Loading...
CC 1995 03 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist and Councilwoman Dockendorf COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Sharmin A1-Jaff, and John Rask APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Doekendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. City Code Amendment Establishing Typical Connection charges for Sanitary Sewer and Water Service, Final Reading. d. Approval of 1995/96 Liquor License Renewals. e. Approval of Bills. f. City Council Minutes dated March 13, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 1, 1995 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated March 9~ 1995 g. Approve Carver County Professional Services Agreement Re: Environmental Program. All voted in favor and the motion carded. II. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONTRACT~ CITY HALL EXPANSION, AMCON CM. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, you wanted to address item (h). Approval of construction manager. Councilman Berquist: Item (h). Only from a standpoint that it seems awfully quick. Not that I'm not in agreement with the contract language or anything like that. I was simply surprised to see it in the packet. We agreed to pursue this but to me the signing of the contract makes the project eminent and I wasn't prepared to, I guess I'm just not in a mindset to sign that at the present time. I'd like to have a little bit more details. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Don. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Don Ashworth: Councilman Senn did call me and maybe similar comments, maybe not. His only concern was that if we, if in the next 30-60 days the project doesn't really seem as though it's coming about, that we have a way to insure that we can back it out of this contract and I said, I didn't see where that would be a problem. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would just as soon we make a decision and then sign a contract as opposed to having an escape clause, and maybe that's just a matter of having another work session and working through all the issues...and everyone. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other comments Steve? Councilman Berquist: No. I'd be real comfortable having one more get together and make sure we're all on the same page so then when we do sign'the contract, we can go hell bent for leather. In a matter of speaking. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then is there a motion to table that until a work session? Councilman Berquist: I will move that we table the. Mayor Chmiel: Item h. Councilman Berquist: Item h. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table approving a construction manager contract for the City Hall expansion until after a City Council work session on the issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried. L RENEWAL OF GAMBLING LICENSE, RIVIERA CLUB~ DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, Mayor Chmiel: The next item is item (i) but before we get into that, Mr. Blue asked to have just a moment to address Council in regard to this. And also that he would like to present a check to the City for that. Why don't you introduce yourself. Wayne Blue: Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'm Wayne Blue...Disabled American Veterans. Chapter One, Minneapolis. I'm out here for two purposes tonight. Number one, to make a presentation to you for $500.00 for the Crime Prevention. The first of two checks that's slated to come. The next Council meeting another check is slated for playground equipment. As you know, or are aware of last year we submitted, donated $1,500.00 to the City of Chanhassen. We'd like to donate more but the gaming is not up to what it should be, due to the fact that all of our proceeds from the gaming operation go into the VA Hospital and also into our van...used to transport people from surrounding counties to the VA Hospital. We support a...program where if you were bed ridden and your wife wanted to get out for a day, we pay for a person to go out there and sit with you while your wife gets some time off. We also have a program where we take care of the TV program with the VA Hospital. Updated TV programs every month conducted by Chapter One TV. I'm out here for tonight is to ask for another year of license for the Riveria. Last year when I came out here and stood before the Council, I was under the impression that we were getting a 2 year license and the other day when I'm checking my file I find it's only one year. We do have approved, gaming control approval for a license at the Riveria Club until April 1 next year. We've got a 2 year license at the Riveria Club but only one through the City City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Council. And due to my mistake, I was the Gaming Manager at the time. Due to my mistake, I didn't check it when we got it back. That's something I need to organize. I don't do a lot of...due to the compensation cuts and the cuts in VA benefits now, we've got to, we need something to supplement our income. They took all the fund raising away from us with the exception of gaming. That's all we have left...to run our operation. And what we do get out of the Riveria Club, is...more than welcome. And I've been in contact with Harr, Scott and I asked him before to send me a list of what he wanted~ I never got that list when we've come to make presentations before. And I called the city to...and I talked to Bob somebody. I forget who it was and he sent me a letter saying...for crime prevention and also for playground equipment. This check I have tonight is the crime prevention and the one 2 weeks from now. will be for the playground. Thank you Council. I hope you see to give us our license one more year, please. Thank you~ Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, I think you pulled item (i). Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, and for the benefit of people who haven't heard my spiel before. I have nothing but the highest regards for the organization and the programs that they put on for veterans and you obviously have shown generous support in the city. I'm just philosophically opposed to gambling in any form and I think that the long term costs, public costs have not been determined yet and as a matter of practice ! just oppose any gambling license in this city. Councilman Berquist: Well I actually asked for it to be pulled because I did not know where the money goes. I didn't realize, didn't 'know if it was local. Now that I do, I'll motion to approve it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and I'll second that. Don Ashxvorth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I should note that I did again get a call from Councilman Senn and it was his recollection that we had modified the ordinance to require more local members and so I just asked Roger that question and Mark is correct but what it says in the ordinance is there has to be at least 15 members, 15 people from the organization living within the city of Chanhassen or, is it working~ residing? ...I believe it says the city of Chanhassen. But I believe we made this determination a year ago that they do in fact have 15 members here. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. At that time we did. Roger Knutson: Or own property...and several other things. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll call the question. Resolution #95-40: Councilman Berquist moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the renewal of the Gambling License for the Disabled American Veterans at the Riveria Club. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion carded with a vote of 2 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR ~ REALLOCATION OF DENSITY TO INCLUDE 51 TOWNHOUSES AND 70 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS; SITE PLAN REVI]gW OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS; OAK PONDS 3RD ADDITION~ LOCATED NORTH OF SANTA VERA DRIVE~ DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Kirk Velett Bill Dolan Tim & Mar)' Anderson Sherol Howard Barbara Montgomery Jane Kubitz Bernice Billison Bobbie Headla A.K. Olson Ken Wolter Mark Littfin Jack Thien Julie Frick Greg Hromatka Dean R. Johnson Construction Inc. BRW Elness Meadowood Engineering 7550 Canyon Curve 1005 Pontiac Lane 7017 Dakota Avenue 7492 Saratoga Drive 7281 Pontiac Circle 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 8290 West Lake Court 7600 Canyon Curve 7609 Kiowa Avenue 7570 Canyon Curve Carver County HRA 7580 Canyon Curve Roger Knutson: I'd just point out. This is a planned unit development amendment which requires a 4/5 vote. Mayor Chmiel: Oh, we're not able to vote on it? Roger Knutson: You're able to discuss it and you don't have enough members. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're right. Roger Knutson: To save myself saying it again, or listening to it again. The same is true for item number 6. You need 4 votes to pass it. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay, let us, being that we have everything in front of us, I think we'd best listen and see what's here. Sharmin, ;vould you like to start xvith that? Sharmin Al-Jarl: Sure. Before we go through this application I will just give you a quick background as to what happened in 1992. The City Council approved a planned unit development to construct 209 units, multi- family units. A mix of owner occupied as well as rental units on this site located west of Kerber Boulevard, east of Powers Boulevard, north and south of Santa Vera Drive. What triggered the replatting of this site was actually a study that was conducted by the city for senior housing. We started ~vith a study 5 years ago. It was an open ended study with no pre-conceived ideas. The results indicated a definite need for senior housing. The city investigated 13 sites. After 2 years of investigation the list was narrowed to 3 sites. And finally it was narrowed to one which is located east of the Oak Ponds development. The subject site is ideal for senior City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 housing. It's within walking distance from all amenities within downtown. The city is currently working with Carver County HRA to put a proposal together. Actually we received an application a week ago. The proposal will include 70 units. The only possible way to let the senior housing project work is to have 70 units. Anything less than that would not allow it to work. With that out of the way, the applicant is proposing 51 units, multi-family housing to be located on Outlots E and F. Those two outlots were designated as high density sites as part of the Oak Ponds planned unit development approval in '92. The units are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 51 zero lot line parcels. Lot 52 is proposed to be common areas, and will be maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned planned unit development residential, 12 units per acre. With the transfer of density that we are proposing, or that the applicant is requesting, the total number of units is going to remain the same. We're just moving 70 units, concentrating them in one area and dispersing the rest of the units so the total number at the end will remain as was approved in 1992. The average density on this site will be 9.6 units per acre. The site is zoned R-12, which means 12 units per acre so we're still below the density approved for this site. Some of the changes that have taken place since the plan ,.vas approved in 1992. Some of the house pads have encroached further onto the slope to the north. Staff has spoken to some of the neighbors. As a condition of approval we have requested additional landscaping be added to the north of those properties to compensate for the expanded foot pad of some of those units. Another condition that has changed from 1992 is an easement that was proposed to be 20 feet from the unit pads where a conservation easement would begin. We have used the number 30 feet with this proposal mainly because in some areas it encroaches 30 feet into that slope but then in others it's only 10 feet. Some of the neighbors were concerned with lights shining from this development onto their houses. We have conditions within the report directing the applicant to provide fixtures that would only shine down rather than out onto the single family homes located to the north of the site. There are conditions also looking at architectural standards for the units so you have some diversity. And with that we are recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Would you like to make your presentation? At least to the 3 of us. We can't do anything, as you well 'know, but at least we can listen. Would you say it slow. No. Yeah, probably abbreviated, if you would. Dean Johnson: I'm Dean Johnson. I'm the developer/builder of this site. I've been building the first two phases of, the first...that project is currently being marketed in the mid 80's to low 100's and I guess I'd like to thank you for the project. The project has done quite well. It's been a little over a year and...and we only have 7 units left to sell so it's been a good project for us. Because of the success of this project, that's why we feel that these units are considerably...built in Chanhassen with the amenities such as Byerly's and the Target and Market Square and all these things have come in. It's allowed us to be able to upscale the units along there so these are going to be somewhere in the 130's to 150's base price and I would imagine with options, they're going to be go in the 140's to 170's price... The existing plan, road structure is much the same as it was with the rental units. The reason for this is...but the second was that we had dealt with the homeowners and City Council in '92 about this road and all of what was brought up then was in that design...had already accomplished in '92... I'd kind of like to mention the fact that much of this is a density transfer situation here from, as Sharmin, from these 51 townhouses over to the senior site. Our part of this is...51 townhouses so...I guess I'd like to bring up the fact at this point that we have met with the neighbors. We feel that we're generally in agreement with them. They do like the fact that it's owner occupied units. They also, in talking about in terms of privacy, there are now less pairs of eyes looking out the back...at their place so it has actually gone down from being about 44 units looking that direction to now 27 looking that direction so it's being for a lot better situation for them. We still did have some concerns or have talked about some concerns...were concerned about moving the units down here, down the hill. They were concerned about getting closer to them and they were concerned about the trees City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 that were being taken out. We have worked with staff and by re-grouping the buildings. In fact, maybe if I could make mention that we have a model in front of you of what the original layout was. And now the layout has gone to where instead of being...we have this building was originally a 6-plex. That's been moved into a 4 and twinhomes, we were able to bring these up the slope. By working with staff we were able to move this whole section up the hill more which allowed us to...and by switching these buildings around and re-connecting them and re-configuring we were able to bring them down the hill. Just a point though. Inherent with this style and this...rent. The rental units have parking out and away from the front of the garage door. In the owner occupied units you don't have that luxury. The person that buys it would like to have a couple of stalls in front of his garage to park. That actually caused a lot of the moving down the hill. We had to allow for that 18 to 20 feet of that driveway. But we have minimized it and in the process, I'll have Bill talk to that, the engineer talk to that, but there has only been one extra tree taken out from the rental plan footprint layout to this one... We only lost one additional tree. Other concerns that the homeowner had was the filling in of the void in the natural and we have talked to them at the neighborhood meeting that we held with them and we added trees in the voids. And then at the Planning Commission we again were able to meet with them and talk to them and we've added additional trees which are again... The third condition ,,vas the issue of privacy and what was brought up ',',,as the decks. Having people out on the back decks so we've agreed to a limit of an 80 square foot deck. An 8 x 10 deck for people to be out on but not really a large total of people. And last is the fact, as Sharmin mentioned, that they didn't want the lights from the back...shining directly at them and so we've agreed to insure that the style of light is a downward shining light so that that would not happen and we've also, as well as limiting the decks, have put a limitation on the declarations to limit the lighting on the back also so, as well as...covenants of the association... The only point that I guess I'd like to bring up, because we are in total agreement with the staff report except for number 29. Point number 29 which has to do with things...I think that as a part of the Planning Commission, that this was an item that was proposed by the Planning Commission and forxvarded onto you people. We were talking with one of the commission members and he