CC 2009 04 13
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 13, 2009
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman
Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman McDonald
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Greg Sticha, Kate
Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mary Langworthy P.O. Box 468
Tyler Dalsin 7259 Tartan Curve
Al & Mary Klingelhutz 8600 Waters Edge Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good evening and welcome to those here in the council chambers
and those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time I would ask if there are,
from members of the council if there are any requests for modifications or additions to the
agenda. If not, seeing none, then without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as published.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 23, 2009
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated March 23, 2009
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated March 17, 2009
-Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated April 7, 2009
Resolution #2009-27:
b. Resolution Accepting $5,000 Donation from the Chanhassen
Athletic Association (CAA) for Little League Field Conversion.
Resolution #2009-28:
c. 2009 Inflow/Infiltration Project: Approve Plans and
Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids.
Resolution #2009-29:
d. Approval of Resolution Calling for the Sale of 2005 (MnDot
Loan) and 2006A GO Improvement Bonds.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
stnd
Resolution #2009-30:
e. The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1 and 2 Additions: Accept Streets
and Utilities.
f. Approval of Donating the Chanhassen Fire Department Hazardous Materials Trailer to
Carver County.
Resolution #2009-31:
g. Award of Bid, City Center Park Electronic Sign.
h. Approval of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners.
Resolution #2009-32:
i. Resolution Accepting a $9,190.16 Grant to the Chanhassen Fire
Department from the Fire Fighters Fund (a subsidiary of Allianz Life).
j. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Harvest Festival, St. Hubert Catholic
Community.
k. Public Works Facility: Approve Encroachment Agreement with the Metropolitan
Council.
l. Approval of Carver County COPS Grant Application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
PRESENTATION OF $5,000 DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION (CAA) FOR LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD CONVERSION AT LAKE ANN
PARK, TODD NEILS.
Todd Neils: Hi there. My name is Todd Neils. I’m the President of Chanhassen Baseball and
Softball and a member of the Chanhassen Athletic Association Board. On behalf of the Board
we would like to donate $5,000 to the City for field improvements to Field 3 at Lake Ann Park
and would appreciate if the council would accept the donation for those improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. That was one of our items on our consent agenda that we just
passed so it’s legal. We did agree to accept it.
Todd Neils: Great, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Excellent. Thank you very much and thank you for your association’s work in
the city and your assistance with youth athletics. We really appreciate it.
Todd Neils: Our pleasure.
Mayor Furlong: Let me come down and we’ll get a picture.
2
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Todd Hoffman: The field improvements were officially acknowledged and accepted by the
council back in January-February.
CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, MARY LANGWORTHY.
Mayor Furlong: Also this evening we have representatives from the Carver County Community
Foundation. Mary Langworthy is here this evening. Good evening.
Mary Langworthy: Good evening. My name is Mary Langworthy. I’m the Executive Director
at the Community Foundation for Carver County and this evening I brought out Bob Roepke
who’s our current Board Chair and one of the founding members of our foundation and in a few
minutes I’ll give him a chance to come up and speak as well, if that’s okay with you.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Mary Langworthy: Okay. I just want to provide a little bit of background information on what
our foundation is and what we’re hoping to achieve. Currently we have 10 really valuable board
members that represent various areas of Carver County. Bob being 1 of the 10. I’m very
fortunate to work with all of them. They’re all very dedicated on trying to create this foundation
for the benefit of those living and working in Carver County. Along with myself and the 10
board members we have a plan giving specialist that works 2 days a week. Lives in the city of
Victoria and brings great skill and expertise in the area of plan giving. Hopefully you’ve had a
chance, I’m not sure if you had a chance to view our video. Our video can be viewed at
www.carvercountyfoundation.org. If you haven’t, I recommend that you go ahead and take a
look at that. It was created by one of our board members. Along with the video there’s some
great information on our foundation as well. And then I provided informational packets on our
foundation and hopefully you received that. So I want to provide some background information
to what a community foundation is. A community foundation is a non-profit organization.
Although we are a non-profit, we’re not like a typical non-profit. We serve the broad needs of
the community, not just one aspect of it. We’re similar to that of a private or family or corporate
foundation in that we manage and invest funds. We then in turn make grants or scholarships
back out into the community. But how we differ from them is that we depend on the investment
of many people over time for us to be successful, so we work with individuals and families and
organizations to establish funds with us. Then in turn again we make grants and scholarships
back out into their areas of interest. Their populations that they would like to serve or the
communities or cities that they would like the monies to go to. We began in 2004. I came on in
2005. Since then we’ve really been working behind the scenes to develop the infrastructure to
support our future growth. It’s only been over the last year that we’ve really been working to go
out and do presentations to various groups to build awareness for what we’re trying to achieve
and to hope that more people, more individuals and families and organizations would invest with
us and set up funds with us so that we can do more grants, more scholarships out into the
community. So far we’ve given about $14,000 in grants and those are again set up from funds
that are currently established with us. We’re hoping to do more but it’s really again dependent
on more people to set up funds to be able to do that. Along with building awareness we are
working with those individuals and families to establish a variety of funds and we encourage any
3
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
people that might have an interest in either establishing their own fund or giving to an existing
fund to give us a call. I also want to make mention that we have a fund raising event, our first
th
one coming up on Friday, May 15 out at Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church in Waconia.
