The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 12-11-06City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 18.Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. 19.Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20.Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21.During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22.The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23.ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24.The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25.No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD; APPLICANT BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS: A. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP); B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUBHOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGTE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQ. FT.); AND 11 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR WITH A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARY ZONE. Public Present: Name Address Jon Day 8229 Stone Creek Drive Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff View Court Laurie Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Bruno Silikowski 3615 Zircon Lane North, Plymouth Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the st Planning Commission on November 21. The Planning Commission recommended 5-0 to approve the project. One issue, a couple issues that were brought up. Maybe…show you where we are. Off of Audubon Road, and just south of General Mills. The railroad tracks would be the southern boundary. The application is a permitted use in the district…one of the issues that were brought up. One was the security…by neighboring residents. A storage built facility that will be condominium type owners so it doesn't… A second issue that was brought up is you have an existing wetland…and based on the city's estimation in reviewing the plans, we believe that this project itself, with creation of the storm water pond we're creating… And then the third issue was the screening of the project, and that we are asking for additional landscaping and… So again this is a permitted use in the district so they have a right to proceed, so with that we believe that they meet the criteria for the site plan and the conditional use… So with that I'll start out talking about exactly what the use is. It's 12 storage buildings on the site. And then two additional buildings that would be…so there'd be 12 buildings. 11 storage buildings… The proposed operation from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. Again in the IOP District there is a restriction, we do… We did talk about the two building pads. We don't know what those would be right now. They are not subject for site plan review right now, so when they do, something does get proposed on those two sites, it will be back before the Planning Commission for public hearing and then ultimately for your approval for the site plan. And then again, the project is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District and we'll talk about that again in just a minute. The retaining walls, there are some retaining walls and we've identified those on the bottom of the staff report, page 4. There was some question about the…more stability. I think we're also looking at some, when they're taller and then…so we have put a recommendation in there to work, to terrace those walls where, between the stages so maybe break them up to 8 feet, so that would be our last condition… So there are retaining walls based on the topography itself. Mayor Furlong: Can you show on the plan where those are? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: There's two of them aren't there? 12 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: The biggest one's on the back side of the buildings here. So this is…so that would be in this area here…retaining wall here. There's also a large retaining wall on the side. The site is dropping. If you…coming down Audubon off of General Mills, there's a significant grade change. Councilman Peterson: So Kate, sorry to interrupt but give me a sense as to who's going to visualize that wall? Are the residents to the west? Kate Aanenson: No. I'm sorry, you can't really see it. It's internal. Mayor Furlong: Which one? The one on the east or the one. Kate Aanenson: Well most of these are inside, on the internal side because you'll have the buildings blocked. I think we looked…the architecture. We did…visibility on the architecture but for the most part, they won't probably be seen from outside. If you going up Audubon… I'm on page 5 of the staff report. There was wetlands identified…there is no wetland impact. There is, if you look at the variance is, it's regarding the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there's… So let me talk a little bit about the architecture of the buildings themselves. Again…material samples over there but…clubhouse building. And then one of the issues that we addressed on the extras that they have…looking at the short end of the building. So this would be the internal side. The external side of that…They also have cupola's so they look for residential in appearance. Again meeting the standards, architectural standards…again meeting the architectural standards. I've got the color pallets over here if anybody's interested in that but again, trying to mix up some of the colors and some of the… The building height is about 30 feet. Again this district does allow up to 50 feet so with the change in grade, you're not going to…on top, up here but a majority of the… And then lighting itself, which could be additional impacts, they'll be wall packs on the building… One of the issues the neighbors have…some additional landscaping so the applicant is working to put some additional landscaping on this end right here, and… So I'll take a minute now and talk about the conditional use, unless you have questions on the architecture or site plan. Councilman Peterson: Kate the only question I had was on the club house. When I looked at it the first time I was surprised at the lack of windows. Was there, is there a rationale for that? I mean the club house you would assume you want something brighter but again not knowing what the concept of club house for that is. Kate Aanenson: It meets the fenestration…but I'll let the applicant… Again we did a compliance table…the overlay district and if you can see, this is the primary line right here. This blue line right here. And the secondary line here. So the Overlay District itself is…there actually is activity occurring within the overlay district, and we have that…in almost every project we've done… In this circumstance we are putting in these storm water pond…spending a lot of time, walking the site… Working with the applicant's engineer as determined by the Water Resources Coordinator…storm water itself. We went through a lot of designs…so it's not impacting our wetland. It's the primary corridor itself. …primary district before. If you remember Pioneer Pass, we had a…sewer line that was pinching there that we wanted to be able to get to the pond without impacting, without interrupting… Again looking at the Bluff Creek ordinance, the 13 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 overlay district itself. With each project that comes in, we look at how to extract it. If you go back…overlay district…we look at each project incrementally. How can we get the overlay district, and this project itself was a condition of approval, is that we get… Mayor Furlong: Excuse me for interrupting. Can you point on the map where that is. Kate Aanenson: So that is the rest of this area here. There is some upland area down here so this area here, all in green, following this line would be the overlay district that would be now…no disruption to that. Typically what we do…donation to the city or extraction to the city. So in looking at that, we felt a reasonable condition for the variance was extracting that, so there was some discussion about the cost… So again looking at the valuation of the pond itself and… Councilman Lundquist: Where's the delineation of the wetland? Is that. Kate Aanenson: This is the black line. Now there was a piece here that showed a part of that, but that was…and that's also addressed in the staff report under wetland, that was exempt. Mayor Furlong: Kate, could you point out on the map where the secondary Bluff Creek corridor is. Kate Aanenson: Yeah… Mayor Furlong: Just kind of run your pencil. Kate Aanenson: so this is the incidental part. You can see this black line of the wetland, and it goes back to the Water Resources Coordinator… Again we noticed it originally, just originally there was a question as to whether or not…wetlands. We went through the exercises and evaluation… So with that, the other conditional use was that there's more than one… Councilman Peterson: How big is that lot going to be? Kate Aanenson: These two, because it's all under one, I guess they'd have to make it big enough to make…which it does right now from the perimeter. It just has to make the area requirements and the impervious surface requirements. Mayor Furlong: So the proposed motions this evening in the staff report would allow 2 additional buildings on this single parcel? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Or if they wanted to. Kate Aanenson: They have to come back. Mayor Furlong: They could create a subdivision. Subdivision approval if they wanted to. 14 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: …they're just showing them as potential. They were asked to come back for a site plan review… Mayor Furlong: For those 2 additional buildings? Kate Aanenson: That's correct… Mayor Furlong: But we're approving the concept of adding 2 additional buildings, is that what's being requested in the motions this evening? I thought I saw 14 buildings with 12 being built. Kate Aanenson: Well we're approving the site on the 12 buildings… So what they're showing is that they can put 2 in the future, and we have… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: So with that, I did mention the multiple buildings on that site, so with that we've got several recommendations. First would be the rezoning itself. Again…comprehensive plan and then B is for the variance of the overlay district. Conditional use. Up to 14 buildings. Again they'd have to come back… Councilman Lundquist: There's 12 on that drawing right there now? Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So Motion C should be adjusted to up to 12. Bruno Silikowski: Kate actually there is 14. Kate Aanenson: Okay… Mayor Furlong: We'll need to clarify where the boxes are. Which boxes are there. Kate Aanenson: Under the Motion D, which is for the site plan itself. So it'd be the architecture…the Planning Commission added the retaining wall, the standards. So on page 16 of the staff report we have the retaining wall follow the standards…and again that's mostly for reinforcement… I think there was some question on whether or not we wanted that… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Kate that we haven't interrupted her presentation with? Councilman Lundquist: Back on the drawing Kate the, somewhere in here it talks about the distance to neighboring houses. I think it's 500 and something from Stone Creek over there, or Creekside, I'm sorry, and then. 15 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Maybe it'd be shown on this one. So we're up in this area, so this would be the closest home is here. They don't show up on the other…if you could zoom back out. This is an area of upland trees at this end down here, so that's a little bit higher in elevation so that provides some buffer. What the Planning Commission and the neighbors discussed is providing additional landscaping in this area here to help to buffer that. So additional landscaping will be placed around here and around the pond… Councilman Lundquist: So the closest houses are going to be the ones to the south there thought right? Across the railroad tracks. Kate Aanenson: This is an industrial park here. Mayor Furlong: I don't know if you can slide it over. Councilman Lundquist: So that's Creekside to the west. Mayor Furlong: Can you pick up the homes to the west on your picture. Zoom back out if you would. No, that's too tiny. Keep that same. Councilman Peterson: The one across doesn't have houses on it I don't think. Kate Aanenson: …houses that are closest down at this end… Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But roughly from the westerly building to the lots of Stone Creek, or Creekside there. Is that, what was it, 500? Kate Aanenson: 520. Councilman Lundquist: Is that what it was? Okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. Councilman Peterson: Is that from the lot or from the house, do you know? Kate Aanenson: To the closest building. It's about, from the clubhouse, excuse me. That's their clubhouse. That'd be their point. A couple hundred feet. That's the clubhouse which is sitting at the high, based on that. Councilman Lundquist: That's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson, any questions? Councilman Peterson: No. 16 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Mayor Furlong: A couple additional ones. With regard to the pond, and it's capacity. One of the items that I noticed in the staff report, which is on page 4 of the staff report, speaks to the design of the pond to handle, provide rate control for 2, 10, 100 and two back to back 100 year rainfalls. I guess one of my question is the two back to back 100 year rainfalls, is that an additional standard? Historically have we been designing this much? Kate Aanenson: We have been using that… Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that's part of the SWMP plan that we approved this last year to, and I read that, I assume that that means that this pond has greater capacity than historically maybe the pond we would have required the pond to be. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. In terms of the elevations of the pond, help me understand, I mean I pictured the pond kind of like a bowl and as the water goes into it, it, and when it reaches a certain level it will go out but if it overflows or if you get those big rains, you know how, what's the difference in height of that wall relative to the land below. What's the separation there? Can you zoom out a little bit on the camera if you would please. Okay. No, that'd be fine. Kate Aanenson: So this is the out, you're at 906. The bottom of the pond is, yeah. Or 900. So the…of depth to this pond itself and typically that's what we put on, the wetland is pre-treated before it goes into the wetland. It enters the wetland here and varies from the high side here at 906 down to 899 down…changing topography as it goes up again. Again in working with the applicant's engineer…so we feel pretty confident about that, and it's got a 10 to 1 bench in here so we believe that that should be more than adequate. 100 year event, whether it's overflow or if you have a 4 inch rain…but hopefully those will be pretty rare. But we know that did happen once before. Mayor Furlong: And again getting back to the issue of the staff report, I think you mentioned this but to clarify the expectation is that this pond will not only manage the rate control of runoff for the entire site, but also obviously provide water quality as it then leaves the pond and goes into the Bluff Creek corridor wetland. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Kate Aanenson: Let me just go back to the 14. Some of those squares were pretty small. They're small, skinny buildings but there are 14. There's a couple narrow ones. These over here. So I think that's what… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. If there's no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here? Any comments you'd like to make? 17 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: Good evening. I'm Bruno Silikowski. You know there's a couple things I promised to share with you because there's actually been some new developments since Kate seen these plans so. One of the things I want to show you is that the clubhouse, and I don't know if this will come up. Kate Aanenson: Yep, he can zoom in on it. Bruno Silikowski: The design is revolving but we're going to a much, it's a higher end, more of a creative style to the types of things we're trying to come in there with. This is meant to be a higher end storage for obvious collector vehicles, things of that nature. You asked a question about windows. The reason why we don't have a lot of windows, we actually have, the way this is set up, this will be the entrance. This is the museum portion of it and these are display sections. We really don't want windows. These are very expensive vehicles that are in the museum and chances are we want, you know people want the privacy and only club members to be able to see it. There is an alternative design for the club house that we're kicking around, but you can see that it's sort of the type of detail we're talking about is significantly different than what we submitted. That was just to give us some flexibility but our intention, our direction is going this way. Another point of clarification, the distance to the far west neighbors is 720 feet. The 500 was to the property line. It's approximately an eighth of a mile and then when you go, actually Bob Generous, one of the city staff had asked us to do a cross section and we did that. It's someplace in the plans, but the other one is a quarter mile away. And then we've also agreed, and I told the neighbors this as well to, we're going to put up quite a bit of screening. As much as possible to create a dense opaque view from where the neighbors homes are going to be. But at that point if there's any questions, I'd like to try to answer them but… Councilman Peterson: I think Kate pointed out earlier, could you take a little bit more time and point out where you're going to put the additional screening. Bruno Silikowski: We're going to try to, we need to do a little study. We don't know exactly where so we need to go out to the neighbors properties to take a look at what it looks like coming this direction. Once we do that we'll commensurately try to set up the landscaping screening properly. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do you know off hand, if you look at the total acreage of the site versus the amount that's built, did I see 47? Is that what I saw? Bruno Silikowski: 47 percent. Councilman Lundquist: 47 percent, and what's the total site size? Bruno Silikowski: The total site is 38 point something acres. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you're 19 acres out of, or 18 acres out of 40 or so. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, and then just because I know this, I think they're allowed 75. 18 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: 70. Councilman Lundquist: 70. 70 in the district. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to clarify the landscaping again, because the buildings are being done in phases, we do want the landscaping put in right-of-way but we do want to meet with the property owners to get the best, to place that, to provide the best screening. Once we get some of that grading done and then go from there. Bruno Silikowski: Right. You know one other points that kind of didn't come through clearly. On the site now there's drainage coming off the railroad tracks that's being untreated going directly into the wetland and it also is going into the creek. The ponding plan actually takes that water and treats it before it ever goes into the wetland so it's another step we're trying to take in terms of being economically. Rather eco friendly in terms of what we're doing. Actually it's costing us but it's the right thing to do. What Kate talked about, this…where the pond is at, it's in a wetland. It was only caused because of the drainage coming off the tracks, and that's what was determined by not only the engineers but city staff so, just as a point of clarity. You know we've been given grades to work with and I think we've come up with a good compromise that makes sense. And the way it turns out, about 75% of the pond actually will be in buildable land and only a smaller, that smaller portion will be in that Bluff Creek Overlay Corridor. If there's any other questions feel free, otherwise I'll sit back down. Mayor Furlong: Couple quick ones. Just issues that were brought up by residents. Hours of operation. Your expectation again is? Bruno Silikowski: Normal business hours. I mean we kind of jotted down there was what typically you might see. We're business guys and we work during the day. You know we're not going to be there all night. We've got to get up in the morning just like everybody else does. You know we just happened to put our, we want to put our cars in a place and it's safe and secure and you know we want to go, so it's really only during the day times. Mayor Furlong: Do you, in terms of access, it's going to be a controlled access I assume for the owners? Bruno Silikowski: It's all gated, the entire facility is gated and it's you know electronic code… Mayor Furlong: Okay, with the electronic code them, is there a way to track who's there if there is a noise issue? Are you going to be able to work with the people? Bruno Silikowski: Yes. In fact the security system that we're reviewing their proposal right now but our intent is to have knowledge of who's in. For how long. When they came. When they left. Basically get a full profile of, and we'll know what units they're in and so we can ever trace back if there are issues. And that's not just for that reason of noise but other reasons. Mayor Furlong: Right, other issues as well. Security as well. 19 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Yep, good. Bruno Silikowski: And to just give you a little sense of the quality that we're looking for there. Beyond just a normal security we're actually putting web cams and this entire complex is going to be very secure in terms of watch. In each unit has an option, the owner will be able to put a web cam so that when they're out, if they're out traveling and they want to look on what's going on with their car, they can do that. More importantly if somebody actually accesses it inappropriately, it actually starts streaming the data, video through the web. Stores it so they can go back and find out what just happened. Email their home. Emails their computer to let them know something's going on. And the whole intent here is security, security…we know that our stuff is safe and secure. Because the people we've got coming in here are real collectors. You know they have very nice vehicles and they come in and want to keep private. They're not the type of rowdy that you might think might take… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I think those are my questions. Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you. At this time, as I mentioned earlier, I'd be happy to take some public comment again. The public hearing took place at the Planning Commission. We did have access to those minutes so we're aware of your issues and concerns that were raised. I think some of those have been answered in the staff report but there may be additional comments. If there are, I'd be happy to take those at this time so Mr. Day, I think you wanted to make some comments. Jon Day: My name is Jon Day from 8229 Stone Creek Drive and thank you Mr. Mayor and councilmen for letting me speak. I was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting. I did submit an email there and Bob was very accommodating on that. I did have a question, if you wouldn't mind. You mentioned something about a conservation easement here. Is that in the agreements? Kate Aanenson: It's a condition of approval. We have standard language that we use for conservation easement. It's conditioned on page 12, condition 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and utility easement over that. And those are reviewed by, typically we have a standard one drafted by the city attorney. And that would be executed. That is a condition of approval. Jon Day: And also Bruno mentioned that there has been a new drawing submitted that shows a rear elevation of the, I think it was a cross section that was submitted. Bruno Silikowski: No, we don't have a rear elevation. Kate Aanenson: That should be, did you get the downloaded packet? Jon Day: Yep. Kate Aanenson: It's in there. I didn't show that but yeah. 20 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Jon Day: The biggest issue, you know the homeowners in our neighborhood, and I'm not speaking for all of them but we all got together. We asked Bruno to join our meeting. We had a good conversation. The biggest concern we have of course is the impact on property values. The proposal does request a conditional use…but if you could. Kate Aanenson: He's looking for it. Jon Day: Alright. And so from our back yards, what we, the site falls away from the railroad tracks to the buildings and then it falls away into the wetlands. Okay. This is what we're going to see from our back yard, are these rows of doors. The front elevation here will probably be something like the front of a club house would look like or something that you might see along Audubon. This is what we see from our back yards here. Rows of doors. What we would like to see happen here is some sort of berming effect that might block some of these doors so that, because you're not, you're going to have a parking lot out here. Asphalt falling away. This is our concern. This is what we see. This has been kind of the stipulation that we've asked for when we met with Bruno and so forth. I'd like to submit the appraiser's commentary here. We did have a certified appraiser come out. Look things over. His comments are in here. He says, I believe the proposed commercial improvements will have an adverse impact on the homes that currently enjoy their historic scenic views overlooking the specified wetlands areas. He goes on later to say that in general I believe the berm, it is my opinion that there is an economically viable remedy for the potentially adverse impact of the proposed commercial buildings on the home values along Stone Creek Drive. I believe a suitable earth berm would for all intensive purposes reduce the impact of…acceptably negligible margin. We feel, at least, I can't speak for the whole neighborhood but that that type of remedy should be included in the conditional use permit. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor, can I just understand where they are because. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: I think they're looking at the backs of the, I'm not sure. Which? Mayor Furlong: Which buildings? Kate Aanenson: Which buildings? You're looking at the end. Jon Day: These buildings here. Mayor Furlong: Can we zoom out there so we can, thank you. That's a little far. There we go, thank you. Jon Day: All the homes are along this street here. Kate Aanenson: So you're talking about this. 21 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Jon Day: This is the outside of the, you know where the doors would be for the cars to pull into and then it all slopes away from here down grade into the wetlands. And then all these homes up here rise up and so the back doors of our house we would look across this creek bottom, up the side hill and right into all these overhead garage doors. Mayor Furlong: To the issue, are those two to the southwest that you're referring to Mr. Day. Jon Day: Exactly. Kate Aanenson: There is a cross section… So this is the ridge… Jon Day: And those, actually that building there is. Kate Aanenson: The club house. Jon Day: It's the club house, yeah. Kate Aanenson: But they're looking down this way, and that was the area that I had mentioned before that we had agreed to, as did the applicant agreed to, where we want to push the additional landscaping. We want to get the finalized grading plan…set of conditions and then meet with them. I just want to make sure that we've gotten…the acceptable level of…be clear on what the expectation is there, but I think we've agreed…additional screening but I just want to make clear, because there are other circumstances where we've done this and sometimes people aren't happy… Mayor Furlong: Different assumptions as to what was… Jon Day: When the General Mills facility expanded, which is north of here, in 2003, we dug up the minutes from staff and Planning Commission and they required General Mills to increase berming 4 feet and to add additional screening views of truck loading/unloading areas to mitigate sound and also sight lines so there's a little bit of precedent there for some berming and that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Since I worked on that project, the issue there is, General Mills was a sound, noise issue. It's some areas of the city it can be chronic, especially this time of the year when it's quiet. There's no leaves on the trees so really the issue there, as a requirement for all, just to be clear on that, in the industrial standards we try to screen all loading and unloading facilities. It's a little bit different circumstance here. I just want to make sure that's clear, that's a standard requirement. But we'd be happy to work with the landscaping. Mayor Furlong: This is a view issue and that's an operation… Kate Aanenson: Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. Councilman Lundquist: Could you put that cross section back up Kate? 22 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, as Mr. Day pointed out, this is a little bit north of the area. This is going towards the club house, so this would be those lots, but...if you're looking this way, then you're looking into the back of those garages and we believe that that, and as did the Planning Commission, that's an area we can put additional landscaping. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And it's wide open. I mean I've driven past there a lot because it's… Kate Aanenson: And again let's go back to this one, we have the primary zone. We want to stay out, you know kind of just on the edge of that where they're following that topographic line and we could look at that to provide some additional… Councilman Lundquist: But across that conservation easement, if you go straight to the west from there, that's wide open the whole way? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, then we've got this upland area of trees. Mayor Furlong: We can't, we can't see your finger. There you go. Kate Aanenson: The area right in here. The outline, but it's this area that's the…looking across and that's what we're trying to solve. This area here. And we've got that marked and the applicant's aware of that. It's just, I'm not sure that we can try to do the design right now. We want to wait until it's graded. Where we actually see how much… Councilman Peterson: But Kate, if we do berming, or try to do berming, assuming, isn't that logically going into the setback farther? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That's why I say we want to look at, we want to look at what we can accomplish with vegetation's our first choice so I think we need to see exactly where those buildings are sitting. What the view lines. How many homes it's affecting. What's the most effective way to do it. Todd Gerhardt: And the grades may not lend to a berm either. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It's dropping, I don't have the grading plan here but it is dropping in some of those areas. Towards the tracks. Bruno Silikowski: May I add something… Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm sorry, yes. Bruno Silikowski: The other thing I'd like for a perspective is, you know there's many of us, including the neighbors, this is probably the lightest use they're going to see on this industrial property and in terms of the buildings, we are making them attractive looking and we're trying our best to do that. It's meant to be attractive looking. So we would agree to do what we can in 23 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 terms of, it could only get worst if it was somebody else coming in so. But our intention is to be a good neighbor. Do the best we can. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other public comment? Laurie Tofteland: My name's Laurie Tofteland: I live at 8325 Stone Creek Drive, and just for clarification so that maybe…visualize a little bit better. My, looking out my deck, I'm counting myself and Jerry Cornell, who is not here this evening, are most impacted as far as visually. This, and I can certainly bring this around to you if you'd like to see it. This actually here is the corner of this building here. And that is what I see directly out. That's the 720 feet. So it really does, it is a lot closer than what you would think. And we've been very accommodating to all the things that he is you know. We talked it out if there wasn't enough over grown trees in the original proposal, and he's been very accommodating and says he'll do that. Originally we were told that there'd be a possibility of eliminating these two buildings and having additional square footage somewhere else to compensate for the loss of those two, but at that time he said it was an all or nothing deal. So you know so they can visualize a little bit better. Also I have some pictures on here too…and how they affected our properties as well. This is…but it shows, you know this is the edge of my sod and it shows the water all the way up to the edge of the grass… Mayor Furlong: Was this after the Labor Day storm? Laurie Tofteland: And the time before that as well. Mayor Furlong: When was that, do you recall? Laurie Tofteland: One was Labor Day and one was Memorial Day? Mayor Furlong: It was Labor Day and then in October. Okay. Laurie Tofteland: But that's just to help you visualize how close those buildings really are. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Mark Zitzewitz: Councilmen and Mayor. My name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff Creek Court. I don't want to belabor points but I do believe that one thing is being talked over I think and given short trip. The proposed views of this property, we hear well it's going to be business hours, although at the same time it's been said well these are business men so I think it's reasonable for the neighbors to assume that they will be at this site not during business hours, when they're working, but early in the morning, late in the evening. It's been mentioned, at least in the Planning Commission minutes, these facilities will be used for maintenance of these vehicles. And these are noisy activities. These are not just people coming to look at their cars. These are people come to work on their cars. I think it's also reasonable to assume that someone who's paying for a storage facility is going to use it for whatever they want. They've got access to these facilities 24/7. If they want to keep their snowmobile there, and tune it up at 5:00 a.m., there's nothing to stop them from doing that and so this suggestion that this is merely a passive use of this facility, the least intrusive use of this, I think doesn't actually speak to the way it's 24 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 actually going to be used. This is a 24/7 storage facility. And for the people who live on the back side of that, all of the noise is going to come across this wetland basin right into our neighborhood. All of the light pollution's going to come straight across that wetland basin into our neighborhood, and so I think those use proposals haven't been adequately addressed. Mr. Silikowski has been gracious enough to talk to us about this and we appreciate that but his suggestions to us that well there will be covenants imposed upon these properties. Well, sounds like a great idea. We don't have an opportunity to speak to those covenants. We're not a party to those contracts and frankly I wouldn't expect to be consulted when those covenants are drafted. This is our opportunity to have the council to speak for us to those covenants as far as restrictions on noise and uses that would lead to offensive noise and light pollution that will affect the neighborhood. So I would ask that the council consider imposing use restrictions and noise restrictions on this facility so that we don't have 5:00 a.m., 10:00 p.m. muffler work across our back yards. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess some questions, and maybe this is a question for the city attorney with regard to our noise ordinance. What protection is currently available there with our current ordinances with regard to noise. Roger Knutson: We do have restrictions on creating a nuisance and we have a bunch of other very specific restrictions I think on operating and doing repair work. If you'd just give me a minute I'll find that out. Mayor Furlong: And I guess while he's doing that with regard to light, I think you mentioned a little bit about the lights. They're on the buildings? Kate Aanenson: They're on wall packs, yeah. With a down cast, as opposed to parking lot lights for example which you'd have in a normal situation so it's, it should be less intense for the lighting. Mayor Furlong: So I'm sorry, but these are down, lights that are mounted on the building. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Wall packs. Shining down. Councilman Lundquist: Security lighting not… Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Correct, and we also talked to the applicant regarding possibly doing the more motion detector types so they wouldn't have to be lit but for motion on the property itself. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, what's the, with regard to ordinances. With regard to light at the property line. Are we, is that… Kate Aanenson: He's have to have half foot candle at the property line. Mayor Furlong: At the property line or at the. 25 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Half foot candle of lumens. In this circumstances they should be significantly less, especially with the additional landscaping that we'll be requesting. And I'm talking on the most westerly side. Will there still be some ambient light if you look across the way? More than is there today? Yes. There would be no matter what went in there, there'd be some ambient but it's at the half foot candle at the property line, which this will meet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Looking at these pictures that she brought in. On this one here she said that's kind of where the corner is. Is this railroad tracks coming across here? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And then those are the existing buildings south of the railroad track I assume. What sort of lighting do that they have on those buildings there currently? Kate Aanenson: Some of those have wall packs too and there's also parking lot lighting on those. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it's similar. Yeah. Laurie Tofteland: In the night that there's actually…wetland area…to the. Mayor Furlong: On the south side of the railroad tracks? Yeah, okay. Laurie Tofteland: And I just want to point out too that you know, our neighborhood as a group has never really been opposed to the development altogether because it is, you know in light of what could be there, it is relatively pleasing to the eye…pleasing to look at, and we enjoy that. So I don't want to come across I mean we're being negative or you know…we appreciate that. And I do feel he is trying to be a good neighbor. I just wanted you to have a view from my vantage point, from my window, from my back yard and my investment and house to take into consideration the additional berming and… Follow up that yeah, he is going to actually go ahead and do that and having that cross section did help with the visualization so, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other public comments? We'll take one, at the most two more. No? Okay. Okay, very good. Anything at this point Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: Yes Mayor. I was just trying to refresh my recollection. We have hour restriction on repair activities with power equipment. No person shall engage in a permit construction, maintenance, repair including noise but not limited to any electric, diesel, so on, gas machine other, or any kind of equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the weekdays, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. So that should give quite a bit of protection. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any follow up questions for staff? Or the applicant. Any comments you'd like to make in response? 26 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to indicate, in reviewing the conditions, certainly we have the condition regarding the conveyance of the conservation easement, and that is why we wanted to get that in control so we continue to have that wildlife corridor. That was the whole goal of the Bluff Creek plan. But in looking through here, I don't see the condition regarding the additional landscaping, unless I missed it so I would recommend a spot for that. That would be. Mayor Furlong: There was one on the additional landscaping and then you talked about the terraced wall too. Kate Aanenson: Yep I've got it, I've got a spot for that. Yeah, that's number 7. The last condition on page 16, but if you look at the forester's condition, the last one, I would add, so it's (d), (e), (f). Provide additional buffering along the western, most westerly and northerly edge of the development. And that we would work to increase the landscaping and I want to include, and may include berming. May include berming so we have to look at that. We certainly understand what our residents concern is on that regarding the noise and the visibility and that's what the goal will be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: You're suggesting putting that where? Kate Aanenson: Under the forester's condition regarding landscaping. So that would be on page 15 of 16. It'd be (f), right before 6. Councilman Peterson: Under 5. Kate Aanenson: 5, thank you. Bruno Silikowski: Excuse me Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Bruno Silikowski: Actually Generous, Bob Generous did get it in there. It's on, I'm not sure what page it is…This is what we had put in and then this is what they required. Kate Aanenson: Correct, but it's not in a condition of approval and I need to convey it in a condition because you're going to sign a site plan agreement that says I'm bound by those conditions of approval. Bruno Silikowski: That's fine. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So it was in the staff report. 27 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: In the staff report. It just wasn't in a condition. And just to be clear, for the resident's edification too then, a site plan agreement is signed and executed that says this is how it will be, follow these terms and conditions and the buildings will look as presented. Mayor Furlong: And so in terms of managing expectations, and I guess we can talk about whether it's our expectation that you know, complete screening where you wouldn't be able to see a building or just you know some screening so we can get that, but we should probably in that language build in you know, that the applicant would work with staff and residents but my suggestion would be that we leave it to staff's discretion in terms of managing that process as well. I think the expectation, and I'll kind of slide into comments. I think the expectation of complete screening is probably not attainable. But certainly there could be some improvement and I think I'm going to guess that we'll be supportive of that. Along that entire western side of the development. Kate Aanenson: Again with that Mayor, because this is a phased project, our goal is to get that out there right away so it's mature before those buildings go in place, and so again that would be the goal so that would give some growth years by the time we get down to those buildings. Councilman Lundquist: You're going to have some unique opportunities with fence all the way around this thing to do all kinds of stuff. Vines and you know drive down Dell Road along Bearpath. That is, with a fence there, at least it's, like the pictures they have in their other clubs, I mean there's all kinds of opportunities for doing things. That are both screening and pleasing and not intrusive to the project. Todd Gerhardt: Kate maybe that's something we can add to that section instead of maybe berming. Maybe it can be fencing. Councilman Lundquist: Well you're going to have a fence around the whole thing anyway. Kate Aanenson: Well that wasn't their intent to put a fence up around the entire project at the beginning. Yeah, I think there's just. Mayor Furlong: Around a portion of it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think just some portions of it right now. Correct. Bruno Silikowski: The wetland provides a natural barrier. Kate Aanenson: Right. And we also want to keep that wildlife corridor, that's the other goal so we don't have, obviously deer can jump up but there's the little critters that may not be able to make it through our fence if we have an open style, so we will look at those opportunities. Provide the best barrier that we can, whether it's even fencing on that part still might be an optimal thing with a berm. Something. We'll look at that. Kate Aanenson: You represent everybody don't you. 28 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: I do. Mayor Furlong: Even the little critters. Kate Aanenson: All the little critters. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We've kind of slid in, a little bit into comments but. Councilman Peterson: We're still in questions. I've got one. Kate, one of the things we talked about, and we've done it in other projects too on conditional use permits is hours of operation. I don't want to limit the salability of these but can we talk about that any of the units facing west can't have their garage doors open and activity can't be happening after 9:00 or 10:00 in the evening so that we get, we have that as a conditional use. It's a slippery slope but Roger, maybe you can answer the question. Roger Knutson: Well, maybe if you would zero in on repair activities that's audible outside of a building after a certain hour, because again I've never seen one of these things. I don't know how they operate but I can envision someone on a summer evening I suppose. Opening up the garage and bringing their friends over and saying, look at my wonderful cars or something at 10:00 at night, I don't know. I don't know if people do that or not, but that would be one thing. But repair activity that's audible, you could also make that a condition that there can be no repair activity that's audible outside the property line after 9:00 in the evening or before 7:00 in the morning for example. Councilman Peterson: But essentially that's redundant to our statute. Roger Knutson: It's an added protection. It just reinforces it. Some people. Bruno Silikowski: We have the, again my. Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the microphone. Why don't you come to the microphone if you would please. Bruno Silikowski: We probably have one of the best attorneys in the state, David Ines writing our condo documentation. He virtually wrote condo law in Minnesota. You know we are putting in a significant amount of covenants inside of our facility and this is where it belongs. You can't, I mean it makes sense to be able to have it self policed. There is, as we talked about, there is nuisance noise taking place, there's due course for that. We can certainly deal with a problem person but you're talking about people who aren't interested in working on our cars at 11:00 at night. You're thinking of the wrong kind of people, and so all I can tell you is that in our condo documentation, the covenants, restrictive covenants are going to protect that kind of thing… We don't want having the council, we don't want this. We don't want that. You know we're talking about vehicles that are irreplaceable and so we're not interested in having issues. So you know it sounds like we're trying to legislate something. This is an industrial zone property. We have to give our clients some flexibility. If they need to drop something off at 29 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 11:00 at night, well they shouldn't be restricted from doing that, but it's certainly common sense is they're not going to be working… Kate Aanenson: Let me just add to that. Todd Gerhardt: I think you were recommending that we… Kate Aanenson: No, and I think too also, we have to look at long term because the property could be sold. It could be a different owner and also we don't enforce covenants. Those would be your enforcement tool. Not the City's enforcement tool. We can only enforce our city ordinance, so we have to protect ourself, whether it's you or somebody else that owns the property. So I think it's fair and reasonable to say, well as a staff we don't want to be down there because of a bunch of people standing around talking and looking at a car. I think it's reasonable to say, if they're working on a car, making noise, as the city attorney suggested, that we will be able to enforce that. If they're disturbing the peace and enjoyment of the neighboring properties, and I think that's our rule. Mayor Furlong: And does our ordinance already provide that disturbing and… Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think as Roger's pointing out, the city attorney's pointing out, it might help to put it as a condition of the site plan so we can also say that you're in violation of that portion too just as a clear, and again it's the working on. It's the motorized. If they're talking and visiting and not disturbing anybody, I don't think we want to have to send the sheriff down for that. If that makes sense. Bruno Silikowski: Actually it's a big gray area. You've got General Mills running trucks day and night, 24 hours a day. And they're making noises. Why can't we complain about them? That's where it's going to go to. I mean it seems a little overkill to be honest with you. I mean it's just not going to be something that… There's an occasions where somebody does drop something off and they bring the car in at 11:00 at night, and I just don't want to be getting calls in the middle of the night about complaints. It's unlikely to happen. It's extremely unlikely to happen and there's another avenue that could resolve issues if it does occur. Kate Aanenson: Again I'll go back to my point and that is, our interest is to protect the property owners and this property, this developer may not always be the person in charge and we're bound by what we decide today, and I think it's prudent, as the city attorney advised, maybe to put it in there and, nobody wants to be down there if…but it's a level of protection. Councilman Peterson: I originated the question. I don't know how I'd phrase it anyway other than replicating what our current, what our current ordinance is and… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? If not, comments. Thoughts. Thank you. 30 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Bruno Silikowski: I guess the only comment I'd like to make, you know we are selling these things. If we start having all these lists of restrictive covenants that seem to be unreasonable, and I think this is an unreasonable one, I think our clients will. They may have issues with some and I don't want to be encumbered with something that's going to probably not be able to…it's just not fair. Councilman Peterson: Well to replicate what our current ordinance is, then I've got a problem with it so. Bruno Silikowski: You know and it came up, the whole noise issue and what the planning group talked about was if there is an issue, there's a due course. You can call the police. There's a nuisance noise, and the issue will be resolved… We'll make sure we apply that restrictive covenant and…but you have to give us some latitude. We're not evil people. Councilman Peterson: Well we're not going to give you latitude more than our ordinance provides so, again you had me. Now you're losing me so. Bruno Silikowski: Well I give up. Anything else? Okay, thank you. Jon Day: Can I make one last comment? Mayor Furlong: Is it a new issue? Please. Short. Jon Day: The applicant is asking for variances of conditional uses. He's asking for exceptions to the rule. Our duty, our citizenship needs your help in enforcement rules. Okay? He wants exceptions. If this property is going to stay over here, where it's currently zoned, we probably wouldn't be having any of these concerns. These two buildings here are the issue. These are the ones that infringed out here and into the neighborhood the closest. So Mr. Bruno, I mean I know what you're saying is you want latitude and so forth, but you're asking for the city to give you all kinds of exceptions to the rule so we need your help in enforcing the rule. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Day brings up a point. They're asking for a conditional use permit. I'm looking at the four motions. Help me understand what the conditional use permits relate to. It looks like motion B relates to. Kate Aanenson: Two of them. The conditional. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Summarize those for us quickly. Kate Aanenson: Well the conditional use is one conditional use is for activity within the corridor. Bluff Creek corridor. The other one is for 14 buildings on one single lot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And within the Bluff Creek corridor, that at this point is relating to the storm pond. 31 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct, a variance for the storm pond. Mayor Furlong: Because if I followed your pencil correctly, all the buildings are outside the secondary. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Corridor. Okay. And then the second conditional use was relating to 4 on 1. Or 14, excuse me, on one parcel. The option there would have been to subdivide and have separate parcels with cross access easements. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So B includes a variance for the storm water pond and for the conditional use to grade within the Bluff Creek. C is for the 14 buildings. Those are the two, but they're put in one motion because actually activity, all the conditions in B are interrelated. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I guess the question that I would consider is with those conditional use permits, if those are pertaining to the use. That would be an opportunity to do that. I don't know if other users within this, these business parks have hours of operation as well. Part of my concern is, it's my understanding Mr. Knutson, if we put in something specific to noise of operations here, in a conditional use permit, that would override a future change potentially of the city's ordinance, and that this would be the only thing on it forever. If there's nothing mentioned and our ordinance would fall off, if that was changed, either more restrictive or otherwise, then they'd be subject to the new ordinance. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: If you adopted a new ordinance and it was more restrictive than the condition in the conditional use permit, the more restrictive ordinance would apply. You'd have to comply with both basically. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Let me back up and clarify something. The conditional use is not for the use. This is a permitted use of the district. The conditional, yeah. The conditional use is for grading in the Bluff Creek. What you're trying to do is bridge an nexus to say, I'm going to take that conditional use and now apply it to the standards of the use itself. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess that gets back to my first two questions. Kate Aanenson: And I'll let the city attorney decide if that's an appropriate nexus or not but it's for the grading activity. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess that gets back to my first question. What the conditional use permit… Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's for grading and it's the fact that. 32 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: In the overlay district. Mayor Furlong: One parcel. Kate Aanenson: And the other one is for 14. Instead of subdividing, our ordinance does allow, it doesn't say you have to subdivide. It does allow, under a conditional use, which you can only attach conditions to, and that you know, I'll let the city attorney again address what. Mayor Furlong: No thanks. I'm comfortable then at that point, if others have questions. So, okay. Any other questions? Let me, let's get an opportunity for the council to discuss this here. Comments. Discussion. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, addressing overall project first, then going into more detail. Overall I think, I'm pleased with the project. I like the additional renderings or sketches that were brought for us showing some more of the upgraded detail. I think it's an interesting use so intrigued by that. As far as overall the site plan, again I like the pushing the majority of the development towards the road. Being that that's a county road and you know more business there away from the residential I think is, I'd like to see that. I want to see some type of work, additional work put in to some screening. Some berming. Doesn't necessarily have to be that. I think you've got a multitude of options. We understand the concept of you know something to break up that view. I believe that once that is in place, that that will also have a significant impact in reduction on not only the just the general view but light penetration. Sound penetration. All of those things. And on the last issue we were talking about on the noise piece, not in favor of additional constraints here. We've all, the three of us have been part of a significant amount of work to that nuisance and noise ordinance based on things that have happened over time that we've learned and I'm comfortable with that, with where we're at now. And not in favor of restricting, you know the ability to come and go and things like that. I anticipate that you know, especially at the beginning there, you know people are going to learn what's acceptable and not acceptable. And being that we've got that ordinance in there, I think it's already pretty restrictive and we have used it in the past. It's there for a reason and I don't want to you know, get too onerous and restrictive of the owner's ability to use his property as well. I don't anticipate that you're going to have a lot of things going on out there and if we do, we've got those in place. And again, I think that additional screening will also help shield some of the noise and light as well. I do want to make sure that we try to balance the residents that are there now and their view with the ability of this property owner to have a reasonable use of his or their property as well. It's always difficult and we've had you know this isn't the first time in the Stone Creek neighborhood that we've had industrial development going on around it and have had these types of discussions so, you know it ultimately ends up being a little bit of give on each side. For the residents to understand that that owner had the ability or right to develop their property as well, but the expectation is that you know, there's some respect there for addition for existing homeowners as well, and I think with the commitment and the additional condition to put additional screening in there, that that should satisfy everyone's concerns. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Peterson. 33 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Councilman Peterson: I trying to think of something to add to that. It was one of his finest. Mayor Furlong: Well it's about time. Councilman Peterson: It is. Took him 4 years to do it but he did it well. I really don't have much to add. I agree with Councilman Lundquist. The only thing that I would offer, as just ancillary advice would be, in just thinking about the screening, putting a fence, a non-connected fence back where the berm might be potentially and screening that with vines might be a more cost effective way and get more screening done effectively so. Kate Aanenson: I think there is an intent to put a screening in for security purposes at the end of those buildings but we can certainly look at that. Councilman Peterson: But I mean that's another option so the one thing I wanted to add to it so. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Thank you mate. I think overall, you know it is a permitted use and that's one of the things we have to judge and I think they've met the standard there. It's also a less intrusive use than what alternatives could be in, and in looking at some these pictures, there's some pretty big buildings on the south side of the railroad track that I understand would also be permitted use on this property too and so while there are issues to deal with, I think they've made some good progress. I do concur with adding in the condition with regard to the additional screening on the southwest buildings. Whether that's buffering or fences as well. I think as Councilman Lundquist mentioned, you go through some of these and you learn and you see developments after they're built. The comment was made about the retaining walls and there are two in particular. One's a 14 foot wall. The other's a 15 foot wall. The other ones are 4, 5 and 6 feet. And I think that was something that we should amend that. The one condition with regard to the retaining walls. Not only going with the standard but including the terracing there. That provides an opportunity for it to break that up by view across the wetland. Where at this point it might be engineering, from an engineering standpoint fine to go 15 feet, but let's break it up a little bit and add the additional landscaping, so that's the other condition. Noise is going to be an issue. Anytime you have new neighbors move in, that's a potential issue and I guess at this point I'm comfortable staying with our ordinances for reasons that we talked about before because I think we can enforce those and. The other thing that gave me some comfort was the applicant's response that they would, with the entrance and access system, they'd be able to track who was there and who was not there so there'll be a way to find out if there's a problem. Who's causing it, especially if it's a repeat offender, and then work within that so. But overall I think, as a site plan we are gaining some benefit publicly with regard to the conservation easement over the corridor. There is no building taking place in the secondary corridor in terms of building. The pond is I think engineered as well, or even better in terms of handling storm runoff than some of our other ponds so I think that there's a little bit of work to be done but what I'm hearing is that has to be done on site with regard to the screening and determining that and I know our staff is very competent and capable of getting that done so. I guess with regard to the conditions, it sounds like what I'm hearing is we need to add condition (f) under the forester conditions on the site plan, and then also under condition 7 under the engineering modifications so. Do you have some, you gave some suggested language on that. Do you have something on the terraced wall? 34 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. On number 7, what I was suggesting is that the retaining wall follow standards incorporated in the subdivision regulations, which is the MnDot standard. Mayor Furlong: That's what here now. Kate Aanenson: And then also retaining walls shall be terraced. The question is where you want that to occur. Greater than 8 feet or 8 feet plus because there's an 8 foot, a 14 and a 15 so where you want that break to occur. In anything over 4 foot has to be engineered. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: So where you want that break. Mayor Furlong: I thought you said there's an 8 foot wall as well. I think there was 14, 15 and then. Kate Aanenson: If you go to page, engineering, staff identified those walls. If you go to page 4. On the bottom there's a chart. There's an 8 foot that's 120 foot on the south side of the pond. And then. Mayor Furlong: Show where that 8 foot is. I think my thought is, I'll defer to the rest of the council. The 15 and the 14 certainly. Bruno Silikowski: If I could make some comments. The one wall that's on the inside which is the 15 foot, no one's going to see except for the people inside the condo. If that, putting terrace there would actually be really detrimental to the development. Mayor Furlong: Well, that is if I understand correctly, I'm sorry. Show me where the 8 foot wall is. Kate Aanenson: This would be the south side of the pond. There's a wall right here. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what's the wall just to the west of the pond right there in front of the club house? Is that the 15 foot? Kate Aanenson: 9. 12, 14. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that is, I'm assuming here that the building is higher than the pond, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: The finished floor elevation right there, you are correct. Mayor Furlong: So that wall faces west. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 35 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the one to the north of the club house. Kate Aanenson: This one. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Isn't that the other 14 or 15 foot? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And again, are the buildings higher than the wetland I assume. Kate Aanenson: Finished floor elevation, correct. Mayor Furlong: So that faces to the northwest. I guess those were the ones that I was looking at and to the extent that they're facing away from the property, I think terracing. Kate Aanenson: Right over here is where it gets pinched based on the… Mayor Furlong: Now the other retaining wall to the east there, if you can zoom out on the camera please. Yeah. Now which way, that faces into the development so the road is higher than the building to the west of that wall? Bruno Silikowski: The buildings are quite a bit higher than. Mayor Furlong: Than the road? Bruno Silikowski: No, the road's actually, it's close. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: This elevation on this side is. Mayor Furlong: But that might be one of the shorter walls. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so this is 934 so this is one of the, yeah. This is actually a 3 to 1 slope. Mayor Furlong: Alright. So the issue is on the west side of the property near the clubhouse. And again I'll defer. It appears that those would be reasonable to terrace because they're facing out away from the property. Councilman Peterson: If you've got the space to do it. Mayor Furlong: If you've got the space to do it, and I think that's what we have to. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and what the visibility is up in this area. Mayor Furlong: And that may not be as critical as the one down by the pond. 36 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So I guess to the extent it's engineeringly possible to terrace. I'm sorry? With that qualification. Councilman Lundquist: Options of terracing? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Terrace if possible. Bruno Silikowski: And we'll…to the neighbors, I'd be more than happy to try to make that look really attractive. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think those were the ones that I'm thinking about. That's great, thank you. Kate Aanenson: So can we modify that just so we're clear for the language on the site plan agreement. That the retaining walls meet the standards, and those walls that have exterior elevations facing neighborhoods be terraced. Councilman Lundquist: If that's the option of terracing. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if possible. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: My expectation if they can be terraced, that they should be. Any other thoughts or discussion? If there's none, motion begins on page. Kate Aanenson: 11. Mayor Furlong: Where is the motion? Page 11 on the staff report, and 251-252. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move, do you want to do them all four at once or one at a time? What's your pleasure? Mayor Furlong: Let's do them all. Unless there's a reason to separate them? Councilman Peterson: I would move that City Council approve the rezoning the western portion of the Ag Estate District (A2) industrial to office park IOP. I also move that we approve the conditional use permit, conditions 1 through 6. I would also move that we approve the conditional use permit for allowing multiple buildings, up to 14 on one parcel, subject to one condition. I also finally approve that the City Council adopt a site plan for 12 buildings, 11 storage buildings totaling 177,000 square feet subject to conditions 1 through 7, with the addition, changes and additions of 5(f) and 7 as noted by staff this evening. Subject to findings of facts. 37 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approvestheRezoningof the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOPAll voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a . vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permitfor development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 2.The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3.The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4.Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 38 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1.Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2.Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a.The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b.The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c.The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d.A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e.Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f.The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 39 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g.A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h.Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. i.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. l.A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m.The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n.The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o.All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. 40 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 b.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen city Ordinance #9-1. c.Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. f.Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.Building Official Conditions: a.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d.Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5.Forester conditions: a.All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. 41 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 c.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d.The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e.Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping f.Increase the buffer planting along the westerly and northwesterly portions of the site. Buffer may include berming, landscaping or fencing. 6.Engineering Conditions: a.The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b.The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. c.Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d.The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e.An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f.Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. g.The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h.The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i.If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j.The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k.The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. 42 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 7. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the subdivision regulations. The applicant shall also investigate the terracing of walls over eight feet in height. (Visibility of the walls to the west is a factor to determine the need for terracing.)” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your comments and your help. Noting the time, let's take, you want to take a quick recess? Let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of the Chair. ADOPTION OF THE 2007 BUDGET AND LEVY. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and council. The item we're discussing tonight is the 2007 proposed budget and CIP. I'm just going to give a quick history of what happened…to get to this point for those that have not been involved in this process so far. Early this summer staff and the City Manager met to discuss the 2007 budget and the department heads, along with the city manager came up with a proposed 2007 budget which we discussed with City Council in August th of this year. In September we passed a preliminary levy September 15 which sets the preliminary levy at $9,575,778. In September, October, November we held each of the department heads, department meetings that discussed each individual part of the budget in detail in work sessions with the council. Last week we held a Truth in Taxation hearing to give the public an opportunity to comment on that budget. At that hearing we did not receive comments from the public about the budget, and this week we are going to pass that levy and CIP proposed for 2007. Just want to go through a quick slide presentation of what we are levying for next year. What are percentages…are going to be. As you can see, our 2006 budget had total expenditures of $8.9 million which included a $285,000 debt transfer. 2007 we have a total expenditure general fund budget of $9,062,000. The changes within types of expenditures, the largest increase is in public works area and those costs are for fuel costs, street lighting, salt for our roads and a few other items that we had discussed…over the last few weeks. The other departments saw minimal increases for wages and some supplies but in total the increases were kept generally at or near cost of living. Revenues. Two revenue items to note that we did increase substantially from the prior year are our permit revenues. With anticipated development in the 2005 MUSA area, it is our projection that permit revenues will be increasing to over $800,000 in 2007. Up from $600,000 in 2006. In addition fines and penalties revenue has been increasing over the last year. We have it in the budget now for fines and penalties in the amount of $130,000. Staff has just recently gotten some additional numbers and we do believe that that number could exceed or be near $150,000. Bringing our total increase in revenues up 5.2%. Here's a look at our general fund expenditure history. The blue bar would be actual general fund expenditures. The yellow bars would be transfers we made in those years for debt service payments out of the general fund using cash reserves. What factors change the budget for 2007 versus 2006? While we saw an increase for personnel costs. Also heating and fuel costs which we discussed earlier. The total general fund expenditures will increase 5.19%. That number, if you exclude the debt service transfer that we had made last year, the increase would be 5.19%. If you include that transfer, which we did not make the transfer to debt service out of the general fund this year, the increase is 1.82%. What are we levying for? $6.5 million we are levying for general fund operations. This number is basically backed into after we calculate what our 43