addition...owner was in attendance at these meetings and agreed to the following. On the June 25, 1986 Planning Committee Minutes, quote. The proposed easement area, it appears that the buildable portion of Lot 4 will be tight. With the 25 foot setback, there will remain 45 feet ofbuildable area. We wanted to point that out to the commission, but it still can be built on. But it will be very tight at this particular location, end quote. In conclusion. A reasonable use of property can be obtained at this site. It may not be the original design submitted...but a hardship to' build Can not be granted With every proposal. Regarding a 16 foot deck does not qualify... The original house design proposed in 1986 would work at this site without the front setback variance or the bluff conservation encroachment. We do feel that this request is self created because it's due to a specific house plan. Mr. David Segal, the current owner was in attendance at the 1986 meeting requiring a 25 foot setback and variance for conservation easement from the 952 contour line to the top of the slope. He agreed that 45 feet of buildable area was acceptable and reasonable use of this property. We do believe that with the creativity of architects...the buildability of house design, a more suitable plan could have been found. It appears that no request... If these variances are granted, it will affect our enjoyment of our property and our property values. In addition, if these easements are granted, you are opening a Pandora's Box allowing a precedence to be set in the neighborhood for requests to...bluff conservation area. I thank you for your consideration. Appreciate your attention. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Laura Podergois: Good evening. I'm a little taller. My name is Laura Podergois. My husband John and our two daughters live at 720 Chippewa Circle which is the home located to the north of the lot in discussion this evening. We have lived in this home since we built it in 1987 and have chosen to remain there in lieu'of a location...greater percentages of lots. I just wanted to touch on a few more areas of concern about the decisions to be made in regards to the adjacent property. As I mentioned at the July 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, my husband attempted to control some aggressive thistles that were invading our yard at the edge of our lawn at the top of the slope of the bluff line, as it is called today. We were sent a politely written letter that removal, destruction or retardation of vegetation is not allowed. In order to put the two coruers of foundation in the ground and a 16 foot deck attachment, removal and destruction of the vegetation will certainly occur. Since the City notified us for action occurring at the top of the bluff, it certainly enforces the easement. However in the drawing 990 contour line, it was the city council in place in 1986 made from the 952 contour line to the top of the slope a condition of approval, we believe the plat inaccurately reflects the end °fthe conservation easement. We believe that a legal definition of the top of the slope at this location needs to be found and clarified before a truly informed decision on the buildable area of this lot should or can be made. One of our next concerns is about staff recommendations being made based on the aerial photograph of the development. We have seen no such photo in our packet. The only piece of information we have seen is a roughly hand sketched drawing known as Attachment A, which we've included in what we gave you tonight. We argue the accuracy of such a drawing. If you look at the panoramic photos, which I'll pass out, If you look at the panoramic photos we took from the path along KerberBoulevard, neither...foundation or decks hanging out or encroach into or past the bluff line. The rough drawing shows it quite differently. We have brought our own satellite photo of the development captured off the intemet from the U.S. Geological Survey and we feel it gives a much different idea of the encroachment along this bluff line. As you look at the photo, please be sure to differentiate between shadows of structures and the actual structure itself. Perhaps in this instance the plat map would be a better source of information. Decisions as critical as this should not be made from a...sketch that is not to scale and inaccurate. We understand the need to allow a variance from the 30 foot bluff setback. However, we wonder if it is a requirement or in the best 21 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 interest of erosion control and bluff preservation to grant the whole 30 feet and beyond in order to make this a buildable lot. There are always choices available. There were choices in 1986 and there still remains choices that do not so heavily impact this bluff. As you may have noticed on the plat map, this lot also has an emergency overflow easement on the south side. Erosion control is a very important concern with this lot and the slope. The Neuman's are asking for a deck so that they may enjoy the view. I believe they're asking for front row seats regardless of the negative impact to the bluff, wildlife and people that live nearby. The council members in 1986 gave great thought to the conservation of this bluff and it's surrounding area. Many hours were spent again in 1994 working to preserve the bluff. We certainly have spent numerous hours and resources trying to do what we also feel is best for the area. As a matter of fact without our vigorous pursuit of information, much of the information you have tonight would not have been brought forth. We love where we live and try to respect what the people did 13 years ago and again 5 years ago to take care of this sensitive piece of land. I again want to touch on the point about the minimum width and the requested variance from the 25 foot setback point. I would like to remind you that this is already a change established in 1986 from the required 30 foot setback. When the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the variances on July 7th, it was not told that the width of the proposed setback of 20 feet would be only 74 feet. The requirement is for 80 feet at the setback. That is a loss of 6 feet across the lot and 3 feet on either side. Now to you this may seem as though we are splitting hairs, but again it does not meet conditions of approval and who in the neighborhood such as this would like...between their bay window and a neighbor's garage. The 25 foot setback was not granted easily and with much concern and discussion on preserving the slope. It seems that many of these conditions of approval are being ignored in order to push through approval of this plan. I believe the information presented at the July 7th Planning Commission meeting was not complete enough to make a recommendation on at that time. And I believe that tonight action on this cannot be given to unanswered questions. This discussion should be tabled and sent back to the Planning Commission or city staff for further work or table and returned to the City Council agenda with complete information at a later date. Our questions remaining before this meeting were, what is the legal definition of the bluff at this particular location? If this lot was approved with a variance of 5 feet in 1986 and considered buildable as is, is it correct to add another 5 feet raising the total change to 10 feet from what the original requirement? Does this meet the minimum width requirement at the 20 feet setback? Is there anY other plan that could impact this bluff less? Several of you have viewed this lot and see that it looks much different in person than on paper. No commissioner mentioned having looked at that lot before the meeting. One even followed us out of the meeting at recess and admitted he normally visits the site in question and he regretted not going at this time. He encouraged us to pursue our concerns. Our hope is that a solution can be found that is in the best interest of the land, the bluff and all surrounding it. When or if the Neuman's become our neighbors, we welcome them and we hope that they enjoy our neighborhood as we do. We're just asking that what is best for this location is given serious consideration. Thank you for your time and serious contemplation of this very important matter. Mayor Mancino: If you can limit it to a few minutes. Dennis Karstensen: I'll keep it short. They've covered many things already. I'm Dennis Karstensen and I'm...remember, I'm in the older division that was existing before the Chan Vista was developed and so part of the easements, I was heavily involved with that and we organized our whole community at that point to get the easements in place to save the park. So my concern is to look at this variance consideration here as how it's going to affect the parkland and what precedence it's going to be setting for the future. When the plat was first put together, the development was first put out, there was going to be a 10 foot border for the park around the lake. That's where it started. And so now we have the conservation easements around the site, which are great. Since then I guess even at that point all the buildings were on the top of the land. There's nothing on the Chanhassen Ponds Park side that is built 22 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 into the bluffs at all. I'm not sure about the side where these people live. I don't see that that closely but where I am, on the south side of the Kerber Pond Park and north side, there's nobody building to the bluffs. With the easements there's been quite a bit of infringements in that area. I've been working with Jill Sinclair. She put out a letter on November 17th essentially addressing some of the cutting down of trees. Just general vandalism. Another letter went out from Todd Hoffman this time on March 30th to protect the area and at that time Jill Sinclair did visit as well which was just last year, to make sure that people realize that the easements were there. So there is concern in the neighborhood for the park and maintain it. Keep the bluff lines as high as we can. That's what our goal is. And what was there... I also talked with one city council member that was part of that and when he did the original planning, he never envisioned building down below the bluff line either. I talked to him last night. We are relative 'friends. Not close friends. We're acquaintances as well. And so he was kind of surprised that we're building down beyond the bluff line at this point too. So... Again the main thing here, I think you're setting a wrong precedence by going onto the bluff. If you're going to do this for this person, anybody along the whole park can do this as well and that's my concern. Look at a bigger picture if you would please. Just starting a bad precedence and keep it up high...like to see. It's a nice area. Kids from schools go down there for field trips and the like so it's used heavily by the neighbors as well. Very nice area. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. David Segal: My name is David Segal and I'm with Enterprise Properties. I'm the original developer. I do not own the property today. There's a letter over here from the current owner stating the history of the property over the last 14 years and what his intentions were with the property. And he has entered into a purchase agreement with Judy and Pat Neuman at this point and does want to sell it to them in hopes that he'll be able to do that.. In terms of a request for the front setback to the 5 foot variance from that currently. That was at the city staff's request. They wanted to minimize, and all of us want to minimize the impact to the bluff and so that's why that 5 foot setback request was made. The house could be built without it, but it would go back into the bluff area further. In terms of the vegetation and everything sort of defining what the conservation easement is. That's all related to your new city code regarding the bluffs and everything. There's a section in here removal or alteration of vegetation in terms of the bluff impact zone and that's what that's referring to. A conservation easement is clearly defined on the plat. It was recorded and approved by the city back in 1986. And you know it is down the hill, you know I'm not sure how many feet but the house clearly does not impact that at all. Thank you and we hope that you'll support the approval. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Bringing this back to council. That I'd like to ask staff. Conservation easement. There's no question when this PUD was platted, '86-87, I guess it's '86. That everyone was very, very concerned about the conservation easement and I have a copy of the conservation easement, etc. And all the properties, are there any other lots left in this subdivision? Left to buy. No, okay. This is it. This is the last, okay. The conservation easement was put on the plat that was recorded at the County office with the deed, etc. Do we have a copy of that? Can we get a copy of it? Cindy Kirchoff: I don't have a copy of it right now but I can get a copy of it. I did contact the Recorder's office today and their computer system only goes back to 1988 so I would have to physically go down to the Carver County offices and get the copy. 23 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: I think that. Cindy Kirchoff: ...the easement over the phone is what I'm saying. Mayor Mancino: I think that that would be helpful for me to know exactly where that conservation easement is on this property. It will show the whole plat of the subdivision so we can kind of see where it is everywhere here. Cindy Kirchoff: I do have a copy of the plat with the conservation easement noted. The document you're looking for is the legal description indicating it's such and such feet from such and such area. I'd like to show a copy of the plat. Mayor Mancino: So you want to make sure that the legal description and the plat come together? Cindy Kirchoff: Essentially what it will say is 120 feet from this point east, thence north whatever this distance is. It will be a written document. It won't be a plat like this. I did measure the distance here. This is 120 feet from the property line that abuts Kerber Pond Park here to this point right here. According to that calculation the house that is proposed will not encroach into that conservation easement, nor can it. Mayor Mancino: And we can have the surveyor make sure of that and have that done professionally, etc. And that was at the time of the platting, at the time of this PUD, that was, I want to say back yard. That was the line for every other lot that abutted the pond. Correct? Cindy Kirchoff: All the distances are different. It's a line drawn to protect the park essentially, and it's different on every lot. Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming where that line is, is the description of 952 to the top of the slope, that's where the top of the slope was. Cindy Kirchoff: Actually the 952 is somewhere down here. It's not on the subject property. Mayor Mancino: Okay, but the 952 is, as you look at the 952, stand at the 952 and go up to that property, that's where the conservation easement. Right? Cindy Kirchoff: Essentially. Mayor Mancino: So it shows, it actually shows the top of where the conservation easement is on that? Cindy Kirchoff: On this document right here, on the conservation easement document it will be a written description. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we want to make sure of both of those. And again that was what every other lot in this subdivision had to follow. Cindy Kirchoff: In the first addition, correct. And those lots that abutted or abut Kerber Pond Park had to, had conservation easements present on the site. 24 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Did any of the lots have, I'm going through some rational thinking here. Did any of the lots that were developed have the bluff ordinance in, was that passed when any other lot, anybody else built their house in this subdivision? Cindy Kirchoff: According to the building permit records, most of these houses were built in 1987. And the bluff ordinance in southern Chanhassen wasn't approved until 1991 so it was quite a few years after that. And it would apply to this property in 1994 because that's when the bluff protection ordinance was adopted city wide. Mayor Mancino: applied city wide. ordinance. Okay. So '91 was when it was kind of south of Pioneer, Hesse Farms, etc. In '94 was when it So no other building site that you know of right now had to obey by the bluff ' Any other questions? Scott Botcher: I think it's just a legal question. We can talk about this until we're blue in the face and the house, no disrespect, that doesn't...can build a house. Has reasonable use of their property on a 740.' I can't make it any simpler than that. Now I know that my personal opinion is, I tend to disagree a little bit with the report. I find it to be a self created hardship. Personally. I think that Roger and I have been talking about this over here. I think, and again the homeowners, they've got a plan they'd like to build and they'd like to put it on this lot. That's not a hardship. Mayor Mancino: Hold on. Wait until he's done. Just a second. Scott Botcher: So I think the idea that that's really been the:..0fthe request tonight. Do you believe that they can build a house on...which is what planning Staff has identified in the findings as... Mayor Mancino: But that's going by a new ordinance that was passed, am I right Cindy? Is that. Scott Botcher: But the new ordinance, and Roger and I talked about the whole issue of contract Zoning. New ordinance and if I misinterpreted and the new ordinance does have application to this. So that's where that number came from in the finding number (a). If you find that, if you agree that 740 square feet is not a reasonable area upon which to build a home, then the variance you can find may not be. To me that's really the issue. I mean the neighbor's house, the neighbors houses are older. That's not the issue. Mayor Mancino: Well in that PUD, the smallest minimum lot that they were okay with was 12,000 square feet and the average, or the median lot size was 14,000 square feet. Now they said abutting the pond they wanted 15,000 square feet for the lot size. So Don, or I'm sorry, Pat. Please come forward to the podium and then we'll just bring it back to council and go forward. Pat Neuman: I just took note of the...referred to as a self imposed hardship here. Because basically what we're talking about, what I've been listening to half the night is that porches are a good idea and you're trying to make the neighborhood look nice, and all we're talking about is adding an 8 foot wrap around porch on the existing house and an additional extension of 8 feet so that you can put a grill. We're not talking about building the foundation of the house on a bluff. We're talking about an 8 foot porch which I've heard here and at the previous meeting indicated that porches are a good idea. So I don't quite understand why this was referred to as a self imposed hardship. The