The URL can be used to link to this page

8.5 Site Plan Lake Susan Apts.CIT OF 2i{y Center Drive, PO Box 147 anhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Nerd?ax 612.937.5739 jneering Fax 612.937.9152 lic Safe{y tax 612.934.2524 b www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us TO: MEMORANDUM Mayor City Council FROM: Scott A. Botcher, City Manager ~ DATE: August 19, 1999 · SUB J: Site Plan Amendment Request, Lake Susan Apartment Homes, Sheldon Wert Pursuant to a written request from Mr. Wert and as confirmed by the Mayor, I have placed on the agenda this evening a request from Mr, Wert to have Condition No. 3 of his site plan approval removed. Item 3 deals with the affordability issue (and while this statement is not a legal conclusion) and it appears as if removing this condition allows Mr. Wert to build the project as a market rate project. There are many issues to be discussed about this request and I would hope that all of you will take the time over the next several days to review Villages on the Ponds. Think through issues relating to not only the amount and tYPe of affordable housing, but also the concentration of affordable housing. If you have any questions about this issue prior to the meeting, please feel free to call Kate or myself. g:\userXscottb\lake susan apt.doc CtN of Chanhassen. A rrowin~ community with ckan lakes, ttuality schools, a charmin;~ downtown, thrivin~ businesses, and beautiful parks. A ereat place to live, work, and pla~. City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: I'm in favor of number 1 then. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to go along with staff's recommendation point number 1, provide aggressive enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit on Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor, except Acting Mayor Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. .REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THREE 3-STORY 54 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS (162 UNITS) ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-MIXED USE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101 AT MAIN STREET IN VILLAGES ON THE POND~ CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT~ THE SHELARD GROUP. Public Present: Name Address Bob Savard 8080 Brad Johnson 7425 James Amundson 8500 A1 & Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Shirley Robinson 8502 Marian & Walter Paulson 8528 Barbara Jacoby 8516 Bob Smithburg 86'57 Jim Jacoby 8410 Gene Klein 8412 Wayne Holt... 8524 Marsh Drive Frontier Trail Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Chan Hills Drive North Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. Bob Generous: The applicant is actually the Shelard Group. As you stated, this is a site plan review for a project. It's located on the northeast corner of Lake Susan. It acts as an entryway to the downtown area of the Chanhassen. To the south is Chanhassen Hills. A residential development. It's a little south of that project, and the Mission Hills, mixed density residential development. To the north is the downtown area. This project actually began in 1995 when the city had discussions with the developer and property owners about developing their site. Initially they looked at providing multiple uses on the property but each one separately. The city worked with them to create a more a mixed and integrated mixed use development. Eventually in 1996 the city approved the preliminary PUD for Villages on the Ponds. This included a 100,000 square feet of institutional uses, up to 291,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, and up to 322 dwelling units. As part of that this site was designated for either 112 dwelling units and a 32,000 square foot office building located on the north part of the project, or they could get rid of the office and provide an additional 54 dwelling units for a total of 168 dwelling units that could be approved on this site. The city additionally fought to incorporate rental housing as a component of the Villages on the Pond. On the Ponds project. At least 50% of the housing must be rental housing. In the original review of this, the city also looked at and did an environmental assessment worksheet. This looked at the impacts of the project on natural resources, traffic, pollution, noise, various issues that could impact the neighborhood. The findings of that study were that no additional environmental review was required. One of the components of that was a traffic impact study. That study showed that this development provides, well actually back on traffic growth provides between 45 and 65% of the traffic growth in this area. It's not the development that's the majority traffic generator. Utilities are available to the site. The developer is proposing connection to the metropolitan interceptor 52 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 which is located adjacent to the city trail runs around Lake Susan. Initially staff had recommended that this connection be jacked under Highway 5 but in... effort to move the project forward, we went to recommend that they be able to do their connection. The one issue that we had with that connection is that it go through a comer of the bluff impact zone, which is located on the southern portion of the site and that area was to be preserved as part of the view of only 1,000 square feet of canopy area, additional canopy area will be removed due to the utility extension and the applicant has agreed to replace that. As part of the overall plan, a storm water management plan for the site was developed and located south of the housing project is the main storm water pond for Villages on the Ponds. This will treat the storm water for the residential development as well as the Village core prior to discharge into Riley Creek. This is an integral component of the project and it was reviewed by the DNR and they were supportive of putting it there. Unfortunately it removes a lot of trees. As part of the planning commission review, the planning commission did recommend approval of this. However, they wanted to make sure that the landscaping plan adequately buffer the Lake Susan from this development and the Highway 101 corridor. We believe with the revisions to the plan that's required, based on the conditions of approval that we can get buffering done. The other issue was again traffic and we believe that while 101 is in a degraded state due to the overall growth of the community, it's not this specific development that's responsible for that. The final issue is about a beachlot. This proposal currently before us is not for any approval of beachlots. We're not even sure that if it was reviewed for a beachlot, that it can comply with the ordinance requirements, specifically the drainage and utility easements over the southern portion of the site. This development does comply with the setbacks and design standards established for Villages on the Ponds. With that, staff is recommending approval of the site plan based on the conditions in our report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of staff from council? Councilwoman Jansen: I actually have a couple. The first being going back to the two different sewer locations that have been discussed. If I understand correctly, the northerly original proposed location with the EAW for Villages to go under 101, is that, if I look at the recommendation, we're still jacking the water main under 101 at that location. So part of the original recommendation was that this would just be one other utility that would be jacked under 101. Correct? Dave Hempel: Councilwoman Jansen. In addition to the watermain that will be jacked underneath 101, storm sewer will also eventually be jacked underneath 101 to serve the core of Villages on the Pond. Right now Villages has a temporary pond on the east side of 101 below St. Hubert's. Eventually that pond will be eliminated with the upgrade of Highway 101 and/or development of additional hard surface in the village core area which will necessitate the extension of that trunk storm sewer down below the apartment site where a regional pond has been designated and not yet constructed, but would be. Which is proposed to be constructed with the apartment. Councilwoman Jansen: And the storm sewer at this point would still be jacked under 101 at that northerly location, not the southerly location? Dave Hempel: Correct. Timing wise we were hoping to have upgrades of 101 at the same time that these utilities needed to be extended so they could be easily extended through 101 when it was being upgraded. Concurrently with the upgrade of 101. But the development's coming before the upgrade of 101 which necessitates the tunneling underneath 101. 53 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So the way that the recommendation is worded currently, then the storm sewer and the water would be jacked under 101 at the northerly location. So why would we then move the other to the southern? Kate Aanenson: That was a request by the applicant. There's two alternatives to provide sewer. There is a cost that's involved. That was a request made, and it is a feasible alternative. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, but it does disturb more of the topography of the site, if we do move it to the southerly location. I'm hearing the amount but. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, so that was one question. And then the NURP ponds, the Pond #4 that's shown on the southern end at this point. As I was going through the EAW I did bring it back with me in case you need that. When I went through that it did show that pond but it was significantly smaller and I realize that we're doing...mitigation in that area. Is that why that, why is that pond become so much larger? It's significantly larger than the original one that was within the EAW so I guess my question is, why has it grown so significantly? Originally it didn't impact the creek. Or the buffer in the creek. Dave Hempel: Based on my recall, I believe that sizing the pond to meet the water quality standards enlarged it. I don't recall the EAW... Kate Aanenson: I can address some of that. Originally they had proposed using tennis courts down there, using that for a phase. We never agreed to that .... as part of the tradeoff, there were areas that we wanted to preserve as natural. The storm water management plan always provided for this area...for the creek and the lake as part of the, as this project developed and the final calculations were made. I believe Dave, correct me if I'm wrong but we talked about combining those ponds with 101 and we shifted one pond... I believe that's how it got enlarged and we moved the tennis courts that were originally set for that area. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So ifI followed what you just said, would we in trying to leave some additional vegetation of the existing vegetation along the creek, would we be able to shift part of this pond, as you just said you brought it back over 101. Could that go back over to where we are only taking the space where that tennis courts were originally proposed? And sufficiently handle the storm water. Is that not a fair question to pop tonight? I'm sorry, I just looked at the EAW this weekend. Dave Hempel: Sure. Based on the storm water calculations, they determine a pond size. The exact configuration could be massaged but the surface area and the depth of the pond is a given. We have to have that size. So if they can massage the character of the meandering size of the pond to leave more vegetation along the creek, we can certainly look into that. One thing I just want to point out as well, only about 70% of the pond is being built at this time. The remaining pond will be built as 101 is upgraded and old 101 roadway bed is abandoned. That will turn also into a future ponding area. Councilwoman Jansen: So conceivably, if I follow what you just said then the pond as it expanded, it would expand to where the road is currently versus going any closer to the creek as it were to increase in size? Dave Hempel: That's correct. 54 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: So whatever we could preserve in this initial phase could conceivably manage to stay there with the expansion. Okay. And then again going tO the EAW. It noted that for the total Villages on the Pond, that it's a proposal of the 266 residential units and then if they give up some of the office square footage, that adds an additional 56 so we're up to the 322 with 162 of them being in this apartment complex. Are we anticipating there will only be 160 residential over on the other side? I guess I didn't. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's where we anticipate the mix, vertical and horizontal mix on the other side and that would be in the... Councilwoman Jansen: So that wouldn't be over 1607 I mean at this point it wouldn't be going over that maximum because I'm looking, okay. It would still be the 322. Okay. The other part of the EAW, and I don't mean to keep going but I think these are some of the issues that are going to come up as maybe some of the questions are being asked by the residents. For the total Villages it was noting, well I'll just read it. A 15 acre, undeveloped area will remain in the southern end or the south end of the site around the lakes and the creek. And I realize we're talking about both sides when we're talking the 15 acres. Not just this one side. Noting that that will maintain some quality habitat for a variety of wildlife. It goes on to say that there would be 6 acres of existing tree coverage that would remain on this end of this property. So now when I'm looking in the report, we're showing a requirement of just a minimum of 2.65 acres of canopy cover. So if in the original EAW we were anticipating that, okay. Kate Aanenson: But not in this area. The PUD looked at it in a wholelistic sense. I think when this project came in, there was concern that in order to get the church and the school in, there would have to be a significant amount of grading. I think we all acquiesced that to make that happen we're going to concede on the grading. But what we said is there was, we wanted to do this project different than the traditional zoning. We wanted to give the church...parking shared projects. The developer wanted some additional commercial and the city wanted additional residential...and the players that were involved and what we said is we will preserve some acreage and what that...Rice Marsh piece. That was the...some of those trees will come down with future development...but there is a significant amount... Councilwoman Jansen: Do you, and I realize I'll be putting you on the spot tonight, would be able to get that number at some point as to what is south of St. Hubert's? Okay. Kate Aanenson: I can show you on this map. It shows up on there, but sure we can bring back. But there are areas that were preserved specifically for trees but we didn't...there would be tree loss on this site. The tree ordinance says, it doesn't say you can't remove trees but it does say if you exceed a certain amount, you will have to do a substantial amount of replacement. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. And when I quote the 2.65, that's what we're saying the minimum is. Kate Aanenson: You're not touching the bluff area, which is a no touch zone. They're outside the bluff area, right. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. But by the time they get done with the grading, we're down to less than an acre so what they're replacing is still going to be about an acre and a half of new plantings versus our having maintained more of the existing. I guess I just got the flavor from the EAw that we were attempting to preserve more than that. Or at least more than you can see and maybe... 55 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: ...whole PUD though. Councilwoman Jansen: Right. And I guess visually, not being able to really see the size of what's behind St. Hubert's. It doesn't give you that impression that we've preserved as much as obviously could be hidden behind the church. And I guess that just stuck out as I was reading through it. Those are all my questions for now for staff, thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot with some of those. I know I threw a lot of questions at you before the meetings and you were very helpful so thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Questions of staff, Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. A couple of citizens called me about impact of traffic generation... Kate Aanenson: Yes, it consistent with the Environmental Assessment. This did trigger that and when this original project came forward, the Environmental Assessment, that's what Councilwoman Jansen's referring to. It's consistent with the study that was done. Councilman Labatt: So...that's where they live. Kate Aanenson: There's more background traffic that this will be generating. Most trips from this will be heading north but the city continues to grow, traffic... 101 on the upgrade project. This project will also propose an underpass that... Councilman Labatt: And that's with this project or with the 101.9 Kate Aanenson: With the underpass. Councilman Engel: It would come out on the northern or the southern connection? Kate Aanenson: It's down by the creek. And that's slated for what year? Unknown, how's that? Because the residents are going to want to know. The people who live over on Councilman Labatt: Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt: Lake Susan. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt: We don't know. So we don't know at this point. Kate Aanenson: It's a capital improvements but it's a ways out, correct. Mission Hills came in, same similar situation. It's just continuing. Councilman Labatt: So not to keep on that topic but what about signalizing?...I just hate to bring it up again but, after what we just went through but you know. Dave Hempel: Councilmember Labatt, maybe I can address that one a little bit. In the overall traffic study for Villages on the Pond, at some future point they estimated a signal would be warranted at the 56 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 intersection of Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 101 with full development of Villages on the Ponds. We've asked the developer to go back and update a segment of the traffic study with this development before you tonight to look at any traffic mitigation measures that would be necessary having all three apartment buildings on the one lower site versus two and one on the north. And that will be done as a part of this overall development. We don't anticipate any major traffic mitigation measures being proposed other than the right turn lane, which they're recommending. Councilman Labatt: I had some of the same concerns Linda did... And then it was the impact on the bluff on the one portion of. Kate Aanenson: With the sewer, right. There are two options, as we indicated which was the original one on the EA to take it to 101. Or the other alternative is to tie into the interceptor... Councilman Labatt: Cost savings of how much to the developer? Dave Hempel: Approximately $12,000.00. Councilman Labatt: Impact on the bluff. Kate Aanenson: Right. Our recommendation in the report, as indicated in the report was to take it to 101. That's how...but we do want to apprise you of the fact that the applicant had asked for another option. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel, any questions? Councilman Engel: No questions. Comments I'll save for later when it's time. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. I have no additional questions at this time either. Let's see here. Before we go to the applicant, and I know there's a number of people here on this item tonight. I've heard from quite a number of people on this item before tonight. But I just want people to understand, and you may have already picked this up from some of the questions and answers is that the item before us tonight is a site plan review and a site plan review is basically in conformance with all zoning, density, use requirements, etc. There is no, I think this goes too far Roger but there's really no legal reason we can turn this site plan review down one way or another. If you have objections or problems with this project there is another consideration going on that's occurring at the EDA and the council level at a later date concerning the subsidy relationship to this project and that is an area in which the city has considerably more influence and/or latitude in what they do or don't do. So just, I mean I hate to say after 4 ½ hours that I don't want to waste your time because we've been meeting for 4 ½ hours but essentially the site plan review process and as long as all the requirements and setbacks and all that sort of thing are being met, allows us very little latitude in terms of what we can do. So just want you to understand that before we go into it. With that I'd like to ask the applicant if he or she has any presentation and we'll go from there. Sheldon Wert: One comment I'd like to make, my name is Sheldon Wert. I represent myself. And I did want to make the comment relative to the comment that Mark made and that is that this site plan presentation and review is only part of the process that we need to go through and I don't want, you know that we've appeared before the EDA before and we have a talking range and I don't want anybody to think that's on the EDA, which includes all of you, that what's been talked about there so far is acceptable and that's why we're here to finish it up. We know we've got fish to fry at that meeting yet 57 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 and we look forward to having the next meeting so I just want to tell you that. That this seems to be a bifurcated effort the way it's done in this city and we want to just give you that impression that we want this to be passed tonight, definitely, but we still have hurdles to overcome in terms of doing the project. Do you want to give them a little bit on the? Greg Hollenkamp: I've been advised to keep this pretty short. My name is Greg Hollenkamp with KKE Architects. What I'll do is I'll just walk you quickly through the site plan. Show the elevations. Show you some of the materials and then we'll open it up to any questions you have. The site plan's pretty straight forward. You can see we have three buildings. These are three story buildings over underground parking. The access is directly across from the access to Village on the Ponds. We sited the buildings in a way to contain the parking within the central area and then also to minimize the views to the lake. As an example Building Number C right here, we have a narrow view facing that lake. In addition, we do have a small recreation building that would be in the center here, with a swimming pool and I think I'll just go right to the elevations. The bluff area on this plan is located right in here. You see the trees here and the trees here. There's actually two sections of bluff. These lines indicate the setbacks from that bluff so we cannot do any construction or any grading work within that bluff area, so that's...as a natural bluff around there. The exterior of the building was designed...consistent with the theme for Village on the Ponds. More of a...essentially again the building is three stories of housing above an underground parking garage. The buildings are bermed into the hill as to reduce the... The building is broken up into a number of...bay windows and decks. Optional fireplace which would provide chimneys at the roof. The roof has a fairly steep pitch...The trails, what we're looking at is at the main entry., in these areas we have a fieldstone accent... Fieldstone accent and then the base of the building is a rock face block, an architectural block. The siding is a mix of, in these areas a vinyl siding. No maintenance siding and then we're added more of a cedar shin'gle look at the base of those... And then last time when we met with the planning commission, they wanted us to give you an idea of what this would look like from the lake. And what we have here. This is, if you were on the south side of the lake, if you were standing on the south side of the lake looking towards the buildings and if you took the section cut through that pond, that holding pond that you were talking about earlier, that pond is located right here. There's existing vegetation that would be kept between the pond and the lake. In addition, there will be new vegetation on this side buffering this from Highway 101. We did meet with the city forester and they've indicated that with the... You will see the buildings obviously. The top of the buildings. This tree canopy indicates about 40 foot tree canopy. We don't know exactly what...but you will see the rooftops of the buildings. This was the building I was talking about with the lake. This is another section cut. This would be a cut that's taken essentially going up the hill, right in front of that recreation building that you see on the site. So again you'll see the canopy and the trees and the rooftops there and... Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions from council for the applicant? Councilman Labatt: Are the third level of the apartments going to be vaulted ceilings inside? Greg Hollenkamp: We can put vaulted ceilings in... Councilman Labatt: I was just curious, the pitch of the roof. Greg Hollenkamp: There is enough roof to do that. It's not uncommon... Councilman Engel: Just curiosity, are you going to build this in phases or all three at once? 58 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Greg Hollenkamp: We'd build in one overall phase but one building... Acting Mayor Senn: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. If not we will, is there anybody else who'd like to be heard on the site plan review? I'll bring it up to council then. Oh, anybody. No, anybody. Jim Amundson: My name is Jim Amundson. I'm at 8500 Great Plains Boulevard. I wrote each of you a letter regarding this site and the two main concerns I have, I have nothing against the development itself but we're losing a lot of trees. And when I moved in there 6 years ago, I was told that would never be developed. Well, obviously that wasn't true. As I walked in tonight I look at a flag sitting on the flag pole that says Tree City USA. Now maybe we plant trees but we seem to be destroying a lot of them lately. And I think if the holding pond goes there, if we had 101 in, would we need a holding pond? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Jim Amundson: Even with 101 updated? We would need that for storm water runoff?. Bob Generous: Plus additional. Jim Amundson: I just don't understand all these holding ponds. I mean we've got all of them around Village and now we're going to put it in, into that whole area in the south end, or the east end of the lake where if you look at that east end, and I invited anybody to come look at it. It's full of egrets, birds, and we're going to destroy that. Now I was going to bring my stuff with me to show you all the fancy stuff but I couldn't get a 40 foot tree in here. That's what we're destroying. I don't care, you can't replace 40 foot trees. You can put small trees and bushes in there but the sight line is still going to look at 101. On the east end of the lake. Sewer line, I asked for $12,000.00, make them go the other way with it. Why infringe on the bluff area? We're going to impact the trail. If you look in here they're going to be gravel for a while. Hard to Rollerblade over gravel. Lot of people... I just ask for you, nothing against the project but think of the impact of us on the lake and why we moved there and as city manager stated earlier with the Pleasant Hill people, they didn't want the curb thing put in because it's going to destroy trees and the beauty and that's why they live there. That's why I live there. It's for the beauty of that lake and this is going to impact it. I just ask for you to look at those considerations. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else? Mary Klingelhutz: ...number of people on the lake and... Acting Mayor Senn: Mary, can you come up to the microphone. Mary Klingelhutz: My name is Mary Klingelhutz and I live on Lake Susan and I'd just like to tell you the concerns that we have as residents of this city and people who live on the lake. As concerned citizens of the city of Chanhassen, especially those in the Lake Susan area regarding the proposed apartment complex on the east shore of Lake Susan, these are our major concerns. The size, height and density of the proposed development on the shores of our lake. The possibility of better uses such as offices or senior facilities. We live on or near the lake and see the level of activity on the lake on a daily basis. 59 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Some of the issues discussed at the public hearing we feel merit special attention like safety, enforcement and appearance related. At this time the public boat launch is at the public park. This is a very active launch that all residents and everyone else who boats on the lake uses for access. A single launch allows for better and easier...and also better control of the spread of the exotic plants such as milfoil. We recommend that no dock or beach on Lake Susan or for this development be approved. A strong precedent has been set that no new development on Lake Susan would have ekher dockage or a beachlot. Rosemount and Lake Susan Hills have donated land by the lake for a trail. We feel strongly that the issues related to the lakeshore trees between the existing path and Riley Creek should be preserved and those other trees up to 100 feet from the lake should also be preserved as a visual and sound buffer. Also other trees over 12 inches in diameter should be preserved. We strongly recommend and support the above listed reasons and other issues including the traffic hazards that this project will involve. And that's about it. But I really, I would just love to see if these have to go forward, that maybe one of them, one of the buildings could be designated for seniors if nothing else because there are so many seniors and we would just really need facilities for seniors and if that's something that you could maybe work in, a lot of us would sure appreciate it but you know, well thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks Mary. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is anybody else? Wayne Holtmeier: I'm Wayne Holtmeier. I live on 8524 Great Plains Boulevard. Just have a couple of issues and I think repeating what has been said already. ! have no issue specifically with the apartment complex whatsoever and in fact I think especially as you start talking about TIF dollars and that's probably not the appropriate term for what the old HRA was but I think affordable housing, low income housing is certainly something that the city needs to look at and would strongly consider that even more if in fact this apartment complex does go in and would encourage you, if you're going to use city money, to think about that issue as it relates to the city of Chanhassen. As it relates to the apartment complex specifically, I guess I have probably four different concerns. Number one, I'd like to see that you minimize any kind of disruption of the existing tree canopy or shrub canopy in that particular area. I would agree as was said earlier, you can't replace existing trees with new trees and new growth. It just doesn't, that trade off from my perspective just isn't there. I think the sight lines, the protection of the trails and the sight by others that are on the lake, I think it's important to maintain the existing canopy. That would mean that if you have a holding pond or whatever, I would prefer to have that on the other side of Highway 101. Not down by the lake. I question the affect on the outlet to the lake going to Rice Marsh and down further down into the other lakes in Chanhassen. Also, the sewer. I know that cost is certainly important as you develop these particular projects but if the sewer does have an affect on the tree canopy, my preference would be to jack it under 101 and take it to the east if that's, or to the north, whatever that appropriate direction is. I can't stress enough the importance of maintaining that canopy and the wildlife and such that it does maintain in that particular area. I also have concern, and I know that Bob has done the study relative to traffic and I have the utmost respect for Bob and the other city staff but I have a major concern about the traffic at Highway 101. I have concern about my family coming out and trying to get on 101 in the morning and in the evenings. There's a tremendous amount of traffic that goes on there. I can't quote the numbers of trips that occur on that road but there are a number of driveways, much like the Pleasant View area. That are hidden driveways. You have cars that are coming through there that are supposed to be going 40 mph. I don't have a good sense of what the actual speed is but I know I take my life in my hands whenever I try to get my mail out of my mailbox. And that's another area that I think from a traffic pattern that ought to be a concern for the city. The 6O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 usage of the lake. I know that they mentioned that the dock or whatever the case might be is not an issue at this particular point in time. My concern is, there's only so many things that I can keep track of as a homeowner in the city of Chanhassen. If this is put off until sometime later, I'm not sure that I'm going to know that it's an issue or not and I'm not sure that I will have the opportunity to give input on that particular issue. I'd like to see that addressed, along with the full project. I have some serious concerns about the impact of additional boat traffic on the lake. There's a number of motor boats that get on from the park and also by residents and I have serious concern if you sit out there, and I'd invite you to come over some evening on a weekend and see the number of boats out there and the concern I have about safety on that particular lake. That is an issue and I have some concerns about what 162 unit apartment complex, what additional usage that would bring to the lake. The lake's everybody's. Everybody ought to be able to use it, whether you're a lakeowner, a homeowner on the lake or whatever, but at some point the usage goes beyond what is safe and I think the city needs to consider that at the same time. The last issue I have is just the process, and I alluded to that earlier. I think that the Lake Susan Homeowners Association or the people on the lake have been good neighbors. We've participated and given and had our input solicited relative to Rosemount. Relative to the Lake Susan Park. Lake Susan Hills. Chanhassen Hills and we've been solicited and given our opinion and have worked very closely with the city in the past to try to make, develop those developments successful and have, be successful in the city but yet have the least kind of impact on the lake so that the lake is available for all citizens of Chanhassen. In this particular situation and as I alluded to earlier, I wasn't even informed of this particular development that was occurring. For some reason, and I've indicated the city doesn't know I exist. I've lived here for 25 years, I don't get any information coming from the city and I've tried over the last couple years to try to get on the mailing list and for whatever reason the computer says I don't exist, and maybe I don't. Maybe for tax purposes that would be great. But we've been good citizens and we would like to have our input heard on these issues and all the other issues that I've talked about. Rosemount or Lake Susan Hills. Chanhassen Hills and whatever. We've been involved early in this process. We went to the Planning Commission meeting and there were comments made by planning cormnission members, this may be a surprise to you but we've known about this for a couple years. Well it was a surprise to us and I'm not sure as a resident of Chanhassen I ought to be surprised by a development that's going in next to my home that's been discussed for 2 or 3 years and we're supposed to organize our ideas and give our input into something that's well on it's way to being approved by the planning commission and the city council. So those are concerns about the process and for someone that doesn't have the time, and we don't have the time to look in the paper and see the issues. I know that city staff is very busy at the same time but there needs to be a better process so that homeowners, as in the past, were able to get involved early in the planning processes for such a major project and I appreciate your time, thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thanks. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else who'd like to be heard? Jim Jacoby: My name's Jim Jacoby, 8410 Great Plains Boulevard. I remember at the last meeting they talked about the parking for the facility and I didn't hear it mentioned today. That there's a city ordinance usually 2 per apartment building. But you're only requiring 1.7 for this particular development and I just, you know as you said, we can't do anything about anything else but I know with 101 there, I mean if you have to have any residents crossing from that apartment building across to use parking across the street or something, I think that would be very dangerous. So if there isn't sufficient parking on that 61 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 site, that would be a real concern to me and I would think anybody there. I just want to reiterate what everyone else said. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thanks. Bob or Kate, do you? Bob Generous: There was, as part of their proposal reduction in the parking at 1.87 spaces per unit. Ordinance, the code said 2. What they've done with the one bedrooms is basically they're providing 1.7 per one bedroom unit and 2 per two bedroom unit. Kate Aanenson: You can...this project, trying not to overpark this project. We don't believe that it will be a problem... Councilman Labatt: What about for guests and all that? Kate Aanenson: They can go through that. They went through that, the architect can go through that with the, they went through that with the planning commission. That was addressed and they felt comfortable with what, they've got underground parking and then some of, similar to what we have in the senior center. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there anybody else who'd like to heard? Al Klingelhutz: It'd be unusual if I didn't say something, wouldn't it? ...I thought some of the things that Wayne said were very appropriate to this project. I do have a lot of concern about the trees on the project. I'd like to reiterate that we aren't so much against the apartment complex but it's what it's going to do to the property it's setting on and we would sure like a little better buffer between the lake and the apartment building. A 50 foot building sticking up on a hill will sure stand out there like a sore thumb if you don't have some buffer between the lake and the buildings themselves. The holding pond, which the intended spot to put it right now will just destroy an enormous amount of mature trees and I think there should be a better place to put a holding pond than to take trees down with the Tree City of Chanhassen is supposed to be protecting as much as possible. One other issue that I'm a little bit concerned about, and we went, we just went through the same issue with Pleasant View Road. I don't know how many of you live on 101 but it's a road very similar to Pleasant View. It's got a lot of sharp curves and...that there's more sirens go down 101 from the police department than any other road in Chanhassen. And the main reason for that is they're so dog gone many accidents down there. Just this morning there was an accident in my driveway. Didn't know it was there but I was informed about it tonight and there's a lot of glass laying on the road yet. Before the park trail was there, many of them went in the ditch. Well now the park trail kind of protects some of them. They finally get to stop before they enter the ditch because the ditch is only about that wide. And going from the other side, coming from the south going towards the north, I've seen several tracks across the trail going down into my field. So it's not an accident free road and the more traffic we're going to put on it, the more of those things are going to happen so I think we should take a close look at that. I think the three main issues from the people living on the lake and around the area are traffic, tree protection and the area where the holding pond is going to be. We've worked with the city on Lake Susan Hills. Lake Susan Hills has a public land along the lake, all the way along. It was demanded when development came in. The city agreed to it at that time. The residents along there have lived with it. They're going to be looking at this same project across the lake and if there's going to be a dock there, they're going to say hey, we would like to have a dock too. But I think a precedent has been set, especially Lake Susan Hills and Rosemount. When Rosemount came in, in order for them to get their development that they wanted, they had to stay above the tree line, which is 350 feet away from the lake in order to get the zoning they wanted. Some of these things I think 62 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 the city can stand up for and give the people on Lake Susan and the surrounding area the protection that they'd like to have as far as their views are concerned. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Anybody else? If not, we'll bring it back up to council. Comments. Councilman Labatt: Kate, is there an alternative site for a holding pond or not? Kate Aanenson: This was identified, and this...this site was always kind of identified as a pond holding... There's an ongoing battle, I've got staff people. I've got trees and wetland protection in my department and it's a trade off...We were aware of that when we went into this project. The Klingelhutz' are very much aware on working with St. Hubert's Church. We spent 2 years working on this EAW process. Getting the zoning in place. A lot of articles in the paper. We spent a lot of time going through all the issues and those of you that were on the council at the time remember the contention and the battles and there was a lot of hashing to where we are. We're certainly...We worked very hard with them and we had problems where we... We've had continued growth in 1994 Mr. Klingelhutz sold his property for the Mission. That added traffic and changed the complexity down there...so we did spend a lot of time looking at this...And the beachlot issue I'll address too. To get a beachlot you have to have.., but to get that they have to have a dedicated lot. A beachlot which at a minimum you get one dock with three boats .... need 30,000 square feet and 200 feet of lake frontage...and at this point I'm not sure how they can do that. Councihnan Labatt: They don't have it. Kate Aanenson: They don't have it. They'd have to... It was never our intent to give them a beachlot... Lake Susan beachlot that was put in place with Rosemount that acquisition of a trail was given.., buy that property. The rest of it...Unfortunately it's hard to cross 101. Councilman Labatt: And a couple other questions. On page 5, underneath grading. Staff has reviewed the proposed northerly building elevations and based on the proposed grades they appear acceptable with some modifications. What are the modifications? Dave Hempel: I believe some of those modifications were adjusting the building height in some of the areas to reduce the slope and the elevation of potential retaining walls in that north building. And on further review of that, what would have happened in having to raise the elevation of the building to steepen the parking lot grades and also bring the building elevation up in the air. I don't think that section actually got updated. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we did update that. That was a question that Councilwoman Jansen...and we went through that...change the building elevation... Councilman Labatt: So the modifications... Two paragraphs down the quality of earthwork involved in this project is unknown at this time. What's your rough estimate as far as... How many yards is a truck? 107 ...and then under the recommendations, I did not see any designation of handicap stalls. What's the ratio as far as the number of stalls? Kate Aanenson: I don't know...building code. 63 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: ...our joint meeting we talked about senior citizen stalls. The biggest part of the... adequate number along side the handicap and the next designated stalls would be designated as handicap, or as senior citizens? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Labatt: That's all I have for right now. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I've only got four. Try to be brief here. Site plan looks good for the most part. I've got four issues of concern. One's come up already. Since I've got a vote, I'm going to throw my two cents worth in on it as well. That holding pond I would just as soon see it moved to the east side of the highway as well. And the reason is, I know we've done a lot of studies on it. The trees on the far, on the west side to me are a more acceptable alternative than to destroy them and put a holding pond that close to Lake Susan because visually in my opinion Rice Marsh Lake is not as appealing as Lake Susan. I wouldn't be as opposed to seeing a holding pond on that side of the highway. I'm not for a beachlot or a dock, and anyway I don't think they can get it anyway. I'd like to see a substantial buffer zone south of the existing single family homes and the complex that is designed. I'd like to see a maximum setback as possible while still allowing them to build. For the buildings to protect the vegetation and the sight lines so however you can do that. Those are the things I'm concerned about, based on all the calls, letters, e- mails. Kate Aanenson: I'll ask Dave if you have water go uphill. Councilman Engel: Say that again? Kate Aanenson: Water run uphill. Councilman Engel: Can you pull that stuffover to Rice Marsh? I thought you were trying to decide. Kate Aanenson: There's a wetland but there's also... I understand the issue. We all do. Councilman Engel: Is there any method at all to doing this? Solar generator in there. Yeah, a lift station. A lift station right across the highway... I got my chance to weigh in. I'm done. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilperson Jansen. Any comments? Councilwoman Jansen: Any comments. I won't be quite so brief. Actually going back to what was originally stated as we started looking at this, and I'm coming back to what can the city do to address the site plan? What flexibility is there? Well from my understanding of why we do PUD's, the whole description is the PUD zone is used to allow for more flexibility design standards while creating a higher quality and a more sensitive proposal. So we do have something of a catch. You get into the site plan findings and it talks about number one, the consistency with the elements and objectives as the city's development guide, including the comp plan. Road mapping. Other plans which I think ties in with our whole strategic planning and protecting natural resources. And I guess before I go further, let me back up a step. I'm not opposed to the project and I have said that to anyone who's called or mentioned the project. It's an excellent project. It's the location of the project and what it does to this particular site that it would seem that if we exercise some of our policies here, we could better guide it to fit this lot, if 64 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 this is where it's going to go. And again coming back to the whole comp plan and the conversations on our natural resources. Point three, maybe at some time in the future we need to go back and give it some numbers or some figures because this is the one that I keep coming to and thinking it should have better controls on how we're impacting this property. The preservation of the site in it's natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and deciding grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. And when I come to that and within this site grading, it's currently with the canopy cover of 94% and by the time we get done grading, it's at 11% canopy coverage. Realizing that we do require that they reforest it back up to 35%. We have to get back to the 35% so that will be all of the new canopy that goes in. But what can we do to guide this to help preserve the 24% that right now is just going to end up being new planting? So that's one of my issues that comes out of this paragraph. And then when you hear 80,000 yards of fill, how is that, how is that sensitive grading on a property? We're not going to have any of the natural topography of this site left. So we're not accomplishing number 3, and again I understand that what we've done is we've looked at this as a significant project. It would be an asset to the community. It has a lot of the concepts that we would like to bring into Chanhassen. This leads you to wonder if it's the right site. Point four to that is create a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. You go down to six and it's protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound, site buffers, preservation of views, light and air. And we're identifying that this is a significant trail so it's not that it's just the residents who live on the lake, it's a community asset. And that definitely is one of the things that's pointed to in our own comprehensive plan and the significance of these features to the entire community. From the comp plan, Chanhassen is fortunate to have a significant natural amenities in the forms of creek and river corridors. There's a significant creek corridor here. The corridors represent significant visual, environmental and recreational amenities to the conununity. Creek corridors create ideal locations for city trails which is exactly what we've done with this one. So you know, and to tree cover, from again the comp plan and I'm commending staff as I'm reading these. Realize it's our city staff that wrote these comp plans. I mean these are our policies and so what I'm coming back to with staff is how can we as a city council, as we're reviewing these, make sure that we're helping provide the guidelines to keep these developments within... Some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features to this day are the forested areas that exist within the community. These areas contribute to the open spaces and rural flavor of the community. They are important determinants of the city's image, health and livability and as such should be preserved. In addition to the aesthetic and social contributions, tree cover has economic benefits for the city as well. It is well documented that trees reduce air and noise pollution, storm water runoff, and the heat island affect, all of which affect the city's expenditures of energy and storm water retention. And I'll stop reading from the comp plan with, despite all measures employed, the city is still losing tree covered residential, industrial and infrastructure NURP ponds development. Since trees do serve as an indicator to community health and image and has significant economic impacts, more commitment to their preservation is needed. So I'm acknowledging and I've got this disparity between what our policies say at the high level we're trying to accomplish, and how we don't have the mechanism in place to protect one of the last developable large properties on one of our major significant lakes. And that it is in the downtown corridor. I realize it's gotten late but I also pulled the Highway 5 corridor study and staff knows how significant this study too points to maintaining the natural features and the flavor of the city as you come down Highway 5. And how many of our residents are going to be coming into the Villages and what flavor would they get if we maintained more of this property compared to if we completely level it and lose all of the trees. It will look like another development. You'll never know what was there previously so if we have the mechanisms that would allow us within the PUD to leave more of the significant features on the lot, and 94% down to 11%, can we somehow maintain closer to that 35% of the mature vegetation. 