We’re fortunate to bring out Delfeayo Marsalis who is a jazz musician out of New Orleans. The
Marsalis family is a pretty well known family. He’ll be providing a concert on our behalf that
evening and also providing a workshop to all the jazz bands across Carver County, the high
school jazz bands in the afternoon. Kind of as an example of, we’re trying to build an endowed
arts fund to give money back to arts initiatives out in Carver County so it’s a nice example of the
kind of work that could be achieved through that endowed arts fund. I think I want to give Bob a
chance to come up here and share his thoughts and answer any questions that you may have.
Bob Roepke: Thanks Mary. Mayor, council. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. I
remember visitor presentations, 5 minutes so we’ll be pretty brief here. I always appreciated it
when people were brief so. We really are in the stage of building, trying to build community
awareness and understanding of the community foundation for Carver County. In essence we’re
trying to replicate something like the Minneapolis Foundation or the St. Paul Foundation and try
to keep the dollars, there’s quite a few Carver County dollars that are in those foundations. Our
thinking is if we can keep those dollars here at home with our foundation doing the work and
supporting real needs of communities. Ideas and opportunities that people have, they don’t have
the resources. Hopefully we’re going to be able to support those kind of things that allow
healthier, stronger communities to be developed. So that is our mission. That’s our purpose.
We’re in this phase of trying to build this community awareness. We’re making the circuit and
talking to organizations. What we’d like to have you do is understand number one and, who we
are and what we’re trying to do and hopefully be advocates for our work. We’re trying to work
with family foundations and private foundations and individuals and those that may have some
dollars and not sure where it should go. Those that have some dollars and have some specific
ideas. We’re trying to be this umbrella organization for them in the early years. We’ve had
some significant support to this point. A lot of infrastructure as Mary said that we’ve had to put
in place and we’re getting closer and closer to this idea of putting out more and more grants and
that’s what this is all about. Reward community building kinds of activities so if you think of the
Minneapolis Foundation, St. Paul Foundation, that’s what this effort is all about so thanks for the
time tonight. We appreciate that number one. When somebody comes and says you know what
is this thing? You know what is this community foundation for Carver County? Well you know
it’s something like the Minneapolis Foundation that’s trying to help our communities be better
and stronger and reward some good thinking and some good ideas. We rely on the support of the
communities. We rely on the support of individuals and maybe other foundations and going
after some grants but that’s what we’re doing today. That’s why we’re here today to create that
enhanced community awareness so thanks for your time and hopefully you’ll see the benefit and
the opportunity that we have in our foundation. Great, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bob Roepke: Any questions from anyone?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I have one. Anybody else? What’s been participation whether at the
board level or at the donor level or others from Chanhassen at this time?
4
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Bob Roepke: I think all of our board members are certainly supportive and have had, have
contributed to the foundation. We are seeking a representative on the board from Chanhassen.
We’re talking to some people about that. We’re talking to some people that are connected with
business from your community to see if they would have an interest in joining us so we’re out
there recruiting so if you have some names or some suggestions for us, that’d be wonderful.
We’d appreciate that. I don’t know did you want to? No?
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Anything else? Well thank you. We appreciate you
coming this evening and sharing that information.
Mary Langworthy: Thank you very much
Councilman Litsey: Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? If not then we’ll move on
with the other items on our agenda this evening.
APPLE TREE ESTATES: REQUEST FOR A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH
VARIANCES, LOCATED AT 8600 WATERS EDGE DRIVE. APPLICANT: PLOWE
ENGINEERING, INC., OWNER: ALOYSUIS KLINGELHUTZ.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This subject site is located off
of Waters Edge Drive. What makes this area ripe for development is the improvements that
were put in place with the new 212 interchange and allowing this street now to not be the old 101
or a busier street now that it’s a long cul-de-sac it makes it more desirable in order for this
property to be subdivided. So the applicant is proposing to subdivide this property which is a
little over 10 acres in size and through the process there’s been a few changes which I’ll
th
summarize. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on the March 17 meeting
and they voted 6 to 0 to approve it. It does include a variance for a private street which I’ll spend
some discussing in a minute too but I just wanted to point out for you, there was some issues
brought up regarding the drainage which we’ve specifically identified in a little bit more detail
and I’ve passed out a modified amendment for page, excuse me for condition number 46 and I
have that single sheet there, so we’ve modified that again to be a little bit clearer what the issue
is and again as I move through the staff report you’ll see. So again just north of the new 212/101
interchange abutting Lake Susan so the shoreland regulations do come into play with the zoning
on these lots. Again the subject site. 10 acres. 10.2 acres and meets over, exceeds the density.