other thing that I'd like to comment is a comment that was made by one of the...somehow I came up with something that they didn't have but basically all I did, I also have the U.S.G.S. satellite image. Because I work in the scientific area so, but this is a photo that I got from the city before I really got into this, and you know 25 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 and looking at the property and before I made the offer to purchase. And this is available to anybody that goes down to the city. Here. They'll, if you pay $5.00... This is just a print and they've got a big sheet that was basically put together in 1990. But it's interesting, well I did some playing around and I just cut out the size of our house and foundation and laid it on there next to the adjacent houses to get an idea of really was creating a difficult visual problem. I grew up in St. Paul. As you know lot sizes aren't very large. In fact one of the problems with, that we have today is that the lot sizes are so large and it's creating a great deal of urban sprawl and whatever. These lots certainly aren't that big but I mean if you go to some of these other places where the lots that are...other people in farmland and wildlife areas. And so I'm not a strong advocate of large yards. And I can get by without a yard. Not a yard. I like a yard but I don't need to have a lawn. As Cindy brought up in her report. If I can follow, and you can see, of these original houses that were put together here, this house here is clearly on the bluff. I mean she's at the contour line that you're looking at. You're overlaying on an image and almost the entire house is on the bluff. Probably around 1980. I mean you can go and pick other houses where they've got pieces of their house on the bluff. We're not talking about me coming in here and destroying the area that's natural. I mean you know, and I suppose I could tell you well if you really feel that bad about having a ' porch and a lower deck on a bluff, you know I supposed I could say well maybe we can get by without that and then we wouldn't have that. But is that what we really want? Is that really going to create a big problem over there? And I don't think it's going to set a precedence because this is the last house where you're going to need to argue about setbacks. Well not setbacks but easements and so forth so, I'm sorry. Maybe I've reacted a little strong to the self imposed hardship comment but I really didn't appreciate that. Mayor Mancino: Alright, thank you. Scott Botcher: That's alright, I still believe it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll bring it back to council now for discussion. Councilman Engel. Comments? Questions? Councilman Engel: I've been pretty consistent in issues like this since I got this council chair and that is that when we have disagreements like this, I come down in favor of the property owners. When there is a dispute, as there has been several while I've sat here. I've seen some of them solved in creative ways. One of the easiest ones is if you don't like the plan they're developing, buy the property. Split it and add it to your own lot. I've seen that done. Barring you wanting to do that, this is a property that is buildable legally. There's some conditions involved here that I would say there are some violations based on existing properties. Same guidelines so I generally come down in favor of property owners in situations like this. Mayor Mancino: So you would go for going ahead with the variances? Councilman Engel: Yes...demonstrably severe damage being done to neighbors. This is no different from any other request that I've approved. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Based on what Roger said, I think what's being proposed is a reasonable use of the property. At the same time I sympathize with the neighbors but I also remember a situation going back several years now where we had a very similar situation to this. Everybody wanted press it to the wall. 26 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 The ultimate result was a plan that appeared before us with a three story house. A small floor plate. Which is perfectly legal on this parcel. Mayor Mancino: ...go more vertical. Councilman Senn: Right. You have a 40 foot height limitation on size. And looking at that neighborhood, I just recall that situation because again this is a very similar situation to that. That type of a solution which is, the board's kind of ultimately where it ends up because we all know that as far as floor plates go and square footage in homes go and land values in Chanhassen, get real. There's going to be a decent amount of square footage there. That's just the reality of the situation. Before I'm set to go vertically, horizontally I think that is not good policy. Not good, or not a good avenue for that property. The solution that's before us is a reasonable one. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I'm going to come at this from a little different direction, and maybe that's what the original agreement and expectations were of what would happen on this piece of property. And realizing that in just simply nullifying the 30 foot bluff setback we have a buildable lot. In fact we have this house on this lot. We then go, and right within the recommendation and the proposal it's noting the 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback. Beyond that we're being asked for an additional 16 foot variance in order to accommodate the extension of the patio into the bluff. Well maybe that's what I'm reacting to as possibly an unreasonable expectation under the guidelines of what the neighbors were expecting would be happening on this property and what the landowner knows of the topography. If you build this house, you can accommodate a patio as is on the south side of the house without encroaching into the bluff. So you have your patio. You have your outside space. It's a wrap around patio on the first level. So they've got their house. It's reasonable. It protects the rights and expectations of our existing property owners. When I hear that you know we're protecting the rights of the property' owners. Well what about the existing owners? And there's a good compromise position here. I understand and appreciate people wanting outdoor decks. But if that can be accommodated and we hear over and over again from staff, if there's buildable area on another location of the house, that's considered more reasonable than granting a variance into a setback. That's just common practice as we're doing our findings. Now I'm hearing Mr. Botcher and Mr. Knutson saying that under finding number A, the buildable area to be 747 square feet. That's if we were to enforce the 30 foot bluff setback, correct? Scott Botcher: That's our understanding. Councilwoman Jansen: If we enforced it. So if we grant the 30 foot variance, only the 30 foot variance, we conceivably make it a buildable lot. It goes beyond the 747 at that point, correct? If it's accommodating this footprint of this house. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Cindy Kirchoff: Isn't a little bit of the foundation into the bluff just a little bit? Just two small comers. Mayor Mancino: Say a little bit, are we talking about 2 or 3, 5 feet? I mean. Cindy Kirchoff: I can certainly measure it right now. Mayor Mancino: I just want to understand that there will be a little bit of the foundation still into the bluff. Not the bluff setback. 27 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Right. The entire house would be in the setback. Yes, absolutely understood. Absolutely understood. And that's where I'm saying if we go back to what's being proposed, which is 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback, all we would be eliminating under the recommendation. Mayor Mancino: Would be the extension of the deck. Councilwoman Jansen: We're eliminating this. And what I'm saying is that we grant the variance for the 30 feet so it brings the buildable area out to this line and all we're then not granting. Mayor Mancino: Is the extension of the deck. Councilwoman Jansen: ... 16 out into this area. So what we're being asked for is a 30 foot plus a 16 foot. If we grant the 30 foot, you have a buildable area for a home. And that's what we're being shown here. Mayor Mancino: Cindy with that question, just going, forgetting the setback. The bluff setback and going to where the bluff line is. You get the home and the porch that wraps around. Cindy Kirchoff: The rear part of the wrap around porch will be eliminated as well the lower deck. Mayor Mancino: The whole lower deck nothing. Cindy Kirchoff: The whole lower deck, yep. Councilwoman Jansen: Well and depending on the size of the comer of the house, I'm not trying to be a real stick in the mud about it. I mean the comer of the house isn't as much the issue for me. It's that we're granting an additional 8 or an additional 16 beyond voiding the 30. And that certainly is reasonable and that is where the other homes in the neighborhood are built to. It puts the footprint of this home where it was originally shown on the grading plan. However it works out, it works out identically that way and in the survey it does show the bluff line at the 998. So we accomplish the buildable area, which if ! understand what we're trying to accomplish here tonight, is making sure that we're not doing a taking. That we're being reasonable and giving the homeowner a buildable area for a single family home. We do that by granting the 30 foot variance. And all we're eliminating is condition 3 of the recommendation which allows then for the additional 16 feet encroachment out into the bluff. And if drove Kerber and looked back at the side of this hill as to where that additional 16 feet would have this home sticking out, it's going to hang out so much farther than any of the surrounding homes as.you look back towards this park. It's going to be out by itself. If you build the home with just that 30 foot variance, it's at least more in line with the existing homes. It's not sticking out that additional distance. And like the surrounding homes, they have their patios and their decks on a side. So you have the use of your side yards for your grill or your outside enjoyment. You still have space because there is space on the south side of the house and the lot. Mayor Mancino: That would also have a 20 foot variance to the front. Councilwoman Jansen: And that's the kicker. I go back and forth on that. I mean we heard staff say earlier tonight that that complicates parking. But we have allowed for the 20 foot setback in order to protect tree preservation, slopes. 28 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Slopes. We encouraged them. Councilwoman Jansen: What are we trying to accomplish? I don't know. I'm hoping that the neighbors would feel okay about that. If we're at least staying at that just the 30 foot variance. 30 seems reasonable. 46 seems extreme. 30's buildable. Mayor Mancino: I'll give a few of my comments. Number one, I just want to make sure and thank you for adding Cindy the conservation easement, 6. Because I just want to make sure that there is nothing that's building any part of it, the house or the deck or anything is in part of the conservation easement. We can just make sure that all the legal definitions are set for that. Secondly, I go back and forth about the bluff ordinance because this obviously wrote it and I think it's important. Like subdivisions and the houses that are going to go in there to be on an equal level playing field. As long as everyone abides by the conservation easement, that's my big consideration. So I'm taking into consideration what Councilwoman Jansen said and I'll take just a minute to process that but one of the things I wanted to... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. Councilwoman Jansen made a motion to approve the staff recommendation amending condition 3 deleting the phrase, "more than 16 feet". There was no second to the motion.) Councilwoman Jansen: ...where the comer of the house would be. Cindy Kirchoff: It's approximately 3 feet. Councilwoman Jansen: Just 3 feet? Cindy Kirchoff: That's my best guess.. Councilman Engel: I think this is doable based on staff recommendations. Mayor Mancino: But I don't want that deck to go out. Councilman Senn: Let's see here, I'll try a motion because I think it's the only one we're going to pass tonight. I would move approval of the staff recommendation. I suppose what the motion should do is the motion should be for denial of the appeal. Approve staff recommendation with the exception of the lower deck protruding beyond the line of the upper deck. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Mayor Mancino: Grading still shall not take place 10 feet beyond. Councilman Senn: That's in there already. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted, into the deck. Into the bluff. Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded approve Variance #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff 29 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: The home shall be rotated to the south as shown on the plans prepared by staff to minimize the area of the foundation that encroaches into the bluff. 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation of the home into the bluff. The lower deck cannot encroach more than 16 feet into the bluff and beyond the line of the upper deck. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. o The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. o The conservation easement shall be shown on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Mancino: And your findings for the nay. Do we have to do that on a variance Roger? Roger Knutson: When you approve something... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, so a variance is granted a little different than the variance that was granted at the Planning Commission. The lower deck will not able to be built and Cindy you will make sure that the plat and the legal description of the conservation easement, otherwise nothing will go into the conservation easement, correct? Cindy Kirchoff.' You have my word. Mayor Mancino: thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming tonight. RQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO PERMIT CHURCH ASSEMBLY WORSHIP AS AN ANCILLARY USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT; WAIVER OF SECOND READING OF CODE AMENDMENT; APPROVE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR NEW LIFE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP; STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Mancino: And Roger we can't waive that second reading, right? Because we need 4/5. Roger Knutson: You have four people. Councilman Senn: You can do it. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. So if we all vote for it, yeah. Got it. Staff report please. 30 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. Steiner Development requested that the PUD design standards be amended for this development to permit a church facility within one of their buildings. New Life Christian Fellowship. In doing that staff tried to draft some standards or criteria for approval of a church facility in the development as an interim use so that there'd be some sense that they'd be causing the church to have to move out. We contacted various church organizations to see what a viable congregation is and they seem to agree on the number of 200 adult members made them viable and able to go out and get their own facility. So we did incorporate that as one of the criteria when they reach that threshold their interim use would have to go. We did draft this so that 6% of any one building, any building within the development could be a church facility so for each building, technically each building could have 6% of their space. The specific request is for 44,000 square feet of the Steiner Building II which is located north of Water Tower Place and West of Coulter Boulevard. Churches are permitted as interim uses in all industrial and commercial districts within the city and as conditional uses in all residential districts. We believe that this was not out of line for them but we wanted to limit the amount of institutional uses within this project so that's where the 6% came up. Staff' is recommending approval of the amendment to the PUD standards and also the approval of the interim use. The specific interim use permit for the New Life Christian Fellowship. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Mancino: Questions for staff'?. Is the applicant here? Would youlike to address the council? Fred Richter: I'I1 introduce myself. Fred Richter with Steiner Development and Don Finger, the Pastor of New Christian Fellowship is also here. I think this matter wa§ brought here once before. We've been to the Planning Commission and b6en talked through and we appreciate the staff's support on this. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Fred. Councilman Senn: I would move approval with the exception on one change on page 5 and that being the church shall not occupy more than 6% of this one building. Striking the word any. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Does that clearly state that it can't occupy 6% of other buildings? Do we have to specifically state it that way? Councilman Senn: That's what I said. Councilman Engel: I want to make sure that's clear. I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the amendment to PUD #92-6, Arboretum Business Park to permit a church as an interim use within the Arboretum Business Park development. The following criteria shall apply to churches as interim uses: Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting, and other required spaces shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of Steiner Development Building II. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. 31 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Roger Knutson: Do you want to waive second reading? Councilman Senn: I'll move to waive second reading of the ordinance. Mayor Mancino: Second to that motion? Councilman Engel: I second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to waive second reading of ordinance amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Bob Generous: The interim use permit. Councilman Senn: Motion to approve interim use permit. Councilman Engel: Secon& Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the interim use permit for New Life Christian Fellowship for an office and church assembly in 4,400 square foot tenant space on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2"a Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. The church must vacate the building prior to exceeding 200 adult members. 