Loading...
CC Minutes 1997 03 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag which was lead by Girl Scout Troop 548. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Mason, Councilman Engel, and Councilman Senn. Councilman Berquist was present for items 1 through 3. STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, and Kate Aanenson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 9-15 AS GIRL SCOUT WEEK. Mayor Mancino: I am going to read a proclamation declaring March 9th through the 15th as Girl Scout Week. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen appreciates the efforts of organizations which enhance the opportunities for youth as to become vital, responsible citizens, and Whereas, on March 12, 1997 Girl Scouts of the United States of America will celebrate 85 years of helping girls grow into confident and resourceful women. Whereas, Girl Scouts of the United States of America, 3 million members strong, is the largest non-profit organization for girls in the world. And Whereas, the Greater Minneapolis Girl Scout Council coordinates activities for more than 23,000 girls in an 8 county area. And Whereas, Girl Scouting reaches out to girls of diverse cultural heritage including African American, Asians, Caucasians, Hispanic and Native American; and Whereas, Girl Scouting provides an environment where girls can enjoy nature, learn to work together and gain leadership skills, and Whereas, Girl Scouting helps girls gain the self- esteem to make the right choices in their personal lives and in their careers, and Whereas, Girl Scouting helps girls to become outstanding citizens of our community. Now Therefore, I, Nancy Mancino, Mayor and on behalf of the Council members do hereby proclaim March 9 through the 15th, 1997 to be Girl Scout Week in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota and extend the community's congratulations to this fine organization as it marks another decade of service. Thank you very much and thank you for being here tonight. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda item pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #97-16: Approve Request to Amend Development Contract, The Woods at Longacres, Lundgren Brothers. Approve Extension of Recording Deadline for Creekside 2nd Addition, Heritage Development as amended to modify condition number 3 on item C. Preliminary Plat Extension for Lake Ann Highlands, Located Noah of Highway 5 on the East Side of Galpin Blvd. (CR 117); Lotus Realty. Accept $2,000 Donation from the Chanhassen American Legion Club Post 580 for the Firefighter Combat Challenge Team. City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 f. Approval of Bills. g. City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 25, 1997 h. Approve Settlement Agreement, Adelmann et al, Lyman Blvd/Lake Riley Improvement Project, Gary & Nina Skalberg. i. Confirm Letter to Legislators Opposing the Construction of Highway 212 as a Toll Road. j. Appointments to the Senior Commission. k. Approve Purpose Statement, Pre-Council Meeting Work Study Sessions. 1. Consider Approval of Special Legislation for a TIF District for Affordable Housing, Villages on the Ponds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX. Roger Knutson: Tomorrow evening in this room, beginning at 7:00, a meeting will be held with anyone who's interested to go over the noise report that's been prepared by the Post Office's consultant, David Braslau. Anyone from the neighborhood or anyone else for that matter, is welcome to attend and have a full airing of what's in that report. Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. That's at 7:00 at. Roger Knutson: 7:00 in this room. Mayor Mancino: In this room, okay. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council on this issue? On the U.S. Postal issue? Okay. Any questions for Mr. Knutson from Council members? Okay, thank you. CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW FOR THE HIGHLANDS CONSISTING OF A MIX DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 254 DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BLVD. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ INC. Public Present: Name Address Jean Kingsrud Chanhassen City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Wren Feyereisen Henry Wansenwki Allan Olson Rick Manning Cinda & David Jensen Steve & Nadia Janson Jennifer & Brian Monteith John Hennessy Lee Glover Todd Stutz Rick Sathre Carol C. Bobi Murray 7501 Windmill Drive 752 Windmill Drive 7461 Windmill Drive 7460 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street 2199 Brinker Street 2159 Brinker Street 7305 Galpin Blvd. Plymouth 2681 Long Lake Road, Roseville 150 West Broadway, Wayzata 2075 Brinker Street 15 Choctaw Circle Kate Aanenson: This item was tabled at your last meeting with direction for the neighborhood and the developer to work to try to find some room for agreement. There's been two meetings. One on February 25th and March 3rd and the neighbors themselves have been meeting in-between. There seems to be some consensus of issues, and the plan right now is focusing around the 248 number and that's the plan shown right here. The direction that the staff is giving is that it's very important that this road here is curvilinear and that.., also have some variety in types. Certainly at the next level that needs to be taken care of when we have more specifics on the type of unit and that they're not all the same and even in orientation and look. The other issue is further articulation of the landscaping plan. How we treat the different areas with buffering and separation. And then the other area is again the number of units and specifically we seem to be narrowing it down to 248... or vice versa but the 248 seems to be the number that we're focusing in on. Again this does require, in order to get this, because the number of units above that low density line designates the 4 units per acre threshold. Mayor Mancino: It's 4.43 or something. Kate Aanenson: Right. The plan that's being represented tonight and what I would recommend is as of 3- 5, when you recommend, if there's a recommendation that references the plan date number, because these things have been evolving. Again it's conceptual. It does not have legal standing but when it comes back for the preliminary, we want to make sure that we're working off the specific direction that you've given that could further evolve with again, additional conditions and revisions. If this is the plan that we're talking about, we'd recommend you approve the plan dated 3-5-97. Again, it does require a comprehensive plan and the rezoning of that property. There are conditions in the staff report. These conditions haven't been changed. Again we want to make sure that it's clear that whatever number that we're given for the density ratio, those will be incorporated as you go through the discussion tonight. Again we believe that there's been some good faith effort on both parties and with that we are recommending approval of this plan with modifications. I know the neighbors still have a few concerns that we certainly believe can be incorporated. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So when you're saying this plan, both plans that we have in front of us are the 248? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And one has the date in the lower right hand comer that says 3-5-97 and that is the one. City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: That the staff used in their report. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Versus the one that says with neighbors input. Kate Aanenson: And what I'm saying, when this comes back at the next level, we will, those that are between the two I think, well obviously will be erased and we'll have a plan that everyone should be happy with. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff from Council members at this point as we move forward? Okay. Seeing none, is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Rick Murray: Yes Madam Mayor, thank you. City Council members. It's nice to be with you again this evening. The staff report is accurate to the extent that we had at least two meetings. My calendar shows we had four meetings. When we left on February l0th we were told to address several things and given direction that way. The direction was to address the plan to net density as opposed to gross densities. We were told to address the Mr. Hennessy property with more sensitivity. We were told that the open space that we had within our property should remain significant and usable. And we were told to work out these details with our neighbors to the north and Mr. Hennessy. On February 20th, we had a meeting with some of the neighbors to kind of preliminarily address which direction we should go. We introduced at that time some net density numbers, which we received I believe it was the Thursday after the Council meeting when my seller gave us our survey. We discovered that our site had 49.8 acres and not 50 acres of space in it. Our concern was where did the 2/10th of an acre go? Which side of the line so we tried to figure it out. In doing so we determined acreage off of the scaled comprehensive land use plan, which was somewhat different than what we were dealing with up to date. The numbers that had been batted around by the staff and by ourselves and by the neighborhood prior to February 20th, or 22nd, was 33 acres north of the line and 17 acres south of the comprehensive land use line. When they're scaled on our survey they come out to be 30.1 acres north of the line and 19.7 acres south of the line. A swing in the number of units that are here. The calculated number of units possible on this site were 254. In talking with the neighbors we introduced a plan that was sensitive to some of the concerns that they had with respect to the middle area of our site where the cottage homes they felt were too close and were going to be a visual, would have visual impact on their properties. The first plan that you have in your packet was one that was introduced at the Saturday meeting with the neighborhood following that Thursday meeting. It had a large amount of open space north of our cottage homes between our single family, which was one of the concerns the neighbors had. They wanted to move those cottage homes as far south as possible. And that was something that we investigated and tried to incorporate and even the plan that we have, the 3-5 plan incorporates that feature in it, to a certain extent. The thing that we didn't like about the original 248 plan was the way it condensed the center portion of the site between the villas and the cottage homes, and maybe it'd be better if I spoke right from the plan. This area of the plan got extraordinarily condensed. In this area... When we re- evaluated our plan.., these units were slid more north again. The road remains curvilinear. Actually you can put one step in-between... With the neighbors' input the road remained curvilinear. We were able to maintain about an acre and a half of space in the center of our site. These were all full units before and we removed half of the sixplex and half of the fourplex and half of the sixplex to maintain this kind of separation and.., open space in the middle of the villa areas as well. The open space that we addressed in our site were a transition open space between our own single family area, which will be planted in accordance with your zoning ordinance and buffer yard ordinance. Open space, triangular open space behind the Hennessy property and east of the Hennessy property. A large open space to accommodate a city trail and some plantings between the cottage homes and the villa units. Another small open space in City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 the central area... In addition there are five plus acres of open space and there still is about 20%... which is dedicated to open space. After the 22nd we met with, on a Saturday. I'm sorry, after the 20th we met on a Saturday which was the 22nd. We reviewed then with the larger group of neighbors the transitions and the changes in the plans and went over quite a bit with the net density calculations and how and why they came about. Councilman Berquist was present at that meeting. The results of that meeting were breaking the open space into the quadrants. The smaller areas that you have on this particular plan. The huge open space south of the single family disappeared into a more moderate open space. We maintained the buffering affect. There is at least 60 to 70 feet of space between the rear yard property line of the single family and the cottage home buildings. In that area we are suggesting that the buffer yard plantings will be incorporated. We're also looking in this space to do some berming and knolls to break up the visual impact, which we're getting into with our preliminary plat and grading plan. To provide a sense of privacy around those units. And that's to be incorporated with the grading plan. We enlarged again that open space around the trail to make it significant and usable. We wanted to maintain that kind of open space and green space in the center of our site, and I think this plan successfully does that. Tuesday, the 25th we had another meeting with the neighbors. Basically had a very good exchange of ideas and that's where a lot of this plan actually developed. The staff and the Mayor were also present at that evening. We, the directions we received from the neighbors were to refine this plan. Tweak it, if you will, and we've done that by removing the 8's and 12's that were in the center area. The 8 and 12 villas, 1, 2, 3 of those buildings turned into 6's and 4's. And then they wanted, the neighbors asked us to put together a landscape plan so that we could address where the buffering would be and how the sight lines would be interrupted or changed or confined through the landscaping. After that Tuesday meeting, this plan pretty much evolved. The cottage homes did shift slightly further to the north. The first rendition of this had more or less a straight line street, which we have since changed back to a curvilinear design. The cottage homes went from 38 cottage home units to 44 cottage home units. There was more length to the street when it went back to the north. We added 2 units back to that street and we added 4 units back to that street and 2 units on the Highlands Boulevard section because we added length to that curve as well. The row townhouse units went from 22 units to 40 units and the villa units went from 152 units to 128 units. So there was a significant decrease in the villas. There was a substantial increase in the row townhouse produce because we dropped the villa units that were around the central park, and there was a slight increase in the cottage home product. The roads and the design of the roads relatively remained as proposed. Actually as proposed, even since the 254 unit plan. There was a subsequent meeting last week where we reviewed this landscape plan. We know this landscape plan is not final. We also know that our tech had gave it it's best efforts with respect to your ordinance to make it conform in every respect to the PUD and the zoning ordinance as they note. It calls for 2, I'm sorry, it calls for 3 buffer yard areas, one of which is along Galpin Lake Road. One of which is along Arboretum Boulevard and one of which is the transition between.., single family and the cottage homes. We incorporated the plantings in the open space area. The neighbors pointed out, they don't understand necessarily why we would plant around the temporary pond... There are some plantings.., at the preliminary plat phase, that's where we would look into that transition area. This plan, working to date, best optimizes our open space and our product mix and I think for the topography that we have to deal with, the kind of products that we're trying to present to the marketplace, and still maintaining an affordability aspect in the villa homes, that this plan demonstrates and represents the best that we can come up with for this site. We would strongly encourage you to pass this concept so we can get along with the process. As you're aware, the process is a long one. We would like to construct it this year, if at all practical. I'm here tonight with my engineer, Mr. Sathre, who's spent many hours on this concept and Mr. Stutz from Rottlund Homes. If you have any questions whatsoever with respect to the housing product and the designs themselves. Thank you very much. And I want to thank, sincerely thank the neighbors for the time, the energy and the input that you gave us because I think it has helped to produce a better plan. City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone here tonight who wants to address the Council on this issue? Please come forward now. David Jensen: Hello Mayor and Councilmen. David Jensen, 2173 Brinker Street. I have a few issues that I would like to raise here. Number one, what you've all been aware of is, you know where we're coming from is, we are kind of perceived that this was going to be a single family neighborhood similar to the one that we're living in right now, which is single family detached. And we understand now that that is very unlikely happening for this development. Essentially we've been kind of threatened that you know if this doesn't go through, it's going to be twin houses in there. Maximum density. Not a real great design so with that said, I just want to say that this is better than the other evil that's being proposed to us so I think that we're accepting that we can work with this plan. A couple of the things though that I would like to possibly submit is in previous plans, the single family lot sizes were not quite up to code of what single family housing should be. One idea is to maybe lose 1 or 2 of the single family houses. Make the lots true single family size and maybe include, you know make up those unit differences down in the villas or the twin homes. Another proposal too is, I've seen that the City and the developers have kind of reached an agreement with the Arboretum Boulevard and with the Bluff Creek right-of-way and essentially they get that land. The developers get to kind of compress their density in that area. All that means is money for the City. More money for the developer's because they get to put all those units in there. But what I would also like to see, which I think is fair, is that there be a little bit more landscaping involved. Talking with the developers, whenever we mention, I mean I've heard from them before that landscaping is cheap and fairly easy to do so you know let's not worry about that right now. Let's just get the prior approval to the plan. But I talked with the developers lately, when we mention anything extra on landscaping, we always hear, well we're doing it to code. We are not a Lundgren and we can't plant