was worried about a fence and having this place all fenced in on the back line. And really we do not want that either. What we wanted was to just have like a section of fence to give a little bit extra privacy to the people's patios so they were not looking directly at their neighbor. And I don't have a real large drawing of it but we have the landscape architect to deal with this and the situation is really right in here and what the commission member was concerned about was having one big long fence along here or having it all blocked in. Well we didn't want that either but what we did want was just enough privacy so that these people could enjoy their patios by themselves. So what we are proposing is that a section or two, depending on the width, plus a hedge, plus some trees in that area right by the patio to make their patios...if everybody's looking at you...so I guess, I don't really know if I want to get rid of it. I would like to amend it to allow it for just privacy screening at the patios only. We have no other desire than that. We don't intend to put any kind of fences up... Other than that I guess in keeping it short, I guess I would like to introduce Kirk Velett, who helped in designing the buildings. He's from Arvid Ellness and had a lot to do with designing and coming up with this. And then after that, Bill Dolan from Meadowood Engineering is, I think he would like to talk for a minute about some of the engineering, and especially the tree issue showing how the trees were and why... So at this time.. Kirk Velett: I'm Kirk Velett with BRW-Ellness Architects. I just want to basically address two of the comments that were made in the staff report having to do with the buildings and the design of buildings. We basically agree with both of the comments. The one comment had to do with the north side of the building, especially this building which is the one that is back into...hillside to add a little variety to that facade. Some gables. Possibly a light color over the...to give some variety to the backs of the buildings. And then on the other building, xvhich is more of...to look at the roof lines, which we've already started to play with in the center but...and so that it's not quite the same elevation as you drive down the street. Other than that we think this City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 xvorks quite well for the site and...as well as, we're trying to maintain on the back side a two story...with a roof and then more like a third story above that. So the third floor looks like... Bill Dolan: My name's Bill Dolan, consulting engineer and as Dean mentioned, we agree with all of the requirements that have been set by the Planning Commission and staff, except for the one that he spoke to. I'd just like to...about the tree canopy ordinance. I understand that the property meets that ordinance. The original cover on the site is about 37%. After we remove the brown trees that are shown, the coverage, the canopy coverage is then 25%, which is within your ordinance. And then we make a third calculation, according to your ordinance, after the project is landscaped and the new trees are put on the project, that the new canopy when we're done is 44% of the site, which is more than it was originally. Oh, I might just point out the one oak tree is this oak tree that will be taken that was not taken in the original. That's the only tree. The' buildings did come down the hill a little bit more but not necessarily in the areas where the trees were. It came down the hill a little more here and a little more in this area but this is not moving the trees. The landscaping plan is shown on this side and there are some pictures here of the site as it is today with the wooded area and I think if you, it's a little bit far, if you can see in this area, you can see that there's a little bit of a hole in the existing trees. That's the area that we work with the homeowners to try to fill that. We have put in, originally we put in 7 pine trees in that area. Now we have added 5 deciduous trees in that area on our landscape plan. And then if we compare our original landscape plan that was approved in '92 to the new plan, we find that on the main street that goes through, originally we had 27 ornamental trees and now we have 28. In the original plan we had planted down along the hillside. We had called for, I think it was 27 pine trees. We now have 19 but 6 of the original pine trees had already been planted. Or no, it was 9 of the original...had already been planted so we will move those to fit the new plan so we still have the 27 that was called for originally. And then along the Santa Vera Drive, we had originally, we had 46 ornamental trees along Santa Vera Drive but now that it's owner occupied, we wanted to do a better job of screening the people that will face that inner street and so now we have put 85 trees... And then Dean thought to the short fences in front of the patios that walk out just in this area here. There's 5 units there and 6 units there so there's 11 units that we have those little fences and then they'd be landscaped in front and on the sides. If you have any questions of me that I can help you with, I'd be happy to. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Council have any questions? Councilman Berquist: I've got a question on this fencing. This fencing issue. In the Planning Commission Minutes there was reference to double frontage. Was he talking about the possibility of fencing that? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There's the one short segment of street that's double fronted and Commissioner Ledvina was the one that was concerned about that. Making sure there wasn't a continuous wall or fence. Councilman Berquist: And that's xvhat prompted condition 29? Kate Aanenson: Correct. We think we can work with the applicant to make sure that's not. We think some sort of screening should be there to enhance the property but we agree, it shouldn't be a continuous fence and we would work with the applicant before final plat to make sure some language, so it's not a continuous fence. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: The lighting you're referring to, is that, have you decided whether that's photo sensitive light? I mean we had discussion, I can't remember the development name. On Galpin and TH 5. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Whether these are individually controlled lights or whether they would just come on at dusk. Has there been any discussion about that? Sharmin AI-Jaff: We haven't had that discussion, no. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Mr. Johnson, can you address that? Dean Johnson: This is lights that would be on the back of the decks and some people would choose to switch on and off. So xve were just going to go... Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Go out, right. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Not photo sensitive. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not photo sensitive. No other questions at this point. Councilman Berquist: Park? Park dedication fees. How does that work on this? Is it different than some? Kate Aanenson: The way it's set up is that they still will be paying 1/3 at the time of final plat, and the rest xvould be pulled with the individual building permits. That's how it's set up right now. Normally when you're doing a block, you're going to pull... Councilman Berquist: There's no park area within the project itself? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Berquist: Nothing. It's all being... Kate Aanenson: There xvas a private park originally. With one of the other phases. Not with this phase, correct. So they'll be paying park and trail fees. A trail was put in along Powers Boulevard. Councilman Berquist: So they'll hike it over to the elementary school. Kate Aanenson: Just that or cross Santa Vera. Cross Kerber at Santa Vera and... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have one additional question. If senior housing fails, what happens? Kate Aanenson: We've allocated 70 units of density at that site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it would be apartments or whatever. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Or they could come back and re-distribute that or reduce it to something else. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. City Council Meeting o March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? I know I had gotten a few phone calls from the neighborhood. What I'd ask you to do is, you're going to do this again so maybe if you'd ju~st try to keep it brief, because no decision is going to be done this evening. Tim Anderson: But it will be a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: Well, it won't be a public hearing but you'll have the chance for input at that time. Tim Anderson: My name is Tim Anderson, 7550 Canyon Curve. First of all we were very happy to hear about the owner occupied housing that Dean was talking about. One issue, or one concern of mine is the, the developer has stakes on the building comers and adjacent to the north end of the development as far as looking, seeing where the buildings will be and is that, are they staked as the current plan shows on here? Because there's a couple trees, the stakes are within the drip line of the trees and they, in the map show that they are to be preserved. I want to give that concern that we hope that the city will work with the developer to save the trees because they are a buffer between us and the development. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Dean, maybe you can. Would you like to come up to the mic so I can get this on tape. Dean Anderson: The buildings that were staked were as per the layout in front of us here. Since that time we have changed things around. Moved things farther up the hill. Split these, like I talked about in our neighborhood presentations so those have gone farther up the hill and they're no longer like that. In fact the main stakes that you see are, let me point out the comers. This comer right here and this comer right here. This is now a twinhome that's up in here. And then this building...and move the street closer up to here... Tim Anderson: Great, thank you. That's really the only issue I want to bring up as it pertains to the development. I want to mention also about the senior housing, our concern. I hope the city will work with us and other people in Chanhassen who are concerned about the location of it. We're real happy to have senior housing up, as our neighbors. Senior citizens but we are concerned about the developability of that lot from the sense, putting 70 units on an already 60 to 80 foot hill on a four, or possibly five story building~ It's going to be massive and I hope that this is addressed in upcoming sessions~ and such because it's a very small lot. It's about 2 or I would suspect 2 acres of developable lot that the 70 units are on. We, myself and many of my neighbors are very concerned about this and hope that this is, that the city can work with us to resolve this issue. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? If not, thank you. This is will be brought back to Council on the lOth of April. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I make a couple other comments? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councihvoman' Dockendorfi When it is brought back, there are a couple things that I'd like to see in the conditions, perhaps if you want to discuss it with this developer. I think condition 30 is a little vague. I think you could get some more definition on that. And 32 will need to be deleted. And I'd like to see, with the concern for the tree preservation, that we have some kind of guarantee. Like a 2 year guarantee on some of those sensitive ones. Particularly for trees 1 thru 5 and 81, where there needs to be special work done around them. That's it. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I know I see some concerns over here from some of our seniors that are sitting. Some of my cohorts. This will be all discussed back again on the 10th of April. We can't move any action on it because there has to be 4/5 majority. So consequently it will be back to the city one more time for that additional discussion, okay? Thank you. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 9~ CRANE'S VINEYARD PARK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 22~879 SQ. FT. AND 36~387 SQ. FT, 1035 HOLLY LANE~ JULIE SPRAU~ RAVENSWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: Name Addmss Julie Sprau Jonathan Secrest Pamela Myers 2004 Scarborough Court 140 Carlson Pkwy, #320, Minnetonka 1115 Holly Lane John Rask: Thank you. The preliminary and final plat is to subdivide 1.45 acres into 2 single family lots. It is Lot 6 of Crane's Vineyard Park located here and the southerly 10 feet of Lot 9. The linear strip of property and the 10 feet on Lot 9 will be connected to existing Lot, or to proposed Lot 2. Access to this parcel will be provided via a private street which will serve a total of 4 lots. Including the 2 proposed lots and the existing homes on Lot 9 and Lot 5 of Crane's Vineyard Park. 20 feet of the 30 foot wide pavement easement will be located on proposed Lot 1 with the remaining 10 feet on Lot 9. The driveways had been combined to reduce the amount of impervious surface on this site. On March 1st, Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the preliminary plat for Ravenswood Estates. The commission recommended approval of the plat with 14 conditions. Several issues came up during this public hearing involving drainage and the use of the shoreline, mainly for dock purposes. Back in August when the current property owner was looking to subdivide this parcel, he contacted the city to find out, one, about subdividing. And two, about the use of the lakeshore. At this time xve were led to believe that a dock had existed on this parcel, I believe at least for the last 20 years. And this was based on information received from the owner. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting we did receive some information from adjacent property owner, which you had received a letter from Miles Lord, indicating that there hasn't been a dock there. Staff did do an on site inspection of this site and I guess based on what we saw, there was abundance of vegetation. No dock on the site, which I guess would lead one to believe that there probably hasn't been a dock there in recent years. Based on this information, staff has determined that a dock may not be permitted or installed on this property because it has lost it's non-conforming use. Pertaining to the drainage, there was a neighbor who voiced some concern regarding drainage on this site. There has, in the past, been drainage problems both to the, it would be to the east and west of this site. Staff has met with the property owner and feel like we have worked out some of the issues. There are some existing, there were existing problems. We do not feel that the addition of two additional homes would significantly impact the drainage in the area. In addition there will be some improvements made to the ditches, culvert size and that sort of thing which should help alleviate some of the problem. With this staff is recommending City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision 95-1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated March 20th and the following 15 conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Good, is the applicant here? Julie Sprau: Yes. 10 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything that you xvish to add to what staff has said? Julie Sprau: Ah yeah, I would like to make a couple of comments in regards to the dock rights issue. My name is Julie Sprau and I'm the applicant. Actually there are four of us that are intending to buy the lot when it hopefully eventually is subdivided. So I'd like to make a couple comments with respect to the dock rights issue. Initially when we went to look at the property, the realtor indicated to us that there was non-conforming dock rights associated with the 10 foot strip of land going down to Christmas Lake and shortly thereafter he provided us with a letter from the City of Chanhassen confirming those rights. And after we reviewed that letter we determined that it was reasonable for us to rely on that letter for a couple of reasons. One of them being that there's no qualifying language contained within the letter such as based upon representations made by the owner~ Just that there are non-conforming dock rights if certain conditions were met. Second, the letter was written to a realtor so we felt the city must have known that perspective buyers would be reviewing the letter and relying upon it when evaluating the property and deciding to purchase it. And finally, the letter was written on August 30, 1994. Clearly at a time where it would be easy for the city to substantiate the existence of a dock and dock rights, so we felt that we were reasonable in relying upon that letter from the city of Chanhassen. And based upon the original reports submitted by the staff, dock rights were granted to that. Non-conforming dock rights were granted to that piece of property. However, the day before the City Planning Commission meeting, an interested party submitted a letter alleging facts in the report were not correct and putting into question whether or not a dock has been there to maintain a non-conforming