65 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Kate Aanenson: Can I just answer that real quick? When we did the EA we did the whole 60 acres as a whole. You're looking at one parcel of that whole 60 acres. We looked at the whole... What was the significant features. What was selected was south of St. Hubert's, the knoll with the trees on it. That was selected as significant and believe me there was a lot of, Mark can attest to that. There was a lot of teeth gnashing .... number how much dirt went out with St. Hubert's. We agreed that this site would be altered. There was a lot of discussion. It wasn't...we went through a lot of discussion. Two years of discussion. So when you say we're compromising, I understand where you're coming from that. We looked at this as an entire 64 acres for Villages on the Ponds. It was agreed at that point we would acquiesce...zoning this piece of property, understanding that there'd be tree loss. But the compromise was we would preserve that area on the other side. So that's how it came about. It wasn't like every piece was to have... We saved a significant...St. Hubert's, and I don't have that quantity. I'd be happy to get that for you but... Councilwoman Jansen: Well and even to that point, when you look at the amount of tree coverage that was present on the original park of the Villages, a lot of that was leveled. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess and where I'm coming from from my earlier question is I would like to see that number as to what has been preserved on the other side of St. Hubert's so that we can see where we are to where our goal was on the preservation, because the EAW does refer to more tree maintenance. Or maintaining more of the natural habitat that's there now than you can see. And if that is a fact, and this is the more visible piece of property, shouldn't we be going back, if we can, no matter what that initial plan was? The PUD provides us the ability to have some flexibility here. If I'm not mistaken, it's high density but that's a range from. Kate Aanenson: It's a framework. He said this is going to be... Roger Knutson: Councilmember Senn. The City has a lot of discretion as Councilmember Jansen mentioned in putting together a PUD, but you've already exercised that discretion. The City approved the planned unit development in 1996. It was in that document you decided that this was the appropriate use of this property. That's where it went through the council at that time went through a checklist of what is right. }Iow does the comprehensive plan work in this area? What do we want to preserve? What don't we want to preserve? All that discretion was exercised at that time. We're not here now, a proposal to amend the planned unit development. That's in place. The zoning and the appropriate uses have already been established. We're here on frankly with very limited discretion on a site plan review to determine whether this site plan complies with the planned unit development under our ordinance requirements in place. The use and concept has already been decided. Councilwoman Jansen: Absolutely. I'm not questioning the use, but the actual site plan is very different from the original plan in the EAW, and that's what I'd like to revisit and see how this new site plan has come in compared to the original EAW because the buildings are, the footprints are larger. There's more soil excavation than was originally forecast because of the tiering. You know where are we at compared to what we were trying to accomplish on this lot? The NURP pond is larger than was originally shown. So there's more tree loss due to the pond. There's the issue of you know which part of the site do we bring the sewer into. Northern? Southern? It seems that if we could go back on this proposal, hearing the residents input as well, I mean they've got issues with this piece of property that are legitimate. Maybe we didn't consider then them but it seems like there are some variations between this site plan 66 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 and the EAW. If we could just take a look at them and see if there's room for us to be able to negotiate this to save more of the natural feature of that property. Whether it's the change in the grading so we're removing less of it. It's less costly. I know we addressed that at the EDA meeting. That if you could cut the amount of fill that they were having to move from the site, it would be a terrific cost savings to them. Have we explored that further? Have we voiced as a community that that would be the route that we would like to explore is keeping more of the topography on this site? What are the other options? And then have we chased them? ...changing the original agreement with the development. Roger Knutson: I've not compared it against the EAW. More importantly, or as importantly, is what does the PUD say they can do and how does that compare with what they say with this. And staff has made their analysis. Obviously you can make your own. Councilwoman Jansen: Those were my key points. I mean if, I guess I would hope that we're not in such a hurry that we would be able to table this tonight. Go back with staff. Review those parts of the site plan. See what kind of flexibility and options that there are that we can work with. The NURP pond site. What we're doing with the sewer. Get the update on the traffic study, which has already been requested but you know let's move on it. so that we can address the safety issues, and back to the safety issues. I wondered again, it's a state road, correct? 101. There isn't a pedestrian, there isn't a sign to say, a warning of pedestrians as you approach the trail. Can we install those? So there's more warning that you've got? Dave Hempel: I believe there's' an advance warning sign for the trail crossing is what it actually is. But if not we'll certainly check on that. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah, it just seemed like maybe it could be a 'little bit more prominent. I think it says trail crossing but I'm more so was thinking if we could almost make it more crosswalk like so that pedestrians can get across. I don't know if on a trail, can you say pedestrian. Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk? Does it? Maybe we can take a look at it and see if we can make something more visible. I know that was a real issue. But I guess that's the direction I'm going is to see if we can't table this and review some of the points that have come up as far as making this more sensitive to the site. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's see, my contacts have been in 18 hours. I'll be real brief. You know I think part of it is, Kate's been trying to say but it's my recollection on this and I don't know whether history's good or bad sometimes, but I mean the original Village on the Ponds concept didn't even include a church. And at the point that St. Hubert's came in and because the driving force behind this development and the PUD agreement, there were a lot of folks that turned out and said let's make this happen and let's get the church in there and let's cut the deals we need to cut and do the things we need to do to make that all happen. And that's what we did. And effectively at that time, very early on in this project when a lot of this, a lot of these things were put in place but especially the PUD agreement which governs basically all of this and as I said when we started tonight, and as Roger' reiterated, that because of that agreement and because of those trade-offs and everything else we did, we have very little leeway on this. But that's why I really don't think it makes a lot of sense to just delay for delay sake because the answers are going to remain the same. Those deals are in the agreement and you can't change them so. But beyond that I'll be quiet. Is there a motion that somebody's like to put on the table? Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table. Acting Mayor Senn: Is there a second? Seeing no second, is there another motion? 67 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: I'll make a motion to approve Site Plan #99-9 per staffrecommendations and the addition of number 49 that...parking stalls for senior citizens. Whatever is appropriate. Councilwoman Jansen: Would you accept a friendly amendment that we review the NURP pond location, where the sewer is going across? Councilman Labatt: On the south? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. So number 39 would go back to the original phrasing of 39. Acting Mayor Senn: What page is the original on? Councilwoman Jansen: It's not in our packet. Bob Generous: It doesn't show up. Acting Mayor Senn: Then would you please read the language into your motion? Kate Aanenson: We've got it here Linda. Councilwoman Jansen: Do you? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we'll get it for you. The one that was in the planning commission? Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. So number 39 would instead read, sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended from the proposed cOnnection at Main Street and Highway 101. The sanitary sewer and water lines shall be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. Acting Mayor Senn: So that's different than relooking at it. You're saying that's the way it will be done? Kate Aanenson: Relooking at the NURP ponds is how I understood it. Councilwoman Jansen: And relook at the NURP pond location. Or configuration. Kate Aanenson: Sizing. Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt: Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel: Acting Mayor Senn: Is that friendly amendment acceptable to the? Yes. Okay, is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Okay, any discussion on the motion? 68 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the Ponds development on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition, each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units, plans prepared by KKE, dated 4/16/99, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Site plan approval is contingent on the city granting final plat approval for Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds, creating a block and lot designation for the site upon which the apartment complex is to be built. o A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25 years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the installation of signage. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public right-of- ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. o A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site construction. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are nOt directly visible from off site. 7. Development of a beachlot shall require separate Conditional Use Permit approval by the city, The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant to city ordinance. An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, 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. 11. Submit radius turn dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 12. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, 69 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 negotiable grades or other similar conditions, thc Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Because apparatus access roads are not accessible to within 150 feet of all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection features. a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system. b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved NFPA 13 system. c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor. d. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code. All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and approval. 13. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. 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. 14. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 15. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. 16. Regarding the existing buildings on site to bi removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value. 17. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 18. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 19. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed. 20. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned. 21. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time. 22. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities. 23. The building owner and or designer should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 24. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation. 7O City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 25. The number of overstory trees shall be increased to meet minimum reforestation requirements. 26. Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering. 27. Grading within the bluff and bluff setback areas shall be prohibited. The applicant shall redesign the site facilities and/or incorporate the use of retaining walls to eliminate grading into the bluff setback zone. 28. Utility improvements which lie outside of the public right-of-way for.drainage and utility easements shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or successors. 29. The existing house and outbuildings on the property shall be razed within 30 days after final plat is recorded. In addition, the well and septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health/building codes. 30. The access point onto Trunk Highway 101 is subject to MnDOT approval. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for construction of the right-mm lanes and all work within Highway 101 right-of-way. 31. The applicant shall design and construct the public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements. 32. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any draintile found during construction. The applicant will comply with the city engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the draintile. 33. The applicant shall develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) to control erosion during construction. Additional Type I erosion control fencing will be required around the grading limits along Highway 101. Wood fiber blanket and/or sod shall be utilized at all slopes in excess of3:1 and in the ditches along Highway 101. 34. The driveway access from Highway 101 to the site shall be a minimum of 36 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter with a left mm lane, shared through right mm drive aisle. The main driveway aisle width from the garage entrances to the parking lot shall be 28-feet wide, face-to-face. A 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of the driveway aisle from Highway 101 to the sidewalk proposed for Building A. 35. All private streets/parking lots shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Ordinance No. 20- 1118 which requires a minimum 26-foot wide driveway aisle built to 7-ton design. 36. The applicant shall update the traffic study prepared by SRF for Villages on the Ponds to take into consideration the additional apartment building gaining access at the intersection of Main Street and 71 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Highway 101 and install any necessary traffic mitigation measures recommended in the updated traffic study. 37. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an interim trail connection around Lake Susan to the pedestrian crossing at Highway 101 during construction. This interim trail section may consist of a class V gravel surface. 38. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate trail easements which will be no longer utilized. In addition, the applicant shall rededicate to the City a new 20-foot wide trail easement centered upon the new trail alignment. 39. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended from the proposed connection at Main Street and Highway 101. The sanitary sewer and water lines shall be jacked underneath Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted. Staff will relook at the NURP pond location. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the trunk storm sewer from the proposed regional stormwater pond to the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant will be entitled to credits against the SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line in accordance the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 41. Plans shall be revised to incorporate an outlet control structure in the regional pond. The outlet control structure shall be located on the southwesterly comer of the pond to discharge into the creek versus Lake Susan. 42. The applicant shall re-evaluate the water needs due to the fact that a looped water system is not available. 43. If material is imported or exported from the site, the applicant will need to provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 44. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota DNR, MPCA and MnDOT. 45. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer and pond calculations for post- and pre-development conditions. The calculations shall be for a 1 O-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond shall be designed in accordance with the Villages on the Ponds storm drainage plan (NURP standards). 46. The applicant shall redesign the parking lot per staffs alternate parking lot plan dated May 12, 1999. 47. Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 48. Shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with respect to congestion and traffic hazards. 49. Staff shall reviewing the parking plan to make accommodations for senior citizen parking. 72 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 14 FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FT. LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DECK/PORCH; LOT 42~ SHORE ACRES; BOB AND BRINN WITT. Public Present: Name Address Fred Potthoff J. F. Jessup Brinn & Bob Witt Joy Smith Steven Williams Don Sitter 9231 Lake Riley Blvd. 6350 Minnewashta Woods 8572 Cardiff Lane, Eden Prairie 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9391 Kiowa Trail 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Cindy Kirchoff: This item was reviewed and denied at the June 16th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. In January of this year the applicant was granted variances from the minimum lot size requirement, minimum lot width and RSF district. Minimum lot width for a lake access for a dock. Staff supported all of these variances so the applicant could make reasonable use of the land. In addition the applicant was granted a 10 foot front yard setback variance, a 3 foot western side yard setback variance, and a 4 foot lakeshore setback. Staff did not support these variances. After a survey was completed for the site it was determined that the desired home footprint does not fit within the setbacks permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore the applicant is requesting an additional 10 feet, thus a 14 foot variance to accommodate a screen porch and deck. Staff believes the applicant can make a reasonable use of the site with the variances granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and also makes comment that there is buildable area to the east of the proposed garage that is under utilized. The problem is the home footprint, not the setbacks that were permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Therefore staff recommends denial. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Any questions of staff from council at this point? Councilwoman Jansen: If I could, a late question came up actually from a phone call from the residents as to the actual drainage from this property. Has this gone through the engineering department to take a look at the whole drainage issue from the lot to the circle and to the lake. I think we lost Dave didn't we? Cindy Kirchoff: The survey does show the drainage direction and maybe Anita might want to comment on this. If you want to. Anita Benson: Not having specifically looked at the survey, we do review it when it comes in for a building permit application so if you approve the variances, we'll be reviewing it with the normal building permit. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, great. Thanks. Councilman Labatt: Are the arrows on this mean the flow? On this map. 73 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 Mark Trefrey: Well we're supposed to be done by the end of this year, and as you all know we've got a time line with winter so our biggest issue is that we need to get all of our underground work done before it freezes. And it's certainly our anticipation to meet that deadline and get our system done hopefully by the end of this year. Now as they're going it, certain sections of the community are going to benefit. There's a certain tie over. It's not all tied over at one time so as we're going through the community, you will benefit as you're tied over onto the new system. Mayor Mancino: And no more outages. Mark Trefrey: Well I will say this, that outages are a reality, and especially on this system that is this old. The whole reason we're going to go through this process is to limit the number of outages but during the construction season, and when we construct a new upgrade, we will have a number of outages. We'll try to limit them as best we can but it's inevitable that we are going to have some interruption of service. One of the things we try to do is we send out a package of information in advance of the process. When it starts. Beginning of the process. We use our local access service to try to update people on where we are and where we're going so we'll try to handle it as best we can so we are going to have some stretch of interrupted service but they try to keep it in a local area. But it's all for hopefully the benefit into the future. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming tonight. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THREE 3-STORY 54 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS (162 UNITS) ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD- MIXED USE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101 AT MAIN STREET IN VILLAGES ON THE POND~ CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT~ THE SHELARD GROUP; COUNCILMAN LABATT AND COUNCILWOMAN JANSEN. Public Present: Name Address Lori & Mark Jesberg Milton Bathke Matthew Noah Wayne & Kathy Holtmeier Walter E. & Marion Paulson Shirley Robinson Mary Jane Klingelhutz Barbara Jacoby Lynn Wyffels Vernelle Clayton Bob Smithsburg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 980 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8524 Great Plains Blvd. 8528 Great Plains Blvd. 8502 Great Plains Blvd. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 8516 Great Plains Blvd. 11455 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie 422 Santa Fe Circle 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North Mayor Mancino: MayI have a motion on this? Councilman Labatt: I motion to the City Council at our August 9th meeting if possible reconsider approval of Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the Ponds, Outlot J, Villages on the Ponds. And that the council instruct the staff to review the following issues and explore the possibility of alternatives for resolution and those being, preservation of the creek area south of the pedestrian trail. Look at the location and size of the NURP pond. The need of a traffic study prior City Council Meeting ~ July 12, 1999 to proceeding with this development to verify that it is not premature. Preservation of the natural topography of the site as much is practical by adhering to the original building footprint and original approved grading plan. Provision of senior housing needs and requirement to fulfill the city's grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Mayor Mancino: Discussion. Discussion from councilmembers on this before we take a vote on it. Councilman Labatt: I'll start it real quick here and if anybody else wants to comment but I'm bringing this up because issues have been brought to my attention, actually before by some residents down in Mission Hills and on the lake about this and after the fact that more concems were brought up about the pedestrian trail. The area south of the trail and the need for a traffic study. The pedestrian path. Environmental concerns were brought up about the amount of trees being loss on the property and the allocation of the NURP pond. Councilwoman Jansen had brought up some issues that night and asked that we tabled it and in hindsight it may have been a good thing to do but, it was approved and now I'm looking to reconsider this. It is by no way an attempt to kill the project. I just want to look at these five things that I've talked about and have staff work with the developer and get them answered. Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I would want to start by echoing what Councilman Labatt just said and that's that it's not that it's looking at our disapproving the project, and I do think I said that two weeks ago. It's an excellent project and I'm not suggesting that we go back and we try to change any of the original agreements. In fact now after reviewing some of the terms of those previous negotiations with Villages on the Ponds, I'm more concerned that we might be altering the agreement with the original motion. In the discussion that we had two weeks ago it was Councilman Senn and Mr. Knutson who spoke of the previous concessions that had been negotiated with Villages on the Ponds and our inability to really affect or change any of the project due to those existing agreements, which caught my attention and I certainly appreciated that notation being made because I did go back because we hadn't really reviewed the background that had affected this particular project. We were looking at it singularly. I went back and refreshed myself on what some of those agreements had been, and some of those negotiations. And as Councilman Senn had indicated, the projects are really very interrelated. There were a lot of negotiations going on at the time that the Villages on the Ponds PUD was being drafted. We were at the same time looking at the St. Hubert's property. All of that happened over a couple of years as far as really reaching that final PUD and it was a tremendous amount of effort on both staff and council's part as far as putting that agreement together, and I can certainly appreciate it. That was finalized three years ago, and I didn't realize how long it had been going backwards that that got done. What caught my attention as I went through the original negotiations and agreements is that several of the concerns that each one of us spoke to two weeks ago, and some of the concerns that were raised by the residents, were addressed in the original agreements. They were key issues that were definitely spoken to and there were trade offs that were arranged in order to address some of those concerns between the different pieces of the property within the agreement. The spirit of the original agreement is really well documented if you go back through all of the rezoning agreements, the PUD, the wetland alteration permit and the final plat review for the entire project. This particular piece of property had some very specific conditions and considerations that were discussed and made it unique to what some of the overall points were that were made for the project. So there were some that were very specific to just this piece of property. And they termed within the documents as trade-offs with the developer for "leniency of ordinances applied to other City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 areas of the Villages on the Ponds development". So I guess not to belabor it but tonight in wanting to maybe better justify and warrant the reconsider, it seems that I don't know, maybe everyone has a fantastic memory for all of the detail that was in all of those documents from 3 years ago, but what I'm hoping we might be able to conclude is that rather than moving forward on one piece of this very intricate puzzle, if we can take a work session and walk through what all of the agreement terms are. What the trade-offs were and what we would need to realize and be aware of is that any variance that we intentionally or unintentionally put into place with this agreement that we have right now affect the rest of the parcels because there were those sorts of trade-offs. If we do this, then we do this. So if we go forward with the motion that we have currently, I would still encourage us to sit down rather quickly and review all of the current agreements that we have just now been approving and realizing that when we did the cycle shop, when we did the swim school, none of these specific trade-offs related to those properties so they didn't come up. There was no affect. Those all fell under all of the general guidelines that had been applied through the mass grading on the north side. But some of those trade-offs then for those properties exist on this parcel. And again, one of the examples of how closely interrelated these pieces are is that it's noted within the reports that there's a limited amount of impervious surface space available to accommodate any additional wetland mitigation, and it refers to site plans would have to be revised to accommodate any additional mitigation needs created by alterations to the original site plans. Now I'm not implying that we're impacting wetlands here that weren't already planned for. I'm going to the context in that statement that the impervious surface is that delicately balanced between all of the pieces so if we affect something here that wasn't originally planned for, we're now looking at having to go back and maybe do our balancing act before we've had an opportunity to sit down and very consciously make that decision. And ! don't know maybe everyone else, go ahead. Mayor Mancino: No, go ahead. Councilwoman Jansen: Maybe everyone else is tuned enough to what those original agreements are to be able to do that balancing act. We didn't discuss it so I certainly wasn't aware of it. I did pull some of those documents if anyone wants to just take a look at it tonight as far as determining if there is any justification that would be warranted, but again I'd want to emphasize that what we're reviewing is in total. It's not an objection to the conceptual plan for this property but does it, have we truly evaluated our options as a council to those other policies as to where we're going with Villages on the Pond. I don't know that we've, I know we haven't discussed it. We haven't had conversations as this council since we're just together since January, on that project so I would encourage again for us to sit down as a council rather soon and go through those things. But I was hoping that we might be able to get as little delay to the developer as possible but at least enable ourselves to sit down and just go through this while we can still make those very conscience decisions. Mayor Mancino: Okay thank you. Any other council person? Kate, if you would talk a little bit about your staff has taken a lot of time to go over the entire PUD and look at the averaging and the ordinances. I mean that's what you have spent. Kate Aanenson: ...PUD. We did different sectors and we did make another variance that Mark's well aware of with Famous Dave's. We had to switch some sector to commercial. We had additional commercial. We are keeping a running balance. There were some conditions put on that to add additional. Famous Dave's went away but Ruby Tuesdays is coming in. They will still need that same number of sector balancing. It's not any different than the PUD with the balancing we keep track of as far as the EAW that was put in place for Chan Business Center where we said there will be so much industrial. So much office. So much warehousing. And you know the Weather Service had a significant amount of open space so that's kind of carrying the rest of those pieces down there. I think what may be City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 helpful for us to, when we're showing you similar what we've done on Chan Business Center, if we give you a printout of where we are. Kind of a running checklist so you can see. We are doing that internally. Mayor Mancino: Because that's your responsibility. Kate Aanenson: We have to be consistent with that and I think that'd be helpful certainly to show you that so internally we are tracking. Again, pointed out when Famous Dave's came in there was a glitch and we had to make some changes. You agreed to change that sectoring so there is a balance, a check and balance as far as... Mayor Mancino: So you're doing that as every site plan comes in, you're doing that review which is under the overall PUD contract and what we have set up which was set up in '967 '977 '96? Kate Aanenson: Yes. There are a couple things we're tracking. Not only the type of things, each a different sector but then there's also impervious. Mayor Mancino: Impervious surface. Densities, yeah. And all that. Kate Aanenson: ...housing units that can go there. That sort of thing, correct. Mayor Mancino: Sure, that were very, very specific. Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: IfI might add to that, and I realize that some of those things were very set. In conversations with Mr. Knutson today on just clarifying where all of the guidelines do come from, not all of the agreement per se. I mean there were a lot of conversations, there was a lot of negotiation, numerous of the fine points and the trade-offs that were discussed didn't get document into the PUD. So if we're tracking off of that, we're not necessarily applying all of the spirit of the agreement and all of the trade-offs that were discussed. As a for instance to be very specific, the area south of the city trail was specifically spoken to in the original conversations about that being preserved. It was noted in the wetlands permit. It was not noted within the PUD and the city went to extra steps when development was threatening the east side of 101 south of the trail. The city stepped up and purchased that piece of property to preserve it and make sure that it stayed open space because that was the spirit of what the city was trying to accomplish. The piece of property now on the west side of 101 is the other half of what the conservation conversation was about. It was preserving the open space along the creek area from all of the direction that was given to us about how significant a resource that was to the point of not putting wetland mitigation in that area, but instead preserving the woodlands in order to also act as a water buffer going into the creek. Going into Rice Marsh Lake and eventually down to Lake Riley. It was identified as a very significant issue. Kate Aanenson: That's not a true statement. Mayor Mancino: Not in the EAW. There's a tennis court there. Kate Aanenson: ...we always envisioned on there. Councilwoman Jansen: It was shown in the right-of-way. It was shown where 101 's existing right now. It's where it was placed. Kate Aanenson: ...but in the text and the discussion that went on there, We envisioned that pond to be larger in the document. I don't want to mislead anybody but that was talked about as a ponding area. 10 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: It was shown as a ponding area, but there was very specific wordage about not impacting near that creek area or the cover. Kate Aanenson: ...there to be a pond there to handle the size that was necessary for development. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I did go back and look through the EAW and some of the things. I was only on the Planning Commission at that time but I looked back in some of the records that I had that showed the storm pond there on the south of the trail and just a little north of the creek and a tennis court and etc. Roger, can you add any insight legally? I mean this is a site plan and what are, I know that there was some discussion at the last meeting on this. Okay, long discussion on this. Roger Knutson: As I advised the council last time, and my advice is really about the same. In a site plan review it's in a sense a checklist review, not a policy making act and you take out the controlling, official controls. And see do they meet the standards in those official controls. You read, here's the PUD. Here's the X to ZZ requirements. Have they met, if they apply, or is there a conflict? And if you can point out that in the PUD as a way of example that it's a conflict with term ZZ, then you have a basis for turning down the site plan. Or if it's in some other ordinance that applies, you can say oh look at this ordinance. It doesn't meet this requirement. You can turn it down. If you can't find that sort of thing, you really don't have a legal basis for turning it down. Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion from Councilman Engel or Senn? Councilman Engel: I know this predates Councilpersons Labatt and Jansen .but it also predates my own term as well as yours Mayor and it is very complex. There's too many issues. I think to keep going back and retooling what staff spent literally years on with these developers, I'm not of a mind to reopen this. You've got to go along with the professionals we have on staff working with the people to put this together. So I'm not in favor of reopening. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, any comments? Councilman Senn: Well on many of the issues being raised, which I view as I'm going to say more of the regulatory or ordinance or contract type of issues. I think staff has done a good job of basically addressing those issues. Our staff is hardly known as being what you'd call a pro development staff, and if anything I think they look at these things every which way and backwards and forward to make sure the way they are. Three years ago when we did this agreement, it was a very, very lengthy process. It was a lengthy process leading up to it and a number of us fought very hard to make sure that there were a number of controls, restrictions, framework put in place that had to be adhered to all along the way. I mean I'm confident that that was all incorporated in and that staff you know had constantly I think monitors that. You know again that's something at least in my own case that I've...a number of times from the process of additional site plans coming in and Kate referencing the same occasion, that sort of thing. And the other issues that I hear are more related to affordable housing and housing for seniors. That sort of thing. I share that concern overall with the community and also share the importance of those issues. Unfortunately that's not the project we have in front of us. In my mind it's neither an affordable project nor a senior project. I mean it's effectively a market place project and that's who's tied up the land and that's who's brought it before us so I mean those are issues I think we definitely need to deal with. But as far as site plan approval goes, I mean that's not something we can deal with as it relates to the site plan approval on this particular project so given both sides of those things, having reviewed it, I just can't see any legal basis for us to basically reconsider elements or try to change the elements of a deal that's already there in place. At the same though, as I stated last meeting, is that not to 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 be short sighted, this is not the place to impact specific... The site plan review allows us very little leeway. But there are other considerations coming up before the EDA and City Council that council and EDA have a lot more leeway over .... requested the city for subsidy on this project. If that's the place that we want to impact that legally, and within the context of the rules we have to work with, then that's where it should be discussed and looked at and negotiated. But this is not the time nor the place nor the action for us to do that so I would not likewise favor reconsideration. Mayor Mancino: Tell me back in '96 etc when I know that the council wanted to see, I mean part of it was making sure that we had some affordable housing. Was here any discussion, and I'm jogging your memory here, about senior housing in this location at all or was it more just the discussion was around affordable housing? Councilman Senn: Well I mean, how would I say this? You know this thing was always kind of like a living, breathing thing. I mean when you talk about '96, that's when it culminated an agreement. I'm not sure that was negotiated, at least by my memory, for at least 2 years before that. The original concept we had for Villages on the Ponds is totally different than what you see there now. There was no church. You know when the church element became part of the deal and many members of the community came in and encouraged us to make it part of the deal and alter the project, and to make a number of let's say trade-off's as a result of that. I mean we listened to them and we did that but that's part of what also resulted in that eventual '96 agreement. And you know essentially at that point since that was a pretty significant alteration.., land area and everything else, that's also when we tighten up a whole bunch of specific issues. Like we didn't want big box retail and we didn't want this to become more strip commercial centers and we wanted affordable housing and we wanted a combination or a mix of housing with the retail and housing and the office but probably to me the one area in this whole thing that was always the most clear cut and the most easy to understand and..., or I'm going to say was never really changed much is the area we're talking about here. It has always been programmed to be fairly high density housing. Mayor Mancino: There was an office building. Councilman Senn: Along with office. Councilwoman Jansen: And medium density. Councilman Senn: Well my words were chosen poorly here. I mean basically the density...not low density type of housing in combination with the office and/or more one way than the other but I mean essentially that's, the only sad part I see in this is when I envisioned what we did back then as far as Villages on the Ponds... is it all had a fairly significant impact of affordable housing part. And I'm just saying at the time that was a big issue for me as well as some of the people on the council but you know again, there's a place we deal with that issue is where we talk about going on in this process with the EDA and council as it relates to that issue, not over a site plan review. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? We have a motion and a second so let us vote. Councilwoman Jansen: If I might, I thought maybe you were going to make comment. But and again. Not to belabor it but in following up on the comments that were just made, if we are thinking that we've got this thing buttoned up and we've got the tight controls over it, if anything I learned today in my conversation with Mr. Knutson is if it isn't in the PUD, it's not buttoned up. And that document on this project does not address the trade-off's so in trying to encourage us to just review it, I just wanted to make sure that we were going in with our eyes open and if all of you feel comfortable, then obviously we 12 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 do that. I would just like to encourage us to very quickly schedule to sit down to go through the Villages on the Ponds project and determine where we are or where we aren't compared to where we think we are. Since we haven't discussed it and maybe staff is feeling very confident that they've got the numbers so we should be able to come around and talk about this rather quickly and rather soon and then we will know where we are or aren't if we need to address anything based upon this. Mayor Mancino: I'm assuming Kate you feel very comfortable or you wouldn't have passed it onto us and made a recommendation. Okay. Kate Aanenson: The original proposal had two apartments and office building. We had 57 units to those two apartment buildings and office buildings. We always said... Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess again that's where I'm not sure where you're going back to as far as the beginning but the beginning on the project, this was guided as owner occupied condominiums and when the neighborhood turned out against the high occupancy apartments and Mr. Labatt lived in the area at the time, where St. Hubert's is now was going to be very high density, affordable housing and those neighbors turned out in droves and it moved off of that property. It was also designated that there would be a senior housing facility, and I'm not meaning to belabor the points. Again I realize that it was two years worth of going. Kate Aanenson: The PUD spells out, we would like to achieve so much rental and so much owner occupied. Councilwoman Jansen: It does spell that out. Kate Aanenson: It doesn't say which... Councilwoman Jansen: And that's where I think it would behoove us to...and we're doing housing over commercial on the other side of the road. Are those going to be owner occupied units? Kate Aanenson: That's where I go back to talking about a site plan issue Versus another type of. Councilwoman Jansen: Right and again, that's where I'm going to trade-off's. Mayor Mancino: I think obviously the rest, but Linda I think that the rest of the council feels comfortable with the rental being on, or at least the two council members feel comfortable and from what you did last week with the rental being on the west side of 101. Councilman Engel: The two issues, why don't you like him speak to it. Councilman Senn: I think the, aside from the reconsideration, which we're going to vote on here instead of, I think there's one good point being made here and that is that we should schedule kind of a session to get the people who aren't up to speed, up to speed. They should be up to speed on Villages on the Ponds. It's not a project that's going to end tomorrow or with the advent of this site plan going forward. It's going to be with us for years yet. The second element of that is that if, you know once everybody is up to speed on it and stuff, I think you know then if there's things that we want to look at and look at doing differently or if there's anything that impacts the site, then as I said before, the place we negotiate that is where we negotiate. This is not a negotiable part of the deal. We can approve the site plan and still renegotiate elements when they're asking us for money. Okay. So put it realistically, we're...and move forward on that basis. 13 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Did you have a few comments? Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. I said mine. Mayor Mancino: Okay a motion is on the floor. There's a second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to reconsider the request for site plan approval for three 3 story 54 unit apartment buildings (162 units) on 9.94 acres of property zoned PUD-Mixed Use, located on the west side of Highway 101 at Main Street in Villages on the Pond, Chanhassen Housing Development, The Shelard Group. Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman Labatt voted in favor of reconsideration. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Mancino: This will continue and will not be up for reconsideration and the City Manager and I will meet and talk about when to put this on a work session agenda. In fact I'm not quite sure when our next work session is. So we can do that but we will, Councilwoman Jansen, put it on a work session agenda. Councilwoman Jansen: Would you mind mentioning the EDA date? Mayor Mancino: The EDA date is July 29th, is that right? Thursday, Thursday, July 29th at what time? Scott Botcher: 7:00. Ah no. 6:30 or 7:00. Mayor Mancino: Usually 6:30. Again Thursday night, July 29"~ at 6:30 and they're here in the council chambers. So that will be the EDA meeting with who's comprised of the city council and two members at large that will be here tonight and we will be discussing the financing of the affordable housing for. these units. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 44,692 SQ. FT. TWO STORY TEMPERATURE CONTROL STORAGE BUILDING AND A 40 FT. SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT THE ESTABLISHED 30 FT. SETBACK ON 3.84 ACRES; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND PARK DRIVE; MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members .... approximately a 45,000 square foot building. It's a two story building located at the southwest comer of Park Drive and Highway 5. Currently it's a one level mini-storage and they're going to tear down a portion of the building at the comer and replace it with the temperature controlled building. The proposed location of the building is at the established setback of the existing structure there. On the northeast comer they are stepping the building away from the right-of-way to maintain the appropriate setback. There's approximately a 5 1/3 foot parapet at the top of the building for the screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. The building architecture consists of a base of rock face block and then the primary building material of exterior insulating finishing system. The colors are tan. They do have burgundy accents within the building. Staff believes that this will be a welcome improvement to the industrial park there and we are recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of our staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. 14