Existing on the house is the one single family home with a shed on the property. The shed will
be removed. The lot itself, lots in this area, because it was access via a state road, you can see
there was the use of common driveways to develop the properties in here. While they were
larger lots because they were lakeshore lots, common driveways was pretty common in that area.
So that also was a factor in the development itself. The lot also has some interesting topography.
The site slopes from a high point along the east central property line with an elevation of 930 and
then drops down to 922 so it’s a little bit challenging when you’re trying to do these infill
developments to make everything work. Again the use of the street on this, on the apple orchard
side, because the lots are previously accessed via the private drive, we did want to incorporate
5
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
that into the two larger lots that will be along the lakeshore, and that’s how this lot figures out.
You can see the existing home is on Lot 1. The proposed large, other larger lot, lakeshore lot
would be on Lot 2, so it’s their intent to continue to share that common driveway. Can you turn
that on? Do you know where it is?
Mayor Furlong: Alright, let’s keep going. We’ll have to…
Kate Aanenson: Okay, so the existing driveway, just to be clear. Would share all those, would
share just those two lots at the end of that cul-de-sac. Otherwise the subdivision would meet the
standard. That would be the only variance, and the variances, just for the common driveway
itself, it still would have the 7 ton design where there’s common 30 foot wide easement under
that common portion so the variance again would just be for that. If you go through the variance
criteria as we laid out in the staff report, which is found on page 9 just talking about the
prevailing development pattern. Again the development pattern in this was long, larger, deeper
lots and because the lot itself is in excess in the compliance table, over almost 2 acres in size, it
makes sense to have them share that so there wouldn’t be a lot of additional traffic on that. So
the rest of the lots would be served off of a private street that does meet city standards.
Mayor Furlong: Can I ask a question on that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification. What does our ordinance, does our ordinance not allow a
private street off the end of a cul-de-sac?
Kate Aanenson: There’s already one home off it. If you have more than one home it does
require a variance.
Mayor Furlong: Any time we have a private street with more than one home it requires a
variance?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes. And then also it’d be a condition that there’d be a maintenance
agreement between the two parties. Common access so the one party can’t control it. So that’s a
way of regulating that. The reason being is if you chose not to allow it to subdivide, by giving a
variance you could deny the variance therefore not allowing that type of subdivision. That’s the
other control point on that. So if you chose, if you didn’t think it made sense in that
circumstance, by denying the variance you wouldn’t allow that type of a larger lot. Our rationale
on this basis is because it’s a 77,000 square foot lot, two lakeshore lots, I think when we, when
this proposal first went out to the neighborhood there was some concern there’d be a lot. Yeah,
I’m going to use lot a lot. There’d be.
Todd Gerhardt: Many.
Kate Aanenson: Many, thank you. Many lots on the lakeshore but there’s only one additional
with one dock. Additional dock, so I think that helped some of the neighbors concerns who had
similar sized lots, as was the prevailing development pattern so in looking at this and grating the
6
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
variance, it does, it is consistent with the prevailing development on those lakeshore lots. And
the homes that are being subdivided are consistent with the Lake Susan development. Again all
these lots are in excess of the minimum lot standard of 15,000 so I mean they’re compatible. So
here’s an example of like the common driveways. Those two lots that are being served off the
end of the cul-de-sac and again staff supported that, as did the Planning Commission. So the
grading and drainage was one of the big issues that came up on this project. This is the
proposed, as it is now, where the pond would be located. Originally the pond being proposed on
Lot 2, which I’ll show you in a second. So this has a wetland on it which is not being impacted.
A bluff that’s closer to the lake, and then the storm water pond would be now closer to Waters
Edge Drive. It was in a different location. I’ll show you that in a second. So this is the tree
preservation area. This site is being mass graded except for the preservation areas that are closer
to the lake. It’s inside of that green, bright green area. Would be the preservation area so except
for the Lot 2 would be custom graded. The other lots would all be mass graded which is pretty
typical for a subdivision. The utility plan. Again the sewer and water is available in the area
tying to existing utilities so that’s all workable in meeting the standards of the subdivision
regulations. So now I just want to spend a minute and explain to you the modifications of the
storm water itself. So this was the original proposal. You can kind of see again talking about the
challenging topography. The emergency overflow where the water comes out and the elevation
of the existing larger lot home in that area where there was some concern about where that water
would be going so we asked the developer to modify that and now there was a lot eliminated so
one, we have one less subdividable lot that was eliminated in order to provide storm water
ponding and that’s off of Waters Edge. You can see in that light green area there how the storm
water pond has been moved down to there, and that reduces that issue we have regarding the
emergency overflow onto the existing house, although there was still some concern about how
this water’s being managed, and I can show you that in the next slide. If everybody’s tracking
with me here. This is the proposed storm water. There is, you can see that light blue line kind of
going out between those two homes, if there was an emergency overflow so I’m looking at, we
also wanted the developer’s engineer to model that and this is the proposed overflow also by
tying it to an existing storm water pond. So the modifications on condition 46 address that. We
just want to be clear before it comes back for final plat. You will see this. Typically a final plat
is on consent so what we’ll show you is how all the conditions have been met so each one will be
itemized and then we’ll say this condition has been met or been modified and show how that’s
done and that would be translated into the development contract, so we just want to be more
specific on condition 46 of how that can be done and we believe it can be accomplished but we
just want to make sure that’s engineered correctly.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s been passed out this evening?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Has this been given to the applicant I assume?