2. The church facility is limited to 4,400 square feet of the building area. 3. The church shall submit to the city annually the number of adult members in it's congregation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT LOTS 9 AND 10~ BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2~ 3, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOTS A AND BI CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 20,195 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. As you stated, this is a three part application. The preliminary plat is rather straight forward. There were two lots on the most easterly end of this development. The applicant is replatting those to create three lots into outlots, with one of the 32 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 outlots being the right-of-way for the public street. The only issue that we had in that was that they develop one of the lots, Lot 2 does not have sufficient frontage and that they revise the plat for final platting to have 60 feet of frontage at the cul-de-sac. The site plan review is for a 20,195 square foot office warehouse building with a portion of it scheduled to be occupied by a daycare facility. This development, initially when they came in, staff was a little concerned that they were repeating the site plans for another building and so we wanted something a little bit different. The applicant has provided that through the use, introduction of additional entrance features. We believe this makes it a little easier to identify the separate building and it is an improvement. In addition they've added accents to match the building materials. This is a block face building so it's all block material. Darker reddish brown on the bottom and then a lighter color towards the top. It has multi tiered canopies at the front with the lower extension area. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report with the deletion of condition number 15, which is the added architectural details that we believe they provided with their revised submittal. And finally the conditional use permit would allow the use of part of this structure for a daycare facility. We believe locating a daycare building, or facility in an employment area is a good benefit for the community and we're recommending approval of that. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Questions for Bob at this point. Councilwoman Jansen: I just had one. And I don't know how typically we handle the sidewalks within the development. Realizing that there's a sidewalk that goes all the way around the building. There's. one that goes around the cul-de-sac and down the exterior road if you would. The entrance road. Bob Generous: Lake Drive. Councilwoman Jansen: sidewalk? But the driveway actually going into this complex I gather does not have a Bob Generous: Not currently and that's one of the conditions that staff has incorporated. It would be. Councilwoman Jansen: So did I just miss it? You've got it in here that we'd be adding one on the actual driveway? Bob Generous: It would be along Street A is what they call it in the plans, since we don't have the final name yet. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So it would go the rest of the distance up that driveway and they just need to crosswalk across. Bob Generous: Yeah, what we'd do is create then a pedestrian ramp on both sides. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, great. That was it. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? Scott Botcher: The only thing I have is that I have received a number of comments from folks whose kids attend the existing daycare my understanding that's going to move over there. I'm prejudice because one of my kids goes there. God willing he'll graduate. But there's a strong...I think to have it in the business park area. It's a nice benefit and it helps attract business to Chan. 33 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion and I guess we'll do three different motions but I'll need one for the subdivision, for the site plan review,.. Councilman Senn: Why can't we just move approval ofthe subdivision, the site plan review and conditional use permit. Mayor Mancino: Good, that's fine. Councilman Senn: Move approval. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #99-9 for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999, with the following conditions: o o The final plat shall revise the cul-de-sac street design to include a 30-foot radius at the point where the street connects to the cul-de-sac on the southwesterly comer of the cul-de-sac. The developer shall submit street names to the Public Safety for review and approval. The final street name shall be listed on the final plat and construction documents. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All side slopes in excess of 3 to 1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets after site grading is comPleted. Ail utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street shall be constructed in accordance with the city's urban industrial street section. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City. Council approval. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 34 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right of way. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Street and utility improvements located within the public street right-of-way upon completion will become City maintained and owned. Individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained.~ Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. The developer shall escrow with the City a financia[guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County may be used for an security escrow. Driveway access points to the lots shall be limited to the interior street system and not Lake Drive West. Access to Lots 1,2 and 3, Bk. 1 shall be reviewed by the city on an individual basis as site plans are submitted. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The developer shall petition the City to vacate the drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, prior to recording the final plat. The developer shall be responsible for adjustment_s to existing infrastructure impacted by site improvements. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The applicant shall submit a boulevard tree landscape plan for city approval. The plan shall list location, species and size of materials. The lot frontage for lot 2 shall be increased to a minimum of 60 feet. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be 35 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 21. A sidewalk shall be extended along A Street. 22. Fire Inspector conditions: a. All the post indicator valves going into the building must have tamper protection. b. Please refer to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policies for site and building requirements for plans to be issued to the Building Department." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan Review #99-14 for a daycare/office/warehouse building as shown on the site plan received June 4, 1999, subject to the following conditions: o Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans shall be submitted to staff for review and approval by to the City Council consideration of the site plan. The applicant shall work with staff in revising westerly curb radii at the driveway entrance to accommodate fire apparatus vehicles 36 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require building permits through the City's Building Department. The proposed driveway access shall incorporate an industrial driveway apron and pedestrian ramps on the plans in accordance with City detail plate 5207 The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee the boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. All areas dis~arbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to' support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. ' The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final plat approval of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. The applicant shall be responsible for any adjustments to the existing sanitary sewer manholes that are impacted with development of the site. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The applicant shall provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping surrounding the parking lot. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: 37 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 a. Increase plantings for buffer yard area in order to meet ordinance requirements. b. Increase parking lot trees by nine in order to meet ordinance requirements. c. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that shows shrub quantities, sod or seed limits, landscaping for the daycare play area, and details of the landscaped areas and paving near the building. 19. Building Official conditions: ao The daycare facility must be separated from an adjoining office, warehouse or manufacturing use by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation. The building owner and or their representative meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 20. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): a. Regarding the note referencing all trash and recycling to be inside the building it must be in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #20-1991. (Copy enclosed.) b. Submit utility plans for review and approval. c. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. d. Submit radius turn dimensions to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 9002.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. e. On the north side of the building provide approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for options available. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. (Copy enclosed.) g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #99-2 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. 3. Show type of fence and landscaping for the outdoor play area. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 38 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE, CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FIRE CHIEF. Councilman Senn: One thing I wanted to bring up under Council presentations. Just wait and do that after Admin? Mayor Mancino: Sure. Scott Botcher: One of the things that I'm going to try to do and I think I mentioned this to you and I know the Mayor has broached this with me in the past is to have on once a month, probably the last meeting of every month, that's what we're shooting for, have a representative of the fire department and the public safety departments here to make a brief presentation to the council. But obviously there are issues that you all are concerned about. You hear from constituents. Included in your packet is his/our both of course from the public safety department and the fire department. The fine department ones are in the administration section. Public safety one is a separate. So they'll be here about once a month. Mayor Mancino: Great. Wonderful. We'll do a dance and sing. Bob Zydowsky: I really don't have anything specific other than what I will try to do each month is to give you, as I call, a law enforcement update realizing there's not a lot of important headline news agenda here but just to kind of give you a heads up on some of the more important things that we're doing. Burglaries or calls that may attract news type things. Some of the programs we're doing and then also with that, Beth Hoiseth, our Crime Prevention Specialist will attach along with that some of the activities that she's doing. July"s been a busy month for us as far as those type of safety education type contacts. Last week we, in conjunction with the Park and Rec Department, did our annual totlot safety program in Conjunction with the fire department and Carver County and Chan Public Safety and we probably gave a talk to anywhere between 300 and 400 kids that week: And what it involves, we go out to the different area parks and it's two parks each day. And it was usually Mark or Greg that did a segment on fire department. They get to spray the hose and that sort of thing and then Deputy Mike Douglas and I did a segment on police. And we'd go over some of the gear that I carry and the differences between the brown and the blue and so that was real fun. The 4th of July events of course were very well attended. Excellent, no problems whatsoever. So if you have anything specific, I'm happy to answer that. Scott Botcher: Tell us about Pleasant View Road. Bob Zydowsky: Pleasant View Road. We've had the radar trailer out several times. I've been up there and I think I've gotten more offers for cookies and coffee in the last two or three weeks than I've had in 12 years but I try to make it up there 2 or 3 times a day and write 2 or 3 or 4 tickets a day. And the Sheriff's office is busy with that too. Realizing it's not the only problem spot in this city but we're putting our efforts towards that. The feedback I've been getting, people coming out of their driveways or I stopped and spoke with a fellow. I said do you mind if I use your driveway to set up a little speed enforcement and he said oh, by all means. I'll go get the coffee. No problem. So I mean they're very appreciative. Joggers, bikers that go by stop and then we'll talk so it's been a good program. And we'll continue that. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: One of the, I just have. 39 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Councilman Senn: Oh wait, I wanted to ask him where this rampant problem with the drugs...heard of it before so I was kind of curious to hear about it. Stated by Mr. Ayotte. Bob Zydowsky: I guess I'm unaware of that too. Councilman Senn: So it's not only me that's unaware of it? Bob Zydowsky: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay, good. Mayor Mancino: Bob, looking at the Carver County Sheriff's Department Area Report. From year to date, it looks like, it says total criminal, we're at 910 this year of assault and burglary, drug violation and all that. Last year we were at 1288 so are we doing better law enforcement? Is the economy good? I mean you know. Bob Zydowsky: Well, it's funny you ask that. I was kind of going through some of the stats and the big ones that I saw. Mayor Mancino: Traffic stops. Bob Zydowsky: Well traffic stops and the, it's not a problem but with the addition of the computers and the cars, officers are doing less of calling out their traffic stops versus just entering it into the computer. So therefore it's a little bit different. It's not considered a stat at that point. So that's why there's such a drastic change there. And then also on miscellaneous criminal, those stats have gone down, which is good. I mean those are the things, the little things that happen. Mayor Mancino: And I see where theft has too. I thought that was great. Right, right. So the numbers are down but that's good. You know overall. It's actually good police work I think. Councilman Senn: The other one I had a specific question about was also the rampant problem that was referenced by Mr. Ayotte dealing to vandalism yet you're showing that our vandalism numbers are down. Bob Zydowsky: Right, overall vandalism numbers are down. They have had in the Near Mountain area, North Lotus Park, we've had I don't want to say several incidents but a few more than normal incidents of vandalism up there. Houses being egged. Lawns being trashed by cars. Cell phones being taken out of cars. Officer Holden with the Sheriff's office stopped a vehicle in North Lotus Park last week driving through the soccer nets and their excuse was they were trying to avoid a raccoon. Well... you know areas that have never had problems seem like they're going on so. Mayor Mancino: And again it sounds like kids and teenagers. Bob Zydowsky: Exactly. Exactly. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. John Wolff: Thanks Bob. Madam Mayor and council members. Appreciate the opportunity to give you a brief report on the fire department. I don't know if you have a copy of the handout in front of you. If 40 City Council Meeting ~ July 26, 1999 you don't, I can certainly give you one. I've got a number of items. I was just going to give you kind of a quick overview on and then if there are any questions or if you want to give feedback, maybe back to the city manager. If there are issues you'd like us to maybe more specifically cover at a future meeting, we can certainly do that. I thought I'd just give you an update on where we are. From a staffing perspective, we're at 46. 33 active. 5 are probationary members. They are coming up to their one year mark which would make them active members if they pass that mark. We have 3 on leave of absence which is fairly typical and we have 5 recruits. We're seeing about 10 to 15% turnover over the past 2 or 3 years so we try to manage that through the recruiting process and the probationary training process. But we're real comfortable with staffing and we're real comfortable with some successful recruiting efforts we've had over the past couple of years. Mayor Mancino: Great. John Wolff: Calls year to date are 8% below 1998 levels and '98 was a little bit of a spike off of '97 but '99 data is below both '97 and '96. We think that this is driven by the CO alarms were, came out in '96 and '97 and we got, we had a lot of activity in that area and for example an average of about 60 calls a year and we anticipate we'll get less than 20 this year based on year to date data. And then the storm season last year we saw a lot of calls out of that and we're seeing a typical or normal season for storms this year. So on a year to date basis we're 8% below which from a budgetary perspective means that we shouldn't have any trouble with meeting payroll and payroll is probably the biggest driver in our operational budget. Operational areas otherwise and capital costs are on budget year to date. We expect them to hold budget through the year. Just a quick view of what we have or will purchase this year that are in budget. We've got the replacement of our light rescue vehicle. That's our front line truck. It manages, it probably is out on 50% of our calls. It's a 1984 vehicle. It's literally falling apart at the seams. It's going into the shop tomorrow to have a couple of cabinets welded so the timing is good. We were definitely in desperate need of that new vehicle and happy to have that coming on line. Mayor Mancino: Will we be, John will you be selling the old one? John Wolff: Pardon me? Mayor Mancino: Will we be selling the old one? John Wolff: My understanding is it's not going to stay in the fleet and that Harold will probably try to find a market for it. It's in rough condition now. I don't think the city will have any use for it, although that remains to be seen. The fire department is going to turn it over to the vehicle maintenance area. Our second installment of the, I'm sorry this would be the first installment this year is the $15,000 towards the new radio system the County's going to in 2002. The_County's going to 800 megahertz from the current VHF channels and it's about 100, a little over $100,000 to retrofit the fire department radios and so I think council set up an installment program which will be a six year program and so our first installment comes towards that this year. We've purchased some surplus.airtank bottles. We're purchasing a power generator for our substation on the west end. In the event of a power failure of Y2K