Loading...
1f CC Minutes 12/13/00 - - !t CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2000 (The quality of the recording ofthis meeting was very pöor. Therefore all the discussion did not get picked up on the tape.) Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labat!, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Engel, and Councilman Senn. STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Kate Aanenson, Cindy Kirchoff, and Sharmin AI-Jaff. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: deleting item 1(1), Approval of Southwest Metro Drug Task Fllrce Joint Pllwers Agreement. All voted in favllr IIf the agenda as amended and the mlltilln carried nnanimously. a. Reslllution #2000-18: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for BC-7 Sanitary Sewer- Project No. 00-01 as amended. b. Authorize Advertising for Bids for 2000 Sealcoat Project No. 00-03. c. Reslllutilln #2000-19: Approve Resolution Regarding Variance for Bike Trails at Bluff and Riley Creeks Granted for TH 5IWest 78th Street Project 97-6. d. Approve Consultant Contract for Preparation of Pavement Management Study Project No. 99-4. e. Resolution #2000-20: Approve Designation of New MSAS Routes - PW033. f. Resolution #2000-21: .Approve RigÌ1t~of-Way Acquisition Offers from MnDot for Parcels 311C and 219 for West 78th Street Improvement Project 97-6. h. Approval of Bills. i. Approval of Minutes: - Work Session Minutes dated February 28, 2000 . City Council Minutes dated February 28, 2000 j. Resolutilln #2000-22: Accept Low Bid for Bluff Creek Slope Stabilization Project - File SWMP 12U. k. Approve Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Chanhassen and Hennepin County for Design and Construction ofImprovements to TH 101 and TH 5 as amended. m. Approval of Revised Organizational Chart dated March 13,2000. ....... Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 All voted in favor and the motilln carried unanimllusly. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mike Ryan: My name is Mike Ryan. I live at 2595 Southern Court. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. I am here speaking on behalf of the residents between TH 41 and Galpin Road. I'm here tonight to speak a little bit on item number 4 on tonight's agenda. Just as constituents over in our neighborhood we are, we have been and we are actively watching the Council's activity on 4. Or may I say a lack of activity on behalf of the citizens. It gives the appearance...that we see of the city government is more interested in developers and the objectives of staff... than your constituents. . And there is a pattern of appearance that some members of the council and Mayor. . . want to interpret laws and rules in favor of all parties.. .My question to you is, looking at this project, I'm hoping that you have to resolve...and do what's right for the citizens and do what's right for the citizens of Lake Susan and Chanhassen. I understand that the City does not want to get involved in a lawsuit but I think also there's...not being naive that developers do not want to get into a lawsuit either. In many respects they have more to lose... They do not want to come across with any appearance as being adversarial and they know that other cities wi\l'watch their behavior. There comðS a time as councilmembersyou need to do the right thing on behalf of your residents. Again as residents between TH 41 and Galpin we are actively observing the narrow agenda of some of the council members and the mayor and staffwho are, and we are not visibly impressed. We hope tonight in going forward you will represent the interests oftlte current taxpayers. We also hope tonight in going forward to expand your agenda and truly represent your constituents. We look forward to working with the Lake Susan neighborhood and representatives of our neighborhood to make our viewpoints be known and enlighten other neighborhoods of how city government's working. For the Mission Hills and Marsh Glen folks, I strongly recommend that you be vigilant and be cognizant of the city game plan and stay active... . Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Let's go on next to public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST OF ANDREAS DEVEWPMENT COMPANY FOR CITY SUBSIDY ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARKSTH ADDmON. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff repllrt IIn this item. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff from council members? Okay, anyone that's out in the audience that would like to address this issue? Public hearing is open. Seeing none, bring it back to council members. Any.comments from council members? Then may I please have a motion and a second? Councilman Senn moved, Clluncilman Labatt secllnded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with Andreas Develllpment Cllmpany, LLC and their request fllr 553,169.00 in city assistance. All Vllted in favor and the mlltilln carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST OF EDEN TRACE CORPORATION FOR CITY SUBSIDY ON LOT 2. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TH ADDmON. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff repllrt IIn this item. 2 Chanhassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Again, any questions from council members? Mark Senn asked some questions of the applicant, Mark Undestad from Eden Trace. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions that you have Councilman Senn? Thank you. May I have a motion. Clluncilman Labatt mllved, Clluncilman Engel secllnded tll approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with Eden Trace Corporatilln and their request fllr 553,461.00 in city assistance. All vllted in favllr and the motilln carried unanimllusly. REOUEST FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 5 THREE-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING (344 APARTMENTS TOTAL): AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 34.9% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE: AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 21.34 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND LAKE DRIVE WEST. POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES: LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC. Public Present: Name Address Mike & Deb Forkins Ted Lamson Don Patton Denny Sullivan Michele Hellickson Jim & Mary Lamson Bob & Cheryl Ayotte Bill Scarbono Jeff Shopek Link Wilson Larry Guthrie Mike Ryan Jim & Lois Dyvig Bill & Rhonda Weber Marcia, Tom & Erick Ries Josh Reding 6444 Brook Lane 2606 Kipling Ave So 7660 Parklawn 6421 Fox Path 4409 Claremore Drive 5132 Meadow Ridge 6213 Cascade Pass Loucks & Assoc. Loucks & Assoc. 1201 Hawthorne, Minneapolis Eagan 2595 Southern Court 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive 6600 Sally Lane North Bay Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff repllrt IIn this item. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Just a quick question. So you're saying that the 31 %, that has approval that you've written in there meets all the 1987 PUD agreements that's on the land... Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: I have one Mayor, and I'm not sure if it's for staff or the applicant but on the diagram that we have, it doesn't... the location of the berm. Can you explain... shows the actual location of the berm. 3 Chanhassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13,2000 Mayor Mancino: Maybe the applicant can show that when you take some time. Do you have that? Okay, well why don't we, I don't know. Let's ask the applicant when they come up. Okay, any other questions for staff and then I'm going to ask the applicant to... Okay, would the applicant like to come up please and the last City Council meeting we had tabled it and asking you to come back and show us some revised plans for the buildings. How we can make the transition, etc. Larry Guthrie: Thank you. We're looking at. ..6(a) says the developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to ensure adequate transition between uses including the use of berms, landscaping and setbacks from lot lines. We also looked at the PUD.. . provide that buffer yards be established... buffer yards provide additional physical separation for.. . required to provide, be provided with a combination ofberming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering. Buffer areas do not... the developer has made some changes. They have split Building B into two buildings with.. . separation to break up specifically... Building B used to have decks. They removed the decks and put in bays. They've lowered the pitch of the roof from a 6: 12 to a 4: 12 resulting in a 5 Y:. foot reduction in the height of the project. These weren'trequired at all. These were concessions. In addition,...buffer yards and we're already providing a maximum... We increased the previous setbacks from 100 feet to 137 minimum to over 180 feet. The only thing that the code talks about as far as what we can do with the buffering... putting in a berm, as much of the berm that we can do to deal with these slope conditions that are there...to improve the water drainage to the site... In addition to this 5 to 6 foot berm...visual impact with respectto neighbors... And with respect to the visual impact, I think it'd be better to have JeffShopek who prepared the site plan...to explain the impact that the berm had on with respect to buffer impacts... JeffShopek: Good evening. My name is JeffShopek. I'm with Loucks and Associates. I'm the civil engineer. One of the previous questions was where is the berm and how is that located in the plan. The berm...top of the berm is 946...1n addition what we've done is several line of sights cross sections from Lot 5 to the building and we did a couple of... Again this is the berm. The top of the berm is here. This actually... Now draw a simple line out here... The green line I drew on there is about where the... Then what we did in addition to that is show a line ofsight...shows a 12 foot tree on top of the berm that we are intending to plant as part of the construction. So that will be the height of the tree when planted, and then a 20 foot tree after it grows to a 20 foot height. Directing those lines to what you would see to the various building elevations. You can see just at the ground elevation the top of the berm, you're only about a foot and a half below the second floor of the building... Then as you go to the 12 foot high tree, and at the tip of the tree... we are into almost the third, middle part of the third floor... And then that 20 foot high tree, actually the top of the tree... So that's the heights... Similarly we did another one saying what happens if someone's standing on a deck... In that scenario it dropped it, the top of the trees leave about 4 feet... but it's still screening... Also looked at, and just as a scenario is if we were to put a single family home on that same lot...and built a two story walkout with a normal roof... Mayor Mancino: JeffI've got a quick question for you. I'm looking at the landscaping plan... that's dated 1-31-2000. And my question to you is, the staggered row of 12 foot white spruce, is that's what's going to sit on top of the berm? There is a staggered row of white spruce that is the closest to the apartment and then there's another staggered row that are 7 foot white spruce. JeffShopek: 12 foot pines... We submitted kind ofa modified plan except it's the same trees shifted so they're on top of the berm. Mayor Mancino: And then the 7, then I'm assuming from what you're saying, then the 7 footers are in front here? 4 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 JeffShopek: ... The 12 high trees are on the top of the berm. There would be a flat area on top of the berm. Mayor Mancino: And how far apart are they? Jeff Shopek: ... Mayor Mancino: That's when they're fully grown. Councilman Labatt: Is the height when you're going to plant it or is this the full growth...? Jeff Shopek: Those are the 12 foot high trees that are planted... Mayor Mancino: And that's how it will look? That the bases will be touching so that again you'll have almost a hedge there? Or is that when they're 20 feet tall? JeffShopek: Well I mean... 12 foot high tree probably has, it probably has an 8 foot wide base or so. 8 to 10 foot wide base. So I don't think they'll be touching when they plant them because that wouldn't give them room to grow to 20 feet high. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions that anyone would have? Councilwoman Jansen: Only if we could get a copy of the plan that has the berm that's actually shown on it. Mayor Mancino: I think, do you have this? Councilwoman Jansen: Not that, but where it's actually diagramed as to where it is behind the building. Mayor Mancino: We've got a lot of new plans so. JeffShopek: ...grading plan...it doesn't stand out as well. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Okay, anything else from the applicant? One of the other questions that was asked I think by council members was looking at repositioning the southeasterly building, the B building. And what iterations and what have you gone through to get that... There was a concern about lowering that building, etc. And that was one of the reasons why we tabled it. Link Wilson: My name's Link Wilson... There were two issues that there discussed... One of them was creating...still be a three story building. The effect was to imagine to lower the building. The problem with that particular concept is that in order to maintain the 1.5 stalls per unit you need to... We would need to create the hard surface plaza out in front of the buildings very similar to...so what that would do is create on the north side of the building there is... have planters out in front, it's almost impossible to keep evergreens alive in some sort of green space...plant materials dies on the plaza surface. So you're creating hard surface, but you're also creating...when you drive something into the plaza, some type of sculpture out on the plaza. You get something out there to brighten up the hard surface... So that was one issue that was discussed. Do a walkout... The other issue presented was a mansard roof. 5 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, may I say that again. So you could do the walkout but.. . you wouldn't have any underground parking in place? Link Wilson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: So if we didn't have any underground parking for the building we could have up top parking and just increase impervious surface? Link Wilson: Right, but you also have a code requirement for underground parking... So that was one option that was asked of us. Also it was asked that even if we maintained the 3 story building, if we could create a mansard roof... Currently our roofis only... so we could possibly remove 3 feet. There again it's... Those were the two options. It seemed the most...there's the berm. We planted spruce... Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff'? If council has any other questions. .. .how many parking spaces.. . underground. Kate Aanenson: 129 have to be underground... Mayor Mancino: Another question. It was Mr. Ryan who came up during visitor presentation and said that he was watching this as it related to other projects. Is there any other area in our city where we have high density in a PUD that the adjacent properties... I mean is this going to happen anywhere else? Well let's just say zoning. I mean does this translate into another area in the city where the concern here is, you know high density next to single family low density. Is there any other place where we have that next to each other? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Mancino: No, that is not developed. That will be coming in for development. Kate Aanenson went through the various sites in the city that had similar zoning situations. Mayor Mancino: Now that abuts our city park and that abuts, and some twin homes. ...3 or 4 acres. So any other place? ... The only other high density that I know of is on Highway 5 and...medium density. I was just trying to understand... Any other questions for staff'? Councilwoman Jansen: I have one. And actually Dave you had responded in an e-mail as we were looking at the berm, one of the issues was where it ends after the B building. And my question is then whether or not it could be continued any farther to the west...could speak to that a little bit. Dave Hempel responded to the question. Councilwoman Jansen: And extending it, would that be extending then that 5 foot height for that 25 to 30 feet or...? Kate Aanenson: It slopes off. Councilwoman Jansen: The berm is a great improvement. Thank you. Appreciate that. I did have a couple questions, if only to follow-up and maybe clarify a little bit of what we have heard from Mr. Knutson as far as our alternatives or not. If I might be able to just address a couple of those, and it's amazing when you go back and you read Minutes that you realize how specifically you were laying out 6 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 this very complicated issue for us and much apfreciate it but in a follow-up conversation it became even clearer as to where we are. In our February 14t meeting you had said that from 1987 to 1992 the City had no ability to unilaterally...amend the PUD. But after that 5 year period the City then could apply any updates to our ordinances as it occurred, which we have done... Further to that, in my conversation you did address the ability of the City to really do...ofthe PUD. You haven't really gone into that in any length. After that 5 year period is up, could you maybe go into a little bit ofthe legality of the City's ability to go in and review the PUD... Roger Knutson: First I should point out the 5 year period... Councilwoman Jansen; So it was really after that 1992 date, or thereafter... where we are right now, where we could have gone in and looked at it and maybe made an amendment to it to do a step density as we talked about with the proper transition or if in an extreme we wanted to affect the density, not that they would ever want to do that, but we then could have tweaked this a little bit to gain more... Roger Knutson responded to Councilwoman Jansen's question. Councilwoman Jansen: And really in doing a PUD review, your direction to me as a council person was that it is a legal process that we can go through but certainly we would want to then review that document prior to a development proposal coming Înto the city because we certainly wouldn't be looking to say burden or penalize the developer on their entering into the process... Because after speaking with you and again...as far as establishing more of a... Roger Knutson: ...many ordinances...to amend your,just like when you amend... Councilwoman Jansen: So does any simple amendment onto our ordinances then would affect the outstanding.. . Roger Knutson: Not necessary. Depending on...This PUD specifically addresses... Mayor Mancino: Well and generally, just to add to that.. . Planning Commission did go into the PUD ordinance and amend buffer yards.. .and they also went into buffer yard ordinance in and of itself in 1996 and addressed that at that time. Again, very generally we have... so that when there are transitions... it accounts for single family and... so that has been updated... Councilwoman Jansen: ...transition... Mayor Mancino: Yeah, because each one of the new PUD's that come in and where we've done some rezoning to PUD, the neighbors have, and the applicants have all really worked together because everybody wants something different. Not everybody wants single family. For instance you know in Walnut Grove, those people really wanted a single family row of homes contiguous to their home and they were okay with just one row of single family homes... so it seems as if the last big PUD that we've done, because of the type of the.. . and how the contiguous neighbors are that are already there, each one of them differs... Here's how we're going to transition, we'd be doing this all the time. We've be back to the drawing board every time because everybody has different ideas about what transition is... unless a good part of that conversation that happens around the PUD, bringing everybody together and say what works for this site, and therefore we really do get everybody's input on the PUD. Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess to that point that my interest is peaked with the idea of going back to them on...and taking a look and updating to bring it into line with...when the public hearings were held 7 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 the abutting neighbors to the project so it would be helpful if in fact we were to make sure everyone's... and really address those concerns. I guess the other thing tonight as far as distinguishing between the two steps, where we're not processing an amendment. Is it a timing issue because we didn't process before the development came.. . development proposal came forward. But there is an amendment before us so that of course was started with the project as it came up through the process and the Planning Commission was addressing that amendment at their January 5th and their January 19th meetings. So the amendment comes through the public hearing process. ..and just out of curiosity and I failed to ask you this question earlier. The Planning Commission at the time of those two meetings they were going for the same thing that... effective transition and what opportunities... Would it have been inappropriate at that time for them to have addressed any sort of an amendment? Roger Knutson responded to Councilwoman Jansen's question. Councilwoman Jansen: The main part is that... Mayor Mancino: I think it goes back to the applicant... make the PUD process more rigid. There's no question... we certainly have worked out... Councilwoman Jansen: It's notto say making it too rigid, but at least if we're aware of some of these that are out there and just doing those updates, and again maybe not having to amend the PUD but it also then brings to the forefront that we might maybe... Not having to then affect the PUD but the ordinance is in line... Mayor Mancino: There's no question...differentIy, or I mean that's the time when we have the control. Are there any PUD's that we have on the books right now that, because I already asked about the transitions from high density to single family... Do we have, I mean this is kind of the oldest standing PUD that's finishing up? I mean I guess there's still a few office industrial pieces. Kate Aanenson responded to Mayor Mancino's question. Councilwoman Jansen: I think the difference would be that we can always be more lenient. I mean and obviously we...developer which is fine. So we can be more lenient. We can't be stricter. Mayor Mancino: Well we can be stricter because our ordinance is stricter... Councilwoman Jansen: But this project... we would have liked to have applied here... Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Okay, who would like to start? Who would like to start on this one? Do you want to start? Councilwoman Jansen: Since I haven't said much tonight. Well, I guess first by thanking our developers for doing what you could in light of the pressure that we have been putting on you since your very first Planning Co.mmission meeting. You will walk out of Chanhassen knowing that we are big on this transition issue but not maybe so good at describing it within our rules and regulations for you to be able to follow. But I do appreciate the, especially the latest addition of the berm. You have done a good job in providing.that visual buffer that we were trying to accomplish so that we do appreciate... It went a long way with me. And I guess the one thing that I would still like to see happen is that extension of the berm... With that said and my thanks to the neighbors. This has been a very long, drawn out process. You've certainly been very patient. Very cooperative and very involved. We do appreciate that. 8 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 Councilman Labatt gave his comments on the project. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess maybe to tag onto that, you partially answered the question earlier... I know nothing about the storm water ponds and the way they should be laid out, but it seems like it's of course on an east/west. Is there any way, keeping it's elongated shape, it could be turned more south/north... ? Dave Hempel replied that it was not possible to do that on this site and provided the reasons. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: I guess my biggest disappointment is probably finding out that there were things that we could have done had we done them in a more timely fashion as far as being able to amend the PUD or update our ordinances. I do think that it's a significant responsibility that we need to make sure that we're applying ourselves to that, to have that foresight and vision if we would as we're looking at...these projects are going to have. This is the most stringent review on an application that we've done in the last year of our residential ordinances. We've been so occupied with office industrial. Existing PUD's. This is really the first project that I know I can get in and wrestle with the existing ordinance... I guess I know I've voiced this already to the rest of the council but one of my high priorities at this point, on this project is to just make sure that we have buttoned up our ordinances so that our residents know that we've looked at, addressed at least as much of them as we possibly can. We already have a building materials review that's going on right now that started while it was going through the process. To sort of guarantee that we're looking at quality building materials and again I guess I keep coming back to the position of...but when you go into a negotiation and you don't have the right part in your hand, you're hard pressed to really be able to stay in the game. So I'm regretting or disappointed that we weren't able to really address the.. .and have a process.. . because I know that I for one would have... I can appreciate the project. It's an excellent project....the development team's done a wonderful job. We need apartments. There's no doubtthat...apartment complex absent in the community...addressing our housing goals and looking at this as a product that we need in the community. We also then have to blend with our existing community and I guess...the City should be in the business ofbuilding...and as we build it we're doing that neighborhood by neighborhood and to bring a brand new neighborhood in we haven't in my mind made more ofa gentle transition between the existing single family homes... I would have done that differently but I don't feel that I can blame the 1987 decision makers realizing that we've had at least 6 years where we could have done some diligence and maybe planned ahead and had some foresight on this one. We didn't have the time to react to maybe cover some of the things that they didn't foresee at the time. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn gave his comments on this project. Councilman Engel: ...and I didn't come here to do that. And when you're sitting in one of these chairs you've got to put away the emotions. It's harder because it's not very popular... You stick around a while and you'll see what I mean. Wait about another hour and.. .you've got realize I live there. ... with all that said, this is not a new development. It's a contract... That building B that split could be one building. It's be ugly. They removed the decks. They reduced the pitch of the roof. They added a berm. They've increased the height of the berm. They've doubled the trees required in the berm area. Setback 9 Chanhsssen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 has been extended to 137 feet atthe closest point... There could be 375 units per the contract. There's only 344. Still doesn't mean I don't want you to... The rental prices on some of those units is $1,300... Mayor Mancino: I don't really have anything more to... under the conditions of approval and that is that I would like the applicant to dedicate a conservation easement over the southerly 137 feet and so that we are sure that in the future someone cannot come in and destroy the urban forest that we've created there. That there can be no... Secondly I would also like as another condition of approval and that's the trees, the southerly trees behind both BI and B2 that are coniferous be planted with both 10 and 12 foot heights. No 7 footers. So I would like to increase the height of those trees. And also that would be increased also on the berm that will be extended 25 feet to the west and... May I have a motion and then may I have a couple friendly amendments. We have two motions. One on page 4 and one on page. The one on page 4 is for the impervious surface at 35%. The one on page 9 is 31 %. On page 4 it says staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion, and that would include the hard surface coverage going from 32% to 35% to allow the ring road. Roger Knutson asked for clarification on the intent of the conservation easement request. Mayor Mancino: Well in our, don't cut down the trees. Roger Knutson: Because in a strict conservation easement...so all you're saying is don't cut down the trees? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Thank you. Councilman Senn made a comment at this point. Roger Knutson: What counts is what's underneath the labeL.. That's what this would be, a tree conservation easement. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, because in our buffer ordinance, buffer yard ordinance it talks about under PUD. ...well I'm going to have to add to it. Councilman Labatt made a motion on this item. Councilwoman Jansen: Would you accept a friendly amendment that the complex will operate under the Minnesota Crime Free... ? Councilman Labatt accepted the friendly amendment. Roger Knutson: Did you intend to deal with the PUD question as a separate issue?.. Clluncilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel secllnded to apprllve the preliminary plat of 21.34 acres into 4 lilts (SUB 99-14) and Site Plan Review #99-19, apprllval of Phase I (Building A), 100 units as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 1999, revised February 2, 2000, and subject to the fllllowing cllnditions: I. Approval of this application is contingent upon the City Council approving a PUD amendment to allow a 35% hard surface coverage of the site. 2. A cross access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 10 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 3. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and Y:. park fees. 4. Landscaping along the south property line shall be installed with Phase I after review and approval by the City Forester. Applicant shall increase understory tree plantings in thð north property line buffer yard in order to meet minimum ordinance requirements. 5. The PUD agreement states that the applicant shaH provide 5500 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shaH provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Fire hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Some proposed fire hydrants will be required to be relocated. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 903.2. b. Install post indicator valves (P.I.V.'s). Contactthe Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. e. 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. f. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2.1 ofthe 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: f-I. Attic spaces shaH be sprinklered per NFP A 13. f-2. Class I standpipes shall be installed in stair towers. f-3. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system. g. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. h. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. II Cbanhassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 7. Turning radius shall be reviewed by the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3. 8. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. b. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. c. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. d. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 134 I. e. The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. 9. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. Ifthe material is proposed to be removed off site to another location in Chanhassen that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 10. The applicant will need to develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 13. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100 12 Chaohassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 15. The applicant shall enter into a development contractIPUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regnlatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Public Works, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard slope must be maintained. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. IS. The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk storm drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. 19. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is now known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County shall be used for a security escrow. 20. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas. Storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimize erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3: I. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 21. Storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10: I for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3: I thereafter or 4: I throughout for safety purposes. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building permits. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children from falling off the walls. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 13 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 24. The plans shall be revised to utilize the existing sewer and water services provided to the site from Lake Drive West. Open cutting of the street Lake Drive West will not be permitted. 25. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. 26. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to a 7 ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 0-1 and 20-110 I. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 20-1118. Cross access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. The westerly driveway entrance shall be realigned to be perpendicular to the intersection of Lake Drive West and Upland Circle. 27. The proposed high density residential development of21.34 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of 534,997. The applicant has provided water quality ponds to treat IS.6 acres whi.ch will waive 530,504 of this fee. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $93,042 for a total SWMP fee of 597,536. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 2S. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. 29. The staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that shows all materials presented to City Council supporting each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residences. 30. The applicant shows the following specific materials on the buildings. The low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. 31. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement prior to issuance of the building permit. 32. Site plan approval is contingent upon final plat approval. 33. Each phase of the development shall conform to the overall master plan. 34. All signs must receive a separate sign permit. 35. There shall be a tree conservation easement on the southerly 137 feet of the south property line. 36. Coniferous trees to be planted on the south side behind Buildings B I and B2 shall be 10 to 12 feet in height, not 7 feet. 37. The berm on the south property line shall be extended 25 feet to the west. 3S. The complex shall operate under the Minnesota Crime Free Multi Housing Program. All voted in favllr, except Councilwllman Jansen who IIppllsed and the motion carried with a vote of4to 1. 14 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 Councilman Labatt mllved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the Amendment tll the Lake Susan Hills PUD cllntract to state the impervious suñace coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. All vllted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen whll IIpposed, and the mlltilln carried with a vote of 4 to 1. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING. 105 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR US WEST WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff repllrt IIn this item. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the consulting here? Garret Lysiak, the consultant hired by the City to study the monopole placement, presented his analysis for other options for site placement and height of poles for the Council's review. Mayor Mancino asked for clarification of the colors used by the consultant in his presentation and what they represented as far as coverage. Mayor Mancino asked if there were any questions of the consultant. Council members asked questions of the consultant. Councilman Engel moved, Clluncilman Labatt seconded tll approve Conditional Use Permit #99-3 and Site Plan tll construct a 105 foot tall mllnllpllle tower wireless communication facility for U S West Wireless with a variance to allow a monopole tower that is not camouflaged as an architectural feature of a church as shown in plans dated received December 29, 1999, with the following cllnditions: I. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the arborvitae along the east side replaced with a Black Hills Spruce. Shrubs shall be added. The evergreens shall be staggered and a minimum of 10 feet in height. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan and conditional use permit agreement and submit financial guarantees to guarantee the improvements. 3. The tower shall comply requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS ofthe Zoning Ordinance. 4. The tower color shall utilize the brand "Tnemac" and the color "Blue Elusion". 5. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage. 6. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. 7. The applicant shall install protective fencing at the edge of the trees prior to construction and shall maintain the fence throughout the development of the tower. 15 Cbanbassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 8. The horizontal arms of the tower shall be removed. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Clluncilwllman Jansen who opposed, and the motilln carried with a vote IIf 3 to 2. REOUEST FOR REZONING OF 13.41 ACRES FROM RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD-R. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL: A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 32 LOTS: LOCATED EAST OF TH 101. NORTH OF MISSION HILLS. AND SOUTH OF THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS: MARSH GLEN. MSS HOLDINGS. Public Present: Name Address Steve & Tracy Scheid Scott & Shannon Fiedler John Gerogeorge John Mazerka Larry Stein Tony Ferguson Bruce E. Hanson Bill Coffman Bernard Gaytko Vemon & Barbara Lindemann Lori Jesberg Rod McKenzie Richard & E. Kettler Bill Jansen Mike Ryan Lisa Gauvin Roger Wainwright 451 Mission Hills Court 8511 Mission Hills Lane 470 Mission Hills Court 8525 Mission Hills Lane 8541 Mission Hills 8495 Mission Hills Lane Minneapolis, MN 600 W. 78th Street, #250 521 Mission Hills Drive 552 Mission Hills Drive 8407 Great Plains Blvd. 536 Mission Hills Drive 8521 Mayfield Court 240 Eastwood Court 2595 Southern Court 460 Mission Hills Court 532 Mission Hills Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff from council members? Then I'll open this up. Would the applicant like to share anything with the, okay great. Beth Andrews and Steve Kroiss went over the changes that had been made on the plan per direction from the City Council and residents at the last meeting. Mayor Mancino: We'll open this up for comments from the neighborhood. As you recall at the last City Council meeting the residents that were here... the applicant is asking for rezoning. They would like to change the existing zoning that...from RSF to Medium Density PUD. So with that we as a council... we do not like to change the zoning once we have it in place. We feel that it's important to keep it that way and... our zoning maps. When people buy, whether it's residential or business property, they make an investment in our city. They do know what will be next to them and what it's zoned and so for us to just change... That doesn't mean that someone can't come in and apply and ask for a zoning to be changed...but for us to consider it, we just feel that... See how they feel about it. So with that we asked 16 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 for the neighbors that were here a month ago to go back and look at this proposed rezoning. Think about it hard. Meet with the applicant and then kind of come back and...tell us how you feel about it so that's where we are tonight and I will open it up for residents to speak to this. So please state your name and your address please. Bernie Gaytko: Good evening Madam Mayor, Council members. My name is Bernie Gaytko. I live at 521 Mission Hills Drive. I'm here tonight as President of the Mission Hills Garden Homes. The townhouses... We did exactly what Your Honor suggested and as a result of that a petition was passed through our development. I have tonight, and will present to Your Honor, a petition signed by 53 of the residents within the Mission Hills townhouse complex. They are in support of the project. They are in support of the proposed changes of zoning, so we have 56 units there. 53 people who signed that petition. The petition represents 42 homes out of the 56. The remaining 14 homes, 13 are on vacation at the time this was passed around and 1... So there's an overwhelming support on the part of the residents within our neighborhood for this project and we would encourage the council to take the action necessary. So on behalf of the 42 homeowners, 53 signees of the petition, I'd like to present the original petition to the Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Vern Lindemann who resides at 55iMission Hills Drive made a comment in support of the rezoning. Mayor Mancino: Cindy or Kate, a question that the Lindemann's brought up... If the Council were to go ahead with the rezoning, would the rezoning only include these plans? ... the plans that we have in front of us or let's say that we rezone and Mr. Kroiss lets another builder come in. Let's say the same product but at a different quality level. Kate Aanenson stated that the plans that were being presented were the plans that would go along with the rezoning. Mayor Mancino: And can we say at a certain price level? Kate Aanenson provided the answer to the Mayor's question. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Larry Stein who resides at 8541 Mission Hills presented the neighborhood's position that after meeting with the developer, meeting together as a neighborhood, and after much thought and deliberation on their part, the neighborhood was still not in favor of rezoning the property. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Tracy Scheid: Good evening. My name is Tracy Scheid and I live at 451 Mission Hills Court. I'm speaking this evening along with Larry on behalf of the residents of Mission Hills Lane and Mission Hills Court regarding the rezoning proposed tonight. And I would like to first say that it's a pleasure to address the Council before II :00. First I want to emphasize that we really did, the residents that were present at the last meeting really did take to heart the advice that was given to us about going back and discussing this item. Not just amongst ourselves but also with the builders. Many talked with staff. Many talked with Council. We did take very seriously the... it from a bigger perspective. And what you urged us to do is weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal and to consider the unknown element of future proposals for this land and to really think about it. And we really kept on that path. 17 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 After a great deal of time and consideration the residents of Mission Hills Lane and Mission Hills Court would like to reiterate our opposition to this rezoning. We'd like to restate that we made the investment in our homes with the understanding that this properly would one day be an extension of our single family residential neighborhood. We depended on the City's long term land use plan to provide us with the covenants