Kate Aanenson: It was to the engineer. I’m not sure…
Mayor Furlong: To the engineering, okay. Yeah.
7
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Kate Aanenson: So with that again all the lots exceed standards with the one variance which we
think is reasonable. Use of the property based on those deeper, larger lots so with that we are
recommending approval of the subdivision with the variance as identified in the staff report with
the modifications to condition number 46 and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate one thing I haven’t seen ever I don’t think is where we’re
requiring the addresses to be bigger than normal or, what is that?
Kate Aanenson: That was spelled out more specifically. I think too when you have a house at
the end of a cul-de-sac, to get to those back lots, that they can be spotted easily. That’s for that
reason. You’re talking about the fire marshal’s conditions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah because I’ve never really seen that before I don’t think and…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s for those two specific lots at the end so that they can see it,
because they are deeper, longer driveways so they know which way to go so it’s just identifying
those at the end of the cul-de-sac. The addresses at that point.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So that was in the Fire Marshal.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: What he requested. Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate in the notes you had that there was a previous plan submitted by the
developer that included a filtration basin on Lots 2 and 3. And you said staff did not support this
proposal. Can you expound on that?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I’ll let maybe let Paul, if you want to address it. The original proposal up
here in the…
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. The staff had issues with the location of that pond.
One, it’s on a bluff more or less. Steep grade. Typically you don’t want a pond at those type of
locations just in case you have a larger storm event. Overflows of those ponds can have
problems and can actually break and become, just basically drain out the pond so you know
typically we don’t like to see ponds in those type of locations. That was one issue. Another
issue the pond is right next to a existing home. We felt that the drainage pattern potentially
could impact that adjacent property owner, so that being said we worked with the engineer and
the applicant relocating that pond.
Councilwoman Ernst’s question was not audible on the tape.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean I think we’re comfortable with the location of the new pond.
8
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff.
Councilman McDonald: Well the question I’ve got is, I’m not quite sure where is the water
going then from the pond? It looks as though on your last drawing it comes across through a
culvert or something or is it going north or west?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, this is the original proposal, which the city engineer has indicated
that that longer driveway with the house on it, that’s sitting lower than the emergency overflow.
That was our concern there because of the bluff. So this was the staff’s recommendation to
move it to this site.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. And then from there overflow, which way does it go to the west
or?
Kate Aanenson: Do you want to?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, if you could go back to the pipe routing one. Go back one more. There we
are. Actually go forward. I’m sorry. There it is. Okay. So basically the darker blue is showing
the NURP pond that’s being created to treat the storm water runoff. Our ordinance, basically at
this location it’s more of a land like basin for us and under normal rain events there won’t be any
discharge out from that pond or out from the, out from the wetland area. The lighter shown
green pipe that’s shown there heading to the west, that would be in a worst case scenario during
100 year, back to back 100 year rain events, that’s just to mitigate any potential back-up or
elevation of the pond into adjacent properties so, that pipe shown here wouldn’t be used very
often. It’s just for large events that it would be used. Typically you know under normal design
criteria we like to have emergency overflows at grade that are not piped because of pipe potential
for backing up, but in this instance there’s limited locations for that type of design so this is an
alternative that we came up with that we think can work.
Councilman McDonald: Okay and then to the west where the pipe ends, what’s at that location?
What’s the water going to?
Paul Oehme: Yep there’s, it doesn’t show on this drawing.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I can go back. It’s the first one. It’s Lake Susan. Lake Susan.
Paul Oehme: There’s an existing storm sewer system that will connect into and then it
discharges into a wetland, and then after that wetland then it goes into Lake Susan.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I think the challenge when we look at these for infill development, as a staff, is
the existing development pattern isn’t pre-treating the water so now when you’re increasing
9
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
development, the developer’s obligated to pre-treat that water so how do you tie it into a system
that doesn’t exist so that was a little bit of a challenge and I think the biggest concern was well
you have an existing house with, as the city engineer indicated, that’s water sitting up higher.
That’s not the best design so unfortunately we lost a lot to accommodate that but we’ve learned
in the long run it’s probably wiser not to do that.
Councilman McDonald: And is that what this drawing shows is that one of your fears were that
the water was going to go to the north between those two houses and everything?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman McDonald: So now by re-adjusting this and putting the pipe, we’ve pretty much
guaranteed it will go the west and shouldn’t have any impact to the north.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s what condition 46 says.