you know mature trees. We're doing it to code. I would like to see them to do, you know if possible, do it a little bit above code. Mayor Mancino: In a PUD we can require that. David Jensen: That's what I'd like to see. Another thing that we'd also like to see is, if this project does get underway, we would like to see the single family homes being part of the first phase. Part of the development there instead of the last phase. We'd like to see that be done, not necessarily be done before anything else but right up there. And also we'd like to guarantee something that the construction traffic will not be coming through our neighborhood. Mayor Mancino: David, let me just ask you about that. I mean when you say you'd like to see it in the first phase. How come? David Jensen: Because we had heard before that they were going to do the other development first and single family was going to be last and I'm afraid that if they do that and single family doesn't take off, then all of a sudden they're going to say well you know, we can't develop anything here. Let's put the townhouses in. They might try to change something like that. Previously on the plat that we saw it was the third phase. It was the last phase and they were saying that you know, it's going to be hard to sell that anyhow. I think possibly it would be easier to sell the single family if it was an earlier phase before the other construction's going. That's a personal opinion. I have one other question, and I don't know if it's appropriate to ask but the one question that we, as a community also have is that, one of the first agendas here was grouped in with all those others on the consent agenda was extension of the preliminary plat to City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Lake Ann Highlands. We don't quite understand where that's coming from. That seems to be in conflict with this. I would like some clarification, if possible, why that's on there and what that exactly means. Mayor Mancino: Sure. I'll let our Planning Director, Kate Aanenson answer that for you because we had the same question as the City Council prior to the meeting. David Jensen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: She'll do that right now. Kate Aanenson: The applicant, Brad Johnson, who had the plat on that property had requested extension of that. In speaking with the City Attorney you can have more than one preliminary plat on a piece of property. So if this one does get approved for conceptual, it's not even at the same legal status as the other one. Again, it does expire at the end of the month of March so they would have to extend it now. And that's posturing themselves so they have some development potential on that property. Mayor Mancino: So you can have two preliminary plats at the same time on a piece of land but only one final plat. Okay. And there could be another one coming in. I mean if there's a church, they could bring one in so, which I know doesn't make it any easier on you all but there could be. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on that issue? Rick Manning: My name is Rick Manning. I live at 7460 Windmill Drive, and I'd like to reiterate what David has said regarding the landscaping plan. I think that there really hasn't been, we as a neighborhood anyway, really don't feel like that, or we feel that this is our last thing that we have any, well even if we have any control for that matter but maybe this is something that we may get out of the project being that we seem to have lost most everything else through the entire process so. The developer seems to be asking for maximum density levels and I'd like to see them required to put in maximum quality enhancements, which includes landscaping. We've heard them say that we have a plan that meets minimum code requirements and what not so as part of the PUD we'd really like to see them be required to meet the maximum levels in terms of quality and not just in terms of density. Also with the road blockage, I think that's real important because of, being that we were one of the newer developments over in that area, there's been a lot of construction traffic coming through and there's been too many times when I've chased trucks down the road because they were going 60 mph past little kids riding their bikes on the street so that's very important to me personally and I know that a lot of the people here that, that that connecting is blocked not only during RDI's portion of the developing but even through the construction with Rottlund, that that road remain closed until the entire project is complete. That would be a request. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Virginia Bell: Virginia Bell, 7476 Crocus Court in Chanhassen. I would just like to add a few things. Reiterate what the gentleman before me had said. I think on the upper part of the development we are beyond maximum density. We're actually over what the density would require on the comprehensive plan and I would agree with the gentleman before me that maybe that is, this kind of development is the best we can do on this property given what we've got to work with. But in exchange for those extremely, extremely high density levels, some high quality landscaping is really in order. When I've talked to individuals of you, you've suggested that maybe one of the things the neighbors could do is go around and look at other developments of multi-family housing and pick out some of the features that make them okay. Make them livable, and I did a little bit of that. I wish I had some time to take some pictures, but looking at various City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 multi-family housing developments, I guess I come back to the landscaping. It was really the landscaping and significant trees and foliage between the housing types that I felt made a big difference in the quality of the multi-family housing that I was looking at. For instance they showed us on the map the small buffer yard between the cottage homes and the single family homes. It seems to me, if that's expanded so that there's kind of a back drop, a wooded back drop to those cottage homes, that gives I think a much nicer feel to those looking at the development from far away from Highway 5 and from our neighborhood. I think also, as I was looking at the townhomes around the Twin Cities, having some mature landscaping between townhomes, you know setting them off I think also made a big difference. So I do come back to the landscaping point as well. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Cinda Jensen: Hello. I'm Cinda Jensen and I live at 2173 Brinker Street. My husband was just up here making a few points and I just wanted to emphasize the concern that he brought up about the single family home piece of the development, and if I could, could you just put this up on the screen again. The plan. The single family homes.., and you can correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe there were 12 of the single family homes that in the original plan it was put forward, were below the minimum lot size for this particular area. For a low density. And I would just like to suggest that if you look at maybe taking 1 or 2 of the single family homes out, and allowing that space to be divvied up between the other single family homes, that could make for just a more appealing part of the development for a single family home buyer. I just talked with, kind of by chance I ran into a friend who lives in Chanhassen and actually would like to build a home in the Chanhassen, but is looking for a different type of home. Looking for a move up home and my friend just said that one of the things that they really would need to take into consideration is, they'd have to take a look at the size of the lot because a size of the lot can limit what type of home can be built on the property. Now everybody has different tastes in homes and I'm not saying that the lot size makes the entire difference but if 12 of these homes, which would be a third of the homes that are being proposed, are on those considered less than normal lot size, maybe 1 or 2 coming off there, and coming down to the villa property, could make for 12 other property owners in the single family homes, more pleased with the size... So I just didn't want to lose that point. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? John Hennessy: Good evening. John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. My wife and I feel that this plan has evolved quite a bit from where we started and we're fairly comfortable with it overall. One of our concerns, which has been there all through, has been vistas from Highway 5 and how this is going to appear. I'm not entirely delighted when I drive down Highway 5 when I pass the area over at Highway 5 and Dell Road, and there's development over there that lends for quite a bit of monotony and I'd sure like to not see that duplicated over in our area. Or anyplace in Chanhassen along Highway 5. I think these... number of complexes there that may have some impact from the highway. A lot of visibility. Not that they need to be changed as 12 plexes. I don't know if they can be staggered some within there. Perhaps Council can make some recommendations as far as different siding treatments or gabbling or something to just give it a little bit different flavor among the units and I'm probably premature since this is more than likely an issue for preliminary plat. But basically I think the concept is good. I sure don't, I'm not in favor of seeing more units put down in the villa area just because the whole thing is our neighborhood. Not just the north and not just around me but the whole thing is our neighborhood and I'd like to see a plan improved even further yet and I think there's some more opportunity. Thank you. City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council at this time? Seeing none, Rick. Do you want to respond to, I certainly don't want to put you on the spot but I think there might be some questions that were brought up that if you would like to respond right now. One is, and I'll kind of bring them forth to you and you can tell me. One is the phasing of the project. Do you know at this time which part you're going to do when, when, when? Rick Murray: Yes. Actually the phasing of the project has always been a concern to us, but it's always started from the north. The phasing, originally when we started this was to be two phases... Rottlund in the middle. But we wanted to incorporate all three products in the first phase. And as this product became further and further developed.., it became apparent that it's not going to be real feasible to phase them. We'll probably do all the public improvements at one time and we may stage the private road, the private improvements... Mayor Mancino: And the single family will be done in the first phase? Okay. So that dispels the fear of coming back in towards the end of the project and saying well, we're going to put a different product here or trying change it? Rick Murray: Correct. Actually we're dealing with one single family builder right now that wants all 36 of the units. He's coming out of my project in Chaska. Just sold out there. The footprint that you have on this plan are representative of his homes that he's building right now in Chaska. They start at $187 and go to $255. These are all representative with 3 car garages. They all meet the setback requirements that we're requesting in our PUD. And it's just a terrific product. It's Mr. Williams, David Williams Construction out of Chaska who is, whatever bracket he seems to want to build in, he's real close to getting his Reggie or his Award of Excellence every year so he does a very fine job. Mayor Mancino: And would you be open to making sure that they meet the minimum lot size, 15,000 square feet in that area? Rick Murray: What we attempted to do Madam Mayor was to transition this towards the highway. And that's why the lot... Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, the northern lots? Rick Murray: The southern lots. Mayor Mancino: Okay, the southern lots of the single family. Rick Sathre: The northern lots, I believe they're shown now at 85 feet wide. Mayor Mancino: So they're not the standard 90, okay. 5 feet, okay. And the depth? Rick Murray: The depth, I'm pretty sure that all the northern lots... Rick Sathre: ...they would average 15,000 square feet. Rick Murray: The lots.., are 5 feet narrower than the north side because of the way we've got two.., right through here and right through here so it narrows up towards the rear... This is the area that we are concerned with... City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Now I'm assuming that those single family, those two rows of single family will meet the standard setbacks for front yard and back yard. Rick Murray: Side yard, front and back yards do meet the standard setbacks. Mayor Mancino: The 30 feet, okay. Can you talk a little bit about quality landscaping, which seemed to come up quite a bit. Rick Murray: Yes, and it's something that we looked at, have been looking at for the last two weeks. You know when you're not exactly sure what the target is, it's hard to put together a real definitive landscape profile for that target but we've done, we've attempted to do that with an eye on your zoning ordinance. And I respect the position that with a PUD you can require extended landscaping. There are some areas of this site which we would definitely want to extend the landscaping in. I want...but we're going to add landscaping around the Hennessy property and also along the Rottlund... the cottage homes and single family homes because that's a transition of products... Mr. Hennessy pointed out on the east side of the site, there is the other headwaters for the Bluff Creek, in this area right down here.., probably will shelter the first couple buildings. The other two buildings, the northern two buildings will be visible from Highway 5. The way that they're aligned right now, we have a narrow end to that building. We don't have the mass... One of the thoughts that we had was that these... The first one will be visible. The other three will not be, but as you come back Highway 5 towards... That's one of the recommendations in the staff report was the treatment of the perimeter landscaping. The neighbors, at one of our meetings had requested landscaping in the single family back yards. In this area. We have looked at that very much. Simply because we've looked at this as the completion of a residential neighborhood. We're completing this loop. The buffer that this single family neighborhood has between the multi-family is... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions from Council members for Mr. Murray at this point? Okay. Thank you. Okay, bring this back to Council at this point. Councilman Senn. Comments. Questions. Councilman Senn: I think probably the easiest way to put it, in my mind the concept before us I think is far superior to the concept that's already, or I shouldn't say concept. I guess the already approved preliminary plat. I think the Council here, as well as the neighbors and I think everyone involved here has really kind of held out for a better plan and I really think we've got that better plan now. There may be a little tweaking here and there that it may need that I think staff could work on in terms of tweaking it but I think the plan that we have before us now, I think does a pretty legitimate job of doing justice to the existing abutting neighborhood area as well as, I don't know what I guess quite to call it. Maybe the landowners right from the ordinances, on the other side of the coin. I think the conceptual process at least as we've gone through on this has worked. I think both parties I think deserve a lot of, oh you know credit basically for working out a lot of the points. I mean it's been long. It's been arguous. I'm not sure it's ever going to be to the point that everybody's going to be totally happy with everything. But I give everybody credit. They've stuck to it and in sticking to it they've worked it out. At least to a point that I'm comfortable with it and I think at the same time in sticking to it and working it out, they've accommodate I'm going to say the most of each other's concerns as well as needs. And so it would be my intention to you know support this and see it go forward. Mayor Mancino: Is there anything that you would like to add before it comes back to preliminary plat? Comments for Mr. Murray. In any particular area. Whether it be landscaping. Whether it be monotony. 10 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: No, I think the landscaping needs to be intensified in the areas that it's being identified. I mean that would be my choice. But again I think that's part of the tweaking I think that Kate and staff can sit down and do with the developer at this point, especially knowing those concerns. And also knowing the confines that we operate in. I mean I didn't hear, I'm going to say, anything that's insurmountable but I don't think we're going to push the issue any further as it relates to density. I think densities have been pushed to about the point they can be pushed to. And I think using that as accommodation and then effectively looking at the landscaping tweaks and stuff like that at this point I think would make a lot more sense. There'd be a lot more valuable use of time, effort and money. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I basically concur with everything Councilman Senn had to say. I share Mr. Hennessy's concerns about the view from Highway 5. This is not offense to our friends in Eden Prairie but there are some views along Highway 5, in that neck of the woods, that I'd just as soon, doesn't happen in Chanhassen and if what I'm hearing is correct, with the additional landscaping and what not, much of that can be mitigated. And I really hope so. I also like what John had to say about the whole area being the neighborhood and giving up some density one place to put more density along Highway 5, while it would certainly help one neighborhood, my personal feeling is it wouldn't help the whole neighborhood of Chanhassen. So I basically agree with what Mark is saying. I think both sides of, I take that back about both sides. I think everybody has done a good job on coming to where, again something like this is never 100% agreement but I think we're definitely headed in the right direction here. And I will certainly go along with conceptual agreement. Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I basically concur with what Mike and Mark said. I've seen three plans on this property now and we all know something's going in there. IfI lived there, this is the one I'd pick. I think you guys have done a great job working this out. I know everybody on the Council wants to get out of the development business. We exercise that I think the last time we had a meeting on this. It's nice to see you work this out because we don't want to sit up here and make a decision that puts one side out or another and I think when you get involved in something like this, everybody agrees you're not going to get 100% in anybody's equation. I'm glad you guys are working it out. I really am. I think you're not far from finishing it. It sounds like Rick's already got a good business case set up to do those single family homes and I know that was a big concern. You wanted that in the first phase. It doesn't sound like that's a problem. I just don't think you're going to have a problem finishing this. I'm glad to see you guys working it out. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I like, there's a lot of things about this I like and at the risk of being redundant I'll just run through them real quickly. But the first thing I want to say is that there have been Council meetings where developers have come before us before and after hearing input from neighbors, they've made remarks like I appreciate the residents input and you know darn well that the remark that appreciating the input is just condescending. I know for a fact that we have a better product here, and I think Mr. Murray truly believes that the residents input has been very helpful and I really believe that the residents believe that Mr. Murray has been open to compromise and we're working towards resolution. It's pretty neat. Rick called today and wondered if I had any questions. I just got back in town today and I hadn't even had a chance to open the Council packet until about 1:00 this afternoon so I'm not as up to speed on 11 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 this as I normally would be. But the meetings that I've attended to, that I've attended. The Saturday morning meeting and one other one. I can't remember when that was. I think it's wonderful. It gets people involved in determining what's going on in their neighborhood and the broader picture is what's going on in the city. Now having said that, patted everybody on the back. Mr. Hennessy, I have a question for you. There was talk at one time about putting you on the end of a cul-de-sac or providing some definitive access to your property, and I'm assuming that this private road sort of does that, or it does? John Hennessy: Yes. Councilman Berquist: If you ever choose to. Okay. And that's something that you're just fine with, from your remarks earlier. Okay. I wanted to make sure of that. I've known you for a long time. I know you to be a very reasonable gentleman. And you know, it means a lot to me when someone says that someone that's going to be dramatically affected by something, when they say they're comfortable with it. That they have some concerns and then they address the concerns. I look at, frankly I look at this as having some advantages to the Windmill Run residents. The previous plan that was approved, there was a lot of discourse regarding the road being interconnected and the road going through and the shortcuts that those interconnections would pose. I look at this interconnection as potentially being a shortcut for the Windmill Run and Royal Oaks residents and serving no useful purpose as a shortcut for anyone that's going to live in the Highlands. Does that make sense? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Berquist: There was one gentleman that made a comment about the perception when the Windmill Run and Royal Oaks neighborhood was built, that the area to the south would all be single family. And I can understand the concern. Looking at it from this perspective, and then trying to look at the city as an entire entity rather than, looking at the city as an entire entity. This type of a development I think is much more beneficial for the entire city of Chanhassen than simply a continuation of Windmill Run and Royal Oaks. Nice neighborhoods as they are. Don't misunderstand, but if you look at the total impact of single family versus a mix of products, housing products, I think this serves the overall city in a much better fashion. Let's see here. I don't mean to dawdle but. Nothing else that I've made notes on really warrants any comments. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: I'll make my comments will be rather short. I actually didn't think that this would get a place where I'd be okay with it. I didn't actually think that this concept plan would get to a place where I would be okay with it. I think it is getting there. I don't think it's quite there yet. And let me tell in the areas where I don't think it's quite there yet. And I think that Mr. Hennessy actually brought those up very well tonight. When I look at this plan on paper, I really see a garagescape neighborhood. I see garages all over. I'd like to see something different. I have been to the cottage homes in Plymouth and I was concerned about that when I saw those there. I was concerned about not seeing any front porches and any front doorways so I would like to see the cottage homes have some sort of a front presence other than a garage. Secondly, as we go south in the multi-family area I am very, very interested in when this comes back to us, what we will see from Highway 5 and that we just won't see rows and rows of the 12 plexes. I don't want them to be aligned as we see on Dell Road and Highway 5. I want to see diversity in architecture and something that has a good presence on Highway 5. And it would be something, and a product different than what I see on Dell Road and TH 5. So I'd like to see more of a variation in each one of those 12 plexes. How they are going to be different from each other .... on the north side as you go east on the north side of Dell Road and TH 5. There are many of those, and I don't know how many of those buildings all look virtually the same. The same coloring. The same architecture, etc. So what we'd like to 12 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 see is some diversity and some different angles of buildings so that we're not just seeing the rows and the same look. More like the projects in the 70's or something. We'd like to see some different architecture. The other thing that I found in Plymouth, in the cottage homes, that added very much to that area was towards the end of the street there was a property storm, a pond which all of a sudden kind of broke up the area. It had some greenscape in the middle of it. Because what I have found in the winter, going through these streets, is that all you see is the garage and then the build-up of snow. There's no place to put snow removal so I think that that needs to be taken into account as you further detail out this plan. Where is all the snow going to go? Landscaping, yes. I'd like to see it enhanced and not just follow our regular ordinances for landscaping. Whether that be in the ponding area, adding aeration, etc. and making it an amenity, or adding some wetland plants to it, etc. But as part of the neighborhood and as a draw to the neighborhood. I think that the way that you have buffered between the transition of the housing, the density of the housing, is great. I think you've done a very, very good job there. Kate I, or Charles isn't here. On the road that is going to go through. The Highlands Boulevard, is that going to be a collector or is that just an urban street road? Can there be parking on both sides? Do we have to be concerned about having. Kate Aanenson: The access? Mayor Mancino: The access. Kate Aanenson: No. The function of that street would allow direct access. We did clarify that issue. It would allow the direct access onto the street. It's a minor collector type. Mayor Mancino: It's a Class II, not a Class I collector? Because a Class I collector can't have individual. Kate Aanenson: You can have direct access onto the street. The driveways. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And very definitely, and I think you stated this earlier. I'd like to see boulevard plantings on the collector. Those are about all my comments. Any questions with those comments Rick? Rick Murray: Yeah, if I may just to clarify a little bit. The buildings that are lined up in a row on the east side, the southeast portion Roger. The 12 plexes. That is the least intense view of that building. Now I understand, I think I understand what you're talking about with architecture and breaking it up. If you turn those buildings 90 degrees, then I'd agree with the garagescape comment that was made earlier. The way they are right now is the least impact visually. Mayor Mancino: From where? Rick Murray: From Highway 5. And if we break that up with architecture and with plantings, I still think that's possibly the best alignment for those buildings. Mayor Mancino: If you can show me that, I'll be fine with that. Rick Murray: Okay, fine. Mayor Mancino: If you can show me, and what I'd like to see at preliminary plat stage, some different perspectives from Highway 5. What it will look like with all of those 12 plexes lined up and the plantings, and of course I don't want to see plantings that are 20 years old, but plantings that will actually go in would be helpful. Those are my comments. A motion. 13 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: I'll move to approve conceptual. I guess I move conceptual approval. Pardon? Councilman Mason: Are you going to throw the PUD on there? Councilman Senn: Well we're just doing concept approval, right? We're not doing PUD or anything like that tonight. Mayor Mancino: Not until final plat. Councilman Senn: So move conceptual approval incorporating staff's recommendations as outlined at this point, and also give staff the direction to go back and finish working out those few issues involving landscaping. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to grant conceptual approval of PUD #96-4, sketch plan dated 3/5/97, with the following conditions: 1. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species listed in Bluff Creek Management Plan. 2. Prepare a vegetation restoration plan for slope leading down from road to the wetland in southwest comer and adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. 3. Revised grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 4. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over the private streets within the development. Upon completion of the public improvements, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and streets improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 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. 14 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 ;;design of parking stalls and drive aisles." 10. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 15. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate right-of-way for Arboretum Boulevard. 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 18. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100- year high water level. 19. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 15 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility, drainage and conservation easement up to the 964 contour line adjacent to Bluff Creek. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot. 22. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line. 23. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard. 24. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and a schedule of construction events. 25. The applicant shall dedicate a 50-foot wide strip of land for Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. 26. The require building setback from the Bluff Creek should be at the existing 966 contour. 27. Phase II stormwater pond shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given for oversizing this pond. 28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based on a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 29. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 30. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, 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. 31. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992 regarding premise identification (copy enclosed). 33. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 06-1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking fire lane signs. 34. 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 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. 16 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 35. Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(d). Exception, when buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. 36. 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. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(b). 37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 38. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.403. 39. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor. 40. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a better transition form the existing single family development to the south. 41. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelter/bus cut-out. 42. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter of the project. 43. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the natural features on the site. 44. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior materials must be made. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Steve Berquist left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the following items.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135 FT. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78TM STREET, AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM. Roger Knutson: Mayor? If I could briefly address this issue. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Why don't we hold on one minute until people get situated. 17 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the applicant's attorney, Mr. Coyle, and the applicant has indicated some interest in pursuing a site which has become known as the Quattro site for their tower. But they're willing to do this, and continue this matter tonight I believe if the Council would accommodate them by requesting a special Planning Commission meeting so that that Planning Commission could consider this new site. The Planning Commission could consider this new site in advance of your next City Council meeting to kind of expedite the review of this in consideration of the fact that they've been working on this for some months now and this new site had just come up. If that's the case, I think if the Council would direct the Planning Commission to hold a special meeting, after notice can be given, as required, and so that can be done before this meeting. Is that correct Mr. Coyle? Mayor Mancino: Okay. First of all we need to make a motion to do that. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Secondly, do you want to make any comment publicly? Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Mayor Mancino: As long as it's not too long. Peter Coyle: It won't be any longer than it's taken to get to this point, I assure you of that. Mayor Mancino: Oh no. We could be here for a while. Peter Coyle: Mr. Knutson I think has accurately stated the condition. The concern for us is that, as he's indicated, we've been at this process for quite some time and we've really, I think cooperated as much as we could with your staff. Mayor Mancino: You have. Peter Coyle: And our fear is that if we follow the Council's lead at this point, and we are willing to do that, we not get roped up in a second round process where we find ourselves two months hence, having picked new fights with somebody else that we don't know about as we sit here tonight. And so all I'm looking for is a little bit of, not commitment by any means, but comfort if you will, that the process we're going to embark on is one that will allow us to be back here in two weeks with the ability to try to get some final action so we can get about the business of building this tower and building our business. And with that we would be pleased to have our application, or pending application laid aside and recrafted for purposes of this alternative site and we'll work with your staff on anticipation of that Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm sure we can accommodate you. Thank you. Actually we have the Planning Commission Chair here who can help us with that. So we'd like to move to continue and have this reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to our March 24th City Council meeting. And that could take place from 6:00 to 6:30. May I have a motion for continuation. Unless there are comments from Council members. Councilman Senn: Just a quick one. I mean basically, to respond just a little bit to his request. I mean you know, if you want kind of an opinion poll, I mean I'd still love to see the water tower. Quattro's definitely 18 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 the next in the line as far as favored sites from my standpoint, so I would be very amenable to short cutting this to accomplish either one of those. I'm not preferable to the other two that have been suggested thus far. I don't know if everybody shares in that or not but I think, if that gives you the feeling you're looking for. I would move to continue this with the consent of the applicant and to ask the Planning Commission to schedule a special meeting prior to our next Council meeting so this item can be acted upon and closed out at that meeting. Councilman Mason: I will second that. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table, with the applicant's consent, the Conditional Use Permit request and Site Plan Review for a telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 78 WEST 79TM STREET, U.S. WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC. Roger Knutson: Mayor, first I have to ask the question. Is the same arrangement acceptable to your client sir? Jay Littlejohn: Well I'd also like to make a few comments... Roger Knutson: Certainly. Jay Littlejohn: My name's John Littlejohn. I represent Airtouch Cellular. U.S. West New Vector Group, Inc. It's 78 West 78th Street by the way. I just learned about this out in the hallway from Mr. Coyle 45 minutes ago, or maybe an hour ago and we don't have enough facts to know whether we could go there or not at this point. We, as I said, with the site that was at 80 West 78th Street. The one where the APT had that was up the way, as long as it will work for us, we would go on their site. The only problem that we have is that we would again ask that the approval of that site, since it's the intention of staff, and probably of the City, to make sure there are two users on that site, that a condition be imposed that a lease be entered into that involves equal cost sharing between the parties, and I don't care who the base landlord is or if we're joint tenants. It doesn't matter. It's so we're talking about the condition for approval, whether it be our condition or APT's condition. An actual lease in place allowing both users to be on the site, because we don't, as long as it tests right, and this is a little bit further west, or a little bit further east, but what I... and I'm not an engineer and don't have any testing equipment but it looks like it may well work so we are in favor of it, but we want to make sure that we can actually go there and that we're not going to be racked over the coals as... Mayor Mancino: And can you do that prior to the next City Council meeting? Jay Littlejohn: Complete our analysis of the site? Yes. We don't know who owns the site. I mean I need to get a title report and environmentals done and all those kind of due diligence that we would do before we require the site that I'm sure that APT could just turn over to us, depending on where they are in their negotiations. But as long as one of the conditions is, the City has found a site for us. I don't understand 19 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 this personally because I have a list of sites that we went to and they said no to us and yes to you, so. But then again, so did Eden Prairie. Do you want to join our team? Mayor Mancino: Let me tell you know it's done. Jay Littlejohn: ... site in this city, I certainly will rely more on the Council's assistance because that's been very helpful but if we can go forward on that assumption, then I wouldn't have any objection to having our item tabled as well under the same conditions. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Then may I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: How about if I just ditto the first motion? Mayor Mancino: Okay. What was that ditto again? That motion? Councilman Senn: You just want to see if I can repeat it don't you? Mayor Mancino: Exactly. Word for word. Councilman Senn: Oh boy. I'll move to continue this matter with the consent of the applicant to the next City Council meeting and ask the Planning Commission to schedule a special meeting prior to that Council meeting so that at the next Council meeting we can have all the decisions made in relationship to permanent sites for these people. How's that? Mayor Mancino: Very nice. And a second? Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: And you also stated that our first preference would be Eden Prairie water tower. Councilman Engel: I had one question. Is there a problem with the 76 foot tower going on the water tower or not? Mayor Mancino: I don't think anybody knows that at this point. Jay Littlejohn: We can't go on the water tower. Councilman Engel: Okay, that is. So we do know that? Then we know where we're at. We need a dual use tower on Quattro. Jay Littlejohn: We can go on a... Mayor Mancino: We've got a motion and a second. Thank you Mark for clarifying that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table action, with the applicant's consent, on the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a Cellular Communications Tower at 78 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 20 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: Madam Mayor, could we maybe take a 5 minute break? Mayor Mancino: Yes. At this point it's 10 till 9:00. Actually I was going to assess where we were at this point to see if we would be able to cover the rest of the agenda items. Not know how long it would take. And I don't think that we will have a problem. We were concerned about making decisions in the wee hours but I think we'll be fine so that those of you that are here that are on the agenda for the remaining second half of this City Council meeting, we'll get to your item. We'll take a 5 minute break and see you back at about 4 till 9:00. Thank you. WOODRIDGE HEIGHTS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAMROCK RIDGE), 6730 GALPIN BLVD., CENTEX HOMES: A. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 35 LOTS AND 10UTLOT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 39 ACRES FROM RR TO RSF; AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD FROM GALPIN BLVD. TO 700 FT. WEST OF THE INTERSECTION. PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Mancino: Staff report please, and just one question before we go on. Charles, I thought there was no parking along Lake Lucy Road on both the north and south side all the way from Galpin to TH 41, much like there is from Powers Boulevard to Galpin? Charles Folch: We discussed the matter with the State Aid officials and they were in agreement to allow parking on the south side, adjacent to where the combined driveways are proposed. Just for that stretch basically but other than that, the north side would be no parking and then east of the intersection, with the local street, there'd be no parking on both sides. Mayor Mancino: And why would we want, or I'll wait for the staff report. That just doesn't make any sense. Staff report please. Kate Aanenson: What your first action tonight would be, final plat approval.., of what's now called the Woodridge Heights. Originally called Shamrock. The first addition, the significant change would really be the amount of grading. Preservation of more natural features. So because the changes are basic, mostly construction related, staff has not revised them as part of the plat. The plat does create two outlots. Outlot B which would be part of the second action, and Outlot A. The motion for this part of the plat is found on page 27. There a couple of modifications that we need to make on this plan. One being the discussion or the... If you look at condition number 23 where it talks about the Black Spruce with Manchester right-of- way should be relocated. What the intent of that condition is that they be mutually acceptable between the City and the property owner. What we're trying to do is not have them grow to be mature and then have to move them. It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If we're trying to screen, then let's put them in an area that they have a little bit more longevity. The other issue on that would be condition, what we'll call condition 28. And that would be the extension of Manchester. With that, the extension stops short of the 21 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 conservation easement. It'd be a temporary with barricades.., but it would be stopped short of the conservation easement. We believe that what engineering had talked about, is that it does not need to be a cul-de-sac because there's not going to be any homes up there but it would just stop short of the property that would fall within that 30 foot conservation easement. Therefore not disturbing the existing vegetation. We would make that condition number 28. With that, that would be the first part of the report. 6A. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have right now. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions from Council members at this time? Okay, I have a couple. On the Manchester Drive, on that northern part. The only reason why it goes up there is to access Lot 1, Block 4, correct? Kate Aanenson: This street, goes up. Mayor Mancino: On the north end of Manchester Drive. Kate Aanenson: Right, and provides a future of this property, correct. Mayor Mancino: To the north. Although the property to the north may have access somewhere else on the northern side. Kate Aanenson: Right. We always try to provide two alternatives. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Charles, question for you. I don't understand the allowing parking on a collector road, and we don't on the east side of Lake Lucy, from Galpin to Powers and we have, as you had stated in this report, that we have individual homes on Lake Lucy between Powers and we don't allow parking. In fact that would just congest the collector. Charles Folch: Actually the section of Lake Lucy, between Powers and Galpin, actually has bike lanes that are on both sides of the road so that necessitates the no parking. Or is the main reason for the no parking on that particular segment. Typically MnDot carte blanche likes to see no parking resolutions on all of their State Aid streets. Again, just as a carte blanche type of deal. The developer approach, that's about getting allowing parking on the south side adjacent to where they're creating the combined driveways serving I think 8 homes. We have, based on their request, we approached State Aid about it and the State Aid officials basically felt that it was within their rules to allow on street parking in that area there, and they gave us the go ahead with their approval if it's, if the City deems appropriate. Mayor Mancino: Do you realize how bad it was on Lake Lucy between Galpin and Powers when, you know the house that had all the Christmas lights, and I don't even know what their name is. That wonderful house on Lake Lucy and there was lots and lots of parking. People stopped and parked on one side of Lake Lucy, and it was a problem all winter. Charles Folch: Yeah, we do run into the special event kind of situations. Mayor Mancino: Especially when the street's curvilinear. Charles Folch: In fact I would say that during the holiday times, during graduation, during 4th of July, during Labor Day weekend type things, we typically receive anywhere from a dozen to two dozen requests for parking variances for parties, graduations, holidays on segments of Lake Lucy Road, Minnewashta 22 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Parkway, and some of the other collectors that are no parking so it, you know we do allow it in special event type situations by permit work currently totally restricted. At this point, or this particular segment of Lake Lucy Road where these driveways will be accessing, it's pretty level grades. The sight lines are very good. I don't anticipate that it's going to be a parking problem. I think most of the folks probably make use of their driveways and such but again if the situation were, if they have parties or have some sort of gatherings and they need additional parking, it's there... Again, it was a request made by the... State Aid and responded that they would allow for it within their rules and regulations and therefore we would not recommend against it I guess. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are these going to be double wide driveways? Charles Folch: The dimension of those, I don't have a set of plans in front of me. Dan, do you recall off hand what the width of those driveways is. Dan Blake: The intent would be to the access point to approximately the width of the...width of one double garage so... Mayor Mancino: So it would allow parking in the driveway? Instead of on the street. For both homes. Or it wouldn't? Dan Blake: Well if they were parked in that shared access point, you would tend to block it with the other homes. Mayor Mancino: That's what I'm saying. So there's going to be a lot of on street parking? Dan Blake: Well there should be room for, what area, triple garage is probably.., got an overflow situation where the driveway... Mayor Mancino: So it's a double wide? Okay. It's wider than the normal. Okay. Councilman Senn: Mayor, quick question? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Charles, how does the width on this segment of Lake Lucy compare to the width on the other segment between Galpin and Power? Charles Folch: I believe they're the segment between Powers and Galpin is 38 feet but you're losing 8 feet of that for 3-4 foot bike lanes on either side so you're basically down to a 30 foot travel way. This segment here will be 36 foot face to face with no, face of curb to face of curb with no, there will be an offstreet trail if you will. It won't be on the street. Councilman Senn: So you're talking really 36 versus? Charles Folch: Versus 30. Councilman Senn: Versus 30. Okay. 23 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: But... collector is 36 on the other side of Galpin. Councilman Senn: Right, I mean because of the trails. Unless somebody's in them. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation to the Council? Dan Blake: Not on this item. Mayor Mancino: Please come up. State your name and. Dan Blake: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Blake with Centex Homes. I don't believe, if we're just addressing the final plat, that we have any comment available for any questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Council on this issue tonight? On 6A. Seeing none, comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: With the changes and stuff that Kate described, I really don't have any problems with this. It looks fine to me. I would like to leave the jury out on the parking issue. Simply because I guess I'd like to think about it a little bit more. So if we could make approval without that, I guess I'd be more comfortable at this point. I know the point essentially you're making and I mean even in our regular residential streets, you know as soon as somebody parks on them, it sometimes gets very uncomfortable to even get down the roadway with two cars. And I guess I'd like to go out and touch and feel it and think about it a little bit before we do that because this would be kind of the first time I think that we're allowing that. So I guess I'd like to...my feelings on that separate from tonight. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason: Councilman Mason: It looks fine. I'm comfortable with it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: As am I. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just a couple comments that I have that I would like to, in the recommendations, add a few words to. That were not talked about by our Planning Director and that is, on recommendation on page 27 of the staff report. On number 6. A landscape buffer, including berming. I want to make sure that there is berming on that landscape buffer on Galpin. Shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard and along those sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, Section 18-61 (a)(5). So I'm just adding the words, including berming. In those berming landscape buffer areas, Kate, do we have 20% as our ordinance of coniferous trees so there actually is. I mean the whole reason why we have the berming and the landscaping is a buffer for those homes on a Class I collector. Kate Aanenson: The City Forester has reviewed that and made recommendations as far as the species and they have made some changes reflecting that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And they do include year round? Great. On number 8, under the recommendation. I'd like to add some wordage to that. Number 8 says the following tree conservation and 24 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 forrestation area shall be dedicated as part of the final plat. A 30 foot conservation easement or preserving the existing trees and vegetation, whichever is greater along the northern boundary of the site. So in fact what that does is, it preserves on that northern boundary all the existing vegetation, whether that be greater than 30 feet or not. And it stays mostly, there are a few little bubbles in that but it stays mostly, some of it's not quite 30 feet and some of it's a little more. So that that existing vegetation stays. And those are all the comments that I have. Mark. Councilman Senn: A couple follow-up questions on that. As far as the berming goes then Kate, does that, I'm trying to picture that. Is that going to restrict that intersection at all? Kate Aanenson: No, we've reviewed that. It flattens out those areas and we also had to work where you've got the driveways coming in. But the intent is that along the collector street, Lake Lucy and Galpin, that there's not just plants... Councilman Senn: All right. And then as far as the conservation easement for the existing trees, that is not going to impact effectively, define construction limits or anything as it relates to the roadway or the improvements or anything? Kate Aanenson: okay in that one. lot wider. Well we're talking about in the northern area which is this area... I think we should be That's the one I see that it may drop down a little bit more but they've already made that Mayor Mancino: I think there was a private driveway there at one time that was taken away. Councilman Senn: So it's already been designed to accommodate it basically. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure if the depth is such that it's going to be a problem. Councilman Senn: Okay, then I understand. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: I just didn't want to stay within that 30 feet if there was some that dipped down and didn't see it... May I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: Well, I'll move approval adding conditions 28 and 29 as described and condition 13 and 14, is that correct Kate? Am I doing that right? Kate Aanenson: Actually 28 is fine. 29 was already covered. Number 23, I think we did clarify.., mutual consent to where those trees are located. And then the two modifications. Councilman Senn: Okay. So 28 is just the street conservation easement at the end there? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then clarification on 6. Councilman Senn: And then I have 13 and 14 written down. Outlot A. Mayor Mancino: Oh, that's on the next one. 25 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: Oh okay. So that doesn't go with A here? It goes with B? Okay, all right. All right, and then basically making the changes as proposed on 6 and 8 by Mayor Mancino. And adding the stipulation that we're withholding judgment at this point on the parking issue on Lake Lucy. The south side. Mayor Mancino: May I have a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve rezoning of approximately 37.92 acres from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF), second reading; final plat approval for 35 lots, two outlots, and associated right-of-way, Woodridge Heights Addition (Phase l) subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the lot line between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, to provide a minimum of 90 feet of frontage per Lot. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the full cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project. 5. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. A landscape buffer, including berming, shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, section 18-61 (a) (5). Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all treed areas to be preserved. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. The landscape plan shall be revised to relocate three of the trees from between Lots 5 - 10, Block 3, to create another grouping consisting of two white oak and one ash in the area of Lots 3 and 11, Block 3. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot conservation easement, or preserving the existing trees and vegetation, whichever is greater, along the northern boundary of the site; the eastern 30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3. 9. The applicant's SWMP fee for Woodridge Heights Addition is $38,109.40 assuming 22.53 acres of developable land. The SWMP fees are payable to the city at time of signing the final plat. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 26 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 11. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold, the property owner shall connect to city water. 12. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. 13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 17. The existing home on Lot 14, Block 3 shall change its address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the street has been constructed adjacent the house. The existing driveway from Galpin Boulevard shall be relocated to Briarwood Court after the new street is constructed. 18. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brenden Ponds unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 19. Direct driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road or Galpin Blvd. shall be prohibited. 20. Berming and landscaping may encroach upon the City's right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road commencing 14 feet behind the curb conditioned upon the applicant entering into an Encroachment Agreement with the City. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for rough grading and restoration of the portion of Lake Lucy Road through Brenden Ponds for the extension of utilities to Woodridge Heights. 22. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans and specifications to meet the city design standard for street and utility construction. 27 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 23. The proposed Black Hills spruce trees within Manchester Drive right-of-way should be relocated outside the right-of-way or on adjacent private property outside the plat at a mutually acceptable location. 24. The final plat shall be revised to increase the 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement in the northeast comer of Lot 16, Block 3 to 35 feet in order to encompass the proposed storm sewer. 25. The applicant shall receive credits against their sanitary sewer and water hook-up fees at time of building permit issuance for the oversizing cost of the watermain (12" vs. 8") in Lake Lucy Road, abandonment of the City's booster station and utility extension through Brenden Ponds. The total amount of credit shall be determined based on final quantities and formal acceptance of the utilities by the City. 26. Two model home permits may be issued in the first addition upon the final plat being recorded. Access to the dwellings shall meet the fire marshal's requirements. 27. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical standards. No parking zones shall be designated along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 28. The extension of Manchester which will stop short of the conservation easement to preserve the existing vegetation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS. Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming you can do a preliminary and final in one time? Kate Aanenson: Correct. This would be the area that we just identified as Outlot B. This plat, this section of the plat will have two outlots. Outlot A was deemed unbuildable. That's one of the conditions that were added. And Outlot B, which will be the wetland. This is the area that had significant changes from the original plat. We looked at private drives when this came through before as Shamrock Ridge. This developer, one of the concerns of staff with that original proposal was there was an extensive amount of grading. And the plat was compromised because of it. This applicant has proposed to have more, have lots without the private drive having direct access, combined driveways so we believe the lots will be better integrity because they're pulling them away from the wetlands we found that before was a lot worse than originally thought of. So what this plat does, it revises, reduces the overall grading.., specifically in this area here... We got an increase in the number of access points on Lake Lucy, as he indicated.., that they will be combined... Mayor Mancino: We are increasing. We had two before. Kate Aanenson: Well on the north side there were some already so I'm talking about the total. And we believe that by reducing the amount of grading we're retaining the site characteristics. What we talked about before, we felt like there were two conditions that needed to be added on this. One that Outlot B be deemed unbuildable. And then 14, additional landscaping be placed on Outlot A. There is streetscape on that north side where the sidewalk is. Additional landscaping along the hillside. The recommendation right 28 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 now was sumac or something that would grow, is pretty low maintenance. But as was discussed earlier, there was a request to put additional landscaping on there. We're recommending we add 13, Outlot B be deemed unbuildable and 14, additional landscaping. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Charles I have just a couple, because I came to know this plat fairly well. The original one that was passed by the City Council a couple years ago that had gotten extended, had Lake Lucy Road on that western part, two curb cuts on the south side. None on the north and we're going from what, 2 to 5? Charles Folch: That's correct. Originally there was 2 proposed in the south. Now there's proposed 4 on the south and 1 on the north. I believe that the statement that Kate was trying to make earlier is that the total number of lots served by these curb cuts has not changed from previously to now. Previously the 2 curb cuts were each serving 4 to 5 lots. Mayor Mancino: Oh yeah, I understand that but there will be more people going in and out at different points along this collector. Charles Folch: Total number of movements does not change but the location of them is spread out, yes. Mayor Mancino: So that is, if you don't hit the first one you hit the second one or the third one or the fourth one instead of the first or second. I'm assuming that the dwelling types, have they changed so that there would be, by the developer, so there will be less grading also? Or are they still walkouts. Charles Folch: I believe they're still intended to be walkouts. With their proximity. Where they're being proposed now for the building pad is an area where you don't have the extensive soil corrections that you had before. They're closer to an area where the grading is less overall just because you have to push it out farther down the slope and such so overall there's just less grading. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here and would they like to address the City Council at this time? Dan Blake: Madam Mayor and members of the Council again. I'm Dan Blake with Centex Homes. As staff has pointed out, this is a reconfiguration of 10 lots that were originally proposed on a couple of collector private driveways to service this area. After investigating the site, we feel this is a better alternative. It has actually increased Outlot B by a couple of acres. The undisturbed area. Yes, there are some direct access points, a few more direct access points onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess I want to make the point that there are direct access points onto Lake Lucy Road further to the west of the site on the Gestach-Paulson development, as well as quite a large number on the segment of Lake Lucy further east of here. So I don't know that this is anything drastically different. I think the policy is limit it where possible and we have concluded it's not very practical to limit it here. I think there's other roads in the city and Mr. Folch can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the collector road through the Longacres development has a number of access points. Allows parking on both sides. Mayor Mancino: It is not a Class I collector. Dan Blake: It is not? Mayor Mancino: No. 29 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Dan Blake: I didn't realize the City had. Charles Folch: It's a State Aid collector route. Mayor Mancino: It's a Class I? I thought it was a Class II? Charles Folch: It's a Class II collector route, State Aid route, yeah. Mayor Mancino: But there is a difference, just so you know that. Dan Blake: I wasn't aware that the City had different class collectors. I guess other than that, it was brought up regarding the walkouts. I guess walkout lots, backing up to the wetland will actually result in less grading, not more grading, because they will fit the slopes that will end up, what is there will end up there as opposed to a, trying to create a flat homesite. Other than that I guess I'd rather just be available for questions regarding the proposal and I guess back to that no parking thing on the south side. We think that that is fairly critical but if the city sees differently, I think that we can probably live with it. It would be the homeowners would have to live with it and eventually I don't know if that will result in an increased number of requests or not but we're open to Council's direction on that. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for the applicants from Council members? Okay. Is there anyone here wishing to address the Council on this issue tonight? Seeing none, comments from Council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Basically looking at this plan and comparing it to the previous plan, I really like the idea here that it is impacting the property a lot less than the original plan was. I don't know, whether the motivation may be cost because you have to move less dirt or what the actual motivation may be, you know saving more than exists there currently in the landforms and stuff, I think ultimately the end result becomes beneficial either way. You know given that, I really don't think it's a huge sacrifice to end up with a few more access points on that so. But I think that's definitely something to keep in mind as we look at the issue over the parking on the south side of the street and stuff as we consider that issue. That would be my thoughts. Mayor Mancino: We would also need to be looking at something in our ordinance because our ordinance very clearly says, you know.., access on collectors. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I guess what I'm saying there is, given the situation here and I think what we're accomplishing by having more access points, I think it's beneficial to the city overall. But again I agree that there may be some safety concerns issue but I think that at least in my mind is something I would consider much more in relationship to the parking issue, I think rather than limiting the number of accesses and putting us back into a situation where we may have to sacrifice more on the landforms. Mayor Mancino: And excuse me for interrupting Councilman Mason for a minute. What is that, the miles per hour on, will be on this collector? I mean I think that's another part of it. I think that sometimes when you have access off a collector it can help be somewhat traffic calming. You know having people live on it and obviously that's what Lundgren Brothers is using it for. For that Longacres. So what is the miles per hour because on Lake Lucy between Galpin and Powers, people do not stay in the speed limit. 30 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Charles Folch: Between Powers and Galpin there's a stretch where it's 35, where it's typically just a tangent or straight section if you will, and then where it's curvilinear on the western portion of it, it's reduced down to 30. The westerly half of Lake Lucy immediately east of TH 41 through the Gestach Paulson subdivision, that has recently been constructed and it's signed at 30 mph. It's also doubled striped the entire length so it allows for no passing. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And will this be 30 mph? Charles Folch: Continue it through this segment here. And I also agree with you that I think we, my staff and I will take a look at the ordinance regarding direct driveway access. I think it needs to be defined a little better with a set of criteria as to what's appropriate and what's not appropriate in the future because you're right, I think it needs to be refined. Mayor Mancino: Good. And I think that that can also do is miles per hour. That would be very helpful. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: The points raised have been good ones. Need to be looked at. I'm okay with it as it stands. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: They've covered whatever concerns I had. It looks good to me. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I have no further comments. May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll move approval adding conditions. Mayor Mancino: Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry, I do have one. I would just like to see recommendation number 1 be exactly the same as recommendation number 8 concerning preserving existing trees, vegetation, whichever is greater. The 30 foot easement or existing trees. On condition number 1. Excuse me. I'm sorry for interrupting. On the bottom of page 29. So that continual easement goes all the way across the northern. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. So I would move approval with adding items, what would it be 13 and 14 then? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Councilman Senn: That Outlot B be non-developable. And that there be added landscaping on Outlot A to be worked out with the city staff. And then amend condition 1 to be in sync with condition 8 on the previous approval. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: Second. 31 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for the Subdivision of 13.5 acres (Outlots A and B, Woodridge Heights) into 10 lots, 2 outlots, Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot conservation easement, or preserving the existing trees and vegetation, whichever is greater, along the northern boundary of the site; a 50 foot easement along the western lot line of Outlot A. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity and quality fees of $979.40 assuming 6.78 acres of developable land. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. Access to Lots 1 through 8, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 along Lake Lucy Road will be restricted to shared access points shown on the final construction plans. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tiles shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. Upon completion of site grading all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within in one week of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. Upon completion the developer shall dedicate to the City utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 10. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical standards. No parking zones shall be designated along the both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 11. The storm water pond south of Lake Lucy Road shall be constructed with the initial phase of grading. 12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage easement over the wetlands on Outlot B, Woodridge Heights 2nd Addition. 13. Outlot A shall be deemed unbuildable. 32 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 14. Additional landscaping be worked out with staff on Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. You should have received an additional handout to item 6C which basically provides for some up to date corrections if you will to the development contract itself. I'll just run through them quickly here. They're either highlighted in bold face, what's been added to the conditions, or accordingly what's been eliminated has been cross hatched out. Beginning on page SP-3 you'll see a section there basically a change in the procedure for drawing down on security, letter of credit. Basically allowing the developer 5 days prior to drawing down on the securities for any type of a contract violation. SP-4, at the bottom, Section I, basically changing applicant to developer. The Centex was defined on the cover page of the development contract as the developer so there's about oh, a dozen places along there where we're changed applicant to developer based on what's been defined. Moving on to page SP-5, Section M. Basically strike the last sentence regarding detailed street and utility construction plans. That's what you're approving here tonight in combination with the development contract so that's redundant. Moving down to Section O. Basically a provision allows for the developer to commence site grading, tree removal and demolition once they've completed the execution of this development contract and have allowed, given us the necessary financial securities as outlined. Page SP-6, again we have four places where we're changing applicant to developer. Section R is no longer needed as the plans show this what you're approving tonight. Page SP-7, again a couple changes to developer and Section NN again, the same language regarding commencement of the site grading and tree removal. Also we do have on general conditions, GC page 9, Section L under construction hours. The construction hours for the project have been changed from Monday through Friday, the hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 to 7:00 as was originally noted. Other than that, that's the gist of the modifications of this development contract. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Folch at this time from Council members? Is the applicant here and want to say anything about the development contract? Dan Blake: Very quickly. You surprised me with that working hours. If you could explain how that relates to the ordinance. I don't believe that that's a problem but I'd hate to restrict my contractors if needs to be. Charles Folch: Basically the development contract can be more restrictive than a general ordinance in terms of what are the requirements of the development. And based on the type of complaints that we've been getting in recent, over last year regarding construction hours in the evening and weekdays, we are going to be going to a general policy for all projects. Public improvement projects where we restrict the construction hours to 6:00 p.m. Dan Blake: So this is city wide? Charles Folch: It will be city wide on all future projects. Dan Blake: I can live with that. 33 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to address the City Council on this issue? On the development contract. Seeing none, comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Charles, just want to understand. It's 7:00 to 7:00 in here. What we really want to do is get to 7:00 to 6:00. Charles Folch: It should be 7:00 to 6:00. It should be corrected. Councilman Senn: Okay, all right. So correct that to 6:00, all right. That was my only question. No comments otherwise. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: None. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: None. Mayor Mancino: None here. May I have a motion? Councilman Mason: Move to approve development contract and construction plans and specs for Woodridge Heights, 1st & 2nd Addition, Project No. 97-5 with amendments as stated in the new development contract. Councilman Engel: Second. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And this would be the new development contract which is dated March 10, 1997. Not March 5th. And with the 6:00 p.m. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the construction plans and specifications for Woodridge Heights 1st & 2nd Additions dated February 14, 1997, revised March 10, 1997, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the development contract dated March 10, 1997, as amended by staff, conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,240,910.00 and pay an administration fee of $91,026.00. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL; REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM R-12 TO OI; LOT AREA DEPTH AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING; SCOTT & ASSOCIATES AND RYAN ENGINEERING. 34 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This property is located on the comer of Chan View and Great Plains Boulevard. It is zoned for high density residential. It is bordered by St. Hubert's Church across the street, the existing central business district commercial and then other apartments is close proximity. This is the current use of the building. It's a non-conforming dry cleaning building. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property, which also would require comp plan amendment and a site plan review and request for variances. The request for variances are being driven by the fact that the building will not change the configuration, it's currently non-conforming but you can't expand or intensify without receiving variances. We believe that this is a good use of the property. At first staff was reluctant to give up the high density but in looking at the use of the surrounding property, we felt that it probably wouldn't be a good use... current on-street parking right now that goes out onto Great Plains. What this project brings forward is really a nice transition between the current St. Hubert's and the commercial, the central business district and because that is CBD, that is our highest use of commercial and we felt that this acts as a nice transition as far as the apartments and what the hours of operation would be. The use of the building, no weekend use. We felt that really would make a good transition. So what we believe that we're getting in trade for the change in the zoning would be elimination of the outdoor storage. Additional boulevard plantings and streetscape, improved architectural standards, elimination of parking that's currently backing out onto a collector street, extension of the sidewalk and removing of some of the visual blight on the property. So in short we believe that it's enhancing the property. We believe that the site plan is well conceived. I'll let the applicant go through that in a little bit more detail but we are recommending approval of that. Again the variances are being driven by the existing building. That wouldn't really change, and the parking that will be provided. We believe that enhances the property. So we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay, is the applicant here and do you wish to address the City Council? Joe Scott: I'm Joe Scott of Scott and Associates, 80 West 78th Street and thank you very much for the opportunity to present this. Of all the proposals I think that you've seen, this is probably one of the few ones that (a) has no neighborhood opposition, and number two, may actually enhance the property values. The project itself is pretty straight forward. I think you've read the staff report. You're probably familiar with the site. I really don't have a lot of comments on it except I had a chance to talk with Paul Stark at the Assessor's office and with his familiarity with the plan he basically projects that the tax revenue for the City of Chanhassen, although I'm not really excited about saying this, is going to be double what it would be under an R-12 and under it's existing use so I've got some building materials we can pass around. I'd like to make it real brief. Perry Ryan put together the site plan. He's with Ryan Engineering so if you have any questions for me or for Perry, but you still have a long evening ahead of you so I'd just like to throw it open for questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Joe, the footprint of the building will remain the same? Joe Scott: Yeah. We're not going to be adding anything to it. The only thing is that there's this cupola that sticks out right about here. We think we can save that. It's not on a foundation but it does add some architectural interest to the building and our east elevation, up there you can see that it's not there but we were talking to our contractor and he believes that he can.., ripping up all of the asphalt out in front, and putting in a new sidewalk, he can put foundations in there so we think that's pretty interesting so we'd like to keep it if we can. It's got a copper...but no, the building's just going to look nicer but it's, as you can see by the front, the way it is now. The way we're planning on it is pretty much the same thing. 35 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Joe Scott: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the City Council on this issue? Like to come up and give us any comments? Concerns. Recommendations. Okay, seeing none. Comments, questions from Council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I don't know, my first thoughts on this were real mixed simply because we're in such a state of flux down there with St. Hubert's use potentially changing. Pauly/Pryzmus now being ripped down and we have open there. The center being redefined at the point that the church moves out of this. And that whole area, and the property basically east of the cemetery is up for sale. I think we have a real opportunity there to look at the area and decide where we want that area to go but at the same time I think we kind of backed off that because really the event that's going to trigger that's going to be the church, which is the biggest of all the parcels. And I don't think it's fair given the fact that we can't put a time line to that at this point, you know to take this and put it in the perspective of an unknown time line. So given that, I mean I see no problems with the use. I see no problems with what's being proposed. I hope ultimately it all fits together but that's something none of us know at this point. I guess the only thing I would comment on, or like to see is some form of condition placed in here, especially since we're doing rezoning and comp plan amendment to effectively get a stipulation from the purchaser to agree not to disagree effectively with the overall plan of the area once we do put it in place because we're kind of creating here a use in the area effectively that doesn't belong with the rest of the zoning around it and it's kind of like we're creating the non-conforming use within an area where we don't know what we're going to do with the rest of the area and the danger we do there is we kind of, I'm going to say creating precedent or whatever, is we may not want to create or create effectively a constituency opposite of what we may ultimately want to put there, which may be something totally opposite to what this is basically. If that makes any sense. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I mean I think it's compatible, what's there because St. Hubert's is OI too. For right now. Councilman Senn: For right now, and that's the problem. Who knows, yeah. Mayor Mancino: But there's no question I think that we would like the purchaser or the applicant to work with us as we look at the whole area. Councilman Senn: Right, but I don't want a 1,600 square foot building that we're rezoning and reguiding now to become effectively a thom in that side, I guess is the easiest way to put it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, does the applicant have any concerns about that? Joe Scott: I think the plans for that whole area that involves Great Plains Boulevard... Chan View to West 78th Street and just as long as we can get to our parking lot. We don't, we have maybe customers come to our office, maybe once a month and you've got 5 employees so as long as they can park in the lot, you know whatever happens happens and I'm sure that anything the city does with that area is going to allow us to get to our property so, I certainly wouldn't have... 36 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn: That's it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason, any questions? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: It's a step up. No problem. Mayor Mancino: My only question for you Joe, and I just thought of it is, since you're only required 7 parking stalls, why are you putting in 127 Sounds like a good Commissioner Conrad question. Joe Scott: ... around the inside of the building and the way it laid out best for us is that line is dividing the westerly portion of the building, there's going to be kind of a storage area with the offices in the middle. So what we've got right here is we're hiding the trash back here and then the UPS trucks and garbage trucks and staff are going to be pulling in this way. So the way we figured to lay it out is the employees would be parking over here. What we don't want to have happen is have somebody have to move their car so we what we envision happening is that they're probably going to have this side of the lot full. We have public spaces over here. We may just yellow stripe this area.., parking but another reason when we took a look at it is because, from what our contractor was telling us about the cost of constructing the parking lot, I think you needed 8 spaces and it's going to be about $7,500.00 and to add a couple more spaces was like another $1,000.00 so we figured, impervious was okay and we figured for the incremental dollars, we might as well put it in. So we pretty much, with the setbacks... Mayor Mancino: Thank you. My only question. May I have a motion please. Councilman Mason: Move site plan approval. Sorry. Yeah, move request for, I'm still on the wrong one. I'm sorry. Councilman Senn: Question while Mike organizes himself. Do we need to make separate motions on these or can we do it all as one? Mayor Mancino: No, we don't need to. Councilman Senn: All right. Go ahead Michael. Now that you've gotten organized. Councilman Mason: Thank you so much. I'll move approval of the whole thing. Mayor Mancino: Roger, does that work? Roger Knutson: That's very technical and... Mayor Mancino: I think it's quotes for you right down here. Right under page 7. 37 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Councilman Mason: Oh, thank you so much. You're not going to take that motion that way huh? Okay, City Council approves rezoning of.3 acres of R-12, high density residential to office industrial, first reading. Approves site plan 97-2 SPR to renovate 1,600 square foot building. Lot area, front yard setback and lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown on plans dated received Feb 19, 1997, subject to the following conditions listed in the staff report. Councilman Senn: Well done. Second. Resolution #97-17: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council approves the rezoning (97-1 REZ) of 0.3 acres (13,640 square feet) of R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional for first reading, approves the site plan (97-2 SPR) to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback, and lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to offices as shown in the plans dated Received February 19, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rezoning approval from R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional. 2. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide financial security to guarantee improvements. The applicant shall provide to the City a $2,000 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the sidewalk, curb and gutter and boulevard restoration. The boulevard area between the property line and the street shall be sodded. Provide a cross access easement between Colonial Center and the proposed development for shared access from Great Plains Boulevard. An accessible route must be provided from the parking lot to the building along with approved signage. 7. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit will be required prior to installation of the sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: Will that comes back for a second reading for the amendment? It said first reading so that's why I wondered. Kate Aanenson: I guess we will put it on for the second reading. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just so the applicant knows that. It will come back for a second reading and will that come on March 24th? And will that probably be under the Consent Agenda on March 24th for the second reading. Thank you. 38 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 T.F. JAMES COMPANY~ LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND WEST 78TM STREET: A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL OF 3 LOTS INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG~ GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT~ WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 3R~ ADDITION. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is pretty straight forward. It involves three lots. One that currently has a building on it. Block 2 of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition. And two vacant lots. What we're doing is cleaning up vacating West 78th Street and incorporating those into that portion of the street within the three lots. It's pretty straight forward. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? From Council members. Is the applicant here and would you like to address City Council on this? Okay. Councilman Senn, questions. Comments. Councilman Senn: Comments. Overall it looks fine to me. There is one change I would like to see as it relates to the lighting and signage on page 9. Since we are. Kate Aanenson: We're just doing the vacation of the street on this. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we're not doing the site plan approval yet. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. We're going to do them separately? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. On just the A item then, no. No comments. Councilman Mason: Nothing. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: No comments on A. Mayor Mancino: I have none either. May I please have a motion? Councilman Mason: I think somebody else better do this one. Mayor Mancino: I'll make a motion. The Mayor can make a motion. The City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for West Village Heights, 3rd Addition replatting the second addition subject to the following condition and that is condition number 1. Access for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a joint driveway off West 78th Street. May I have a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: Second. 39 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for West Village Heights 3ra Addition replatting the Second Addition subject to the following condition: Access for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a joint driveway off West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Be SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 3 BUILDINGS IN A 26,786 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 3.4 ACRES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT; WEST VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I handed out a revised site plan regarding Building C... The plan proposed is three buildings, architecturally similar to what we've got on the rest of the Byerly's project.., and incorporating the columns and the architectural features. On the one lot you'll have one building. The conditional use provides Building B and C on one lot. We have done that on where Kinko's is. There are two buildings on one lot on that so it has been done on this project before. There is one driveway access between the two lots. A common driveway was...to provide for access, to provide an east/west connection. We believe that by having Building C in the comer, it does warm up that site and provide for inviting. We were concerned about the circulation, the drive in and what that... We did try several different configurations and we believe that this is probably the best conceived, as far as the look of the building. We didn't want the parking adjacent to the frontage street so actually it got oriented along the side. We thought that worked best. I don't know if you're familiar with the site, you recognize there will be a significant amount of grading that needs to take place on the property. With excess material, that will be held off. One of the conditions that we have addressed is where is that excess material will be going because obviously that is a concern. But we again believe that this project is well conceived, consistent with the theme that's already been established on the project. The existing Byerly's project and center. The landscaping again is well conceived. Consistent with what's been approved so we are recommending approval of the site plan and the conditional use with the conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the applicant here and do you wish to address the City Council? Charlie James: I'm Charlie James. I'm a principal of the T.F. James Company and we're the owner of the Byerly's project and of the Century Bank building. And we're anticipating closing out our last piece of land here with this project and we've designed the thing in a manner that we hope is consistent with everything else that we've done there. We'll be using the same brick and materials and architectural theme and we feel this will be a very pleasing entry point to the shopping district in Chanhassen. Staff had asked me to share some building elevations with you so I'll just do that now here if I can just hold them up. Mayor Mancino: We're high tech here. Charlie James: Okay, this is the elevation of the building. Oh! This is the elevation. Councilman Mason: It doesn't get any better than this. 40 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Charlie James: Tax dollars at work here. This is the elevation for Building A. This is proposed as a single tenant building for a national specialty retailer and the band that you see on the building was something, on the sides of the building there are something that has been added since the Planning Commission meeting in response to some staff comments. And that's a repeat of the same soldier course detailing that goes all the way around the Byerly's and the other building so we have a lot of design references to the rest of the project. This is Building B. This is proposed as a multiple tenant building. Smaller shops, anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 square feet. This is the building on the comer, Building C. This building will be occupied by one tenant who again is a specialty retailer. They happen to need a drive up window so I didn't want anybody to be alarmed that this was a fast food restaurant or something like that. It's proposed retail. Mayor Mancino: For a drive up window? Charlie James: I'm sorry? Mayor Mancino: And a drive up window? Charlie James: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Specialty retail, okay. Charlie James: And this building is essentially a reduced version of the Kinko's building and you can see that we've added some, the same sort of shadow panels in there, the little recessed panels that we've pushed back in as are on the back sides of the Kinko's building. I'm happy to answer any questions. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Mr. James at this point? Councilman Mason: Only I'm wondering if he's willing to divulge what the national retailer might be at this point Mr. James. Charlie James: I'm afraid, I would prefer not to. Councilman Mason: Understood. Charlie James: You'll be happy. Councilman Mason: Have been so far. Mayor Mancino: I just have a very, kind of naive one. Tell me about the stand alone building versus one building where A and B are. Are the retailers into the stand alone? The other, the eastern part of your development is so wonderfully integrated together and you can walk the sidewalk or down the sidewalk. It's covered. You don't have to worry about the traffic in the front, etc. and it's very, what do I want to say, user friendly versus having to go to individual buildings. Having to get out in the parking lot and not knowing, I mean the more buildings you have in parking lots, the harder it is to one, park and two, get out. And especially with a community with a lot of young kids, so I have very much enjoyed the eastern side of your development and I kind of have some concerns about this. 41 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Charlie James: Well I lost count but I think we have done about 20 some variations and permutations and we pretty much decided how we wanted this place to look before we started talking to tenants and then we tried to find the tenants that would fit what we wanted to do. There are some site constraints here that make this site a bit different and one of them are the slopes and grades on the north side, and that is one of the reasons why Building A is turned sort of catty whompous. It's parallel with the street but the highest elevation of that slope occurs in this comer here and so by tilting the building we can bring this down to the much gentler grade. And the other thing is that the only full access point to this property is through a shared drive with Century Bank and so we had to deal with the element of that drive coming in. And then try to provide a coherent circulation pattern. There was a conscience decision however to do multiple buildings because we thought that would be a better looking project. Actually we could have done more square footage on this site. I mean this is 3 ½ acres. We could have done a lot more building coverage on this site, but we thought this would be more interesting and visually, rather than just to slam it all together so, the distances aren't so great on this site that people will be discouraged from cross shopping. I don't think they'll have to move their car or that sort of thing but, and then also the site tapers as we go to the west and you get some very narrow distances there that were very challenging to deal with so this is what we came up with as affording the most visual interest and so forth and so on. Mayor Mancino: Consider me a focus group person from the pedestrian friendly sort of retail. The only other thing I'd like to see is, in front of the front doors, that there is actually no parking so that people actually do have a place in front of the front doors of some of these retail areas to walk into the front door and it's kind of open. I know it's a little nit but again I'd just. Charlie James: There is, you'll note on the, ifI could point that out, we provided that. There's a handicap stall on either side of the area that is striped to... There's one of those here and here and then over here, this island which is used as the handicap stall, actually the architect told me that the city standards don't quite state what the Federal law is on that and.., has to be a certain width but there's some code out there someplace that in addition to the width of that stall you have to have this maneuvering room and it makes it wider. So we drew to that standard and there just wasn't room on this particular building to have that space available. The reason that parking was changed at the last minute is this particular retailer has a lot of women and children as customers and women bringing their children and they wanted that front door parking because they felt that was very important to these particular customers so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Could I see your east elevations on B and C again? I'm sorry, west elevations it would be. I'm sorry. Okay, so that's what, brick and glass along there then? Charlie James: No, this is all brick. You have that cantilevered top... Byerly's, the contrasting brick and then this is all the brown brick. This is the soldier course here and the reveal that runs along here. And then we use here, rather than just lay the brick up flat to get the same visual interest, we're creating some pillars here and some recessed panels by using a thinner depth brick against the block and so the idea is these things will cast some shadows here and catch the sunlight and break up that wall. Councilman Senn: Okay, and now that's Building what, B? Charlie James: That's the small building on the very comer. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's C. Okay. And what about Building B? 42 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Charlie James: This is the west elevation of that building. This is the back of the building. We've got brick coming around all the sides of the building. We've also extended the parapet on this building so that all the rooftop units are not visible. The roofline is probably closer to down here someplace. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the element that's shaded there is what? Is that glass then? Charlie James: Yes. This is a window. Mayor Mancino: And that west elevation is what's on Powers Boulevard so when you're approaching it from Highway 5 or from Powers, that's going to be the front of the building. Councilman Senn: What you see, yep. Mayor Mancino: Much like the back of Kinko's is really the front of the building when I enter. You know not everybody enters from the east. A lot of us enter from the west so I think that that's important. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. James at this point? Councilman Engel: I'm just curious. What's your landscaping look like to the north of your site running along the barracks? The townhomes. I'm just curious what it would look like. Is it keystone wall or just a big planted hill with grass. What's it look like up there? Charlie James: Actually this drawing does not represent the comments of staff so there'd actually be, apparently there was some buffer yard interpretation that we missed and that's included as a condition in that approval so the proposed planning would be much denser there. As you approach Powers Boulevard, the height of that hill diminishes considerably, yeah. Councilman Engel: Tapers off, yep. I was just curious. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. James? Thank you. Thanks. Anyone here wishing to address City Council on this issue? Seeing none, comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Okay. First of all, overall I guess I'd like to hear what the rest of you think but I'm just not real happy with the way those buildings look on the west elevations. In terms of their presentation, you know effectively to me where a lot of the dominant traffic comes from. But I also know it's a difficult problem to deal with multi fronts on a retail building. But I'm not sure I wouldn't rather than recessed brick, essentially being the same type of brick but recessed or thinner or something, I think more in terms of something that would present more of a contrast like a glass, but not real glass. Basically a blanked out panel that's really not you know a through vision glass or something like that. I don't know. I'm just, like I say, I'm not real comfortable with that but. The second comment would be, I guess I would like to see a stipulation saying that Building C could never become fast food. I don't know whether we can do that or not but that's the way I feel about it. Mayor Mancino: Roger, can you do that? 43 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Roger Knutson: The zoning ordinance governs what the allowed uses are there. Kate Aanenson made a statement that wasn't picked up on tape. Mayor Mancino: Pardon? I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: It's zoned BG. It's the second highest intense as far as commercial and I don't have my code book here but I'm confident that they're permitted as a conditional use... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: But you don't know if it requires a conditional use or not? Kate Aanenson: No... Councilman Senn: My last comment would be, let's see here back on page 9 under lighting and signage. Since we are granting a conditional use permit here to allow for multiple principle buildings on the same lot, I don't think we should be just automatically doubling the signage as a result of it. I think we should be retaining the signage requirements as though it were one lot. So I would much rather see one sign face on each building and one shared entry sign, which is more consistent with what we've done effectively with other projects throughout the city in this type of a shared situation. Because I think basically what is in here is excessive, being one ground sign may be permitted for each street frontage plus each building can have two signs on it, two sides. Mayor Mancino: Is that one all three buildings? Councilman Senn: It's on two of the three. One wall sign is permitted, yeah. Mayor Mancino: A and B, okay. And you would like that limited to A and B, just on the. Councilman Senn: I would like each building limited to one sign and then a shared access sign. Or a ground sign. Entry. Mayor Mancino: The monument sign. Councilman Senn: Right. Mayor Mancino: Which is the only thing they're asking for right now, isn't it? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So one monument sign and then, okay. Councilman Senn: No, well it says here one ground sign may be permitted per street frontage. Mayor Mancino: Oh I see, and you would like just to see it on West 78th, okay. Councilman Senn: Right. 44 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Kate, can I just ask you? How is that, is that any different than our ordinance? Because I know on the side of, what did we do on that east end of Byerly's. We don't have a monument sign on Kerber. Kate Aanenson: No. Just a wall sign. Mayor Mancino: Just a wall sign, okay. So we just do have one monument sign. Councilman Senn: A wall sign, yeah. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I hadn't really thought about the comments about the west side. I did see that the Planning Commission unanimously approved it. I know we had, when Target came in we had quite some discussion what to do along that side along West 78th, and I think that ended up okay. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what other people have to say on that too. I'm okay as it is but I'm certainly not saying I'm opposed to change if that's the direction of Council. Knowing that a separate sign permit application has to be required for all signage anyway, I wouldn't mind not dealing with the sign issue tonight knowing that will come back to us anyway, but that certainly is worth some discussion. Mayor Mancino: And Kate, is that true? Will that come back to us? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the point that Mark was making is, because there's the conditional use, you could say one of the conditions, putting two buildings on one lot may be to mitigate that impact is that you might want to see the sign so I think if you want to address that, do it now as a part of that conditional use. Councilman Mason: Okay. I certainly would be interested in hearing what Mr. James has to say about that. But there certainly is some merit as to what Councilman Senn is saying. This is great. I have not hidden how I felt about Byerly's and what's gone on in that comer. It's going to be a nice look spot. It is a nice looking spot so I certainly, I'm glad to see this is getting done and one way or another we'll certainly vote for approval on it but I guess we need a little discussion on the signage. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: And I concur, Mark's got good ideas on the signs. If we just keep the signage consistent with what we've got on the Byerly's area, I've got no problem. Let's build it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. A couple comments and then Mr. James, I'll get your comments and that is, I would like to see staff and Mr. James work on the west elevations of Building C and B. Just adding a little more architectural interest because they are so visible and are the entrance to our whole downtown on that western edge. And I see that also the Planning Commission, when they voted this unanimously wanted to see some more landscaping on the Kinko's building because that back side needs, it feels like a back side so I would like to see B and C not look like a, so much like a back side or a second thought but just add a little more interest there. Welcoming. Monument sign. I agree with one monument sign on West 78th Street. Also, that is the main entrance to this retail area. And as far as wall mounted signage on the three buildings, I'd like to see one on one side. Mr. James, do you have any concerns or comments? 45 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Charlie James: I guess I'd request that the sign issue be addressed at that appropriate time. Someone said to be consistent with Byerly's and we, at Byerly's they have the sign on two sides of their building and I believe Kinko's, because of the way they're positioned, has a sign on two sides of their building and I'm a little bit concerned about the comer building because essentially they're facing inwards and so they're going to want to have a sign over the door but they may wish to have some identity from Powers Boulevard and that area. I also think that the signs, we have a very strict sign covenant that we require all the tenants to sign as part of their lease and we stipulate the colors and the maximum sizes and this sort of thing. And I think sometimes if the signs are well done they can add some visual interest and maybe so, I'm concerned that if there's an outright prohibition here than there isn't an opportunity subsequently for some kind of give or take or you know, looking at a specific proposal at a specific point in time. Mayor Mancino: And looking at a specific sign. Okay. I'll take your comments. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I'm okay with that. Knowing that, I'm okay with Charlie said. I think he probably heard that what would have to come out of this would have to look pretty nice in order for it to even come in close to being approved. And with knowing that it might not be approved anyway, I can live with that. That sounds like a decent compromise for right now. That's where I'm at. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I guess my question is for Roger. What power do we have beyond tonight as it relates to signage? Roger Knutson: You can put a condition in the conditional use permit saying the issue of signs must be resolved, approved by City Council prior to any signs being put up. Leave it open. Direction that it come back to you, if that's what you want. Councilman Senn: Well you know, I guess overall my feeling is we've been requiring everybody else to do it. We turned Applebee's down on the second phase. We required multiple tenants listed on the monument side there as well as down at Goodyear, Abra and what's the third one. That car wash. I mean you know, basically that's the tactic we've been taking on most of our approvals. And I'm not saying that the quality of signage on this project is not good but I think you could look at it and say the intensification is a little bit more than we have most places in town. And again, we're being asked here to allow a situation we don't normally allow which is putting two buildings on a single lot or two principle structures and just automatic with that in my mind should not be the doubling of what we allow on one lot for signage. And so I would really still like to see us stick that in as a condition of approval because it seems to me that's the way we have the ability to accomplish it. Mayor Mancino: But under our normal ordinance we would allow two wall signs and we do in any business. Councilman Senn: I know but back up Nancy. We wouldn't allow two principle buildings which means, yes we would allow two signs. Or one sign per street frontage but if this were one building, there would be two signs. One for each street frontage, okay? All right, and there would be one. Mayor Mancino: No, I understand. I understand where you're going with that. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: But, to be devil's advocate. 