blackouts, what have you, we'll have a way to get the doors open and to operate radios and so forth. And we're also just going through some hose replacement on some of our front line vehicles. We have developed a proposed 15 capital plan for rolling stock facilities and equipment and that's been submitted to the City Manager. We also have submitted our fiscal year 2000 budget. Of note. We're changing the paradiamond, the fire service. When we were a small town and our 45 members, we could page everybody out for every call and that's how we kind of insured coverage. What we've learned is that with 800 calls a year, we're burning out of fire fighters so we're experimenting with some shifts now. 41 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 We used to have a shift that split our group in half to respond to medicals. Now we've gone to a shift which splits it into quarters. One is a territorial shift and the others are more of a calendar shift. And some benefits to us is that, I think it will hopefully help us maintain people and minimize burnout. Another opportunity is that we'll be able to shift payroll dollars maybe into some areas where that, that are needed in terms of some long term capital expenditures which we can go into detail in our part of our capital plan. The County has developed some new protocols together with the fire departments and the paramedic services which will enhance the use of available resources to respond to medical emergencies. I think we all take for granted because we watch TV that if there's an emergency at home you can call 911 and someone will help you with that emergency. They'll not only get people coming but they'll actually help you manage that emergency by maybe explaining some first aid things you can do. People expect that. Actually today in Carver County that service is not provided and that's an enhancement that's going to be added shortly. The end of this summer. Which will be a benefit to the constituents and they'll be working closely with the paramedic services to actually deliver that service. In addition to that we're going to be looking at triaging 911 calls to determine, like for example in the city of Chanhassen we have Bob's group on duty. We have generally two sheriffs office deputies on duty and you know is it, always necessary to page out the fire department for maybe a less severe or less urgent medical emergency? Today's protocols are that everybody gets paged out. A more contemporary protocol takes a look at the resources available. Are they actually in town? Are they actually not on call? And then based on that, determine if you need to, you know which resources are most appropriate. So that technology is widely used in the inner ring suburbs and the major cities acrOss this country and we are now studying that and hope to roll it out fourth quarter in the city of Chanhassen. Which also has some exciting opportunities, not only from a service delivery capability but also from a fire department management perspective. As ! mentioned before, we're getting up to 800 projected to be over 1,000 calls if we continue on the current trends. That's payroll issue. It's also a burnout issue for volunteer members so we're looking. We're excited about thesenew capabilities that the county's rolling out and looking forward to implementing them and we'll keep you folks posted. Everybody talks about Y2K. The fire department also has to be aware of how Y2K impacts our .equipment and our technology and a lot of our equipment now has technology built into it. Computer bits and so forth. Computer chips, etc. We have done a complete review of our systems and our equipment and everything's compliant. We will be participating in the county wide plan which, a big concern the county has and I know you've been briefed on this is basically telephones not being accessible because people will be calling because it's such a big day. And so the fire stations will be open on the evening before the year 2000, New Year's Eve and also the following day. In anticipation of communication problems. So people will be actually instructed through PR and mass media to go to their local fire station if they can't get through 911. So we will be staffing those stations. And as a final note, we're beginning to work on our web site which we hope will both have a PR image, and a way for people to communicate and to learn about fire safety and so forth but also we hope it will be a tool coming in. It's our very spread out and unique work force so it's a way to communicate with management and our fellow fire fighters. So that's our quick report. We'd be happy to go into detail if you want us to on any of these projects that we're working on and appreciate the opportunity to chat. Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks. John Wolff: Questions for the fire department? Mayor Mancino: This weekend, are you going to open up a fire hydrant so we can all get in the water? Not unless we need it. 42 City Council Meeting - July 26, 1999 Scott Botcher: ...Bob I see on a more regular basis but with an agenda and such to start dealing with issues so. Thank you guys. Mayor Mancino: Questions? Councilwoman Jansen: No, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate it very much. Scott Botcher: And just for what it's worth. I did attend a Highway 212 meeting on Friday morning. I had the office put my notes together on it. When I do that I'll type them up for you. I've got to be clear what you want to say and what's public and what's not public. It was a very productive meeting. Councilwoman Jansen: Is the 212 coalition still meeting? Scott Botcher: Well if it's the coalition that I've been going to their meetings. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting and the recording of the remainder of the meeting did not get picked up on tape.) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Senn asked that the procedure for the Economic Development Authority meeting on Thursday, July 29th be clarified to the residents in attendance at that meeting. That theEDA would not be discussing site plan items, but financial assistance. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 43 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7.:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt-Burton, Deb Kind, and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-1. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any questions from the commission. Peterson: Questions? Kind: I have a question. Are there any other planned useg for the TIF money other than a, b, c, or d? Gerhardt: Not at this time. The goal of the City Council is tO basically pay off Lake Drive West public improvements, pave the parking lots and then put the industrial properties back on the tax rolls within a 4 to 5 year period. Right now it's approximately $1.4 million worth of public improvements. $350,000 allocated back to the city for it's portion of the roadway and parking lots. Approximately $600,000 back to the industrial user and the rest would be the Lake Susan Apartments development. The white piece here. And we'll probably be back inprobably 6 months with another tax increment district for that property to try to provide affordable housing on that site. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: A general question Todd. What happens next if We were to recommend approval? Gerhardt: The City Council is also having a public hearing on Monday night fOr the approval of the development plan and I will provide a verbal update on your action tonight to them. The school district and the county have reviewed the plans and have not provided any inPut' back to the city regarding the development of this tax increment district. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Kind: Did you say what the duration was going to be? Gerhardt: Well it's 11 year district. You get to collect 9 years of increment. And the City Council through our projections would see a 4 to 5 yearperiod for that district to last. Last u~ to 11 years. Kind: But 10 years is the maximum according to this stack. For economic_development. Gerhardt: 11 years is the lift of the district. You getto collect 9 years of increment. We give[ you a two year window in the beginning. You don't want to collect those first two years. Typically it takes a year for the developer to get the ~mprovements put m and then youhave year delay in taxes being generated. It's always a one year delay beforethey're on for full ~..s. So you get a two year window and then you want to collect the last 9-years of that district. I~hi case the City Council work have enough increment probably in 5 years to payfor all the - improvements based on the development that's going to be occurring. Right now I think yot~ve approved 4 buildings. I think you have another one on tonight for the Eden Trace developm~i~t and that's really unusual to have 5 buildings in before you even createdyour district. So going to start off fairly quickly on this. And the developer marketed the site with tax increm~t so that is to the credit of those 5 buildings. Without theincentix/es yOu probably wouldn't se~ that many buildings right away. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Kind: One more question. In the staff materials about TIF there was a section about-10% used for administrative costs. Are you going to do that? Gerhardt: We'll probably use less than that. You do have some administrative costs that caldor the increment can pay for the feasibility study for the roadway.~ BondingcoSts and sellingth~- bonds. Right now I do not anticipateus using any for stafftime. We Will behaving exp~nsol~ and having private redevelopment agreemen~ prepared foreach'of thedevelopme~s whichwill allowthe city to give them incentives back based on minimum m~ket, values-,- can determine how much increment would be-generated. Kind: Theoretically though shouldn't we be trying to geVthe-maximum,,;outside of that dist Gerhardt: Wellin this case the City Council wants to try to get the parcelsbaek'On the tax:ri as soon as possible. So any money that We free up we can reducethOse assessment Costs ~ then get it back On the tax rolls. - _. - -.. _.~ Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Ive got a couple questiOns. Generally, I m not sold on TIF as it st~s and I'm curious as to why you feel that this parcel would not be developed in the near future~ TIF wasn't available. Question number 1. Question number 2. What ~1o the school districts~n general think about TIF because they're the big losers in that. _ Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Gerhardt: The schools districts aren't losers in the TIF scenario. The losers are the county and the schools districts break even. School funding is determined by new development that occurs. They get less in state aids so if you've got a building, let's say it pays $100,000 a year in taxes, the school district would get half of that. So the would get $50,000. So that means they would get $10,000 less from any state aids. So if you create a TIF district, the TIF district would then capture that $100,000 and then the State would kick in the $50,000 to the school district so they're not, their net, or they break even. Blackowiak: It's a wash. I mean assuming no formula changes or anything. Okay. And then my first question again was, the reasonably foreseeable future was the statement that was used in here. Do you feel that this land would not be developed in the foreseeable future without TIF. Gerhardt: This property has been on the tax rolls for, I've been here 13 years and this development has been a part of the Chan Lakes Business Park for 20 years. And we've done 2 or 3 feasibility studies already for building Lake Drive and we had one interested party six years ago to Redmond Products was going to build a corporate headquarters there and decided not to. And so since we decided to put tax increment on this parcel, the development has come in with five buildings. It's not a science. I can't sit here and say those 5 buildings would have come or wouldn't have come, but from what the developer tells me he probably would have lost 2 or 3 of those buildings if he didn't get the TIF. Those are his comments to me. And when you have surrounding communities like Wac0nia, Chaska, Shakopee having TIF, why would they choose to locate in a community of Chanhassen where it costs more to build their building versus those communities. So there's a whole other argument is all cities stop using TIF, we wouldn't have to compete against each other and this would you know chiPs fall where they may. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Peterson: Thank you. This being a public hearing, may I have a motion and a second to open for the same please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission or board state your name and address please. Seeing none. Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any comments? Thoughts? None, may I have a motion and a second please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends considering, or recommends approval of Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion. Kind: ...on duration or making it...? Peterson: Why? Kind: That we desire it to be shorter...? Peterson: Why? I'm just asking you know because I don't see a rational reason for it but. Kind: I would rather it be shorter so that we can get them on the tax rolls for the general fund. ...get our projects done. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Your role tonight is to look at it from a planning standpoint and that it is consistent with the overall development of the community. Is it zoned properly? Are we meeting the guideline for the comprehensive plan? The City Council will be asking those questions of me Monday night. Duration and they really control that aspect of it. Your role tonight is just to make sure that you want to see industrial development occur in that location. That you want to see Lake Drive built. You want to see it built with a trail. Do you want to insure that the development is consistent with your comprehensive plan? That's your role tonight. As to the other questions. I'm more than willing to answer those. I just want to make one more point for Alison regarding upcoming referendums. The State has now allowed market value referendums. So if the school district with their upcoming $42 million referendum, they will capture revenue from these industrial buildings which will support that referendum. So I will not be able to capture that increment based on the increase in taxes from that referendum. That will go directly to the school district. That was not the rule several years ago. So these businesses will also support the new referendum coming up. Kind: I leave my motion the way it was. Peterson: That's good practice for Todd. Resolution #99-01: Kind moved, Burton seconded to approve the resolution declaring the program and plan for Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole (Attachment #3). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVEl KlM AND JOHN WARNER. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Public Present: Name Address Susan Albee 6871 Nez Perce Drive Roger Beckman Contractor for Applicant John & Kim Warner 6870 Nez Perce Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of the staff?. Kind: Question. Is this an urban myth that if you maintain a property for x number of years, I thought the number was 7 years, that it's yours. Aanenson: Are you referring to the setback? Kind: No, just maintain. Blackowiak: Adverse possession? Kind: yeah. Al-Jarl: That has been debated. Kind: That's not true. I've heard that and I was just wondering. That's an urban myth? You heard a bigger number? Peterson: Other questions? How does changing that setback, or changing the variance, how does it affect their building? If at all. AI-Jaff: Their building? Peterson: Or addition. Burton: Is that your Attachment #5 and #6, is that what that shows? AI-Jaff.' What happened was, and through a conversation with Cindy Kirchoff, she said that she did speak to the applicant and that it is possible to shift the addition, to maintain the exactly same setback as the rest of the home and be able to accomplish the required addition and yes, that would be the southern side elevation. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? John Warner: Good evening. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Name and address if you would. John Warner: My name's John Warner, 6870 Nez Perce Drive. This is my wife Kim. I'm not sure exactly what papers you guys have to look at. This is kind of all new to me so. What I'm basically looking for on that is where the, our addition is planned on that. There's a staircase inside of the house and there's a second level addition, that's where the stairs all on the house itself. The only feasible way of putting this addition on the house is the way that I've got it set up where I need a 25 foot variance. There's no question. I've got a gas main that comes in on that side of the house that I'd have to move the meter, the gas main. I'd have to move the staircase within the inside of the house. Financially it's really not feasible for moving it up to the, even with the house. It's just to put it honest, it's going to cost us a bundle anyway but the city does state that the residents should have a two car garage on the property. That's basically what I want to do is comply with that and the only way of putting it on is the way that it's set up on the plan. Anybody got any questions? Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Burton: Yeah I do. Can you explain the stairway thing again because I'm looking, it looks like what you proposed and then what the staff, how the staff revised it. I don't understand how a stairway wouldn't work with the staff. John Warner: On here, the back side of the garage is here. It comes into the house here. There's a staircase in the middle and that's where the staircase for the second level would have to go right to the top of that. So the stairs will enter into the living room on the house but yet they'll come out on the second addition. In order to put it up as they have it here, I'd have to move the staircase completely. Peterson: Other questions? John Warner: And one of the other purposes of going off the original wall of the back garage is because of the fact that the garage is block wall. And my intention was only to take part of the back wall of the garage off and the foundation and to incorporate it into the house. Peterson: Can you take a pencil and just draw on there the two options? Now that I'm spending more time looking at it, I'm more confused than ! was. John Warner: This is our original plan. Put the garage back. Put the staircase in. Burton: Can you draw where the stairs would be? John Warner: The stairs are right in here. They're all right in here. It's all foundation. This original garage was the original garage and about 3 ½ foot span between the side wall of the garage and the side wall of the house and that's where the staircase from the second to the basement. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Alright, thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for the applicant. Did you talk with your neighbors who...the land about this encroachment? John Warner: The Carlsons in the back and behind us? Yes we have spoken with them. They did intend, they did intend on selling us the 10 feet of property. The only problem is that the city requires me to have their lot surveyed and my lot resurveyed, then incorporate the 10 feet in it and just them two costs alone go outside of the range of what it's going, to cost to actually purchase the piece of property. It's basically not financially worth it. Kind: And that being not possible, did you talk with them about their feelings about your addition plan and it being 5 feet off the newly found property line? John Warner: Last summer when we did this, this has been a two year ongoing thing with us trying to get this set up so we can put an addition on the house. We did speak with them because our intention was, we wanted to purchase the 30 to 40 feet of land behind our house becaUse we have, my wife got a permit from the city of Chanhassen to put up a chain link fence on their property and the city never told her it wasn't hers so we've maintained the property. We had the lot surveyed so we could plan our addition and found out that the. property was not ours so we had contacted them and did talk with them because we wanted to purchase the whole piece of property and as far hs our addition goes, they really said they didn't care along .with the fact that they didn't care that ! put up a, I have been putting up a 6.foot wood privacy fence around the property because we have two black labs. They're good dogs. They need a fenced yard but the Carlson's expressed some interest in the fact that the dogs seem to scare their kids when they're in a chain link fence. So we decided to put up a wood privacy fence so the dogs canCt see them and they can't see the dogs. And as far as I got from them, it didn't seem to bother them. There is basically right behind the house on that comer is all woods. You can't see through it in the summertime. Peterson: Based upon what the staff has heard this evening, any additional comments? May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Susan Albee: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Susan Albee, 6871 Nez Perce Drive. I'm the property directly across. This is appearing to me that the nature of this request is based on more convenience than a variance hardship. There are several alternative plans to this property. Bringing the garage forward, there's ample room. Their setback on the property. Going to the south of the property, even bringing it back off the lot line would eliminate the second variance. The additional family area could be added onto that side of the house. Carver 7 Planning Commission Meeting ~ July 21, 1999 Beach is based a lot on weird lot configurations. If we look at a 5 foot rear yard setback, coupled with a stockade fence, that's going to give us about a 4 foot rear yard setback. Bad precedence. For the whole neighborhood. It really categorically is a starter home. You know there's only so much you can do with it and I really think an addition on this property could be accomplished without variance. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Roger Feckner: Hi, Roger Feckner, New Hope. From New Hope and I'm on the contractor working with John and Kim on their project here. If there are any questions or still confusion with the layout that has been designed here, as to where it's going to go. Why it's got to go there, I'd be happy to answer those questions from the structural standpoint and design standpoint. Peterson: Questions? So from your perspective there is zero alternatives for? Roger Feckner: From an economical standpoint and the overall design and usability of the second level, the staircase has been best located to go over the top of a masonry staircase leading to the basement at this point in time. As far as the utility tie ins go, because there is proposed up here two bedrooms and a full bath, in the living area over the garage. And for running those utilities up there, tying into the sewer system in the existing home, and getting water supplies up there, there is a channel that's going to be, a heated channel that's going to be constructed on the end of that staircase leading to the basement at this point in time so that we can effectively feed that bathroom on the second level. If that addition were pulled forward, 11 feet that's been proposed here or what staff is recommending, that's going to push that staircase to almost completely to the back of that addition. And as far as the interior layout and usability of that floor space would be greatly hindered by doing so. Kind: Question. Could you slide...and jUst slide the addition forward...that second floor? Roger Feckner: No because then that would put the bathroom to the rear of the home and basically as far as the tie in capability for mainly the sewer system, the drainage for the bathroom, would be very difficult and additional cost from that standpoint. Kind: So it can be done, it's just a cost issue? Roger Feckner: It's a cost issue as well as they have a sitting deck coming off of the master bedroom in the rear Comer of that unit on the, which would be the west comer I believe of that addition off the master bedroom. Northwest comer. This area here. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one. Burton: I guess I can venture forward Mr. Chairman. I think that it's, what the applicant requested probably doesn't technically qualify for a variance and I thought that the staff reached a fair compromise in their recommendation and ! understand the applicant's cost concerns but I think it most likely could be reconfigured and could incorporate the stairway the way the staff proposed so I guess I'm inclined to follow the staff recommendations in this matter. Peterson: Other comments. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Matt. And I also would hope, they could also look at the south side of the home because there is adequate space on that side to do an addition. I do feel the 11 feet is a fair compromise. I would think that the applicants would probably want to get it surveyed and get that resolved, even if they choose not to do an addition. That's a fairly major issue when, make sure where your back yard ends and your neighbor's begins so I would certainly encourage you to look into that. I would feel more comfortable personally if that happened at my house but you know if you want to go, if you have to go back that way, if that's the only way you want to go, then I think what you need to do is talk to your neighbors and get that worked out and get the additional land from... Otherwise I think there are opportunities for.., this addition forward or on the south side of the home to do something so I would go with that. And I do agree with the staff report in this case. Peterson: Anyone else? A motion. Burton: Mr. Chain~nan, I'll move that the Plamfing Commission deny the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback but approve Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance fi'om the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with conditions 1 through 3. Kind: Second. Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: This item may be appealed by the applicant or any aggrieved person by appealing this decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days after the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available city council agenda. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 35~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED AT LOT 6~ BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD)~ BOEDECKER COMPANY~ AMCON CONSTRUCTION~ LLC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, in your report you talk about the west and north elevations and on the blueprint it's the south elevation. That's the blank wall? A1-Jaff: No, actually it is. Kind: Or is it because of the angles and stufP. That's really hard to tell. A1-Jaff: The entire rear wall that faces the... Kind: It's hard to see on the plan what's going on. Thank you. Peterson: Sharmin, in your beginning narrative you really spoke of some design characteristics that you weren't happy with. Quality as it relates to PUD, yet a little bit at a loss as to why you're still recommending approval, rather substantive points that you aren't necessarily agreeing with yet. Al-Jarl: The condition is there to change the architecture of the building. I mean the approval is contingent upon the design and the materials changed as highlighted in the staff report. Peterson: That begs to question, are we trying to approve something prematurely? I mean my sense if we're talking about some pretty substantive changes that I don't know if I'm real...on passing onto council without seeing the changes ourselves because it is. AI-Jaff: You can definitely table it. Require the applicant to revise the design before you send it to council. Peterson: Any questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name and address please. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Dennis Kornelius: My name is Dennis Kornelius. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13, Burnsville, Minnesota. Mark Huis who is the designer is with me, will speak to the architecture first and then I'd like to speak to the various points that staff has directed the project. Thank you. Mark Huis: Thank you. My name is Mark Huis. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13 in Burnsville. The architect for Boedecker Company. First of all about Boedecker. They design and assemble equipment for the food processing industry and Boedecker will occupy approximately 2/3 of the building initially. The other 1/3 of the building will be leased to a second tenant. If I might I'd like to just do a quick tour of the surrounding buildings in the same industrial park. First off starting with our neighbor to the west, Paulstarr. The building here. Basically the building is a concrete block building...color and there's one color band... Peterson: We really can't see that so... Mark Huis: Just a quick tour of our site. As Sharmin mentioned, there are two entrances to our site. One off Lake Drive West, and that's essentially the public entrance. That's the balance of the parking, that's where most of the employees will park. And fOr visitors would park...off Commerce Drive which is a cul-de-sac. That's essentially the entrance for this site. That's where trucks would enter the site. There's also a small amount of parking on the back side of the site. Along Audubon Road there's a large berm that continues along the full length of the property. ...and we will be putting a retaining wall in the back side of that berm. You can see that on the perspective here. So the parking lot will be quite shielded from Audubon Road. That berm is approximately 4 to 5 feet high at the parking areas. We've also continued the retaining wall around the entry in a semi circular fashion and created a plaza at the entry. There's also a patio to the north along that wall and that will be an employee lunch patio that will work in conjunction with the lunchroom in the Boedecker portion of the building. There was a mention of a trash enclosure in the staff report and we do intend to work with staff. We've had discussions with Boedecker on the location of that...back of the building and we will construct that in accordance with the building materials. The materials of the building are architectural precast concrete panels. They will have an exposed aggregate finish and a rib texture. There's also pre-finished aluminum panels at the entry. Those have a 2 inch by 2 inch reveal vertically and horizontally articulation. The window frames are also prefinished with a colOr to match the metal panels and the coping at the top of the building. The glass is a bronze tinted glass. The brick and precast concrete sills which occur at the bottom of all window openings. This brick here, I think Sharmin showed that to you already. Peterson: Angle them up. We can't really see anything from here. Also the big box. Mark Huis: The exposed aggregate... I did also bring along pictures of the buildings we have completed with very similar wall panels. Some of the reasons for the choice of building materials. Number one, durability. Boedecker Company was very interested in having a maintenance fi'ee building. Energy efficiency as well. They're very concerned about that and precast panels do have a better insulating value than a concrete block wall. And also Boedecker wants to project an image of quality. The layout of the building is essentially in response to the site again. The office portion of the building will happen at the main entry and all the service 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 functions towards the back of the building. At staff's request we have increased the size of the window openings to give the building more of an office building appearance and I do believe that with very few exceptions this building probably has more windows than the other buildings in the industrial park. One correction too. There are windows around the end of the building that are shown on the elevation... Dennis would also like to address some of the staff recommendations and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Dennis Komelius: What I'd like to do is in your packet from staff there's a list and I think about 16-17 items that they have listed as recommendations for the project. I'd like to go through those and respond to each one of them. How we feel and what we think We can do on the project. Items 1 through 3, we take no exception to the items. We're prepared to proceed with the items as addressed. Item number 4. There's discussion about providing additional landscaping in the track dock area to the back of the building located here. In 1997 Planning, and I think the City Council approved a plan for this specific site in which they approved the parking of the building as it's laid out. We've replicated that event or that design so we're questioning why the additional need for landscaping when the approval is already given for the design as it was proposed. So that would be one of the questions we'd ask. Item 5. We do not take any exception with. We're prepared to do that. Item 6, there's discussion about landscaping and there's shortfalls in trees and overages in trees. We're prepared to rework the site...probably overages in some spots and underages in others and we'll rearrange it to accommodate it. Plus there's some overstory trees that we intend to add to the landscaping plan that weren't shown in the plan as presented, ltem 7 talks about adding additional berming along Lake Drive West. That's from this drive entrance to the comer. We don't really have a concern with that other than the fact that we question if it's not a safety issue. When you go out and look at the site, berms along Audubon actually drop down at the entrance to the park on both sides of the street and gives you a view down Audubon when you drive up for exiting that park. We're concerned that if we bring that berm around the comer and add more mass, when you're taking a look to the north, you're going to have difficulty seeing the sight line onto Audubon Road. So it's not a, again in the '97 approval of this project, that was not called for. It's called for here. It's more of a question of why on that one. Item 8, we take no exception with the item they suggest there. Item 7, again there's really no question. There is a call for a fire hydrant that has to be added on the south side of the building. We recognize that's a requirement by the fire department but a technical point, under the '97 approval it allowed excavating within the road to tap into this line. Under the current report it's asking us to run a water line full perimeter around the building to the back side in order to connect with the water line. We would like to revisit that issue. Item 10 we have no exception. The other items within the list, there's a sequencing and number problem but right after 10 there's a number item 9 again. We have no exception on that one. And then item 10 is again no exception. 11 and 12, no exception. 14 no exception. And 16 we talked about the trash enclosure going in and item 15, I think that's just an administrative item regarding payment of park fees. Item 13 is really the issue at hand and that's the design of the building proper and I guess that's the one we'd like to talk a little more detail on. Reviewing back through what the staff was recommending, they envisioned a higher quality design in the comer. We haven't, in the 1997 approval of this project, a building identical to Paulstarr I believe it is, was approved which is a concrete block building with some accents of brick. Under this current recommendation we're being asked to do the entire building in brick. Our question is what's the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 difference in the last two years that have raised the standards for that comer property? The other question we have is under the PUD criteria, if we read it correctly, precast wall panels are an approved product for this park as long as it has textured finish and rock exposed aggregate which we're providing. In addition we've added banding to provide accent to the building. The other question I guess we have is, looking at all the other buildings in the park and addressing the question of the PUD's criteria for a design standard. We feel that the design we're proposing meets or exceeds the standard that's been established for this entire park. There are precast buildings that are masonry buildings and brick and we've incorporated all of that into the project we're doing. And then I guess our position on this, we feel that we meet the material criteria for the PUD. We feel the '97 project was approved on this site using identical site plans with a block building and we're now proposing a precast which we feel is a comparable product to that block and we feel it's a justifiable product. And we feel we meet the quality standards of the design of the park. We think we have a good design for you. But as a compromise to that, we are prepared to add some additional brick and modify the second entrance to the building. Currently it's just an entrance recessed. We would add metal panels. Add brick at each side of the entrance to accentuate that... Based on those ideas, those concept changes we would ask the commissioners to consider our project to be passed onto council. We feel that we do meet the design criteria and the project did have some approval, some type of approval in '97 because it was prepared to be built and for some reason the developer decided not to in a concrete block building. Any questions? Peterson: Thank you. You brought some story boards with you. Dennis Komelius: Oh sorry. What I had here, these are _the boards of the original building and you do have pictures of Paulstarr but these are the elevations of the Paulstarr building as originally approved and again we just felt by the, we expanded the size of the windows. The original windows are like 4 x 4 windows. We've gone to much larger windows, more of an office characteristic on the building. We don't have the projected entrances but this building was designed as a multi tenant building rather than a single tenant where Boedecker is really corporate center for one company with kind of a secondary entrance established for the interim tenants but ultimately they hope to be occupying the entire building. Peterson: Thank you. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I do have one quick question. Mr. Komelius made me think of somethingl You said the Paulstarr building, now are you saying the building you're proposing is similar to that building? Dennis Komelius: No, what I'm saying in the original approval in '97, which was approved by council to be built was identical to the Paulstarr building. And we're of the opinion our building is comparable or greater in design character than that building. And we feel it provides a gateway to your park and is not a detriment to the image that your park presents. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff quickly. Sharmin; when was Paulstarr approved? Or approved and built? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 A1-Jaff: Building or phase II? Blackowiak: The existing building. A1-Jaff: '95 or '96. Dennis Kornelius: ! do, maybe you want this. This is the site plan permit 97-3 which is the approval for that~project. And. A1-Jaff: Second phase. Dennis Kornelius: That's the second phase but it's an identical building to the Paulstarr building. Aanenson: It's our opinion that they're not the same. I mean I think you know, it's not the same. In our opinion. Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please. Dennis Kornelius: John Mueller who represents the owner would like to say something if he may. John Mueller: ...in Minneapolis and we found this site in part because of city assistance. I talked to Todd Gerhardt about any land that would be available in Chanhassen in picking out a site and he directed me to the Paulstarr organization and also the owners of Paulstarr. The land wasn't formerly for sale when we first discovered it through the help of the city. The issue We have, and I have in particular is based on some assumptions...conversations I had with the city, I recommend to my clients that they go forward and purchase the land which was done probably 2- 3 weeks ago at the cost of $350,000.00. And I met with the city planning department, a representative of the city planning department. The person that previously approved the plans that were done in 1997. This is the exact same footprint. It's the exact same site plan. The only thing we've done really is take the building up a little bit and also do some exterior changes on the building itself. I was given verbal assurance that it would be no problem whatsoever approving the building with precast panels provided they were of an upper level kind of design. What we were told we could not do is painted panels or... I took that message back to my client. My client made the decision to buy the land and build the building. Now what we're being asked to do is spend $250,000 more in design elements... Had we been asked to do that, we never would have bought the land. I've been doing this long enough to try to clear the path before recommending a client to do something so I did come to the city with the plans in hand. ...going to build practically the same building. We're going to build a 35,000 square foot building. These plans I think Alison you asked about when the plans were first approved. Paulstarr built their building I guess '94-'95. Okay. They bought this neighboring land with the anticipation that they would build speculative...the dock was moved to the back as well. So we didn't do much at all to the original plans that were approved. I think some of these that are 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 being asked now, I can understand times change, people's minds change. The thing I take total issue with is that the city asked us to upgrade the material of the building when the building was approved once before with a lesser exterior. And when I went to the city planning department and specifically asked about the...no uncertain terms would we have no trouble whatsoever with precast panels, provided that they were above the first...which is exactly what we're doing here. This is an upgraded panel. So based on that advice and based on that information I recommended to my client to go ahead and buy the land and proceed to construct the building. It does, you're putting an individual in a very, very difficult situation if in fact you go forward with the recommendation on the exterior of the building... Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one. Kind: I'd be interested in staff's comments regarding...representative. Aanenson: I think there's a lot of issues here that we hadn't heard before. They were apprised quite a while...we feel the discussions about the material came up before that. I think...facts we need to get clear here. Peterson: What about the architectural changes? Aanenson: It's always been a policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues, that we'd like to know ahead of time. It's been a policy we've adopted for a number of years. Issues that they address with staff ahead of time. We haven't had an opportunity to have some.., fire hydrant. We haven't... John Mueller: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear those comments... Aanenson: It's a general policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues with the staff report, that we'd like to go through those before the meeting so we have an opportunity to address those. I think there were several issues that you brought up that we had not had a chance to address, specifically the fire hydrant, the landscaping berm which I believe was in there before. Some of those items. As a general we try not to resolve those in front of the Planning Commission. We try to have those internally agreed to with the staff that we can say there's concurrence. That if we need to correct it, that we have that resolved before we get to the meeting. That's generally a policy. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 John Mueller: What's the message to me? Aanenson: I'm not giving any. I'm talking to them. John Mueller: Oh okay. Aanenson: You asked me to repeat it. What's what I was doing. John Mueller: ...on the panels you had asked what you felt, what you folks thought about the comments... Peterson: It wasn't specifically asked about your comments. It was just generally. What I might do is offer, ! think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Not to use a clich6 but I think that what I'd like to do is probably recommend that we table, and I'm certainly open for feedback from my fellow commissioners so that both parties, staff and the applicant can address some of these outstanding issues. I think what we may be benefitted by doing is offering our respective comments back to the applicant and staff so that if we do decide to table it, they'll know what they have to work on. Okay? Burton: I agree. Peterson: So with that, why don't we move our comments to What the recommendations would be, if we have any regarding some of the contentious issues that we have before us tonight. Commissioners. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I can start off. I do agree that the materials should be upgraded and I do feel because the property is a prominent location in the development, this is something that we need to take into account. Another thing I would like resolved is landscape islands in the rear parking lot. I do feel that that's an important issue to be resolved, as well as the lighting plan. I'm concerned about any lighting which might be visible to the neighborhood to the east. And also the fact that we have several blank walls which need some architectural... Peterson: Other comments? Kind: Next time around I'd like to see color copies of the elevationsl It's very helpful to see those...even more helpful to see them in advance. And I agree with LuAnn's comments that we really would like to see higher quality materials. Most of the buildings that you showed us in your schematic were of rock face block and I think especially in it's prominent location, it should be rock face or better. John Mueller: Can I ask you a question? Peterson: Let's finish our comments. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: I would just say, I think I agree with the other two commissioners and I would like to have a better visual representation of what it will look like before we can pass on it. Blackowiak: I agree and also some more concurrence between staff and the applicant because I don't feel that, don't get the feeling that we're there yet so I'd like to feel like everybody's behind a project. That we're getting the best possible project for this location before I see it again. Peterson: My thoughts are probably the same. Architectural interest as noted in number 13 I think is lacking. And that could be just from the presentation. The blueprint that I saw in the package was very difficult to get a sense of, feel of the building. Even the color renditions we have before us tonight was, there's only a small portion of the front of the building. I just don't' have a sense of what the building is like. It might be something I like. I don't know from what I saw tonight. My sense is that it needs a little bit more tweaking, but again I'm guessing because I can't get a feel of it. So you had additional comments? If you'd come up. Dennis Komelius: Oh I'm sorry. The only question I had was, there's been a number of comments made tonight. I'm looking more for an explanation rather than to comment on it but I've heard said on several occasions that because of it's prominent location on this particular site, the building itself should be something special. And are you saying it should be more special than what is in the park? It should be representative of what's in the park... I think that's what the story board attempted to show is that in most circumstances it's ora higher grade quality than what you find once you go into the park itself. Peterson: I think the answer to your question, it's difficult to answer but I think that what we're looking for on a prominent entrance building per se may be different than what had been approved in the past. I think you also have to put in a lesser concrete than what's already been approved. Somebody commented we do change. Design standards change. A lot of things change over a period of years. That also could be a factor. Again, until we have a better perspective of really what we have tonight to answer that question specifically. Kind: Also Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. My question to Sharmin about the elevations is, I figured it out after puzzling over this. North and south are revered and east and west are reversed, and I puzzled over it and it would be helpful if they were labeled the right way. Hurt my little brain. Although next time I'll know. Peterson: Motion and a second. Blackowiak: I will move that the Planning Commission, and the number here. Table Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. Burton: Second. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Do both parties understand what the issues at hand are? ...met with staff. What have we got available for the next time, any idea? Aanenson: August 9th. Peterson: Potential for. Aanenson: It's not the 9th. It would be August 4th. Peterson: Time on that one potentially? August 4th. Aanenson: If we can get everything turned around. Peterson: Okay, thank you. REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-8 TO ADD A SECOND TIER TO THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE~ INSTALL LIGHTING AND PERMIT ON SALE LIQUOR SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH 212 AND TH 1011 RRS GOLF. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Kate. Burton: Kate I guess I do have a question. When you say you don't want further intensification. I'm not sure what that means in terms of like building another floor. Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to. Intensification is, well it would be more extended hours because with the lights you have in the winter, you know longer hours of operation with the lights. And then the other intensification is in the flood plain you're adding more building value in the flood plain which in our judgment is not good planning practice. You're putting additional building evaluation in the flood plain. And as indicated on the Fish and Wildlife, it's a matter of time. We've had two floods there within the last two years that it wouldn't make good sense to add. Burton: It's not really our nickel. I don't know why we'd care. Maybe if they want to build a building, if they get demolished, why do we care? Aanenson: Well as planners we have the responsibility to do good planning, just like we wouldn't allow someone on the bluff if it's going to slide or something like that. Use good judgment to say that as the folks down the river, that good planning practices would be that we 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 don't want to add additional pollution and have that slough off. Just make sure we have the pesticides that are being applied and what that does to the surrounding properties. So we think as local jurisdiction that has the authority to control that, or the ability to regulate what uses go in there, that is our responsibility. The Fish and Wildlife can't control the use. That's our responsibility. So we think that there is reasonable use and further intensification is unnecessary. Burton: How about the beer? I believe they want to sell 3.2 beer, and I know that they do it like at Bluff Creek and other golf courses around. Aanenson: They don't do it up at Swings. Burton: Well not Swings but I mean most of the true golf facilities,.. Aanenson: I guess we felt this was a driving range and not that, your stint, your time there is probably shorter than you would be if you were on a golf course. 4-5 hours as opposed to an hour lesson. I guess that was our response. Burton: Okay. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Kind: Piggy backing off of Matt's comments. They do have a 9 hole golf course. Aanenson: Yes. Yes, that's true. Kind: And do we have to amend the Code or could we give a variance to this specific parcel? I'm talking about the alcohol right now. Aanenson: You could do it as a variance. That's, for this specific. I'm not sure how many more we're going to get on this one but that would be fine. Kind: Why change the code for everybody. Aanenson: That's another approach of looking at it, sure. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: One question. A question about the calls you received. Intensification was a concern but was it the structure or the lights or what? Aanenson: Oh, lighting and more people being, hours of operation. Night time. Winter use. Later at night and then yeah, with that would be the lights, correct. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I don't want to forget it. On the last page, page 11 it talks about the status of conditions of approval and there are three I guess are pending or haven't been fulfilled. Aanenson: Yeah, I've talked to Mr. Helstrom about that. We did make a site inspection. Things seem to be in pretty good order. It's a lot of it's the paperwork. He is working on the sign. We didn't get enough information as far as regarding the signs so he's got a temporary which could have been resolved sooner. The report of the fertilizer, I believe is just a matter of the paperwork and the building code issue he is working with the building department on those. It's door handles and those sort of things. Blackowiak: And then I just have a suggestion for us internally. At some point, maybe Planning Commission or I at least personally would like to have a discussion of conditional use permits and enforcement mechanisms. So I'm throwing that out so at some time in the future can we talk about that because I so often see not enforcement of things and we've happen to give approval and they're never enforced and what's the point? So. Peterson: My question, and I'll probably ask the applicant too Kate, but as the artist rendering that we have before us, if we were to approve that second story, would that actually be higher than the house? Aanenson: I put it in the report. I believe the house was like. Peterson: I missed that one wherever it is. Aanenson: Almost 24 feet. I scaled it offand it would be 28 feet with the. Peterson: Questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Jim Eggen: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jim Eggen. My wife and I live at and own the Bluff Creek Inn which is the Bed and Breakfast on the far lower end of Bluff Creek Drive. Peterson: Are you the applicant or not? We'll have a public hearing in a couple minutes. Jim Eggen: I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. JeffHelstrom: Well last time I jumped up here before I was supposed to. Well thanks for looking at this. Kate has said there's been some comments from different people from public hearings in the past that have had a problem with this project. So I wanted to bring down, we put up, put together a little sign up sheet here. People that were in favor of lights on this project itself...pass this around. Not everybody's from Chanhassen. We've got Eden Prairie and surrounding areas so I just think it's important to know that there are a lot of people who love this project and there's a lot of people who don't have the opportunity to get down there in the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2 I, 1999 winter and hit balls. Kind of like I figured initially, the hours of operation just don't cut it. And if you work during the week and you get down there on the weekends, it's just packed and we've got basically 900 square feet and there's 40 or 50 people sitting in there waiting to get in and hit. A lot of those people could come you know during the week and hit some balls but they just don't have the opportunity because they work until 5:00 and by the time they get home, it's just too late. We're closed. You know normally it's 4:30 or 5:00 by the time it's dark in the winter. So it's, I just think, I've put a lot of work into this place to make it as nice as I can, and I hope that all the members here have been able to at least look at what I've done and know that I want this to be nice and if it's a matter of a second level, maybe not tying in with the wildlife area down there, I have no problems kind of maybe modifying the look of it. We've got some stairways here that are on the outside and would be fire exits. You know we could go a cedar siding on that. Eventually when the siding gets changed on the house, I'd go a cedar siding on that and on the roof, maybe get it looking a little more rustic because I think that was one issue. There was a comment in the staff report that you wouldn't be able tO see the wildlife refuge as well with the second deck but you can't see anything past it now with the elevation change so I don't feel that that part of it should be as much of an issue. I think I've done more than I initially proposed doing. I mean basically I've put everything I've got into this project and I just see people coming down there all the time. Why don't you have lights? And basically the Consensus that people have is, you know I could understand if this was in the middle of the wildlife refuge but this particular project is right on the corner of two of the busiest roads in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Right where 212, or 169 and 100 connect. It's a busy intersection. We've got a small motel across the road. A landscape company. Kennel. Down the road you've got a salvage yard. I mean it's not like this thing is thrown in the middle of Glacier National Park or something. And even if it was, I mean Glacier National Park has a park with lots of lights. And I just feel that I've done everything that I can to preserve what's there and I really don't feel that this would do anything to hinder that at all. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Thank you. Jeff Helstrom: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jim Eggen: Thank you. I'll start over again. My name is Jim Eggen and my wife and I live at and own and operate the Bluff Creek Inn which is a Bed and Breakfast. Very old farmhouse on the south end of Bluff Creek Drive. Just oh within a quarter mile or so of the golf development. And I guess my wife and I object to the project because kind of an off site impact if you will, but the traffic situation is very severe and kind of out of control and has been for a number of years on Bluff Creek Drive. And my primary objection to really any development in that area, not to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 discriminate against golf or anything else but that this would only serve to exacerbate the traffic problems on Bluff Creek Drive. And what I've done is talked to some of the neighbors in the area, some of those folks I think Kate you said may be people within 500 feet got letters. Some did and some didn't. Actually I'm more than, I think I'm more than 500 feet away but nevertheless I got one or two notices on the golf project. And I talked to some of the neighbors, primarily some of the people who live up and down Bluff Creek Drive and they say unanimously that the traffic problems on Bluff Creek Drive, having been there for the past 20 years or more, have steadfastly been essentially ignored by the city over the years and I guess I kind of see this as another opportunity for the city to ignore those problems. Or perhaps to address those problems or somehow control them. So I guess I agree with some of the other questions that were raised too. In fact I'm a little bit surprised that there would be a significant development like that in a wetland and near a wildlife area and a floodplain and so on. So I guess what I'm saying is I object to that kind of development and the additional impact that it might have off site, which admittedly is seldom the kind of impact that is considered. But I think knowing that you already have a significant excessive problem on Bluff Creek Drive with traffic and trucks and speed and so on, this is another reason not to...facility itself but that's the comment that I have and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have too. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Who wants to take a stab at this one? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I like the facility. I've been there since it was built. I've seen how they operate. I've been there in the winter and I know that that lobby there just gets packed and people, I don't know how long people typically hit golf balls for but maybe like 20 minutes to a half hour, but there are people that wait, I've seen them wait an hour to hit balls and they could really stand to increase their ability to service their clientele. I know that their parking lot, I don't know how that fits into traffic, because all those people are going there right now anyway and waiting and they couldn't park this winter very well but I think that they've, it seems to me like they've fixed that by paving their lot and cleaning it up quite a bit. I think Kate said that this was one of the better alternative uses for this site and that's why we let it go through in the first place and it just seems to me if we're going, since we let it go in, I think we should try to help them succeed and I was in favor of just about everything they proposed last time also so this is nothing new for me. I think that extending the roof 14 feet is consistent with what's already there. I understand the concems about flooding but I think they've already got so much there already in terms of poles and fencing and a building and the deck they've already built. I don't think it's that much more. I read the letter from the United States Department of Interior and I'm jumping ahead I guess to lighting but one of their objections was if they were allowed to put in lights, and there was a flood, the lights are just one more thing that they'd have to pick up and I think that's kind of laughable. I don't think that that's much of a factor at all. They've already got the poles. I think they're just sticking the lights on the poles that they already have. And I recall from the last time we met on this issue, there were some literature distributed about the type of lighting 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 they were going to use, and I don't see it this time. And I don't recall it that well but I remember it was the type of lighting that was shielded and it didn't put a lot of glare out and just kind of lit up targets...thing they were for and that would help reduce the visibility from around the community and at our last meeting when we knew this was coming, Alison made a point of making sure that the notice was given to the people in the area. To talk, so we could get concerns about lights and nobody apparently came to talk about lights. So I don't think that that should be, I'm in favor of them putting in lights, I guess I'll cut to that. The beer I think is consistent with the other golf facilities in the town and the nearby areas and I would not oppose them having 3.2 beer for sale there. And I understand Kate's concerns, but I think it is more of a golf facility than a driving range. I do think people spend more time there, although I'm not convinced that the time there is that much of an issue. I'm guessing that there's others on the panel here that will be against some of these things but I just, I think I'm in favor of their proposal right down the line and even with the concerns that we heard. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? BIackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. Diametrically opposed to what Matt said, more or less. First of all I think the scale of the building at 28 feet would be much too high. It's, I think I've used this analogy before. About as long as a football field. 275 feet of building. You're going to have this huge brown mass of painted metal which I think is not going to fit in at all with the surroundings of the club. And I would even kind of beg to differ. I~don't think it's a golf course because it's just, I mean a golf course is used more than a couple of clubs, and this is like pitching and putting and that's all. So it's not really a golf course. I would say that I wouldn't, I don't buy the argument that it is a golf course. I say it's a driving range so that's semantics I guess but that's what I'm thinking. The lights, I don't think the lights fit in the area either. Granted this is on the edge of the wildlife area but still it's by the wildlife area. I just don't think that it fits there. The applicant requested to come in, knowing what the conditions of approval were. He went ahead and built accepting those conditions and he's got every right to come back but I don't feel that that my mind has been changed at all. I don't think the lights are appropriate. ! think the scale of the building is wrong. In terms of the beer, yeah I guess I could go either way. Again it's not a golf course. If it was a golf course then I would say yes. But there are other driving ranges and they generally don't serve beer from what I've heard. I've talked to some people that golf so that's what I'm hearing. I guess I'm less concerned about that. The building and the lights are my big concern and I don't feel that they are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and I would vote no. Peterson: Other comments? Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll chime in. I guess I'll split the difference. I do have a problem with the massive scale of the addition and I guess I don't feel that it really fits that comer. Two stories and huge wall...so I'm not really convinced that the way the addition is designed at this point I could really put in ... If it were open, maybe I guess that defeats the purpose, but if it was redesigned possibly I might be more in favor of it. I did go down and look at the light that's on top of the bunker, which is representative of what you're proposing. And I also looked carefully at how I compare it to other lighting in the area. And actually the lights on 212, 101, very bright 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 and I couldn't really even see the light that you put up because it was facing south when I drove in the parking lot. And really it wasn't offensive to me so I feel as though I could be convinced to vote in favor of the lights... And also 3.2 beer is fine to me. Kind: I'll go next. Second story I think is a good idea to increase the volume of the demand. I'd like to see the whole siding changed to be more rustic .... looking at budget wise. The cedar's the local thing or what. And I'd like to see it a darker brown. I know it. was specified to be brown but it's really beige...like to see it a darker brown that blends more into the wildlife area. And I'm guessing the elevators are a big cost issue so I'm wondering if staff has any information about if they reduce their bunker size to 30, they avoid the elevator. Aanenson: That's a building code issue. We can check with the building official on that but it's based on occupancy. So that's something that we can work on internally. Kind: But the way it is with the metal siding, I'm not in favor of that. Although I'm very impressed with the landscaping they've done out there. The size of the trees are very impressive and if this addition of the second story, I'd like to see them maybe put more of those trees...what they've done. Lights. I went and looked at the light as well and could not see it at ali when you drive up. I think even the bluff you would not see it. It would be less of an impact than the ballfield lights at Lake Ann are quite bright... And again this is the city... We're not talking' Glacier National Park here. And 3.2 beer, I think that's fine. I view the pitch and putt course as a par 3 golf course. I would golf a course like that. I think that it's considered a golf course like many par 3 golf courses. Peterson: Thank you. My thoughts I guess have to be dissimilar to somebody's. I haven't got a problem with the lights. ! was there two years ago when the lights were tested and again, I just don't see them as being an issue...the liquor license. I do have architectural design standpoint an issue with that enormous of a wall. Perhaps it can be toned down. I can't look at it tonight and say I can approve that based on what I see. I doubt that I would be able to approve it...more of the size of the hoUse and... So those are the comments of the respective commissioners. Is there a motion? Burton: Mr. Chairman, it looks like staff broke it into a series of mOtions. Peterson: First in the series. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf. Sidney: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf. All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: For the reasons Matt already mentioned? Burton: Correct. Peterson: Motion for the second variance please. Kind: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Noting that you had lights specifically sited out? Kind: What do you think about that? ~ Peterson: I'll pass on limitations but I don't know whether eight's too many or eight's too. Kind: I think eight is What they're requesting. Peterson: I'm comfortable with that. Other discussion? Kind: And what do you think about the hours? 9:00 p.m. year round. Peterson: I'm comfortable with that also. Burton: I am. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: What you mentioned? Next motion. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer at RSS Golf. Peterson: Second? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: I'll second it if we can discuss it. Peterson: Discussion. I had a question on why you say 3.2. I don't know whether or not... Kind: That's just what they were requesting... Burton: My question is for staff. I'm wondering if we're better off,. it looks like we're going to allow it. Aanenson: I would just leave it blank. I'm not sure there's criteria based on different things that that's a whole separate ordinance so I would just say that. Burton: Approve it and not say how? Aanenson: Well you may want to limit it to, I don't know the different classifications but. Kind: Beer? Aanenson: If you want to just say what your intent is. Just say allow alcohol but it's our intent that it be. Burton: Right, because my concern is whether we amend the ordinance or approve a variance.~ I'm not sure what's the best way to go. Aanenson: Well I think the point that was brought up by Deb, and maybe would be if we had another one that would come in, we would still...alcohol. By giving a variance will allow this use to have alcohol. Peterson: So we would have a motion that would recommend a variance to allow. Aanenson: Alcohol at this location and you may want to forward onto City Council any concerns you have as to what type. Full service bar or something, right. Right. Blackowiak: As a point of discussion, they would have to go through the normal liquor license approval process, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Pay the liquor license fee and all that. Aanenson: Right. Right. Blackowiak: So we don't need to say anything about that. That's kind of understood? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Aanenson: What I would ask that you do after you motion is direct the City Council that it's not your intention that it be a full service bar and then that would therefore define what type of alcohol license. And we'll get clarification on that when it goes to the Council. Kind: I change my motion. Peterson: Well we've got a motion and a second so I'd recommend changing your move. Kind: I'll withdraw my motion. I'll try another motion Mr. Chairman. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOUR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH AREAS OF BUILDING A - 46~800 SQ. FT~ BUILDING B - 54~000 sQ. FT, BUILDING C - 54~000 SQ.FT, AND BUILDING D - 49~500 SQ. FT. AND PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER (SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD)~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER~ CSM CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Hearing none. I just had one. You talked about the berming and landscaping. Is that meeting our current ordinance or is it exceeding it? A1-Jaff: In some areas it meets it and some areas it exceeds it and there are other areas where they're short. Peterson: ...between homes and the building. A1-Jaff: That exceeds the minimum requirements. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Dave Cumin: My name is Dave Cumin. I'm with CSM Corporation. We're the property owner of both existing property there and the developers for the four new properties. I have Jesse Symynkywicz with RLK who will address some of the landscaping and site issues and Paul Klein who will talk to you a little bit about the architecture. I want to apologize for some of the things that we sent out. The color rendition was not real good in those as they reduced. We do have the originals that will show a little bit better what the color difference is between the buildings and Paul will also go over the architectural difference between the two sets of buildings. At this time we do have leases pending on the first two buildings A and B. Those are the ones closest to Dell Road. And that would, what we'd like to do keep this moving on to the City Council for their next meeting. In all likelihood we have strong activity out there, leasing activity and in all likelihood we'll start three and possibly even four buildings this year under construction. The leases that we do have commitments on are first quarter occupancy so obviously we would like to get moving on them. We're prepared to go along with all the staff recommendations. Jesse with. RLK will discuss a little bit item 32 which was a 6 foot sidewalk running the length of the property from Dell Road basically all the way down to Park, which is about what, 3/4 of a mile of concrete. We have, we met with the neighbors, I believe it was July 1 st that we met with some of the neighbors and addressed their concerns with these buildings and we have addressed their concerns. Jesse will also talk about that. Jesse Symynkywicz: Thank you. My name is Jesse Symynkywicz from RLK Associates and basically we're a civil engineer, planning firm and we did a lot site development and landscaping and civil drawings for this development. What I'm here to talk about right now is the landscaping and primarily the landscaping between the residents and the use here proposed in front of you. And basically about a year ago Welsh came through here with a proposal that was approved and I'd like to go over just briefly how this one is an improvement from that previous proposal. The Welsh development was more of a distribution center so we were talking more about more truck traffic. This one that's before you right now is more of an office, light manufacturing so I think it's a better fit and a better use against a residential area. From there the buffer landscaping on the south side is actually bigger than what was approved before. Previous approval was 50 feet and we have a larger green space and it's been expanded up to 70 feet. With that, that gives us a better opportunity to increase the height of the berm basically 2 to 4 feet above what was previously approved. And from there we have added some more landscaping and also added some landscaping on the south side of the existing building and parking lot, which provides a better buffer for that existing use. That existing building is also, has more parking islands and I think that helps break up that large mass of asphalt that's out there right now. From there, if there's any other questions for landscaping. There are some recommendations that have been included in the staff report and we are comfortable with meeting those. We will be revising our site plans to meet the recommendations so we feel that we are all comfortable with that. From there the number 32, the sidewalk issue is the next issue I'd like to briefly touch upon. We feel that there is an existing sidewalk on the north side of Lake Drive. We feel that is adequate to service both of the uses. This is a non-residential area so we feel that there's not going to be a lot of families or children activity and primarily the only time people would be walking out there would be 12:00 to 1:00 lunchtime. And from there we do not believe that there's a lot of activity. As we all know, unfortunately we don't get a chance to take walks during lunch more often as we do. Mainly we take a drive and go somewhere and grab a 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 bite to eat. And from there we think that most of the people that do take a walk are going to be trying to cross the street right away to go to the commercial development, McDonald's further to the northwest so we feel to have a sidewalk on the south side would be under utilized. The park that's been a referenced further to the west of this development is more of a neighborhood totlot, so we do not believe that there's a lot of, going to be a lot of interest from the employees to walk over there. And lastly, the sidewalk issue as far as how the rest of Chanhassen is consistent. We noticed as we drive through Chanhassen that most of the streets have sidewalks on one side. As you look further down East Lake Drive there is just one side with a sidewalk. Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard, Highway 5 and Center City Drive also has sidewalks on one side. So we would like some discussion and some recommendation from the Planning Commission on whether having sidewalks on both sides is a good idea here. From there I'd like to answer any questions that you might have about landscaping or site issues Or bring it for architectural presentation from Paul. Peterson: Thank you. Paul Klein: I'm Paul Klein with CSM. Project designer on this. I guess some of the confusion on the elevations is due to the color reduction. Aanenson: Excuse me a second. It's always nice if you could put it here...so then people at home. Peterson: Yeah, I agree. Let's put it back down there. We've got TV's up here so. Aanenson: Yeah, they've got TV's up there so if you want to just lay it flat then that camera can zoom in on it. For the audience at home. Paul Klein: Part of the confusion is when Building C/D get reduced it tums out the same color as A and B. The intent was to keep A and B similar and group those two buildings together. Because of the height variation on the site there's roughly...about 100 feet apart That was quite a bit different when you get to full sized drawings and I was just brought here to clear up some confusion. Peterson: ...let's say a person like myself would be concemed...sooner or later for lack of a better way of articulating it, too much of a good thing. The buildings still are pretty close in design and I've always had a concern that...a lot of the same thing right in that area... These are different from what's already there but four buildings that are essentially the same real close together... Paul Klein: Certain differences on the projections. Not huge but a projection on Building C and D will project out about a foot and a half with right here...that area entryway. That's the major difference then the difference at the comer... Also we looked at if this property...masonry colors in B and D... That just seemed too scattered trying to be, and then also looking at four different, completely four different elevations and they're all linked close enough where this might be too 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 much for one industrial park. There could be one tenant taking out two buildings in that area also. Peterson: You didn't convince me but it seems good. Paul Klein: ... Kind: Could you show the building materials. I think one of the things that actually hurt your case with me is this color elevation that was mailed, because they look the same and I'm guessing that they're quite a bit different? Paul Klein: Building B and D are... The accent band is... Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if you're going to have any lighting on the walls, especially if you could comment about anything to the south. Paul Klein: Most of the lighting...basic lighting. It's not overwhelming. We're trying to reduce it... Sidney: What kind of fixtures are you putting on? Paul Klein: Shoe box. Sidney: Well in the parking lot but on the building itself. Proposed lights. Paul Klein: Yeah, it's a round, about a 9 inch light. Sidney: Oh is that like what's on the buildings. Paul Klein: ...Chan, I believe right now in Chan... Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one question. I'm not sure who it's for so feel free to jump in. Staff report talks about the 25 foot minimum setback from the parking on the north side, which is Lake Drive East. And that there are a couple buildings that only have a 10 foot setback as opposed to a 25 foot setback. And I'm wondering what that does to either the building, the siting of the building of the building itself or to the number of parking spots. And also what potential effects would it have on north and south berms. Paul Klein: We revised the plan, so the only place where it does not meet the 25 foot requirement...building and the parking... Everywhere else it's 5 feet... Blackowiak: Okay, I didn't understand that was from the existing building. Okay, that's it. Good, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. John Swain: My name is John Swain. My address is 18942 Winfield Road in Eden Prairie, which is the development just south of the proposal. The folks from CSM met with us on a couple of occasions and they made a number of changes to the landscaping design based on our wishes and we're, I'm speaking for myself, am quite satisfied with what they have done and provided that what they are proposing is accepted. I'm perfectly happy with their landscaping. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Please. Kind: I, like you, see the similarities between the two gr0upings. I'm in agreement with the developer. I like the idea of kind of keeping them as those'are two buildings rather than four. And keeping them clustered together. To me...same designer designed all four buildings. I know from working in an ad agency, sometimes it's helpful to assign two different people to get a totally different look then. I'm wondering... I know it's going back to the drawing board but no matter what you do you kind of have your look. Your thumbprint on it and I think they're nice. I think they're attractive but there's four of them. I really would like to see two of the buildings treated much differently. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in too. Yeah, I agree. The four of them are, they're four buildings.' They're the same. I mean there might be 1 ½ foot indents and some slight variation but as you drive by from Highway 5, which most people will be doing, they will look the same. They also look the same as the buildings right on the north side of Lake Drive East, that border Highway 5 so I mean I look and I saw these little color squares of color and I thought, you know this is exactly what's there right now. It's the same thing. I don't know that we as a commission necessarily have to hold it up because of that but boy, I certainly would like to see something a little bit different and a little more creative to enhance this because it's the same old, same old. It could maybe use a little bit, something a little bit different for this. Spoke a lot about the sidewalk and I'd like to clarify that when this came through from Welsh Company, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the sidewalk be in place on the south 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 side of Lake Street. The City Council was thc body that ended up deleting the sidewalk. I do not agree with that. I still don't agree with that. I'd like to be on the record as saying I want the sidewalk on the south side of Lake Drive. It makes perfect sense to go from that, which is not a totlot. There's a basketball hoop and everything down there. I'm sure there's people that will use it in that little park down there. That Chan Estates mini park. The south side is also the side that would wrap around the connecting sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road. It makes sense. The sidewalk stays as far as I'm concerned and I'd like the Council Kate, or Sharmin, tell them. I would like to see the sidewalk on the south side. Do not delete it this time. So that's what I've got I guess. Peterson: Thoughts? Burton: I agree with Alison's comments. I think they're nice buildings. Each one but I think that they are very similar and I'd like to see more variation. Peterson: I think I've already shared my comments. I just, give me a second to close and I'11. Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that is you know. Peterson: That's alright, go ahead. Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that I guess to answer Alison's, your questions about or comments about the existing buildings. Those are architecturally you. know a lot different. They've got a lot of brick to them. These other ones that we're, what we tried to do was come '. back and improve what was proposed and approved by the Welsh plan which were completely identical buildings going in there. So I think we've struck something that does give them some different flare to them so they do not look completely identical in there. There are architectural differences that may not come out entirely on the plan but the elevations...staff recommendations on this based on thc fact that we do have two of the buildings leased and they are much more attractive to both the planners that we worked with and the neighborhood. Thank you. Peterson: I think what you're hearing, my initial comments and some of my peers this evening is this is an area of Chanhassen that we've discussed as a group is clearly predominant entrance into Chanhassen and that we have a desire to not just have it look like a standard office industrial area. Knowing that there are costs that have to be...and otherwise doesn't mean that we as a commission can't send it to council with our respective thoughtsl I think that's what you're hearing tonight. I would like to see it different and unique. Based upon the comments that... I don't dislike the buildings. At all. I don't dislike any building there. I just like the intensity of' the structures themselves and where they're at. That would be the...I would offer the council as they make their respective decision. With that, motion and a second please. Sidney: Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion the Planning Commission, the recommendation the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans received June 18, 1999 with the following conditions, 1 through 35. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Kind: I'm looking in these conditions to see if there's any architecture mention and I don't think there is. Do you all fellow commissioners feel that our discussion is enough to pass forward to the council or...? Peterson: Depends on how we vote. No, I think that I think we have to vote what we want to individually and if you want, certainly you can add a friendly amendment addressing some of that. Kind: I'm going to leave the motion. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans received June 18, 1999 with the following conditions: If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: a° All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs for Building A will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building B will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations. Building C will be permitted signs along the north and east and Building D will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. do The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to cOlor, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 o o o o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. i, Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The development shall maintain a 25 foot parking setback from Lake Drive East. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official conditions: a. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to disCuss commercial building permit requirements. b. Each building will require 6 accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. All rooftop and ground mounted equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Southwest Tech Center with Hennepin County. Increase berm height along the north property line to three feet. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. Increase plantings for Lake Drive E. buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements. Revise plant schedule to specify an average of 7 feet for evergreens. Increase parking lot island width to 10 feet or install aeration tubing in islands that are less than that. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. Fire Marshal conditions: 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. II. Install and indicate on plans the location of the P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. III. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact number and location. IV. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Mo Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. VI. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 17. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 18. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and inspections from the City. 19. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for pre- and post-development conditions for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the applicant's engineer shall verify that the existing storm sewer system in Lot 5 has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional drainage areas being proposed. 20. The applicant shall provide an emergency overflow for storm drainage for the properties south of Lots 4 and 5. 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 22. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any street lights in conflict with the proposed driveway access points along Lake Drive East. 23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Drive East or Dell Road. Landscape materials are discouraged within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. 24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 25. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 26. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. 27. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 28. Cross-access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded against all lots for the utilities and driveways. The City shall be included in the document for accessing the regional storm water pond on Lot 1. 29. The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to accommodate emergency vehicle access and meet City Ordinance 20-1101. 30. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lots 4 and 5 in the City of Eden Prairie. 31. Two rock construction entrances shall be shown on the Erosion control plans. The rock construction entrances shall be installed prior to grading and maintained until all disturbed areas are revegetated. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. 32. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Lake Drive East from Dell Road to the west property line of Lot 5. 33. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any COiTections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The developer will be 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 responsible for removing any erosion that has washed into the regional pond and repair the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site. 34. Increase berm height along the south property line adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 by three feet. 35. Depending on phasing, an interim stormwater management plan may be necessary depending on which lots are developed first. Each lot must maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern as it develops." All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: Thank you. It goes onto Council the 9th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Matt Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 1999 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know on the next Planning Commission meeting we'll have the theaters back on. We tried to get it on this meeting. There were still some issues regarding the traffic that we didn't have concurrence on. And it looks like the Boedecker will be back on. So we don't have any new items. We will be having a large residential project coming in. We've been talking to a couple other small residential pieces. Things are coming together but so there's a little bit of a lull. If we do have a short meeting next time, we'll try to put some other housekeeping things on that we wanted to discuss as far as upcoming projects and budget issues for next year. Blackowiak: Kate, I will be gone next meeting and I believe I told you that like, there was snow on the ground. I don't know if you remembered but I will be gone next time. So don't talk about conditional use permits and enforcement while I'm gone because I'd like to be on that one. I think it's an important issue. Peterson: Other ongoing items? What I'd like to do Kate is on Board of Adjustments tonight, it would be very beneficial if we get specific feedback as to which ones the Council is over riding .and/or. Aanenson: That's great. If it stays with just these two items we can talk about that next time. And then go a little bit into some detail about criteria. I'm sorry you won't be, but we'll send you the packet and if you want to come in and talk about it but a little bit of a training on some of that. And we can kind of give you a checklist of which ones they've approved and which ones they haven't. Peterson: Bob have you been waiting around for 7 through 9? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Aanenson: Actually I'm covering 7. He's doing 8 and Sharmin's doing 9. Peterson: My only concern is that we've got really a hefty portion of our commission out on some stuff that we as a group have requested. I'm wondering if. Aanenson: Do you want to just wait for these three? That's fine. Peterson: To have Bob sit here for the last 2 ½ hours. Aanenson: He's been working. Generous: Remember Villages. Aanenson: We can save it for next time. I think that that's a good idea Craig. If everyone's here next time, except Alison won't be but. Peterson: She's an expert in all three of these. Aanenson: We can go through that with more specifics...and if she has any questions. Peterson: We're probably always going to be missing one but two is, this is important enough where I think it would be valuable for everybody. Aanenson: That's fine. Kind moved, Burton seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38