rights. And as I said, I'm the applicant so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the dock history of that particular piece of property, but we felt that we were reasonable in relying upon the city's letter. Now there is a dispute between a couple of interested parties, and admittedly I am interested as well as the other people who want to purchase the property, but we aren't alleging any facts or anything else. And we just don't know where to go at this point. We felt that we had something that we could reasonably rely on from the city. Now there are no dock rights and like I said, we just don't know where to go from here~ Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Council, have any questions? Councilman Berquist: Well, I know non-conforming uses are permitted until they fall down or are not being used anymore and then it's not grandfathered. Did staff go out and verify that there was, you wrote a letter on August 30th. Kate Aanenson: No, I did not. I wrote the letter and I did not go look at the dock and that's why I put the clause in there that says, it's put right in there that the dock can be used as long as it's maintained in that status. It has to be used every year and I made that clear to Mr. Zinn. I told him the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate that it's been used every year. And as far as when it went to Planning Commission, I think it was clear in there that we still put in there the burden of proof was still on them to demonstrate it's been in every year. We've never claimed that that was our obligation. We said it was their obligation to prove it. However Mr. Zinn represented the property is, we're out of that loop. But we told them that they would have to demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that it's been used every year. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have a copy of that letter Kate? Kate Aanenson: I think, did it go'in your packet? 11 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Perhaps I didn't get that far. Roger, what's in our legal purview to rule here? Can we make an exception to a non-conforming use? Roger Knutson: If they don't have a non-conforming use...continuation of a dock and they want to put a dock in, then that would be a variance to the ordinance and they would have to get a variance. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Councilman Berquist: Well if there's no dock rights with the property, is the property still, I mean are you going to continue to subdivide it? Julie Sprau: Ah yeah. I should have made that point as well. We would like this to sort of be considered as a separate issue to the subdivision. I don't 'know that it's necessarily integral to the subdivision itself because we are still interested in the property without the dock rights. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's been some changes made, hopefully to your's and to the back side of the letter that also came. With those respective changes on the conditions, we will have just conditions through 15 and with item 14 being struck from the recommendation that we have. And also the changes within item 14 as it's shown with the attachment that you received. As it would read, no dock moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2. With the striking of 14 as I mentioned before. So item 15 becomes 14 and item 16 becomes 15. Councilman Berquist: Were you out there tonight, John? John Rask: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: Did you notice, I was out to the site today and there seemed to be some, it was muddy and it ,,vas raining so I wasn't about to traipse it but there seemed to be some material in the, what would be the southeast corner of the site, that could be construed as hazardous. Well, I don't know about hazardous waste but leaking oil or something. I mean it looked like someone had used it for a repository for old oil containers, or it could have been my eyes playing tricks on me but that's sort of what it looked like. And I know old pieces of property can serve as that kind of a dumping group. You didn't find anything like that? John Rask: No, I xvas not aware of that. It's been several, a couple weeks since I've been on the site and I kno~v there was. Councilman Berquist: Well this has been there a while. John Rask: There's been some trees removed as part of the clearing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? ...certainly you may do that. Para Myers: I'm the adjacent property owner that had the question about the storm water. My name is Pam Myers. I live at 1115 Holly Lane. I believe you have... I learned that the city's storm water management plan does include a nutrient pond in this area...I also learned that nutrient ponds had to do with the debris and the salt and the sand falling out of the ~vater. I think the nutrients...The reason that I come before you is that I haven't gotten any relief yet from the Planning Commission or staff or now from you. You have an 12 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 opportunity now to help me out. I believe that my front yard has been used as a nutrient pond by the city. At least for my opinion...water runoff from Powers. Settles in the low land, which is my lot and the new lot that you're about to act on. Potentially approving to subdivide. And there's not an efficient...We haven't reached a particular solution, either at the Planning Commission or staff. It seems like...this condition from continuing. The lot that is up to you for subdividing tonight is muddy. Of course, when it rains we're all muddy without having grass growing, but it is low...My concern is not particularly about the grading there. I have seen the grading plan and it's not the grading necessarily, but as soon as that lot is filled in, there will be less place for the water to go. Right now the water doesn't drain very well down that hill. The last lot is...they start at the top of the hill and they get smaller as they go down and the 15 inch one down...but I'm interested in some sort of response from the city about what can happen to the runoff. If there's some way that the city can either provide a deeper drainage ditch in that area so that the water doesn't back up on my lot or perhaps when you're doing city projects in the summer time, you could use any sort of work that you're doing to fill in where my lot is low. I'm having a terrible time with the debris that's accumulating and it's...I'd appreciate some support~ Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Berquist: Now Miss Myers, you're in the~ Pam Myers: I'm in the lot away from the lake. Councilman Berquist: You're right here? This is the area you're talking about? Pam Myers: Yes. I'm actually...oh I see where you're pointing to, yes. John Rask: That'd be Lot 7. Pam Myers: There are two houses on my lot. With me? Councilman Berquist: No, I don't think I am but. John Rask: It'd be Lot 7. Miss Myers house is located up here. The lot currently backs up into her front yard, which is approximately. Lot 1 would be here and Lot 2 here. Miss Myers' home is up grade from the current, or the proposed subdivision. Councilman Berquist: It is? John Rask: It is. Or down grade, excuse me. Councilman Berquist: Down, oh. Well I noticed when I left the site this afternoon that there was an accumulation and I assumed that that was your land...water and then there's accumulation on the other side and that's you? On the lake side there. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Charles. Can you add anything to this? Charles Folch: Well I really can't add anything other than the fact that our Water Resources Coordinator and another staff member from the department are working with Miss Myers and there's not, certainly not an easy 13 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 solution to this problem. It's been on going for a long time but we're certainly, have come up with a couple of options at least to investigate at this point in time and pursue them further and try to come back with some sort of recommendation as to what we think can be done and maybe thought to that interim situation initially and then something more long term because I think the solution it going to be complicated because of constraints in the area. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add onto that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Kate Aanenson: The reason why, and this came in for platting, we felt that this wasn't adding to it. There's an existing problem there. Certainly when there's a subdivision in the area, it's a time to be able to, a forum to try to address this problem but we felt due to the subdivision we weren't increasing it. But we're not helping it either, and that's why the meeting ,,vas held, as Charles indicated, to try and look at the bigger issue, which we believe this is. And how it ties into storm water management. I think the solution here is to put it into a program where we can do some short range things and that's what Charles is mentioning also. To put into a longer range but it's the long distance upstream problems that we need to resolve. So we felt with this subdivision, whereas we xveren't helping, we weren't making the situation worst. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one way or the other. Alright. Is there a motion? Colleen? Excuse me. Any other discussion? Council~voman Dockendorf: I will make the motion with striking 14. Whatever you said. Striking 14 and modifying condition 15. Is that the way it goes? Anyway, I xvould encourage the applicant, Ms. Sprau, to pursue the variance process. I'm certainly sympathetic to what occurred and Ms Myers, if you don't see any relief within the next 6 months, I'd invite you to come back under Visitor Presentation and present it again. Councilman Berquist: And I would second. Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Bentuist seconded to approve the prcliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95-1, Ravenswood Estates, subject to the plans dated March 20, 1995, and the following conditions: Tree preservation and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction and demolition to protect all trees that are to be preserved. . The site plan documents should be revised to show driveway access to Lot 1 from the proposed private drivexvay. Since the 36" oak was dead and removed, the driveway access for Lot 1 may be from Holly Lane or the proposed private street. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements between the new lots and the neighboring lots to provide access to the newly created lots. The total easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 14 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The utility lines to the cottage shall be properly abandoned in accordance with City standards. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the City. Soil reports showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soils shall be submitted to the Inspections Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. The existing power pole along the east property line shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed private driveway. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be extended to Lot 2. The applicant and/or builder at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed another trunk and lateral sewer and water assessment in the amount of $8,124.00 (1995 rate). The City will credit $2,500.00 against these trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments if the applicant or builder constructs the individual service lines from the main line to the property line. If the City performs the work, no credits will be given. The existing hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid conflict with traffic. The City shall perform necessary inspections to insure proper construction in accordance to City standards. A permit will be required from the City for this ~vork. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the fire hydrant. 10. Storm water quality and quantity fees shall be based in accordance to the City's SWMP. The water quality and water quantity fees have been calculated at $1,088.00 and $2,693.00 respectively. These fees are payable at time of final plat recording. 11. The existing gravel driveway on the west side of Lot 1 which accesses to Holly Lane shall be abandoned and the ditch section adjacent to Holly Lane cleaned out down to the east property line of proposed Lot 1. All new driveways which cross the ditch section shall have a 30 inch diameter driveway culvert installed along with rip rap. 12. Type I erosion control fence will be required in conjunction with site grading or new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. Portions of the private street which services more than one homesite shall be constructed with a bituminous surface 20 feet wide and designed to support a 7 ton per axle weight. 14. No docks, moorings, or boat lifts shall be permitted on Lot 2. 15. The turnaround on Holly Lane shall be modified to 20' x 30' with a 30 foot radius on the westerly side. The pavement design sections shall be in accordance with the city's urban street section. All voted in favor and the motion carded. 15 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5~052 SQ. FT. BUILDING; LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ WEST VILLAGE Ht;IGHTS 2ND ADDITION~ 900 WEST 78TH STREET~ GENE HABERMAN~ CENTURY BANtC Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This property is zoned general business district. It's located west of the West Village Center, which is the Byerly's and the strip center and the Kinko building. Basically the development of this site will continue the architectural detailing and the use of brick that was established as part of the West Village Center. The Planning Commission met on March 1st and recommended unanimously that this site plan be approved by the City Council. The only issues we have remaining are some landscaping revisions that we believe are minor and they're basically just to provide additional buffer for the townhouses to the north by reversing the location of evergreens towards the top of the hill and oak trees down towards the bottom of the hill. Which we believe as these trees grow they'll provide better screening and as the oak trees groxv below, we'll have a double layer. The second, the issue regarding the grading is that we believe that if they lower their building pad they can reduce the steepness of this slope in this service road area and that ~vill provide a connection to the properties to the west so that someone traveling within this block will not have to get down onto West 78th Street to go down to future development on the other end. We've provided pedestrian access from West Village Center and also from West 78th Street so xve're trying to promote pedestrian movement in the downtown area. Staff is recommending approval of this site plan and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does Council have any questions of staff2. Councilwoman Dockendorf: What does a seamed metal roof look like? Is that consistent xvith what's there already? Bob Generous: It's a lot like what's on the Wendy's building. Where they have. Patrick Giordana: I'm Patrick Giordana. I'm the architect. It's a standing seam metal roof. The material is, this is an actual sample of the material. It's got a ribbed pattern. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Patrick Giordana: It's a very deep color of red. Councilman Berquist: The site is currently fairly high? I'm sorry, are you done? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Councilman Berquist: How much of a cut are you going to make? Mayor Chmiel: In grading? Councilman Berquist: Yeah. How far down below the present elevation will the pad be? Patrick Giordana: Well that actually continues very similarly...Byerly's and the rest of the mall, it gradually slopes towards Powers Boulevard and following that grade pretty much naturally. We're not doing a whole lot of cutting... 16 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 Councilman Berquist: Okay. I had a couple of other notes. Item 19. Applicant shall submit to staff and work with staff on a maintenance plan for the upkeep of plants on the northern slope. Now that's because of the steepness of the slope that you're worried about them surviving? Bob Generous: The Planning Commission added that condition. That's partially-it and they want to make sure that there's a watering program throughout the summer season because. Councilman Berquist: There's a what? Bob Generous: A watering plan basically to keep the trees watered throughout the summer because when you plant new trees and with the heat of the summer, the oaks have a real tough time growingc Patrick Giordana: This site is completely irrigated, including that steep slope up towards those townhouses. Bob Generous: And they were just concerned that until that irrigation system is in place and if they have any trees planted, that they be watering it on a regular basis. Councilman Berquist: So they just xvanted to insure that the stuff survives? Bob Generous: Basically. Councilman Berquist: Okay. And then I had one other question. Do you have any idea xvhy we're adding a, I tried calling the Fire Marshal today. Why we're adding another fire hydrant adjacent to the building? There's two fire hydrants at the street and I would guess the way a building of this type is built, it's going to have, it's going to be sprinkled and there's going to be a hose connector out in front of the utility closest. Bob Generous: No, Mark didn't advise me why he did that~ I just think it's from spacing for fire equipment that he's looking at. I'm not sure of the exact reason. Councilman Berquist: I'll have to bring that up with him. Okay. Just out of curiosity and perhaps this is an unfair question but I was looking for someone to ask it to today. Do you have a ballpark, what's the cost of a fire hydrant? Installed. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you have a pretty good idea there? Charles Folch: Probably with a valve and typical lead, you're probably looking at $2,500.00e Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions? I just have one on item number 8. The landscaping security and all the things that we go through. How long do we keep that landscaping security? Once the trees are in we return it? Bob Generous: Well they still have to have some type of security at the end for one year. 17 City Council Meeting o March 27, 1995 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Normally at one year, and I always like to see a two year but that gives it that flavor that it's going to be done and done right. In the event those trees, if any of the shrubberies were to die within a 3 year period, is there any replacement that they have to make those? Bob Generous: Well under the site plan, yes. They're required to replace it but we don't have the security on it. Mayor Chmiel: Well, okay. As long as we're covered with that kind of replacement, I guess that's my major concern. But I would like us to really, I think from the standpoint even from developers. It might cost a few more dollars for a 2 year but that does give it the added assurance that it's going to actually take hold and grow. Because that first year is a critical year and the second year is almost as critical but without proper amount of watering, you can't grow those. Whether it's going to be a sprinkled site, I don't see that as any real given problem either. And adjusting it is just a question that I have in mind. When you do this, is there going to be longer periods of time that you're going to water so that the depth of water is able to reach the roots, as pretty much with the grass and things and shrubs. They don't have that deep of root but the other trees do. How will that be taken care oP. Patrick Giordana: Typically what we've done is, Century Bank will hire certainly a landscape crew and have a maintenance contract, and part of their responsibility will be to determine what plants need what different watering. And if they don't fulfill their part of the bargain, they'll certainly hear from the owner... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Now as you're proposing the 5,052 square foot, what was the addition to that existing building for proposed expansion? Patrick Giordana: Approximately 2,000 square feet...to the north side. And our calculations in terms of coverage and green space, we've already considered losing that 2,000 down the road and we're still well within the city requirements in terms of green space. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that will give you sufficient space for providing services to the community. Okay. I guess I don't have any other kinds of questions. Any other? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Kate or Bob. Do we have any idea, besides memory, as to what this site originally looked like in terms of the grading? It's been absolutely decimated completely with Oak Ponds and with West Village. I mean how true are we staying to the original? Bob Generous: It's all sloped down to the southwest from up in the comer and then you have that wetland area right by the second drive. I think a little bit to the west, so that's higher. We're trying to bring it back down from that but we're not, we won't be there. The slope on the back is much steeper and very short. That was drawn out a little bit farther and there was like a gully system right in there below that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: 'Will there be excess material on the site that will need to be moved? Bob Generous: From this site? I believe so. Council:voman Dockendorf: Where are you tracking it? Patrick Giordana: There xvill be some. We've actually got some filling just around...taking back a little bit towards the...and we'll have to put it essentially out front. But Charlie James, xvho's the developer of that site, 18 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 still has a contract with his excavation crew in terms of having a final master grading that's supposed to go on with those remaining two sites and also to our west. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Before we passed our slope ordinance. Councilwoman Dockendorf'. Yeah, yeah. Before we do that. No other questions. Just a comment that it's a damn shame what we did to that piece of property without good foresight. Mayor Chmiel: It's a dam shame, is that what you said? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, that's what I said, excuse me. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Berquist: I will move approval of the plan as submitted subject to the conditions 1 through 19. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan #95-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Add one (1) fire hydrant in the vicinity of the parking lot island at the south/east comer of the building where utilities enter building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 2. Install a post indicator valve (PIV) on the fire service water line coming into the building. 3. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations° 4. Comply with "No Parking Fire Lane". See Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). 5. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, Lc. NSP, NW Bell, CATV, transformer boxes, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 9-1. 6. Comply xvith "Premises Identification" Policy #29-1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: use 6 foot high white spruce for screening purposes, rather than the proposed 3-4 foot high trees; replace the four Skyline Honeylocust in the landscape peninsulas in the front of the bank building with Northwood Red Maples (Acer rubrum 'northwood% and reverse the placement of the middle six White Oak and the middle eight White Spruce along the northern property line of the project. 19 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 8~ The applicant shall provide a landscaping security in the amount of $12,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The guarantee shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one (1) full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash security escrow in the amount of $2,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration along West 78th Street. 9. The applicant and staff will work out all street/parking lot/driveway grades on the site. 10. The driveway entrance for the drive-thru bank located in the northeast corner of the site should be expanded from 16 feet back-to-back to 18 feet face-to-face. 11. The boulevard area lying west of the drive-thru window should be flattened out to be compatible with future development on the parcel to the west of this site. 12. The applicant shall submit detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 years storm event to the City for review and approval. At a minimum, another catch basin shall be installed at the end of the south radius of the southeasterly driveway entrance to the bank. Additional catch basins may be required pending review of the storm sewer calculations. 13. The applicant shall amend the site plan to include a stop sign at the southeast driveway entrance for eastbound traffic and replace the proposed "Exit Only" sign on the island south of the drive-thru aisle ~vith a "Left Turn Only" sign. 14. The east/west service drive south of the bank should be modified to begin turning back to the north to provide sufficient turning and stacking distance at the next intersection to the west. 15. The applicant shall work with the developer of the Byerly's site to resolve the existing drainage problem on the service drive along the east side of the site prior to paving their parking lots and service drive. 16. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 17. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. 18. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one-half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of photoelectric cells for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color. 