Loading...
CC Minutes 7-24-06 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 started and between 20 after 10:00 and 10:30 so it had a half hour basically before it was reported you know to grow so. It does seem, but I was happy with our response times I guess that we had, and you know the time, the daytime calls are definitely, we are short people and that's why we depend on mutual aid and getting other people there, but the response time was I think was adequate that we had so. But it does seem, as you're standing there, been there before waiting for the rest of the trucks to get there and it seems like a long time, especially with the fire rolling so. Councilman Lundquist: So that 8 minutes is a metric that you use internally or is that some kind of a national standard? Chief Gregg Geske: There are some national standards and NFP A guidelines. You know there are areas and are areas in our city where it takes longer to get, the lower Y for example. PI's and stufftakes longer for us to respond, but that's kind of a goal that we shoot for too, and most of the time we're, we're close to that response time too. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the Chief at this time? No? Very good, thank you. Chief Gregg Geske: Thanks. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening Mayor and council members. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen: We had a late e-mail which might have gotten to you. I put it on your desk there, in regards to impervious surface, just to clarify. The original impervious surface came at 32.0. After that, the second condition.. .and brought it to 42.6%. But that excluded the right-of-way for the two streets which if you include that, and include the wetland, we're up to the larger area and the impervious surface we believe re-computes at about 47.1. If you add the gazebo, the hardscape material at the beach, the pool and the artificial water features, we may be pushing 50%. Just wanted to remind you ofthat. Mayor Furlong: And I appreciate you giving that to us. Did you give a copy to Ms. Aanenson as well? Maybe when we get to that agenda item, she can address that. I know there's some other e-mails that went back and forth and some responses the council got copied on so, thank you Mr. Paulsen. Appreciate that. Anybody else, visitor presentations? Very good, thank you. LAKESIDE. 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD. APPLICANT SIENNA CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL. WITH VARIANCES: PRELIMINARY PLAT 5 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS. TWO OUTLOTS. AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. INCLUDING TWO. THREE. FOUR. AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS. AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING: AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address David V ogelbacher Matthew Anderron Rick Denman Steven Mangold Gregory Kozulls John Harriss Tony L. Mary Beth Maki Steven Schwieteus Daryl McLinden Jerry Frederick Stephanie & Thomas Drees Chris Honaas- Wildfang Scott Frederiksen Bruce & Mary J 0 Carlson Ginny & Pat Gaspard Andrew Pynch Phil Young Kevin McShane Apple Valley Golden Valley 6656 PLC 4852 W oodhurt Lane, Minnetonka Prior Lake Minneapolis 425 Portland Avenue 150 Lakeview Road E 10072 Gristmill 7321 Hillsdale Court 7297 Hillsdale Court 14727 Boulder Point Road 18397 Nicklaus Way 18626 Bearpath Trail, Eden Prairie 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie 17615 Bearpath Trail 8724 North Bay Drive 6832 Hallmark Drive, Eden Prairie 180 South Shore Court Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. We did review this item at your last meeting on July 10th. We did provide an executive summary, which we addressed the issues that you asked the staff to work with the development and most specifically with the elimination of setback variance along the easterly side. Additional landscape buffering and preservation of additional trees through the reduction or elimination of grading, and checking into the OHW. We did provide that and that was one of the other e-mails that went through. It does show up on the entire packet that you got. If you look through all the grading plans, it's on page 2. Showing this first, this dark line, and it is, the impervious surface was calculated. Everything above that. Again the impervious surface is allowed at 50%. We believe that there's a difference in interpretation of calculating that and the corrected would be the 44%. In the staff report there is no mention of the exact percent. What we said is that needs to be to the 50%, which we will ensure that it meets that. Having said that, I'll go through the changes that have been made since the last time we met. Councilman Lundquist: Kate urn, that will insure us on that impervious will be done between a preliminary and final? 6 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. And ifthere's changes. Obviously it'd have to stay below 50 because it would need a variance and so we have those changes that we'll be showing. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So the changes, this is a black and white, but maybe I can just show. What's, the multi family building as we corrected at the last meeting, needs to meet the setback of the height. Right now it's shown on the 42, as it would be with the pitched roof. The rest of the buildings all meet the 50 foot setback, even building C, which would be this back building right in here. What that does is there's a 3 unit here and a 3 unit here, so those have been eliminated in order to, what it does is it changes. What they were trying to create is some different view sheds. As you look, it wasn't a straight line. Kind of a soldierisk, you remind the planning staff sometimes when we put those units, so it actually had a little bit of a curve to the street, so what this did is, took that curve out and now they're kind of more aligned, but it does now meet the setback requirements, so that variance has been eliminated. As I mentioned Building C also now is in compliance with that setback. It is outside the shoreland district so it doesn't need the height variance, so then there's still the issue on the height itself. But before I go to that, I just want to