Paul Oehme: We’re trying to mitigate it.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify. Ms. Aanenson, if you can go back to the previous slide
that you had on that showed. That one right there. Perfect. You knew what I was. Is the green
arrowed line there which will be the discharge pipe, is that the pipe that didn’t have sufficient
slope to it that you’re asking?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. We didn’t feel that that pipe would address the storm water issue
out of that pond and then be, we would have some maintenance issues if there was no slope on
that pipe so.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s also been added, or the last criteria here. By minimum slope
requirement are we referring to our ordinances?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point? If not, is, I see the applicant’s here. Or a
representative of the applicant. If anybody would like to address the council on anything. No?
Okay, and I just want to make sure you had the opportunity if you wanted to.
Al Klingelhutz: I can go up if I can get up.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant if anybody has that? Very good. Well
let’s discuss it then. Did you want to talk about it or not? I just, if not that’s fine.
Neil Klingelhutz: I think they covered it pretty well. I mean there’s a couple…been put on it but
it’s pretty well summed up in the report.
10
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Mayor Furlong: Great. Great, thank you. Good to hear. Thoughts and comments. On the
proposal before us this evening. Who would like to start?
Councilwoman Ernst: I think it’s pretty clear. The only question I had was on the pond and I
think that’s been explained pretty well and the applicant seems pretty positive so I would support
it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, it seems like all the wrinkles have been ironed out. Thanks to
the Planning Commission and staff once again so I think, in these times when we’re wondering
where the next development is coming, it’s good to see one coming through so I’ll support it
also.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I guess my only thing is, I’m kind of sorry to see this happen but I hope
it doesn’t mean you’re going to move you know because I’d hate to lose you as a neighbor or
something so as long as you’re going to stay I’m in favor of it.
Mayor Furlong: Did you want to add a condition…
Councilman McDonald: It’s just a request.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: Please stay.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I have nothing to top that so. No, I’m fine with it.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. I think I agree. This is, one comment that I will make is that, as we
were interviewing candidates for some of our commissions, one of them made the comment, and
I think it’s a fair comment that sometimes it seems like things get rubber stamped at the council
level and I think to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s thoughts, it really is because a lot of work has
been done already and when a proposal comes to us as clean as this one is, even though there’s a
variance involved and there are a number of conditions, the bottom line is everything’s been
thought out and I would give credit to members of the Planning Commission and certainly the
staff and also the applicant and their professionals that are working with them to, because it tells
me that everybody’s been working together to find common solutions and to make sure it works
for everybody so we appreciate that and it makes everybody’s job easier but it usually ends up
for better developments as well so I just wanted to add that to the record. With regards to the
development, I think it’s pretty clear that it makes sense to go forward including the variance.
It’s a very reasonable request. Somebody like to make a motion. Councilwoman Ernst.
11
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve a 7 lot subdivision, preliminary plat with
a variance for access off of private street for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates, plans
prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons Incorporated and Plowe Engineering, Incorporated dated
1/29/09, revised 2/25/09, subject to conditions 1 through 46 of the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification before asking for a second, 46 includes the modified
46 that were distributed today.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approve a seven lot subdivision (preliminary plat) with a variance for access off a private
street for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates, plans prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons,
Inc. and Plowe Engineering, Inc., dated 1/29/09, revised 2/25/09, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Additional six-inch address numbers will be required at the entrance to the driveway of Lots
1 and 2, Block 1, where it comes off the cul-du-sac.
2.Additional six-inch address numbers will be required at the driveway where it splits between
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
3.Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations and numbering requirements.
4.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and scrubs must be
removed from site or chipped.
5.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, and nothing be placed in
front of the outlets to hinder firefighting operations. MN Fire Code Sec. 508.5.4.
6.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 time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. MN Fire
Code Sec. 501.4
7.Temporary street signs are required to be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs
shall be of an approved size, weather resistant and be maintained until replaced by permanent
signs. MN Fire Code Sec.505.2.
12
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
8.A 30- foot wide private easement, cross-access and maintenance agreement must be
submitted for the private street.
9.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
10.Retaining walls over four feet high require a building permit and must be designed by an
Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
11.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
12.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures.
13.Existing home(s) affected by the new street/cul-de-sac will require address changes.
14.The existing shed on proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates must be removed
concurrently with the installation of the street improvements.
15.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a
condition of approval for Apple Tree Estates. The park fees shall be collected in full for all new
homes at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
16.Applicant shall remove Colorado spruce from the planting list and transfer the quantity to
other evergreens in the Plant Schedule or add a third evergreen species. A revised planting
list shall be submitted to the city.
17.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to site development or grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
Any trees shown as preserved on plans dated 1/15/09 and revised 2/25/09 must be replaced at
a rate of 2:1 diameter inches if removed.
18.The applicant shall locate the existing row of trees along the east side of Apple Tree Lane
north of Lot 1, Block 2 relative to the proposed retaining wall and develop a plan to protect
the trees. The survey and plan shall be submitted to the city for approval.