from the City regarding the use of the land and we respectfully request that the council members support that commitment by voting to keep the current RSF zoning in place. We have taken Mr. Kroiss' most recent revisions and with the temporary construction access from West 86th Street into consideration. I think our biggest fear with that is that it is actually going to be built on Outlot D and Outlot D is slated to be land that will be condemned for Trunk Highway 101 at some point in the future. Now obviously we don't know when that will be. That could be, and we laugh when you say this. It could be next week. But I mean seriously the timing is unknown and we're just not comfortable with taking that risk. We think the risk of the unknown is less of a risk for us to take. In addition to that I just want to say that we do have other concerns about the subdivision itself going in as proposed. Objections kind of with the layout. With the lack of buffer or transition from the single family into the townhomes at time of build out, as well as the number of units. So all of those things really came into playas we thought about the project. We also would request that the council would vote on this issue tonight. As you recognize that there was further consideration that was due it last time and we recognize that as well. And we have been really... possible alternatives since that last meeting. It wasn't until really last Thursday that we met with the developer and that's cutting it pretty close but the plan that he came to the table with there, I think that we had hoped that there might be maybe some good will effort shown on the plan greater than what was. Possibly a reduction in the units or some greater transition from the townhome into the single family neighborhood and we really didn't see that. We're just hoping that this doesn't drag on for a great deal longer. That if you please take I guess into consideration the time that the neighbors, the staff and yourselves spend on considering the project and if we are going to look at an alternative project to this one, that that would be significantly different enough to warrant that time. We also do feel very strongly that the property is a really desirable piece of property. It's in a prime Chanhassen location. We think that it can attract a good quality single family residential builder. We think that it can be developed to meet the current zoning regulations and I know that there are some challenges with the Trunk Highway 101 coming in and that part of the land could pose some problems for a potential developer but conversely to that, on the east side of that parcel of land there really is some very nice lots that back up right to the wetland. And on the other side of Marsh Lake, I mean they're building some wonderful, well not building but have built already some wonderful single family homes that are very, that property values in the ranges from $500,000 to 5800,000 so I just believe that there are some positive things about this piece ofland. Where it's located that could attract a good single family residential project as well. In closing we'd just like to see the zoning on this land remain RSF as it was initially designated and we feel that there really hasn't been any compelling reasons to justifY a change. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And of course we won't make a decision tonight because we do want you to come back again. I mean who would be here? What would we have to do? We're on a first name basis with everyone now. Bruce Hanson spoke as legal counsel on behalf of the property owners, Andrew and Linda Freseth. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Before we go back to council I got a letter from David Nickolay who is... adjacent to the property. He asked me to read, he is unable to attend tonight's meeting. Dear Nancy. This is a follow up to our telephone conversation concerning the proposed Marsh Glen development. I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting so I ask that you read this letter when public input is allowed. As I have repeatedly stated to city staff, Planning Commission, the Council and developer, the lots next to my property should be a single family, one home site. Not two homes on this lot. This allows for a transition from the home site in my Mission Hills Lane development. The developer has not responded 18 Chanhassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 to the Planning Commission and the City Council's direction to work out a plan with me. He has also not responded to my letter to him. Please change the proposed plan so that Block I, Lots 9 and 10 are combined into one single family homesite and direct that the house pad site will align with the Mission Hills home to the south. Not the minimum 15 foot setback that is proposed. Respectfully, David Nickolayon March 13th. With that, public comments is closed. We'll bring this back to council and I would like to say on behalf of all the council, thank you, all of you for coming tonight... For doing a good job. For the different homeowners that 81' adjacent to the property. Being so clear in letting us know how you feel and taking the time to get organized and for speaking so articulately tonight. So thank you. With that I know that Councilmember Engel...last time so if he would lead off this time. It isn't your neighborhood so. Councilman Engel gave his comments on this item that he would support the neighborhood's request for not rezoning the property, even though he felt after looking at the site and driving through it that this proposal would be a good development for this site. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so just to clarify your position. You would not vote to rezone? ... Councilman Engel: Yes. And this is... Councilman Labatt gave his comments that he was not in favor of rezoning this property. Councilman Senn gave his comments that although he likes the project being proposed by this developer, he would uphold the neighborhood's wishes to not rezone the property. The Council discussed the possibility of the development consisting of a combination of the twin home product that was being proposed and single family homes to serve as a transition from the current single family neighborhood. Penny White, a resident from the adjoining neighborhood, asked a question regarding the proposal. Mayor Mancino: So you get to come back here again if there was another request for a rezoning. Okay? ...Okay, coming back to council. Councilwoman Jansen. Do you have anything more to add or are you done? Councilwoman Jansen gave her comments that she would like to see a compromise between the number of homes being proposed in this development and the number of single family lots that was being thrown out by the neighborhood. Councilwoman Jansen also asked if this item should go back to the Planning Commission for their input on a solution to this item. Bruce Hanson asked if the neighborhood and the developer could take a few minutes to discuss a compromise solution. Mayor Mancino stated that the City Council would continue on with the agenda while they discussed the item and then come back later in the agenda for a decision. APPROVAL OF LIOUOR ORDINANCE. Scott Botcher presented the staff report on this item. Roger Knutson clarified some items that the City Council members had questions on. 19 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 Mayor Mancino: At our last meeting we did say that we would take public input for this final draft. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the Council on our liquor ordinance? Seeing none, may I have a motion. Councilman Labatt mllved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Cllde Concerning the Sale, Consumption and Display of Alcohlllic Beverages as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR A TWO STORY 2.464 SO. FT. OFFICE BUILDING ON A .50 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY ZONED BH. mGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DAKOTA A VENUE AND LAKE DRIVE EAST ON LOT 1. BLOCK 2. CHAN HAVEN PLAZA. FINANCIAL INTERIORS OFFICE. JACK CHRISTENSON. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Jansen asked about the width of the driveway entrance into the site, and if condition number 17 should be amended to include the recommended width of 24 feet. Dave Hempel stated that City Detail No. 5207 included the recommended width but the City Council could include that in their recommendations. Mayor Mancino: ... is the applicant here and would you like to address the Council? Jack Christenson, the applicant with Financial Interiors Office, addressed the City Council about his proposal. Mayor Mancino stated that she was very pleased with the proposal, and that this site had been a concern with the Planning Commission and City Council and the adjoining neighbors for a number of years. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Site Plan #00-03 with a two foot variance for the parking setback to permit parking eight feet from the property line, plans prepared by Hickey Thorstenson Grover, LID, dated received January 14, 2000, subject to the fllllowing cllnditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Separate sign permits are required for each sign. 3. The wall mounted lighting unit on the north side of the building must be shielded from direct off site view. 4. The applicant shall revise the parking lot landscaping to provide acceptable screening. 5. The applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan to meet minimum landscape ordinance requirements prior to the issuance of the building permit. The proposed landscape plan will also include a detailed tree preservation plan. 6. Two exits are required from the basement if it will be used for any purpose other than building mechanical or equipment service. Using it for storage would require two exits. 20 Chanhassen City Clluncil Minutes - March 13, 2000 7. If the building is not protected with an automatic sprinkler system, the usable space under the first story (basement) must be protected on the basement side by one-hour fire-resistive construction and be provided with a solid wood or 20-minute rated door. 8. The utility plan will be reviewed when plans are submitted for permits. 9. The building owner and or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 10. The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security in the amount of $4,000 to guarantee boulevard and street restoration. The security shall be provided in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The security shall be supplied to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. II. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within Lake Drive East right-of-way. 12. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for City review and approval. The plan shall include type I silt fence around the perimeter of the grading lirnits and a rock construction entrance. The proposed 8"diameter storm sewer line shall be increased to a 12" diameter line. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for sanitary sewer and water hook up and connection charges at time of building permit issuance. The applicant will be entitled to a credit against the sanitary sewer and water connection fees for the cost of extending the sanitary sewer and water service from the existing main in Dakota A venue to the property line. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for any repairs or relocations of the City's street light system along Lake Drive East. 15. The applicant's engineer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event for pre- and post-development conditions to the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The driveway access point on to Lake Drive East shall be constructed with a concrete driveway apron 24 feet in width in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. 18. The proposed sanitary sewer and water services shall be combined in the same trench to minimize street openings. The applicant and/or their designee shall provide traffic control measures during the sanitary sewer and water extension across Dakota A venue in accordance with Appendix B of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. One lane of traffic must be maintained at all times on Dakota Lane. If Dakota Avenue needs to be closed, 21 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 a detour route and traffic control signage plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to construction. 19. Construction traffic to the site shall be limited to Dakota Avenue. Parking along Lake Drive East and Dakota Lane shall be prohibited. 20. Should parking ever exceed the lot limits, the developer or site owner shall be responsible for the cost of "No Parking" signs installed on Dakota Avenue between Lake Drive and Erie Avenue on the west side of the street and Lake Drive and Cheyenne Avenue on the east side of the street." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF THE MARSH GLEN PROPOSAL. Bruce Hanson stated that after discussion the neighborhood and the applicant were not able to come to a consensus and asked that this item be tabled. Councilman Senn moved, Clluncilman Engel secllnded to table the Land Use Plan Amendment #2000-2 to change the designation frllm residential low density to residential medium density, and to table the rezoning #2000-1 IIf 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R for up to 60 days tll provide the applicant time to revise his plan, and ask that the applicant submit a letter requesting to waive the time limit IIn this application. All voted in favor, except Clluncilwoman Jansen: who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 till. CONSIDERATION OF SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. Scott Botcher presented the staff report on this item outlining the changes that were being proposed on this document. Councilwoman Jansen provided her input on this item being the City of Chanhassen representative on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Clluncilman Senn moved, MaYllr Mancinll seconded that the City Clluncil table this item to see the revised draft of the Southwest Metro Transit Joint Powers Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED GARDEN SITE. JILL SINCLAIR. Councilwoman Jansen mllved, MaYllr Mancinll seconded that the City Council approve a budget notto exceed 52,500 in the year 2000 fllr a proposed cllmmunity garden site. All voted in favor, except Clluncilman Senn whll opposed, and the motilln carried with a vote of 4 tll 1. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Scott Botcher and Councilman Senn discussed some items of interest in the Correspondence Section. 22 Chanhassen City Council Minutes - March 13, 2000 Mayor Mancinll adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:30 and the City Clluncil went into an Executive Sessilln to discuss threatened litigation, AUSMAR Development. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 23