46 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, go ahead. Councilman Mason: I'm just trying to think this through. Again, I'm not at this point really don't have a position on it. What you're saying is true Mark, but by virtue of the fact that we're allowing two buildings there, which supersedes which? I guess I'm looking at Roger on this one. I mean the ordinance says two signs per building, right? But we're allowing an extra building here. Now because, does A + B = C here or not? Mayor Mancino: What Mark is saying it doesn't have to. Councilman Mason: Well I understand what Mark is saying it doesn't have to. I'm just curious where the City Attorney stands on this. Roger Knutson: You have reasonable discretion to attach conditions when you approve a conditional use permit to soften the conditions that are created by issuance of that permit. So if you think for example that having three buildings on one lot intensifies the use in such a way that it only makes sense to cut down on the signs that you would allow if they were on stand alone lots and you want to take, then you could do so. You're not required to do so but if you think that's a condition that's necessary because of having three buildings on a lot, you can impose that condition. It's just really a judgment call as to whether it's appropriate or not. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, whether it's appropriate or not. Any other comments, Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: I think if this were more in the center of the downtown I'd be inclined to agree with Mark on that, but since it's on the far west edge and I always look for ways to kill two birds with one stone, I certainly don't know to ask you to do it but if you could put some especially decorative signs on the west end of the building, you could make it both visually appealing and get your signs in. It might have to be some pretty nice signs and I just know I think it would be a good way to break up those walls that we talked about a few minutes back but I don't know how you'd do the signs. But I'd like to see that too. I could go along with that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion? Councilman Mason: What's your feeling on it? Mayor Mancino: Oh! I thought I gave it before. I'm sorry. I tend to agree with Councilman Senn on this one as far as one monument sign and one wall sign because of the intensification of those three buildings. On the conditional use permit. Councilman Senn: Quick question for Roger. This is a CUP, how many votes does it require? A simple majority or what? Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Mason: Well I would like some more time to think about the sign thing quite honestly. It didn't even cross my mind to do it that way and I really would like some more time to think about it. 47 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: And I would okay with it too Councilman Mason, having it come back and having us be able to go either way under the conditional use permit to really look at it and see in other areas what we've done, etc. because I certainly want to be fair across the board and downtown. There's no question. Councilman Mason: So would the motion then be to, for site plan approval with the condition that there will be further deliberation over signage? Mayor Mancino: Under the conditional use permit, is that how we would phrase that Roger? Roger Knutson: You could say something to the effect that you wanted to bring this back. That the sign package must be brought back for your approval. Until there is approval, there won't be any signs. In other words, they've got to bring whatever they want and bring them back to you. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason: I will move, was that site plan approval for three buildings in a 26,000 plus square foot commercial development and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principle building on a lot, West Village Center Phase II with the caveat that any signage will again come before City Council. Before it will be permitted. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #96-7 for 26,786 square feet of commercial development for three buildings and Conditional Use Permit #96-2 to permit more than one building on a lot for West Village Center Phase II, subject to the following conditions: The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the westerly and easterly property lines. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored and revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Carver County Highway Department and Chanhassen Building Department. 4. All drive aisles with two-way traffic shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face-of-curb to face-of-curb. If earthwork material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City staff the designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities commencing. Hauling easterly along West 78th Street through downtown will not be permitted. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approve rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to city streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 48 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 The existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be preserved/protected from the site improvements. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement up to one year after the site work has been completed. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustments to the City's utility manholes and gate valves impacted by the site improvements. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The sidewalk shall be relocated to align with the proposed sidewalk in front of the building located in the southwest comer of the site (Building C). 11. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. 12. The 6" DIP pipe which is to the north of Building B should be continued with 6", and not reduced to a 4". Contact the Fire Marshal for further details. 13. Provide for and show on plans post indicator valves for Buildings A and B. 14. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact locations of signs and curbing to be painted. 15. The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, dark bronze anodized with square heads. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line shall not exceed one-half foot candle. 16. The development shall comply with City Code (section 20-1303) in the installation of development signage. The proposed development has two street frontages. One ground sign may be permitted per street frontage with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum sign area of 64 square feet. One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage. Wall signs may be located on the south elevation of Building A, the south and west elevations of Building B, and the south and east elevations of Building C and shall not exceed seven percent of the total area of the south elevation for Building A, five percent and 11 percent for the south and west elevations, respectively, of Building B, and 13 percent per elevation for the south and east elevations of Building C. A separate sign permit application shall be required for all signage. 17. The applicant must increase parking lot plantings to total 26 overstory trees. It will be necessary to make use of planting spaces on peninsulas and near parking lot edges to meet requirements. Ornamentals may not be used in parking lot. 18. The applicant must increase plantings along north perimeter to meet buffer yard "D" totals. 49 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 19. The applicant should also provide additional plantings (shrubs and trees) to the east of Bldg. A to help soften the expanse of building. 20. Staff and the applicant shall look at incorporating the detailing of building C to the east and west of buildings A and B. 21. Additional landscaping shall be added to the west side of the Kinko's building in West Village Center. 22. Staff and the applicant shall look at different traffic designs for the drive-thru. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKEVIEW HILLS PROPERTY WITHIN TH 212 CORRIDOR~ RALF FUNDS: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT PURCHASE AGREEMENT. B. APPROVAL OF DRAFT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Kate Aanenson: The property is located on the eastern edge of the City. In December of 1995 the City Council passed a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for the Met Council for their right- of-way acquisition or RALF as we call it. The property's approximately 26.5 acres, which about 16.5 are developable. 10 acres are marshland or lake... This is before you tonight, the City Attorney's office has some changes. I'll let the City Attorney go through on the real estate purchase agreement. We just wanted to point out that the property price went up significantly from this piece compared to the piece immediately to the west. As a part of the agreement there's also administrative cost that the City would be compensated for through the Met Council which would include title search, closing cost and then... That's one of the things that we are requesting too on this property is a Phase I environmental audit. With that, staff is recommending approval but I'll turn it over to Roger to go through the changes in the real estate agreement that you have in your packet. I believe I passed out that document. Roger Knutson: The reason you're getting it at this late hour is because it was typed at 5:00 this afternoon. The final wordsmithing was done very, very late this afternoon. I was on the phone with Councilmember Senn and the seller's attorney. I won't go over all the wordsmithing changes. I'll just quickly point out, highlight what I'll call the only changes of substance. The applicant is required to escrow money to ensure that wells are capped. We initially did that based upon more or less an educated guess and now we have an actual bid of what it's going to cost to do the work so that number reflects the actual bid for sealing those wells. Item 2. Mayor Mancino: Is it more or less than what you thought it would be? Roger Knutson: The actual is less. When you say myself, I didn't make the guess. Someone else did. Second. There was discussion about taking, requiring that an existing wellhouse be taken down and it's my understanding that it's no longer, the City's no longer going to require that. There was initially some interest in it but staff is recommending that that's really not an issue. Mayor Mancino: So that means we're not paying for it? Roger Knutson: The well house? 50 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Yes. Roger Knutson: We're not requiring to demolish it. And the only other item was the timing of hooking up to sewer. They wanted until 1998, an extra year, and staff looked at, the seller felt very strongly about it and that seemed like a reasonable compromise. Those are the only real changes of substance. The others are changes in just talking about the words. With that, I'll answer any of your questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Councilmembers? So Roger, the damages for the abandonment of the well and connection to city water, $290,000.00 according to the staff report. So they're being reimbursed to connect to city water? Roger Knutson: Well we're requiring them to cap the existing wells at $11,480.00. That's the estimated cost. But yes. Mayor Mancino: But on page 2, second paragraph. We are also paying or MnDot is paying for them to connect to city water? Roger Knutson: Right. Councilman Senn: Mayor Mancino, if I understand that basically the well fits on part of the property which MnDot is acquiring, okay so they will not longer have services of the well even though the well is adequate well into the future. So effectively MnDot, through their agreement, was acquiring effectively the right to take the well away, which then necessitates them to hook up to city water, which I believe we just got down there, right? Mayor Mancino: Wouldn't they have to anyway, with the new improvements that are being done on Lyman? Councilman Senn: No, we can't require people to hook-up. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, within so many feet. I mean we are requiring, no. I guess we aren't are we. I was thinking on the Heritage. Kate Aanenson: North Bay project... Mayor Mancino: North Bay project. But they didn't have an existing well at North Bay? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Mancino: So you have to hook up city sewer but you don't water when that becomes available. You can keep your same well if it's still there and working, etc. Councilman Senn: Under the agreement, they're paying the assessments anyway, regardless of hooking up or not hooking up. Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear. The economic terms were negotiated between MnDot and we were not party to those negotiations as far as I know. Maybe staff sat in or something. 51 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Is there anyone here tonight that would like to speak to this issue? John Teal: I'm here representing the project... I don't have anything to say but I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody might have. Mayor Mancino: Okay, would you like to come up and state your name. And who you represent. John Teal: My name is John Teal and I represent Lakeview Hills Limited Liability Company and I've been asked to attend this meeting this evening and answer any questions you have. I don't really have any comments to make at this time. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: No. Not specifically on this. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: None. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel: Councilman Engel: No comments. Mayor Mancino: My only comments are, land values in Chanhassen are going up too quickly. I think I want 212 to go through my property. And to pay me. This amount per acre... May I have a motion please. Councilman Mason: I'll approve City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the purchase agreement with Lakeview Hills for purchase of property within the Highway 212 corridor and approve the loan request to the Met Council and authorize a Phase I Environmental Audit. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the purchase agreement with Lakeview Hills for purchase of property within the Highway 212 corridor and approve the loan request to the Met Council and authorize a Phase I Environmental Audit. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: Mayor, I didn't vote and I would like to abstain. The reason is that I know the applicant and since it's a condemnation award, I would just as soon abstain on it. If it were required for, to make a vote, which I don't think it is in this case, I would. Mayor Mancino: Appreciate that. Councilman Senn abstaining. So that's 3 yes's and one abstention. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO CITY CODE~ SECTION 20-415 IN REGARD TO EXTENSIONS OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS~ FIRST READING. 52 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This was really directed by the City Council. We had a request for an extension recently and we found some ambiguity in the language that said, they had to meet, have an application in before the time ran out but then in the next paragraph it said, but they didn't have to. We clarified that and the intent is that it's onerous upon the applicant to notify the City if they want an extension and then we'll come back with a key change to accept the other... But we hope that this change eliminates any ambiguity and the intent is that the applicant.., prior to expiration. Mayor Mancino: And somewhere it will obviously state that too? Kate Aanenson: Right, and we've come across this before. We put those in the conditions of approval so they're on notice when they get those conditions of approval that they've got one. Mayor Mancino: Good. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-415 In Regard to Extensions of Wetland Alteration Permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: POLICY STATEMENT FOR NAMING OR RENAMING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE~ COUNCILMAN SENN. Councilman Senn: In one of our work sessions we had talked about this issue, and I think the issue originally arose because we were being requested by one of the organizations in the city to rename, what was it called? Chan Pond to Kerber Pond. And it's something we do get requests for from time to time and we really don't have a framework or anything set up in which to handle them so we talked about that at the work session and the Mayor graciously volunteered me to prepare a draft policy. Councilman Mason: And good for both of you I might add. Mayor Mancino: We work together well, don't we? Councilman Mason: Yes you do. Yes you do. Councilman Senn: So not degrudgedly I went ahead and drafted a policy which is before you tonight, which isn't terribly complicated but basically sets up a process whereby there is an approval process for renaming and also some criteria attached to it involving public facilities, infrastructure improvements, which would be the same thing, like street names and recreational facilities, structures, that sort of thing. Essentially what it does is sets out four criteria. One is a public facility and/or infrastructure improvement doesn't already carry the name under consideration. Second, the name be associated with the person that has participated in extensive public service. Or three, the name be associated with a person whose actions or deeds carry historical significance to the city of Chanhassen. And fourth, the action is to consider renaming a public facility or infrastructure improvement. The existing name must be generic, such as Chanhassen Park, Elm, Oak, Pine or whatever. More or less we would not take a park named after Mr. Jones and rename it to Mr. Smith just for the sake of it. So that's basically it and other than that the policy and the other stuff is there for you. 53 City Council Meeting - March 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Great. I think it's good. We'll put it in for a policy statement and we can refer to it. Any other comments from Councilmembers? Is this something we need to vote on? Don Ashworth: I think so. Just so that, if we're going to put this in some official document, we should have a vote on it. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the City of Chanhassen Policy Statement regarding the Naming or Re-naming of Public Facilities and Infrastructures. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: The only other comment I'd like to make before we adjourn tonight, because there's nothing more on the agenda is that on tomorrow night, remember there is going to be a neighborhood meeting. Steve Berquist and I will go to that. On Thursday, the 13th of this week, which I know Mike cannot make at 5:00, we will meet together at, we'll have a work session up at the courtyard to discuss the State of the City Address and what everyone is speaking about. And at 6:00 Dick Lieder will come and answer questions on team building and get thoughts on what people want to get out of a team building session. Councilman Senn: I'm just curious if Don drafted all of our speeches yet. Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 54