19.The building permit survey for Lot 2, Block 1 shall include the tree survey for the lot. Any
additional tree removal on the lot greater than what is shown on subdivision plans
dated1/15/09, revised 2/25/09, will need prior approval from the city and additional plantings
may be required.
20.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show river birch and balsam fir or black
spruce near the wetland rather than red oak and white spruce.
21.The plans and hydrology calculations must be revised so that the pond will hold back-to-back
100-year storms.
13
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
22.Correct the location and elevation of the wetland emergency overflow.
23.A piped EOF is required for the wetland. The developer’s engineer shall examine possible
locations for this connection and work with and obtain the necessary permission from the
property owner/agency.
24.The driveway grades for Lot 3, Block 1 must be adjusted so that there is positive drainage
along the entire driveway.
25.A building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 may be issued prior to installation of the public street
and utilities. A final Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted until the public utilities are
in and the first lift of asphalt has been installed on the street.
26.The developer must submit a plan showing how access to the existing home on Lot 1, Block
1 and the proposed home on Lot 2, Block 1, will be maintained throughout construction.
27.The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the plans.
28.The plan must show the existing trees on the property to the east of the development,
adjacent to the proposed retaining wall. The plans must be revised so that the off-site trees to
the east of the development are not impacted with the retaining wall construction.
29.The developer is required to obtain the appropriate permits from MnDOT to construct the
local street connection.
30.The developer must notify the affected property owners a minimum of seven days before
mobilizing to complete the sanitary sewer connection.
31.A security will be collected with the final plat to ensure that the disturbed area will be
restored to the current condition.
32.The storm sewer between the public street and the pond must be shifted to either the north or
south property line of Lot 1, Block 2 to eliminate the drainage and utility easement through
the property.
33.Any excavation within the wetland cannot result in a maximum inundation greater than six
(6) feet in depth.
34.The finished bottom of the wetland shall be undulating providing varying depths.
35.Side slopes shall be no greater than 5:1 on average and no greater that 3.5:1 in any location.
36.Bottom of the wetland shall have a minimum 0.8 feet of organic soil materials or otherwise
hydric soils.
14
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
37.A vegetation establishment plan must be developed and implemented for the wetland and the
buffer area. In the event that no excavation occurs within the wetland, a vegetation
management plan need only be developed and implemented for the buffer area.
38.Sequencing of erosion control measures need to be incorporated into the plan. This includes
placement of perimeter controls prior to earth disturbing activities and excavation of the pond
during the initial grading activities to be used as a temporary basin.
39.Silt fence must be included down gradient of all exposed soils.
40.Inlet protection shall be required within 24 hours of setting the structures on site.
41.Erosion and sedimentation BMPs must be placed to protect the structures in Waters Edge
Drive.
42.A concrete washout area needs to be shown on the plan and must comply with the NPDES
permit requirements.
43.A rock construction entrance, at least 75 feet in length, must be indicated on the plan.
44.An NPDES Permit will be required for the project. This must be obtained prior to
commencement of any earth disturbing activities.
45.The pond and wetland should be put into an Outlot. This will result in a further reduction of
SWMP fees. That portion of Lot 1, Block 2 east of the westerly normal water level elevation
for the stormwater pond shall be included in a separate Outlot to facility pond maintenance.
46.City staff shall work with the applicant to make sure that the new proposal for drainage meets
the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department’s requirements including:
a. The 100-year storm event must be stored onsite. This requirement presents a challenge
because of the elevation of the culvert under the neighbor’s driveway to the wetland.
b.The peak elevation noted for the back-to-back 100-year storms is higher than the driveway
to the east.
c.The exfiltration assumption used in the model must be verified.
d.The discharge pipe must meet the minimum pipe slope requirement.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY: APPROVE BIDS AND QUOTES FOR FACILITY
PROJECT NO. 08-03.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. As you recall last council meeting
council did approve bids for steel and concrete packages. These items did have some significant
lead times to them. That’s why we requested council approve those early. Earlier. For tonight’s
meeting staff is requesting that the remaining bids and quotes, as identified in RJM Construction
15
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Management letter, which is included in your packet also be, is recommended for award tonight.
These are, these bids and quotes are most of the remaining items left in a public works building,
new facility so at this time I’d like Brian Recker with RJM and Associates to give a brief review
of the bids that we’d like to have considered for award tonight.