touch a little bit on the grading and the landscaping. That was the other issue you asked us to look at. The developer has eliminated any grading on the back side of condominium A, which would be adjacent to the lake side and the Bearpath side. And meeting with Eden Prairie, it appears that they're going to move the trail to the most easterly side oftheir outlot, so they've eliminated the grading, if! can translate that into kind ofthe tree preservation that's there. What's shown highlighted in green, and I did pass this out. There are a few extra copies over at the table. I did pass it out to the council, in case you can't see that. But those were the significant ones. The burr oak. Larger, 28 inch, 30 inch, but it would include everything but I just wanted to show that. So everything behind the larger building, the condominium building would, all those trees would be preserved. What the applicant is asking for, and now meeting the setback would still be on those twin units as you move down towards the condominiums, that they still have the opportunity to grade. Certainly that's in Eden Prairie and that's at their discretion to approve that. We are recommending approval with the condition, and I've handed out to you the modified conditions, and that's reflected in, if you want to turn to conditions of approval. And again I have extra copies of this at the table too. That would be reflected on page 29 of 33, and condition number 44. That the developer must receive approval from the City of Eden Prairie for grading into the outlot. So any action tonight would still require Eden Prairie to approve it. Again the goal there is to, while they're, to make the view sheds nicer. What I wanted to show, we did ask for renderings so you have an idea of what the change, can you zoom in on that maybe a little bit. So this, as we put in the staff report on your cover memo, exactly where this is on the 15th fairway is about 482 feet from that lot, looking towards, do you have it out of focus? Looking towards what you would see right now. And the other questions, so this is with the pitched roof, which is what the staff is recommending on the, we wanted the pitched so it matches kind of what's in the North Bay and the most visible one that you would see also from the Bearpath homes. Then this would be the perspective from the lake itself. And again with that beachlot, a majority of those trees would be saved. That beachlot itself is going on the other most westerly piece. On the beachlot... It'd be over on this piece right here. So but 7 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 the majority ofthese trees have been, would be saved. So that's why, that's a pretty accurate representation. Councilman Labatt: How far out on the lake are you in this picture? Kate Aanenson: I did ask that. I'm not sure ifthey had some way to calculate that. John Harriss: 300 yards. Councilman Labatt: So 900 feet. Kate Aanenson: We did ask that and I didn't get the correct, so there you go. So those are those two. We did also ask for a perspective. What it would be with a flat roof. Now this is the exact building. This doesn't have the pitch on it, so this would be, so this building, I just want to be clear, is the same materials. You can see, because if you look in the booklet it's a little bit harder based on the distance that you're looking at it from the booklet. This has the same materials on the building itself. This would be at 37 feet, so you'd only need a 2 foot variance. Again the staff is still supporting the pitched roof. Again being the proximity and the visibility, that we think a pitched rooflooks better. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, can you put the rendering of the 15 total. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Kind of put those two in maybe. So with those, the only other variance that was on there that I think you pretty much spoke to already was the beachlot association. The fact that some of those lots fall outside the 1,000 foot, which is also the shoreline district. That you seem to support that, so we didn't spend too much time addressing that issue. We addressed that already. So with that I believe those are the issues that you asked us to look at. And we are still recommending approval with the conditions as modified that we kind of add to it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: So in summary, two weeks ago we were looking at a request for setback variance and now there, with the changes there's no setback variance required. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: On any of the buildings. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And while you looked at the Building A with a flat roof, it would still reqUire. Kate Aanenson: A 2 foot variance. Mayor Furlong: A 2 foot variance and you're recommending. 8 City Council Meeting - July 24,2006 Kate Aanenson: The 8. Mayor Furlong: 8 or 6 more than what was... Kate Aanenson: 6, correct. Mayor Furlong: With the pitched roof. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And also recommending the other variance then would be, well there's a height variance on both A and B being requested and recommended by staff. And then the. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and let me just clarify again on Building B. Based on this orientation and where it is on the site. It's difficult to see whether you're on Lyman or whether you're on the golf course side. Getting those kind of blocked from the other building, and the tree line from the lake. And then Building C doesn't need a variance because it's outside the shoreline district. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Then the final is the beachlot which we discussed last week as well. The beachlot variance. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: For in terms of including all the units... Kate Aanenson: It seemed to make sense to put everybody in, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Questions for staff at this time. Follow up questions. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the grading. Original grading plan that came two weeks ago showed some grading behind Building A. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Councilman Lundquist: So that's been revised. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: So that the grading, because I'm looking at, is that what this dotted line on this one is? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If you look at the original grading plan, if I could just show this really quick. You would see that the grade, 910 was actually pushed up into that similarly up into the outlot where the trail would be. That would ultimately be the possession of the City of Eden Prairie for the trail. That has also been eliminated, as has the grading behind this building itself. 9 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 They're just going to bench that in so there won't be any grading on those trees back in there, so all those trees will be preserved. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that wouldn't, when we're looking at this rendering then, if they're not going to grade there, there should be more. Kate Aanenson: Trees? Councilman Lundquist: There should be more trees on there then what's there now? Kate Aanenson: I would agree because if you look at it, it looks like just the higher. You're not seeing the willows and some of those scrub trees that would be on, kind of on this side. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: There's also, as you said, on that tree preservation, there's additional trees showing that there are the green ash. It'd also be saved so there would be more trees. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then on here, with the revised grading plan. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so we identified that so the rest of the grading plan would still be consistent with moving that, and again that's a requirement that Eden Prairie would have to approve. If they don't approve it and they have to modify their grading plan, it would come back before this body to approve something different. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So this is only modifying the grading plan for behind Building A. Otherwise it was, and that's in your conditions of approval as modified but otherwise the existing grading plan would still be in place. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Could you clarify the area behind the condo project along the Eden Prairie border? If they're not grading into that area, where there be thinning out of any trees or anything? Kate Aanenson: No. It's my understanding it's not going to touch it. Correct? John Vogelbacher: No. Todd Gerhardt: Good question. Mayor Furlong: And with regard to grading again, at our last meeting they talked about with the revised grading, this was the first revision of, the most revision at our last meeting dealt with 10 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 storm water and the flow between I guess to the north of Building A and the first set of twin homes there. Is that still, from a storm water management, is that still. Kate Aanenson: This is the high point right in here so we'll kind oflook at how we need to look at that. There shouldn't be too much flow. I did talk to the Assistant City Engineer looking at how much water's going to come back through that. Now that the trail's on the other side, we'll have grade going the other way. There shouldn't be too much water that we would route around the building. Mayor Furlong: It would come east/west into. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think we can work with them without much impact to the site to make that happen. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Then my other question on, okay. And I guess this speaks, I guess this grading because I'm going to continue to follow up on Councilman Lundquist's question. Condition 37 talks about changes with emergency overflow again. Now this is the northwest comer so I assume this is west of Building C, up by the North Bay development. That was a concern that was raised at the Planning Commission. I thought we had addressed that but my question, I guess two questions here. What has changed there. Second, one foot above the emergency overflow. Is that standard? Is that enough? We've had some issues in the past where the emergency overflow gets blocked or changed somehow. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We can clarify where we are on the site. We're down in this area over here. Yeah. That was the area that was mentioned. I believe we've addressed that. That was an issue that I ignored to add. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess has the grading plan changed at all there from the last meeting? Kate Aanenson: No, it has not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so this requirement of the first floor elevations being 1 foot above the emergency overflow, then my question is 1 foot current standard there? Is that enough? Paul Oehme: I think the current standard right now is 3 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So why are we at I? Paul Oehme: I don't know that for sure right now. The, I know there was some discussion about changing the elevations of some ofthe, finished floor elevations there so, I don't know exactly why, why it's at 1 foot correctly. So we'll have to look at it. Kate Aanenson: Between now and final plat. Also the fact that Building C shifted slightly. There's certain fixed touch down points on this project. Those being the entrance to the condominiums, as there's some challenging topography. Those are fixed points that we have to, 11 City Council Meeting - July 24,2006 the developer had to work around, so there is a retaining wall on the back side of that. So we'll look at that. Whether it needs to be the 3. Mayor Furlong: Would we want to say I foot then at this point in the preliminary or is that. . . Kate Aanenson: It can be adjusted. Councilman Labatt: I would say the standard. If the standard is 3 feet. Paul Oehme: Right. Councilman Labatt: We should leave it at 3 feet and then change it if we need to. Mayor Furlong: I guess my question is that something, well I guess that's why I'm raising the question because 1 foot seems low but. Kate Aanenson: It was 3 feet and it got struck to 1.. .reason for that so, whatever that needs to be, we'll make sure and we'll point that out in the update. When it goes to final plat, what the issue was there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Work with staff! guess or to staffs approval at this point unless there's, I mean it was obviously because as Ms. Aanenson said, it went from 3 to 1. There's a reason for it. Kate Aanenson: There's a rationale and I'm sorry, I don't. Mayor Furlong: It went from lowest to first, right. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Whether they're lookout, walkouts, we'll have to look at that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I think it has to do with those row oftownhouses on the west side, and floor elevation there is why that had to get adjusted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: But we'll look at that before the final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions that kind of go into, that went with the grading? There's been a change in grading there. Any other questions for staff? I guess at this point, since this was brought back, or tabled with specific direction, I guess I'd ask, I don't know 12 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 if we have to go through a repeat oflast meeting in terms of applicant presentations and everything, but I certainly want to make sure the council has an opportunity to ask any questions that you have, whether it's of staff or it's ofthe applicant or ifthere's any other information the council is interested in receiving clarifications, either on the staff report or questions of the applicant. Councilman Labatt: So Kate, just to clarify. So the issue with the height, on the Building B. On the comer there. Kate Aanenson: That's Building A. Councilman Labatt: A, I'm sorry. You're still recommending the variance for the pitched roof. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Is there a quick comment? Or a question of us or. John Vogelbacher: Just a comment. Clarification. Mayor Furlong: Okay. John Vogelbacher: John Vogelbacher with Sienna. We were talking about the tree clearing, and I just want to be certain that the council, there wasn't any confusion as to what we're proposing, and in our initial presentation at the last council meeting I believe we identified 3 significant trees. Three large trees that were behind Building A that would be, had been preserved. And since that time we've modified the grading plan to eliminate all grading behind that building so that basically right now we've identified 10 trees. Not all of them are significant but they are nice trees. The bulk ofthe trees there are elm and box elder, and that's the bulk ofthe trees that are behind the building, and the ones that are in Eden Prairie. There's no question that we'll have to go through a process to have the City of Eden Prairie approve whatever we do in the City of Eden Prairie. But in terms of what our presentation is, is currently what we have is 10 trees that are nice. They're all either ash. Predominantly most ofthem are burr oak and good healthy trees, and those are the ones that on the grading plan are identified as being preserved, and we can do that because we're not doing any grading behind the building, so I just wanted to be clear that our proposal would be to clean that area up and to save the significant trees and species, and just wanted to be sure that the council was aware of what our intentions were as we go over and visit with Eden Prairie. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: So on the Chanhassen side, behind Building A, other than those 10, it's your intention to clean out all of the elms and all of the lesser trees in there? 13 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 John Vogelbacher: That's correct. That's correct, right. So we have actually identified the exact trees and their location on the grading plan as to the ones that would be preserved and the rest we would be looking to remove and to finish that area with a trail and turf and such so. Councilman Lundquist: Any idea how, what the percentage or, so you're 40 feet from the line and that line is essentially 40 feet from the fence that's there now, right? John Vogelbacher: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Pretty close to. Okay, alright. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Again, this was brought back so I guess at this point I would open it up to the council for discussion and/or as part of that discussion, any clarifying questions. As we move towards consideration of the proposal and the recommended motions. Thoughts. Comments. Councilman Lundquist: Glad to see the progress on the setback variances. I think it's debatable whether the curved street is better than straight, or not, and how that looks. But it is good to eliminate that variance and create that buffer there as well I believe. For the height variance, I guess although I was you know the driver behind looking to reduce that or eliminate that height variance, that flat roofed building doesn't appeal to me really, compared to the pitched roof, so I like the pitched roof better. It matches the buildings along side of it, and you know what's in that area so, I'm inclined to go for the pitched roof there. The third variance, I didn't have any issues on. I think we've got, you know we're still in a, maybe the cart before the horse a little bit here with some you know confusion and things going on with the City of Eden Prairie and on that side and this side, so but I guess what we'll look at, what I'll look at tonight is, trust that the City of Eden Prairie's going to do what they think is best too for that overall and help us create that buffer like we talked about last time so I'm comfortable with where we're at on changes here. Pulling those back. Still like to encourage, see you know as we come back between now and final plat, ifthere's some other, the rendering is good to see that. Like to see that picture is a lot easier to tell what's going on. I'm glad to see that the lakeside is buffered heavily, which is good. Makes me feel a lot better from that and from the road there. Will be minimal impact. But to see you know, guess I'm going to rely on the City of Eden Prairie then to you know push that landscape piece through that when that trail goes through that 40 foot buffer to see if there isn't something else more that we can do on the buffering in that building and go from that, so with the changes that are there, you know it's not 100% ideal I guess but I'm convinced that there's going to be something on this site eventually and as we talked last time, the architecture is still strong. It's a good product overall so I'd like to, I'm comfortable going forward now and you know it will be on the developer's shoulders then to work out the other piece and that 40 foot outlot and see what they can come up with to help buffer the Eden Prairie side ofthe project. I know that the residents on the Chanhassen side here are comfortable with what they've got and seeing that Lakeview guarded now, I'm comfortable with that as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjomhom. 