19. The applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the upkeep of the plants on the northern slope and to revise the landscaping plan to include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 20 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER TO SUBDIVII)E OUTLOT C INTO 7 OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; LOCATED WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD~ AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITIONi ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES. Mayor Chmiel: This also is going to require a 4/5 majority this evening and we have only three Council members so we can listen to it tonight. It will probably be carried over to the 10th of April, because we have a lacking of two. That's the way it goes, unfortunately Bill. Maybe, would you like to just make a quick and short presentation for us? Bill Engelhardt: It's going to be a little bit of a problem insofar as grading goes so maybe when we get around the, we have to wait until the 10th of April? If we can get drawings for the f'mal, would you vote on the final and the preliminary all on the same night along with the permit to grade? Mayor Chmiel: That would, Kate? Kate Aanenson: I can't speak for Dave but I'm not sure how far we are along on this Bill. Bill Engelhardt: We'll have all our drawings. Kate Aanenson: Normally what we've been requesting is 3 weeks. This is our busiest time of the year and we're pushing people already out to the 24th for final plat. They do have site plans coming forward so, he is going to be inconvenienced by that because they do have, you're going to see two plans coming through, site plans so you need to have the underlying approved. I can't promise that. I'm not sure what Dave's timeframe. Mayor Chmiel: What his schedule is. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Certainly we'll try to work with him but normally we require 3 weeks to review those plans. Bill Engelhardt: It's pretty straight forward. Kate Aanenson: They all are. Bill Engelhardt: Well you 'know part of the problem is we've got Watershed approval coming up on April 5th and they won't approve it without Council approval. And then, so that was kind of in the sequence. Grading contracts have been looked at so they're ready to start grading. There's two site plans for two of the lots that are sold and they think they have another one sold. So everything's going to fall into place but we'll, if we can, we'll work with staff and possibly we can bring the preliminary and the final. Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that. Work with staff and whatever is. Bill Engelhardt: We'll do whatever we have to do. Basically Your Honor, this is a replat from the Chanhassen Business Center. A piece of industrial property off of Audubon Road. First phase of the park broke down Lot 1 and, Block 1, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Or excuse me, Outlot E. This is the Weather Station site. This is the church site. Developers are replatting what was called Outlot C of the underlying business park. That 2nd Addition and as a part of the replat, they're proposing to put in a cul-de-sac with 6 lots and then maintain Outlot A of the 21 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 2nd Addition and in the future that Outlot A will be subdivided and we provided the necessary drawings to the city showing possible future subdivision of that Outlot A. One of the driving factors here for the replat and going back through the Planning Commission with the new grade...utility plan, ,,vas to relocate the storm water retention pond and reduce the amount of grading on the site. There's a tremendous amount of dirt on this site. Some of the sites were flattened out versus leaving enough grade and relief such that you can build industrial buildings with loading docks. The original plan showed storm sewer running all the way down and constructing a storm water retention pond in what is called Outlot A in Chanhassen Business Park. That was down on the flood plain. There were some permits obtained to relocate the flood plain and then some of the material that has been used to construct this park is being taken out of the hillside in this Outlot A. Outlot A will become a city property... The main focus on doing a replat and redoing the preliminary plat is to reduce the amount of grading, use the natural low area on the site as the retention basin, and eliminate all the grading in the flood plain area. That's the driving force behind this. The original preliminary plat, there was one cul-de-sac up in this area and I believe there were 4 or 5 lots coming off of the one cul-de-sac. They didn't fit well with how an industrial building needs to sit in there and that's why we went with two cul-de-sacs with the bumps around it. We're still maintaining all the hard cover area which was originally proposed and I think was a little bit better than what was originally proposed. Overall we think it's an improvement to what `,vas previously... Mayor Chmiel: Good, appreciate that. Being we can't do anything with it this evening anyway. Were there any specific questions that Council might have at this time? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question about condition 9. Do we typically have down system developers contributing to our traffic signal costs? Kate Aanenson: Yes this `,vas, when this project first came in, it met the criteria for an environmental assessment worksheet and as a part of that, based on the traffic, ultimate traffic being generated from this, it was determined that a light would be required and we asked them, or required them as one of the conditions, original conditions, to participate in that cost of the signal based on the traffic that they're generating. So that condition's still being carried forward. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Great. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: I don't have any. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well thank you. Nice job but. Bill Engelhardt: If you don't mind Mayor, we'll work with the staff and see if we can't possibly do the preliminary and final in the same meeting. Mayor Chmiel: If staff can accommodate it and they have the time, I'd say fine. But that will depend upon them. Maybe what we should do is just hold onto that item 6 so we don't have to get it replaced one more time. Thanks. 22 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1995 CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAFrER 7~ BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS - REVISIONS/ CLARIFICATION REQUIRED DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF TIlE NEW MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE~ FIRST READING. Don Ashworth: Staff recommends approval: I did read throush the changes and I did talk to Steve on some of those. As far as I can tell, these are just revisions to put us into conformance with the changes in the Building Code. We did $oof up in 1992 and had included a section there that should not have been in there and this amendment does make that correction. Other than that, if Council ends up having questions, what I'll probably do is, if you could state those and I'll try to get answers for our next Council meeting. Mayor Chmicl: Okay. How many questions do we have? Councilman Berquist: I looked for questions and I couldn't come up with any. Mayor Chmicl: Amazing. Councilwoman Dockcndorf: If Steve couldn't, I certainly couldn't. Mayor Chmiel: I was going to say that, all it is is basically just bringing it up to date. Councilman Berquist: Housekeeping. Mayor Chmi¢l: That's all it is is housekeeping. Regulations that have come in and we're making sure that it's part of our code. So with that, is there a motion? Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Sure. I move the item. Mayor Chmiel: Move the item to approve the first reading of the attached ordinance. Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berqulst seconded to approve the fi~t reading of the Code Amendment to Chapter 7, Buildings and Building Revisions-Revisions/Clarification required due to the Adoption of the new Minnesota State Building Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmicl: Item number 8. Planning Commission. He's not here so that's something we'll just have to hold onto until next meeting. Or has there been some discussion that you're aware of. Don Ashworth: I was going to be facetious and say, we can just finish it tonight but we'll put it on the next agenda. Mayor Chmicl: Alright. Being there are no other administrative presentations, is there a motion for adjournment? 23 City Council Meeting ~ March 27, 1995 Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p. ra. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 24