Brian Recker: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Thank you again for the opportunity to
speak with you tonight regarding the bids that we received. As Paul had mentioned we did meet
rd
here on the 23 in which we presented a total project budget for the bids that we received, as
well as budgets for the quotes that we were going to be soliciting as well and made
recommendations for certain critical packages of work to be awarded that we are allowed to
move ahead with to keep the project on schedule. Since then we have gone through and
thoroughly reviewed all of the remaining public bids that were received. We’ve also thoroughly
reviewed all of the quotes that we received on behalf of the city as well. With the scope preview
and comparing scopes we’ve been able to find that at the last budget that we presented we were
around $357,000 under budget. I’m happy to report through the scope of reviews that we’ve
conducted that now at this point the project budget we’re closer to $400,000 under budget. So
there was some dollars that we were able to find through that process. The proposal tonight
would be to have the council approve all of the remaining public bid categories of work which
were in your packet. We would also ask that the council approve all of the quote packages as
well that we received on behalf of the city. In the packet you’ll see that there is some
information related to two bid categories, public bid categories that were bid and low bids were
received but they are not, the low contractor wasn’t recommended as the award, and I’ll explain
that. Bid category 5B was for structural steel erection. The low bidder for that package was a
company by the name of AME Construction and their low bid of $108,000 and some change
only acknowledged 2 of the 4 addendum that were issued for the project. In review of those two
addendum that were not acknowledged it was determined that there was scope changes to that
bid scope that were not acknowledged in the bid that was submitted, and because there were
material changes to the work scope of that bid, we weren’t able to, the bid itself was considered
non-responsive and incomplete. And with that, and there was discussions that we had both with
Paul as well as Mr. Knutson with regards to that bid and determined that we wouldn’t be able to
award that bid award to that contractor so we recommended the second low bidder which is
Linco Companies for that category of work. The other category that was a bid category 11A and
that was for vehicle maintenance equipment and the low bidder submitted a bid for $51,000 for a
scope value of worth which was closer to a quarter of a million dollars. In discussion with that
contractor who submitted for $51,000, they had misunderstood what that package was for and
they were bidding the crane for the project as compared to all of the vehicle maintenance
equipment, so they just misunderstood the bid category and when we explained to them what the
bid category should have been, they respectfully requested that their bid be rescinded and so
we’ve recommended the next lowest contractor which was Pump and Meter for the 230 some
thousand dollars. Other than that all of the other categories that we have here were completed
scope and we were, we’re comfortable in recommending them to the council for award.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions at this time. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Can you tell me if, so when they did not, they changed the scope of the
specifications, is that, for AME, sorry.
16
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Brian Recker: Sure.
Councilwoman Ernst: Did they change the scope of the specifications on what they bid so they
didn’t really bid on the specifications that we submitted?
Brian Recker: Sure. Through the bid process there’s a set of plans and specifications that are
issued for bid, and there’s a bit of time period between when the plans were released to the
public for review for their bidding and when we actually received the bids, and let’s say it’s a 2
week process. During that 2 week process there will be things that will be discovered about the
plan documents that may need to be changed or corrected that we’d like to implement into those
documents before we receive that public bid, and that’s done through means of what’s called an
addendum to the documents. And those addenda are numbered and dated, and so when we
receive the bids from the contractors we ask that they acknowledge not just the receipt of the
original documents, but all of the addenda as well that were issued. And the contractors are
responsible to find out how many addenda have been issued and receive those addenda from
whatever resource that they receive those plans and acknowledge that they’ve received them all.
So although it was a change to the documents, the original ones issued, it was done through the
legal process to have them in place before bids were received because they all become part of the
original set at the end.
Councilwoman Ernst: So they did not bid on the addendum, is that?
Brian Recker: They did not. They did not have those addenda in hand so they weren’t privy to
the information that was provided in those addenda when they submitted their bid.
Councilwoman Ernst: Even though they were submitted to everyone that was included in the bid
process.
Brian Recker: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions at this point? Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. Of all the bids that have been awarded and gone out,
do we know how many local businesses bid and how many local businesses received an award.
Brian Recker: That’s a good question. I do know the local contractors that have been receiving
awards. I probably could not accurately reflect how many local businesses actually did bid on
those. The public bids we received, we received I believe it was 130 public bids and through the
quote processes I would say, I didn’t count those but I think it was in the neighborhood of about
90. So we about have 220 different companies that bid on the project that we have here. The
last set of recommendations we brought to the council indicated one contractor by the name of
Dayco, which is a local contractor who was awarded the concrete and masonry. I believe they
were the only local contractor in that, in those set of recommendations. For the set of
17
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
recommendations that we have here today, there are some local contractors but through the
process, and it’s not the majority but it is some. As an example the earthwork contractor that is
being recommended is from Cologne. So not necessarily here in town but close. As an example.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Brian Recker: And all of the addresses for all the contractors are in that recommendation packet.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? I’d like to understand some of the alternates that were
recommended for selection and those that were not, and I guess my first question is on the list of
alternates not recommended, many of those are reductions in cost. Give us a background of why
those were identified originally as potential reductions and to the extent that they’re not being
recommended, that would tell me that that change has not been made to the overall project. For
those that are reductions in cost, which I think are all but 5 and 9. Is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah that’s correct and maybe I can just address that real briefly. You know
before the project was bid out, formally bid out and quoted out we did show the council about
$100,000 shortfall in the engineer’s estimate and based upon that estimate we felt it prudent to
come up with alternates that would decrease the scope and the cost of the project to reflect that
estimate. Now that we did receive favorable bids, we feel that the items that we originally took
out to reduce the scope of cost, we would like to not eliminate those items from the bid based
upon you know longevity of equipment or you know ease of maintenance type of things. So it’s
just, it’s more of a you know, it’s more of a maintenance issue or a longevity item that we’d like
to have included in the project at this time. So for example the flooring, you know the VCT
flooring we feel that going with the resin flooring would be a better use of funds. We were
expecting a longer longevity of that flooring plus easier to maintain that floor than the VCT so.