14 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think I'll just stick to my comments I made at our last meeting. This project I think speaks for itself. I think it's going to be an asset to our town. I think that progress, positive progress was made when you think about the fact that there are, that the setback variance has been deleted and that they have made an effort to save some more trees to make a better buffer. I'm going to go along with staffs recommendation for the 8 foot variance for the pitched roof. I think that's a much better product than a flat roof. And of course last time I supported the beachlot variance and so I just, I'm thrilled that this.. . coming before us and I wish them good luck. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: You know I don't disagree with anything that Councilwoman Tjornhom or Mr. Lundquist have said tonight on this project. It is a great opportunity for our city to take care of26 acres ofland and redevelop it. The issues that Kate had addressed earlier, the height, I would agree wholeheartedly with Building A to go with the pitched roof, and not the flat top. That flat top says nothing and. Mayor Furlong: You're not talking about my haircut or anything. Councilman Labatt: No. Not the haircut. So I like the, I like the pitched roof. Happy to see the request for the variances on the eastern setback is gone. And the beachlot I can support that variance too. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Appreciate the comments. Last week, or excuse me, 2 weeks ago last meeting when we considered this, you know we asked as a council, staff to look into some potential changes to eliminate the variances. We've talked about that tonight. There were some changes on the part of the applicant that we wanted to make sure, even though they appeared to meet the requirements, that they did take the time to do that. And then also for staff to incorporate comments at the meeting into the Findings of Fact and I think that was certainly done as well with the distributed, those distributed with the staff report. I think the other thing that occurred to me as I was reading through the report here is, where we are and the few things that we're discussing at this point is at the culmination of a very long process. And I know, as I've been involved in this council, this current property has been an issue for the city. For the nearby residents on all sides, and there were desires knowing that this property eventually would be redeveloped, there were desires to make improvement in the area. I think a lot of those improvements have been incorporated into this development. In fact just about all of them, even up to the point now that, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, you know the, it was alluded to as well by Councilman Lundquist. Eliminating the request for the setback variance. I think that's an improvement. We can debate curved street versus straight. We may have different opinions there, but I think I'll always try to lean towards eliminating requests for variances as opposed to not to. But I think while we might be able to debate that, I'm sensing that there's very little debate on whether or not to go with the height variance on Building A, which isn't aesthetically pleasing decision to make and not one that I would support. So I think, you know I appreciate staffs effort. I appreciate the developer's effort. I appreciate all those that were involved in the process. Back even before this current developer got involved years ago, comments that I was receiving from our residents and others on how to improve this part of our town and I think this 15 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 will be an improvement and I think it's something that we've worked hard to get. So I'm pleased with where we are. I agree with staffs recommendation on all the various items and sounds like my fellow council members are in agreement with those as well. I think we've got a proposal now in front of us that is an improvement. We took a look at some options and I think Councilman Peterson was the one that said, let's look at some things and see if we're making, going to make some gains or not. I think that Building A is a classic example oflooking at something and saying no. Don't want to go there and, but we looked at it, so I think from that standpoint that was good. With that, I want to thank everybody that's been involved in the process all the way along. Not only staff and the developer but residents as well that have participated in the process. I spoke to that last meeting about how sometimes the process may seem slow but I think there's sometimes it's important to take time to make sure we get it as good as we can, and I think we've reached that point at this time so, I'm looking forward to moving this forward and seeing this property be redeveloped based upon the plans that have been put before us this evening. Any other comments? Questions at this point. We've got a number of revised motions that have been distributed in hard copy as well so at this point, unless there are any. Councilman Labatt: Can Ijust ask for quick clarification? On page 28 of33 then, number 37. Are we going to leave it as is or are we going to? How we going to deal with that 3 or I? Mayor Furlong: I guess my question there or my thought would be to direct to staff how do you want to deal with that? Do we go with the I? There was a reason for this revision taking place so we have to, have them work with staff. I'm assuming that there was a rational decision at the same time want to make sure that we're not going to cause the problem. Kate Aanenson: If it's okay, just on number 37 just say that the proposed grading plan in the northwest comer near the wetlands needs to be adjusted so that it meets city standards. So we can just leave it at that and then we'll clarify that when it comes back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Does that make sense to you Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: (yes). Mayor Furlong: And again, at this point we'll get any clarifying questions or other comments or discussion? Ifnot, at this point I'd entertain a motion. We have what, four. A, B, C and D in front of us that have been distributed. Is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: May I'd move that we, City Council approves the rezoning of property located within the Lakeside development for High Density Residential District (RI2) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R), incorporating the development standards contained within the staff report subject to the final plat and approval for the Lakeside development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 16 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the rezoning of property located within the Lakeside development from High Density Residential District (RI2) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R), incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, subject to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion B. Councilman Labatt: I would move that we, City Council approves the preliminary plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, revised July 17, 2006. There's a typo there? Mayor Furlong: Nope. Councilman Labatt: With the revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, and a revised tree preservation plan dated received July 24th subject to the following conditions 1 through 55 with amending number 33 to read the proposed. Or 33. The proposed grading plan in the northwest comer near the wetlands needs to be adjusted so that it meets city standards. Mayor Furlong: And that was condition 37. Councilman Labatt: 37. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you, is there a second to that motion? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Comments. Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19,2006, revised June 7, 2006 and July 17, 2006, with a revised grading plan dated July 24,2006, and a revised tree preservation plan dated July 24, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 17 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated. 4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer. The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet ofthe OHW). 6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and utility easements. 9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area. 10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley. 11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of the pond. 12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared- end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement 18 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing responsibility for the development. 13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper. 15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist of rip rap and geotextile fabric or a turfre-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established. 18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 19. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. 20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside ofthe required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed storm water pond. 21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered "surface waters" and shall be protected from exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed soils. 22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 19 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP. 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $195,293. 26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. A walk-through inspection ofthe silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum bufferyard requirements. 31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern comer ofthe silt fence as shown on grading plans dated 05/19/06. 32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage. 33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading commences. 34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified. 35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East. 36. The high water level ofthe wetland must be determined. 37. The proposed grading in the northwest comer near the wetland needs to be adjusted to meet city standards. 20 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road East intersection. 39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%. 40. Ground (ie. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. 41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. 42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2. 43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. The developer must receive approval from the City of Eden Prairie for grading in to the Outlot for Bearpath 3rd Addition. 45. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. 48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done under traffic. 49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley Road East. 50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 51. The 15- foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be vacated. 52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement. 53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 21 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required ofthe "Lyman Boulevard Trail." All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for theLyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 55. The trail connection at the northeast comer of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant's plans, is completed." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion C. Councilman Labatt: I move that the City Council approves the plans, approves the Site Plan for 231 housing units and a community building with a pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006 and July 17, 2007? Isn't that a typo there? 2006. With a revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, and a variance for building height for the condominium units consistent with the building elevations prepared by Harriss Architects, stamped received May 26th, subject to the following conditions 1 through 16. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Site Plan for 231 housing units and a community building with pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, and July 17, 2006, with a revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, with a variance for building height for the condominium units consistent with the building elevations prepared by Harriss Architects, stamped received May 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard. 3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions ofthe development and a percentage ofthe units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 22 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold. 5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engmeer. 10. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 11. Yellow curbing and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. 12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. 14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503 23 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions ofthe facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1,903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section 503.1.12000 Minnesota Fire Code." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion D. Councilman Labatt: I move that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with a variance from the requirement of 80% of the units live, 80% of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot. Prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19,2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions 1 through 9. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Do we have to say with the Findings of Fact here? Roger Knutson: I'll get to that. I'll recommend that as your next motion after... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion D has been moved. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on motion D? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with a variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19,2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet ofthe OHW). 3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not 24 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area and frontage. 4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the shoreline and Lake Riley. 6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley. 7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit. 8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents. 9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement ofthe beach lot infrastructure to preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the path." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Roger Knutson: Mayor, then it would be appropriate to adopt the Findings of Fact which are in your packet that relate to all the items you just voted on. Mayor Furlong: Relating to A. Roger Knutson: A through D. That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a motion to such effect? Councilman Labatt: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thought I was losing you there. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 25 City Council Meeting - July 24, 2006 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact relating to motions A through D as presented in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: Anything else on this matter? Todd Gerhardt: No. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Thank you everyone. Very good. At this time I'll take a slight recess. Ask council to remain in our chairs. We'll start up again in just a minute. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I attended the 10th anniversary of Centennial Hills. It was a beautiful day and good turnout and it was just a great celebration for all who participated in the past and are there now in the present and looking forward to being here for the next anniversary so, it was a good day. Mayor Furlong: Well we appreciate you representing the council at that event. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, just like to again, in regards to the fire last week. Pass along some positive comments that I received from some of my neighbors or several of the neighbors on Mr. Gerhardt, how he handled the situation. Got a lot of positive comments on offering assistance and help, along with the fire department to the resident there. The homeowners and those things and how that situation was handled and responding quickly to getting it boarded up and those things too. There was a lot of kids running through the neighborhood. The house is in pretty bad shape so, keep those curious little kids running around at a potential there so, and I did receive several positive comments from the neighbors on that so Todd, thank you for your efforts and much appreciated. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I'd just like to add a few comments to that. It's always amazing to go out to scenes like this and you think there's going to be all this chaos going on and you know when you don't train like the fire department does for this type of stuff, I mean every Monday they're over at the fire station training for some type of major event that's going to go on. A majority of it is fire but there's a variety of other things and when you go out to the scene and watch them in action, it's just amazing how organized it is. They run it like a business. They have the command area and they're tracking everybody. The rest of the firemen are waiting for direction. It's just very, very organized and Greg Geske and the rest ofthe firemen do a fantastic job with the help of Carver County Deputies and I'm just proud to be out there to watch it all and just stay out of the way and I'm the guy where, keep an eye on him. You know he's on the cell 26