Mayor Furlong: And there was an alternate about putting the roof, or changing the roof for part
of the building versus all of it and now we’re going with the longer lived roof as well.
Paul Oehme: And correct me if I’m wrong but I think the TPO roof that we’re recommending
has a 20 year life expectancy.
Brian Recker: That’s correct. The TPO roofing has a warranty up to 20 years. The EPDM
roofing that was the base bid for the project had a warranty of 10 years, so it’s a longer lasting
roof system. At least as far as how the warranty’s presented for the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And it’s perceived that it’s a better value to pay a little bit more now for
the 20 year roof versus a little less for…
Paul Oehme: And there’s some other advantages to the TPO roof versus the EPDM so we’d
prefer to see the TPO roof.
18
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Brian Recker: In perspective Mr. Mayor, the increase in cost for the alternate for the TPO
roofing represents about 10% of the overall cost for the entire roofing budget, so that 10% helps
extend the warranty life of the roof.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. That’s helpful. And again just to clarify, one of the alternates I think it
was Mr. McDonald that brought it up last time about considering reducing the thickness of the
garage doors. That is not going to be pursued. We are going to go with the original thicker
garage doors from a use and insulation.
Paul Oehme: Insulation value, yes. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? At this time. Okay,
very good. Thank you. Appreciate all your efforts and hard work. A lot of details here. But we
do have a recommendation before us which would be to approve the bids and quotes as
recommended. Is there a motion? Before I ask that, is there any discussion before I ask? I don’t
want to jump ahead. Mr. Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I’d be happy to make the motion. Move the bids and quotes to the
contractors in the amounts recommended in the RJM Contractor’s letter of recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on these?
Councilman Litsey: I was just going to comment. I appreciate the hard work that’s gone into
this by staff and all the others and it’s really neat to see that we came in with such favorable bids
and we can add back in some of the things we thought we might not be able to have so I think
it’s a win/win all the way around.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman McDonald: If I could just add something on, you know the reason I’m asking the
questions about local business and everything is I really hoped to get more of this within the
community. I understand that we need to go with low bid and in the process of doing that we
probably are getting a very good facility which in the long run probably helps the community a
lot more but yeah, I had hoped to see more of this spread around locally with other businesses. I
have no complaints about the process. It was a fair and open process and it is what it is so I’m
willing to support all of this. I have no objections to raise but it’s just, it’s a comment I felt I
needed to make because I know a lot of people did see this as a good economic engine for our
local community and unfortunately it looks like other people are even hungrier so that’s probably
good for the city, bad for local business.
Paul Oehme: There might not be the local contractors that actually got the award of the contract
but there’s vendors. For example the flooring vendor is a local. He’s a local vendor that we’re
19
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
going to be working with on the project so he’s not potentially going to be installing. He’s not
installing the flooring but he will be supplying some of the materials so.
Councilman McDonald: Well trickle down is always good. I’ll settle for that.
Mayor Furlong: Other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we’ll proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2009-33: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that
the City Council approves the bids and quotes to the contractors in the amounts
recommended in the RJM Construction’s letter of recommendation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Paul Oehme: Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you for all your efforts.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Litsey: The only thing I was going to bring up is a, I had the opportunity to attend
the Lion’s Pancake breakfast at the fire station and just another great community event. Get to
see a lot of people and ate way too many pancakes. I noticed after the fact I was going to blame
the taste of the pancakes on the people making them and I realized I put the sugar free syrup on
and it wasn’t the best tasting so they gave me more pancakes and I got the right syrup on it and it
was great so. Anyway, great community event so thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other presentations? Of council.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I’ve got a couple announcements. Just letting the public know that the new
st
Carver County service center is open and they will be having a dedication on April 21 at 2:00.
Mayor Furlong has volunteered to say a few words at the grand opening so we have posted that
so if the entire council wants to attend, we will not be violating any open meeting laws. So
we’re excited to have the license center open and operating in Chanhassen. The council got a
tour this evening. Just a phenomenal facility. Another collaborative effort with School District
112 and having them renting the upper floor for some of their needs so just a great collaborative
effort there that worked out for both parties. Second item is we have our spring recycling day
th
Friday, April 24 from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Carver County Environmental Center.
This is where the City of Chanhassen sponsors recycle day and we provide $20 worth of free
recycling fees that we pick up through a grant that we work with with Carver County. So
residents can go to our web site and check out the rates and what’s allowed to be recycled and
what’s not so those are the two items I have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Okay. Very good, thank you.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
20
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
21